Asylum Policy

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call the Home Secretary to make her statement, I am sorry that Mr Speaker has once again had to ask me to remind Ministers of the requirement in the Government’s own ministerial code that major new policy announcements should be made in this House in the first instance and not to the media. This afternoon’s statement has already been the subject of very extensive media coverage, both over the weekend and this morning, including a lot of policy detail. Hon. and right hon. Members on the Government Benches were very quick to criticise Ministers in the previous Government for this kind of behaviour, but the Home Office seems to have a particular problem with making media announcements before Ministers come to make statements to the House. I know that the Committee chaired by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) is looking at this matter, and I look forward to reading the Committee’s recommendations. I call the Home Secretary.

17:37

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about how we restore order and control to our borders. I do so as this Government publish the most significant reform to our migration system in modern times.

This country will always offer sanctuary to those fleeing danger, but we must also acknowledge that the world has changed and our asylum system has not changed with it. Our world is a more volatile and more mobile place. Huge numbers are on the move. While some are refugees, others are economic migrants seeking to use and abuse our asylum system. Even genuine refugees are passing through other safe countries, searching for the most attractive place to seek refuge.

The burden that has fallen on this country has been heavy: 400,000 have sought asylum here in the past four years. Over 100,000 people now live in asylum accommodation, and over half of refugees remain on benefits eight years after they have arrived. To the British public, who foot the bill, the system feels out of control and unfair. It feels that way because it is. The pace and scale of change have destabilised communities. It is making our country a more divided place. There will never be a justification for the violence and racism of a minority, but if we fail to deal with this crisis, we will draw more people down a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred.

I have no doubt about who we really are in this country: we are open, tolerant and generous. But the public rightly expect that we can determine who enters this country and who must leave. To maintain the generosity that allows us to provide sanctuary, we must restore order and control.

Rather than deal substantively with this problem, the last Conservative Government wasted precious years and £700 million on their failed Rwanda plan, with the lamentable result of just four volunteers removed from the country. As a result, they left us with the grotesque chaos of asylum seekers housed in hotels and shuttled around in taxis, with the taxpayer footing the bill.

My predecessor as Home Secretary picked up this dreadful inheritance and rebuilt the foundations of a collapsed asylum system. Decision making has been restored, with a backlog now 18% lower than when we entered office. Removals have increased, reaching nearly 50,000 under this Government. Immigration enforcement has hit record levels, with over 8,000 arrests in the last year. The Border Security Bill is progressing through Parliament, and my predecessor struck an historic agreement with the French so that small boat arrivals can now be sent back to France.

Those are vital steps, but we must go further. Today, we have published “Restoring Order and Control”, a new statement on our asylum policy. Its goals are twofold: first, to reduce illegal arrivals into this country, and secondly, to increase removals of those with no right to be here. It starts by accepting an uncomfortable truth: while asylum claims fall across Europe, they are rising here, and that is because of the comparative generosity of our asylum offer compared with many of our European neighbours. That generosity is a factor that draws people to these shores, on a path that runs through other safe countries. Nearly 40% come on small boats and over perilous channel crossings, but a roughly equal proportion come legally, via visitor, work or study visas, and then go on to claim asylum. They do so because refugee status is the most generous route into this country. An initial grant lasts five years and is then converted, almost automatically, into permanent settled status.

In other European countries, things are done differently. In Denmark, refugee status is temporary, and they provide safety and sanctuary until it is possible for a refugee to return home. In recent years, asylum claims in Denmark have hit a 40-year low, and now countries across Europe are tightening their systems in similar ways. We must act too. We will do so by making refugee status temporary, not permanent. A grant of refugee status will last for two and a half years, not five years. It will be renewed only if it is impossible for a refugee to return home. Permanent settlement will now come at 20 years, not five years.

I know that this country welcomes people who contribute. For those who want to stay, and who are willing and able to, we will create a new work and study visa route solely for refugees, with a quicker path to permanent settlement. To encourage refugees into work, we will also consult on removing benefits for those who are able to work but choose not to. Outside the most exceptional circumstances, family reunion will not be possible, with a refugee able to bring family over only if they have joined a work and study route, and if qualifying tests are met.

Although over 50,000 claimants have been granted refugee status in the past year, more than 100,000 claimants and failed asylum seekers remain in taxpayer-funded accommodation. We know that criminal gangs use the prospect of free bed and board to promote their small boat crossings. We have already announced that we will empty asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament, and we are exploring a number of large military sites as an alternative. We will now also remove the 2005 legislation that created a duty to support asylum seekers, reverting to a legal power to do so instead. We will continue to support those who play by the rules, but those who do not—be that through criminality or antisocial behaviour—can have their support removed.

We will also remove our duty to support those who have a right to work. It is right that those who receive support pay for it if they can, so those with income or assets will have to contribute to the cost of their stay. That will end the absurdity that we currently experience, in which an asylum seeker receiving £800 each month from his family, and who had recently acquired an Audi, was receiving free housing at the taxpayer’s expense, and the courts judged that we could do nothing about it.

The measures are designed to tackle the pull factors that draw people to this country, but reducing the number of arrivals is just half of the story. We must also enforce our rules and remove those who have no right to be here. That will mean restarting removals to countries where they have been paused. In recent months, we have begun the voluntary removal of failed asylum seekers to Syria once again. However, many failed asylum seekers from Syria are still here, most of whom fled a regime that has since been toppled. Other countries are planning to enforce removals, and we will follow suit. Where a failed asylum seeker cannot be returned home, we will also continue to explore the possibility of return hubs, with negotiations ongoing.

We must remove those who have failed asylum claims, regardless of who they are. Today, we are not removing family groups, even when we know that their home country is perfectly safe. There are, for instance, around 700 Albanian families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation having failed their asylum claims—despite an existing returns agreement, and Albania being a signatory to the European convention on human rights. So we will now begin the removal of families. Where possible, we will encourage a voluntary return, but where an enforced return is necessary, that is what we will do.

Where the barrier to a return is not the individual, nor the UK Government, but the receiving country, we will take action. I can announce that we have told Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Namibia that if they do not comply with international rules and norms, we will impose visa penalties on them. I am sending a wider message here: unless other countries heed this lesson, further sanctions will follow.

Much of the delay in our removals, however, comes from the sclerotic nature of our own system. In March of this year, the appeals backlog stood at 51,000 cases. This Government have already increased judicial sitting days, but reform is required, so we will create a new appeals body, staffed by professional independent adjudicators, and we will ensure that early legal representation is available to advise claimants and ensure their issues are properly considered. Cases with a low chance of success will be fast-tracked, and claimants will have just one opportunity to claim and one to appeal, ending the merry-go-round of claims and appeals that frustrate so many removals.

While some barriers to removal are the result of process, others are substantive issues related to the law itself. There is no doubt that the expanded interpretation of parts of the European convention on human rights has contributed. This is particularly true of article 8: the right to a family life. The courts have adopted an ever-expanding interpretation of that right. As a result, many people have been allowed to come to this country when they would otherwise have had no right to, and we have been unable to remove others when the case for doing so seems overwhelming. That includes cases like an arsonist, sentenced to five years in prison, whose deportation was blocked on the grounds that his relationship with his sibling may suffer. More than half of those detained are now delaying or blocking their removal by raising a last-minute rights claim.

Article 8 is a qualified right, which means we are not prevented from removing individuals or refusing an application to move to the UK if it is in the public interest. To narrow article 8 rights, we will therefore make three important changes, in both domestic law and to our immigration rules. First, we will define what, exactly, a family is—narrowing it down to parents and their children. Secondly, we will define the public interest test so that the default becomes a removal or refusal, with article 8 rights only permissible in the most exceptional circumstances. Thirdly, we will tighten where article 8 claims can be heard, ensuring only those who are living in the UK can lodge a claim, rather than their family members overseas, and that all claims are heard first by the Home Office and not in a courtroom.

We will also pursue international reform of a second element of the convention: the application of article 3, and the prohibition on torture and inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment. We will never return anyone to be tortured in their home country, but the definition of “degrading treatment” has expanded into the realm of the ridiculous. Today we have criminals who we seek to deport, but we discover we cannot because the prisons in their home country have cells that are deemed too small, or even mental health provision that is not as good as our own. As article 3 is an absolute right, a public interest test cannot be applied. For that reason, we are seeking reform at the Council of Europe, and we do so alongside international partners who have raised similar concerns.

It is not just international law that binds us. According to data from 2022, over 40% of those detained for removal claimed that they were modern-day slaves. That well-intentioned law is being abused by those who seek to frustrate a legitimate removal, so I will bring forward legislation that tightens the modern slavery system, to ensure that it protects those it was designed for, and not those who seek to abuse it. Taken together, these are significant reforms. They are designed to ensure that our asylum system is fit for the modern world, and that we retain public consent for the very idea of providing refuge.

We will always be a country that offers protection to those fleeing peril, just as we did in recent years when Ukraine was invaded, when Afghanistan was evacuated, and when we repatriated Hongkongers. For that reason, as order and control are restored, we will open new, capped, safe and legal routes into this country. These will make sponsorship the primary means by which we resettle refugees, with voluntary and community organisations given greater involvement to both receive refugees and support them, working within caps set by Government. We will also create a new route for displaced students to study in the UK, and another for skilled refugees to work here. Of course, we will always remain flexible to new crises across the world, as they happen.

I know that the British people do not want to close the doors, but until we restore order and control, those who seek to divide us will grow stronger. It is our job as a Labour Government to unite where there is division, so we must now build an asylum system for the world as it is—one that restores order and control, that opens safe and legal routes to those fleeing danger across the world, and that sustains our commitment to providing refuge for this generation, and those to come. I know the country we are. We are open, tolerant, and generous. We are the greater Britain that those on this side of the House believe in, not the littler England that some wish we would become. These reforms are designed to bring unity where others seek to divide, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch.

17:52

[Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement, most of which I read The Sunday Telegraph. I am pleased that she is bringing forward measures to crack down on illegal immigration. It is not enough but it is a start, and a change from her previous position in opposition of a general amnesty for illegal migrants.

I praise the new Home Secretary. She is bringing fresh energy and a clearer focus to this problem, and she has got more done in 70 days in the job than her predecessor did in a year. She seems to get what many on the Labour Benches refuse to accept, and she is right to say that if we fail to deal with the crisis, we will draw more people to a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred. We will also allow our English channel to operate as an open route into this country for anyone who is prepared to risk their life and pay criminal gangs. That is not fair on British citizens, it is not fair on those who come here legally, and it is not fair on those in genuine need who are pushed to the back of the queue because the system is overwhelmed.

Anyone who cannot see by now that simply tinkering with the current system will not fix this problem is either living in la-la land or being wilfully obstructive. It is a shame that it has taken Labour a year in office to realise there is a borders crisis—[Interruption.] I don’t know why Labour Members are chuntering. What was their first act in government? The first act of the Home Secretary’s predecessor was to scrap the Rwanda plan, which was already—[Interruption.] Yes, they are cheering. It was already starting to act as a deterrent before it even got off the ground, and before it started, Labour Members threw away all our hard work and taxpayers’ money—they are the ones who have wasted that money, not us.

The statement is an admission that the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill of the Home Secretary’s predecessor will not work, but I am glad to see Labour Members now changing course. The powers they are using in the Bill are ones they all voted down when we were in government, and they would not be able to do that if we had not got those measures through. None of them know the work that was done; they are just cheering nonsensically, but we know what has happened since Labour came to office. The Home Secretary will know that 10,000 people have crossed the channel in the 70 days she has been in office, and we have seen record levels of asylum claims in the last year. The problem has got worse since Labour came into office, and it is getting worse by the day.

I am afraid that what the Home Secretary is announcing will not work on its own, and some of these measures will take us backwards. I say that to her with no ill will, and I hope she believes me when I say that I genuinely want her to succeed. Conservative Members are speaking from experience: we know how difficult this is— [Interruption.] We do, and we will not take any lectures from the people who voted down every single measure to control immigration. Some of the measures that the Home Secretary is announcing today are undoubtedly positive steps—baby steps, but positive none the less. We welcome making refugee status temporary, and we welcome removing the last Labour Government’s legislation that created a duty to support asylum seekers—she is right to do that. However, some of what she is announcing simply does not go far enough.

Conservative Members believe that anyone who arrives illegally, especially from safe countries, should be deported and banned from claiming asylum. Does the Home Secretary agree that anyone who comes to this country illegally should be deported? I would like to know, and I think the country would like to know, because this announcement means that some people who arrive will be allowed to stay—they just need to wait 20 years before getting permanent settlement. That does not remove the pull factor. The main problem is that for as long as the UK is in the European convention on human rights, illegal immigrants and those exploiting our system will use human rights laws to block anything she does to solve this. I know that because I saw it happen again and again over the last four years, and I know she has seen it too. We even saw it this year with the Prime Minister’s one in, one out scheme, which has seen people return to France and come back on small boats yet again.

I guarantee that the Home Secretary’s plan to reinterpret article 8 will not work. We tried that already, and Strasbourg and UK case law will prevail. I agree with her that the definition of “degrading treatment” is over-interpreted, but renegotiating article 3 internationally will take years—years we do not have if it were even possible, but the fact is that it is not. We know that because a small group of EU countries tried that earlier, and they were dismissed by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Her Government did nothing to support them, so I am not convinced it is the Prime Minister’s negotiating skills that will sort out that problem.

We have looked at this issue from every possible direction, and any plan that does not include leaving the ECHR as a necessary step is wasting time we do not have. Just like the Government’s plan to “smash the gangs”, or the one in, one out policy, it is timewasting, and it is doomed to fail because of lawfare. We have seen this all before. The tough measures will be challenged in the courts and blocked, the new legal routes that the Home Secretary is talking about will be exploited, and the numbers arriving on our shores and disappearing into the black economy will keep on rising. If the Home Secretary is serious about reducing these numbers—I do believe that she is—she must be bolder. She must take steps to deter illegal immigrants from coming to Britain, and deport them as soon as they arrive. Our borders plan does just that, and I know that she has studied it in detail. I have seen the looks, and I know that she knows that we would leave the ECHR and the European convention on action against trafficking to stop the Strasbourg courts from frustrating deportations, and establish a new removals force to ensure that all illegal arrivals are deported. We would end the use of immigration tribunals, judicial review and legal aid in immigration cases, as those are the things that are slowing us down, and we would sign returns agreements that are backed by visa sanctions to ensure that we send illegal arrivals back to their place of origin. I welcome what she says about Angola and Namibia, but we all know that those countries are not the ones that are creating the biggest problems.

We need to be bold, serious and unafraid to do what the British people demand: secure our borders. That is what is in our borders plan, so I urge the Home Secretary to take me up on my offer to work together, not just because we have some ideas that she might find useful, but because judging by the reaction of her own Back Benchers today, she may find our votes come in handy. Earlier this year, we saw what happened when the Government tried to make changes through the welfare Bill: the Prime Minister was defeated by his own Back Benchers and ended up passing legislation guaranteeing that more money would be spent on welfare. It does not appear that his grip on the party has improved since then, so we can be sure that Labour Back Benchers are already plotting to block any serious changes that she tries to make, so we can help her with that—[Interruption.] Why are Labour Members shaking their heads? We have seen them do that time and again.

Our offer to work together is a genuine one and in the national interest. We will not play the same game that Labour Members did by voting things down for no reason. However, the Home Secretary must be clear with the House on these questions: how many people will be able to take advantage of the new work and study visa routes? What will be the level of the cap? Will it be 10,000 people or 100,000 people?

The Government have separately confirmed that they will allow Gazan students to bring dependants. We oppose that, but can she clarify how the Government will ensure that people brought to the UK from a territory under Hamas control are not a risk to our security? If she finds that the Human Rights Act 1998 and the ECHR prevent her from enacting those proposals, will she use primary legislation to resolve that? Has Lord Hermer agreed? By her own admission three weeks ago, the Home Office is not yet fit for purpose, so why are we creating a new legal route for the Home Office to run?

Will she take me up on my serious, genuine offer to meet and to discuss how we can work together to resolve the asylum crisis—yes or no? I urge her to put party politics aside, meet me and my shadow Home Secretary, so that we can find a way to work together—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I was very generous with the time I allowed the Leader of the Opposition. I call the Home Secretary.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her response to the statement. I see that the shadow Home Secretary has been subbed out after his performance at Home Office oral questions, but whether it is the shadow Home Secretary or the Leader of the Opposition herself, I am very happy to take on the Conservative party any day of the week.

Let me start by saying that we will not take any lessons from the Opposition on how to run an effective migration or asylum system. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, when the Conservatives were in Government, they gave up on governing altogether. They gave up on making asylum decisions, creating the huge backlog that this Government were left to start to deal with. In our first 18 months in office, removals are up 23% compared with the last 18 months that the Conservatives were in office, so I will take no lessons from anyone on the Conservative Benches on anything to do with our asylum system. They simply gave up and went for an expensive gimmick that cost £700 million to return four volunteers and was doomed to failure from the start.

The Leader of the Opposition had a lot to say about the European convention on human rights, but I do not recall the Conservatives ever bringing forward any legislation to deal with the application of article 8, the qualified right to a private life. A Bill that sought to clarify the way that article 8 should apply in our domestic legislation or in our immigration rules was never introduced, so I am not going to take any lessons from the people who never bothered to do that in the first place. This Government are rolling up our sleeves, dealing with the detailed, substantive issues that we face, and thinking of proper, workable solutions to those matters.

The position on article 3 has changed across Europe. In my previous role as Lord Chancellor, I was at the Council of Europe just before the summer recess earlier this year, and I was struck by the sheer range of European partners who want to have this conversation. It is important that the British Government lean into that conversation and seek to work in collaboration with our European partners. The one thing that will not work is simply saying that we are going to come out of the European convention altogether. That is not and will never be the policy of this Government because we believe that reform can be pursued and that this is an important convention, not least because it underpins some of our own returns agreements, including the one with France. The right hon. Lady talked about how many years it would take for us to think about reform of the convention, but as she well knows, it would take just as many years to start renegotiating lots of international agreements that would be affected by us coming out of the convention, so I am afraid that, once again, her solution will not work.

I am always up for working in the national interest because nothing matters more to me than holding our country together and uniting it, but if the Conservatives really wanted to work together in the national interest, they could have started by voting for the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, currently going through the House, that they have voted against at every opportunity. Forgive me if I do not take this newfound conversion to working together in the national interest with much seriousness, but the Conservative party’s track record suggests that it should not be taken seriously.

To not be taken seriously sums up the position of the Conservatives: these are the people that left this Government an abject mess to clear up. They gave up on governing, they gave up on running an effective asylum system, and now they turn up without so much as an apology to the British public, thinking that they have got anything to say that anyone wants to hear.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call the first Back-Bench contribution, may I remind Members that in order to expect to be called to speak in response to a statement, they should have been here from the start of the Home Secretary’s statement? There may be Members bobbing quite unnecessarily.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

The reality is that we need an asylum and immigration system based on fairness and consistency. My constituency of Vauxhall and Camberwell Green is a testament to that, as it is a place that has been made richer because of the people who have come there from all over the world. Some of them have fled persecution and have made a home in my constituency over many years. I meet these people every week in the community, including in schools, where I see those children excited about their future. When this Government came into office last year, they were right to say that their priority was to tackle the huge backlog of unprocessed asylum claims left by their predecessor. Clearing that backlog is a big task, but it is right that we identify who has the right to be here, although introducing more assessments of those who have been here for many years and making new judgments about the safety of a country, will take considerable resources. Is the Home Secretary confident that these changes will not have the unintentional consequence of making it harder to achieve her goal?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I assure my hon. Friend that there will be both the administrative system and the resources needed to underpin the asylum changes that we are making. At the end of the five-year leave to remain period, there is already meant to be an assessment about whether the country of origin remains a safe country or not, but in practice there has ended up being an almost automatic pathway to permanent settlement, and that it what we are changing. I would ask her to look carefully at our protection work and study route, because we will be encouraging those who have sought asylum here and been granted refugee status to go into work or to study. That supports their integration and means that they are making a contribution that will retain public support for the system overall.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is right that the Government are looking for ways to bring order to the asylum system, which was left in total disarray by the Conservatives. Sadly, the Government have been too slow to act.

Britain has a long and proud history of responding with compassion to people fleeing unimaginable horrors. That should continue in a way that is fair and sustainable, so we welcome some of what the Home Secretary has said on that score. However, it is not helpful for the Home Secretary to claim that the country is being torn apart by immigration. Acknowledging the challenges facing our nation is one thing, but stoking division by using immoderate language is quite another.

I welcome the news about safe and legal routes. The Liberal Democrats have called for such routes since they were scrapped by the Conservatives, leading to more small boat crossings, but we have some concerns about the far-reaching detail behind the proposals, which seems to be missing.

The Home Secretary is revoking the legal duty to provide asylum seekers with accommodation, and says that asylum seekers should support themselves and contribute to our society, yet she is still banning them from working so that they can support themselves and contribute to our society, which makes no sense. The Home Secretary relies a lot on Denmark as an example. Denmark lets asylum seekers work after six months, so will she? Can she guarantee that the burden to house asylum seekers will not fall on already struggling local councils? Can she also guarantee that we will not see a wholesale transfer of asylum seekers from hotels to the streets?

The Minister for Border Security and Asylum has announced to the media that asylum seekers could have jewellery confiscated. Is the Home Secretary doing that to raise money or to deter people? Either way, does she acknowledge that many British people will see it as unnecessary and cruel? State-sponsored robbery will certainly not fix a system that costs taxpayers £6 million every day in hotel bills.

If the Government plan to keep their promise to end hotel use, they must process the claims of the 90,000 asylum seekers in the backlog. The Liberal Democrats have a plan to do that within six months using Nightingale-style processing centres. Does the Home Secretary seriously believe that an overstretched Home Office that is yet to clear the existing backlog can also undertake reviews of every refugee’s status every two-and-a-half years?

The UK must continue to lead international efforts to manage large migratory flows. Because the flow of people comes from Europe, the Home Secretary will need to work with the EU on a solution. The Oxford Migration Observatory has identified a clear Brexit effect. That means that people refused asylum in the EU make a second attempt here—a consequence of the Brexit delivered by the Conservatives and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). The Minister for Border Security and Asylum refused earlier to answer whether Brexit has harmed our immigration and asylum system, so I will ask the Home Secretary now. Does she think that Brexit has made it easier or more difficult for this country to control its borders and asylum system? Does she think that reductions in overseas development spending will reduce or increase migratory flows?

We have already made it very clear that we think leaving the ECHR will make no difference to securing our borders and will tear hard-won rights away from British people. It is encouraging that the Home Secretary has said that that is not part of the Government’s plan. We urge the Government to tread carefully and act with fairness, efficiency and compassion for local communities in the UK who want this issue resolved, but also for asylum seekers.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I wish I had the privilege of walking around this country and not seeing the division that the issue of migration and the asylum system is creating across this country. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, unfortunately, I am the one who is regularly called a “fucking Paki” and told to “Go back home”. I know through personal experience and through the experience of my constituents just how divisive the issue of asylum has become in our country.

I wish it were possible to say that there is not a problem here—that there is nothing to see and that in fact these are all extremist right-wing talking points—but the system is broken. It is incumbent on all Members of Parliament to acknowledge how badly broken the system is and to make it a moral mission to fix this system so that it stops creating the division we all see. I do not think it is acceptable or appropriate for people in this place not to acknowledge the real experience of those who sit outside this House. We are supposed to be in this House to reflect that experience, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will approach the debates that we will no doubt have on all these measures in that spirit.

The hon. Gentleman accused this Government of being too slow to act. I have to say that removals of those who have no right to be in our country are up by 23% in the first 18 months of this Labour Government compared with the last 18 months of the former Tory Government. We are a Government who are getting on with the job. We have made 11,000 enforcement raids, 8,000 arrests and, as a result of those raids, more than 1,000 people with no right to be in this country have been removed from this country. This is a Government who are getting on with the job, and this is just the next phase of our work as we deal with the broken migration system we inherited from the Conservatives.

The hon. Gentleman said he thought that people who are waiting on their claim should be given the right to work. I think he knows that would be a huge pull factor and increase rather than decrease the number of channel crossings. That would be our experience in this country, and that is why we are not pursuing that policy. We have said that those who are granted refugee status in this country who can and want to will be able to switch into the protection work and study route, so that they can start contributing to society. That will help them to integrate, and it will help the communities they are living in.

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that it is not the policy of this Government to confiscate jewellery from those who are accessing asylum accommodation. Asylum accommodation is provided to asylum seekers by British taxpayers, and it is right that if people have high-value assets, they contribute to the cost of that asylum accommodation. In my speech, I gave the example of a man who was in supported asylum accommodation, paid for by taxpayers in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine. He received £800 a month from his family and had enough money to acquire an Audi. It is right that the British state should be able to say to such an individual, “Contribute.” We are not saying that we will take everything away and leave that individual destitute, but contribution is a fair principle here. I would be very disappointed to discover that the Liberal Democrats do not support people contributing, when they can afford to, to the cost of their asylum accommodation.

The hon. Gentleman made his remarks on Brexit. I do not have any more to say about that; I am living in the world as it is today. If he has things to say about that, I am sure that the House will continue to hear them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The Home Secretary should know that language that is not acceptable in this House does not become acceptable if it is attributed to others. She might like to apologise for the language that she used.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not mean any discourtesy; I was merely reflecting the truth of words that are used to me.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I think we all appreciate that, but I urge Members to keep their language acceptable in the House.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

I fully support the Home Secretary and her statement. It is a fundamental duty of Government to protect our borders and to know who is coming into this country—something that we have not known for some time. She has set herself a difficult task. Will she agree to publish targets for all the areas that she outlined in her statement, and particularly for a reduction in the number of undocumented and illegal entrants to the country, so that we can check whether the plan is working? If it is not, she may need to alter some of the policies.

[Shabana Mahmood]

What we will not do is set arbitrary targets or caps. We have learned the lessons from previous Governments, and setting a number in that way actually costs public confidence. The better thing to do is to get on with passing the necessary legislation in this House, to deliver the reforms out there in the country, and to assess them as they go. I have no doubt that there will be much debate and scrutiny in this place and others about the success of these reforms, and I look forward to answering questions over the coming months and years.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I am sure that my Committee will want to look closely at the very significant number of announcements that the Home Secretary has made today. She referred on a number of occasions to asylum seekers contributing when they are given support. Has she given any consideration to setting up a deferred payment scheme, much akin to the student loan scheme, so that when people are granted asylum and are in work, they can start to pay back the generosity that they have received?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I very much look forward to my first appearance before the right hon. Lady’s Committee, which I hope we can arrange very soon. I am sure that we will discuss in detail all these proposals, as well as other matters relating to the Home Office. On the point about further contribution, we are exploring that; it is not part of the package of measures that I am announcing today, but I will happily update the House in due course.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Does she agree that enforcing the immigration rules, including on removals, is in the public interest? Will she provide greater detail about the action that the Government will take to balance the public interest against individual rights?

[Shabana Mahmood]

We will bring forward legislation in the next Session on the specific ways that we will deal with the application of article 8 to immigration cases, and on updating our immigration rules. I am happy to discuss with her how that legislation will be developed over the coming weeks, but the intention is to do exactly as I said in my statement. In particular, we will define “family”; set out how the public interest test is to be used, and that it is to be used only in the most exceptional circumstances; and tighten the “who” and “where” of how article 8 claims can be made. Taken together, we believe that those measures will ensure that article 8 is applied exactly as was intended when the European convention on human rights was first agreed to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

We Conservative Members genuinely wish the Home Secretary well, because otherwise, in her own words, the country will start falling apart. It is a good effort—seven out of 10. She clearly has strong conservative instincts, but does she fear that the misery in many of these countries is such that asylum seekers are not really worried about how long they have to wait for their claim to be processed? Does she fear that unless we arrest, detain and deport people very quickly, this problem will just go on and on? The Home Secretary mentioned return hubs; could she say a bit more about those, and will she have an open mind about schemes such as Rwanda?

[Shabana Mahmood]

On Rwanda, no. Turning to the substance of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I do not think he can be right, because claims are down in Europe but up here. I hope that he will approach the debate that we are having with an open mind, ditch the failed policies of his party, and maybe consider more workable solutions proposed by this Government.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

We want to continue the UK’s proud history of offering sanctuary, while simultaneously reducing illegal channel crossings. Refugees fleeing persecution should seek safe and legal routes that are subject to full security checks and controls, not pay people-smuggling gangs to cross the channel in an uncontrolled and unsafe way. I therefore welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement that such routes will be created. How quickly does she envisage them being implemented?

[Shabana Mahmood]

It is absolutely through safe and legal routes that we should seek to bring people into our country, not through the people-smuggling route that originates in the north of France and crosses the channel. I have made an explicit policy choice to disincentivise people from coming through that route; they are paying thousands of pounds to organised immigration criminals to do so. We will privilege those who come through our safe and legal routes. As we get order and control into the system we have inherited, those routes will become more generous over time. They will start modestly—the numbers will be in the low hundreds—but they will grow. We want them to grow, because we want people seeking sanctuary to be able to find safe harbour in this country. We are proud of that position as a Government, so those routes will grow over time. I hope that Members from across the House will support that, but we have to get order and control into our system first.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I think there is general agreement that we have chaos in the immigration and asylum system, and that the Government should be looking for new ways to discourage people from crossing the channel in small boats. Given what the Home Secretary has said today, though, is there a danger that the people we need to come to this country legally—people with the skills that we need to fill the employment gap, and who will keep our NHS working and work in the social care sector—will look at this country now and say, “No, I don’t want to go there”?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I disagree with the hon. Lady—there is no reason to believe that. The people who come into this country on small boats constitute about 40% of all asylum claims. About the same number of people come through a legal route—a visit visa, a work visa or a study visa—and then apply for asylum when that visa comes to an end. I hope that she will recognise that it is important that we stop that abuse of the asylum system, so that we can retain public confidence in the legal migration system that I think we can all agree this country needs.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Over the past few years, three times as many people have come to this country from Ukraine and Hong Kong, fleeing war or persecution, as have come in small boats, and there has been no public outcry about that. The lesson is that the British people are compassionate and generous to refugees when the system is controlled, fair, and gripped by the Government. Over the 15 years that I spent working on asylum issues before being elected, I saw the dysfunction that this Government have inherited. There is nothing progressive about ducking asylum reform and allowing public support for refugees to drain away. How will these reforms address the manifest unfairness in the asylum system, and rebuild public support for the system, and for immigration overall?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. This country is an open, tolerant and generous place, but there are conditions for that openness, tolerance and generosity—there must be order and control in the system. When people can see that a system is not working, and that rules are being abused and not enforced, they rightly feel angry. It is important that this Government deal with those problems, so that we can have public consent, not just for a new system that works better, but for the safe and legal routes that I know my hon. Friend and others in this House want. The two principles that underpin all the reforms that I am announcing today are fairness and contribution. Those are quintessential Labour values, but they are also quintessential British values.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

As the Home Secretary struggles to find these return hubs, she should reflect on the fact that it was her Government who wasted £700 million by giving up an opportunity to Germany and the United States before we got the chance to use it.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; in all the finger-wagging, I sort of missed the question. I think it was something about Rwanda, which I think we can all agree was a totally failed scheme and a waste of money. There are good, ongoing negotiations about return hubs, and I very much hope that we can update the House in due course.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

I hope we can all agree that a strong immigration system does not have to be cruel. When the Tories painted over murals for refugee children, the number of small boat crossings still went up. When they threatened deportations to Rwanda, guess what? The number of crossings still went up. What evidence does the Secretary of State have that taking personal belongings, such as jewellery, from refugees and selling it off actually works as a deterrent? Would it not be a much better use of all our time to focus on the new plans for safe and legal routes that she has outlined?

[Shabana Mahmood]

We are not taking jewellery at the border; I cannot say it any more clearly than that. As my hon. Friend knows from the example I used in my speech, the sort of cases we are going after are those in which people have assets and access to money and can afford quite expensive cars. Those people should make a contribution to the cost of what is currently free asylum support. The two things are not the same, and I urge my hon. Friend to not conflate them. We will not, and never will, seize people’s jewellery at the border; we are not going after their sentimental items, such as wedding rings. We are talking about those who have high-value assets and, having claimed asylum in this country, but before they have been granted refugee status, receive free accommodation on the state. If those people have assets, they should contribute to the cost of that accommodation, as I explained through the example that I used in my speech. That is the sort of case we are talking about, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not perpetuate what is being said about jewellery, because I have clearly ruled that out in the House today.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Labour’s change of course is most welcome, and she has outlined some useful steps. My constituents want to see the Holiday Inn in Bridgwater emptied of migrants and returned to commercial use. To achieve that, she will have to be bolder, so does she agree that anyone who arrives in this country illegally should be detained on entry and deported automatically?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Again, forgive me, but I am not going to take any lessons from the party that gave us hotel use in the first place and is now lecturing me about hotel exit. It is a manifesto commitment of this Government that we will get out of hotels by the end of this Parliament. I hope to do so before then, which is why we are exploring large sites, including military sites. I know that will give rise to more debate in this House over the coming weeks and months, which I look forward to, but the hon. Gentleman is a member of the party that started hotel use; I hope that he will reflect on that fact first.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I support my right hon. Friend’s statement, and particularly her announcement about safe and legal routes. She will know that cities like Cambridge have a long tradition—going back to the Kindertransport—of welcoming people, including those from Syria and Ukraine. I very much hope that she will work closely with authorities like Cambridge city council on measures that can make those routes work.

[Shabana Mahmood]

We will work with local partners, councils, philanthropists and other charitable organisations as we develop safe and legal routes. As I said in my statement, they will take three primary forms: community sponsorship, because we believe that is the best model for integrating refugees into our communities; a route for talented students; and a route for skilled workers. We want to play our full part as a country in providing sanctuary to those truly in need. We need to move to a better system. Safe and legal routes will be the way to do it in the future.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I am sure that all of us across the House can agree that a key aspect of dealing with the asylum system is to deal with the crisis of the backlog, which is enormous. The Home Secretary said in her speech that the Government are looking at a number of large military sites as an alternative to asylum hotels. One large military site already in use is RAF Wethersfield in Essex. I understand from Essex police that Braintree district council has been given funding to the tune of about £2 million to help with community cohesion, because that facility is nearby. However, buses are taking asylum seekers from Wethersfield to such places as Colchester and my constituency of Chelmsford several times a day. That is placing extra strain on Essex police in those areas, yet they are unable to access those funds. Will the Home Secretary commit to providing extra funds to Essex police in those areas to help police them?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I think there were two questions. The first was on the backlog of appeals, which I recognise is far too high. That is why we will create a new independent appeals system so that we can run through these cases more quickly, while fulfilling our obligations to have an independent process and provide early legal advice. On the specific point on Wethersfield and pressures on councils, we work closely with local councils and provide funding to assist with community cohesion and other issues. I will look carefully at the example the hon. Lady has raised if she writes to me.

[Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary’s statement is most welcome. The proposals that she set out today are a significant step in the right direction. The comments that she made about the damage to the social fabric of this country are important. I have a specific question about asylum seekers who have committed crimes and are deported, but are then allowed to make a second application to come back to this country. Will she look at the law to see how that can be addressed?

[Shabana Mahmood]

On those who are convicted of crimes, the combination of the Sentencing Bill changes and what I have said today should lead to the earlier deportation of foreign national offenders from this country. It is important that those individuals face the full force of the law, but we have made a policy decision as a Government that for the vast majority of foreign national offenders, the appropriate thing to do is to move to immediate deportation wherever possible.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

The Home Secretary said that she was exploring

“the possibility of return hubs, with negotiations ongoing.”

Can she tell the House which countries she is negotiating with and how much it will cost?

[Shabana Mahmood]

No. I do not think the hon. Member would expect me to comment on live negotiations with other countries, but those negotiations are ongoing. I hope we will have announcements to make soon.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)]

The Hornsey and Friern Barnet constituency has a long tradition as boroughs of sanctuary, and just today I had an excellent briefing from the Jewish voice for refugees, HIAS+JCORE. Does the Home Secretary agree that there is a real problem with the cliff edge for failed asylum seekers who end up street homeless or rough sleeping, particularly in the Finsbury Park area of my constituency? Will she redouble her efforts to understand the connections between homelessness and the asylum process, so that all people can have shelter as we go into the winter?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. The reality is that there are a lot of failed asylum seekers within the asylum accommodation system, and I am sure she would accept and agree that where somebody has a failed claim and no right to be in this country, the best thing to do is to voluntarily leave the country. We already provide packages to help people make that decision. I do not want to see people homeless in this country, but I know she cannot possibly think that the answer to that is essentially for there to be no consequence of a failed asylum claim. We need to run a system where the rules are enforced, as uncomfortable as that might occasionally be. We recognise that we do not want people in destitution; that is why we make financial packages available for people to voluntarily leave the country, and that will always be the case.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

In its manifesto, Labour promised to defend migrants’ rights and build an immigration system based on compassion and dignity. Instead, we have a policy that is welcomed by Reform UK and has even found favour with Tommy Robinson. Throwing refugees into destitution, denying any meaningful route to citizenship and forcible evictions—where exactly is the compassion and dignity in that?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Given that Tommy Robinson does not even think I am English, he will certainly not be supporting anything I have to say, but let us just leave that there. We do not need to hear any more about what vile racists have to say about anything.

Let me say to the hon. Member that it is not a surprise to find a Scottish National party Member of Parliament defending a broken status quo; that is what they do with the Scottish Government under the SNP every day, and it is what he is doing now. I hope he can agree that good, much-needed reform of a broken system is the best way to retain public support for having an asylum system at all.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is right to seek to bring order to the chaos at our borders—chaos instituted by the Tories—which undermines trust in our state and imposes such costs on communities. She is also right to address the pull factors that lure migrants to their deaths in our channel, with claims of cushy lives in five-star hotels. She is right to insist that our proposals must reflect British values and work in practice. On that, will she say a bit more about how reviewing refugee status every two years will work in practice, particularly in regard to Home Office capacity and in regard to integration?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. We are moving from a situation where refugee status is effectively permanent and the most attractive of all routes into the country to one where it has a more temporary status. I will ensure that the administration and funding are available to run the new system as it is being designed. We are creating the protection work and study route because we believe that the best integration outcomes happen when people are in work and able to contribute. That is how we will retain popular support for having an asylum system. People will transfer, we hope, into the protection work and study route, but if they do not, they will still receive sanctuary from this country under the core protection model, and it will be more regularly reviewed. I hope we can all agree that where a country is safe for an individual to return to, a return should in the normal run of things take place. If people have switched into a work route and are making a contribution, we will set out plans in the coming days for how they can earn their way to an earlier settlement that is longer than what is available to people today—and still longer than what will be available to people on safe and legal routes—but shorter than for those who remain on the core protection model.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Most on the Government Benches disagree with us, but I share the Home Secretary’s admiration for the Danish model. The Danish Finance Ministry publishes data regularly on the fiscal contribution of different profiles of migrants. It shows in Denmark that migrants from MENAPT—the middle east, north Africa, Pakistan and Turkey—are net recipients over the course of their lifetimes. Will the Home Secretary ensure that the Treasury publishes the same data in the same way in this country?

[Shabana Mahmood]

We keep all statistics under review, as the hon. Member knows and as was the case when he was an adviser to a former Home Secretary. The principle that underpins all these reforms is fairness and contribution. We believe that most people want to be able to contribute to this country, because refugees recognise that it is the best way for them to have stability and security in their lives, and it is what is needed for the wider community, too. We think that all refugees, if they are on the protection work and study route, will have that opportunity. I am not interested in models that start separating out different nations from one another. Once somebody has got status in our country, they are on a path to becoming one of us if they are working and contributing.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I agree about the need for a fairer asylum system in which the public can have confidence, but everything that the Home Secretary has proposed today is predicated on decent legal advice being available to people, and we know—I know from 20 years as a Member of Parliament—that that is simply not the case. Despite the best efforts of the advice sector in Bristol, which is proud to be a city of sanctuary, there is a dearth of decent immigration lawyers, and I see too many constituents fall into the hands of dodgy lawyers who will help them to falsify and fabricate claims. What will the Home Secretary do to ensure that that decent legal advice is there?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I agree with my hon. Friend, in that many people have turned up at my advice surgeries believing that there are things I can do as a constituency MP to assist them with their migration claims which I cannot do. They have been completely misled and robbed by unscrupulous individuals. Under the new appeals system that we will set up, legal advice will be available from the start. We believe in access to justice, and people need to have the right legal advice, but providing it early, right at the start of claims, means that we can run a system whereby there can be one claim and one appeal rather than the merry-go-round and whack-a-mole of claims that we see today.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

I welcome the rhetoric in the Home Secretary’s announcement. In fact, I recognise her rhetoric. We have our plan for restoring justice, and she has announced a plan to restore order and control. However, before she puts in her application to join Reform UK—and I would very much welcome her doing so—may I just draw out the difference between our parties?

Unlike the Government, we do not propose to give illegal immigrants the right to stay here for two and a half years after arriving; we do not propose to give them the right to study and work here; we do not propose to allow them to bring their families here; and, crucially, we are not going to contort our law to comply with and fit into the European convention on human rights. The derogations announced by the Home Secretary will not work to stop the lawfare, just as the derogations announced in the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 would not have stopped the lawfare, which is why I opposed that Bill as well. She talks about—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I do not think there was a question in there, Madam Deputy Speaker. As for the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to join his party—hardly any of whose Members appear to be present—let me say to him, “Over my dead body.”

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

I commend the Home Secretary for getting the balance absolutely right. I think that her announcement will be widely welcomed throughout our diverse community in Birmingham, because we know that our generosity of spirit is upheld by our rule of law and the kindness that we show is protected by the justice that we share. Will the Home Secretary confirm that while we will always give sanctuary to those who need our protection, what she is advancing today is in effect a form of earned citizenship, and that only those who step up to the full responsibilities of citizenship will enjoy the full rights of citizenship of this country?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My right hon. Friend has made a powerful point. We are constituency neighbours, and both of us have engaged in many community meetings over the years in which these issues have been discussed, not just by those who are white but by those who are ethnic minority Britons. What unites all Britons, regardless of their background, is a desire for fairness and for a good system in which people can have confidence. My right hon. Friend is entirely right about the concepts of earned citizenship, earned settlement, contribution and fairness. As I said earlier, those are quintessential Labour values, and they are quintessential British values as well, which is why I know that this plan will have support from people throughout the country.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

These steps are definitely a move in the right direction, and I am pleased that the Home Secretary has rejected the Liberal Democrats’ proposal to allow those who arrive in the UK illegally to work, which would, I think, be a ludicrous magnet that would attract more illegal migrants. However, she will be aware that the vast majority of removals from the country are voluntary rather than enforced. What is she planning to do to ramp up enforced removals from the UK, in respect of visa sanctions, and why did the Government vote against their inclusion in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me just say gently to the hon. Gentleman that voluntary removal is the outcome that we should be aiming for. Enforced removals cost more money and are more likely to result in a failed removal, especially if there is such disruption that the pilot in charge of the plane says that he or she will not take the individual concerned. That often costs the British taxpayer much more. It is value for money for voluntary removals to take place wherever possible, but we will pursue all types of removal, voluntary as well as enforced, along with deportations of foreign national offenders. Our track record over the past 18 months shows that we got those numbers up by 23% to just over 48,000, doing better than the Conservatives did over their last 18 months in government. As for the issue of visa sanctions, all I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that these were powers that the Conservatives acquired but did not use.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for the measures that she has introduced to tackle abuse of our asylum system and clamp down on those who are taking advantage of this country’s generosity. The Government have already closed 200 hotels since coming to power, but can my right hon. Friend confirm that her Department is expediting the measures that she has announced so that we can restore public confidence?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I can assure my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour that we are moving at pace on the exit of hotels. We have already made good progress, having closed a number of them. The number of hotels that remain has fallen from the peak that we inherited to just under 200, but we will go further and faster. We are looking at large sites, including military sites, and there will be more announcements about that in due course. As for the wider proposals, some require consultation while others require legislation—I know that they were debated with real vigour in the House—but we will aim to pass these measures as quickly as possible, because I agree with my hon. Friend about the need for us to make a rapid transition to a better system in which we can all have more confidence, to introduce the safe and legal routes that are the viable alternative and the right alternative, and to persuade people not to get on to a dangerous boat in the north of France instead.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

The Home Secretary has spoken a great deal about contribution, but one of the most powerful forms of contribution to our country is getting a job and paying taxes, which the Home Secretary will not allow people seeking asylum to do, despite the fact that it can be done in Denmark. She has said that pull factors cause an aversion to that, but a study conducted by the University of Warwick, which looked at 30 other studies, found that there was no long-term correlation between labour market access and destination choice. Will she therefore review her decision not to offer people seeking asylum the right to work, so that they can pay their own way in our country?

[Shabana Mahmood]

What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is what I said in response to a question from another Liberal Democrat earlier today. It would be a pull factor, because we know that the ability to work in this country illegally is already a pull factor, which is why we are clamping down on illegal working—we have seen 11,000 raids, 8,000 arrests and the removal of 1,000 people with no right to be in this country. Let me also say to the hon. Gentleman that I have had the misfortune of having to look through the TikTok accounts and the various other ways in which the organised immigration criminals advertise their packages for people to get on to a boat in the channel in the north of France, and it is in all those marketing materials as well. We also know from the intelligence that we gather that that is one of the pull factors, and we have to deal with it.

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, which I fully support. My constituency, like hers, is incredibly diverse, with people originating in countries across the world settled and contributing to our communities. One thing that people from all backgrounds have in common is that they detest the unfairness that the Conservative party allowed to creep into our asylum and immigration system. They also detest the demonising of their neighbours by members of Reform. Does the Home Secretary agree that the choice is clear: a choice between the chaos, handed over by the Conservatives, of a system taken advantage of by those who can pay the people smugglers, and a system of fair and safe legal routes for those who need them?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My own parents were migrants to this country in the late ’60s and ’70s. Migration is woven into the story of my family, and those of thousands of people I represent in my constituency of Birmingham Ladywood. I agree with my hon. Friend that ethnic minority Brits are just like every other kind of British: we value fairness and contribution as well. That is why those principles sit underneath all the policy announcements that I have made today.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

It is not people seeking sanctuary who are tearing our country apart; it is toxic, racist narratives and the scapegoating of migrants and asylum seekers for what is nothing to do with them. The chronic housing crisis and the running down of public services are not caused by migrants; they are caused by political decisions and by the grotesque inequality in this country. Does the Secretary of State understand that attempting to out-Reform Reform is actually just boosting this baseless, far-right narrative and will only deepen divisions, when we urgently need leadership and hope instead?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me tell the hon. Lady that I could not care less about what any other political party has to say about these matters. I do not care what other politicians are saying on the television. I do not care what other activists are saying either. I care about the fact that I have an important job to do, and I can see that there is a problem here that needs to be fixed. If there was not a problem, I would not be pretending there was one. There is a genuine problem in the asylum system and we need someone to sort it out, not to pretend that it does not exist, which I am afraid is one of the things that fuels division in the first place.

Since I have been Home Secretary, my own constituents have been telling me directly of abuses in the visa system that they can see with their own eyes, long before any officials in Whitehall have ever clocked on to those things. When we see something broken, we have a moral responsibility to fix it and to make sure that the fact that it is broken is not fuelling division in our country. Let me also say to the hon. Lady that it is Green party politicians who are absolute hypocrites, because they talk great language in here and then oppose asylum accommodation in their own constituencies.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. As the Member for Bradford West, I am really proud that Bradford is a city of sanctuary. The Home Secretary is aware that I am a former foster parent to an Afghan refugee, and my concern is about the reform of article 8 that the Home Secretary suggests. Had somebody like my foster son come to this country and not had a parent, he would not be able to apply for his only sibling to come over. The same would potentially apply to a Ukrainian woman who has young children and cannot contribute because of the trauma that she has experienced. Will the Home Secretary meet me when she is doing her consultation on safe passage for refugees and asylum seekers?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Of course, I will always happily meet my hon. Friend. We made it clear in the asylum policy statement that these measures do not apply to unaccompanied children and other vulnerable groups. We will set out our specific policies in relation to vulnerable groups, including unaccompanied children, separately; these measures do not apply to them. She will know that the scheme for Ukrainians is a bespoke temporary scheme that was brought in by the Conservative party when it was in government and supported not just by our party, but across this House. I expect the rules of that scheme to apply in the normal way, but I will of course discuss with her the issues that she raises.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for a copy of her speech. It states that

“the public rightly expect that we can determine who enters this country, and who must leave,”

and I agree. One thing that is missing, though, is verifying the people who come in. We Conservatives put forward the idea of age verification, which many other countries have. Is that part of her plan? If not, would she consider putting it back in the plan, so that we know that those coming in are who they say they are?

[Shabana Mahmood]

If the hon. Gentleman reads the asylum policy statement, he will know that, on age verification, we are pursuing artificial intelligence as a more effective and workable model, unlike that suggested by the Conservative party, which was all about MRI scans and bones. We believe we have a much more effective way of ensuring that age verification is available and that the methodology for it actually works.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. There is currently a loophole in UK employment law that means that people who are self-employed are not subject to right-to-work checks, which means that many people work illegally in the gig economy, with no potential risk to their “non-employer”. Will the Home Secretary discuss how we can close that loophole while simultaneously ensuring that we uphold rights for British workers, but also the rule of law and the remainder of our rights within the UK?

[Shabana Mahmood]

We are closing that loophole through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, and it is important that colleagues support us when that is debated again on Wednesday. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that closing loopholes and ensuring that everyone is subject to a right-to-work check, thereby building support for a rule-of-law approach to the way that people access employment in this country, is incredibly important. I hope that all colleagues, even Opposition Members, will support those measures later this week.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Nowhere in the Home Secretary’s statement does she put this into any kind of global context. Millions of people have become refugees or homeless all around the world, and more than two thirds of them are housed by the southern countries—the poorest countries in the world—with the least resources to do it. She is putting in draconian measures against refugees trying to come to this country, failing to recognise that more than 6,000 of those who have crossed the channel this year come from Afghanistan, a war-torn country that we helped to make into a war-torn country. She is instead trying to appease the most ghastly right-wing, racist forces all across Europe in undermining and walking away from the European convention on human rights—a convention created by the post-war Labour Government. Does she not recognise that history is going to be a harsh judge of this Government for undermining the global humanitarian principles behind the ECHR and the universal declaration of human rights?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Not for the first time, I am a little mystified as to what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. He starts with the global context. I guess my starting point is different from his, because I start with our domestic context first. He ought to know that in this country there have already been bespoke schemes for the resettlement of people from Afghanistan, so perhaps he could read up on those schemes. He should also have heard from what I said in my statement that we remain absolutely committed to offering sanctuary to those who are fleeing conflict abroad. We think that the best way to do that is not to encourage people to get on a boat in the channel by paying thousands and thousands of pounds to people smugglers.

By the way, it is not just smuggling that is a vile crime; those individuals are involved in all sorts of other, disgusting organised crime. They should not be in receipt of money from vulnerable people. I want to disincentive people from making that choice, and I want to incentivise people to come on safe and legal routes instead. If the right hon. Gentleman had actually read the asylum policy statement, he would know that it is the policy position of this Government to provide more safe and legal routes. Once he has done more reading, I will be happy to answer more of his questions.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I remember when the Prime Minister pledged an

“immigration system based on compassion and dignity”,

yet now we have an immigration Minister tweeting

“Deport, Deport, Deport”

and this policy announcement, which I am afraid scrapes the bottom of the barrel. If we are being frank, is this not just a desperate attempt to triangulate with Reform? Like some of the other terrible policy errors that have been made in recent months, it is not only morally wrong but another policy that is set to push away Labour voters. Why not recognise that now, rather than recognising it in a few months’ time and making a U-turn?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I really caution my hon. Friend not to defend a broken status quo. He should know that it is foreign national offenders who are deported from this country, and I hope he can agree that foreign national offenders should be deported from this country. We should not be keeping convicted criminals in our nation for a day longer than is absolutely necessary. I say to him that the thing that is morally wrong is knowing that we have a broken system and then either pretending that it is not broken or defending a broken status quo. I will never tolerate that.

I have to say to my hon. Friend that, as I have said to Opposition Members today, I do not care for what other parties are saying on these matters or for what other politicians have to say either. First and foremost is my moral responsibility to the people of this country as I fulfil my duty as Home Secretary. I have a series of reforms that are underpinned by the values of the Labour party and the values of the British people: fairness and contribution. I hope my hon. Friend will reflect on that as he reads up on the detail of these reforms.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

In February, at Second Reading of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, I raised the issue of the generous financial and accommodation package that is advertised on the Government’s own website under “Asylum support: What you’ll get”, which outlines the provision of an asylum support enablement—ASPEN—card with £49.18 of cash loaded on to it each week, on top of free accommodation, even if someone has been refused asylum. The cards can be used for gambling and have been over 6,000 times, according to a freedom of information request. In May, I raised this issue again when I asked the previous Home Secretary what she planned to do to address the pull factors of free cash and a free home. Can this Home Secretary now commit to address my previous calls that these pull factors must be mitigated to create a deterrent, and will those on section 4 or section 95 support have the benefit withdrawn under these measures?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I urge the hon. Member to look at the detail of the asylum policy statement, the whole point of which is to deal with the pull factors that we know are drawing people to get on a dangerous boat and cross the channel illegally. The upshot of the reforms will be to deal with those pull factors, and he will know that we have said in the asylum policy statement that a relatively small number—just under 10%—of those in asylum accommodation already have the right to work, and in future we will expect them, where they have the right to work, to work.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Home Secretary is arguing that what will heal this divided nation is to get somebody who we have agreed is a refugee, with a well-founded fear of persecution, to feel a permanent sense of limbo because they will never be able to plan for the long term for them or their family, because their status will always be uncertain because they could still face deportation. Her consultation document, which I have read, talks about using enforced return for families. Last year alone, 10,000 children, many of whom are with their families, were granted refugee status in this country. I know she plans to consult, but given that this involves children, can she be clear with us about whether she intends to incarcerate children with their families as part of enforced return, or to separate children from their mums and dads as part of this policy? How will we continue to uphold the UN convention on the rights of the child in terms of education?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I encourage my hon. Friend to look at the detail of the asylum policy statement on our intentions for the protection “work and study” route, which in future will be the route by which refugees can contribute and earn their way to settlement in this country. Of course, it is the express intention of this policy statement to disincentivise people coming on dangerous channel crossings, and to incentivise and to push people towards what will, over time, become more generous, safe and legal routes of entry into this country, with more privileged status when it comes to earning permanent settlement.

Let me say to my hon. Friend on failed asylum-seeking families, because I think that important context was missing from her question, that there are 700 Albanian families at the moment who have made asylum claims and whose asylum claims have failed. The only reason they have not been removed from the country is the policies on not removing families—that is, parents with their children. We are not going to separate parents and their children, but we are going to consult on the removal of support and how we effectively and safely ensure that those individuals are returned. However, we will of course want to see most of those people return voluntarily instead.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Stoking fear and division through the kind of performative cruelty trailed in the media this weekend has consequences. We saw that in Caerphilly last month in that where Reform UK spread information, Ukrainians spoke of intimidation. When the Home Secretary speaks of unity, surely the lesson from Caerphilly is that imitating Reform does not create unity and does not win trust, but that standing firm on values does.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am sorry, but that is just unserious from the right hon. Lady. I am sorry to find that the Reform party is living rent free in so many people’s heads, but I can assure hon. Members that it is living nowhere near mine.

These policy proposals are designed to fix what we all know to be true, which is that we have a broken system that is driving division across our country. I see that in my own constituency, and I hope the right hon. Lady is not suggesting otherwise. I have seen that with my own eyes and it is my own experience in my own constituency, where over 70% of people are not white and most of them have a migration story just like my own. These are matters of great interest across our country—across every type of community in our country—and it is incumbent on any Government who want to make sure we can run a decent system and not fuel division in our country to pursue the sorts of reforms that we are talking about. They are underpinned by what I would have hoped were values her party could have signed up to as well—that is, fairness and contribution.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, which I support. This reform of the system is long overdue. It is about reforming safe and legal routes, and cracking down on illegal working and those abusing the asylum and immigration system, yet it maintains support for those that need our support, such as those fleeing war in Ukraine and others who come here legally. It is about fairness. When will these reforms be in place so that residents can see the outcomes of these actions?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We will pursue the consultation on measures that require it as quickly as possible, and there will be legislation in the coming months—certainly in the second Session—which we will obviously seek, subject to the agreement of the House, to pass as quickly as possible.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

The Home Secretary’s asylum plans still have a gaping hole in the middle of them in that she does not know what to do with failed asylum seekers who cannot be returned home. Her statement says that she is exploring possibilities with third countries. Can I suggest that she swallows her pride, and speaks to a third country that we know is willing: Rwanda?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I say to Conservative Members that they are going to have to ditch their addiction to Rwanda. The scheme did not work, and nobody in the country supported it. As the hon. Member and Opposition Members well know, when we are negotiating with other countries about possible agreements, the one thing we do not do is publicise them before an agreement is reached.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary is aware that, in the absence of safe and legal routes, the law forces a refugee to set foot on UK soil to seek asylum, which has led to dangerous journeys and no checks or vetting taking place. She has referenced sponsorship as the primary safe route. Could she clarify whether this can be applied for from outside the UK, and what consideration has she made of recommendations by Safe Passage to implement a visa refugee scheme, so that applications can be done from outside the UK, with cases assessed, vetted and decided before a refugee embarks on a dangerous journey here?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The whole purpose of the new safe and legal routes is that those individuals are accepted as refugees before they enter the United Kingdom. The point is that they never pay thousands of pounds to illegal smugglers along any sort of route on which they may travel. In fact, exactly as she says, we want to accept people as refugees before they set foot on UK soil, and once they are here on a safe and legal route, they will access permanent settlement more quickly than on any other route in this country. It is good that the Government are seeking to incentivise people to come through safe and legal routes, not pay thousands and thousands of pounds to criminals along the way.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

It was a genuinely good statement—as far as it went—from which we learnt that countries could be determined to be safe at some point in the future and refugees from them returned home. What would be the Home Secretary’s criteria for safety, and which countries does she have in her sights? For example, would they include the Council of Europe and NATO member, ECHR signatory and EU candidate, Turkey?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am not going to provide a running commentary on countries. The right hon. Member will know that I referenced Syria specifically in my statement. Many thousands of Syrians were making claims related to the regime that was in place before, during the conflict, but it has fallen and there is a new regime, so we have already made a small number of voluntary returns to Syria. Other countries are exploring enforced returns to Syria, given the change in circumstances there, and we will of course look at doing the same. In the normal run of things, when it comes to considering whether a country is safe for a person we will keep such matters under review, as I know he would expect us to do.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

Yes, we have a broken system, but does the Home Secretary really believe that people having to flee violence, war and persecution means they have won a golden ticket if they are lucky enough to get refugee status here? Does she understand that such rhetoric is deeply offensive and feeds division? Does she accept that shutting down routes for settlement will damage integration in our communities, and will only strengthen Reform, not beat it? Would not a better way of measuring contribution be to allow people to work and pay taxes?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I gently point out to my hon. Friend that we have a large number of failed asylum seekers—that is to say, people whose claims have not succeeded and who do not have the right to be in this country who are still here, despite their home country being safe. Many people who claim asylum in this country have passed through multiple safe countries across Europe before they end up in the north of France. We have seen claims go down in Europe and increase here in the UK. I would just encourage her to remember that we are opening safe and legal routes. The whole point of the reforms is to disincentivise the journeys that lead to criminals earning a lot of money and people being in the north of France, and to move to a system where we have safe legal routes and we accept people as refugees before they set foot on UK soil. That way, when they come here they can earn, contribute and be fully integrated through models such as community sponsorship, which we know work.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I thank the Home Secretary for sharing her experiences earlier and thoroughly condemn the sort of behaviour she described. It is unacceptable in any case.

The Secretary of State described rapid decisions on appeals. Does she also believe, as I do, that rapid decision making on the initial application of asylum seekers should be promoted and highlighted? Will she consider putting a timescale target for decision—a matter of weeks, not years—in place in her Department?

In her remarks over the weekend on our Ukrainians guests, she described them going home when peace breaks out. May I remind her that peace will not mean safety? Please can she assure the House that a more considered and considerate response may be found? Will she meet me and Ukrainian guests to resolve that issue?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me just make a point about Ukraine that I think was not understood fully by those who were questioning me at the weekend. It is a bespoke scheme created only for Ukrainians, with its own rules. It is not subject to what we have set out in the asylum policy statement. The hon. Gentleman will know, as is the position in relation to our discussions with the Ukrainian Government, that those individuals are welcome in our country so that we can keep them safe. They are not classed as refugees, because they are here temporarily on that scheme. We will always uphold our obligations under that scheme—we supported it in Opposition, too.

The hon. Gentleman is right on the point about rapid decisions. It is important that decisions made at first instance, but also through an appeals process, are of high quality. That is one of the ways we have to ensure that they do not get constantly appealed. Our current system means that even though we have made huge progress on decreasing the backlog on initial decisions, the appeals backlog has grown. Over time, as people sit in the appeals queue, more rights are accrued. Unlike with any other type of legal order in this country, the order to leave this country not being complied with still allows people to accrue more rights in the interim. We do not run a good and effective appeals system at the moment, which is why we are going to create a new one, but I can assure him that at its heart will be early legal advice and truly independent adjudicators making the decisions, but doing so in a way that allows them to fast-track claims that have a low chance of success and make sure that the right decision is made quickly— one claim, one appeal—with a certain outcome at the end, not subject to years and years of a merry-go-round around the courts.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Before I call the next Member, can I just make a plea that we keep questions and answers concise?

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly welcome the measures which I believe will tackle a failure by the previous Government to maintain one of the most basic fundamental functions of government: control of our borders. My constituents are worried and angry about the proliferation of houses in multiple occupation to house asylum seekers in towns and villages that already have significant social and economic problems. Will the measures lead to lower demand from the Home Office for that type of housing for asylum seekers and the return of HMOs over time to use as family homes for local people who need affordable housing?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The totality of the reforms will, we believe, lead to less pressure on accommodation, so I think the short answer to my hon. Friend’s question on HMOs is yes. I recognise the problems he notes, because HMOs are a big problem in my constituency too.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I really do thank the Home Secretary for her statement. This is a tiny step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. To truly show that the Home Secretary is listening to the British people, does she agree with me that if you enter this country illegally, you should never be allowed to stay?

[Shabana Mahmood]

We will always abide by our obligations under the refugee convention and we do believe in offering sanctuary, but we make no apology for the fact that those who enter illegally by crossing the channel will have a longer path to settlement. We are deliberately incentivising other safe and legal routes into the country to show that that is the proper way to seek sanctuary in this country—rather than paying criminals a lot of money and put lives at risk.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

When we introduce new legislation and new procedures, it is important that we calculate the implications and where they could lead us. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), I have worked—for decades, to be frank—with asylum families, and in particular children. What I find is that the children are extremely traumatised. What we try to do is give them security and peace of mind for the family. Now what will happen is that every 30 months that security could be undermined and they could face removal. Could I ask my right hon. Friend whether she has consulted the Children’s Commissioner, education psychologists or others about the implications of what she is saying today?

The other issue is that in the past, she has mentioned the forced removal of families. I just remind my colleagues that in the past that was happening and families were often detained in Harmsworth detention centre. I used to visit the children. It was one of the most distressing experiences I have had as an MP. Can she give me the assurance that no child will be placed in detention as a result of this policy change?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me tell my right hon. Friend first that there will, in the usual way, be a full equality impact assessment for all these measures. As the consultations take place and as the legislation is drafted and then debated in this House, I am sure all the individuals he mentions will have their say—I would expect them to, as well. I gently remind him that when we are talking about the asylum system today, we are not just talking about those who arrive illegally on small boats; we are also talking about people who arrive on visitor visas, student visas and work visas who, the minute those visas come to an end, immediately claim asylum. We know that the relative generosity of that route—the effective automatic permanent settlement after five years—is one of the things that attracts that behaviour. It is right that we clamp down on that and disincentivise people trying to stay in this country in that way, and instead incentivise people who will come through safe and legal routes. As we get order and control in the system, the safe and legal routes will start relatively modest, but I anticipate them growing more generous over time because this country is fundamentally open, tolerant and generous. [Interruption.]

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the honest and realistic assessment the Secretary of State has made today in relation to the broken asylum system and the division that immigration is causing across the United Kingdom. She has been innovative in some of the proposals she has made. Only time will tell whether the potential loopholes will undermine the honourable objective she has set, namely to cut back on illegal immigration. In my view, the only way of doing that is to make sure that people who enter this country breaking the law get returned immediately. On the ECHR and the expanded interpretation, can she give us an assurance that whatever changes she makes will apply fully to Northern Ireland, where, unfortunately, the previous Government embedded the ECHR in the Windsor framework, which has proven already to be a means of undermining immigration policy?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Minister for Immigration has met his counterparts in the devolved Administrations. We will keep all those conversations going, because this is a reserved matter rather than a devolved one.

Madam Deputy Speaker, if I can just say that, in case the microphone did not pick up my answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on the detention of children, I can give him the assurance he sought in his question.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I urge caution. We are in this predicament because the very people who championed Brexit failed to warn of the consequences of leaving the Dublin agreement. Since then, the EU has moved on and will introduce its asylum and migration management regulations next summer. Instead of creating insecurity, what discussions has the Home Secretary had with the EU on how we can explore working with the regulations to protect our human rights and responsibilities through this progressive and pragmatic approach?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Countries across Europe are tightening up their rules, and it is important that we do not become or remain an outlier. In fact, it is a regular complaint of many of our counterparts in Europe that at least 30% of those who travel across Europe are seeking ultimately to come to the United Kingdom. It is something that has come up in all the conversations I have had with multiple counterparts across Europe, and it is one of the reasons why we have to ensure that we have a system that works and that we get our own house in order.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

A constituent wrote to me asking whether I could get a wriggle on with his EU settlement scheme application. We checked with the Home Office and it turned out that he was subject to a live deportation order. It was issued in 2017, and we did deport him. Somehow he got back into the country and made his application. I said to the Home Secretary’s predecessor that if she was prepared to, with a stroke of her pen, re-enact that deportation order, then I was prepared to drive him to the airport myself. Now that we have a Home Secretary who is going to get a grip of this situation, I offer the same thing again.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I look forward to welcoming the hon. Member’s application to join immigration enforcement. If he wants to write to me about that specific example, I will look into it. I know that the systems at the Home Office need a lot of tightening. It is work that my predecessor started when she brought a new permanent secretary into the Department to make the necessary changes, and it is work I will continue.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that this system is absolutely smashed to smithereens. It is smashed to smithereens because of 14 years of destruction from the Conservatives. Of course we all want to see the control of our borders. We want to stop the boats, and we want to see better and safer legal routes. But I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench this: when the opposition parties—the Tories, Reform UK, not to mention that odious racist chancer who is bankrolled by the world’s wealthiest man—are championing our policies, is it not time to question whether we are actually in the right place?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I have a lot of time and high regard for my hon. Friend. What I would say is that he should not allow mischief making by those he names to throw him or our party off course, and I hope he has heard the support from our own Back Benchers today who can see that these changes are necessary to fix the broken system that he agrees we have. I would also ask Members to please not keep repeating the name of a man who does not even think I am English. I find that very offensive, and I would ask everyone to refrain from mentioning him. We do not need to do that. We do not need to go there. Do not fall for the mischief that others are making here. We know that there is a broken system, and it is our solemn responsibility as a Labour party and a Labour Government to fix it.

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I agree that the asylum system is broken, and I welcome the commitment to safe and legal routes for people to seek asylum, but there is much in these measures that I think is cruel, impractical and will not work. One example is making people have reviews every two-and-a-half years for 20 years. It is cruel because those people are not going to be able to get a sense of security and safety, and it is counterproductive because they will struggle to get good-quality, secure and high-paid jobs and contribute to our society. It will not work.

We know that the Home Office cannot cope with what it currently has to do. My casework is full of people whose papers get lost when they are trying for immigration status. The digital right-to-work system does not work properly, and we have a backlog of asylum claims. How is the Home Secretary going to make this work?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me assure the hon. Member that I am making changes that I will ensure will work. I make no apology for disincentivising routes into this country that basically make people smugglers very, very rich men and fuel other disgusting crimes across Europe and in this country. It is right that we reserve a privileged status for those who get into work and education, as refugees on core protection will be able to do, as well as those who come via safe and legal routes. That should be the proper way that people come into this country and it has better integration outcomes as well.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

Earlier the Home Secretary advised that I wait for the detail of the reforms before criticising them. Now the detail is out, and I am afraid it does not reassure me in the slightest. It is hard to know where to begin when so much of what has been announced flies in the face of decency and compassion, but I will focus on family reunion. Limiting access to family reunion for refugees will force children and spouses into the hands of the very people smugglers that the Home Secretary is seeking to smash. It will push them into unsafe dinghies, risking their lives. Would she be comfortable with this?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I urge my hon. Friend to look at the proposals on protection work and study and on safe and legal routes. It is right that we try to pivot to a more humane system that privileges those who come not via paying people smugglers a lot of money. On family reunification, British citizens at the moment have to meet thresholds and various qualifying tests before they can apply for family reunion. I think it is right that we bring the position in relation to refugees through the protection work and study route to the same level.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Members will have seen how many Members are on their feet. I will need to finish this statement by 8 pm, so please bear that in mind, because I want to get everybody in.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I welcome a sizeable amount of what the Home Secretary has said and is trying to do. Earlier this year the immigration and asylum chamber of the upper tribunal in the case of IX reiterated the established administrative law requirements that Government decision making in asylum cases be proportionate and reasonable and not expose individuals to prolonged or indefinite uncertainty—something that the Home Office used to criticise, under the Tories in fact, as a lengthy limbo period. Can the Home Secretary clarify how her proposal to require a 20-year period before someone granted asylum may obtain a permanent right to remain complies with these fundamental principles?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I do believe it complies with those principles. At the moment at the end of the five years there is already supposed to be a safe country review. We will bring that forward and make the safe country review a real thing. As I have said, we will also create, alongside the core protection route, the protection work and study route, because we want to encourage people to make a contribution to this country.

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

In a previous life I was a 999 call taker with the ambulance service and had the awful experience of answering a call from a distraught family desperate for help. I could not help them save their loved one because they could not understand the life-saving instructions I was trying to give them over the phone due to the language barrier. Does the Home Secretary agree that there is nothing progressive about defending a status quo where vulnerable people are unable to access emergency services due to an inability to speak our language?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I endorse every word that she said.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The common travel area allows movement across the UK, Northern Ireland and to the Republic of Ireland. It has been reported in the Irish media that a UK Home Office official briefed the Irish Department of Justice in regard to what the Home Secretary is bringing forward. Can I ask her what is the Irish Government’s response to the proposals?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am afraid I do not recognise the briefing the hon. Member refers to.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I can recall a predecessor of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary describing the Home Office as not being fit for purpose. I have never known a time when there was not a backlog of cases with the Home Office. This set of proposals will require people’s cases to be reviewed every 30 months. Is that a realistic aim, and is the Home Secretary clear that she can make the Home Office fit for the purpose she has set out today?

[Shabana Mahmood]

We are already supposed to do safe country reviews, and we will ensure that they are done every two-and-a-half years. We will also ensure that wherever possible refugees can move into the protection work and study route instead. I do recognise the phrase “not fit for purpose”. I have been clear that I do not think the Home Office is fit for purpose yet. There is new management at the Home Office, and they are getting on with making the changes that are necessary. I will ensure that it is both fit for purpose and able to enact the reforms I have set out today.

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)]

Sivanandan warned:

“What Enoch Powell says today, the Conservative Party says tomorrow, and the Labour Party legislates on the day after.”

Seizing valuables belonging to asylum seekers, making refugees wait 20 years before they can apply to settle permanently, and deporting entire families, including children who have built new lives here, because their country of origin is deemed safe—these measures are straight out of the fascist playbook. The Home Secretary has described herself as a child of immigrants, so I ask her: is she proud to introduce measures that punish and persecute desperate and vulnerable people seeking sanctuary? How does it feel to kick away the ladder and be praised by fascist Tommy Robinson? I must add—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. [Interruption.] Order!

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will clarify a point of fact. The hon. Member said that I describe myself as a child of immigrants. It is not a description; it is just a statement of fact. Everything else she said is beneath contempt.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

Migrants make immeasurable contributions to our communities. In Manchester Rusholme, Wendy, who has Jamaican heritage, is a community health champion; Najma, from Somalia, leads local initiatives to tackle knife crime; and Hafsa, who grew up in the middle east, leads nature improvement projects. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the language we use to talk about immigration must reflect the important role that immigrants play in the functioning of our nation?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I absolutely agree about the contribution that migrants and refugees make to our country. I am making these reforms precisely because I can see a broken system that is creating deep division across our country, and it is important that we not only fix the system but retain public consent to having an asylum system at all.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The Home Secretary said that nothing matters more to her than “holding our country together”. Does she accept that, to succeed, her reforms, including her adjustments to article 8 of the European convention, must apply equally across the whole United Kingdom? If so, how will that be secured in Northern Ireland, given the impeding effect of article 2 of the Windsor framework?

[Shabana Mahmood]

All the measures in the asylum policy statement are compliant with the Windsor framework.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Deporting families after they have resettled here because their country is deemed safe is simply wrong. Will the Home Secretary tell us how the Government determine what a safe country is? Will she publish the criteria? She mentioned the DRC; is she really saying that it is a safe country? Will she publish all existing returns agreements, so that Members of this House, and indeed the British public, can properly scrutinise them? I have done the reading, and that is not in the detail.

[Shabana Mahmood]

We already do safe country reviews, and we would seek to continue that. Those reviews, and our position on different countries, are publicly available; in fact, most pass through the House, in secondary legislation. I make no apology for a system that will privilege those who come to this country through a safe and legal route, rather than those who paid people smugglers thousands of pounds to end up in the north of France.

The point on visa sanctions is related to the fact that many countries do not comply with us when we seek to return people lawfully to their country. That is just one of the tools we have at our disposal to ensure compliance from those countries, so that they take their people back.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

The UK has historical and ongoing involvement in unlawful military interventions, alongside allies such as the United States and Israel. How does the Home Secretary assess the correlation between these foreign policy actions and wars, and the displacement of populations, resulting in increased numbers of refugees and asylum seekers arriving in the UK? What steps will her Government take towards proactive peace-building initiatives and the restoration of overseas humanitarian aid, which could address the root causes of displacement and reduce the long-term pressures on our asylum system?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The Government always play their full part in peace processes wherever we can, and we have put our shoulder to the wheel on the delicate diplomatic efforts required to bring conflicts to an end, but that is not relevant to what we are discussing today. We have a broken system today. We have thousands of people stuck in the system today, and thousands of people coming on boats through the north of France, for reasons that have nothing to do with the British Government. We still fulfil our international obligations, and will do so going forward as well, but I make no apology for wanting to move to a system in which we incentivise safe and legal routes instead.

[Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)]

I agree with the Government that we desperately need to tackle illegal migration. I hear that on the doorsteps, and I see it in my mail each week in Birmingham Erdington. How quickly after the changes come into force will the Government ensure that safe and legal routes are in place? That will be key to stopping the boats. How will the Government deal with those who claim to be minors but are clearly not? That is another massive issue.

[Shabana Mahmood]

We are moving to a system of age verification, based on artificial intelligence modelling, which we believe is effective in verifying someone’s true age. Let me assure my hon. Friend that we will move to consult and legislate on these measures as quickly as possible. I am seized of the need to move quickly to restore public confidence. As we get order and control into the system, we will start opening up the safe and legal routes. They will be modest to begin with, but they will grow and be more generous over time, as we restore order and control.

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

The Daresbury asylum hotel in Runcorn has been emptied, thanks to my by-election campaign. What assurances can the Secretary of State give my constituents that the many houses in multiple occupation in Runcorn will be emptied of illegal migrants and criminals under her Government, and that they will be deported without delay, never to be allowed legal entry into the UK?

[Shabana Mahmood]

It is this Government who are exiting hotels. We will do so—it is a manifesto commitment —by the end of the Parliament, and I intend to bring that forward as much as possible. Let me say to the hon. Member that we will always fulfil our international obligations, but I make no apology for wanting to privilege safe and legal routes over illegal entry into the country.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Every single day that I campaigned in South Derbyshire while a candidate and since becoming an MP last July, immigration has been the No. 1 issue dividing my communities. They—we are talking about Labour voters—have been pushed either to apathy or towards Reform. I cannot thank the Home Secretary enough for the statement, because finally my constituents feel heard. How frequently can they expect an update, so that they can see that the promises being made today will result in delivery sooner, rather than later?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and her question. Let me assure her that I know that the way to build public confidence in the new system is not just to announce the reforms here, but to get on with legislating, and with implementing the reforms, so that her constituents and mine, and people across the country, can see the impact. and how we can fix the system. Then public confidence in having an asylum system at all can be retained.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

Stripping people of the very few belongings that they have left after fleeing war and persecution runs contrary to the very principle of asylum, which is rooted in protection and compassion. How do such measures help address the real root causes of displacement and the refugee crisis, which are war, destabilisation and persecution, and dangerous crossings?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I should not be surprised to see the hon. Gentleman indulging in misinformation. In my statement I gave the example of somebody who has £800 a month from their family, has enough money to acquire an Audi and is not expected to contribute to the cost of his asylum support at all. It is right that we change that. British citizens have to give account of their assets before they access benefit support. I do not think that the individuals we are talking about should be in a privileged position if they have such access to money, or assets of high value. I made it clear that this is not about taking jewellery—wedding rings and so on—off people at the border; that will never happen, but it is right that those who have assets be asked to contribute to the cost of their asylum accommodation.

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Under the previous Government, we had hostile policy after hostile policy, from the “go home” vans to the Windrush scandal and Rwanda, all of which failed to deter people from making dangerous crossings and failed to fix the asylum system. What is dividing communities is the constant anti-refugee rhetoric pumped into our politics. That has resulted in the vile racism that the Home Secretary, I and my mother have been subjected to. Let us be clear: some people will never be appeased, and will constantly stir up hatred in our communities.

The new proposals that will force refugees to reapply every two years will just add huge costs and pressure to an already overstretched system. Has the Home Secretary assessed the cost to the Home Office of processing thousands of repeated applications? This is an area of law in which I used to practise. How that will impact an already overstretched system facing huge backlogs?

[Shabana Mahmood]

What I think is dividing our country, and communities all over it, is an unfair, out-of-control system that is putting pressure on communities across the whole nation. It is incumbent on me as Home Secretary and on this Government to fix that system, and to retain public consent for having an asylum system. It is also my job to make sure that we have the administration capacity and the funding to enact these reforms, which we will.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

If we look at a heat map of asylum dispersals, we see that they tend to be in inner-city London, and then the towns and cities of the midlands and the north-west, which have the least resources to help them. Thankfully, in Stoke-on-Trent, organisations such as our citizens advice bureau and Asha are doing what they can. When the Secretary of State looks at this policy in the round, as she will, will she look at that dispersal mechanism to ensure that everyone is giving the support that they should? Also, the national referral mechanism for modern slavery is one of the most difficult things to access for somebody who has been trafficked into this country, because they need to be referred by a national first responder, through a third party. What will her changes be, and can she give an assurance that those national first responders will not be removed from the process, because they do a very good job in vetting people before they get access?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his two questions. Let me assure him that we already run a dispersal model that is designed to ensure that the burden is spread out across the country, and we will carry on doing so. We have already consulted on modern slavery legislation, and that consultation has closed. I will look carefully at the responses. It is well-intentioned and much-needed legislation, and it is important that we crack down on modern slavery in our country, but it is being used to frustrate the legitimate removal of people from this country. I saw that within my first few days as Home Secretary; I had to change policy very quickly to prevent people from thwarting their removal to France under the “one in, one out” deal. That is what I have in mind, and those are the changes that we will make.

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and for taking the bold action necessary to tackle the chaos and lack of control that we inherited in our asylum system. Does she agree that these changes are as much about incentivising the right behaviour by creating capped legal routes to asylum as they are about taking tough action to break the status quo, which sees thousands of people crossing the channel in a dangerous, uncontrolled and unfair way?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I endorse every word that he said.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

What measures is the Home Secretary taking to dismantle the criminal gangs that are exploiting both legitimate and illegitimate businesses to facilitate illegal channel crossings? Can she give us details of the regulatory action that is being taken to prevent the use of assets such as shops on our high streets, and to prevent the supply of life jackets, boats and other components needed for dangerous crossings by illegal immigrants and criminal gangs?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are engaging in intense law enforcement work through the National Crime Agency, and we are working collaboratively with our partners in Europe, especially in France. There have already been 350 disruptions of organised immigration crime activity. We have confiscated numerous small boats ourselves, and we are also working with our European partners to do that. The sum total of all those efforts has been to prevent 20,000 illegal crossings across the channel already, and we will grow this work, because we know that it is an important part of how we deal with the problem of small boats.

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

This is about fairness. My constituents across Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove are good, kind and compassionate people, and we have a proud tradition of supporting those who need our help the most, yet they know, as we all do, that the immigration system is broken. Does the Secretary of State agree that, unlike the previous Government, who were more concerned about campaigning on the matter, we must take action to bring back the fundamental British value of fairness, so that we can resolve these issues at our borders?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I agree with every word my hon. Friend said. Fairness and contribution are Labour values and British values, and they underpin the totality of these reforms.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and particularly for the commitment to new, safe, legal routes. There has been a lot of talk of morality, and there absolutely should be. This is too important to get wrong, so does she agree that tolerating a system where men, women and children are encouraged on to flimsy rubber boats to risk their life in the English channel, when they are already safe where they are, is not a moral choice?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Fixing this broken system is a moral mission for me, because I do not believe that we can look the other way and pretend that it is just talking points from our political enemies that are driving division in our country. The broken system is what is driving division in our country. I am determined to put that right to make sure that we do not divide our country and that we retain public consent for having an asylum system.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement on controlling our borders, which I know will be welcomed by the majority of constituents across Bexleyheath and Crayford. In recent months, we have seen our police and enforcement officers, particularly in Crayford, carrying out raids and working to arrest people working here illegally. Can the Home Secretary set out how the measures announced today will continue that work to tackle people who are working here illegally?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Cracking down on illegal working is crucial to all these reforms, and to ensuring that we can retain public consent not just for our asylum system but for our legal migration system. We have already seen a record number of raids—over 11,000 since this Government took office—leading to 8,000 arrests and over 1,000 removals of those with no right to be in this country. We will build on all that work.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Warrington has one of the largest communities of Hongkongers in the country, many of whom I met this weekend when they reiterated their profound concern that the British national overseas 5+1 scheme was at risk as a result of the Government’s wider agenda on tackling issues in the asylum and immigration system. Will the Home Secretary give a clear commitment to Hongkongers that the UK is their home, that the British state will keep its promise to BNOs and Hongkonger refugees, and that the 5+1 scheme is safe?

[Shabana Mahmood]

We are committed to, and have always supported, the repatriation of Hongkongers. The consultation on earned settlement will be announced to this House very shortly—later this week, I believe—and I look forward to discussing that in detail with my hon. Friend.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

As a delegate to the Council of Europe, I will always defend the European convention on human rights and its institution and treaties, and that is why it is important to talk about it in the correct context. In the last 45 years, the Strasbourg Court has ruled against the UK on immigration rules only three times, and in the latest year for which figures are available, the number of successful human rights-based appeals represented 0.73% of all sentenced foreign national offenders. The last time article 8 was successfully applied to block a deportation was in 2020, so why does the Home Secretary believe that articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR are blocking the UK from controlling its borders, when the data simply does not back that up?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I do not think the data relating to the Strasbourg Court is necessarily reflective of what we are seeing in our own courts here at home. My hon. Friend knows that article 8 is a qualified right, and it is absolutely appropriate for Governments to dictate how that right is applied in their individual countries. We will do that by bringing forward second Session legislation. There is a case for reform of article 8, and there is absolutely a case for continuing the discussions with our European partners at the Council of Europe on article 3, because we are not the only country that is seeing the expansion of article 3 having implications for the deportation of, in particular, foreign national offenders. The case for reform is strong and we have the right solutions, but we are signatories to the ECHR and we will always be so under this Government.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement. I was really proud of how my Beckenham and Penge constituency came together to welcome Ukrainian families after the conflict there, through schemes such as Homes for Ukraine. I am pleased that the Government have announced today that they will expand such safe and legal routes, recognising the UK’s responsibility and desire to support those in need, and removing the need for refugees to make dangerous journeys. Can the Home Secretary set out how quickly we can expect these safe and legal routes to start operating?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I would hope that we can move very quickly indeed. As I have said, though, we will do so as we restore order and control to the broken system that we have. To be candid with the House, the safe and legal routes will be modest to start with, but they will grow over time. As we restore order and control to the system, we will see those routes grow. We will work with partners from across the philanthropy sector, the UN Refugee Agency and other stakeholders as we design the new community sponsorship models that will in future bear the load of helping to bring refugees into this country, to settle them and, ultimately, to integrate them successfully into this country.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I acknowledge the gargantuan task that the Home Secretary has to regain public confidence in our asylum system. We must ensure that reflected in our asylum system is not only fairness and contribution, but compassion, which is also a quintessentially British value and is reflected in the work of charities like Napier Friends in my constituency, which supports those staying at Napier barracks.

My question is about the appeal reforms. What is the rationale for the professionally trained adjudicators when we already have a specialist judiciary with expertise to decide these cases? What is it about the adjudicator model that will mean that adjudicators are in a better position to decide these cases than those under the current system?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. and learned Friend mentions compassion. The compassion of our reforms will be reflected in the safe and legal routes, through which we will accept refugees into our country under a community sponsorship model and resettle and integrate them successfully; that is what will bear the load of fulfilling our international obligations. I know that people across our country will be proud to do so because, as he rightly says, compassion is a fundamental value of all our people, along with fairness and contribution. Taken together, these reforms strike the right balance.

The appeal system is completely shot to pieces at the moment. It is riven with backlogs and even increasing judicial sitting days will not make the difference. It is absolutely appropriate that we design a new appeal system that is independent and has early legal advice available right at the start, and it is proper for the Government to set the framework for the speed at which cases can be heard, including fast-tracking claims that have no chance of success or are from countries with low grant rates in the first place. My hon. and learned Friend knows that listing within the current system is a matter for the independent judiciary, and we would never seek to interfere with that. With a new appeal system, the Government will be able to set the framework for the speed at which cases are heard, as well as providing legal advice at the start so that we have one claim, one appeal and certainty at the end of the process.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I welcome this statement and can say clearly to the Home Secretary that she will have my complete support in implementing the measures within it and in doing whatever it takes to fix our broken asylum system and secure our borders. One of the consequences of the broken system is what can only be described as the targeting of deprived communities like Hartlepool by private companies charged with providing asylum accommodation. We have started to bring the numbers down. Does the Home Secretary agree that that process must continue to put fairness back into our system?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to bring fairness back into the system and to resolve the problems with supported asylum accommodation. Taken together, these reforms and this Government’s plans on exiting hotels and getting into large sites instead will relieve the pressure in my hon. Friend’s community and across the country.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

I take great pride in our country’s track record of offering sanctuary to people fleeing conflict and persecution, and I know Afghans, Syrians, Ukrainians and many others who are now settled here and making great contributions to our economy and society in our hospitals, schools and businesses. I therefore welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to getting the proposed safe and legal routes working urgently. Will she ensure that the right incentives and support are in place so that people arriving in this way can integrate successfully?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I agree with my hon. Friend. As I have set out, we will seek to encourage those on the core protection route to move on to the protection work and study route so that they can start to contribute and integrate more effectively into this country. That will also get them to a slightly earlier settlement period. The bulk of these reforms will focus on safe and legal routes, which will be the most privileged route to settlement in this country. It is right that that is the case; it is the best way to integrate people into this country. The community sponsorship model is the way forward. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and others in the House as we design that and move forward.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

South Norfolk expects to have a robust and compassionate asylum process. I welcome this statement. One of the aspects that I am most interested in is the penultimate paragraph on page 28 of the document, which states:

“The new model will give greater say to communities and support refugees”

to settle and become self-sufficient. Will the Home Secretary expand on the mechanisms that could be put in place to ensure that that happens?

[Shabana Mahmood]

In designing the new system, we will take into account all the learnings from the Homes for Ukraine scheme and other models. We will work closely with the UN Refugee Agency and other international partners, as well as philanthropist and community organisations, local councils, universities, businesses and others here in this country. We know that there are people who want to be able to sponsor refugees and play their part in offering sanctuary to those most in need. People recognise that the current system is broken. As we get to grips with the broken system, we will be able to increase the number of people who come here on safe and legal routes in the medium and long term, which is the right future and the right compassionate answer, and will enable us to fulfil our international obligations.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary has outlined common-sense measures to ensure that the British public are no longer asked to fund or accommodate foreign national offenders. At the same time, she is right that our country has a proud, long-standing tradition of offering sanctuary to those fleeing persecution. Can she therefore confirm that the United Kingdom will send no individual back to a place where they may be tortured, killed or persecuted?

[Shabana Mahmood]

We will never send someone back to a country where they will be tortured—we will always abide by our international obligations in that regard. We believe that the totality of the reforms I have set out today strikes the right balance between ensuring that we continue to fulfil our international obligations and having an asylum system that retains public support for having an asylum system at all.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

Exeter is a proud city of sanctuary and has welcomed communities of Hongkongers, Ukrainians and Afghans over recent years. Many of my residents will be pleased with and welcome this re-establishment of safe and legal routes for refugees, which were long forgotten by the Conservatives. Does the Home Secretary agree that safe and legal routes are an element of a system that has control and order, and can she set out how the system will be flexible when geopolitical factors change?

[Shabana Mahmood]

We will always retain the flexibility to respond to particular crises, as we have done in the past, which we supported even when the previous Government were in power. We will design these routes alongside international and domestic partners to ensure that the community sponsorship model learns all the best lessons from previous schemes and is a world-class system, so that we can play our full part in offering sanctuary to those who need it most.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement on how the Government will make our asylum policy fit for this country. The broken immigration and asylum system under the Conservatives created an unprecedented backlog, which hindered the Home Office’s ability to process legitimate cases, including those of nurses and care workers working in the NHS and care homes who were seeking to extend their work visas. How will the Home Secretary ensure that the measures she has announced will be properly enforced so that we can restore order to our borders?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I can assure my hon. Friend that it will fall to me to ensure that the system we have is capable of implementing all these reforms. We will consult and legislate as quickly as possible, and it will be on me to ensure that the Home Office can handle the work that is coming its way. I assure him that getting the administration right is part of the picture, but getting these reforms passed and implemented across the country is the most important thing that we can do.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The measures that the Home Secretary has set out to restore order and fairness will be very welcome in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, but the overriding sentiment will be that we will believe it when we see it, I am afraid—trust is so low after years of broken promises. What assurances can the Home Secretary give that she will not only talk the talk, but walk the walk?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I can assure my hon. Friend that I do not believe in doing anything other than walking the walk. I totally hear what his constituents will tell him. It is what I hear from my constituents, too—we will believe it when we see it. It is a low-trust environment; over many years, trust in the immigration system overall has been degraded, which is why it is causing such division today. It is on me to ensure that this package of reforms is implemented and that the Home Office is able to implement them effectively. I ask my hon. Friend’s constituents and people all over our country to judge us on what we deliver through these reforms.

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

The proposal to raise the threshold for indefinite leave to remain from five years to 20 years is deeply concerning. At a time when far-right groups are exploiting fear and spreading misinformation, our Government should lead with compassion and fairness, instead of forcing some of the most vulnerable in our society to live in limbo for two decades. Will the Minister explain how denying people security and rights for two decades reflects the British values of justice and humanity, and what access to services will look like for people during that time?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I tell my hon. Friend not to defend a status quo that sees people paying a ton of money—thousands of pounds—to people smugglers in order to get on a boat and make a dangerous crossing of the channel, putting at risk their own lives and those of others. I urge him not to defend a broken status quo, but to engage with the detail of the proposals, which reflect a new protection, work and study route that will be open to those offered core protection in this country. We will also open new safe and legal routes.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

Does the Home Secretary share my concern that the scrutiny from the Conservative Benches is somewhat sparse this evening? On a more serious note, can she reassure my constituents that one of the key outcomes of this statement is that we will finally bring down the taxpayers’ bill for asylum accommodation? Time and again, this concern is raised with me by constituents. Reducing that bill will help many feel that there is far greater fairness in our asylum system.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I suspect that the lower numbers on the Conservative side are down to the fact that there are not that many of them any more. My hon. Friend is absolutely right on the cost. Fairness and contribution are the principles that underpin this asylum policy statement, and I hope that as we bring costs down, we can retain public support for the asylum system overall.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

Quite a few things in this statement need to be challenged. First, there is the suggestion that Britain has always been a welcoming, generous and warm place for immigrants and people seeking asylum. There will be many people from an Irish background whose ancestors faced prejudice, as will there be many Jews and Muslims who have been victims of antisemitism and Islamophobia, and let us not forget about the Windrush scandal. With what we have heard today, I am afraid that the Government have surrendered to past discriminations and the vile rhetoric of Reform that we hear today. Does the Home Secretary not see that removing the legal obligation to support asylum seekers who would be otherwise destitute is as far away from Labour party principles and values as we can get?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Again, I would urge my hon. Friend not to defend a broken status quo and people who commit crimes and are funded by the British taxpayer while they do so.

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

Having gangsters control who comes into our country is intolerable. It is not fair, humane or socialist. My constituents say to me that they just want control. They want the politicians they send to this Chamber to make the decisions on who comes into this country, not the gangsters. Can the Home Secretary reassure my constituents that she will not rest until every migrant, refugee or otherwise, comes to this country through a safe and legal route?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is nothing humane or socialist—or, indeed, any other group that people might want to put themselves into—about paying people smugglers a lot of money to get into a boat in the channel. It is a dangerous thing to do. It fuels further crime. It is not the way that people should seek to come to this country, and I will not rest until the way that people come to this country to seek refuge and be granted refugee status is through a safe and legal route instead.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I fully support the Home Secretary’s statement and the need to get the balance right. In Portsmouth North, we have seen how quickly immigration misinformation can spread on our high streets and local forums. It has even forced businesses to put up signs on developments to say who will be living there. This chaos took hold because the Tories never got a grip, gave up on governing and allowed division to reign across our country. Does the Home Secretary agree that our new enforcement plans and streamlined appeals system are essential not only to enabling much-needed action, but to restoring trust and giving clarity to stop refuelling misinformation and division in our communities?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I agree with my hon. Friend and endorse every word she said.

[Carla Denyer]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State accused one of my Green colleagues of hypocrisy when in fact she had been objecting to the warehousing of asylum seekers in military barracks, which is a position in line with Greens in the Chamber and, in fact, all major refugee rights organisations. I wonder whether the Secretary of State would like to withdraw her grossly misleading remarks and baseless accusation of hypocrisy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Adnan Hussain, who I understand also has a point of order that relates to remarks made by the Home Secretary.

[Mr Adnan Hussain]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. After my earlier intervention, the Home Secretary stated that she “should not be surprised to see the hon. Gentleman indulging in misinformation” in here. I take my responsibilities in this House extremely seriously. I am confident that every point I have raised was made in good faith, based on publicly available information, and was neither misleading nor inaccurate. May I therefore seek your guidance on how a Member may respond, or have the record clarified, when a Minister makes such characterisation without providing any evidence, clarification or correction, in particular where it risks implying dishonesty on the part of a Member who had no opportunity to respond further at that moment?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that it was not misleading; it was just wrong, so I can clarify that for the record.

I say to the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) that I think it is a fair point of debate to point out that the Green party often indulges in hypocrisy. I shall look carefully at what her colleague has said in relation to the large military sites, but I say to her that the Green party never seems to offer any solution, only commentary that does not work.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank both Members for their points of order. Their comments are now on the record.