Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
The Stanwell hotel in my constituency is being used to house asylum seekers. I wrote to Home Office Ministers on 24 July, again on 25 July, and again on 29 July, and I have had zero responses to any of those letters. Please will the Home Secretary show some respect to my constituents and the people of Spelthorne and reply to their questions and concerns?
It is clear that the Government have lost control. The Government are going against their own election manifesto by taking the issue through the courts. I have asked this question before but not had an answer, so I ask it again: can the Home Secretary give me a date when the hotel in my constituency of Broxbourne will close to illegal asylum seekers?
I am afraid that this is another profoundly disappointing statement from the Foreign Secretary that is devoid of anything that is likely to bring a swift end to this conflict. While at home the police have been arresting vicars and grannies, and the Government have been hiring American spy planes to fly over Gaza, the Israelis, as the Foreign Secretary himself has said, have intensified their campaign, aggression and the slaughter of innocents in that awful conflict. Everything he has said—all his condemnation—has come to nothing. In every statement he has made in this place when I have been here, he has stressed the importance of international humanitarian law. Why has he been so passive in defending the International Criminal Court in the face of another wave of American sanctions? What steps is he going to take to support that institution and the individuals who staff it in the face of those sanctions? What discussions has he had with the American Government to get them to reverse the sanctions?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 22 April, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary and the Attorney General raising a number of matters to do with domestic legal issues and our international obligations with regard to this conflict, but 132 days later, I have yet to receive a reply. What steps can I take to elicit the information that I need from the Foreign Secretary?
4. What estimate she has made of the level of spending on health and disability benefits by 2030.
Just two months ago, the Secretary of State was left humiliated after being forced to significantly water down her botched welfare Bill. If the Government had pressed ahead with the Bill as originally drafted, how much less would taxpayers be spending on benefits by 2030?
T4. Cruel cuts to the winter fuel allowance by both this Labour Government and the SNP Government in Edinburgh left thousands of pensioners cold in their homes last winter. When will the Secretary of State apologise for the misery her Government have caused for vulnerable pensioners in the Scottish Borders and across the United Kingdom?
T5. Last week, Policy Exchange published a very insightful report, “Out of Control”, looking at the pathways to benefit entitlements. It made this point:“Fifty years ago, just one in 2,500 people was said to have Autism; today that has risen to one in 36 children”.Will the ministerial team undertake to look at the implications for the Department of that definitional creep and the specific implications for benefit entitlements?
7. What steps she is taking to help tackle fraud in the welfare system.
I think we can all agree that fraud strikes at the heart of the system, kicking away its underpinnings. I hope that the Government will undertake a zero-tolerance approach, unlike in Scotland, where we recently heard that £36 million of benefit money paid out in error is now not to be recovered. Does the Minister agree that that is deeply unfair to taxpayers?
Many happy returns, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Druze in Syria are suffering nothing short of atrocities, and that situation continues. What practical help can the UK give as the Israelis try to set up safe zones and humanitarian corridors for them?
I should declare an interest in that my eldest son today started work at Rosyth royal dockyard, a key part of British military infrastructure for more than 100 years. Over the summer, we saw Scotland’s First Minister John Swinney meet with Ukrainian military personnel at the Edinburgh military tattoo. Incredibly, were those brave men and women to be injured in the line of duty, NHS medical aid sent from Scotland could not be used to treat them because of a prohibition put in place by the Scottish Government, who continue to refuse to fund warfighting capability in Scotland. With defence reserved to this place, Secretary of State, how is it possible that the devolved Administration in Holyrood can damage British interests and security in this manner?
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I join him in paying tribute to the outgoing Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, who, as he says, has given such impactful leadership and support for Ukraine. I also send my best wishes to his successor as CDS, Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton. It was a privilege to work with both of them at the MOD. Let me turn to Ukraine. It is being widely reported that in his speech to the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation summit today, Vladimir Putin said that the understandings reached at his meeting with President Trump in Alaska were opening the way to peace in Ukraine. How utterly cynical. What followed the summit in Alaska was not peace, but the brutal bombing of innocent civilians across Ukraine. In particular, just days ago, Putin unleashed the second-largest aerial attack of the whole war, killing at least 23 people, including four children, as the Secretary of State just confirmed. Bomb damage included the British Council in Kyiv. We join the Government in utterly condemning the attack on the British Council and pay tribute to all its staff, who are playing their part in our national endeavour to support Ukraine. We pass on our best wishes to the member of staff who was injured in the attack. We note that the chief executive of the British Council, Scott McDonald, promised to continue operations wherever possible. Can the Secretary of State outline to what degree that has been achieved and what support the Government have provided to assist? If Putin really wants to open the way to peace in Ukraine, as he said, he should recognise that the blame for this war lies squarely with his territorial ambitions, and that all the civilian and military bloodshed that continues is wholly the result of his unprovoked and illegal invasion. The reality is that Putin does not accept that basic fact. In his speech today at the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation summit, Putin is widely quoted as blaming others for the war, in particular his long-standing refrain that the war was caused by “the West’s constant attempts to draw Ukraine into NATO.” Without ambiguity, we and all our allies must see that the war in Ukraine is a question of a free and sovereign democracy invaded without provocation by a bullying dictator. That is why, when we were in office, it was right to provide such strong support to Ukraine from the outset of the invasion—indeed, even before it commenced —and why in opposition we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government in continuing that policy. That is why we need to keep tightening the screws on Putin’s war machine. Moscow should be denied safe harbours for its tankers and profits, and Europe should ban Russian oil and gas sooner than its current 2027 deadline. The Euro-Atlantic alliance must lead a new pincer movement to further constraint Russia’s energy revenues and stop Putin from getting his hands on military equipment, so I am glad that the Foreign Secretary will have more to say on sanctions very soon, as the Secretary of State for Defence said. Can he confirm whether the timeline is directly linked to US action? Would the UK go ahead with those plans for tougher sanctions if the US for some reason did not? On any potential end to the fighting, we all desperately want to see peace in Ukraine, but we are clear that it must be a lasting, sustainable peace. That is why security guarantees are so important. The Secretary of State referred to President Trump’s commitment to make security guarantees “very secure” with the Europeans. What further detail is he able to share on the likely shape of any such US security guarantees? The Secretary of State states that the coalition of the willing would “secure the skies and seas”. That seems to miss out the land force element. Does that mean that the Army would be sent to Ukraine only in a training role? He also said that he is “reviewing readiness levels and accelerating funding to prepare for any possible deployment”. Does he expect that funding to come from the Treasury reserve or the existing MOD budget? On reviewing readiness, what is the timescale of the review? Is it yet at the stage where urgent operational requirements are being considered? Finally, I strongly welcome the news that Norway has selected the Type 26, which is made in Scotland, for its future fleet. That is a huge deal that will support thousands of jobs, but it has been many years in the making, with significant input and progress under the previous Government. In December 2023, I had the pleasure of visiting the Norwegian MOD in Oslo, and I assure the House that the Type 26 was very much at the top of the agenda. To remind hon. Members, that was in the same week we announced that Britain and Norway would lead the maritime coalition supporting Ukraine’s navy, underlining the strength of our naval alliance and our joint commitment to Ukraine. It is clear that a key reason for Norway’s decision is that it faces the same Russian threat that we do from Russian submarines and wants the best possible capability to respond, maximising interoperability with the Royal Navy. However, that Russian threat arises entirely from Putin’s pursuit of aggression, rather than peace. Until that situation changes in reality rather than in rhetoric, we must continue to be robust in doing everything possible to support Ukraine.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is good to see you back after the summer recess. The hon. Lady can fling around the stats all she likes, but the facts are clear and bleak. Under her watch, youth unemployment has gone up; nearly a million young people, and rising, are not in work or education, including over 40,000 more young women. A generation of brilliant young people are going on to benefits, rather than into work. The Government’s jobs tax and their unemployment rights Bill were guaranteed to reduce opportunities for young people. We have had the winter fuel U-turn and the welfare U-turn; why not a U-turn to help young people?
I welcome the right hon. Lady back after the summer. She said recently that it had been “a bumpy…few months”—an understatement, in my view. Last time we stood here, she had just completed a rather humiliating climbdown on her welfare savings plans. She set out to save money, but ended up spending it. You couldn’t make it up, Mr Speaker, but here we are: the number of benefit claimants has hit a record high; the sickness benefit bill is heading up and up; and still the right hon. Lady has Back Benchers and Cabinet colleagues calling for even more spending on welfare. The Chancellor is busy doing her sums in advance of the Budget, so can the right hon. Lady tell us how much lifting the two-child benefits cap will cost?
I asked the right hon. Lady a simple question, but I fear that she does not know the answer; she certainly did not reply to it. What is clear is that Labour wants to spend more on welfare. So do the Liberal Democrats, and so does Reform. Only one party here is telling the truth about the welfare bill: the country cannot afford it. May I urge the right hon. Lady to take up my proposals? Will she stop giving people benefits for common mental health problems such as anxiety and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and give them help instead? Will she stop giving personal independence payments to foreign citizens who have not paid into our system and free cars to people who do not need them? Will she stop people scamming the benefits system over the phone and on the internet? Will she keep the two-child benefits cap, and get the benefits bill under control?
Does the Home Secretary believe that the rights of the people coming over the channel in dinghies should take precedence over the rights of local residents in places such as Epping, as her lawyers argued for in court and as the Education Secretary said in an interview at the weekend?
In her statement, the Home Secretary set out that the Government would establish an independent body to process asylum appeals. That will work only if it is delivered at pace, resourced and well-staffed, so can she set out when that independent body will start recruiting arbitrators and support staff and when it will be operating at full pelt? Will it operate seven days a week? If in a year’s time we come back from next summer’s recess with immigration rates higher than this year’s, will the Home Secretary take personal responsibility for that?
Home Secretary, please: we have a tinder-box situation in Epping. We have the Bell hotel, with alleged sexual and physical assaults, and now twice-weekly major protests, some of which became violent, with injuries to police officers. Appallingly, last week the Government successfully appealed against the injunction on the hotel, prioritising the rights of illegal migrants over the rights and, indeed, safety of the people of Epping. Our community is in distress. The situation is untenable. This week the schools are back. The hotel is in the wrong place, right near a school, and many concerned parents have contacted me. When will the Home Secretary and the Government listen to us, address this issue and do the right and safe thing: close the Bell hotel immediately?
The Home Secretary is right to talk about tackling the push and pull factors—something we worked towards tackling when we were in government, despite challenges with bringing forward the use of third countries. That is because we need both a deterrent and a place to send people whose country of origin we either do not know or we do not have a returns agreement with. It is no surprise to me that arrivals have increased since that scheme was scrapped. I understand that a period of reset is happening in Downing Street, so how long before we can expect her to come to the Dispatch Box to introduce a third-country scheme?
I am deeply concerned by the misery, suffering and death in Gaza. I thank the Foreign Secretary for the work he is doing with friends and allies in the region, which is a key part of solving the problem. I also support a two-state solution, but is he not concerned that the ultimatum regarding unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state risks entirely disincentivising Hamas from negotiating any hostage release or ceasefire over the coming weeks and months?
Happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker. The law of armed conflict is hardwired into the behaviour of our military, and we should demand the same of our friends and allies. Israel is our friend and ally. What assurances has the Foreign Secretary therefore had from his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence that they have gained from their Israeli interlocutors the assurances that we need that the 40 or 50 incidents involving the IDF on the west bank and in Gaza since 2023 will be brought to a proper conclusion, and that any wrongdoing is held to account?
I, too, congratulate Admiral Sir Tony Radakin and Air Chief Marshal Sir Rich Knighton and wish them well. A big “Well done” is also due to all involved in the Type 26 deal, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). I ask the Defence Secretary to cast his mind back to March, when I asked the Prime Minister whether it would be folly to put British troops into Ukraine without a US backstop—without a guarantee from the White House—and the Prime Minister agreed that it would indeed be folly. Does that remain the Government’s position?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I am sure we are all delighted to be here—I could sense the excitement in the room when Members read the subject matter. The Opposition commend the Government for their efforts to bring about a greater degree of fairness in local government audit. This has been a challenge for many years, in particular as a result of many larger audit businesses stepping away not just from very small public bodies, as the Minister described, but even from large local authorities, where the fees have not been large enough to justify the risks. A slew of big names, with which we are all familiar, have departed from that area of work. We should recognise that efforts have been made over the years to address that problem. In my time in government, I was involved in launching Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd as a means by which local authorities, working together, sought to increase the supply of effective and accredited auditors to undertake this work, but all of us, whether we represent areas with larger metropolitan authorities, or rural areas where small parish meetings sit within the audit envelope of a large local authority, are conscious of the importance of transparency. Because there is a large degree of consensus on this subject, we will not oppose the regulations this evening.
Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that he specifically raised delivery of aid in his discussions with his US counterparts? The United States is a hugely important actor in that regard: it has the potential to be positive in improving the existing arrangements, but it also has the potential to be a blocker. His interaction with the US can make the difference.
I rise to present a petition on behalf of constituents who are users of the Bank of Scotland Moffat branch. Earlier this year, out of the blue, the Bank of Scotland announced the closure of all five of its branches in my constituency, along with many others across Scotland, leading, in my view, to that bank giving up on rural communities. Moffat was particularly affected because it is 23 miles from the next nearest branch in Dumfries, has a high elderly and vulnerable population, is a tourist town that attracts many visitors, and has a large number of businesses that rely on cash. The petition states: The petition of users of the Bank of Scotland Moffat Branch, Declares that residents of Moffat and Upper Annandale and visitors to the area will be left without banking services and access to cash by the proposed closure of the local Bank of Scotland branch in Moffat, thereby causing significant concern and worry for the local community, particularly the elderly and vulnerable, and local businesses, particularly in the hospitality industry, who rely on this these banking services; further that the petition organised locally by Evelyn Atkins calling on the Bank of Scotland to reverse the closure decision has garnered over 3,000 signatures from the local community and visitors to the town. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to call on the Bank of Scotland to keep its Moffat Branch open and to ensure that the residents of Moffat and Upper Annandale have proper access to cash and banking facilities. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003104]
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward the debate and the fact that we were able to have a debate in the House specifically about VJ Day. It is an issue that the events in the far east and some of the horrors that happened there are not known as well as they should be. I was not aware of this specific incident until I heard the hon. Lady mention it previously, so I commend her. Does she agree that we must continue to bring out all the facts about the events in the far east, where Scotland played a particular role, so that people understand the contribution and the sacrifices that were made?
It is good to see the Minister back after the break, but I am sorry to hear that there are still no plans to reduce spending on personal independence payments. He has said that he is collaborating with people who would not be working with him on his review if there were to be any reductions in the levels of benefit or eligibility. Given that veto on cuts to PIP, I implore him again to consider the benefits to which PIP is a gateway, such as Motability, disability premiums, council tax discounts and blue badges. Will he promise at least that those entitlements could come down?
But with no possibility of any of those entitlements coming down or any of the spending being reduced? We have 1.25 million foreign nationals claiming universal credit, most of whom are not in employment. I hope that the Minister does not plan to co-produce his plans with foreign nationals—although, knowing Labour lawyers, I expect they will say that the European convention on human rights demands that they do just that. Does he think that subsidising more and more foreign nationals is what the British social security system is for? If not, will he restrict sickness benefits to British nationals only, as we have argued for?
In her statement, the Home Secretary mentioned that the National Crime Agency had disrupted 347 immigration crime networks. Can she tell us how many gangs were smashed during the same period?
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. The Government have now been in office for well over a year, and I think it is fair to say that not even their kindest friends would say they think it has gone well, but listening to her statement, it sounds like she thinks everything is fine and that if there are any problems, it is somehow somebody else’s fault. Is she living in a parallel universe? After over a year in office, she must now take responsibility for what is happening under this Government. It was interesting to note that, during her statement, she did not mention her favourite phrase from a year or so ago—namely, that she was going to “smash the gangs.” I wonder why she was so silent on her previously favourite catchphrase. The answer is that it is not going very well. She mentioned National Crime Agency disruptions. Let me gently point out that 84% of those National Crime Agency disruptions that she cited a few minutes ago are classified as not being high impact, and National Crime Agency arrests for organised immigration crime actually went down by 16% in the last financial year. That is hardly smashing the gangs. In fact, the NCA’s arrests for organised immigration crime in that financial year were only 26—a drop in the ocean compared with the tens of thousands crossing the channel. It was also rather conspicuous that the Home Secretary did not mention even a word about the numbers illegally crossing the English channel. I wonder why that was. I wonder why she forgot to say a single word about that. The reason, I am afraid, is pretty clear. Far from smashing the gangs, so far this year, 29,000—to be precise, 29,003—illegal immigrants have crossed the English channel. That is the worst year in history, and it is up by 38% compared with last year. That is not success; it is failure. Things are not getting any better; they are getting worse. This Government are failing and everyone can see it. That is why there are protests up and down the country, and where those protests are peaceful, I support them. That is why 75% of the public think the Government are handling immigration and asylum badly. That is a shocking figure; let it sink in. Let me turn to hotels. In the nine months before the last general election, 200 hotels were closed down, including the Bell hotel in Epping, but since the election the numbers in asylum hotels have actually gone up by 8%. Had that previous trend of closures continued, there would be no asylum hotels open at all today. I ask the Home Secretary to confirm that she will not reduce hotel usage simply by shunting asylum seekers from hotels into flats and houses in multiple occupation, which are desperately needed by young people. Will she give the House that categoric assurance? Last week the Home Secretary’s lawyers said that the rights of illegal immigrants were more important than the rights of local people in places such as Epping. When this was expressly put in those terms to the Education Secretary yesterday on “Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips”, she shamefully agreed. Those statements are a disgrace. Does the Home Secretary realise how angry that makes people feel? It speaks of a Government not on the side of the people in this country. It means the Government appear to care more about the rights of illegal immigrants than our own citizens. Will she apologise for what her lawyers and the Education Secretary said, and will she undertake to ensure that Ministers and their lawyers will never say that again? The Home Secretary talks about her returns deal with France. It has been reported that the deal will return only about 50 people a week, amounting to 6% of arrivals. Does she accept that allowing 94% of illegal arrivals to stay will act as no deterrent at all? If she does not accept that figure of 50 a week, will she tell the House exactly how many immigrants crossing the channel will in fact be returned under her deal? She may recall that back in July we were told by the Government that the first returns would happen “within weeks”. Will she confirm to the House that the number that has actually been returned so far is precisely zero? The Home Secretary said to the House a couple of minutes ago that there would be security checks on those people reciprocally taken from France into the UK, but will she confirm that her agreement with France says expressly that the French Government will not provide the UK Government with any information at all—any personal data about those migrants—so if there are criminal convictions or suspicions about extremism or terrorism, the French Government will not provide information to us? If that is true, as her agreement says, how can she possibly conduct security checks? The Home Secretary talked about tweaks to family visa rules. Let me be clear about the Opposition’s position on this. If someone enters this country illegally, they should not be allowed to bring in any family members. In fact, everybody entering this country illegally should be immediately removed, to their country of origin if possible, and if that is not possible, to a safe third country such as Rwanda—a scheme which she cancelled just days before it was due to start. The public expect that approach—an approach which she cancelled—because the numbers crossing the channel so far this year have been the worst ever; the worst in history. It is not just that the numbers are high. Hundreds of migrants, having crossed the channel and living in those hotels, have been charged with criminal offences, including sexual assaults on girls as young as eight years old and multiple rapes. This is not just a border security crisis; it is a public safety crisis as well, and people up and down this country are furious. That is why they are protesting, and that is why 75% of the public think this Government are failing on asylum and immigration. If this Government were serious about fixing this problem, they would know that little tweaks here and there are not enough. Tweaks to article 8 are not going to be enough. Tweaking the family reunion rules is not enough. Returning maybe 50 people a week, if we are lucky, to France is not going to be enough. Intercepting maybe a few boats—worthy though that is—is not going to be enough. The only way these crossings will stop—the only way we are going to get back control of our borders—is if everybody crossing the channel knows that they will be returned. We tabled a Bill in Parliament a few weeks ago to do that. We had a plan to do that: the Rwanda Bill. We need to go further by disapplying to immigration matters the entire Human Rights Act 1998, not just tinkering with article 8. If the Government were serious, that is what they would do. If the Home Secretary really wants to control our borders, and if she really wants to get down the record numbers that have been crossing on her watch, she would back our plan, disapply the Human Rights Act in its entirety to immigration matters, and ensure that every single person crossing the channel is immediately removed.
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Alex Sobel will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions will be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement, which must be brief questions, not full speeches. Can I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee member and not the Government Front Bench? Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
I call Jim Shannon.
The Government appear to be conflating the terms “illegal immigrant” and “asylum seeker.” The UK has rightly in the past taken in asylum seekers, including Ukrainians fleeing persecution, but they are different from those who are crossing the channel illegally, the vast majority of whom are men aged 20 to 30 who appear to have no children or families crossing with them. I have three questions for the Home Secretary: does she agree with the Prime Minister’s comments that the UK has plenty of housing to accommodate illegal immigrants; will she rule out the use of houses of multiple occupation; and will she rule out the use of social housing for illegal immigrants?
The Home Secretary has spoken about tweaks to the rules and regulations, and potentially to interpretation of the law. The problem with that, of course, is that our courts will also interpret the law, and may go against what the Home Secretary wants to do. Will she set out what changes to the law she will introduce to ensure we stop the illegal migrants coming to this country?
The Home Secretary has touched on it a couple of times, but I am yet to hear from her about the scope of the Government’s asylum accommodation programme, which is currently rated “amber”. Despite the fact that 29,003 asylum seekers have arrived by small boat so far this year, the scope of the programme, following its strategic refresh, will mean the creation of only 5,000 bed spaces by the end of 2026, spread across three accommodation pilots. Where will those three pilots be, how many bed spaces will each have, and at what stage is each one?
1. What assessment she has made of trends in the level of unemployment.
On the House of Commons dashboard, the data for my constituency shows that universal credit claims increased dramatically by 20% in just one month. Claimants increased by over 2,000—from 10,344 to 12,415—from May to June this year. Given this recent increase in economic inactivity, what evidence does the Minister have that the Government’s employment support programmes are successfully moving people from out-of-work benefits into sustained employment?