Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Order. I call Iqbal Mohamed.
- Hansard source
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
We have no more speakers, so we will go straight to the Minister. Forgive me, I thought we had another person bobbing, but they no longer seem to be in the Chamber. Minister Eagle, you get the lucky extra few minutes for the winding-up.
- Hansard source
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
It has been brought to my attention that not all the Division bells are working. We are trying to rectify that as soon as possible. I urge colleagues to remain close to the Chamber and the estate, and to keep their eyes on the annunciators. New Clause 21 Removal of restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment “The Secretary of State must, within three months of the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the ‘immigration rules’) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) to make provision for asylum applicants to take up employment whilst their application is being determined, if it has been over three months since the application was made, with no decision made.”—(Lisa Smart.) This new clause would remove the restriction on working for asylum seekers, if it has been over three months since they applied. Brought up. Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
- Hansard source
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
I call the shadow Home Secretary, who has a minute or two.
- Hansard source
Young People not in Education, Employment or Training
Employers in my constituency tell me that they are less likely to employ young people as a result of the Employment Rights Bill because of the increased risk of employing someone at the start of their career. What representations has the Minister made to her colleagues to ensure that the most damaging parts of that legislation are softened?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T6. The Government claim to be the party of business, but speak to businesses today and they are hurting. Reduced opportunities for wealth creation and entrepreneurship, employee national insurance contributions and the Employment Rights Bill are destroying opportunity. What are the Government doing to incentivise our wealth creators and encourage job creation?
- Hansard source
Immigration System
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. It is in the national interest that the Government get this right; I hope that that will happen, but to be honest I am not convinced yet, and we have not seen much of the detail. I also support the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and his concerns about national security, which is something that should be taken more seriously. This year, 10,500 people—illegal migrants—have crossed the English channel. That is a record number for this period of time compared with any previous year, and I saw nothing in the Prime Minister’s earlier leaked statement or, indeed, in the Home Secretary’s statement about a deterrent. Without a deterrent, we can have all the counter-terrorism commands, all the new laws and all the great statements in the world, but nothing is going to change.
- Hansard source
Immigration System
What was it about the local election results that first attracted the Home Secretary to the idea of rushing out an immigration White Paper?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
How is the Minister working with the Department for Education to ensure that when young people leave education, they have the skills they need to thrive in the world of work?
- Hansard source
Immigration System
My constituency of Broxbourne has a hotel that is used to house illegal asylum seekers. This has placed huge pressure on local GP surgeries and schools, which are already overstretched, and my constituents and I have had enough. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss this issue, and can she tell me when the hotel housing illegal asylum seekers in my constituency of Broxbourne will close?
- Hansard source
Income Tax: Personal Allowance
In the last Westminster Hall debate that I took part in I think we were limited to 90-second speeches, so it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to expand at some considerable length this afternoon. I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) and the proposer Mr Frost for bringing forward this petition for debate on behalf of the 250,000 signatories, nearly 500 of whom come from my constituency. The petitioners have called on the Government to increase the income tax personal allowance to £20,000 to help low earners and pensioners. A bit of a spoiler alert: I think that they will be disappointed, because we have all seen the Government’s response that there are no such plans. It is worth noting that over the past 60 years, no Labour Government have left office with the tax burden lower than when they started. That is similar to employment; Labour Governments have always left the rate of unemployment higher than when they inherited it. The tax burden as a percentage of GDP is forecast to hit its highest level since the second world war by the end of this Parliament. The cause of that pattern is philosophical: the belief that there is such a thing as Government money. In fact, there is only taxpayers’ money, and we Conservatives want people to keep more of it. As the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), has said that we must drive taxes lower and do so in a responsible manner. Other Members have referred to research by the House of Commons Library, that estimates a cost of between £50 billion to £65 billion—depending on the choices made on other parts of the allowance—to raise the personal allowance for everyone to £20,000, as the petition calls for. That is about what we spend on the defence budget. To introduce such a policy, people have to be very clear about the choices they are proposing: the spending that they would cut, the increases in other taxes they would make or, indeed, if they would fund this through borrowing. Anyone promising such an increase has to be honest about it, and set out their choices clearly and openly. The Conservatives will be doing that before the next general election. The last Conservative Government increased the personal allowance significantly to benefit low earners—we made that a priority. It increased by 40% in real terms from 2010, from £6,475 to the £12,570 it is today. That change has benefitted millions of UK taxpayers. Of course, I also acknowledge that the last Government had to take the difficult decision to freeze that threshold until 2028. That decision was unwelcome and unpopular—I do not think it won us any votes—but it followed the hundreds of billions of pounds that we put in place to protect lives and livelihoods during the covid pandemic. Other parties were calling on us to spend even more, as I recall. That decision supported the poorest people the most. Billions more were spent in response to the energy price shock—again, that money needs to be paid back. However, it is also the case that if the personal allowance had simply been uprated by inflation every year since 2010, it would only have been around £9,650 in 2023-24, which is lower than the current level. At the last election, it was Labour that promised not to raise taxes on working people, which it broke in the October Budget with increases in national insurance. That was justified on the grounds of restoring financial responsibility and economic stability—referred to in the Government’s response to the petition. But it is hard to see that stability. The Government’s actions have led to a collapse in business confidence, and have seen taxes and borrowing rise at record levels. Meanwhile, growth—meant to be the overriding priority—has flatlined. Last week’s cut in interest rates was welcome, but Labour’s policies are expected to mean that interest rates stay higher for longer than they would have done under our plans. Only last week, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research assessed that the Chancellor would miss her fiscal rules by £63 billion by the end of the forecast period. That came after the emergency Budget only a few weeks ago, that saw rushed cuts to welfare budgets, which colleagues across the House are concerned are untargeted. That was simply to spare the Chancellor the blushes of missing her own fiscal rules. As a result of the Government’s actions, questions are being asked about the levels of personal taxation, particularly the personal allowance—the subject of the petition—which the Government pledge to unfreeze in 2028. The Chancellor made much of this at the autumn Budget, saying: “From 2028-29, personal tax thresholds will be uprated in line with inflation once again. When it comes to choices on tax, this Government choose to protect working people every single time.” —[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.] I think we might disagree about the second part of that quote. The statement about the policy was clear and unambiguous, and it maintained the position of the last Conservative Government—to lift that freeze in 2028. According to recent reports in the media, this is an issue that the Treasury is looking at as it tries to keep in the too-limited headroom that the Chancellor has in place. Will the Minister give an unambiguous commitment and restate the pledge to unfreeze the personal allowance from 2028? It does not go anywhere near as far as the petitioners would want, but it would at least be something. The petition refers particularly to the position of pensioners; the hon. Member for Sunderland Central referred to that. Millions of people who are in receipt of only the state pension now face paying income tax on it. Of course, many with modest private provision already face that situation. Forecasts suggest an estimated 9 million pensioners will pay income tax on their state pension from April 2026. At the general election, we had a very clear policy: the triple lock plus commitment, which would have ensured that people relying on the state pension as their only source of income would never pay income tax on it. Labour refused to match our policy at that time; in government, it has maintained opposition to it. I have tabled several parliamentary questions to him, but the Minister has been reluctant to give the Treasury estimates of the number of pensioners who receive only the state pension whom he expects to pay income tax and when they will do so. Perhaps today he will come clean with the figures that the Government must have about how many pensioners will have to pay income tax, when all they have in income is the state pension. I assume he is aware of those figures and assessed their impact when the Government were deciding to cut the winter fuel payments, again from very vulnerable people. Towards the end of the last Parliament, I supported measures by the then Government to cut taxes for working people through reductions in employee national insurance, the last of which, last March, was worth £10 billion. We believe in people keeping more of their own money, and the Minister should give the signatories of this petition clear answers to the following questions. Will the Government stick to their promise to increase the personal allowance from 2028? Are the Government committed to not raising the rates of income tax and VAT in this Parliament? Will the Minister rule out any further increases in national insurance rates? I look forward to his response.
- Hansard source
Income Tax: Personal Allowance
The Minister referred to the Employment Rights Bill. Has he seen the survey from the Britain Retail Consortium in which 70% of the businesses that were surveyed, which are major retailers that employ half a million people, said that the legislation would damage their business, and half said that it would make them less likely to take people on?
- Hansard source
Winter Fuel Payment: Means-testing
I suspect that the hon. Members on the Government Front Bench are now surrounded: I suspect that they are the only people left in this Chamber who are prepared to defend the cutting of the winter fuel payment. Dozens of their own MPs have now joined a long list of people telling the Government that they have got it wrong, including the Welsh First Minister—talking about learning lessons from Wales—the money-saving expert Martin Lewis, and voters up and down this country. The Conservatives have led this campaign from the start, but if the Government will not listen to us, will they now listen to everyone else and think again?
- Hansard source
Winter Fuel Payment: Means-testing
That is not something that the Leader of the Opposition said. To the point in hand—the winter fuel payment—I wonder for how much longer this tone-deaf final stand will go on. Every time the Government talk about winter fuel payments, they make out that they had no choice, but that is simply not true. To govern is to choose. At best, this policy was only ever going to save £1 billion or so, but they are spending £8 billion on setting up an energy company, and the cost of asylum hotels will rise to £15 billion under Labour. This has always been a choice, and it is the wrong one. Can the Minister guarantee that next winter, every single one of the 750,000 poorest pensioners who missed out on the winter fuel payment this year will receive it?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
The number of job vacancies is falling month on month under this Labour Government, but the number of people employed is also falling. Could the right hon. Lady admit what this means is happening in the economy?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
I am disappointed that the Secretary of State did not answer the question. I can answer it, if she will not. It means that businesses have stopped hiring, the growing economy that we left is being hammered by the Government’s jobs tax, and thousands of young people are leaving school and university with worse prospects than this time last year. Businesses need a Government who understand them and back them—that is what jobs depend on. She needs businesses to hire people so she can hit her employment target. What is her message to them?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T2. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
One of my constituents is experiencing severe delays in getting Access to Work scheme payments, dating back to February. In correspondence with the Department, a letter openly says there is no long-term solution to that, so when will the Secretary of State come forward with a long-term solution to speed up these payments?
- Hansard source
US-UK Trade Deal: Northern Ireland
I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on securing this urgent question, although I agree that the Government really should have offered a statement to the House on this important subject. Of course, the House has still not yet seen the full detail of the trade agreement with the United States of America. The Secretary of State says that this is just the beginning, but there are still a great many unanswered questions about what we have so far, including what are clearly ongoing negotiations on pharmaceuticals. In his answer, the Secretary of State said that the UK will have significantly preferential rates, but what does that mean in practice? Where is the detail about what “significantly preferential rates” actually means? There are similar questions about the digital services tax. Last week, the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), asked the Trade Minister a straight question: whether this trade agreement would “protect the special status of Northern Ireland”.—[Official Report, 8 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 899.] The Minister was unable to provide an answer at the time, and I remain unconvinced by what the Secretary of State has had to say today—there is still a lot of talk about the risks of goods entering the European Union. Clearly, this is a far more complex situation than the Secretary of State would like us to accept. As the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim made clear, the EU is still hugely influential in Northern Ireland trade law. The points he made about steel, for example, were accurate and deserve clear answers. It is clear that this deal will have a number of implications for the functioning of the dual customs regime, yet businesses in Northern Ireland have been left in the dark for too long by the lack of detail in last week’s announcement. I would therefore be grateful if the Secretary of State would confirm what discussions he has had with his US and EU counterparts about rules of origin and the green lane in Northern Ireland. What specific measures are the Government implementing to ensure that Northern Ireland businesses are not disproportionately burdened by increased costs and administrative complexities as a result of this trade agreement? Finally, given that the Prime Minister is gearing up for his surrender summit with the European Union next week, can the Secretary of State confirm that there will be no backsliding on Northern Ireland’s place as an integral, absolute and total part of our United Kingdom?
- Hansard source
Immigration System
The White Paper talks in vague terms about potential changes that build on and learn from the displaced talent programme. Will the Home Secretary be really clear with the House about where she sees those changes going? More importantly, what safeguards will she put in place to ensure that any such changes do not act as a massive magnet for those who wish to illegally enter our country?
- Hansard source
Income Tax: Personal Allowance
Members will have noticed that the in-Chamber clock is not functioning, but the time can be seen on the annunciator—time is probably not of the essence in this debate. I remind Members that if they want to speak, they should bob, but I do not think that applies either.
- Hansard source
Protection of Prison Staff
Surely as a minimum, any prisoner who assaults a prison officer should automatically forfeit any right to early release and all privileges. Does the Minister agree? If so, when will he introduce that change? If not, why not?
- Hansard source
Immigration System
Without a third country such as Rwanda, can the Home Secretary tell the House where illegal immigrants whose country of origin cannot be established, because they have destroyed their documentation, will be deported to? Is it the case that they cannot be deported, and anyone who exploits that loophole can stay here with impunity?
- Hansard source
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
I rise to speak in support of new clause 14. This Government came into power on the promise to “smash the gangs” and cut immigration numbers—what an empty, cynical slogan that turned out to be. The exact opposite happened: the gangs were emboldened and the Government lost control of illegal immigration, which is up 31% since the election and 35% in this year. After the failure to smash the gangs and the poor showing at the recent elections, the Government’s response is another gimmick: the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. It is hollow, its five core principles are a word salad of empty phrases and it is a rehash of old ideas and contradictions. It lacks a deterrent. In fact, the biggest mistake that this Prime Minister has made, in a strong field of contenders, was cancelling the Rwanda scheme. Even the National Crime Agency described that as a deterrent, and it was already starting to work; we saw those coming in by dinghy from France starting to head to Ireland and other countries. Without Rwanda or another third country, there is no way to remove any illegal immigrants who destroy their documents as they come to this country. As a result of cancelling that deterrent, we have seen illegal migration soar. Some of the levels of illegal immigration will come down, but that will be as a result of what the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), did with his restrictions to stop dependants entering the country and the bilateral deals he made, such as the one with Albania to deport criminals. This Government say that they will now create a new legal framework for immigration judges to prevent illegal migrants and foreign criminals avoiding deportation by exploiting article 8 of the ECHR. That will never happen under the human rights lawyer who leads the Labour party, or a Labour party that champions the ECHR and the Human Rights Act. The reality is that until this Government get ahead of the curve, get a spine, take the UK out of the ECHR, repeal the Human Rights Act—a law that Labour introduced to cement the ECHR in British law—reinstate the Rwanda scheme and radically clamp down on housing and benefits, I am afraid that immigrants will continue to come to the UK. The British people expect security and prosperity, not platitudes and broken promises. We in this House must act accordingly and vote in favour of new clause 14, which would disapply the Human Rights Act.
- Hansard source
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
rose—
- Hansard source
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
The last Government introduced the idea of having age verification. That is important, because the evidence supports the suggestion that some young men claim to be younger than they are. Many other countries use medical age verification systems. Does my right hon. Friend have a reason why the Government decided not to take our amendments forward in Committee, and why they are not considering implementing them now?
- Hansard source
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
The cap idea builds on work that the last Government wanted to bring forward in relation to refugees and asylum seekers. The last Government asked councils to work out how many they could accommodate. It seems remarkably practical to say that while we are a generous nation able to look after people in need, that comes with a capacity. The whole idea would be to implement a cap and for all councils in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to say what number they could hold, and for us to vote on it as a nation. Is that something my right hon. Friend would consider when it comes to dealing with asylum seekers?
- Hansard source
Draft Medical Devices and Blood Safety and Quality (Fees Amendment) Regulations
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The draft regulations will make amendments to the Medical Device Regulations 2002, the Blood Safety and Quality Regulations 2005 and the Medical Devices (Northern Ireland Protocol) Regulations 2021. The core changes made by the draft regulations will include modifying the fees charged to manufacturers, suppliers and relevant stakeholders involved in medical device approval and blood safety monitoring. These amendments will align with updated economic assessments on the operational needs of regulatory bodies. They follow an impact assessment evaluating both the financial implications and the potential benefits for healthcare providers and patients. The fee amounts set out in the draft regulations represent increases of between 9% and 16% in the majority of fees, but some fees, primarily those relating to clinical investigations, will rise more. The fees are being set in line with the consultation document issued by the MHRA on 29 August 2024. I have a few questions for the Minister. First, the impact assessment states that the main benefit of the regulations will be the additional income gained by the MHRA, but can she elaborate further on the benefits for patients and innovators? The impact assessment also states that staff costs are the major cost for the MHRA. Will the MHRA pay the rise in national insurance contributions announced at the Budget, or will it be exempt? If it is exempt, will that mean that it does not pay the extra fees, or will it be recompensed after the fact? If it is to be recompensed after the fact, will that be based on exact figures or on an estimate? Where recompense has been based on an estimate, as has happened in schools, it has fallen very far short of what is necessary. It is critical to ensure that fees do not deter innovation, particularly among smaller medical device manufacturers, which rely on sustainable costs to continue to produce lifesaving technology. How will the Government ensure that the fee increases do not deter innovation, particularly for small and medium-sized medical device manufacturers? Could the Minister elaborate on how the fee adjustments compare with similar regulations in other countries? What measures are being taken to ensure that UK manufacturers remain competitive? The aim of the draft regulations is to increase the fees in line with cost recovery. What is the Minister doing to ensure that the MHRA is efficient and that costs are kept to a minimum? Is she satisfied that the regulatory service provided for the money is adequate? Page 3 of the impact assessment has caused me some confusion. It states that “the MHRA assumes a 2.2% pay increase for each of the next three years (2024/25 to 2026/27)”. I note that that is below inflation, which is currently running at 2.6%. Is it realistic to expect below-inflation pay rises, particularly with this Government? Does the Minister think that that figure will stand? If the fees do not provide for full cost recovery, who will foot the bill? Will the MHRA have to reduce services, or will the taxpayer have to provide more via direct grant to the MHRA? Finally, what provision is there for surveillance to monitor the impact of these fee changes on healthcare providers and patients, and whether they are enough, too much or not enough for the MHRA to cover its costs?
- Hansard source
Draft Medical Devices and Blood Safety and Quality (Fees Amendment) Regulations
Before the Minister concludes, could she answer my questions on national insurance and on below-inflation pay rises? If not, will she commit to answering my remaining questions by letter?
- Hansard source
US-UK Trade Deal: Northern Ireland
As skilfully drafted as the Windsor framework certainly was, it could not possibly have fully anticipated President Trump and his tariffs, or the prospect of an EU-US trade and tariff war. Does the Secretary of State understand how concerned small and medium-sized businesses in Northern Ireland are? Suddenly, they are placed, potentially, at the epicentre of that trade war. It is all very well to say that they can claim back the differential in tariffs, but the bureaucracy involved in such an exercise, as the Secretary of State will understand, is substantial and significant. What will he now do to mitigate it?
- Hansard source
Immigration System
There was very little of substance in the details of the Government White Paper that came out over the weekend, and the Home Secretary has rather confirmed that impression today, but there are two big-ticket items on which my local authority and my local training providers would like some answers. First, from where will the uplift in training be financed and when will that money arrive? I am sure Trowbridge college in my constituency will be very interested to hear about that. Secondly, does the Home Secretary anticipate that authorities providing statutory services will pay for the fair pay agreement, which presumably means council tax payers, or will she be providing the money out of the block grant?
- Hansard source
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. The trouble is that, when the judiciary get hold of this and there is an appeal, they very often cite exceptional circumstances, which are cited in the original legislation but have been interpreted over the years in a very liberal way—so much so as to be almost meaningless. Will the Minister define more clearly what exceptional circumstances are, so that there can be no doubt in the minds of lawyers about who might be eligible for appeal against decisions made by the Home Office, and who is not?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the financial reparations that will be made to LGBT veterans following the Etherton review are not taken into consideration when assessing entitlement to other benefits?
- Hansard source
US-UK Trade Deal: Northern Ireland
Although it pains me, as it does, to do so, I have to concede that whiskey is produced in Northern Ireland. When the Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security made the statement on the Indian trade deal, he understandably placed great emphasis on the benefits to the Scotch whisky industry and indeed the UK whisky industry from that deal, but when he made the statement on the US deal, he said precisely nothing about whisky. Can the Secretary of State clarify exactly what is the current position on whisky with the US, and what is his aspiration?
- Hansard source
Personal Independence Payment: Eligibility Criteria
It is six weeks since the Government cobbled together an emergency plan for welfare cuts to rescue the Chancellor from the consequences of her job-destroying, economy-shrinking Budget, but we are still waiting for some information. Can the Minister tell the House how many more people will be in work as a result of these measures?
- Hansard source
Personal Independence Payment: Eligibility Criteria
I look forward to the OBR’s report, and also to its assessment of the impact of the Employment Rights Bill. We know that many tens of thousands of jobs are going to be lost because of the national insurance rise, and we know from the OBR that because of the changes that the Government have introduced and the scrapping of the measures we were introducing, 16,000 fewer people will be in work and almost half a million more will be on long-term sickness benefits. However, let me ask the Minister about disability benefits. Is he aware that half the number of people who receive PIP who have multiple sclerosis will no longer be eligible for that benefit under the plans that the Government are bringing forward? A quarter of people with cerebral palsy and three quarters of people with arthritis will also be ineligible. Is the Minister happy with that, and if not, what hope can he give the hundreds of thousands of people who are being abandoned that the Government will look after them?
- Hansard source
Immigration System
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement—not that it was necessary, given the extensive leaks and pre-briefing. The Prime Minister claimed all of a sudden this morning that he wants to control immigration. I must say, it came as something of a surprise to me. He seems to have undergone a miraculous conversion, and has apparently repudiated everything he has ever believed. Perhaps he is doing what he always does: saying whatever he thinks people want to hear at any given point in time. Perhaps he sees his minus 36% approval rating, and this White Paper is his desperate response. We know what the Prime Minister really thinks about immigration, because he has often told us. He once described immigration law and border control as racist. He signed a letter opposing the deportation of dangerous foreign criminals, including murderers and rapists. He pledged that he would reintroduce full free movement of people, and he sermonised enthusiastically about the benefits of migration. He even said that the Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre should be closed down. Perhaps the Home Secretary can tell us if she will be following the Prime Minister’s advice on that one. Given what the Prime Minister really thinks about immigration, it is no surprise that this Labour Government have presided over the worst start to a year for the number of illegal immigrants crossing the English channel in history; that number is up 30% since the election last year. It has been the worst start to a year ever, and it happened under this Labour Government. It is also no surprise that this plan is so weak that it barely scratches the surface. On its first page, it seeks to create a false impression. It says—the Home Secretary repeated this—that “visa applications are down…40%” since the election, implying that that is somehow down to the Government. Why are visa applications actually down by 40%? Because of the changes made by the last Government, which came into force in April 2024. From the previous peak, net migration is already forecast to reduce by about half a million. If the Home Secretary is all of a sudden so keen on reducing migration, will she explain why she suspended the Conservative plan to increase the family visa threshold to £38,000? That was due to come into force last month. When will that change now be introduced? The truth is that this plan is weak and will have little impact. The Home Secretary admitted on Laura Kuenssberg’s programme yesterday that the measures will reduce net migration by only 50,000, which is just one 10th of the impact of the previous Conservative changes. The honest truth is that we need to go much further than this White Paper does. Immigration needs to come down a lot more. Under new leadership, the Conservative party is taking a new approach. [Interruption.] Labour Members can vote on this later, if they are so keen. High immigration has put pressure on housing, public services, social cohesion and the economy. Mass low-wage, low-skilled migration undermines our economy’s productivity and costs other taxpayers money, because low-wage migrants consume services that cost the Exchequer more than they pay in tax, particularly where there are dependants, so we need to go much further. That is why later today the House will vote on two Conservative proposals in amendments to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. [Interruption.] I can see Labour Members are excited about the prospect. The first amendment would create a binding annual cap on migration, to be set and voted on democratically by this Parliament. It would allow full democratic parliamentary control over migration numbers, deliver complete transparency and ensure that immigration is drastically reduced. I see the Minister for Border Security and Asylum talking enthusiastically on the Front Bench; I assume that means that she will support the measure. The second amendment would repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 from all immigration matters. We would not just tinker with article 8, as the Home Secretary says she will, but stop foreign criminals, and others who have no right to be here, abusing human rights laws in UK courts, including article 3. I have a simple question for the Home Secretary.
- Hansard source
Immigration System
I will try anyway. If the Home Secretary is really serious about controlling immigration, will she vote later today for the immigration cap, and will she vote to repeal the Human Rights Act for all immigration matters?
- Hansard source
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
I rise to speak to new clauses 14 and 18, and to various other new clauses and amendments that stand in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Let me start by paying tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) and for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), who are sitting beside me. They toiled with enormous fortitude and patience through 12 Committee sittings. They did extremely diligent and good work, and I put on record my thanks to them both. The new clauses and amendments that we have tabled are made necessary by the Government’s abject and appalling failure, since they came to office last July, to control small boat crossings of the English channel. They came to office saying that they would “smash the gangs”, a claim that is now in tatters. Let us take a look at what they have done since 4 July last year. Since the election, 35,048 people have illegally crossed the English channel. That is a 29% increase on the same period the previous year. This year—2025—how is smashing the gangs going so far? Well, 11,806 people have crossed, which is the worst start to a year in history. That is an appalling and abject failure, for which this Government are responsible. Yesterday alone, 232 people crossed, and we understand that today, as we stand here, several hundred more people have made that illegal crossing. There is no control over who they are. There are suggestions that some of the suspects in the recent Iranian terror case were living in asylum accommodation and may therefore have crossed by small boat. I certainly recall that some people crossing the channel had very serious prior convictions. The Government have no idea who these people are, and they certainly have no control. The people crossing are almost entirely young men. They have pushed themselves to the front of the queue by paying people smugglers. I do not see them as victims; they are committing a criminal offence by entering the United Kingdom in this way. It is a criminal offence contrary to section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, as I am sure everybody knows.