Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation
Alex Norris Excerpts(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. I assure hon. Members that I will leave more than just a moment of the time remaining.
I want to start by thanking my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for introducing the debate. I have said this before, but it bears repeating: it is a very difficult job to present a petition in these debates as a member of the Petitions Committee. The Committee member is asked to speak for, in this case, hundreds of thousands of people, some of whose sentiments they share, but not all. Those people all have their different views and different takes, and the Committee member has to bring those voices into the room, although it is a speech in their own name, and to reflect the views of their constituents and their personal experience too. My hon. and learned Friend did an excellent job.
We were all struck—not least because they were mirrored in so many contributions—by the points of my hon. and learned Friend about our nation’s proud history of providing shelter, with his particularly poignant reference to 1914 and his community. The issue is of great interest to the people of Folkestone and Hythe. I, too, thought of our history in this space. I have seen, as all hon. Members have and as a number of them referenced, the British public’s breathtaking capacity for humanity and compassion for those who need it.
My hon. and learned Friend talked, of course, of 1914. We could echo that down the decades, but I think of recent years, too, and the Afghan and Syrian resettlement schemes, Homes for Ukraine and the support for the British national overseas visa. The British people have stepped up for people in need. That is the country that I know and love.
We know that there is anger, however, because people see too often that those who do not have the same degree of need are testing the system because they think it is in their interests to do so, or that there are those seeking to game the system. There is no doubt that that is pulling at public trust. All of us, whatever our political persuasion, see and feel that on the doorsteps and in our mailbags. It serves nobody to say that we do not or to suggest there is not something that the Government of the day need to address.
This is a challenge of public confidence in our asylum system, but that has been turbocharged in recent years by the disreputable act of stopping processing. That created a huge backlog, which means that hotels, which were never part of this nation’s approach to asylum, are now a significant part of it. We must name that as the original sin, but we know what people are saying now: they want order, fairness and humanity in the system. That has been lost in recent years, which is why we see the degree of anger in these petitions, in our mailbags and beyond.
I am going to address the petitioners first, and then cover the important contributions made by hon. Members. On petition 705383 and the suggestion that support for asylum seekers should be stopped, the reality is that doing so overnight would mean that, in many cases—I dare say the vast majority—those people, including children and vulnerable people, would end up living on the street.
That is not the right way to exit hotel accommodation. A better approach is to continue to speed up the processing of asylum claims, so that those who are genuine refugees can be accepted and those who are not can have their claims rejected before being removed. Either way, we will reduce the amount of money being spent on asylum support. I am proud that, under this Government, we are already spending £1 billion less, including £500 million less on hotels. However, I know that the British public want us to go further so that the money can be invested in the British people’s priorities, and rightly so.
That is why we are working so hard to turn around the backlog of tens of thousands, which we inherited, by reforming each stage of the asylum system. We have doubled decision making, as we committed to at the election, and the backlog is already down by some 18%. We are reforming the appeal system entirely. Provisions in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill will introduce a statutory timeframe for supported accommodation cases, halving the disposal time for such appeals and enabling swifter movement out of hotel accommodation. And for those who have no right to be here, there will be swifter departure from the UK.
We have a statutory obligation to continue to support those whose claims are being considered, in order to prevent destitution. We have tightened the terms and introduced tougher sanctions for those who refuse suitable accommodation without a valid reason. However, we have legal and, I would argue, moral imperatives not to create mass destitution simply by turfing them out with no support.
As a number of colleagues have said today, although it has been lost in our public discourse, it is important to recognise that the individuals we are discussing today do not have access to our welfare system. A frequent refrain from people who engage with me on this issue is that one of their frustrations is that people come here to use our welfare system, but that is not what is happening. We are meeting our obligations to prevent destitution, but that is it.
E-petition 718406 relates directly to hotels. It says explicitly that the Labour party made a commitment at the last election to close those hotels, and it says we ought to do so now that we are in power. We will make good on that pledge, as we said in our manifesto before the election that we would close the hotels during this Parliament. We are committed to that, and that is what we are doing. We will go at the fastest pace we can, which is why we are looking at options with local partners—a number of colleagues have raised that issue, and I will cover it in a little while.
We are also looking at a range of sites, including military sites. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe talked about the work at Napier barracks. When such work is done thoughtfully, in a planned manner with the community and with civil society, it can be a really good model, and we are looking very closely at that work. We are also looking at disused industrial sites.
By processing claims, we are allowing those fleeing persecution to move out of support and rebuild their lives. For those individuals with no right to remain in the UK, we are taking the actions that are needed. We have removed from the UK more than 35,000 people who have no right to be here, which includes a 28% increase in the return of failed asylum seekers.
We are also working upstream—this was a matter of interest to colleagues—to disrupt the criminal gangs that profit from this misery and the dangerous small boat crossings, which are a significant factor behind the trends we have seen. Significantly, we are doing that by boosting funding for the National Crime Agency, so that there is more capacity, and through our innovative international agreements, such as the one with France, to return those with no right to be here.
I now turn to some of the contributions, starting with those from Conservative colleagues. I would argue that it is no coincidence that no Conservative Member of the previous Parliament contributed to today’s debate. I promise that I am the last person to police colleagues’ diaries, as there is nothing worse than saying, “Well, there’s five of ours and eight of yours, so what does that mean?” However, that is a really important point. It was interesting to hear what the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), the Opposition spokesperson, said. As yet, there has been no acceptance or willingness to put a name on why we are in this situation. Instead, there is this rather heroic hope that the British people will believe that, in 14 months, the Conservatives have learned the lessons and now know how to fix a crisis that they created over 14 years. I gently say that that is a heroic expectation.
With characteristic charm, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) talked about the important impact of the hotel in his community. I cannot give him a date for its closure, but what I can say is that we will not have that hotel open a day longer than is needed. We have made a commitment to an ordered exit from asylum hotels. He talked about challenges in getting information from the Department. I am a new Minister, but I will always endeavour to do my utmost to get him the information he needs. It is the same for all colleagues, because we have an important role.
Multiple times a week, people, including those in positions of responsibility—less often Members of Parliament, but certainly people in local government—feed on those rumours: “I’ve seen this online. What does this mean?”. They create a buzz and a bubble of activity around rumours with no foundation. It is better, and in our interests, for colleagues to have the best information possible so that we can be the leaders we need to be. I know that colleagues would want to do it in that way.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) asked about the progress on taking on organised crime. I am pleased to tell him that we have made 350 disruptions of people-smuggling operations, which is a 40% increase on last year. We are serious about going after them, and we will leave no stone unturned in doing so.
Sir Ashley Fox
If the hon. Gentleman has been so successful, why is the number of boat crossings up 50% on this time last year? And why are there 3,000 more people in asylum hotels than before he came to office?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that these journeys take a very long time, so those are lagging indicators. He also knows that the number of people in hotels currently sits at 32,000, compared with 56,000 in September ’23. The journey is in the right direction. Of course, there are bobbles along the way, but we will deliver on the commitment that we have made.
Sir Ashley Fox
Yes, the number was 56,000 in 2023, but the previous Government brought it down to 29,500 in June 2024. The reduction that the hon. Gentleman mentions was all under the previous Conservative Government. The number has gone up by 3,000 since he took office.
Alex Norris
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s heroism in asking for regards and laurels for housing merely 30,000 people in hotels as opposed to 56,000, but I do not think that will wash. The reality is that we will be the ones who end hotel use.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned deterrence. Conservative colleagues cannot really believe that a scheme that sent four volunteers for £700 million formed a meaningful deterrent. We want to have a deterrent, and returns agreements are good deterrents, which is why we innovated one with France. Indeed, the shadow Home Secretary was very keen on them, but was unable to deliver. We delivered it. That is exactly why we proceeded in that way.
The hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) talked about how hotels and the housing waiting lists are dreadful. He talked about how dreadful homelessness is and the pressure on public services. He is going to be very angry when he meets the people who did that. The sad thing is that they are on his Front Bench, not ours. He talked about a future Tory Government, which will remain a long way off until the Conservatives come properly to terms with their legacy in this area and across public services, the economy and beyond.
The hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) talked about how fed up her constituents are. That is a point of agreement with me, but perhaps the end of such agreement. Many people who signed this petition, who may have voted Reform in the previous county council elections or who are thinking about voting Reform in a general election, will be watching this debate. I say to them that I believe her contribution is exactly why they cannot and should not vote for Reform. She said that she agreed with the petitioners. She said that no money should be spent on this cohort of people, and within the next sentence she spent tens of billions of pounds on her solution to the problem. Those are not serious answers.
Similarly, the hon. Lady said that the past offered no solutions. Within 10 minutes, the former leader, and now deputy leader, of her party, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), who is not in his place, contradicted that by asking why we could not just go back to how things were 20 years ago. The reality is that Reform will argue each end of any argument if it thinks that doing so will receive political support. The last thing Reform wants is for the Government of the day to solve this problem. I am afraid that we will disappoint Reform on that, because we are very much going to do so.
The right to work was a major feature of the debate. A number of colleagues talked about that, including my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), and the hon. Members for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan), for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) and for Woking (Mr Forster)—I would be a good train announcer, and I suspect it would be quite a journey. I appreciate why there is a degree of enthusiasm for the right to work. As a member of the Labour party, I believe that work gives people dignity and purpose, and it should always make people better off. It is certainly better than being on welfare or, as in this case, in asylum accommodation.
The reality is that this country is already attractive. People take the breathtaking risk, which should never happen, of entering the channel in a precarious small boat because this is an attractive country. The right to work would create greater attraction and greater reason to take that risk, and I cannot support that.
Carla Denyer
I have previously asked Home Office Ministers, and staff supporting them, whether they have any evidence for the claim that allowing asylum seekers to work while waiting for a decision would act as a pull factor. That evidence was not provided to me. Can the Minister provide it?
Alex Norris
Counterfactual cases can be challenging, but we see that already: it is well reported, well documented and well evidenced that work in the illicit economy already acts as a significant pull factor. That is why, through provisions of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, we are seeking to make that work harder, particularly in the gig economy. We know that the ability merely to work illegally is already attractive; imagine what it would be like if that was a condoned and supported approach. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking, talked about timeliness. We do have the backstop that if someone’s claim has been delayed for 12 months and it is not their fault, they will be allowed to work. I have to say I would never want that to be used, because we do not want claims to last that long, but there is at least that backstop.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe and my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) and for York Outer (Mr Charters) made important points about local authorities. There is absolutely no doubt that the Home Office under the previous Government did not treat local authorities as equal partners, or even as partners at all, in this process. Hon. Members will know that my previous role in the Government was in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The reality is that local authorities know their communities —they have the most intimate connection to them—and we are committed to better information, better engagement and better work with local authorities. We have made up to £500 million available as a pilot to do as colleagues have suggested: allow local authorities to buy up the stock themselves and keep it. When the demand is not there in the future, that stock could be part of tackling ongoing housing challenges.
That is an important upcoming piece of work, but I want to give a note of caution on dispersed accommodation. Dispersed accommodation will always be part of the solution. It is something that all local authorities provide to some degree, whether for people fleeing domestic abuse, people with substance abuse issues or people with homelessness issues. Dispersed accommodation is a part of all communities, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) said, when certain communities see vast swathes of their streets bought up, it ceases to be dispersed accommodation. I urge colleagues to be very cautious of thinking that that alone could be the panacea. That is why we are looking at bigger sites alongside dispersed accommodation; otherwise, we will merely test the public’s confidence on that point as well, and I do not think that is the right thing to do.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) and for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) also talked about local authorities in the context of exit strategies. Again, I am committed to full engagement and full transparency. It will be done in an orderly way, but it may not be done simultaneously, and of course confidence needs to be built into the process. I can give that assurance.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), who serve, as I used to, on the Home Affairs Committee, have a very important report coming out. I commit to them that I will look at it very closely. We are concerned about quality, and about profiteering in the sector. As they said, we inherited a 2019 contract that has a break point in 2026 and ends in 2029. We are looking to get the best value. I hope that the work we are doing with local government shows our interest in alternative models. We want to get the very best. I think of the horror stories that my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer talked about—we are very conscious of those. However, Ministers will not hide behind criticism of third parties, if they are acting in delivery of Government policy. It is for us to make sure that those providers are operating in the right way and that, when they are not, the issues are tackled swiftly. That is my commitment.
The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) asked why there is so much focus on this group, and I will use that as a bridge into a more general point. First, this issue is important because the public are aghast when they see people entering the channel and coming to the country in that way; they lose all confidence the system is orderly. We have to address that if we are going to build any public confidence in the system. I do not refer to the hon. Gentleman in particular in saying this, but for colleagues who believe in the system and want to improve it or make it even more generous, there is a danger in defending a broken status quo. They ought not do so.
Richard Foord
I think the Minister is either misunderstanding or mischaracterising my contribution, but will he please comment on the potential return hubs for failed asylum seekers?
Alex Norris
I would certainly never seek to mischaracterise the hon. Gentleman. I cannot commit to never misunderstanding him, but I certainly would never mischaracterise him. I understood that he had asked why there is so much focus on this cohort within the wider migration figures. If I am wrong, I apologise without reservation. On return hubs, he will have seen what the Prime Minister said, and that is the Government’s position on that matter.
Any system that involves multiple tens of thousands of people entering the channel and making an incredibly dangerous journey, any system in which tens of thousands of people are living in hotels, any system that leads net migration in this country to reach 900,000, any system in which people must wait and wait for a letter about their future—I have had conversations with people in that situation, and they are often people who have left the most desperate situations—is a broken system. Of course the Government of the day, whether in the borders Bill or the immigration White Paper, will seek to tackle those things. We must not defend a status quo that works for neither the British people nor the individuals who are reliant on it for sanctuary and safety.
This has been a robust and very important debate. I hope that those who signed the petitions in considerable numbers will have had the chance to watch the debate and seen that Parliament has taken their views seriously and had a thoughtful and constructive debate on them. This is a hugely important issue for the Government of the day. We have been working in overdrive since the general election to fix the chronic problems that we inherited. We will keep doing so, and along the way we will end the use of hotels once and for all.
Draft Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2025
Alex Norris Excerpts(4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I take this opportunity to register my solidarity and that of my colleagues with you and your community for what you have been through in recent days. An attack on your community is an attack on all of us, and we stand with you.
Alex Norris
In an increasingly interconnected world, where crime knows no borders, international co-operation that promotes justice and helps keep the British public safe has never been more important. The statutory instrument before the Committee today will enhance our extradition arrangements and bring compatibility between our domestic and international legal frameworks governing extradition co-operation. I shall start by explaining in a little more detail why these changes are being brought at this time and the effect that they will have on our extradition arrangements.
The draft order amends the designation under the Extradition Act 2003 of three states: Chile, Hong Kong and Zimbabwe. Taking those in turn, Chile’s designation is required as it has recently acceded to the 1957 European convention on extradition, of which the UK has been a long-standing supporter. In the light of that change, it is both appropriate and necessary that Chile’s designation be amended from a part 2, category B territory to a part 2, category A territory. The change will mean that Chilean extradition requests will no longer require the provision of prima facie evidence, streamlining co-operation to reflect the underlying international legal framework now in place. It is worth reflecting that this designation is not simply a matter of administrative convenience, but a recognition of Chile’s commitment to international legal standards and a reaffirmation of our own dedication to maintaining robust and principled extradition arrangements. It will enhance the efficiency of our judicial co-operation, reduce unnecessary delays and ensure that justice can be pursued swiftly and fairly.
Turning to the de-designation of Hong Kong, as Members will be aware, the UK suspended its extradition treaty with Hong Kong in July 2020. The move was taken in response to the imposition of national security legislation by the Chinese authorities—legislation that was and remains wholly incompatible with the principles underpinning our extradition framework and the rule of law. Since the suspension, there has been no formal treaty framework in place to underpin extradition co-operation with Hong Kong. The draft order before the Committee today formalises that reality, removing Hong Kong’s designation under the Extradition Act, thereby aligning its status with other non-treaty jurisdictions. I want to be crystal clear about the impact of this legislation. For the avoidance of any doubt, it does not reinstate extradition co-operation between the UK and Hong Kong. It also does not create any new powers for the Government and does not change any powers of UK courts to consider extradition requests.
I am aware of concerns raised by Members across the House, particularly regarding the safety of pro-democracy activists and critics of the Chinese Government who have sought refuge in the UK. I assure the Committee that we take our responsibility towards those potentially at risk of persecution extremely seriously, and that our courts remain independent and vigilant in upholding the rights and freedoms of all individuals. This de-designation is a necessary step to reflect accurately the international legal position in our domestic law. It protects the integrity of our extradition process and safeguards the rights of those Hongkongers in the UK who have fled political repression.
Finally, the draft order de-designates Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe was originally designated as a part 2, category B territory on the basis of its participation in the London scheme for extradition within the Commonwealth, a multilateral treaty arrangement that underpinned co-operation among Commonwealth nations. Zimbabwe, however, formally withdrew from the Commonwealth in 2003, and as such the legal foundation for its designation under the Act has since ceased to exist. De-designation now is therefore not a reflection of any change in our diplomatic posture, but rather a necessary legal correction, given that the current designation is incompatible with the UK’s domestic legal framework and international obligations. Zimbabwe’s continued designation was an oversight spanning many years and multiple Governments, which we seek to put right today.
More broadly, this issue highlights the potential for a country to remain listed under part 2 despite the underlying treaty or arrangement no longer being in force. I can therefore confirm, because I know there will be interest in this, that measures have now been put in place to strengthen co-ordination between policy, legal and operational teams across Government to ensure that designation status accurately reflects the relevant frameworks in a timely manner.
To conclude, extradition is a vital tool in our fight against cross-border crime. Offenders should not be able to escape justice by crossing borders. This order ensures that our system remains principled, effective and fit for purpose. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for those constructive and thoughtful comments from colleagues opposite. I share the positivity that the Opposition spokesperson feels around the progress made with Chile. It just shows that these partnerships, built over time, can build an international rules-based order that creates freedoms around the world. That is something we should be very proud of.
I would also like to make it very clear that I strongly share the shadow Minister’s views on Hong Kong, and I hope colleagues will take comfort from what the Security Minister said yesterday about the Government’s resolution to stand with members of the Hong Kong community, who have really catered to our country. They are making a huge impact in Nottingham, as they are across the country, and we are committed to supporting them. We are proud to stand up for the rights of the people of Hong Kong, and we will continue to monitor developments closely.
The shadow Minister asked for assurance on our robust engagement with China and Hong Kong, and I can absolutely give him that commitment. As he said so importantly, I also restate the shared view across multiple Governments, and across the House, that extradition must never be used for political purposes. I think we can have a significant degree of assurance that the systems underpinning extradition in this country will endure whatever the changes of Government or political mood or sentiment. The 2003 Act, which we are amending today, and the European convention provide a sound underpinning that gives an independent judiciary the ability to ensure that individuals have that protection. I hope that reassures the shadow Minister and colleagues.
I had a degree of trepidation when I saw the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston—I also cannot get used to saying that name, as I said Oadby and Wigston so many times.
Alex Norris
Charnwood—gosh, it does seem like a thousand years ago. The right hon. Member for Melton and Syston was an excellent and helpful Minister when I shadowed him during the pandemic, which was an exceptionally important period for our country. I gave him a tricky ride at times, but I did so in good humour, as he always was too. I am grateful that he is yet to repay that debt, although I am sure that is inbound.
It is worth noting the timeliness of the correction on Zimbabwe, which is 22 years out of date. Thinking back to 2003, I had terrible highlights and was dancing to Busted on the campus of the University of Nottingham, and I was not generally thinking that I would be here 22 years later. When we find something like this, it behoves us to scrub to ensure that there is nothing else. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have done that scrub, and there are no other such anomalies to be tidied up in the future.
To conclude, I want to reiterate that this order does not reflect a change in Government policy towards the countries named, or the extradition system more generally. It seeks to ensure that changes to the international framework are reflected in our domestic law. On that basis, I hope the Committee can support the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Norris Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
The hon. Gentleman heard the Home Secretary’s point on the convention, but it is clear that gimmicks such as Rwanda do not work—£700 million for merely four volunteers to go. What works is effective processing, quick decisions and quick removals. That is what we will get under this Government, and it is what we do not get from those who carp from the Opposition Benches.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley) (Lab)
Earlier this year, 15-year-old Harvey Willgoose was murdered by a fellow pupil when attending school. His murderer has now been convicted and a national child safeguarding review panel set up, but time and time again such panels make the same recommendations and we fail to implement the kind of learnings and culture change that would ensure that another tragedy like this does not happen. Will the Home Secretary reassure Harvey’s family that she will ensure that those panel recommendations are implemented and that we can avoid any family like Harvey’s suffering that same tragedy again?
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
Last year, a report by the charity Justice and Care highlighted that a lack of regulation allows unscrupulous business owners to exploit vulnerable people. Nottingham Trent University showed that 90% of hand car wash businesses operate in a way that makes them high risk for forced or compulsory labour. Will the Government consider licensing sectors such as hand car washes to improve compliance and prevent illegal workers and modern slavery?
Alex Norris
In the view of the Home Office, the most important safeguard is the right-to-work checks. That is why we will strengthen them under the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill that is making its way through Parliament, but that will have to be underpinned with rigorous enforcement. That is why I am pleased that enforcement visits are up 50% in the past year, as are arrests.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the new team and welcome them to the Government Front Bench. A week is a long time, but I had a promise to meet the previous Minister to discuss the immigration system, because one of the challenges that the Home Secretary has inherited is a broken processing system. As one of the Home Office’s largest customers for my constituents, I know where the gaps and the problems are, so I would welcome a meeting with the Minister about that, if the Home Secretary agrees.
Alex Norris
I share my hon. Friend’s important interest in that issue. I would never miss a chance to meet her and I would be very glad to do so.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I welcome members of the new Government Front Bench team to their places. The previous ministerial team had been clear that they wanted to stop the use of large sites to house asylum seekers, but there has been some indication that that position may have changed. Will the Home Secretary or the Minister clarify the position, and confirm that if they are changing that position, they will learn the lessons of what went wrong previously?
Alex Norris
I look forward to working with the right hon. Lady and her Committee in its important work. We have made a significant commitment to the closure of asylum hotels, which is crucial for public conference. It is a matter of record that we are looking at big sites, including Ministry of Defence sites, but we will of course look very closely at the history in this space to ensure that anything that we do is effective and sustained.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Home Secretary and her team to their places. The Home Secretary will be aware of the recent horrific attack and rape of a Sikh woman in Oldbury, in my constituency, who reportedly had racist abuse directed at her. The case is being treated as a hate crime and a suspect is under arrest. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to support West Midlands police in securing justice in the case, and to address the wider concerns of the Sikh and other ethnic minority communities regarding the increase of racism in the public discourse, which can lead to targeted violence and damage community safety?