Animals in Science Regulation Unit: Annual Report 2024

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that they should bob, but I can see that four Members already know that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

The Minister will no doubt have highlighted the work of the Government. I know the Government are committed to phasing out animal testing, but the Animals in Science Regulation Unit report highlights the horrors that we unfortunately have in the system. Does she not agree that we need to work at pace to ensure that alternative methods are explored and implemented?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I am renowned for my generosity in the Chair and I am extremely open minded about how debates are conducted, but it is not really appropriate to come in two thirds of the way through and intervene when everyone else took the trouble to get here at the beginning. We are all busy, after all.

[Sarah Jones]

Thank you, Sir John, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Of course we need to go as fast as we can.

The strategy that the Government have published includes establishing a UK centre for the validation of alternative methods and 26 commitments for delivery or initiation across 2026 and 2027. It includes a commitment that from this year

“we will publish biennially a list of alternative methods research and development priorities to coalesce UK scientists around these areas and to incentivise partnerships between research organisations”.

In our most recent debate on this subject, we talked about this being an opportunity for UK science and technology to be innovators in this space and push forward new science. We want to go as fast as we can, and we will move as quickly as the science allows. Our commitment is clear: we want to work in step with the scientific community to reduce and ultimately replace the use of animals in research.

As hon. Members know, we have a three-pronged regulatory framework. It requires a personal licence—about 13,000 people have one. The procedures must form part of an approved programme of work, which must be licensed, and the work must be carried out in a licensed establishment. Our licensing is robust, in terms of the processes that people must go through before they do something as serious as test on animals. Even before a proposed project to test on animals reaches the regulator for consideration, it must undergo multiple layers of scrutiny to ensure it is justified and ethical, including from funders and animal welfare and ethical review bodies at scientific establishments. That is important.

On the work of the regulator, the transparency that we want to deliver and the changes that we have pushed through, we want to ensure we get this right. My noble Friend Lord Hanson commissioned the Animals in Science Committee—an expert committee that advises the Government on animal protection—to provide recommendations on improving the accessibility of the publicly available animal testing project summaries, and proposals are now being considered. That reflects our commitment to openness, accountability and continuous improvement.

Several hon. Members spoke about the point at which audits are made and checks are carried out. They are concerned about self-reporting. I heard that in the previous debate, and I have heard it today; that is an important part of the conversation that we need to have with the regulator. There is an important question about whether we are doing enough unannounced audits, and I am committed to going back and testing that. With the support of hon. Members, we can look at that properly.

As lots of Members said, 2.5 million procedures were conducted in Great Britain in 2024, so this is a big landscape and we need to get it right. I recognise the potential for error and wrongdoing. I want to ensure that hon. Members and campaigners are as satisfied as possible that the regulator is doing what it needs to do. There is a programme of reform under way, and we need to test it and see whether it is enough. I am committed to speaking to Lord Vallance. If any Members want to come to a meeting with the regulator, they should let me know; that will be important.

The fact that the Government have put £75 million behind the programme to phase out animal testing shows that we are putting our money where our priorities are. I know that hon. Members across the House will welcome that, but of course we need to go as fast as we can. In that vein, I again thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East for securing this debate and holding the Government to account on these very important issues.

[Seamus Logan]

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken, including the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman)—a colleague who is no longer here once referred to him as the Member for aloha—and the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) and for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns).

I also thank the Minister for her very thoughtful response. I cannot think of many topics on which there is such a tremendous cross-party alliance, which has included the Democratic Unionist party, the Scottish National party, the Liberal Democrats and many Labour Members. As the Minister said, virtually no MP would disagree with our intent here, so that is very encouraging.

I am particularly interested in a couple of the Minister’s comments. She said that where a non-animal alternative exists, no approval should be given—absolutely. She drew attention to the need to move as quickly as the science allows. I am sure the chair of the APPG, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, noted her invitation to meet Lord Vallance to discuss these issues. That would be very welcome indeed.

It simply remains for me to mention my own little pet cockapoo, Lola. Anyone who knows anything about dogs know how sentient and clever they are. They have an amazing vocabulary, and they can count. The only thing they cannot do is speak—more’s the pity—although that is maybe not a bad thing in some ways. I will conclude by thanking everyone who took part, and the members of the public who attended.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

The hon. Gentleman, the Minister and others might like to know that there is some evidence to suggest that bees can count. I speak as a beekeeper.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, 

That this House has considered the Animals in Science Regulation Unit annual report 2024.

Illegal Migrants: Unknown Whereabouts

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rupert Lowe]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and I completely agree with what she has said.

The girl was then pushed to her knees before being brutally raped. Another—one of too many.

Last year, a 35-year-old old Iranian small-boat migrant raped a 15-year-old girl in an alleyway. He was known to police in Germany, where he had been convicted of assault offences. He told the girl she could be his “sex doll”, and that he wanted to—I quote— “fuck her”, before dragging her down an alleyway, forcing her to her knees outside a secluded doorway, and then raping her. The poor girl’s anguished mother later asked, “Why was he in this country?” It is a question that millions and millions of British people are asking. Why are they here?

These are unimaginable horrors, but they are happening, right across our country, every day, brutally and relentlessly. This House may not like to hear this, but it must listen; it must understand; it must digest. This is a political choice, and it is one that this Parliament has made. These are men who should never have been in our country to begin with. They should have been detained, and they should have been deported, indiscriminately and without question. They were not: they were housed, fed and cared for at taxpayer expense. They were released on to our streets and allowed to roam freely—thousands and thousands of them, unvetted foreign men from barbaric cultures that have no place in our communities. Words cannot adequately describe my disgust at what has been forced on to the British people.

Since being elected, I have used what little influence I hold to try and uncover the impact of these migrants and just how severely the British people are suffering because of it. I have asked more than 600 questions of the Home Office, but I receive very few answers, particularly when the question is regarding illegal migrants. “No data”, “not centrally collected” and “disproportionate costs” are often cited. I thought that perhaps it was incompetence, but evidence has come to my attention that proves the Home Office has been misleading MPs. On 20 January, I asked the Home Office

“what information the Department holds on the number of irregular migrants defined as absconders.”

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way—I did give him notice that I was going to intervene. It is inconceivable, is it not, that Home Office Ministers would not know the answer to that question? When I was a Home Office Minister, I would ask my officials for exactly that kind of information. It is not just that the hon. Gentleman did not know; it seems that Ministers did not either. I cannot believe that. It is inconceivable.

[Rupert Lowe]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

My experience in this House over almost 30 years is that most people here—indeed, the overwhelming majority—want to do the right thing, irrespective of party, and I make that perfectly clear through you, Madam Deputy Speaker. But in that spirit, I know that you will take the view that it is critically important that parliamentary answers be full and accurate. That is something that I conjured with as a Minister, answering many, many written questions in a variety of Government Departments. Will the Minister address the specific issue raised about the accuracy and completeness of answers to questions?

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the right hon. Member for his two questions. On the first, I completely agree that the vast majority of those who come to this country are decent people. The sweeping changes to the asylum system over the past few weeks further encourage people to integrate and contribute, and further ensure that there is not the asylum shopping that we currently see across Europe. But there are bad eggs, and when we get those bad eggs, we will do what we can to deport them. That is why we have also seen changes in the last few weeks to make it easier to remove and deport people. I will come on to written questions shortly.

More broadly, we must never forget that the chronic problems we face long predate this Government’s time in office. When we took office, we inherited an asylum system overwhelmed by escalating costs, record hotel use and a backlog that undermined public confidence. We recognise that the current arrangements for accommodating asylum seekers are not suitable. The Government will close every asylum hotel, and we are on track to do that by the end of this Parliament. We are working to move asylum seekers into more suitable accommodation, such as military bases, to ease pressure on communities across the country.

It remains necessary to use hotels in the short to medium term to deliver our statutory responsibility to ensure that individuals are not left destitute, but whereas over 400 asylum hotels were open in summer 2023, costing almost £9 million a day, fewer than 200 hotels remain in use. This is not just about cost; it is about restoring control to our asylum system. International co-operation is key to improving returns, and through our landmark UK-France agreement, we have strengthened our ability to return individuals to France. Our efforts are having an impact, and they will go further.

Turning to the focus of the debate, I am aware of the interest in these issues, and specifically in absconders. I will not comment on leaked data, but I can set out to the House the steps that are taken to ensure that an individual remains in contact with the Home Office, and the consequences should they abscond. An individual granted immigration bail may be required to reside at a specified address, and to report at regular intervals, either in person to a reporting officer or a police station, or by telephone or digital messaging. In some cases, a person may also be required to wear an electronic fitted device. Where someone fails to comply with that, efforts will be made to re-establish contact through the most appropriate method, which might be a visit from an enforcement team.

Individuals can come into contact with the Department for a variety of reasons, but if they are considered to be an absconder, their details will be circulated on the police national computer. The Home Office has a range of tools to locate those who abscond, and a dedicated tracing capability, which works in partnership with the police, other Government agencies and commercial companies.

Tracing foreign national offenders will always be a priority, and tracing is just one of the ways in which contact with an individual can be re-established. Many individuals who are out of contact may also re-engage with the Department voluntarily or decide to leave the UK. Individuals are also encountered through routine immigration enforcement and police activity. In all cases, the Home Office will consider the most appropriate action, including arrest and detention.

Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I draw the Chamber’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests and the support that my office receives from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project. This is a really important debate, and I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on his eloquent introduction to this difficult issue.

The previous speaker, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), alluded to the fact that the Home Affairs Committee has undertaken an inquiry into asylum accommodation and a report is coming out on Monday. I will be speaking in a personal capacity as well, but there may be some overlap in our conclusions. One thing that was patently clear to us as we undertook a 15-month inquiry into asylum accommodation was that it has been a complete disaster. It has been disastrous for the local communities where asylum seekers are being housed and for the local authorities that are trying to provide services. It has been disastrous for asylum seekers; we found numerous pieces of evidence of safeguarding issues. It has also been disastrous for the public purse. It has cost an unbelievable amount of money, considering the terrible externalities it has created.

How did we end up in this situation? Asylum is not a new concept. The UK has faced asylum challenges for decades, but until six years ago we never had asylum hotels. It is clear to me, based on the 10 years for which I worked on asylum issues before coming to this House and my last 15 months on the Home Affairs Committee, that we must follow the money. The smoking gun in this scenario is the asylum contracts that the Conservative Government signed in 2019, when they handed over all responsibility and discretion to three private providers.

That has cost £7 billion of taxpayers’ money, of which hundreds of millions have gone on profits, but there is no effective oversight of these contracts by the Home Office, no holding the providers to account for failure and no grip on spiralling costs. There has been poor management of where public money is spent, and, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon said, poor use has been made of clawback clauses.

The providers would argue that they have never breached the profit share that the Conservatives baked into the contract at 7%, but as costs spiralled following the pandemic and the disastrous Rwanda scheme, they had every incentive to move people into hotels and keep them there. As the clear financial incentive grew, the Conservative Government put nothing in place to stop the runaway train. One of the owners even entered The Sunday Times rich list. Over the weekend, The Times covered reports of a property owner bragging on TikTok from Dubai about how easy it is to get rich by leasing his properties to Mears, Clearsprings and Serco. We have also seen real scandals in the Clearsprings subprime supply chain, about which there still needs to be more transparency.

The asylum accommodation contracts are a public procurement failure of the highest order. They were signed in 2019 by the Conservative Government, and they are fully that Government’s responsibility. The scandal is why they did nothing to derail the train when they could see it coming. The worst part is that we have nothing to show for that £7 billion of taxpayers’ money. It has gone on receipts to hotels and profits for private providers. We have no buildings or new social housing; we have nothing about which the public can say, “At least we got this as we accommodated asylum seekers.” I do not know about other Members, but I think about what could have been done if I had been given the share of that money for my city of Edinburgh and asked to look after asylum seekers and invest in housing stock. The things the Conservatives could have done with that money had they been able to get a more effective grip on public spending!

The Conservatives locked the country into these asylum contracts in 2019. It is a crowded field, but I think that is one of their most appalling legacies. Next year, as has been alluded to, is the break clause, where the Government have the opportunity to substantially rewrite or break these asylum contracts at no penalty. My questions to the Minister are: what is the Home Office’s assessment of how these contracts have been handled so far? What is his view of how Home Office officials have managed the contracts and their capacity to get a grip on them? Is he looking at the break clause and thinking about whether he should use it?

It may sound a bit technical and dry, on such an emotive issue, to be focusing on contracts, procurements and supply chains, but I have always believed that the role of Government is to drill down into the nuts and bolts, deal with manifest failures and make the system work. That is what I think the petitioners are asking us to do—not to posture, to grandstand or to use inflammatory rhetoric, but to solve the problem. We can do that by getting a grip on these asylum contracts.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

We now move to the wind-ups. We have plenty of time, not that that is an invitation for speeches of an undue length. Members should keep it poignant but pithy. In that spirit, I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman, Will Forster.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. I thank the Petitions Committee, my constituency neighbour, the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), for presenting these petitions, and the hundreds of thousands of people who have made their voices heard by signing them. Despite the clear wishes of the British people, successive Governments of different parties have failed to control immigration, both legal and illegal. This is a complete scandal and is probably the single biggest reason for the declining trust in our politics.

It is a particular scandal that, as an island nation, we have failed to stop people from coming to this country illegally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) rightly said. Since the small boats crisis began in 2018, nearly 200,000 people have come to Britain via that route. In 2025 alone, more than 35,000 people have made the crossing. On arrival, more than 95% of those people have claimed asylum, and having done so, they are afforded generous support, including direct cash transfers. Often, they are placed in hotels, where they can pose a risk to local people, particularly men posing a risk to women and girls. We have already heard about one such horrifying case from the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) today, and I am sorry to say that there are many more.

Illegal migrants can stay in the asylum system for years, launching endless appeals. Increasingly, our system is approving asylum claims on the thinnest of grounds. The incentives are clear: come to Britain and be fed, housed and given full healthcare and money to spend, all funded by the British taxpayer. If the Government were really serious about ending the small boats crisis, they would put a stop to asylum support and close the hotels as these petitions request. Those who have arrived here illegally would be sent back to their home country, if it is safe for them to go, or to a third country. Those who make the crossing in future should be detained and swiftly removed. Anybody who arrives here illegally must never be able to apply for asylum.

This is a generous country, as many hon. Members have said this afternoon—remarkably so—but allowing access to Britain to tens and tens of thousands of young men who are willing to break our laws by coming here from the safety of France is not generosity. It is unfair, unaffordable, democratically illegitimate and dangerous. British taxpayers must not foot the bill for a crisis that they have voted to stop and that was created here in Westminster. We can end it, and we must.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) is right to say that Britain deserves better. Many hon. Members have mentioned that the previous Government failed to fix the crisis, which is true, but we have had a Labour Government for well over a year and it is their job to control our borders. Instead of doing any better, the situation has got worse. Will the Minister commit today to preventing those who arrive here illegally from applying for asylum? If not, will he please explain why not? Will he please commit today to a concrete timeline for the closure of asylum hotels, and to fully tracking, including in the welfare system, the lifetime costs of asylum claims?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister, and ask him to allow a moment or two for the mover to sum up at the end.

UK-France Migration: Co-operation

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I do think we should be working with international partners; that is how we will get co-operation. If criminal gangs operate across borders, then of course we need Governments and law enforcement to co-operate across borders to take those gangs down and to get returns in place. The Conservatives claimed that they were going to get bilateral returns agreements in place: that is what they claimed in 2020; that is what they claimed in 2021; that is what they claimed for years; and that is what they claimed they would seek to do again in 2023. But they failed to do it year after year, because all they did was shout at France and other countries, instead of doing the hard graft to get agreements in place.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

This is about principle and practice. The principle is that every country has the right and indeed the duty to secure its borders, and in practice ours have become porous. I agree with the Home Secretary that global instability continues to drive illegal migration, I agree with her that we need co-operation upstream and I agree with her that previous Governments have done far too little, but the scale of the problem requires more than she is offering today. The trend is up. If it continues, 85,000 people will cross, each one knowing that they are coming here illegally. This requires much more emphatic action. Everyone who comes should be incarcerated and all those who can be returned should be. We must recognise that the asylum system is being gamed on an industrial scale. Will she answer this very straightforward question: what evidence does she have that hostile states and organised criminals are using this as a route to get people to this country to do still more harm?

[Yvette Cooper]

Let us be clear: we need action right across the board, from strengthening prevention—working in partnership with countries like Iraq—right through to law enforcement and increased action on the criminal gangs. We are taking action on border security itself, with action along the French coast and in the channel in French waters, and strengthening the returns arrangements. We are also taking action here in the UK, whether on illegal working or on reforms to the asylum system. We need to be clear that there must be strong standards on issues of criminality: anybody who comes to the UK through whatever route needs to abide by our laws, and that must be enforced. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have put in place new measures to strengthen the criminality checks in the asylum system and to have much stronger action as part of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. I hope he will support that legislation rather than voting against it.

Crime and Policing Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Johnson]

Every jurisdiction has a democratic right to do as it chooses and I respect that, but it is a tragedy when we hear of cases where late-term abortions have not been supported by medical care or the law, and women and infants have suffered significant harm as a result.

I want to raise the case of Stuart Worby. Some people say that this issue is about protecting vulnerable women, but in this case, which was prosecuted in December 2024, a man who did not want his partner to be pregnant, when she did want to be pregnant, decided to take matters into his own hands. He asked a woman who was not pregnant to get the pills for him. He put them in a drink and gave them to his partner, inducing a miscarriage. He has rightly been put in jail for that, but the case demonstrates that there are men out there who will obtain tablets with the help of a woman. That could not have happened if women had to have an in-person appointment, because the woman arriving at the clinic to get the abortion pills on the man’s behalf would be clearly seen not to be pregnant, so would not be able to obtain the medication. My amendment seeks to protect women—women who are wrong about their gestation or who are mistaken in thinking they have had a bleed or whatever—to make sure that they have a safe termination using the right mechanisms.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that I, too, will be supporting her amendment. There has been a lot of talk in this place in recent weeks about coercion—in a different Bill and in a different context. The kind of coercion that she describes is a reality. It is all fine and well to have a fanciful middle-class view of the world, but as I said in respect of a different Bill, there are many wicked people doing many wicked things. The kind of coercion that she describes is the truth; it is the reality.

[Dr Johnson]

I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I shall come to coercion a little later. First, let me go back to new clause 1, which decriminalises the woman having an abortion in relation to her own pregnancy. It seems to me that what many wish to do is decriminalise abortion up until term. That is a legitimate position that some people take.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I think we all agree that there are concerns about vulnerable people and abortion law in this country, but we disagree about how to address them. I propose new clause 20 as a way to address those concerns and recognise that the issue of abortion access is increasingly under attack, not just in our country but around the world. If we think that we face these challenges because we have outdated laws in this country, why would we retain them in any shape or form rather than learning from best practice around the world for all our constituents?

To start, let me put on the record that I take seriously all the concerns raised across the House about abortion. I recognise that this is a complex issue, I hear strongly the stories about investigations and prosecutions, and I want to see change, but I also recognise that change does not come without consequences. New clause 20, therefore, is based on what is good abortion law—what many of us have worked on. It is based on what the sector itself used to say mattered, which was that abortion law in England and Wales should recognise developments in modern abortion law in Northern Ireland, delivering on the promise we made in this place in 2019 that abortion was a human right, that safe care was a human right for women, and that we should see a progression of minimum human rights standards on abortion, including through the proposals of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

I want to start with how the new clause would do that. I want to be clear that only this new clause would provide for decriminalisation. Decriminalisation, as defined by Marie Stopes, means removing abortion from the criminal law so that it is no longer governed by both the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929, because that would protect both clinicians and those who are at threat of criminal prosecution. Decriminalisation would not impact the regulations on safe medical use, medical conduct, safeguarding—I recognise that is a serious concern—or the distribution of medicines, and neither would it stop tackling those people who seek to use abortion as a form of abuse or coercion. I want to explain how,

In decriminalising and removing the laws that have caused those problems, the new clause would keep the 1967 Act not as a list of reasons why someone would be exempted from prosecution but as a guide to how abortion should be provided. Many of us in the House would recognise the shock for our constituents that abortion is illegal in theory and that the guidelines in the 1967 Act are the settled will of this place. To resolve any regulatory challenges, the new clause would require the Secretary of State to comply only with sections 85 and 86 of CEDAW—the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. Those sections are about minimum, not maximum, standards of care, and that is only if the Secretary of State believes there appears to be an incongruence that needs to be addressed.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am trying to reconcile the two things that the hon. Lady has said. She talked about the significance of the 1967 Act. When Lord Steel—David Steel as he was then—spoke on its Second Reading, he said that it was not his aim

“to leave a wide open door for abortion on request”,—[Official Report, 22 July 1966; Vol. 732, c. 1075.]

yet she has said that it is a human right and so people should have the right to an abortion. How does she reconcile her advocacy of what she described as the “settled will” of the 1967 Act—not having abortion on request—with the right to have an abortion on request?

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

In recent weeks and months in this House, we have become familiar with votes of conscience. The amendments that I shall speak to—new clauses 1, 20 and 106—are also matters of conscience. Although I am responding for his Majesty’s official Opposition, Conservative Members will have free votes, so the views that I express will be my own, and I fully recognise that there may be Conservative colleagues who disagree with me.

I recognise that the hon. Members for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) tabled new clauses 1 and 20 with the very best of intent. I have no doubt that all Members who signed them did so with the objective of supporting and safeguarding the rights of women, and I can unequivocally say that I share those aims, as do my hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), and for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who have also spoken. However, I do not believe that new clauses 1 or 20 achieve the safeguarding of women that Members seek.

Views on abortion do not have to be absolutist. Being pro-choice is not incompatible with being pro-life when the foetus is at a stage at which it is inherently viable. Believing that women should have autonomy over their bodies does not negate the need for a system that safeguards women from physical and emotional harm. As we have heard, new clause 1 would ensure that pregnant women were not criminalised for accessing an abortion during their pregnancy. It would, however, retain the law relating to the provision of abortion in healthcare settings as it stands. Effectively, a woman in England and Wales would legally be able to abort an unborn child by her own means up to the moment prior to a natural birth, but a healthcare professional would be breaking the law if they tried to help her do so outside the 24-week limit.

[Sir John Hayes]

There is a calumny at the heart of this, which is that these new clauses are compatible with the ’67 Act. When breaching an Act of this Parliament ceases to be unlawful, it loses its force and therefore its purpose, and that calumny cannot be allowed to stand on the record.

[Harriet Cross]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention.

On the one hand, abortion would be decriminalised for women; on the other, restrictions on her ability to access that same procedure in a safe, controlled and supportive setting would remain. We must be careful not to create a law that has unintended and potentially harmful consequences, especially for those it is designed to help, and especially when those who are likely to rely on it are likely to be in a state of stress or distress.

New clause 1 raises many questions. Is it tenable to legalise all but full-term abortions in England and Wales, but not in other parts of the UK? What would be the legal implications if a woman in Gretna travelled 10 miles across the border to Carlisle to have an abortion after the 24-week limit that is in place in Scotland? Under new clause 1, how do we monitor such abortions that occur outside a healthcare setting? How do we ensure that mothers’ physical and mental health is protected and supported? And what happens to the once-delivered foetus, if the abortion is outside a healthcare setting?

As we have heard, new clause 20 goes further than new clause 1 in many respects, so many of the same concerns apply. New clause 106 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham would mandate an in-person consultation before a pregnant woman was prescribed medication to terminate a pregnancy. This new clause is not about making abortions harder to access. An abortion should, of course, be readily available to those who need and want it, and of course abortion medication should be easily accessible during the appropriate stages of pregnancy, but this new clause is about the safety of the mother and the unborn child.

Face-to-face appointments are commonplace for patients with a wide range of medications and conditions, particularly when new medications are being prescribed. A private, in-person consultation allows a doctor to be as sure as they can be that the woman is acting of her own informed free will, and ensures that her mental state is assessed and understood. It also reduces as much as possible the likelihood of medication being misused or abused.

Telemedicine, while it has its place, can never be a replacement for the patient-doctor relationship developed during face-to-face appointments. It has serious shortcomings. There have been many cases where abortion medicine has been misused following telemedicine, and there have been many more hospitalisations of women following the use of telemedicine. However, I stress that not all of these cases will be down to misuse; we should all be aware of that. New clause 106 does not attempt to restrict access to abortions, and I would not support it if it did. Instead, it would act as an important safeguard to protect women from emotional trauma and physical harm.

Draft Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice, Review of Notices and Technical Advisory Board) Regulations 2025

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 General Committees

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I am pleased to be able to contribute briefly to this important Committee. As the Minister suggested when he nodded to me during his brief contribution, the original legislation received Royal Assent when I was the Security Minister, and I was proud to take it through the House with cross-party support. I took a profound interest in it at that time and have continued to do so since it became law. I worked with the last Security Minister in the previous Government, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), on the 2024 Act, partly in my capacity as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, that Act, to which this statutory instrument gives life, as it were, changed the process whereby warrants are issued, inasmuch as it enabled the Prime Minister to appoint five Secretaries of State, the assumption being that they would include the warranting Secretaries of State—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and, I presume, the Deputy Prime Minister, as well as the Prime Minister himself. Will the Minister say a word about that? It is not that I have an objection to it—it is important that these things are dealt with practically—but it would be good to hear the Minister’s views on that, as it is before us today with these codes.

Secondly, on the codes that relate to part 7A of the IPA, on bulk personal data, it would be helpful to have a further word about datasets with a low expectation of privacy. That is what the changes to the codes deal with, and it is what the amendments to the original Act addressed. As detailed in the explanatory notes, the public consultation to which the Minister referred was disproportionately focused on exactly that matter. A further word from him about that might be helpful.

Finally, how this is understood more widely is critical. There is still a lot of misunderstanding about the original Act, the 2024 Act and, I guess, these codes, too. This is not about collecting everyone’s data and making it widely available. As the Minister and other Committee members will understand, there are strict restrictions on how it can be accessed. The double lock—in some cases, it is now a triple lock—that we put in place in the IPA holds firm and ensures that this material is available only as needed, and the bar to access it is very high. I am sure that the Minister and the shadow Minister will want to reassure people about that. As they know, the way that this is perceived publicly matters a great deal to the security services, the National Crime Agency and others who might take advantage of these powers.

Immigration

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

There has been too much immigration to this country for far too long. I have great regard for the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), as she knows, but regard allows for sharp disagreements, and if she did not know that we disagree, she will after this speech. That level of immigration has damaged our economy, our shared sense of belonging on which social cohesion depends and our public services, by increasing population to an unsustainable level.

Let me first turn to the economy. The effect of mass migration on the economy has been to displace investment in domestic skills and in recruitment and retention of labour. It has displaced investment in the modernisation of our economy and it has therefore damaged productivity by inhibiting it. It has essentially created an economy that is low-skilled and dependent on the provision of relatively cheap labour, and is therefore unfit to compete in a high-tech, high-skilled world. That is what mass migration has done to our economy.

For evidence, one has only to look at the House of Lords Committee on Economic Affairs report, which says:

“we have found no evidence for the argument, made by the Government, business and many others, that net immigration—immigration minus emigration—generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population.”

The reason for that is that 70% of migrants are in low and medium-skilled roles. They are not the brightest and the best; they are not the people who we need to fill the vacancies that cannot be filled otherwise. Essentially, vacancies are being filled rather than providing opportunities for the vast majority of those Britons who cannot get a place in the labour market.

Mass migration has certainly damaged social cohesion by undermining our shared sense of belonging. We simply cannot import that number of people—many of whom do not speak English as their first language—without significant investment in integration; yet even if we were integrating at pace, the sheer volume would make it impossible to hold many communities together. We have seen social fracture, with a risk of complete fragmentation, in many communities.

Hon. Members from across the House will have visited schools where the headteacher has said proudly, “Of course, the children here speak 15 different languages,” as though that were a cause for celebration. Without a common language, there can be no currency for learning about one another and there can be no means by which we can share what makes us British. We have to promote the English language and we should abolish any attempt by any authority to translate things into foreign languages: let us make that a rallying cry from today.

Finally, the population of this country is growing at an unsustainable rate. We have heard already that successive Governments, beginning with the Blair Government, then the coalition Government, Tory Governments and now this Government, I am sorry to say, have failed to recognise that if we increase net population by 700,000 to 900,000 people a year, a number that equates to the combined populations of the five cities of Cambridge, Norwich, Hull, Lincoln—

[Mr Brash]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I hold him in high regard, but he has mentioned the figures of 800,000 to 900,000 following his list of Governments. Will he confirm that those increases only ever happened under a Conservative Government?

[Sir John Hayes]

I did say that it was under successive Governments. The reason for that is that the liberal elite of this country—I do not count the hon. Gentleman among its number—that controls far too much of the Establishment and wields too much power is at odds with the understanding which prevails in his constituency and mine of ordinary, everyday working people, who recognised what I have just said long ago but were told by people who should have known better that net migration at that level was not only tolerable but desirable. It is a complete nonsense to pretend so, and every piece of analysis justifies that.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. Does he agree that this concern about the high levels of immigration is also an issue of democracy and the sense of people not being heard? I noted the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) expressing support for deportations of foreign-born criminals, but unless the Government use levers—restrictions on visas for those countries not taking people back—we will again see too many foreign-born criminals in our prisons instead of being deported back to their native country.

[Sir John Hayes]

I of course agree with my right hon. Friend, who as usual has brought a particular insight based on his long experience to our considerations, and let us just take one example of that. Some 647,000 migrants received health and care visas from 2021 to June 2024; 270,000 of them were workers and an extraordinary, outrageous 377,000 were dependants. Even—[Interruption.] Even, I say to those on the Liberal Democrats Benches, those remaining members of the liberal elite who still perpetuate the conspiracy of silence about these matters must understand that everyone who comes to the country brings an economic value and an economic cost, and many of those dependants will not have brought economic value. That is not to disparage them in any way—they are perfectly nice people, I am sure—but they are not adding to the economy and certainly not adding to the per capita productivity or growth in the economy. In fact, they are detracting from it.

[Cameron Thomas]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the liberal elite but he is being generous there to me, a guy who was state-educated; I am very much just a bloke, but I thank him. One thing the Liberals were elite at was pointing out the fact that Brexit was not going to work. The promise of Brexit was of course to take back control of our borders; what does the right hon. Gentleman make of the fact that immigration is now four times higher than in 2019, following his own party being in government?

[Sir John Hayes]

Of course Brexit and particularly free movement led to a massive influx of people. When David Blunkett, now Lord Blunkett in the other place, was Home Secretary, he estimated that as a result of free movement 13,000 people would arrive in this country. In fact, the figure was in the hundreds of thousands and when settled status was granted it turned out to be millions. So the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about the effects of Brexit.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I will not because I know others want to get in and I am already testing the Deputy Speaker’s patience.

The truth of the matter is that we need to address migration not only for the reasons I have given about population growth and the damage to social cohesion and the economy, but because unless we do so the British people will assume, and rightly so, that people here just do not get it. Well, I do, and I hope those on my Front Bench now do, and the Government need to wake up and smell the coffee pretty soon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I do not think the Conservatives give much thought to anything in this particular field, so I would not even venture to give an opinion on that.

As I was saying, the Conservatives are in fourth place in the polls, and their entire vote has practically gone wholesale to Reform. This scrappy, desperate motion represents a vain attempt to stop that leakage and get some of their vote back. Let me also say to the hon. Gentleman that it does not matter how hard they try—and they are trying—because they will never outperform Reform, who are the masters of nasty rhetoric. The Conservatives are mere amateurs compared with the hon. Gentlemen of Reform who just so happen not to be in their places again.

The whole debate about immigration is descending into an ugly place which seems to fire the obnoxious and the unpleasant. I am talking not only about those two parties but about the Government too, and I am now going to direct my blame at some of the things they are doing. A new consensus is emerging in the House. For all the faux arguments and fabricated disagreements, the three parties are now more or less united in a new anti-immigrant landscape in the House. The only thing that seems to separate them is the question of who can be the hardest and the toughest in this grotesque race to the bottom on asylum, refugees and immigration.

The fear of Reform percolates through every sinew in this House. It dominates every single debate, and everything that is going on. Reform is killing the Conservatives, but Labour seems to want a bit of the self-destruction action too. Everything the Government do on immigration is now looked at through the prism of Reform, and they have even started to get the Prime Minister to use Reform’s language. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) could not have been more generous in his tribute to the Prime Minister for his contribution to nasty rhetoric. The thing is, the “island of strangers” speech could have been made by any one of these three parties.

[Sir John Hayes]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have not changed my mind about this; I have believed it forever. I only change my mind about anything about once a decade. The truth of the matter is that he must know that, according to the ONS, the scale of population growth will be equivalent to the population of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Peterborough, Belfast, Cardiff, Manchester, Ipswich, Norwich, Luton and Bradford added together. That cannot be reconciled with the quality of life and standard of living that his constituents and mine expect.

[Pete Wishart]

I know the right hon. Gentleman does not change his mind, and it is something that we all love him for in this place. Maybe we should look forward to what is on its way in a couple of decades. I think he knows that a spectacular population decline will start to kick in around the mid-part of this century. Spain and Italy are already doing something about it. All we are doing in this place is stifling population growth through the two-child benefit cap—something that works contrary to what we require.

All Labour is doing is climbing on the anti-immigrant bandwagon, and that is alienating its supporters. I am sure that everybody saw the Sky News report this morning on the intention of former Labour voters. Sky News found that only 6% of lost Labour voters have gone to Reform. Labour has mainly lost votes to the Liberal Democrats and the parties of the left. In fact, Labour has lost three times as many voters to the Liberal Democrats and the left as it has to Reform, and 70% of Labour voters are considering abandoning the Labour party to support the parties of the left.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The Conservatives have the brass neck to come to this place and get Member after Member to stand up and talk as if they are commentators. They are completely ignoring their role over the previous 14 years, when their record on immigration was appalling. It started with David Cameron, who promised to get migration down to the tens of thousands. That was followed by a conveyor belt of Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries who ratcheted up the rhetoric almost as high as the number of people coming into the country. Finally, we had the Boris wave, which saw net migration hit almost 1 million. I have to say that, when I was listening to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) talk about the liberal elite, I wondered if he was referring to Boris Johnson, because it happened on his watch. Boris’s betrayal was perhaps the worst, given that he led a Brexit campaign that famously centred on control of our borders. The Conservatives’ 14 years in power prompts the question: if they want a binding cap on migration, who on earth would trust them to keep to it?

There is a strong case for control over legal migration, and I wholeheartedly welcome the steps outlined in last week’s immigration White Paper, which I believe will contribute to that aim. My constituents do not object to people from around the world coming to this country to contribute to our economy and enrich our culture. We have a proud history of that. However, it must be carefully balanced with preventing exploitative labour market practices that create a race to the bottom on pay and conditions in crucial sectors such as health and social care, as well as the need to build strong, united and integrated communities.

[Sir John Hayes]

I take the hon. Member’s point. As I did say, successive Governments are to blame for this, beginning with the Blair Government or perhaps even earlier. Would he, however, acknowledge that we cannot increase the population on the scale we have been doing without putting unbearable pressure on demand for housing, access to GPs and health services, and other public services?

[Connor Naismith]

This Government are committed to bringing the numbers down. Regretfully, the right hon. Gentleman forgets the role of austerity in putting pressure on public services, housing and the other things he mentioned.

Turning to the issue of small boats, I first want to acknowledge that this country has a proud history of providing refuge to people fleeing persecution, and I think most people believe in those traditions, but this should not be determined by one’s ability to cross a continent or pay huge sums of money to people smugglers. What we need, quite simply, is fairness and control. That is why I welcome the steps the Government have taken to speed up processing, disrupt the smuggling gangs and work alongside our international allies, whom the previous Government unfortunately spent a lot of their time alienating.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie Lam]

I wish to make a little progress.

Fixing this broken system is the single biggest thing that we can do to restore trust in our politics. That means control of the borders and an end to mass migration; we need a system that works in the interests of this country and its people. Those who have come here legally and not contributed enough should be made to leave. Those who are here illegally, either by crossing the channel or from overstaying their visas, must be removed. The era of taxpayers funding accommodation, education, healthcare and legal challenges against their own Government for those who have no right to be here must end forever.

[Sir John Hayes]

We should deport the approximately 1 million people who are here illegally. We also need, as I hope my hon. Friend will acknowledge, to look at the indefinite right to remain. All kinds of people—with extremely dubious pasts, presents and possibly futures—have been granted that status. Will she commit the Opposition to relook at that, because indefinite does not mean permanent?

[Katie Lam]

We already have committed to that and will continue to do so. It is a clear amendment both to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill and to the deportation Bill in the name of my right hon. Friend, the shadow Home Secretary.

Unless and until politicians of all stripes can deliver the migration system that the British people have voted for time and again, there will be no reason for them to trust in our political system, and they will be right not to. We have seen no indication from this Government since they came to power last year that they are willing to do what needs to be done to give the British people the immigration system that they want and deserve. The debate today, I am afraid, has been no different.

The Minister clearly wished only to speak about the record of the previous Government. But they are in charge now—and what do we see? My right hon. Friend, the shadow Home Secretary, points out the facts. He says that Afghans are 20 times more likely to be sex offenders, and Government Members say, “Outrageous!”. Well, it is outrageous; saying so is not. He points out that over 70% of Somalis live in social housing, and they call it race-baiting. That is exactly the attitude that has allowed our political class to ignore the reality of the world that we live in. No party and no Government who continue to treat the British public’s very legitimate concerns with such scorn will ever rise to meet the challenge of securing our border.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) called for more safe and legal routes, but demand to come to Britain will always dramatically outstrip our supply. There is no number of safe and legal routes that will ever stop people making the dangerous channel crossing. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) called for this House—not foreign courts—to decide who can stay in this country. I admire his stance, and I look forward to the launch of his campaign to leave the ECHR.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) made a characteristically insightful speech about the substantial challenges of integration, and rightly connected that to the volume of immigration. No country of our size could ever hope to integrate that many people each year, and he is right to say so.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I wish to get on with discussing the amendments, but because I served with him on the Intelligence and Security Committee, I will give way to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) .

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Is not the truth of the matter that showing humanity means recognising, as the Minister has implied, that some people are coming, perfectly understandably, for entirely economic reasons? If you thought you could get a better deal in Britain for you and your family, you would turn up and say you were claiming asylum on all kinds of grounds. That is the real truth of it. The system is being gamed and it has to stop being gamed.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Yes in some circumstances, but no in others, because some people who come over are genuine asylum seekers. Even under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government—when he, too, was in the Home Office—such people were granted asylum. As always, there are many different circumstances and each case has to be looked at and judged on its merits.

Legal and Illegal Migration: Suspension

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 700824 relating to suspending legal and illegal migration.

Before I begin my remarks, may I say what a pleasure it will be to serve with you in the Chair Dr Huq? This is a topic of real importance, which matters to an awful lot of people across Britain, but too often politicians fail to talk about it with the seriousness and depth it deserves. Views on immigration have become increasingly polarised in this country, and it is a sad fact that, at the close of today’s debate, I will receive hate mail, as I am sure many other Members around the Chamber will. Some will be from people who think that, because I am willing to talk about the rapid rise of immigration, I am somehow a racist, but some will come from people who think I am the worst example of “woke thinking”—whatever that is—and a soft touch who does not care about the country’s national security. Neither of those positions is right.

Actually, when I talk to people face to face—real-life people who are not in politics—very few hold either of those essentially polarised opinions. One thing I am really hoping for from today’s debate is that we can bridge that gap and start to talk frankly and fairly about this issue. Everybody in this room wants to make progress on it, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will bear that in mind and that we can have a positive and open discussion—a grown-up debate—which is what this country deserves.

When thinking about immigration, two things are clear to me. The first is the role that migrants have played, going back centuries, in making this country what it is today—the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Jutes, the Normans, the Flemings, the Irish, the Windrush generation, people from across the Commonwealth and countless others. It would be remiss of me not to go through that list and make particular mention of the contribution of the millions from across the Commonwealth, and further afield, who fought shoulder to shoulder with our soldiers in both the world wars in the last century—and not only that, but who helped win the peace afterwards.

The second thing we need to do, though, is to respond to that by saying that immigration has grown rapidly in Britain in recent years. In the years since the covid-19 pandemic, it has spiked dramatically, and I am sure it is clear to all of us in the Chamber—and certainly to the 219,000 people who signed the petition—that that is a worry for a lot of people. Voters consistently tell pollsters that immigration is one of the biggest issues we face, and the most recent survey by YouGov found that 69% of people think it has been too high over the past decade.

I think that the worry that migration figures have grown too quickly is what underpins the petition. When I mentioned that I was going to lead this debate, I spoke to somebody back home, and their view was that, because the petition starts with the, “Close the borders!”, I should just try to ridicule somebody. That is absolutely the wrong approach in this situation. When we look into the detail of the petition—the explanation for it and what the petitioner has written—actually, the real drive here is not trade or imports; it is very much immigration, and I really do not want to try to patronise anybody by picking on a particular point and making ridiculous comments about it.

Unfortunately, it has been a little more difficult than usual to prepare my introduction. When I have introduced petitions debates before, it has been my common practice that one of the first people I speak to is the petitioner themselves. It has been really valuable to speak to that person face to face, or via Zoom, to really see where they are coming from and, hopefully, build the speech around that. Unfortunately, the petitioner has not been able to respond to any of the requests for a meeting, so I have not been able to have that face-to-face discussion. However, I am going to do the very best I can to do justice to their petition and to talk about it in as much detail as possible.

The petition calls for a temporary halt to all immigration, both illegal and legal, for five years. That word “temporary” is important. The petitioner writes that

“our country is facing serious challenges both from legal and illegal migration”,

and argues that strong action is needed. That speaks to a sense that we have reached a moment of crisis. The petitioner is not saying “never again” or dismissing the contribution that migrants make to our society, but they are worried about where we are right now. To go back to my initial point about having a grown-up debate, it is important that we recognise that the petitioner is not saying, “No people who weren’t born here”; this is a response to the situation as they see it.

So where exactly are we? Since I have the opportunity to present this debate, let me present some facts to go around it. Since 2021, immigration to Britain has risen to unprecedented levels. In the 12 months to June 2024, net migration—the total number of people moving here, take away the total number of people who have left—was well in excess of three quarters of a million people. That is down on the previous year, but it is still vastly higher than the pre-pandemic estimate, which would have been closer to one quarter of a million.

Within the 1.2 million people moving to the UK, 5% were Brits who were living elsewhere and who came home. I do not think in a million years that the petitioner would say that people who were born in the UK did not have a right to come back—I do not think that that is the point of view the petitioner is coming from—but the numbers do count them as people who have immigrated to the UK, because it is an inward flow. Another 10% of those who came were from the European Union, plus Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland, although more people from those countries actually left Britain than arrived here.

The vast majority, about 1 million people, were non-EU nationals. Almost half, about 400,000, came here to work; around 375,000 were students and roughly 150,000 were asylum seekers or people coming through specific humanitarian schemes—the Ukrainian and Hong Kong nationals schemes are great examples there, and I am sure there is widespread consensus about the importance of maintaining those safe and legal routes. Most of the remaining 100,000 or so people came for family reasons, and again I think most people would support people’s right to live a proper family life.

The petition talks about both legal and illegal immigration. The vast majority of people arriving in this country do so through standard legal routes, with a work permit, a student visa or some other type of permission. However, we all know that a large number of people come to the country through what the Government call “irregular routes”, most of them by crossing the English channel in small boats. Of those people, around 94% go on to claim asylum and around 70% are successful, which is a similar proportion to those arriving through other routes. In the year to September 2024, just under 30,000 people arrived in small boats; that figure is down by a third from a peak of more than 45,000 in 2022, but still much higher than we saw before that. In fact, it is 100 times—not 100%, but 100 times—higher than it was in 2018.

However we look at it, that is a really bad thing. The English channel may only be 20 miles across at its narrowest point, but in boats such as those we have seen people using to try to cross it, journeys can be extremely dangerous. It is one of the busiest shipping lanes on the planet, and the crossing is very dangerous. By October last year, 2024 had already become the deadliest year on record for channel crossings: 69 people had died trying to reach our country. Those are lives that should never have been lost. The people who profit from those journeys are the organised criminal gangs that are prepared to put profit in the way of people’s safety.

Given that background, it is important that we debate the petition in full, in detail and openly. As part of the work behind writing this opening speech, I spoke to a wide range of stakeholders, who said that suspending migration would be possible as a policy choice, but that it would have impacts. That is also worth saying: it is potentially doable, but as legislators we have to go one step further and talk about what effect it would have. Before I carry on, I thank everyone who shared their time and knowledge to help to make this as informed and useful a debate as possible: the Centre for Policy Studies, the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants.

When we talk about the effects that introducing this policy might have, let us start with work. What would it mean for jobs and our economy to stop that immigration completely, even for just five years? Polling suggests that, right now, the only factor that worries Brits more than immigration is the economy, for obvious reasons. Therefore, thinking about the impact of immigration on jobs is a huge part of where the debate should be going.

One of the big worries voters have is that migrants take jobs that could otherwise be done by Brits, driving down wages in our economy. Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that there is no fixed number of jobs in Britain and that, because we have the advantages of living in a liberal, free market economy, the number of jobs rises in good times, when people have money to spend, and in bad times—

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I am loath to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s short seminar on economics, but let me add my thoughts. Everyone has an economic value and an economic cost, and some people who arrive in Britain bring an economic value; indeed, some bring great value, such as people with skills that we need and so on. However, some people bring far more costs than value; for example, if they bring dependants, such as elderly relatives or young children, who need education or healthcare, they bring little economic value, which is not to say that they are not valuable people—they may well be. Therefore, in terms of the economic argument, is the hon. Gentleman as alarmed as I am about the high number of dependants —who bring no economic value to the country—that immigrants bring with them?

[Dave Robertson]

I was about to pick up on a couple of the right hon. Member’s points, but the major thrust of what he was saying was about dependants who do not bring any economic value. However, particularly if we are talking about dependants who are children, we have to consider the future economic value of having potentially amazing people coming to this country, with potentially amazing skills, who can deliver wonderful things for our country.

My wider point, on what migration means for the job market, is one that is worth discussing. Migrants do not take jobs from a fixed pool. The simple fact is that, when people migrate to the UK, they spend money. A rise in population can mean more cash in the economy and more money for businesses, allowing them to expand and create more jobs for those who have come to the UK. However, the reality is that the impact that migration has on the economy is quite small. Overall, migrants make our GDP bigger—that is a fact—but not by a vast amount. Migration is not a silver bullet to create more jobs, higher wages and boom times, which is pretty unsurprising if we think about it: if immigration did do all that, I do not think that as many people would be as worried about it as they are.

The other thing that comes up when we talk to people about this issue is wages. Although migration may have an impact on GDP, they are interested in what it does to the wages that people can earn? For the most part, looking across the economy as a whole, all the measurements say that the answer is very little. The impact is difficult to measure—it is such a small value that it is difficult to put a number on—but experts find that wages are not substantially higher or lower because of migrants.

Most of us know, however, that people’s understanding of the economy is not about a number written on a spreadsheet somewhere that an economist is looking at; it is about, “Do I have a job?”, “Does it pay well?”, and, “Do I have enough to get by?” The one place where immigration does have an impact is on the lowest-paid workers. For those people, it has an admittedly small impact, but it does depress pay ever so slightly. That is very easy for us to say, but if people are struggling to make ends meet anyway, any impact on their wages in the wrong direction is a big deal.

Beyond that, if we are to talk about immigration, jobs and the economy, we have to talk about what sectors of the economy rely on migrants. Many sectors and lots of industries in our economy struggle to fill jobs with British workers. The ones that I would single out, though, are seasonal agricultural work, such as fruit picking, and care work. Those are two sectors where migrants make up a big share of the workforce.

To look at care specifically, in England, which is where I will start, carers are often paid less than they could get working in a warehouse for one of the large internet companies—I will not name the one that begins with an A—as a delivery driver or in the local supermarket. That can make care work unattractive to people. People who want to be carers do it not only for the pay at the end of the month, but because they enjoy looking after people who need their support and help—older, disabled or other vulnerable people. As a result, almost one in five carers in the UK is a migrant worker and, for them, the wages are better than they might get at home.

It is interesting to compare that to Scotland and Northern Ireland, where there are far fewer migrant carers. That is because wages for carers are higher in those areas, so they are attracting more British workers and there is less of a drive to employ migrant workers. The Migration Advisory Committee reckons that raising the wages of carers by £1 an hour would make the job much more attractive to English workers, beating out those other jobs that currently pay more. That is where we can talk about this being a policy choice. It is down to any Government to make these policy choices. They could choose to do the investment—it would be about £2 billion a year—that would enable that to happen, but it would potentially leave unfilled jobs in other key sectors, or leave other areas unable to find the labour they needed.

I have a few points to make before I shut up and let other people contribute. I think it is important that we talk about public services. Immigration will have an effect on them. Everybody recognises this; it makes an obvious difference, with more people registering for doctors and dentists, needing hospital treatment, sending their children to school, and using other public services. However, it also means more people paying tax to pay for those things, so it is not quite a “good or bad” argument; it is one that we have to have in the round.

If we look at the figures, we see that some migrants, particularly those highly paid migrants mentioned by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), tend to pay more in tax than they take out by using those services. However, in other areas the impact is not offset in quite the same way, and having more people just makes things harder. Housing is the most obvious example. We know that we have a housing crisis in the country; there is broad political consensus about that. Rents are rising, and people are paying eye-watering sums to own a house. It is becoming much harder to get out of the private rental sector and on to the housing ladder. Because migration increases our population, it means more competition for homes and potentially even higher prices. The irony is that, in the short term, we need skilled construction workers to come here to start building the homes, because we have a gap in those skills in Britain, but if the population rises faster than we can build housing, it will exacerbate the crisis.

Earlier I spoke about the number of people coming to live in the UK on student visas, and I think it is important that I go into a bit more detail on that now. Some of us, and some people I have spoken to, may not consider international students to be migrants, but that is how they appear in the numbers, which show that almost a third of the migrants to this country last year came here to study. The international education strategy set by the previous Government aimed to increase the number of international students studying in the UK to 600,000 by 2030. Those students pay higher fees, which helps to pay for the world-class research universities that we have in the UK—one of the things that I am sure all right hon. and hon. Members are very proud to support. International students make up roughly a quarter of all students in British universities—up from closer to 10% all those years ago when I was a student. At some of our universities, though, the share is much higher. International students make up more than half the total at Imperial College London, University College London, BPP University, Coventry University and the Universities of Edinburgh and Southampton.

The number of international students is already starting to fall, because they are no longer allowed to bring dependants with them or switch to a work visa before the end of their course. Applications were down by almost a third last year, which means we have another difficult choice to make: either raise the fees that British students pay to help to balance the books, or potentially remove funding from the university sector, which is so important to the economy and to our soft power. Cardiff University has already announced plans to cut 400 jobs and axe courses because of fewer international student applications, so this is already starting to have an effect. Fewer international students could result in some institutions going under.

The final point that I want to make is about culture. This is a much more difficult issue to tie down, but a lot of voters talk to us about the culture that people bring with them, and the potential impact of high levels of immigration on British culture and the kind of country that Britain is. I think all of us know that there are lots of versions of Britishness and that trying to tie down a definition of that word would take longer than the three hours we have for the debate today. There are people in this country who are totally chalk and cheese, whom we love and we loathe. There are different groups—those who really identify with others and those who really do not. Again, we could spend a long time talking about that idea on its own. None the less, at the same time there is a shared sense of what it means to be British. That is not just about where somebody was born, or the colour of a passport; it is something much more fundamental—something that people share. It is fuzzy and hard to define, but we do know it.

For lots of people in this country, Britishness is not the only part of who they are, whether they are a third-generation immigrant or somebody newly arrived here. It is not a zero-sum game, where people must only be British and nothing else. It is perfectly legitimate for people to feel British-American, British-Canadian, British-Nigerian, British-Indian or British-Pakistani. Dual nationality and the variety of approaches that people have brought to the country have resulted in amazing developments in the last centuries. That is something that a lot of us want to celebrate, but while a lot of people see that the vibrancy, the new cultural ideas, the new foods and music and the different businesses on the high street are great, there are some who feel hesitant and that things are moving too fast for them.

I believe that when we get to know people who seem a bit different, we tend to find that we have a lot more in common with them than we first thought. Breaking down barriers and getting to know our neighbours can result in people feeling closer, with a stronger sense of community, but if that work is not done and people feel unable to break down the barriers, they may feel more isolated, distant and nervous, and that their community is changing in ways that they did not agree to and cannot control.

I feel the need to say that a minority—and it is a minority—of people in this country have views on race and immigration that we should all condemn. There are, unfortunately, some people who will try to use debates like this to further their own poisonous ends. There are also in this space many people who feel nervous discussing such matters—nervous about being dismissed as being racist, even though they are not coming from a place they consider to be racist. That is why I return to my initial point: let us have a grown-up discussion, talk about this in the round and recognise that not everybody starts from the same place. Let us also recognise that if we want to get this right—and people do want to get this right—we will have to build consensus, build bridges and work with everybody in our community, whether that is the settled population, different parts of the settled population, migrants, expats or anyone else.

There is clearly a mood in the country that immigration is too high. That tells us something about how Brits feel about our country. It speaks to everything that the UK has to offer that so many people want to make their lives here and share in our Great British values, but it is hard for some people to feel proud and optimistic about that when they look around and see shut shops, when jobs in their town, city or village do not pay well despite long hours, when they cannot see a doctor or a dentist, and when they cannot afford to pay their rent or even dream of buying a house. Fixing those problems is hard and complicated. Ending immigration is a policy choice the Government could choose to make, but it will not be a silver bullet that will fix all those issues. Any Government who made that decision would have to do so with full knowledge of the potential impacts, some currently unseen.

This petition, more than anything, demonstrates the fear about where we are right now. Change is needed. People are really eager to see Members like us, who have the opportunity to speak about this subject, talk about it in a way that, hopefully, moves the country forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful for being allowed to contribute to the debate, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) not only on bringing the subject to the House, but on the measured way he introduced it. It is good to hear someone offering a balanced view on immigration. I have good news for him: I am not frightened or nervous about speaking about migration for fear of being labelled a racist. Indeed, I have spoken about it for a very long time, and will continue to do so.

The plain fact of the matter is that this country has had far too much immigration for far too long. Much of the debate recently has, understandably, focused on illegal immigration. One hundred and fifty thousand people have crossed the channel, and that number has risen since last summer. People see our borders breached with impunity and regard that, perfectly properly, as a challenge to the rule of law. Is it not curious that many of the people now coming are coming from Vietnam? Before that it was Albania. There is not much evidence that these people are fleeing countries that are tyrannical and persecute people. The truth is that many of those coming here are economic migrants.

It is unsurprising that someone in a part of the world that is less advantaged than this one—although not godforsaken because nowhere is godforsaken—would want a better life for themselves and their family. Such a person might well become an economic migrant if they felt they could do so without cost, although in this case, the cost is substantial. They pay people smugglers great sums of money to get them here, knowing that once they are here, the chances are that they will never leave.

CS Lewis said that failures are

“finger posts on the road to achievement”.

Well, one certainly hopes so, because successive Governments have failed. They have failed to deal with illegal immigration, and failed to recognise that legal immigration is a much greater problem still. For all the awfulness of our borders being breached, the scale of legal migration and its effect on population growth is so immense that it dwarfs the challenge and problem of people coming here across the channel. Office for National Statistics figures suggest that our population will surge and that most of the increase will be a direct result of migration. The scale of migration is so great now that it is impossible to build sufficient houses to meet demand, and impossible to provide healthcare for the sort of numbers by which our population is increasing.

Let me give some figures to illustrate my point. In 2023, net migration to this country—this is not about people coming and leaving; this is the net figure—was 866,000. Even the most ambitious Government—a Government who exceed all previous records—might build 250,000 or 300,000 houses a year, but the net population growth through migration in a single year was 866,000. The year before, it was 822,000, and the year before that, it was 250,000. This is an entirely new phenomenon. In the period running up to the mid-1990s, migration was basically in balance; in some years more people left, in some more people arrived. In an advanced country, people always come and people always leave, and it is right that they should be able to do so, subject to certain conditions—in terms of the people arriving, that is. But this dramatic change has swelled our population very rapidly. No country can cope with that sort of population growth without very serious consequences for public services.

I will turn shortly to the other consequences, which the hon. Member for Lichfield touched on, but let us first deal with the economic arguments. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the justification for immigration has usually been economic—we needed these people to fill jobs that others could not do. When I was attending Cabinet, David Cameron, the then Prime Minister, said that it seemed that only he and the Home Secretary believed in his policy of reducing migration to tens of thousands. Every time he went to Cabinet, one or more Cabinet Ministers would plead that we needed more health workers, construction workers, farm workers, dentists, doctors or nurses. Who did we not need? Every single Department pleaded that they were a special case, such that the policy was almost impossible to pursue or to achieve.

That is the problem we had, but it ignores the point I made to the hon. Member for Lichfield. As I said, he made an extremely balanced case, and he is right to say that an enormous number of people have been admitted on work visas. From June 2024, 270,000 workers were brought in to work in healthcare, but they brought with them 377,000 dependants, almost none of whom will have worked in health or care, and many of whom will have perfectly understandably depended on the provision of both. This was not meeting an economic need; it was creating an economic demand.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman, although he looks like a bespectacled economist, so I am slightly nervous.

[Dr Arthur]

I am not sure if that was an insult or not. First, I should declare an interest by saying that back in 2015, an overseas healthcare worker saved my life. It was my cardiologist, and I put on record my thanks to him. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the population in the UK is falling, and we are getting older as well—I am evidence of that. Without immigration and workers coming into the country, particularly for our healthcare system, we may be stuck. Does he not agree with that?

[Sir John Hayes]

I will deal with those points in order. On the question of population, the ONS is clear that net migration is likely to fuel a rise in the UK population to 72.5 million by 2032. For most of my childhood and adolescence, the population was somewhere around 57 million, 58 million or 59 million. We have never at any point in our history had a population of anything like 72.5 million. The growth has been dramatic, taking place within a generation and a half. We can never build infrastructure to cope with that kind of growth. No Government could. It is not about whether the Government are Labour or Conservative or from a fringe party—by that I mean the Liberal Democrats, of course—it is about the public service being funded in a feasible and tenable way.

Of course it is true that many of the people who come into the country do great things, and of course it is true that our population has people from all kinds of places of origin who contribute immensely to our wellbeing and welfare. However, the truth is that the healthcare visa scheme was a palpable and absolute failure. If we look at the number of vacancies in that sector during the period I have described, it barely moved. It fell slightly, but by nothing like the number of people who were brought in. That leaves the question: what are these people doing now, and what did they do shortly after they arrived? My estimation is that many of them never intended to work in the healthcare sector and were brought into the country by businesses which never intended to work in it either. That is just one example of how the arguments about the economy and the value to the economy need to be re-examined and challenged.

I spoke earlier about the economic cost that people bring as well as value; what I did not mention, and must also be considered, is the displacement effect that migration has on investment in skills. When I was skills Minister, I helped to rejuvenate the apprenticeship system—under my stewardship we built the biggest number of apprenticeships we have ever had in modern times. I did that because I believed in investing in vocational, practical and technical competencies, not only to fulfil economic need, but because many people’s aptitudes, tastes and talents take them in that direction. However, if we say to businesses, “There is no need to invest in training or recruitment and retention, because you can bring people in from abroad to do those jobs”, what possible incentive is there for them to eat into the number of people who find themselves outside the labour market?

I feel particularly for young people. The number of so-called NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—is stubbornly high and has gone up to around 1 million now. Those 16 to 24-year-olds deserve better than a system that says, “We won’t train you; stay on benefits, because there is someone elsewhere who will do the job you might be trained to carry out.” That is not good Government. It is not reasonable or responsible.

We have to displace immigration and invest in skills, rather than the opposite—exactly what we have been doing for so long under successive Governments. Hon. Members will notice that I make no apology for the record of previous Conservative Governments. I am being absolutely frank: this has been a failure by the whole of the political establishment. Indeed much of that establishment, drawn as it is from the liberal classes, misunderstands the argument entirely. The hon. Member for Lichfield boldly and accurately drew attention to the gulf between the views and opinions of a very large number of our constituents and those who populate organisations such as the Migration Advisory Committee —it is a murky group; I never know quite who is on it or how they got there, but they certainly do not seem terribly sensitive to the kind of arguments that the hon. Gentleman advanced when he talked about the frustration and fears that people feel about the scale of migration for economic reasons.

Let me also say something about the social consequences. The hon. Gentleman, in his opening remarks, touched on the fact that societies work when they cohere—when they have a shared sense of belonging that draws people together and mitigates the differences that inevitably prevail in a free society. That shared sense of belonging is itself dependent on change being relatively gradual. Of course, everywhere changes, and our individual lives change too. We can cope with so much change in a human span, yet we have seen towns and parts of cities in our country alter beyond recognition. It is hard to reconcile that with the maintenance of that sense of belonging.

We need to be able to absorb people, and we need to be able to welcome those people, knowing there is something for them to integrate into. Yet, in some parts of Britain, there is a precious little left to integrate into. It is not fair to the indigenous population, nor is it fair to the incoming people, because it cheats them of their chance to gain that sense of belonging, that sense of Britishness, that the hon. Gentleman rightly identified as critical to our communal wellbeing. He is right that some people are frightened to say that. I have never been on the Clapham omnibus—you might have been, Dr Huq—but I can imagine what the people on it are like, because they are probably rather like the people on the Spalding omnibus, or even the Boston omnibus.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

I urge the right hon. Member to enjoy the pleasures of taking a bus to Clapham—it is a splendid experience.

[Sir John Hayes]

I would like to think that the hon. Gentleman, who is my constituency neighbour, spends more time in Lincolnshire than Clapham. I am sure he does. Perhaps, though, we could have an outing on the Clapham omnibus together.

When I go about my constituency, and I imagine this is the same in Lichfield and many constituencies across this House, I hear the frustrations; a feeling of resentment that so much harm has been done by so many people in power who have been oblivious to that harm. The last Government very belatedly, after overtures from people such as me and the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson)—when he was still in the light, before he went into the shade—clamped down on some of those abuses. They cut the number of work visas in a range of sectors and they reduced the number of dependants that students could bring.

It was preposterous that students could come and bring their families, was it not? When people go to study somewhere, they do not go in order to bring their family; they go specifically for an academic purpose. That ability was curbed, and it had some effect on overall numbers, but it was too little too late. It was not sufficient, and it took a lot of hand-wringing to get to even that point.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

Now that I have been half-kind to the hon. Gentleman, I will give way.

[Lee Anderson]

The right hon. Gentleman is being most generous with his time in giving way, especially to a Member from a minority party. He raises an interesting point about people coming here to study and bringing dependants. Does he know of any British students who have gone abroad and taken their family with them?

[Sir John Hayes]

The key difference is the type and number of students. The hon. Gentleman and I rarely disagree, and we certainly do not disagree on this subject very much. If someone is studying for a PhD, and they are coming here to work for a considerable time and looking to build a long-term career in academia, I can understand why they might want to build a family life here. If they are coming for a shorter course such as a master’s, it is pretty hard to see why they would want to bring their family, given that they would expect to go home at the end of it. Most of those people will also be very young, so it is unlikely that they will have children, wives or husbands—so who are these dependants that they might be bringing? I agree with the hon. Member for Ashfield that the idea was preposterous to begin with. Happily, in the end we curbed it.

I know that others want to contribute to the debate, so I will not take up any more time, except to say that it is high time there was a sea change, and that we recognise those

“finger posts on the road to achievement”,

the failures by successive Governments. While I know that, to quote CS Lewis again,

“An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason”,

the cause of this situation has been a fundamental reluctance to measure the medium and long-term effects of things that in the short term seemed attractive because they dealt with shortages or gaps in the economy.

I hope that we can now make the necessary changes. I hope that we can reunite those in power with those whom their power affects, and that we can re-engage with a population who know the premise with which I began my short contribution: that there has been too much immigration into this country for too long—a widely held view by people who think that enough is enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

I am grateful to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I usually say how pleased I am to speak in a debate, but I have to admit that I am conflicted about being here today because I could not disagree more strongly with the petition’s demands. And yet, the thousands who have signed it have rightly identified that we face deep challenges in this country, and that people are being badly let down and are struggling. Those who have signed the petition want answers. They want politicians like us to take bold, decisive action that will genuinely change people’s lives for the better. Let me be very clear: stopping migration is not the answer to that problem—in fact, it is the opposite. But we do nobody any favours by pretending that the problems are not there.

The petition captures a view of migration that I fundamentally disagree with, but the view is clearly widespread, so I want to directly address the many people who have signed the petition and all those who feel frustrated, left behind and ignored. I want to give another view of the problems that we face as a country and give people another way forward—one that is determined to change things for the better, that is positive in the face of negativity, and that resolutely stands up to those spreading misinformation and prejudice from wherever it comes.

I will start with the positive. I am proud to represent Bristol Central, which is apparently the most pro-immigration constituency in the country. I know that that feeling is not universal across the UK, so I want to explain why I and so many of my constituents feel that way. The truth is that migration is good for this country. People come from across the world because they want to be part of our communities. They do vital work, as has been discussed, in our hospitals, schools and GP surgeries. They care for our children and our grandparents. They start businesses and create jobs. They pay tax and give to charity.

If we look at Spain, we see that, last year, its economy grew by five times the eurozone average and more than the US. Why? Because by welcoming immigration, its Government boosted demand in the economy and filled their labour shortages. Economic growth is not the best measure of the benefit to citizens, and I will come to that in a moment, but to pretend that migration is a problem and not an opportunity does a disservice to people who have grown up here and people who have chosen to make the UK their home.

The Government’s economics watchdog tells us that higher migration leads to lower Government deficits and debt. Instead of grasping the huge opportunity presented by people moving here to be part of our communities and contribute to our economy, the Government are subjecting immigrants to harsh arbitrary visa restrictions, forcing many to leave their families behind—one man’s economic dependence is another man’s children—and pushing many into jobs, such as in the care sector, where they are at risk of very poor treatment because they are under threat of deportation at any time.

A lot of people feel very protective of this country, and so do I. We should want to protect this country, our home, and a place where so many incredible things have been invented and created. We have such a strong culture, with inventions from the electric motor and penicillin to the first ever website—although arguably that has had some cons as well as pros. The UK is a wonderfully creative culture and economy. It has the most beautiful countryside and the most talented people. We should be proud and protective of this country, and I want to be, but who are we protecting this country against? Who does it need protecting from?

I agree with the petitioners when they say that

“we can’t even look after the people we have here at the moment”,

but why is that? It is absolutely true that people and powers in this country are making life harder for a lot of Brits—they are making it harder for families to feed their children, pay the bills, get a doctor’s appointment, get on the housing ladder, or even get a council house. But that is not the people who have moved to the UK from elsewhere; it is big corporations paying poverty wages and then taking their profits out of the country. It is energy companies hiking their bills time and again while polluting our environment, and water companies making us pay for the privilege of having sewage pumped into our waterways.

[Sir John Hayes]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Carla Denyer]

I will make a little more progress. It is the landlords who own hundreds of properties putting up the rent every few months, out of all proportion to incomes, so that people pay more and more of their wage packet each month. It is the big developers prioritising profit by building luxury developments rather than the affordable homes that we need. It is years and years of deliberate underfunding by Governments that have brought our public services to their knees.

None of this is inevitable. If the Government choose, they could raise the minimum wage so that it is genuinely enough to live on. They could take action on spiralling bills, put an end to rip-off rents and build the affordable housing we so desperately need. But some rich and powerful people have an interest in keeping rents high, or allowing public services to be sold off to the highest bidder, or letting the rich get richer while the rest of us struggle. Rather than answering difficult questions about why this economy has been designed in a way that benefits them, it is easier for them to point the finger at migrants.

It is not always easy to stand up and tell the truth when we are swimming against the tide of what people across the country are being told day in, day out by public figures, newspaper headlines and posts on X. It is not easy to challenge the perceptions that have become the mainstream, but we have to, because as long as we chase false solutions to our problems and ignore the real sources of those problems, the things we care about—how much money we have in our pocket, whether we have a safe, warm, secure home, a roof over our head, and public services—will not improve.

I am going to have to turn to the negative for a moment. There is a serious problem of racism in this country, and especially in debates around immigration. That is not to say that everyone who has concerns about immigration is racist, though I fully expect that I may have my speech characterised as such. But we need to be honest about the fact that racism is thriving in this country. Like a hideous parasite, it feeds off people’s fear and suffering and is nurtured by politicians and media outlets that benefit from finding someone else to blame.

Last summer in Southport, we saw a horrific attack against children that scared us all. Such horrors make us angry, and rightfully so. But just as unacceptable and scary is what happened next and how that anger was deliberately misdirected towards totally innocent people: towards black and brown families minding their own business, who are no more responsible for the behaviour of one young man who happens to be the son of immigrants than I am responsible for the behaviour of all other left-handers. The despicable scenes we saw in the riots are a chilling snapshot and reminder of what is happening in this country and of what I am here to speak against: a spiral of misdirected blame, anger and fear that fixes nothing, helps nobody and harms many.

When the Minister responds, I ask him not to focus only on the perhaps easier, but not entirely honest, answer of being tough on migration, but to meet the petitioners with sincerity about the challenges we face and how we can really tackle them. To quote the petitioners one last time:

“We believe we can’t even look after the people we have here at the moment.”

They are right. Successive Governments have failed the people in this country. They have failed to provide jobs with fair wages, affordable housing, affordable energy, access to healthcare—I could go on. Rather than solutions, millionaire politicians and millionaire media moguls have inundated our phones, TVs and newspapers with images and messages depicting immigrants as the source of all our problems.

People are struggling. They are worried about not being able to pay their bills, about not getting paid enough and about their safety. An overwhelming tide of loud voices is telling them who to blame. That does not ease their worry or stop their struggling; it capitalises on their anger for political gain at the expense of some of the most hard-working and, sometimes, vulnerable people in this country.

It is a story as old as time to blame the stranger, the newcomer, the one who looks different. No one ever beat that story by accepting the narrative or overcame it by validating it. People’s feelings about being let down are valid, but the direction in which they are being pointed is not. It is the responsibility of all of us in this House, and especially of the Government, to be truthful, confront the real issues and not let people’s pain be channelled into hatred.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dr Huq, especially given that this is my first speech in Westminster Hall. I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), for introducing this debate so thoughtfully and in such a balanced way, as several hon. Members have said. It has not gone unnoticed that my constituency has among the highest numbers of signatures on the e-petition. As has been rightly pointed out, the petition is a signal to the House of how people feel about immigration and the real impact on their lives. It is our responsibility as Members of this House to acknowledge that. It is also our responsibility to be clear that discussing immigration and the strains that it leads to is not racist or intolerant, but a legitimate part of our democracy in the same way as public debate over any other issue.

It is important for us to discuss the impacts of high levels of immigration, particularly where they are seen over a short period and where that immigration is concentrated in certain cities, towns or villages. The impact of that rapid rise in population in that context is not dissimilar to large new housing estates being built over a few years—except that, with house building, we can to some extent put in place mitigation through the planning system and allow for a direct transfer of cash from developers to infrastructure. We can—and, I am sure, will—debate whether the planning system delivers infrastructure quickly enough, but the bottom line is that rapid immigration to particular areas is far harder to plan for and therefore to address.

Over the past two decades or so, several pots of Government funding have attempted to address that point, such as the migration impact fund, introduced under the last Labour Government, and latterly the controlling migration fund under the coalition and Conservative Governments. However, those pots often fund efforts such as encouraging GP registration among new migrants to reduce the use of urgent and emergency care. Although that is positive for demand on services and, certainly, the public purse, it often does not address the core issues with the lack of infrastructure, such as the number of places at local GP surgeries or schools. I believe we need to revisit the question of how we make up for the impact of immigration at a very local level, where people are feeling the effects most.

Ultimately, we are here to discuss why hundreds of thousands of people have chosen to sign this petition. For some, it might be a worry about the pressure on housing, schools and healthcare, or an acknowledgment of the simple fact that net migration has been left to soar for far too long. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield mentioned, net migration reached staggering levels in recent years, and it has never reduced to the level that the previous Government aimed for.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is making a measured speech, unlike the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), but will he chart what he has mentioned in practical terms? Last year, there were 700,000 new GP registrations. No Government, Conservative or Labour, could cope with that scale of growth in demand.

[Josh Newbury]

Absolutely—I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that point. Those of us who have had high levels of house building see that, and I am sure that is reflected in areas with high levels of immigration. We need proper planning wherever there is a rapid growth in population, and I worry that that has not been happening for a very long time.

GP registrations are a particular pressure point. I recently had a roundtable with all the general practices in my area, and I was told that they are at capacity—over capacity, in many cases—and that further house building is coming down the line. They worry that we do not have forward planning in the NHS, which is often slow to catch up. I say that having worked for an NHS commissioner in a past life. We must acknowledge that we need to do far better on that point.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield said, a key reason for the high levels of immigration is the unchecked issuing of work visas, particularly in sectors with high vacancies such as social care. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment to finally link up immigration policies and our national strategy for education and skills. Only that will ensure that British people have opportunities to upskill, reskill and access those jobs—in some cases, they currently do not feel able to do so. That will also put a greater onus on employers to ensure that they use work visas for vacancies that genuinely cannot be filled by our workforce.

An early priority identified by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Education Secretary and the Home Secretary is social care, and it is not hard to see why. In many ways, social care epitomises the issues we are facing with immigration and workforce planning: we have an ageing population, so demand for the sector’s services is exploding; pay is generally low, especially given the importance of the work; the wider terms and conditions are not appealing for many young people starting their careers; and there are often no opportunities for skills training.

Last Friday, I was given a greater insight into the challenges of the care sector when I visited CSPC Healthcare and heard about the challenges it has seen in the sector for the 12 years that it has been operating. It provides domiciliary care in my constituency and across Staffordshire and the west midlands. It told me quite a lot, most of which I will save for a future debate on social care, but one thing it said that struck me was that many agencies, particularly those working with overseas recruitment agencies, are sponsoring huge numbers of work visas, only for those workers to find that the amount of work they were promised is not there when they come into the country, are bused out to a particular town and dropped off. That is exploitative and quite frankly an outrage if immigration figures are being artificially inflated when our economy does not need all those staff. That highlights the reforms we need for the immigration system and our skills and workforce planning.

The question that must follow all that is: would suspending all immigration for five years really solve all those problems? Our economy relies on workers from abroad to fill gaps in our workforce and in sustaining our vital public services, so I fear that a complete shutdown would risk huge consequences. In particular, we know that our NHS will always rely on workers coming to make their home here and contributing to those great institutions. Having worked in our NHS in a past life, I know that skilled staff from other countries, most of them European and Commonwealth nations, are critical to keeping the health service alive.

We will always benefit from international skills and talent to keep us globally competitive, but importantly, immigration must never be used as an alternative to training or tackling workforce problems here at home. The previous Government’s reliance on overseas workers, teamed with a failure to invest in skills here in the UK, left us with an immigration system that is neither properly controlled nor managed, resulting in net migration of almost 1 million people. Regardless of our stance on immigration control, surely we can all agree that that is unsustainable practically, financially, environmentally, or on whatever grounds we care to look at.

The decade of decline in skills training, particularly vocational skills in the sectors with the greatest need, saw employers unable to fill vacancies and therefore with no choice but to either do the nation serious economic damage or face eye-watering net migration figures. The work that Skills England is doing with the Migration Advisory Committee will show us the occupation shortages, which will ensure that people can access the skills training they need to fill vacancies in those sectors, raising growth sustainability across the country and stopping reliance on overseas recruitment.

I will finish with a point on dependants and a point on the practicalities of halting immigration for five years. As has been mentioned, dependants have been a key component of rising levels of immigration for many years, especially in visa categories where levels were previously very low, such as students. I absolutely sympathise with the view that our points-based immigration system needs to focus on bringing the most economically productive workers into the UK. However, we must also acknowledge that some of the highest skilled, most productive workers, just like British workers, have care responsibilities. Surely we do not want to shut out people purely because they have children or have to care for a sick or elderly parent, for example. What we need is a common-sense approach to dependants. Should a student be able to bring their whole family over with them when they study? In my opinion, no. Should a single mother with three children, who wants to work as a nurse in our NHS, be welcomed? Yes. I think the vast majority of the public support that pragmatic view.

I sympathise with what I assume are the motivations of the creator of this petition: giving the UK breathing space to rebuild our infrastructure, which has been so damaged by the age of austerity, a pandemic and huge levels of net migration. But the reality is that halting immigration for several years, or even months, would simply create huge pent-up demand for visas for that period of zero migration. During that time, presumably people would still be allowed to leave the country, raising the possibility of a mass shortage in our workforce. Then, if immigration were allowed again at some point in the future, the tidal wave of applications would almost completely overwhelm not only our visa system but the infrastructure that we are most concerned about. A total stop of immigration would therefore be counterproductive to tackling the impacts that underpin this petition and so much of our national conversation around immigration.

To conclude, I hope that the openness and robustness of debate we have seen today will continue. Closing down the debate around immigration with name-calling and demonisation, from whatever perspective, will close down the chance of getting to a point where we are able to address all the issues we have touched on. I welcome the Government’s choice to grasp the nettle of reforming our skills system and linking it to where job vacancies are, and I hope we can continue that debate in the months and years to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice]

It was working well, and we had people coming from around the world to help the NHS—but we were training our own, and that was a great thing. That comes back to the point that what has happened in the past 15 years is the complete failure to deliver for population growth at every level. The madness of the cap on training our own people who want to be nurses or doctors—it is absolutely ludicrous. We encouraged businesses in that by saying, “You do not need to invest in training. You can just bring in people from overseas.”

What happened? That brought in low-skilled, lower-cost labour from overseas, and we were told by the authorities, the ONS and the Office for Budget Responsibility or its predecessors, that that would be a good thing for the country. Now, we have been told by the OBR, which has just caught up with things, that lower-skilled and lower-cost labour never contributes financially to the economy more than it takes out.

[Sir John Hayes]

This is in anticipation of our trip to Clapham, perhaps. Another economic point that has not been made so far in the debate is that if we allow for the kind of incoming populations that the hon. Gentleman described, we stultify the economy. Instead of investing in technology, in labour saving, or in creating the high-tech and high-skilled economy that makes us competitive across the globe, we reinforce an economy that has high levels of labour—usually unskilled and lowly paid labour—and we weaken our productivity and competitiveness. That is precisely the other economic effect that that policy has had over time.

[Richard Tice]

The right hon. Member makes a splendid economic point, which I was coming on to, because this is basic economics. If we have a labour shortage, employers have one of two choices. They can either say, “I need to pay higher wages”, which reflects what the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) was indicating earlier. Or, if they cannot afford that labour, they will essentially be saying, “I need to invest in capital equipment, which is more productive”, and that is what happened: in the ’80s and ’90s, businesses were investing in capital equipment. That is why we became ever more productive and why we got richer. That is the key thing.

From a legal migration standpoint, if we implement it well, with the highly skilled and highly trained going to where they will contribute to various sectors, it is a good thing and hugely welcomed across the country. That takes us back to where I think things were some 25 to 35 years ago. Done badly—like anything in life—we end up with problems. That is why we have ended up in the situation we are in: because of the failures of the previous regime.

That is the issue of legal migration. With competence of delivery, it should be sortable, but the British people are very anxious about the pressures on housing and public services, and that is driven by the pressures of population growth. The challenge for this Government is to try to deal not only with the huge problems that they inherited, but with the potential population growth. In a sense, if the Government said, “Well, we can’t cope with population growth, because we need to deal with the current challenges”, that might make life easier for them. Otherwise, the Government will be constantly chasing their tail and might never catch up.

That brings me to the issue of illegal migration. I would have thought that we could all agree that if something is illegal, we should stop it. In many ways, that goes back to what I was saying earlier about having to do something well: one has got to be competent, and occasionally it requires a bit of courage.

Interestingly—credit where credit is due—under the Labour Administration in the 2000s, we had significant numbers seeking asylum and we had significant illegal immigration, which was then not on boats but in lorries and vans and such, and the Government were doing a good job. They were catching people and saying, “Thank you very much for your application, but you are an economic migrant and have come here illegally. We are going to thank you but say no, you can’t stay.”

The Government were removing some 40,000 people a year and were assessing asylum applications in two to three weeks, with a couple of weeks for an appeal. The decision was made and either the person stayed or returned. In 2004, I think, the acceptance rate for asylum seekers was about 18% to 20%. That percentage is now somewhere in the 70s.

We have a history of being able to do things well. I think that is what the British people want.

[Richard Tice]

I think the fact was that the Government were assessing people quickly and promptly. I suspect that what we did not have back then—I may be wrong, and if so, I stand corrected—is a huge industry of lawfare that had grown up, as it has now, but I could be wrong on that. I think it comes back to the issue of competence.

Having been stopped from coming illegally primarily in lorries, people are now coming on boats. What the previous Government utterly failed to do, having had no strategy whatsoever, was stop the boats. There is a history of other nations stopping the boats, and the tragedy, as a previous speaker said, is that by not stopping the boats, people are dying. Last year was a record year—I think the figure of 69, give or take, was mentioned.

The current policy is the worst of all worlds. It is my opinion, having studied it and read it in great detail, that the 1982 United Nations convention on the law of the sea gives us the legal right to pick people up out of boats and safely take them back to France. Under that same treaty there is a legal obligation on our good friends the French to do exactly that. They have a legal obligation that they are failing to fulfil. We know that it works because the Belgian authorities pick up boats that try to leave its shores. They take them back and the whole thing is stopped very quickly. What that requires is competence and political courage, which we have not seen anything of in the last six years by either Government.

The Government have a strategy at the moment, and I hope that the Minister will address it in his remarks, which is to smash the gangs and pray that that will stop the boats. But the evidence so far—some seven or eight months into this Administration—shows that the numbers are some 20% higher than in the comparable period. We know that last year some 36,000 people came across on the boats.

This is costing the country billions and billions of pounds. It is quite hard to get a sense of how many billion, because it is being spent in so many different ways, but it is costing the country billions of pounds. It has also led to the destruction of thousands and thousands of jobs in hotels across the country in the hospitality sector. It has also put significant extra pressure on housing: some 150,000 have come across on boats; very few have been returned. There was that successful return of four people to Rwanda at the cost of many hundreds of millions of pounds. The question for the Minister is: how long will the Government carry on with this policy of smashing the gangs before accepting that it is not working and that it will not work? That is a very important question that I have previously asked the Secretary of State, and we are still waiting for an answer.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time; it is very generous of him. I have some figures that I hope will help him. He asked how much it is costing. What we do know is that £3 billion was allocated to housing asylum seekers in hotels. That is an average of about £8 million a day—£8 million that could be spent on the desperate, the needy and the dispossessed in our country.

[Richard Tice]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but I think the real number is many billions higher. Of course, the cost could be £10 billion a year—that is almost 10 times the winter fuel allowance, just to put it in perspective.

There is another issue here: the degree of illegal working going on in this country is completely off the scale. It is often unreported on. For example, 40% to 50% of all fast food deliveries, give or take, are now being done by people on sub-accounts. They rent the accounts from the original account holder, who they find on Facebook, at a cost of £50 or £60 a week. Why would someone pay someone else for a sub-account on a delivery company website if they were able to get an account for free? There can be only one reason: those people are working illegally.

If any Members enjoy the pleasures of fast food deliveries, I suggest they look at the person delivering their food and compare them with the picture of the person who was supposed to deliver it. Very often, they will see that it is not the same person. The scale of illegal working has the sad effect, which I have seen and spoken to people in certain towns about, of suppressing the wages of genuine British workers who want to earn a good living, and were earning a good living, by delivering fast food on bikes, e-bikes or whatever. Again, there is a serious lack of fairness; it is completely unjust.

There is a strange thing going on, and it is happening in my constituency of Boston and Skegness and elsewhere. I am talking about illegal legal migration. It is a racket and massive business. People are coming here on a visitor visa and when they arrive here, they go to a high street shop—they do this in Boston—where they get told how to fiddle the numbers on the form to show that they were here pre 2020. By doing so, they can subscribe under the EU settlement scheme, even though they have never been here before. That gives them a national insurance number for overseas, which entitles them to work, and soon after that it entitles them to claim benefits. We have ended up with a level of illegality up and down the country much greater than anybody dare talk about. I hope everybody agrees that it is incumbent on this Government to ensure competence in enforcement, because that will stop this level of abuse. It is suppressing the wages of British people, and it is adding huge pressure on housing demand, when there is a critical housing shortage.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh in the Chair]

I welcome you to the Chair, Dame Siobhain; it is lovely to see you.

We have to get on top of the illegality, while recognising that legal migration done well is a very smart thing to do. Done badly, as it has been in recent years, it has led to the massive challenges and the concerns that tens of millions of people across the UK have.

In summary, I think this is about doing things well. It is about stopping illegal migration by doing the job properly, and being smart about how we motivate our existing population and getting people skilled up and back into work, so that we do not need to rely on large amounts of inward migration when we are paying huge amounts of money for people to stay at home. That cannot be smart, good government. I think any Government, if they do this well, will have the gratitude of the British people. I think the British people just want someone to do this job properly.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I start by thanking all the participants in this interesting and wide-ranging debate, and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) in particular for his comprehensive and very thoughtful introduction. He rightly reminded us that this matter is of great importance to many people and that we should not demonise or polarise people for their views in this discussion; we should be willing to listen and discuss the topic—as indeed we have today.

The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) also recognised the importance of discussing this topic and highlighted his view of the country as being full, with migrants consuming public services. In relation to the Clapham omnibus—I should point out that underground trains and suburban trains are also available as public transport options in that suburb—I will perhaps encourage him to take a trip on said omnibus. He may be surprised to find that the viewpoints of residents in that area, which voted heavily to remain and is very diverse and cosmopolitan in many of its features, are rather different from those in his own constituency.

The hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) talked about the need to tackle illegal migration and also recognised the long history of migrant contributions to our country. The hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) also highlighted the importance of having a respectful debate on the issue and recognised that housing is under pressure for a whole range of reasons. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) highlighted how the ageing UK population drives part of the need for migrant labour in this country, and how the planning system has not been effective at meeting population increases and ensuring that infrastructure and public service provision catch up.

That point was also made by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), who cited the failure of successive Governments, as well as making some positive comments about the Labour Government of the early 2000s and the need for UK skills investment. That was a point also very well made by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. In relation to Liberal Democrats of different hues, I assure the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness that our colour has always been orange. We would, of course, welcome suggestions for any changes to our colour palette.

When it comes to my own views on this issue, I think it is important to reflect on an overall philosophical point. My strong view is that, on average, people as individuals have far more in common—they have common needs—than differences, and that is far more important than where they came from. I feel this partly because I have Polish heritage: my Polish mother moved to this country in the 1970s and has spent decades always working and contributing to UK life. She has certainly fully integrated—perhaps aside from an occasional accent difference or getting her “a’s” and “the’s” mixed up.

On that point, so often discussions about immigration and immigrants are softened when the debate turns away from the general and to specific individuals and personal relationships. For example, when I met local business owners at the Railway Inn pub in Culham in my Oxfordshire constituency, an initially very frustrated and hostile conversation about immigration suddenly softened somewhat when I talked about my Polish mother. Those people in the discussion talked about their own heritage and the many people they know in the area who have come from other countries, and recognised that, individually, they make a strong contribution.

It is important to remember that there are many types of migrants, with very different reasons for coming here. It is therefore essential that we examine the basis and reasons for people’s major concerns about migration. On irregular migration, I think we can all agree—as we have done during this debate—that we want to stop the dangerous channel crossings. Unfortunately, the previous Conservative Government failed to tackle them and arguably made the situation worse. Human trafficking gangs responsible for those crossings continue to operate with virtual impunity. We saw barriers erected to international co-operation by the previous Government that make it harder to crack down on cross-border people smuggling.

That Government’s inability to process asylum claims efficiently meant that those without a genuine right to stay were not being swiftly returned. As has been stated by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, that continues to cost the taxpayer a great deal for hotels and other forms of accommodation. It is clear that change is desperately needed, so it is right that the new Labour Government are taking steps to stop those channel crossings. Cracking down on the criminal trafficking gangs responsible will be crucial. The Liberal Democrats want to ramp up domestic enforcement against those gangs, including by establishing a new single enforcement body to crack down on modern slavery in the UK, which is how so many of those gangs make their money.

We also need to look at the root causes of why migration is happening to Europe and the United Kingdom, because we are not alone in facing this challenge—it is very much a continent-wide problem. We need to work constructively and collaboratively with our European allies, particularly France, via Europol. We need to create an effective and morally appropriate deterrent, such as deportation back to home countries if applications are rejected—again, that comes back to the importance of tackling that backlog and having an efficient system for processing applications. We need to consider the varying root causes that lead people to attempt to reach Europe and the UK, including war, oppression, climate change and, yes, a lack of economic opportunity. We need to consider further what safe and legal routes may exist for people to apply for asylum and refugee status from abroad.

Turning to legal migration, the Liberal Democrats agree that our country needs a fair and effective immigration system that enforces the rules on who has the right to stay in our country. Unfortunately, we saw nothing of the sort from the previous Conservative Government, with their chaotic approach of making and breaking headline-grabbing targets that has shattered public trust and left the system in a shambolic state. Net migration figures reached record highs on the Conservatives’ watch, and their inability to process asylum claims efficiently meant that those without a genuine right to stay were not being swiftly returned.

It is clear that the new Government have a mammoth task ahead: rebuilding an immigration system that works for our country and economy, while fixing public trust in the process. Many speakers in today’s debate talked about the challenges with the planning system eroding the public’s trust. Certainly in my constituency—which has seen 35% population growth in the South Oxfordshire and the Vale of White Horse districts—a system that does not match infrastructure and public services to population growth erodes public confidence in the entire system. As the hon. Member for Bristol Central said, having public services that work will be essential for regaining that trust.

Over the past two years, from the data that we have, the two main reasons for immigration have been work and study. Recent years have also seen a much higher number of people arriving for humanitarian reasons than in the past, notably via the Ukraine schemes, the Afghan resettlement schemes and the holders of British national overseas status from Hong Kong, who have quite rightly been welcomed here because of the oppression of the Chinese Government.

Migration is currently a source of population growth, and migrants tend to be younger on average than the general population, which can be useful when our own population is ageing. As has been said, the number of non-UK nationals in employment is greater than the 3.5 million people aged 16 to 64 who were out of work in late 2024, but who wanted to work. Of those, 1.5 million were unemployed, meaning they were actively looking for a job, while 2 million were assessed as economically inactive, meaning that they were not able to work.

If we want to reduce migration and have more “British jobs for British people”, as one Prime Minister once said, we need to examine why our economy is so dependent on migrant labour in many sectors. We need to recognise the risk that a suspension of immigration for five years, as has been suggested by this petition, would likely lead to labour shortages across the UK’s labour market, harming both the private sector and public services.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Member is right that, if we did not get the unemployed people who could work into work, the circumstances would be as he describes them. We need to get those people into work. Many of them want to work, and many young people—the 1 million NEETs—do not have the skills necessary to work, and they deserve our support. Surely they must come first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Dame Siobhain. I am grateful to the Petitions Committee and the well over 200,000 members of the public who have requested that we debate this topic today.

Some may be uncomfortable with the petition before us, which calls on us to suspend all immigration for five years. That would represent a radical departure from the status quo. Some may even be tempted to be dismissive of it, but that reaction would be wrong. I commend the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for taking this so seriously.

This petition is an expression of the deep and entirely legitimate frustration that the British public feel with the way that successive Governments of different political parties have handled immigration. I say that that frustration is entirely legitimate because the level of migration to this country has been too high for decades and remains so. Every election-winning manifesto since 1974 has promised to reduce migration. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) has said, the last Government, like the Governments before them, also promised to do exactly that—but again, like the Governments before them, did not deliver. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) summarised it well in a speech he gave here in Westminster Hall a few months ago:

“Immigration is the biggest broken promise in British politics, and probably the biggest single reason that British politics is so broken.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 163WH.]

This is not only about the betrayal of the public’s trust, terrible though that is. People can increasingly see the tangible downsides of high immigration in their own lives. They can see it in their wages, which are stagnating because they are being undercut; they can see it in their soaring rents, in how hard it is for their children to get on the housing ladder, in the cohesion of their communities and in the pressure on their GPs, their dentists and our infrastructure.

Several Members today have mentioned the public’s fears about that, including the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury). Those of us in Westminster should not be surprised to see members of the public demand a radical change of course. Elected representatives must respond to these material concerns, not with platitudes, but with actual change. If we fail to do so we will see demands for a total shutdown on immigration grow louder and louder.

I do not believe that we should suspend all immigration. Like the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), I believe that a small number of highly skilled people can make a valuable contribution to this country, bringing their talents, experiences and ideas with them—but our current system does not select for such individuals.

In part, this issue is about quantity. Over the last few years, this country has seen unprecedented levels of immigration: over a million people per year from 2022 onwards, and net migration at or expected to be at least 820,000 people, as we have already heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). That means adding as many people to Britain’s population as live in Leeds, this country’s third largest city, every single year. Even if they are highly skilled and keen to assimilate, every person who comes to Britain needs infrastructure, housing and healthcare. Assimilation itself, bringing new migrants into the fabric of our communities, becomes much more difficult with people arriving here at anything like this kind of scale.

This issue is about not just quantity, but about the people we welcome to Britain. It should be a fundamental principle of our system that people who come to this country do not cost more than they contribute. What they pay in tax should at least cover the costs of the public services that they use. That is the opposite of the situation we have now. Only a small proportion of those who have come to this country over the last few years are likely to be net lifetime contributors.

After just five years here, many migrants will become eligible for indefinite leave to remain. With ILR status, they gain access to universal credit and social housing, surcharge-free access to the NHS and much more. According to analysis from the Centre for Policy Studies, over 800,000 migrants from the past five years could soon claim ILR, at an estimated lifetime cost of £234 billion —equivalent to £8,200 per household, or nearly six years of defence spending.

If we accept that the immigration policy of the past few years was a mistake, we should make every effort to reverse its long-term consequences. That is why the Conservative party is advocating that the qualifying period for ILR should be extended, giving us an opportunity to review time-limited visas issued over the last five years. ILR conditions should be tightened to ensure that future applicants are genuinely likely to be net contributors. Those who have come here legally on time-limited visas and who have not contributed enough should be expected to leave.

But it is not enough to correct past mistakes. Moving forward, we must also design a sustainable immigration system that addresses concerns about immigration volumes and the people we allow to come here. Those who come to Britain should be genuinely high skilled, with the capacity to support themselves and their families without relying on public funds. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex has previously argued, culture also matters. We must recognise that fact and design our system with assimilation in mind. It is both fair and sensible to prefer immigration from societies that are more like our own.

[Sir John Hayes]

My hon. Friend is giving a compelling summation of both the debate and the problem. She will know that Trevor Phillips, the Labour politician and columnist, first deconstructed the idea of multiculturalism. His argument was that it perpetuated the notion that cultures could co-exist without anything that bound them together, but that those cultures would in the end segregate and, in his words, create ghettos. It is important that we challenge that and build a society based on what we share, the things we have in common, and the links and bonds that tie a civil society together.

[Katie Lam]

It is important to say, as my right hon. Friend’s intervention reflects, that we absolutely can have a multi-ethnic society, but that it is fundamental that we are one country and one people with one perspective.

The kind of immigration system that I have discussed is one that the British people have voted for time and again: limited, selective and tailored to our needs. Unfortunately, I have seen no indication that the Government are willing to implement such a system. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are not planning to extend the qualifying period for ILR? Can he outline what discussions he and others in his Department are having with ministerial colleagues about the impact that new ILR grants will have on public services? Have the Government made any estimation of the number of people who will receive ILR over this Parliament? Finally, will the Minister outline in detail, and most importantly with a specific timeframe, the substantive plans the Government have to address the volumes and impact of immigration, both legal and illegal?

Knife Crime: West Midlands

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Before I call Sarah Coombes to move the motion, I ought to explain that this is my first time chairing a debate in Westminster Hall, so I expect you to be very gentle with me. If you are not—well, I am in the Chair.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the prevention of knife crime in the West Midlands.

It is a pleasure to serve under your first chairmanship, Sir John. I want to open this debate by talking about a knock on a mother’s door—the kind of knock that too many parents have experienced and too many more dread. Last week, a woman from my area told me her story. She had already heard through friends that something had happened that night. Her sister was out searching the local hospitals. She had rung the police and been told someone would be there soon. Then she heard a knock on the front door. She said:

“What happened to my son was what I was always worried about. He was the kind of person who always protected his friends. That’s what happened—he stepped in front of his friend to protect him and he was stabbed.”

The loss of a child in this way feels too enormous to comprehend. She explained to me the ways it had affected not just her life but those of her other children:

“My daughter is so angry, but she won’t talk about what happened. She feels there is no justice for her brother. She’s only in primary school but she’s self-harming.”

We are here for this debate because we have got to stop this happening—families being shattered and communities destroyed by knives. It is my duty, as the MP for West Bromwich, to do everything I can to work with the police, schools, constituents and my community to stop this nightmare happening in the first place. In the west midlands, we have the highest rate of knife crime per capita of any region in England. But I do not want to talk about stats today. I want to talk about the stories of the victims, of those who live in fear, and even of those who have committed these terrible crimes. This debate is focused on prevention, so I will talk about the role that policing has to play in that, as well as intervention by schools, communities and families to keep young people safe.

Last year, I went to a football tournament in memory of one of the young players, who was stabbed to death. I spoke to some of the teenagers there and was truly shocked by what I heard. They were angry and distrusted the police, but they still felt there should be more of them around. They felt trapped in places where crime was all around them. They felt they had no opportunities for a different and better life. One teenage boy said to me—I will never forget this—that he did not think he would live to the age of 22.

This past week I got in touch again with the coach and asked for the young people’s thoughts on what the Government need to do to tackle knife crime. Here is some of what they said:

“The gang violence and knife crime is getting worse in my area. We need more youth centres and funding to help stop this.”

“Could we do more to stop youths from buying knives on the internet?”

“Why aren’t there more police patrolling the town centres that are known for knife crime or gang violence? Our local area is getting worse and no one seems to care enough to do anything to help it.”

“Education around knife crime should happen at a much younger age. A majority of young people don’t take it seriously because it has not happened to someone close to them, so maybe education needs to be by someone who has really suffered as a consequence of knife crime.”

The mother I mentioned earlier felt similarly:

“There is no support, no prevention—not enough youth clubs…It’s too easy to access these weapons. You can go and buy them online with no proof of ID. There’s nothing for young people to do now. My youth club provided experiences—things like white-water rafting. Now the youth clubs are all gone, social media has come in and crime is through the roof.”

After years of cuts to policing and youth services, it is no surprise that we have not been able to turn the tide on knife crime. Our new Labour Government have shown important ambition in committing to halving knife crime in a decade. I would appreciate the Minister going into detail about how we plan to achieve that. The young people I mentioned identified some themes that get to the heart of the matter: visible policing as a deterrent, reducing access to knives, and early intervention and education. How are young people being involved in policy design to ensure that the action the Government take is effective?

The police service in the west midlands was slashed in the austerity years. We still have 800 fewer police officers and 500 fewer police community support officers than we had in 2010. The knock-on effect of that is obvious. It is not just seeing police walking around our town centres and crime hotspots that keeps us safe, but police and PCSOs having the time and space to build key community relationships and gain the trust and vital intelligence that can stop crime. One of our most important pledges during the election was to restore neighbourhood policing, and I look forward to us having 13,000 extra officers and PCSOs across the country. As well as wanting to see police on our streets, people often raise with me the need for strong sentences to deter people from carrying a knife. Fundamentally, we have to reduce access to these legal weapons.

On the rates of knife crime per capita, West Brom has the highest rate for possession of weapons in Sandwell. We had a dreadful incident before Christmas when young people were running round West Bromwich in broad daylight wearing balaclavas and wielding machetes. That was terrifying for the people who were there and has a huge knock-on effect on local businesses and the entire area. West Midlands police has set up the Life Or Knife initiative, which provides education in schools and allows people to anonymously report when someone is carrying a knife. Our police and crime commissioner has also funded weapon surrender bins across the region. But we have to cut this off at source.

My local paper, the Express & Star, ran an award-winning campaign with a Wolverhampton mother, Pooja Kanda, to ban zombie-style knives and machetes. I applaud the paper for that important work and I fully support the Labour Government’s commitment to ban them. As the victim’s mother I talked about earlier said to me, online retailers must be held to account. Now that the ban has been in place for a few months, will the Minister say whether it is proving successful? In particular, what enforcement action is being taken against online retailers who deliver zombie-style knives straight to people’s homes?

Police presence and reducing access to lethal weapons are important, but perhaps the most important thing of all is education, early intervention and constant support for young people who could get caught up in violence. Research shows that young people who are excluded from education are at greater risk of getting involved in violence, which is why it is so important that we do everything we can to keep young people in school. In the last few years, there have also been important programmes with organisations such as St Giles Trust that have supported young people at teachable moments, such as when they are in custody or A&E.

But in too many cases the intervention comes too late—as in the next case I will talk about. This might be slightly unusual, but I will read the words of someone on the other side: a constituent of mine who went to prison for 14 years for his involvement in the murder of a man using a knife. His words are powerful and important, because, as we have heard, young people respond to others’ lived experience. When I asked him how he feels now about being involved in a knife attack that took someone’s life all those years ago, he said:

“I feel so many emotions. I feel ashamed, I feel embarrassed, remorseful, unequivocally. It doesn’t matter that it wasn’t my plan and I didn’t wield the knife. Ultimately decisions I made that night led to that and if I hadn’t made certain decisions he would still be here. I feel dirty for that...I don’t dream often but when I do they are bad dreams, violent, people trying to kill me...Whenever I see knife crime stories about mothers losing their sons it takes me back. It’s the ripple effects...the people whose houses back on to the park where it happened, the first responders, the guy who was walking his dog who found the body. All these lives are changed forever.”

Having spent so much of his life so far in prison, he now wants to work with young people to stop them following the same path of violence. I asked him what would make the difference for young people now to stop them committing such a terrible crime, and he said:

“It’s more than what to say, it’s what I’d do. The authenticity and realness and empathy is so important.

You need somebody like me who has the life experience. So you can openly talk about their home life, parents, friends, family, hobbies, hopes and dreams. And build the trust and rapport. And show love…Take them on positive trips—take them places they’d never usually be able to afford and show them that this could be your life.

It has to be a 24/7 thing, support all the time.

That night of the offence when I would have reached out—it would have been late and you need someone to be there then. Not office hours and then they turn their phone off. You need someone to say ‘Where are you, I’m coming to you, stay where you are.’”

There is so much more of my conversation with him that I think it would be useful for Members to hear, but there is not the time, unfortunately. I hope the Minister will address the importance of wraparound and consistent support for young people, and the need to make interventions and offer mentoring from a very young age, not just at the point when a child is suspended or already in trouble. My constituent’s key message about what will reduce knife crime is that we need

“education from an early age, in the right way, delivered by the right people.”

Knife crime does not just destroy families. It destroys communities. It destroys towns centres when people are afraid. My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) could not attend this debate, but she asked me to reflect on the impact that knife crime also has on schools such as Wodensborough academy, where a pupil who was killed will forever be remembered. I am proud that this Government are so committed to stopping the nightmare of knife crime in our communities, and I see it as my role as the local MP to do everything I can to be part of that.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that if they want to attract my attention, they need to bob. But I can see they know that already.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I can see that a lot of people want to contribute on this important subject. Before I call the next speaker, I therefore suggest that you restrict yourselves to speeches of about five minutes. We will then get everyone in and have plenty of time for the spokesmen to speak and for the mover of the motion to say a few words at the end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. Because of the character of the debate, I will prioritise Members from the west midlands. I hope hon. Members from other places will understand that. I think it is reasonable and fair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. I have got two more west midlanders, and I am relying on them to make time for the Members for Strangford and for Worcester to get in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I extend my deeply felt thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for bringing forward this important debate. Before I continue, I want to express my deepest condolences to the victims, their families and everyone who has been affected by this devastating crime.

My constituents and I often ask why we have come to this: a situation where we have children murdering children. We have young people who feel they cannot carry on with their everyday lives without carrying some kind of weapon. We have easy online access to such awful, graphic, extreme violence. Tragically, in the west midlands—the knife crime capital of the UK, as we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss)—that is the reality we face.

In my former role as a deputy headteacher, I saw how schools are in the eye of the storm. I will never forget the devastating impact on our community when two young men were murdered near a school where I worked. It was incredibly sad. Their names were Ronan Kanda and Shawn Seesahai. Innocent lives were taken due to senseless violence. Shawn was only 19 years old. He was walking through a park with his friend. He saw two 12-year-olds sitting on a bench, and they murdered him. It is senseless. Ronan Kanda was mistaken for someone else. At the age of 16, just a few steps away from the safety of his home, he was cruelly murdered. I have seen the courage of Ronan’s mother and sister, Pooja and Nikita, as they fight for change so that no family endures what they endure day in, day out. Their strength humbles me, and I stand with them and with every family affected by these senseless tragedies.

Staff in schools have a motto: “It can happen here.” We are always on high alert, as we know that knife crime can happen anywhere. But we should not be fooled by stereotypes; this is not just about street corners and gang culture. This problem has not been dealt with, so it has diffused into wider society. All communities are at risk and affected to some degree by the dangers of soaring knife crime. We must act not just with stronger enforcement, but by addressing the causes of knife crime. I welcome the new Government’s commitment to prevention, education and engagement, alongside robust enforcement.

When it comes to prevention and education, we all know that education is often the first line of defence. I personally saw the power of programmes that brought mentors with lived experience into schools to show students the real consequences of knife crime. We will invest in early intervention, helping those at risk through targeted support for families, schools and communities.

Secondly, there is the issue of engagement. We know that knife crime often stems from a feeling of utter hopelessness—of being stuck in a rut, with a lack of opportunity, and therefore being vulnerable to the grip of negative influences. I welcome investment in programmes such as the Young Futures programme—a version of Sure Start for teenagers—in youth centres and youth workers and in bringing local services together to offer young people a safe space and better opportunities.

There is also the issue of enforcement. Police must have the resources they need to crack down on knife crime—curfews, enforcement of penalties, drug and alcohol interventions, mental health treatment, and stronger action against the criminal gangs that are drawing young people into this crime. This Government have acted to close the loopholes and get ninja swords, machetes and zombie knives off our streets, but I continue to call on Ministers to work at pace.

Victims of knife crime and their families deserve our unwavering commitment to prevention and change, to create a society in which no young person feels the need to carry a knife.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

The winding-up speeches will begin at 3.30 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I recently met the young people representing our county in the Worcestershire Youth Cabinet, and they shared with us their priorities, the highest of which, to my shock, was crime and safety. They are very concerned by the issue, and knife crime was at the top of their list of concerns. They suggested actions, and we discussed all the things my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) raised: visible policing, prioritising the restriction of access to knives, and early intervention and education, including restoring youth centres and youth services. However, their key ask was that we do the work to understand the root causes and motivations behind knife crime among young people.

My first takeaway from that conversation was how keen young people are to collaborate on this issue as we start to tackle it. My second takeaway was how important it is that we do not work from assumptions, but really try to understand, from the perspective of young people, what is driving this problem—that we listen to, involve and empower young people. That is all the more important when we realise just how fuelled this issue is by fear, apathy and disenfranchisement.

Young people care deeply about this issue. They are ready to engage, and they deserve a voice. On behalf of the young people in Worcester, I want to echo their call and their offer: let us act urgently at all levels of policing, disrupting and preventing knife crime, but let us, as we do that, put young people at the very heart of that response. We will tackle this issue most effectively when we put our influence, power and resources in their hands, so let us put young people at the centre of what we do as we tackle and end the problem of knife crime.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I thank hon. Members for their brevity and their co-operation in making sure that all colleagues contributed. I want to leave some time for the mover of the motion to speak at the end.