Immigration and Asylum Bill
Alex Norris ExcerptsMonday 13th July 2026
(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 View all Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
You are not alone in that assessment, Madam Deputy Speaker—you are not alone!
It is a privilege to close this debate. Today the House is going through the collective trauma of the loss—the murder—of one of our former Members, Ann Widdecombe. During the Home Secretary statement earlier, colleagues from across the House spoke about the forthright way in which Ann Widdecombe put her views, never fearing to tell people that they were wrong, but always listening and keen to engage. The debate we have had today has been in that very best tradition of this House; I have agreed with lots of what colleagues have said, and disagreed with lots, too. I hope to cover as much of it as possible.
It is important to recognise where this Government started from. Two years ago, we inherited a total lack of control and order at our borders; an asylum system in which criminal gangs, not the Government, decided who came into the country; hundreds of hotels being used to house vast numbers of people at enormous cost to the public; and decision making that had quite simply ground to a halt. We have changed that reality. The system that we inherited worked for neither the collective, nor the refugees who wanted protection. It was a reality that has had to change; it is a journey that we are on.
We have made significant progress. Asylum decision making is up, costs are down, and we are on track to close all asylum hotels in this Parliament. We are seeing a reduction in demand for asylum, getting us much closer to more usual levels for this country. However, we have a long way to go in order to win back the trust of the British public, which is why this Bill is needed.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
On trust, one of the issues that my constituents have is with the sudden rise in planning applications for houses in multiple occupation. Does the Minister think that putting asylum seekers into HMOs in our local communities is really the answer to the immigration problem?
Alex Norris
Houses in multiple occupation have always been a part of providing refuge for people with mental health issues, people fleeing domestic abuse and those in many other circumstances. Use of them can be right. We want to find the right balance and ensure, through our policy of full dispersal, that the burden is shared more equitably. Fundamentally, we want to reduce demand—that is at the heart of the debate.
The Bill does five things, and I will try to group the points made by hon. Members around those five things. On the independent immigration appeals authority, we heard lots from the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), from my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), for Bassetlaw (Jo White), for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), and from the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts).
I want to recognise the important work that judges do in the system. They work hard and have been creative to provide more capacity, and I am grateful to them for doing so. Nevertheless, I want to be clear with the House that simply trying to sweat the existing model will not give us the capacity that we need to have a functioning appeals system. That is why we are making these changes.
I cannot accept that the lack of legal training in itself is a weakness in this model. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, we see it, for instance, in the magistrates system. We also know that other countries, such as Canada and New Zealand, have lay adjudication as well.
Colleagues have made important points about the independence of the appeals body and the potential blurring of lines with the Executive. We have no desire whatsoever to do that. I think that what is on the face of the Bill shows that separation clearly, but we will nevertheless work with colleagues throughout the passage of the Bill to give them the confidence that, as I say, we have no desire to blur those lines.
On the impact assessment, a lot of the uncertainty relates to the fact that we are not setting an arbitrary timeline by which the new system must be fully operational. We have to have security that the system will stand up properly, including with a period of double running. That is why there is a degree of uncertainty. Nevertheless, we need the greater capacity that the system will give us.
On the European convention on human rights, again, we have heard important contributions from colleagues across the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), and the hon. Members for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) and for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking).
On this point, we have a contrast. We have the empty calories offered by the Opposition in their reasoned amendment, with the idea that all our issues could be solved by leaving international agreements—which would, in fact, make all of us weaker. These rights, both domestic and international, are for all of us. In lieu of serious answers, the Opposition try to offer us three-word solutions, but that will not work in this case. They talk about this in the context of returns, but returns need two things: yes, an individual must be barrier-free legally, but there must also be a place for that individual to return to. Having negotiated returns agreements around the world, I say gently to colleagues that resiling from very important international agreements would weaken the process, rather than strengthen it.
What I will say to those on the Government Benches, but perhaps not to those on the Opposition Benches, is that we must ensure that we do not defend a broken status quo, although I am happy to say that I did not hear much of that in the debate. We must recognise that it is not unreasonable to seek to align those agreements a little better, particularly when they are being applied more broadly domestically than in Strasbourg case law. I think that is an entirely reasonable thing to do.
We have heard from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about the ways in which some people have sought to game the process. We should close the loopholes so that we maintain can public confidence and consent for the ECHR.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Alex Norris
I am afraid not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow mentioned core protection. It is right that we simplify the protection status in this country and put into statute what we put into the immigration rules in the spring. I say to those who are concerned about the 30-month status that I have been clear from this Dispatch Box and in other forums that we do not want people to stay on core protection for long periods of time. If they switch to a protected work and study route, it will take them out of the 30-month renewal, as will coming via safe and legal means.
Let me turn to asylum support. Important contributions were made by the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) and for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), and by my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) and for North Northumberland (David Smith). In principle, it is reasonable to recognise that support for asylum seekers is a unique thing and that it comes from a significant multibillion-pound contribution made by British taxpayers. It is right, and perfectly in line with the refugee convention and our international obligations, that we ask for a contribution towards that.
I cannot recognise or agree with the concerns around destitution. We have been very clear that this is about when people have the means to earn. We do not want to choke off someone’s life that they are building in Britain, and we certainly would not want to push people into poverty. I have heard from colleagues, particularly Labour Members, that they want to see greater detail. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made the commitment in her opening speech that we will publish that regime as this legislation goes through, so that colleagues will know exactly what we are seeking to put into practice.
On modern slavery, lots of colleagues talked about their own personal records in this space, and I say to them: well, me too. I have been doing this for nine years in this place; I have always used my platform to push for better protections against slavery.
Some colleagues—including the right hon. Members for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) and for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—asked, “Why is this in here?” First, it is an opportunity to strengthen the regime. I have spoken about transparency in supply chains and section 54 for all my years in this place. This provision strengthens that, and it recognises that there are ways in which the system is being used in interaction with the immigration system.
On the late disclosures, I accept that not everybody’s recovery from slavery will allow them to immediately disclose that they have been a slave—they may not even recognise it themselves or have overcome their trauma. We are saying that when that is used at the very, very last minute—as it has multiple hundred times in the last hours before removal—the court ought to take into consideration whether that is really being declared in good faith or not. That will still be a rebuttable proposition, but I think that is right.
Similarly on the public order disqualification, I urge colleagues to look at what is in the Bill. It is totally reasonable for the Government of the day to say that the interaction of slavery protections should not trump considerations of national security. If people do seek to do terror and are convicted of terror offences, then of course that must be taken into account.
Alex Norris
I am really sorry, but I cannot.
On Shabir Ahmed, my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) and for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) made really important points. They heard me say it last Monday, and they will hear me say it again: from the Government’s point of view, all options are on the table. We believe that this legislation provides a really good vehicle to tackle this challenge, alongside working on removals too. I will be very keen to continue to engage with hon. and right hon. Members on this, but I am glad, as I think everyone in this debate has been, that we have the opportunity to move forward on this shared priority.
On safe and legal means, my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton and for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) talked about what British people will do if given schemes that are ordered and controlled, and I totally agree. I have seen it in my own community with the schemes on Ukraine, Hong Kong British nationals overseas, Afghanistan and Syria. What British people will not accept is a lack of order and control. That is what is at the heart of this Bill and the Government’s approach. We have the chance to pivot from that broken model to a fixed model that works within our values and keeps public confidence too.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow talked about the overseas domestic worker visa. I would encourage her, if she has not already, to talk to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). She will know that we are reviewing it at the moment, but if she thinks the Bill is a good vehicle for pushing the points that she makes very well, I would agree.
Finally, on contracts, I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh said—that is why we are going to reform them. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Norris Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
The Government remain grateful to the British public for the generosity shown to Ukrainians who sought sanctuary in the UK. The Ukrainian scheme provides a substantial offer of support and demonstrates our commitment to the Ukrainian people. The Government have been clear from the outset that the offer of sanctuary is temporary, and that position has not changed. We continue to consider future arrangements for Ukrainians in the UK and will provide an update on longer term arrangements in due course.
Pippa Heylings
My Ukrainian constituent, Artem, is currently seeking to apply for a funded apprenticeship, having now been educated here in the UK. Despite his excellent credentials, he has been turned down for every single apprenticeship because his permission to remain expires in May 2027—despite the fact that under the current Ukrainian resettlement scheme he will be able to immediately apply for a 24-month extension. Does the Minister agree that this is both deeply unfair and a waste of talent and opportunity for young Ukrainian refugees who are seeking to rebuild their lives and contribute to our society?
Alex Norris
I am sad to hear about that case. The hon. Lady partially answers the question for me in the sense that the Government have ensured that Artem will be eligible for a 24-month extension period. That gives greater certainty not just to individuals about their future, but to employers and course leaders so that they can take a longer view in the light of the opportunities available to Ukrainians in the UK.
Wendy Chamberlain
I echo my hon. Friend’s comments. If I may, I will approach this question from the other side. The lack of certainty is challenging for Ukrainians who are looking to return to Ukraine. My team are currently dealing with a situation where a family, who are looking to go back to Ukraine, are not being allowed to access their savings from their bank. Can we get support and guidance to help people who are thinking about going back?
Alex Norris
When people wish to move back, we want to support that in any way we can. The point about savings is a new one to me. If the hon. Lady was to write to me, we would help in whatever way we could.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. There is some scepticism among the public about refugees, but despite the fact that twice as many people came to this country from Ukraine as crossed in small boats, there has been no public outcry and there is no public unrest. Does the Minister agree that this is because the British public recognise and welcome refugees who come here fairly, in a legal way, and with proper support? What conclusions are the Government drawing from that as they create their new scheme around safe routes?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend raises an important issue here. I know from my own community, where the immigration conversation is sometimes very difficult indeed, that those who raise frustration at the lack of order and control in the system—as inherited from our predecessors —are the same people who leaned into the Ukrainian scheme, the Hong Kong British national overseas scheme, the Afghan resettlement scheme and the Syrian scheme. The message that I take from that is that when the British people see that systems are ordered, controlled and for those who need protection, and when we know who is coming, then they lean into it. That is the spirit of our reforms to the system, and I hope my hon. Friend, and all right hon. and hon. Members, will support us in that venture with the Immigration and Asylum Bill.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
I am slightly saddened by the hon. Gentleman’s question. He and I had a very good conversation about the nature of the supported population in his constituency, and he knows that we work very closely, under the policy of successive Governments, for full dispersal so that the challenge of supporting the supported population is shared more fairly. Where there have been local disproportionate issues, as in postcodes like his own, we have been able to make positive changes, and I would have hoped he would recognise that. On his original point about data, the May stats release shows a reduction in the hotel population of 35% and an increase—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can do the questions, but he cannot do the answers as well. There was a reduction of 35% in the hotel population and an increase in the supported population of less than 1%. Even he can do those maths.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Alex Norris
I would stress that, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, no decision has been taken in respect of that site, and suitability assessments continue. We are engaging with the relevant local authorities, health partners, police forces and other partners to minimise the impact on local services and communities in exactly the way that my hon. Friend says.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I want to begin by thanking Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani), for securing a meeting with the Minister, local MPs, councillors and residents of Crowborough, where the Minister heard for himself reports of illegal working, groups of young men drinking on the street and the smuggling of alcohol on to the site. If the Government are to force this camp on people, the very least they can do is ensure that people there play by the rules. Can the Minister introduce breath testing and make it clear to anyone drinking on the site that if they are found to fail those tests, their asylum claim will be immediately thrown out?
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question and his time, to Madam Deputy Speaker for her time and advocacy and indeed to the local councillors for their time. I was very concerned to hear the reports about those drinking off site. We are looking closely, as I have said to the hon. Gentleman, at ensuring that that does not happen. We already block merchant codes on Aspen cards to prevent it. We are talking about a relatively small amount of money—£9.95 each week—but we do not want to see that spent on alcohol. The sites themselves are alcohol-free. I am not quite sure that breath testing is the way that we need to enforce this, but I nevertheless share his vigour to stop it.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
As the House will know, the Home Office does not routinely publish figures on the number of small boat arrivals who abscond or whose whereabouts subsequently becomes unknown. Given that the Department holds case records that would allow that to be calculated, will the Home Secretary commit to publishing that information periodically so that the House can properly scrutinise the scale of the problem?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman will know that 70,000 people have been removed by this Government—41% up on the figure under our predecessors. He makes a good point about data, which has been the subject of our response to a recent report by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. We are looking at the issue closely because we want colleagues in this House and the public at large to have the best possible data to work from, so that we can have the most informed conversation possible.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
My constituents in Meriden and Solihull East are greatly concerned about abuse of the European convention on human rights, including article 8. They deem cases like that of the Albanian criminal who was not deported because his son would not eat foreign chicken nuggets to be an insult. The Home Office’s own analysis shows that abuse of the ECHR costs about £4.9 billion. I know that the Home Secretary wants to reform the ECHR, but does she accept that if this runs out of road, Britain should be allowed to forge its own way on human rights law, including by leaving the ECHR?
Alex Norris
The ECHR provides important protection both for ourselves and for those who are abroad. We have been clear that we inherited a system without order or control, and we are restoring that order and control to the system. Part of that involves the reform of article 8 of the ECHR, exactly as the hon. Gentleman says. If he has the vigour to support such action, he will not have to wait long—in fact, at 10 o’clock tonight he will have the chance to show it.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Migrants who come here to work in our national health service and in other crucial sectors are tremendously welcome and should be encouraged, but I have seen surprising cases in Chesterfield because of the number of familial applications that have accompanied the arrival of a single worker. Is it the Secretary of State’s perspective that the family visa regime is working as intended, or does she think it is ripe for reform?
Alex Norris
I agree with my hon. Friend. He will know that we suspended family reunion, but as we set out in our White Paper over a year ago, we believe that reform of the family routes system more generally is overdue. We will be introducing a new family policy that creates a fairer and more consistent framework.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
Three years ago, my 22-year-old constituent, Hannah Byrne, whose family are in the Gallery, died on the first night of her holiday in Corfu. Two British women left the scene without ever being interviewed by police. We know that the Greek authorities have submitted two requests to the Home Office for mutual legal assistance, but the family know little else. Will the Minister meet me and the family to help them get the closure and answers that they so desperately need?
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
There were truly shocking and appalling scenes in Glasgow last week, fuelled by misinformation about the accommodation of asylum seekers. People were harassed in their own homes and roads were blocked. When will the Government finally take on the spread of misinformation, and will they finally recognise the real threat posed by the right wing, which is ready to take advantage and exploit these situations?
Alex Norris
We recognise that threat—we monitor hundreds of protests a year. In a democracy, people have to be able to make their case, but that should never tip into harassment, abuse or the type of disruption that the hon. Gentleman talks about. Our job is first to fix the system, and I hope that he will support us today in that venture, but we are clear that we will not accept harassment, intimidation or any type of prejudice.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Over the last two years, I have led the charge in asking for our asylum hotel to be closed. Last week, the final family and individuals left the hotel. Thousands have joined me in calling on Britannia to finally refurbish the Metropole hotel, which is a massive eyesore on our golden mile. Will the Minister join me and thousands of residents in Blackpool in calling on Britannia to put its hand in its pocket and finally restore this crown jewel on our seafront?
Alex Norris
Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have fond memories, in both childhood and adulthood, of Blackpool. I am glad to see the Metropole back on the journey to its proper purpose, because I know that it is a crucial part of the golden mile. I am not sure that it is within my ministerial remit to direct refurbishments of hotels. Nevertheless, I want it to be the best possible asset for my hon. Friend’s community, and I have offered to come with him to help promote the local economy to ensure that it is.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
I thank the Home Secretary and welcome the Government’s decision to proscribe the IRGC. Many of us campaigned for this and, in fact, were sanctioned by Iran for doing so. Far too many of our previous Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries bought the fallacious argument that doing so would prevent diplomatic relations with Iran. Now that the Home Secretary has chosen to do this, how will she enforce it so that we quickly stamp out all the activities of this terrible organisation from our country and ensure that it never takes root again?
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I thank the Asylum Minister for his professional courtesy in calling me on Friday to say that the asylum dispersal plans for Stoke Heath in my constituency have now been scrapped. I am grateful for that, and it is a great relief to many residents—it was a completely inappropriate location from the get-go. However, can I ask him to put on the record whether the Government have any plans to put asylum seekers into Clive barracks at Tern Hill in Shropshire, which is currently home to the Royal Irish Regiment?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that question and the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman asked it. I recognise his advocacy in helping us to understand that it was the wrong thing in the wrong place, but I know that that is now followed by misinformation—it is not totally different from the contribution of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart)—with people who are planning on creating division over asylum accommodation pointing at another site. To be clear to the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents, we have proposed three new sites and the extension of time at two others. Those decisions have not finally been made, but those named sites are the sites that are under consideration, not his.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s explicit statement last month that he wants to see the Cladhan hotel, which was opened by the Conservatives, closed. When any hotel closes, will he confirm that the vast majority of those being moved out will have their accommodation needs met within existing capacity?
Alex Norris
I think and talk about the Cladhan hotel a lot, because we are resolute about closing that hotel, but I appreciate that my hon. Friend’s constituents, and others, would not feel much better if they thought that those bed spaces were just being provided in the immediate area instead. Goal one for this Government is to reduce demand, and we are seeing positive trends in that regard. That is allowing us to close hotels, and it will allow us to close more in exactly that spirit, not merely by displacement into dispersed accommodation. As I said earlier, there is a 35% decrease in hotel accommodation, and an increase in dispersed accommodation of less than 1%.
European Entry and Exit System
Alex Norris Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what measures the Government have put in place to ensure that in the coming holiday season, travellers and business freight are not delayed at our ports, our international railway stations and our airports as a result of the imposition of the European entry and exit system.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his important question. The entry-exit system is an EU scheme and its implementation is the responsibility of the European Commission and participating member states. This Government have been working closely with the EU, member states and industry to understand the impacts, particularly for the juxtaposed border controls at the port of Dover, at Eurotunnel and at St Pancras, and to advocate for the pragmatic use of the flexibilities available within the legislation to minimise disruption for UK citizens.
The Government have supported all three juxtaposed ports to ensure that they have the right technology and processes in place to make sure that EES registration runs as smoothly as possible. That has included providing £3.5 million of funding to each one to help them make changes to their infrastructure and purchase the equipment they need to ready their sites for EES. It is not unusual to see queues at the Kent juxtaposed ports at peak times due to the unique geography, and that has been the case prior to EES. However, we want to minimise its impact.
On the late May bank holiday weekend, both Ministers and officials engaged with French authorities to ensure that arrangements were in place to handle large volumes of traffic. This resulted in assurances from France that it would have adequate staffing levels and clear escalation plans in case of severe disruption. These arrangements were made use of on 23 May, when the French police aux frontières employed flexibilities available within the regulations to alleviate congestion on the road network. I and my officials and ministerial colleagues across Government are actively engaging with France and the EU to make similar arrangements ahead of the summer period. The Department for Transport continues to support the Kent and Medway resilience forum, which has tried and tested plans in place to manage disruption to the road network in Kent.
For passengers travelling to Schengen countries by air, EES registration will take place at their destination. It will not take place in UK airports, and queues in EU member states are for those states to manage. However, this Government continue to engage with the Commission and relevant member states to advocate for the pragmatic use of the EES flexibilities allowed to avoid delays for passengers. We are also engaging with our European partners on the use of technology, such as the EES app, to move elements of registration away from the border. We continue to encourage travellers to check with their travel operator before departing so that they know when to arrive and are aware of any possible impacts on their journey.
Sir Roger Gale
As the Minister has indicated, over the spring bank holiday there was chaos at Dover, at St Pancras and at the channel tunnel because of the failure of the EES. The French authorities were quite simply not prepared or able to implement the facilities properly. Based on bookings for the coming season, which starts in 10 days’ time, the authorities are now predicting that there could be 12-hour delays to passengers and therefore to freight, which affects our businesses. That is simply not acceptable. Will the Minister, before it is too late, approach the French authorities again and suggest that a waiver must be put in place before the holiday season starts so that we do not again face the chaos that we faced in May?
Alex Norris
I recognise that it is a shared goal for ourselves, for locally affected Members of Parliament and for the French to ensure that we do not see scenes of huge queues. We know the impact that has on individuals and on businesses. The right hon. Gentleman talks about making more efforts, and I can assure him that we will be doing this on a daily basis, as we already are, both with France and with the Commission. We have pushed on this fundamental point. This is a complex scheme in operation, and when volumes peak shortly, the fundamental question will be the prioritisation of flow or of compliance with the scheme. We are pushing heavily, as we will every day between now and then, to ensure that the French use the flexibilities available to prioritise flow. That is what I want, it is what he wants and it is in everybody’s interest.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) is quite right to highlight this challenge and the impact on Kent when these queues build up, and of course the impact on British people trying to get out through Dover, Folkestone and other places. I want to ask the Minister what can be done for British holidaymakers coming home who have been stuck at airports for hours and missed their flights because of the airlines needing to get moving under working time directives. I am led to understand that fingerprints are required on entry but not on exit from the Schengen area, yet many of these delays are being caused because airports in different countries are making holidaymakers provide fingerprints again, as well as the much easier face recognition. Could the Minister pick this up, please, and tell me what is happening?
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for that characteristically thoughtful question. As she would expect, a lot of ministerial focus is on juxtaposed ports as they involve things that happen on UK soil and have an impact in UK communities. Nevertheless, we want our travellers to have the best possible experience wherever they are. The checks in Schengen countries are a matter for them, but as I have said, we are engaging with all countries, not just France, to ensure that a proportionate and sensible use within flexibility is made. My hon. Friend and other colleagues will know, too, about the changes that we are making with our own e-gates, including lowering the age involved, so that passengers who have had a difficult journey out have the smoothest arrival back on to UK soil.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) for securing this important urgent question. Anyone who has travelled or spoken to those who have tried to use the new European entry-exit system understands why the scale of the challenges over summer is so great, and despite all the problems, it has now been reported that a separate new online system to preauthorise entry to the EU will be delayed until next year. That is a pitiful response, indicative of the problems facing so many UK travellers, and there is nowhere near the urgency needed to address the problems facing the EES as we enter the summer holidays. As the president of Airports Council International Europe recently expressed, politicians should
“stop pretending...that EES is working just fine. It is not.”
That delusional attitude among EU colleagues is not acceptable. With the EU telling representatives of the travel industry that a full suspension of the system is not needed and not possible, the Government must stand behind the interests of British travellers. For instance, there appears to be a ridiculous situation in which a facility built in Dover cannot be activated until the technology for the kiosks, which is the responsibility of the French authorities, is working.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands, who chairs the Home Affairs Committee, is right: it is time to “apply maximum pressure” before chaos arrives at the border at Dover. Will the Minister detail what conversations the Government have had, and what pressure they will apply? Have they asked for a temporary suspension, relaxation or phased use of EES checks at periods of exceptional congestion? Given the increased traffic, what have the Government done to strengthen plans in case queues spill out of Dover or Folkestone? It is in all our interests to ensure that people can get through border checks quickly, and it is time to ensure that that happens.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his questions. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I share his point about the importance and impact that preauthorisation can have. We want that to become the norm, and as I said, we are engaging with member states to encourage them to take up use of the EES app. He asked about the intent of our colleagues in the European Union, whether in the Commission or in member states, and I do not detect a lack of intent. They are keen to engage with us, and we engage with them frequently. They want this system to work, and it is important that it does. It is a good thing that our neighbour wants good security arrangements, and we benefit from that too—we certainly have that level of engagement.
The hon. Member talks about full suspension, and as I said yesterday to the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands in the Home Affairs Committee, I would not set that as the goal and aspiration because I do not believe it is deliverable. What we delivered in May, and what we will seek, is that when we get to peak times and the system is clearly not managing flow appropriately, we need the right flexibilities in place on the ground for staff to make changes that prioritise flow. That is my priority. The hon. Member talks about the facility, and I say gently that of course that facility cannot be used until the technology that it is based on works. We want that to be the case as soon as possible, but that is not a business for us. We have made the money available so that the infrastructure is there. We have delivered on that element, but the technology is clearly taking time to stand up.
The hon. Member talks about pressure, and we are engaged at all levels of Government. In the Home Office, the Home Secretary has engaged with her counterpart and with the Commission, as have colleagues from the Department for Transport, including the Secretary of State, and the Minister for the Cabinet Office, and we are raising these issues on a daily basis. On contingencies, let me take this opportunity to say what a good job the Kent and Medway Resilience Forum has done on this. I am a big resilience forum enthusiast: those are local people making direct local changes to improve their community under pressure. There is also the Dover traffic assessment protocol and Operation Brock. Those arrangements are in place, and we will work with people so that they make the best operational decisions they can along the way.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Last week I visited the port of Dover with the Home Affairs Committee, to see those operations in action. Given that this is an EU entry-exit system, we must face the fact that this is an inevitable consequence of Brexit, and we have to make it work. The best solution to the challenges facing our constituents this summer is sustained engagement—[Interruption.]
Chris Murray
The best solution to managing those challenges this summer is sustained engagement with the French, at leader level, Cabinet level, ministerial level, and working official level, so that the police aux frontières have a delegated responsibility to let flows through. What discussion will we be having at every level with the French, using the better relationship we have struck, so that our constituents and British holidaymakers trying to get a holiday abroad this summer, do not face the consequences of Brexit, which will be missed flights and long queues?
Alex Norris
Sustained engagement with the French is crucial, and it is happening at all levels, be that ministerial, senior official, or operationally, to ensure that prioritisation of flow. This is not something that has just started, and neither is it coming to its end. We are in that constant position and have been for many months, even before the EES started its operations, and that will continue. I say gently that it is not just the French but all EU member states. At some point this summer our constituents will end up in all those different member states. I want them to have the best possible experience, so we are also having those engagements.
Mr Speaker
Order. Sorry, but you’ve gone way over your one minute. I think your border queue has just gone. I call the Minister.
Alex Norris
To address the point about Brexit, we must be clear—for example, the Republic of Ireland, which is outside Schengen, also has these challenges, so the idea that reversing to previous arrangements would change that reality is tricky. There is a fundamental choice here, as real practical measures will affect the hon. Gentleman’s community and those of many right hon. and hon. Members, and lots of British holidaymakers. We can choose to use our efforts and leadership collectively to have conversations about the past, or we can work together to ensure that those people have the best possible experience. That is what we are doing, and why we are engaging with France and the Commission. That is the best approach, rather than having global conversations about things that do not really go anywhere.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I travel on the channel tunnel twice a year, and the carrier knows that, in case of evacuation, one passenger in my vehicle is a wheelchair user. The information that comes from the carrier is poor, and my concern over the summer months ahead is about how that continues. People will have to get out of their vehicle for the first registration check, and for some vulnerable users that will cause a huge disturbance on the journey. The pre-registration service is available, but my concern for many people travelling over the summer is about how much information is currently given to them by the carrier. What are the Government doing to work with carriers so that people have as much information as early as possible to help them on their journey?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend makes an exceptionally important point about vulnerable users. Operation Brock and the Dover traffic assessment project give scope for the KMRF to stand up contingency plans to make movement for domestic travel easier, because the last thing we want is for people, particularly vulnerable people, to be in cars for long periods of time.
On my hon. Friend’s point about communications from the carriers, we work closely with the carriers and they are working hard, as are the ports. My message to travellers would be to check in with the advice they are getting from the carriers, particularly on how long to give themselves. They should not change their travel plans, but they should engage to ensure that they arrive on time. I am a sinner on the Eurostar because I leave things as late as possible, but that is not a prudent approach at the moment. Instead, travellers should check in with their carrier to get the best up-to-date information. I will undertake to have conversations with carriers to ensure that things are as good as possible, in the spirit he suggests.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The Minister must think he is having déjà vu after our exchange at the Home Affairs Committee yesterday. I implore him once again to make every endeavour and to use his best offices with the EU Commission and the French to try to get them to understand that we cannot wait for there to be delays; we have to anticipate switching off the system. The Port of Dover, Eurotunnel and others have extraordinarily intelligent and complex ways of forecasting flow. Will they look at those flow forecasts and use them to decide when to put measures in place, not wait for the delays to start?
Alex Norris
That is an excellent point. Ahead of the May bank holiday, we demonstrated that we were able to use that rich sense of who is coming—it is not a surprise—and to plan for when the system needs flexibility, particularly for PAF officers. We did that for the May bank holiday and we are doing it again now. We are having conversations to give flexibility in the service of the goal that we all want to see: the prioritisation of flow.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all that he is doing to sort out this mess. Does he agree that the queues and delays facing British travellers under the EU’s entry-exit system were entirely avoidable? Had Britain kept its seat at the table, we would not be subject to these to checks at all, we would have had a voice in the system design and roll-out over the past five years, and we could have made it work better. Instead, just as with steel and electric vehicles, we find ourselves on the receiving end of decisions rather than shaping them. Does he agree that is precisely why we need an ambitious new partnership with the EU, so that Britain can genuinely take back control and British people’s European holidays do not start and end in chaos?
Alex Norris
I share some of my hon. Friend’s analysis, but not all of it. If we are dealing in counterfactuals, which I am usually loath to do but this one is quite entertaining, if we were within these arrangements, a Minister—probably me—would be at the Dispatch Box being pressed, quite rightly, by right hon. and hon. Members, who would be saying “Is your system going to work? Is it going to stand up?” The reason I know that is because that conversation is happening in every EU member state. I encourage colleagues away from the idea that a single counterfactual change in our history would mean that we would have no issues with travel at our ports, because the evidence does not bear that out.
However, I agree with my hon. Friend wholescale about having a close relationship with the EU. Whereas our Conservative colleagues spent a lot of time thumbing their noses at our neighbours, which is never in the interest of the British people, we have a close partnership on data sharing and more, as I told the Home Affairs Committee, so that we work as well as possible with our neighbours to ensure flows of travel and to secure borders.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Every holiday period, Kent and my constituency of Faversham and Mid Kent is brought to a standstill, and that has become much worse with the introduction of the EU entry-exit system, despite the fact that our ports and Eurotunnel have invested in the technology. I understand that it is not working because the French have not managed to get it to work. I disagree with the Minister that everything is fine when Operation Brock is on—Operation Brock is terrible for my area. However, I agree with his point that this has nothing to do with Brexit. I hate to break that to the Liberal Democrats and others who have being trying to make that argument, but the problems have nothing to do with Brexit. The situation could be horrific this summer: imagine people, including children and elderly people, and potentially pets, waiting in their cars in this heat for around 12 hours. It is a disaster. I implore the Minister to involve the Prime Minister—and, most likely, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), as this could happen under his watch—in the negotiations with the EU to suspend these checks in advance, not to wait and see, so that we can stop these queues happening?
Alex Norris
It is important to recognise, as I did at the start, that these queues are not new, but the entry-exit system risks being a compounding factor. I too look at the weather and think that I would not want people, including vulnerable people, and pets to be stuck in cars for long periods of time, and we absolutely recognise that. I agree that the operations that I talk about are not a panacea—they do not make queues disappear—but they are about pragmatic ways, in challenging circumstances, of trying to make things better for people, which is a good thing. The resilience forum does a good job with that and we will work alongside it to deliver that. On the hon. Lady’s point about engagement, I hope that she has heard that our approach is not to wait and see—it has not been in the past and it is not now. We want to plan ahead of time so that PAF staff can make flexibilities to prioritise flow.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
In Scotland, the holiday season has already started. I understand why the Minister has rightly focused on the connection with France, but people in Edinburgh South West are concerned about there being real issues in Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece when it comes to delays at airports. Is the Minister speaking one to one with those countries to ensure that, at the very least, we are aware of what the challenges could be?
Alex Norris
It is reasonable for the House and the Government of the day to have a real focus on the juxtaposed ports, because the issues happen on UK soil and have impacts in UK constituencies. My hon. Friend is right that our constituents will go to all EU member states and, I would be willing to venture, they will travel to all ports in all EU member states at some point over the summer period. I do not want to see them delayed there, have their holidays ruined or to have a less enjoyable time. In the spirit that he suggests, we have talked to the European Commission and we have talked to member states individually. We have a rich sense individually of not just where every member state is, but where each port is, so that we can impose on them the clear view from the British people that they want flow prioritised, and that is what we are doing.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will the Minister point out to the European Union that, because we have a common travel area with the Republic of Ireland, and because the Republic of Ireland is not applying any of these checks on British citizens going to and coming from Northern Ireland or direct from the United Kingdom, there is actually an open border between the European Union and the United Kingdom, so they might as well allow the same access through Dover rather than trying to impose all their rubbish on the United Kingdom? On the suggestion that this is all the fault of Brexit, this did not exist when we left the European Union; this is a result of a decision that the dysfunctional European Union is inflicting on travelling British citizens for its own reasons, not for any practical benefit.
Alex Norris
There is a lot in the hon. Gentleman’s question. I would slightly challenge the assertion that the CTA is an open border. If an individual crosses that border into the UK, they have to have a reason for being there. They have to have real leave and they are subject to enforcement activity if they do not. I would not want anybody, whether they are connecting into the EU or anywhere else in the world outside the CTA, to have the idea that any of our ports are an open border. I want to know who is coming and who is going: that is in our nation’s interests. On his final point about there being no practical benefit, it is not for me to make the EU’s arguments for it—it can do that for itself—but given the conversations that we have in the Chamber about the flows of people across the European Union and then to the UK, it is really good thing that the EU wants to have borders where it knows who is coming and going, because that plays an important part in ensuring that we have a safe border. I think that is a good thing.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
As an MP who represents a constituency at the heart of the golden triangle, with one in five of my constituents working in logistics, this issue comes up regularly, including most recently with Steve Deveraux from BSI Transport, who explained to me the costs and the red tape that the current entry system creates. Will the Minister set out what assessment his office has made about the economic impact of the new system on HGV drivers and hauliers, and what measures the Department will take to support that sector going forward?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. On HGVs, there is degree of ease because the majority of HGV drivers are European nationals and are not subject to the same degree of checks, so that makes things flows more easily. That does not help if they are in the queue, but it helps to ensure that they do not cause the queue. On his point about the checks themselves, the good thing about the scheme is that once people have done the check, they supposedly will not need to do it again for three years, so things will get easier over time. We are looking at the impacts on the economy and the ordinary lives of the British people. Our clear message is to prioritise flow, and that is why we are having those conversations in that way.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I thank the Minister for all his efforts in trying to sort out a Tory mess. As a fellow Kent MP, I like and greatly respect the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), but is it not a bit cheeky to ask the Government of the day to sort out the mess that the Conservatives voted for? Will the Minister ask the Conservative party to respond with regard to creating the problem that he is having to sort out?
Alex Norris
I have always taken the view that I get to do the answers, but I do not get to do the questions as well—you know that well, Mr Speaker. I will seek to address whatever is put to me to the best of my ability. The hon. Gentleman is right; I spend a lot of my time clearing up the mess made by Tory predecessors, but I am not necessarily sure that this is one of them. However, there are plenty of other messes, including the rampant use of hotels that they allowed, small boat crossings in their entirety, and plenty more.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his answers so far. This is a hugely important issue for residents and businesses in my constituency of Harlow, not least because we have an international airport on our doorstep. I am a big believer in co-operation, and I know that when we co-operated with our French allies in the ’60s, the result was supersonic. What is the Minister doing to work with our French allies and other European countries? I do not seek to repeat the arguments of the past, but it is hugely important that we co-operate with our European allies to sort out this situation.
Alex Norris
Along with me, my hon. Friend holds that most exalted status of being a Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament. By instinct, I am the same as him; in anything in my life, I have never found that a problem with my neighbour, whatever its nature, got better by shouting rather than by co-operating. That is the spirit of our engagement at the moment. I believe that is the best approach going forward, and that is what we will continue to do.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Haulage, agricultural and fisheries firms in my constituency are heavily reliant on Dover, and delays, particularly to seafood, are disastrous—the value of the cargo disappears practically overnight. I am a member of the Business and Trade Committee, and when we visited Dover I was delighted to see £40 million-worth of infrastructure on our side of the short strait. The reality is that the difficulties lie on the far side of the short strait. Is it not time that, rather than warm words about an EU reset, we had the French ambassador in for an interview sans café?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman is testing my GCSE French—maybe I will be found wanting in that regard. On his first point, we absolutely accept that for some products, time is absolutely crucial. That is why the ports have put their money where their mouth is, but we have also put the British people’s money into that, because it is important for his constituency and for all of us to ensure that British seafood thrives. That is the right thing to do. I do not his approach is the most effective way of engaging. Rich conversations are happening on a daily basis, and it is better that we do that, rather than summoning the ambassador or anybody else. Our approach with France and with the Commission is better.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
There are clearly significant challenges to work through, and that is not unusual with large-scale technology adoption, as we know. I welcome the fact that the Government are working hard to find the trigger points where measures will be reduced or suspended for periods to try to keep queues to a minimum.
There are two areas that I think the Government could do a bit more with. They could do even more to promote the official “Travel to Europe” app, which might help with some of the delays. Will the Government also ensure that perishable goods have prioritised access at ports? That is particularly important for fish exports and other short-life produce, which is critical to our economy.
Alex Norris
The nature of who is driving short-use freight can make that easier, but there is a challenge in terms of prioritisation. As I have said to colleagues, there is a very good reason for the prioritisation of vulnerable individuals in cars for long periods of time, and there is flexibility in KMRF’s plans. There is a real challenge in finding that, because many if not most people have a good reason to move through at the quickest possible pace, and we want everybody’s flow to be as good as possible.
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point about travel information. We need people to avail themselves of that information at early points, particularly the amount of time that they need to leave, in order to plan their travel.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It should not have come as a surprise that the system is a complete disaster. In the previous Parliament, the European Scrutiny Committee, which I served on, was looking at this very issue and at many of the steps that could have been taken. However, on taking office, this Government abolished the Committee, so scrutiny was not carried through to preparations for implementation. One of our suggestions for the transitional period before the three-year rule took effect was to provide off-site units where people could have their fingerprints taken under supervision. That would have cut queues at those juxtaposed ports. Why did that not happen? Why was that suggestion not taken up? Will the Minister put it to the French Government that that could be a solution?
Alex Norris
I might contest the idea that we do not do very much European scrutiny in this place. That would be very difficult to say, because I do not recall ever standing at the Dispatch Box without talking about the European Union—it seems there are some colleagues who seek to talk about nothing else. We do have the chance to look at these plans adequately.
On the point about off-site infrastructure and similar matters, the issue is not with the infrastructure available. We can have the best infrastructure available, but if the technology that pulls through to it does not work, the system will not work. My absolute belief, which the hon. Gentleman will get to challenge in due course, is that when that tech is operational, the infrastructure will be in place and in the right parts of the ports, but we need the tech to work before we can properly test that.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Despite the unholy alliance between the Minister and Members on the Tory Front Bench, this issue is clearly a product of Brexit. I visited Dover with the Home Affairs Committee last week. Dover has invested more than £40 million in infrastructure, but the software is not working, and there will be chaos unless the EES is suspended this summer. This is a Brexit dividend, but will the Minister emphasise to the French that, rather than enjoying the schadenfreude, they should know how much their economy will be damaged by the chaos that will ensue?
Alex Norris
On the point about alliances, I have always taken the view in this Chamber that if I agree with somebody, I say that I agree with them; if I disagree with them, I say that I disagree with them. It does not really matter which party or what part of the UK they come from. That is in the interests of all our constituents.
The hon. Gentleman has heard my answer to the point about Brexit. Whatever the well-meant and different positions we may hold, I know for certain that if we went tapping on the windows of people in queues to say, “By the way, do you know that this is about Brexit?”, they would not consider that a suitable or sufficient answer from their leaders.
I do not recognise the point about the French and schadenfreude. I have not heard that in this debate, and it is certainly not the view of the Government. We always see these things as shared challenges with our neighbours. We have what we think is a very important way forward, and we are having conversations with our neighbours.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I echo the point made previously about the Scottish holidays having already begun and the need to focus on holiday hotspots, if I can use that expression, such as the Spanish and Greek islands, to ensure that travel is made as easy as possible for Scottish travellers. May I raise the issue of coach travel? Many people travel by coach. What assessment has the Home Office made of the impact of the EES on not just passengers but coach drivers?
Alex Norris
The point about Scottish holidays has been well made by colleagues. We can model volumes relatively accurately, because we know who is and is not on holiday and who has and has not booked holidays. We have prepared throughout for different spikes, particularly around different events. I was worried— forlornly, it seems—that Manchester City fans would not be able to get to the champions league final. I am sad to say that, as it turned out, we did not face that particular challenge.
The right hon. Gentleman’s point about coaches is very important in terms of both passengers and drivers. It is a heavily regulated profession, which means that there are hard and fast rules about what drivers can do. Coach companies are well placed, because they routinely travel on these routes—it is their business. We are having conversations with all sorts of transport carriers about preparation and planning.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Yesterday, in a session of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Mr Eddy Montgomery—a senior Home Office official—revealed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) that this Government are focusing purely on the ports. A senior official has confirmed that this Government are concerned only about the ports and about who is coming into Great Britain, not Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree with that, given all that has happened in Northern Ireland with regard to illegal immigration?
Alex Norris
The hon. Lady may or may not have had the chance to see from the transcript or, indeed, the video that I was on the subsequent panel for that session. That is not the view of the UK Government; the point being made was that we have significant levels of immigration enforcement for the common travel area. There have been over 2,600 visits since the general election, and more than 1,000 people have been removed from the UK as a result of those visits, 500 of them back to the Republic of Ireland—we take that enforcement very seriously. Of course, for very good reason, we focus on all of our ports as a point of challenge, but that enforcement activity happens across Northern Ireland, not just at the ports. We take an intelligence-led approach to Northern Ireland, and we always will, because we do not want to see the CTA abused.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Further to the excellent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), the Minister will no doubt be aware that Bridlington is the lobster capital of Europe, and therefore any delays at Dover have a serious impact on our vital export market. However, I want to address the wider issue of tourists this summer. Does the Minister agree that other countries—such as France, Spain and Portugal—should follow the lead of Greece and delay the implementation of the EES system until such time as it is fit for purpose?
Alex Norris
I commend Bridlington’s lobster industry. I have to say, that was a new one to me, but let me correct that error at the first possible opportunity. Lobster is, of course, the ultimate time-sensitive seafood product—I am stretching my seafood knowledge to some degree—and we are therefore very aware of the impact on Bridlington’s seafood industry.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about member states using their flexibilities. The conversations we are having—with France, but also with the Commission and across EU member states—are about using flexibilities to prioritise flow. I think all colleagues would agree that that is the right thing to do.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Mr Speaker, it is the 10-year anniversary of Brexit, but you would barely know it. There have been absolutely no celebrations whatsoever—no carrying of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) shoulder-high down the mall, no celebrations of how we spent that extra £350 million per week—but here we have it, the Brexit birthday present after 10 years: a miserable start to people’s holidays and our business being disrupted. Scotland did not vote for Brexit. Scotland wanted nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit, so why are Scottish holidaymakers getting caught up in this situation, and what is the Minister doing to alleviate it?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman has heard what we are doing—engaging with our partners across member states and the Commission to make sure they prioritise flow over compliance, which is the right thing to do. He raises important points about Brexit, which come up frequently in our discussions. As he may well have heard me say, I deal with challenges on a daily basis that result from the decision the British people took, such as access to data and information that we are doubtlessly missing, which we are seeking to add back as part of the UK-EU summit. I am just not sure that this situation fits into that category, because we would be having this conversation in some form either way.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
It is clear that the delay to the UK-EU reset summit—it was initially scheduled for July, but has now been delayed till October—has not cancelled the problems which that summit was, at least in part, designed to address. Might the Minister suggest an interim emergency summit to deal explicitly with this issue, bringing together the French and the European Commission to try to resolve it before we hit peak summer season? If he is willing to organise that summit, could he also raise the case of UK hauliers, who are reporting inconsistent scanning of their exit from the Schengen area and real fears that their 90 in 180-day entitlement will artificially run down as a result? That is going to have a profound effect on our economy.
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman perhaps ascribes to me greater power than I have with regard to convening international summits. This issue is being considered outside of that process, anyway—these conversations are happening every day. I also know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will meet her European counterparts next week and that the EES is on the agenda for that meeting. That work is going on.
I am concerned to hear about the inconsistent scanning, which I know has a profound impact on businesses and workers. If there are examples, I would be very keen to look at them, to make sure people are not being affected in ways they should not be.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his positivity in his answers—he always tries to calm us when it comes to these questions, fairly successfully. While the Home Office scrambles to prevent chaos at English ports, what specific, targeted measures is the Minister putting in place at our Northern Ireland seaports—such as Belfast and Larne—and at our airports, to stop this EES loophole turning Northern Ireland into a magnet for illegal, untracked transit into the rest of the United Kingdom?
Alex Norris
It is important to say that of course, there will not be EES checks at those ports; the only EES checks taking place on UK soil are at the juxtaposed ports I have talked about. Nevertheless, I am very interested in the travel arrangements and good holiday arrangements of the people of Newtownards and the rest of Strangford. It is really important that when they get to their destination and when they come home, they are able to flow through, and we are having conversations with all member states on that basis. Similarly, the hon. Gentleman will have heard about the changes and flexibilities we are introducing with regard to our domestic e-gates, to make sure that when his residents get home, they can get through their ports more quickly.
Rochdale Grooming Gang: Offender Deportation
Alex Norris Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on whether the Government are planning to change the law to deport Rochdale grooming gang leader, Shabir Ahmed.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
I will start where any discussion of this nature must always start: with the victims. Over the years, they were subjected to unspeakable crimes, exploited and abused by vile predators and woefully let down by the agencies charged with protecting them. I know that the House will join me in saying that they are in our thoughts today and always.
The grooming gangs scandal was and will forever be one of the darkest moments in our nation’s history. I know that for those affected, it will have been unbelievably painful to learn that one of the perpetrators was due for release from prison. Having been convicted in 2012, Shabir Ahmed has served the custodial element of his sentence. He is on the sex offenders register for life, ordered to stay away from his victims, and banned from contacting any child or young person. As well as strict curfews and restriction zones on him, his every movement will be tracked, and he will be required to wear an electronic tag. Should he breach those conditions, he can be immediately returned to prison.
Shabir Ahmed held British citizenship at the time of these offences, and action was taken to deprive him of that right, reflecting the seriousness of his offences. Having arrived in the UK before 1971, he is exempt from deportation due to section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971, which preserved the rights of Commonwealth and Irish citizens who were already in the UK when the Act took effect on 1 January 1973. That is not a loophole; the provisions of section 7 were put in place to protect the existing rights of an identified cadre of Commonwealth citizens, most notably the Windrush generation. However, when a foreign national breaks the laws of this land, our first priority will always be to get them out of the UK.
Under this Government, removals of foreign national offenders are up 36%, with nearly 10,000 returned since we entered office. The fact that that has not so far been possible for an individual responsible for such heinous crimes as Shabir Ahmed’s is unacceptable. I can assure the House that we have not given up, and we will not. While the original intentions of the legislation in question mean that we ought to proceed with care, the nature of the offending in this case demands that we explore all options, and that is what we are doing. In the meantime, we will of course do everything in our power to keep the public safe.
Katie Lam
Shabir Ahmed has committed some of the most despicable crimes imaginable. As the ringleader of the Rochdale grooming gang, he was responsible for grooming, trafficking and raping children as young as 12 years old. He was jailed in 2012 for 30 counts of child rape. His victims were promised that when he got out of prison, he would be deported back to Pakistan. He has been released from prison, but now we are told that he will not be deported because of a provision in the 1971 Immigration Act. The idea that he might be allowed to stay in this country because of a clause in a decades-old law designed for a completely different time and context is not just absurd, but sickening. As recently as 2023, parole officers concluded that Ahmed posed a
“very high risk of serious harm”
to children. How can he possibly be allowed to walk the streets again?
When the law produces an outcome that is clearly so wrong, the law must be changed. The Government must now change this law to make sure that we can remove Ahmed. Conservative Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, have made it clear that, if the Home Secretary puts forward changes to the law that would allow us to deport Shabir Ahmed, we will support them. The shadow Home Secretary has already drafted an amendment that the Government could adopt. The argument for deporting Ahmed is clear, and the mechanism has already been created. All that remains in question is whether the Government have the will to act. If so, we will be happy to support them. If they do not, people across this country will rightly ask, as they are already asking, whether this is a Government that can really keep the British people safe.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question and subsequent follow-up. I share her anger, and I share her concern at the anger of the British people, who rightly expect that, when foreign offenders break our laws, they should be removed from our country. That is why we have made removals to the degree that we have. I will look closely, as we always do, at all amendments and new clauses to legislation put forward by the Opposition and by all hon. and right hon. colleagues, or at other ideas as they come forward. As I say, in this context I could not be clearer that all options are on the table at this stage.
I might gently say that there was a significant period of time between that conviction and the change of Government in which those changes were not brought forward, including by some individuals I expect to be co-signatories to the amendment. Nevertheless, we are where we are, and the spirit in which the hon. Lady offers support is welcome. The public will want to see Parliament come together to ensure that, in cases where people commit really serious crimes, we are able to remove them from the country.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Shabir Ahmed and his co-offenders committed grave crimes that shook and angered the country. His victims and survivors are foremost in our minds today and they deserve justice. There are two aspects to deportation: first, getting our own legal house in order, and secondly, securing an agreement with Pakistan. On the first, once Shabir Ahmed was deprived of his British citizenship, it would have become apparent that the provisions of the Immigration Act 1971 would create a barrier to deportation. Given where we are now, can the Minister ensure that all options will be on the table, including on Monday when the Immigration and Asylum Bill comes before the House? Secondly, can he update the House on what conversations are taking place with Pakistan?
Alex Norris
I have known my hon. Friend for a very long time. He is resolute on this issue and fights day by day to protect his constituents in Oldham, and his contribution was in that spirit. I can confirm that all options are on the table. I share his anger and the anger of his community.
I have personally engaged with the Government of Pakistan in recent months; we engage with them frequently. It is in all our interests for us to have excellent, functional returns agreements with as many countries as possible. All the work that we do is in that spirit.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
My thoughts are with the victims and survivors, who have already suffered unbelievable harm and trauma. They have been failed at every stage, and they deserve better. It is completely unacceptable that someone who has been convicted of such vile offences, and who has rightly been stripped of his British citizenship, cannot be deported because of what I believe is a loophole in the law. It was not intended back in 1971 that the law should protect people like this, and the law must be rectified as a matter of urgency. Will the Minister tell the House when the Government will bring forward the necessary changes, and whether they have set a deadline for doing so? What progress has been made in discussions with Pakistan to ensure that this offender is deported?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman puts his question. I can only rely on what I have said so far: we are highly motivated in this case, and all options are on the table. I appreciate that pace is important, particularly for public confidence—we understand that totally.
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), we engage frequently with Pakistan. That is an important relationship for us, and we will continue to engage with Pakistan in the normal way.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The past week has been profoundly difficult for constituents in the communities I represent—communities that still bear the scars that Shabir Ahmed inflicted from takeaways in Heywood. Over the past week, I have spoken with the family members of one of his victims; they are understandably fearful and deeply let down by his release. For my constituents, any right that he had to walk our streets was forfeited when he committed those vile crimes. What reassurances can the Minister give to my constituents that nothing is off the table when it comes to the consequences faced by Shabir Ahmed and those who abuse children?
Alex Norris
A great many people across Lancashire and Greater Manchester will have the same feelings as my hon. Friend’s constituents. I give a clear assurance that very, very stringent conditions have been placed on this individual. If he breaches them, that would be very serious and would mean he would be eligible to return to prison. That is taken exceptionally seriously. I hear the spirit in which she asks the question, and that is the spirit in which the Government are working.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I cannot quite believe the words that I am hearing from the Minister. He says that all options are on the table, but the only option that the Government should be considering is deportation. He has the ability to bring through emergency legislation, which I am sure would get the backing of both sides of the House, to ensure that Shabir Ahmed is deported. When will he bring forward such legislation, so that we in this House can vote on it and ensure that this individual, who has committed heinous crimes across Rochdale, is deported?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman is an esteemed member of the Home Affairs Committee, so he knows that deportations are multifactorial; they involve barriers in our own domestic laws, perhaps barriers in other laws, and our returns agreements around the world. He has heard, from me, the spirit in which we are operating. I can only say again that all those options are on the table. He raises important ways of proceeding, but it is never quite as easy as he suggests. I know his motivations, which I share, and I am sure that at the right moment he will be keen to support us in our work.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Shabir Ahmed is a dangerous, manipulative paedophile whose sickening crimes are a damning indictment of the public authorities’ failure to adequately protect the victims of Rochdale grooming gang. Does the Minister agree that, now that we have a new Immigration and Asylum Bill, this House has the power to change the law so that child rapists like Ahmed are deported back to Pakistan? Does he also agree that, as he hinted, that is just the first step towards pulling every legal, diplomatic and economic lever to ensure that Pakistan takes back those who have committed gross abuse in our country?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that contribution from my hon. Friend. He has raised this issue since his first day in this place, with myself, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and many others. He makes an important point about possible legislative vehicles. We are looking at all those options, as I have said to him. Similarly, he raises the important issue of how we work with countries that we remove individuals to. Again, I give him my total assurance that we work with returning countries day in, day out to ensure that they take back their foreign offenders.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Is it true that the diplomats in the Foreign Office who deal with Pakistan are part of the obstacle to getting rid of this loathsome individual? Does the Minister agree that it is long overdue that the moral courage—indeed, heroism—of former Labour MP Ann Cryer, who first exposed this horrendous abuse, is properly and officially recognised?
Alex Norris
I would not normally comment on the specific details of conversations across Government, but I must simply say that that is not true; the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of diplomats in the Foreign Office is not my experience to any degree. The point about recognition is, of course, for others with more exalted office than myself, but I think he makes a very good suggestion.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
We cannot call ourselves a civilised society while Shabir Ahmed is walking the streets of this country. I agree with the thrust of the question by the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), but surely there is another approach to get him off the streets of our country: to put him back in prison and change the law that reduces the tariff for uncivilised wretches like him, so he can be put straight back in prison?
Alex Norris
In this case, the sentence that this heinous individual received had an auto release at two thirds, which means that legally he cannot be detained any more. But, as I say, the licence conditions are exceptionally strong, and therefore there is a route to recall if they are not properly followed. I point to the changes that this Parliament has made in recent months with the Sentencing Act 2026: we have made grooming an aggravating factor, so that vile criminals face being locked up for longer for this type of offence, in exactly the spirit in which my hon. Friend speaks.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Will the Minister commit to reviewing every case where an individual has been stripped of his British citizenship on public protection grounds but remains in Britain because deportation has failed, and will he tell the House how many such people there are?
Alex Norris
In this situation, there are no other people. I say to the hon. Lady that we are resolute in pursuing the removal of foreign offenders. Where there are hurdles, either legally or with the country of return, we work every day to overcome them, so of course we will work in that spirit.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Shabir Ahmed’s crimes are the worst imaginable, and we are all just horrified to learn that he has now been released. As the Government look at every option to remove this vile individual, can the Minister confirm when he expects to bring forward those options and legal solutions to this situation?
Alex Norris
I appreciate that my hon. Friend, and indeed all hon. colleagues, are keen for a defined timeline. What matters and is hugely important in this case is that, whatever option is taken forward, it resolves the situation and it sticks. It is right, therefore, that we take the time to get it right—but, as I say, we are working at pace, because we totally understand the seriousness of this case.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I have a great deal of respect for the Minister, and he has adopted the tone of the House, which is united on tackling this issue; but there is clearly a lacuna in the law as it stands. It will take time, however fast the Government work, to get that change on the statute books. In the interim, is the Minister prepared to use sanctions against Pakistan to ensure the deportation of this grievous individual?
Alex Norris
It is important to say that in this case, the barrier to removal—the initial and currently unmoved barrier to removal—is section 7 of the 1971 Act. That has to be resolved, so I would not run to the second part of that question. Our returns agreement with Pakistan last year returned 1,300 people who had no right to be here, including sex offenders. We want to work closely with the Government of Pakistan to remove people with no right to be here, and that is what we are doing.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Shabir Ahmed is a vile criminal, and the British public rightly want to see him deported. Does the Minister agree that where the law does not allow us to do so, we should change it, and that we should redouble efforts to secure returns agreements with countries like Pakistan?
Alex Norris
On the second part, I absolutely agree. I want returns agreements with everybody and, critically, I want them to be functioning. Where they are not, we should have conversations with those countries to ensure that they do function and that they follow up on the things they said they would do.
On the first part, I share the spirit of my hon. Friend’s question. It is important that people understand that there are legal hurdles in many cases in all walks of life, and legal protections are important, but it should be understood that Parliament is sovereign and that when we think that things are wrong, we can make changes—sometimes, very healthily in a democracy, on points of significant disagreement and division, or often in cases where we agree too. We have the ability to do that, and that is one of the options on the table.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Earlier this year I asked the Home Secretary at the Dispatch Box about the case of Fabian Henry, a child rapist who was removed from a deportation flight in 2021 after the Home Secretary herself, then in opposition, signed a letter calling for the removal of people from that flight. Last October, I also asked the Minister for an update on Fabian Henry and whether he was still in the country, and he refused to tell me based on the fact that the Home Office does not comment on individual cases. Given that Fabian Henry could be removed from the country under current legislation in the UK Borders Act 2007, what confidence should any of us or any of the victims of Shabir Ahmed have that the Government are going to change the law in order to facilitate his deportation?
Alex Norris
Fundamentally, when it comes to options that we take forward, it will be for the public to assess whether or not they think we are doing the right thing and for us to demonstrate that we are. On that specific case, as I think the hon. Gentleman would understand, there are important safeguards around the information that we would share, particularly around victims first, but we can, with constituency MP and victim consent, share some of that information. Let me pursue that with the hon. Gentleman outside these proceedings, because I want him to have the fullest information impossible so he can see, as would be my contention to all colleagues, just how vigorously we pursue removals of foreign criminals.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Some crimes are so despicable and some individuals so evil that they forfeit their rights and their protections, and we must change the law to ensure that they are never afforded them. Is not the law change required here to ensure that no individual can ever again be released unless the very next day they are being deported from this country?
Alex Norris
I hear the spirit and strength with which my hon. Friend, who represents Hartlepool, speaks. I think we have demonstrated the strength of the Government’s ability to remove people and remove them in significant numbers. As I say, this case clearly has legislative hurdles. All options are on the table, and I ask him and colleagues to give us a little bit of time to consider them and to come forward with plans.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) on securing this urgent question and thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting it, because Shabir Ahmed is a vile individual and his continued presence at liberty on our streets is an affront to every single value that we hold dear. The Minister has come here and said that all options are on the table, but he has also said he needs to tread carefully. The people of Spelthorne, who have been talking to me about this all weekend, do not want him to tread carefully; they want him to pull on his hobnail boots and frogmarch Shabir Ahmed to the airport today.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that question and know that the people of Spelthorne, like the people of Nottingham, are very sensible people. What I would say is that the hon. Gentleman has heard about the interaction of section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971 with the rights of a wide range of Commonwealth citizens, and we know where that can end if done badly. In that context, he will want us to do things right, because when anything could happen in this space, he would want to know that the action taken has been legally considered properly and, as I have said to colleagues, is robust. That is why all options are on the table, and I ask just for that little bit of time in order for us to come forward with plans.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
It is my view that Shabir Ahmed, a vile paedophile, signed up for a one-way ticket out of this country on the very day that he started committing his vile crimes. I thank the Minister for his statement setting out that he will stop at nothing to see him deported, but is it not also the case that this situation demonstrates the importance of the Government’s ability to deprive individuals of British citizenship, notwithstanding that that must always be done with the utmost care and with proper scrutiny?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend raises a characteristically thoughtful point. The ability to deprive individuals of British citizenship—the ultimate foundational right shared collectively by people across the country—is a significant step and a crucial tool in our armoury to ensure people who come to this country and commit crimes here are removable. That is really important and something that we take exceptionally seriously.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
My thoughts are with the victims and survivors of Shabir Ahmed and the Rochdale grooming gang. The Minister has always been clear that removing foreign national offenders is a priority for him, the Home Secretary and this Government. Will he update the House on what more the Home Office is doing to speed up these removals?
Alex Norris
We have made significant progress, removing nearly 10,000 foreign offenders since we took office. As we said in our asylum policy statement in November, and as reflected in the legislation that we brought forward last week, there are hurdles that are used to frustrate removal, be they abusing crucial protections from the Modern Slavery Act 2015 or the gaming of article 8 of the ECHR that goes far wider than Strasbourg case law. That is why we have brought forward legislation to ensure we are able to remove people who forfeit their right to be in the country.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for framing his comments around the victims of these terrible crimes, who should always be in our thoughts during such debates. I know that he is committed to doing everything that he can to ensure that foreign nationals who come to our country and break our laws, particularly in such vile and disgusting ways, are made to leave. Will he repeat that commitment from the Dispatch Box and reassure residents in Harlow that this Government will keep them safe?
Alex Norris
I know the wisdom of the people of Harlow: they are tolerant and respect people from all over the world and from all backgrounds, whether they are 500th-generation Harlow, like my hon. Friend, or have arrived more recently. They know that when people commit crimes and abuse that status then, of course, they should be removed. We have made significant progress during our time in office and there will be more progress made through our recent legislation so that we can go further. I look forward to his support and the support of colleagues.
Right to Work Scheme: Tackling Illegal Working
Alex Norris Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
The Government are today laying regulations to strengthen the right to work and the right to rent schemes, alongside updated statutory codes of practice for employers and landlords. These measures implement provisions in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 and will come into force in October 2026, in line with the common commencement date for businesses.
Clamping down on illegal working continues to be a critical part of this Government’s work to restore fairness, order and control within the immigration and asylum system. The ability to work illegally is a driver of illegal migration and exploitation. Illegal working undermines honest businesses and exposes vulnerable individuals to exploitation. This Government are clear that such activity will not be tolerated.
The reforms introduce, for the first time, an extension of the right to work scheme and the associated civil penalties for non-compliance, to cover companies that contract workers or individual subcontractors to provide services under their company name, such as agency workers or workers in the gig economy. These changes close gaps in the current framework and ensure that responsibility for the prevention of illegal working sits appropriately across modern labour market structures.
The regulations also strengthen the framework for digital identity verification. They introduce updated requirements for the use of digital verification service providers, mandating that when choosing to use digital verification for a right to work or right to rent check, it must be carried out using Government-registered providers. Digital verification services are central to delivering secure, efficient and reliable checks under both schemes.
In addition, powers in the Data Use and Access Act 2025 will enable a broader use of document verification through digital means to support candidate onboarding, strengthen assurance and give individuals greater choice over how they share their personal information.
Taken together, these measures respond to changes in the labour market, including the growth of flexible and platform-based work, and ensure that the framework for preventing illegal working remains effective and proportionate.
Enforcement of the new measures will commence from October 2026, when the regulations come into force.
[HCWS159]
Asylum Accommodation
Alex Norris Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on asylum accommodation.
It is important to remind the House of the wider context, and in particular the events that have brought us here today. In the years before the general election, the number of people arriving in the United Kingdom illegally, particularly via small boats across the channel, rocketed. The dismal consequences of that abject failure to secure our country’s borders are grimly familiar to us all: individuals risking their lives to come here via dangerous means, criminal gangs growing rich from the proceeds of organising those journeys, community cohesion placed under severe strain, and public trust in the state’s ability to perform one of its most basic functions shredded.
Over the last two years this Government have taken concerted action to turn the situation around. We have begun by implementing major asylum reforms to reduce the incentives that draw people to this country. We have cut overall asylum costs by nearly £1 billion, while asylum decision making, which effectively ground to a halt under the previous Government, is at a 24-year high. More foreign criminals and illegal migrants are being removed than at any time in many years, and in partnership with our French counterparts we have stopped more than 44,000 crossing attempts. We have also put in place a groundbreaking scheme that means that small boat arrivals can, for the first time, be returned to France.
All that work is important and it is making a difference. However, perhaps the most totemic and tangible manifestation of the failing system that we inherited is the continued use of hotels to house asylum seekers. That issue has, quite understandably, been a source of widespread concern and anger. The Government recognise those frustrations, and we share them. Hotels ought to be local assets serving their communities, not propping up the asylum accommodation system. When hotels are used for that purpose, there are significant implications for local services, community cohesion and public safety. Clearly, that unsuitable, unsustainable and costly practice must be stopped, which is why this Government made a commitment to end the use of asylum hotels in this Parliament. We are well on track to deliver on that aim.
In April we announced that 11 asylum hotels had been closed and given back to local communities. We were clear at that point that more would follow in the subsequent weeks, and so that has proved, with a further 20 now having closed. That means that just under 170 asylum hotels remain in use, which is a reduction of more than half compared with the peak of around 400 under the previous Government. The number accommodated in hotels has also seen a significant fall from 56,000 in 2023, to around 21,000 now. Progress is being made but we must go further, and that means scaling up our use of larger, more basic facilities.
There are currently two such sites in operation: Wethersfield in Essex and Crowborough in East Sussex. Those sites began housing asylum seekers in 2023 and January this year respectively. Across both sites there is, at present, capacity to accommodate up to 1,340 individuals, with additional contingency capacity at Wethersfield of 400. In the meantime, work has continued to identify further viable locations.
Today I can confirm to the House that three new ex-military sites are now under consideration: Barnham in Suffolk, Bicester in Oxfordshire and Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire. Together, those sites could eventually provide accommodation for around 3,750 asylum seekers, subject to feasibility assessments, planning permission and the necessary approvals. Those caveats are important, because while our commitment to the promise we have made on hotels is absolute, we must ensure that we get this right and carry out all relevant due diligence, so that if we decide to proceed with an alternative site, our plans are as strong as they can possibly be. Let me assure hon. Members that we have learned from the previous Government’s forays into this arena. No final decision will be taken on any site until, in each case, all necessary arrangements, assessments and approvals are in place and have been properly considered.
Work on those three potential sites is ongoing, in conjunction with local and national partners. To further support the exit from hotels, we are exploring the possibility of extending the use of the site at Crowborough, which is currently due to end next January. At Wethersfield, we are exploring both an extension and the best use of capacity. Finally, following detailed assessments, the Government have decided not to proceed with Cameron barracks in Scotland as a potential site for asylum accommodation, and it will be returned to the Ministry of Defence.
Before I finish, I assure the House that we understand our responsibilities in this space. With any decision on asylum accommodation, public safety is and will continue to be a critical consideration. We will always take every possible step to minimise the impact on communities. To be clear, wherever asylum seekers are located, they should be in no doubt that if they break our laws, they will be caught, face justice and, like the thousands of foreign offenders already removed under this Government, made to leave our country.
To conclude, it was always going to take time to fix the mess we inherited, but as the measures I have set out today clearly demonstrate, we are acting decisively to achieve the change the country voted for at the general election by closing asylum hotels for good, by securing our borders and by restoring order and control to the immigration system. That is what the public rightly expect and that is what the Government are working relentlessly to deliver. I commend this statement to the House.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, which confirms what we have suspected since last week: this Government are planning to put more illegal migrants into sites across the country.
Some of those sites are due to host illegal migrants until 2030, yet the Government did not think that it was worth alerting the hon. Members who represent those communities and live nearby ahead of the announcement in the press. Rather than subjecting the plans to proper scrutiny here in Parliament, the Government tried to sneak the news out quietly before the weekend, without discussion here in this place by those people’s democratically elected representatives. That is exactly the same playbook that the Government have tried to use in places like Inverness where, thanks to the work of the Conservative group on the Highland council, the Home Office’s plans to house illegal migrants at Cameron barracks were blocked.
We have seen in far too many cases the risk that illegal migrants, most of them young men, pose to the public, particularly to women and children. If the Government are planning to force communities to live alongside people who have shown complete contempt for our laws and norms by the very act of coming here illegally, the least that they can do is to allow those plans to be subject to proper scrutiny.
Now that we finally have an opportunity to scrutinise the plans, we can perhaps see why the Government were so keen to hide them. For all the talk of smashing the gangs, they reveal that this Government do not have any faith in their own ability to fix the problem. If they are so sure that they are ending illegal channel crossings, why are the Government making plans to host illegal migrants in this country until 2030? What does that tell us about their confidence in their own approach?
The truth is that this Government have no intention of fixing the problem: they care only about managing people’s perceptions of it. While they talk up the reduction in illegal migrants living in hotels, they conveniently leave out the fact that thousands more migrants are being housed in so-called dispersal accommodation: homes in the middle of our towns and cities where illegal migrants pose an even greater risk to the public.
Since the last election, 75,000 people have crossed the channel. In the past few weeks alone, 3,000 have made the crossing. For all the Government’s talk of removals, nearly all of them—some 93%—are being allowed to stay. The Minister boasts about a reduction in outstanding decisions, but they have achieved that reduction by granting asylum to thousands upon thousands of illegal migrants.
The Minister said in his statement that to stop the use of asylum hotels for good
“we must go further, and that means scaling up our use of larger, more basic facilities.”
He is right that the Government must go further to stop the use of asylum hotels for good, but he is utterly wrong that the problem is solved by instead spending huge resources to create other places to live for those who arrive here illegally.
As Conversative Members have made clear time and again, the only real solution to the crisis at our border is to remove illegal migrants as soon as they arrive. People must know that if they try to break our laws, they cannot stay. For it to be possible to remove people as soon as they arrive, we must leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights that prevents us from doing so, but the Government refuse to recognise that. They are in hock to activist lawyers in this country and unaccountable judges in Strasbourg, and keeping those people happy takes precedence over keeping the British people safe and delivering on their democratic will.
The plans before us are another sorry example of that. More illegal migrants will enter the endless cycle of appeals and legal challenges, allowing them to stay here for years at the taxpayer’s expense. More people will be put at risk because of these plans and because of the Government’s unwillingness truly to solve this problem for good.
Alex Norris
We see the contrast there clearly. While the Government have a serious plan on how to accommodate a significant number of people and change that reality, the hon. Lady offers just “Hail Marys” and long shots. Her colleagues had 14 years, but sat through them and did not make any of those decisions. It is hard to believe.
The hon. Lady started by asking why, and that is a very important point, because these sites are part of our theory of change. At the moment, the traffickers say, “Come to the UK. Live in a hotel. You will be able to work illegally, dead easily.” We have to change that reality if we want to reduce pull factors. This plan does so; it says, “You will not live in a hotel. You may well live on a military site.” That is about reducing numbers and reducing the impact on the British taxpayer, and that is the right thing to do.
The hon. Lady mentioned dispersal accommodation. The previous statistics release in May shows a 32% reduction in the number of people in hotels, but there was a reduction of less than 1% in the number of people in dispersal accommodation, so the reality is not quite as she put it. On decision making, she knows that the grant rate has not changed significantly at all, so I simply cannot accept her case that by making more decisions we are letting more people through.
The reality is that we have a choice between another hopeful attempt at culture war by an Opposition who have no ideas, and a serious plan to reduce numbers. Let us face it: asylum applications are three times what they would have been 10 years ago. From us, it is serious action; from the Opposition, it is empty calories.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
This is deeply concerning news for my constituency. The boundary fence of RAF Barnham adjoins the market town of Thetford, which I represent; the town centre is a short walk away from the base.
I strongly support the right of people to claim asylum, and I am proud that we are able to offer refuge to those fleeing war and persecution, including those who have supported our armed forces abroad, but that is not without risk and impacts on community relations. In the absence of openness and transparency and a proper plan, malign forces will fill the void, stoking greater fear and division. Whether it is a Conservative Government or this Government, these announcements should be sensitively handled and thoroughly planned, but that has not happened in this case, where there has been secrecy and confusion. It is my community who pay the price for that failure.
While such news will never be welcomed by a community, the worst could be mitigated by a stronger commitment to transparency, engagement and reassurance. Alongside this announcement, where is the engagement plan? Where is the communication strategy? Where is the commitment to addressing community cohesion concerns in these areas?
Alex Norris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those important questions. Let me start where he started; everything is local somewhere, and the impact of our proposals is significant on those local communities. I recognise that, and that is important, but we are developing plans to mitigate the impact. There is a reason that we do not wait until the very end and announce the decision just as it is taken. At some point, we vet sites; we have vetted all sorts of sites around the country ahead of being able to bring these ones forward.
There comes a point, however, when we need to get onsite and start peeling back the layers and engaging with the local authority, police and health services, and that point is now. My hon. Friend is right; there needs to be sensitive handling of plans. I appreciate that the burden is on me and the Government to demonstrate that we will do so. I believe that we can do this while mitigating the impacts on his community and surrounding communities, but, as I say, it is up to us to demonstrate that.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I regret that the Labour Government still have not set out a credible plan to restore fairness and control in our immigration and asylum system. This announcement is another sideways step that fails to address the root cause of the problem.
Simply moving asylum seekers from one form of expensive and unsuitable accommodation to another is not good enough, particularly when the costs are going up. At the Crowborough MOD site, which is currently in operation, accommodation costs around £160 per asylum seeker per night. That is more than the cost of the average asylum hotel place. The Government are choosing a more expensive option, adding an estimated £60,000 every night to the bill faced by taxpayers. How does the Minister justify that? Will he confirm whether this decision is driven by a desire to be seen to be closing asylum hotels, rather than securing the best value for taxpayers? The Government should instead be focusing on reducing the asylum backlog and ending the limbo that many asylum seekers are in. The overall asylum caseload is now higher than when Labour took office, while the appeals backlog has reached record levels. Will the Minister set out what he and his Department are doing to reduce that backlog and ensure that the Home Office gets more decisions right first time, avoiding unnecessary appeals?
Finally, if we are to deliver the controlled and compassionate immigration and asylum system that my constituents in Woking and the whole of the British public want, it is essential that we tackle dangerous channel crossings. Will the Minister work with our European partners to establish a genuinely effective returns agreement that ensures that we can have controlled, legal routes and that those who arrive in small boats can be returned swiftly?
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He has heard the plan from me and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary before: co-operation abroad, quicker and better decision making, and more returns. All those things are going much better than they did under our predecessors. It is also about tackling illegal working, but crucially, it is about reducing pull factors too. I sometimes feel that Opposition colleagues have given up on the idea that the numbers might go down. Actually, the numbers are significantly elevated from what we are used to, and with sensible attempts to tackle pull factors—including tackling illegal working, but also this proposal—we can reduce them.
The hon. Gentleman talked about costs. He cited the per night figure for Crowborough; that figure will of course fall if we stay at Crowborough longer, because some of that is up-front capital investment. Pro-rated over a longer period of time, the nightly rate will come down, but again I say gently that we are doing this because we want less of this activity. We are not merely asking, “We expect to house the same number of people, so where is the cheapest place to put them?” but, “What is the best use of our estate to promote a number of goals, one of which is reducing those numbers?” That is how we get costs down. I might add that we speak with a degree of credibility, given that we have already taken £1 billion out of taxpayer spending in this area. That is progress.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned appeals. He knows very well why the appeals backlog has grown—we have had a huge backlog of initial decisions, because the previous Government stopped making them. Of course, that cohort is now in the appeals system. As he will have heard in the King’s Speech, important reforms to appeals are coming, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will support us in that venture.
On his point about co-operation abroad, that is of course crucial. We engage all the time with our European and EU neighbours, working together on a shared problem. The fruits of that can be seen in our much-enhanced deal with France. That work is crucial, and it will continue to grow.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
As the Minister has repeatedly mentioned Crowborough, which is in my constituency, I assume he will be meeting me this week to clarify the position for my constituents.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) for mentioning RAF Barnham, which is in my constituency—it is adjacent to the border of Thetford, and within easy walking distance of it. It was formerly a base that housed mustard gas during the first world war, and in the cold war it was the home of the RAF’s strategic nuclear weapons, so it has an interesting history.
The people of Suffolk are a kind and compassionate people, and they understand the need to house those who are fleeing war and persecution. However, I saw a protest at RAF Barnham this weekend, so how will the views of local people be taken into account, and what exactly is the role of the local planning authority?
Alex Norris
I thank my hon. Friend for his questions. To answer your question from the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will of course be very happy to meet you, as I always am—indeed, I am often summoned to do so. You are in the inimical position of not being able to clearly state on the record just how opposed to Crowborough you are, but I am in no doubt about that, given that you tell me basically every single day via the telephone or face to face, or through whatever tortures in this Chamber you can imagine. I may have more of that to come.
The points made by my hon. Friend are very important. I appreciate that local communities will want to do one of two things, and I encourage them to do both of them at the same time. I understand that many if not most people in my hon. Friend’s community, like others, will oppose the Government doing this, which is a perfectly noble endeavour in a democracy. There are also questions about how this can be done best—how do we limit the impact, be it on health services, the police or local amenities? I believe we can pass that test clearly, and I hope communities will also engage with those questions.
As for planning, my hon. Friend knows that we have previously used a number of different planning devices for different sites. We have not made final determinations for Barnham or for the other sites—we will be doing that over the course of this work.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Linton-on-Ouse, in the heart of my constituency, is a small rural community and is very much isolated. Four years ago, this plan was rejected on technical grounds. Three times the local population would be put into the area, with no means to secure people within that site. They could roam into the village, which has no amenities and does not have a village shop. The area would be overwhelmed.
I wanted to question the Minister on Thursday, but it was not possible. I have had many constituents ask some of these questions over the weekend, and I would like the Minister to answer them now. Northern Powergrid previously indicated that the system would not be able to cope and that the electrical upgrade needed for supply was not possible. Does that mean that industrial generators will have to be brought in, creating noise pollution in this quiet rural village? Yorkshire Water spent millions of pounds upgrading the sewage works to ensure that it correctly met effluent discharge requirements, based on a threefold increase in the area’s population under the proposal, so will there have to be effluent trucks, or would the water drains be polluted? On that note, people who closed down the Linton-on-Ouse base tell me that the drains were concreted in at the time.
The Minister has said that some of these sites have already been vetted, but I find that hard to believe, when the issues on the base have not changed. The highway network has bridges limited to seven and a half tonnes, so site traffic will have to go through limited road routes. On healthcare, the local NHS says that it has no spare capacity. What is perhaps more worrying is that I have been told on good authority that local companies have been asked to tender for the work that would be needed at this site. I ask the Minister directly: have local companies been contacted to tender for work? If they have, I wonder whether it is a feasibility study. On that note, who will make the planning decisions? Will that be for North Yorkshire council, or will it be overridden?
To call it a plan is too grand. The Government do not know what they are doing. They have not thought it through, and they have not had the decency to consult local people about it. In the words of the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) in 2022, this
“tells you just about everything you need to know about the state of chaos they are in.”
This is happening under his watch, so what has changed? This is still an inappropriate site, given those technical issues.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that series of questions. I gently say that there is a slight unfairness in the right hon. Gentleman’s saying that he and his community want a greater say in the details, while at the same time saying that we do not have a plan. The whole point is that rather than inviting providers or contractors to tender for services and to be around on sites and our saying, “Nothing to see here”, we are being honest that we are looking seriously at this site. The final decision is not made yet, but we are looking. That is a better way to do it, but I appreciate that there may be differences of view.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about roaming. That is in no one’s interest, and what we have managed to do at Wethersfield and Crowborough is to ensure that people do not just come off-site and roam. They are non-detained, as he said. Nevertheless, by the provision of activities and of transport, we can ensure the lightest local impact possible. That would be our commitment for these sites, too.
The right hon. Gentleman mentions electricity and sewage. Those are important parts of the process that we are in now. We are well aware of the history, which transcends this Government—it goes back to the previous Government—but we would not be taking forward this site if we did not think we had viable answers. Nevertheless, it is only when we get on site and start turning over the rocks, as it were, that we can get to a final point on viability. That is the process we are doing here.
It is not our intention that the site would impact on the right hon. Gentleman’s local healthcare services, outside emergency services perhaps. What we have been able to do elsewhere is to have ordinary healthcare provided for on-site to ensure that there is not an impact on the local community. Those are the types of models—[Interruption.] An hon. Member asks if I will give way. I am trying to answer questions fully. Perhaps I cannot win either way.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Minister will know from past correspondence, I am asking for greater transparency about the criteria used to prioritise asylum hotel closures. I am still not clear about why the Victoria hotel in Chadderton, which was contacted by the Home Office five years ago without any consultation with local people or with me as the Member of Parliament, remains in use. In fact, in the intervening period, the then Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) —who now sits on the Reform Benches—increased its capacity from 80 to 120 places.
Oldham has always played its part, often doing far more than other places—in addition to the 114 asylum seekers currently in the hotel, there are 640 in dispersed accommodation in the town—but the Minister must accept that trust taken for granted becomes trust eroded. In the end, it is one housing market. We cannot have a situation where we see a push from hotels to settled accommodation but we allow Serco to take up family housing in Greater Manchester, when there are 500 children in temporary accommodation in my town alone. We have got to see this in the round, and local authorities have to be at the front and centre when the Home Office is doing the planning.
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend is right: there was no consultation on those 400 hotels, and there was no sense of the impact on local amenities and local communities. I think we should do much better than that. That hotel will close. As for the question of criteria, we worked that out in the context of a variety of different factors, including suitability of location, size and who could be accommodated, to arrive at a prioritisation. Finally, let me make it clear to my hon. Friend and his community: all those hotels are closing.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Site A at MOD Bicester sits adjacent to a village with only 370 residents. It is more than two miles from the nearest shop, and there is no pavement next to the B road by the site. It is simply not a suitable place in which to locate 1,250 men seeking asylum. That is why a planning inspector rejected a proposal to host half the number there in 2003.
The Minister says that no final decision has been taken, but that is not how it feels in Bicester. While I appreciate that he has taken the time to speak to me twice on the phone, I am yet to receive any written information from the Home Office. However, the Ministry of Defence has already written to service personnel families and told them that the site will take 300 people by the end of this year, rising to more than 1,200 overall. To my constituents, this feels like a decision taken in secret in Whitehall and imposed on Bicester, with local people treated as an afterthought. In less than 72 hours, 7,156 local residents have signed my petition opposing the move. Opposition stretches across the political spectrum, across parties and across the community, because this isolated site is wrong for those seeking asylum and for the small villages around it, with no credible plan for local services, support or social cohesion.
This morning the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) promised to end the centralised, top-down Whitehall model, so why are the Government racing to do exactly the opposite in my constituency? Will the Minister pause, commit to preparing a detailed impact assessment in partnership with the local community, and come to Bicester to face residents and describe his proposal to them?
Alex Norris
Let me reiterate that no final decision has been taken. The hon. Member made an important point about the written information that goes into the public domain. As I personally found, getting information to people at the right moment, in the right sequence and in the right form is a challenge. Members may recall—you certainly will, Madam Deputy Speaker—that when we named previous sites, I made a commitment that I would call colleagues so that they would find out from me first, rather than from the media. We have been able to do that much, but there is clearly a gap when it comes to the written fact sheets that go into the public domain. In my experience of both Crowborough and Cameron, information is put into the public domain; it will not change on a daily basis, and I recognise that that is a source of frustration, but we will give the best that we can, and we will do the impact assessments that we need to do along the way.
I appreciate that the burden of proof is on us: it is up to us to demonstrate that we can do these schemes well and do them safely. I believe we can. We have already demonstrated that in respect of two sites—and, indeed, Napier barracks, which has subsequently closed—but I need to pass that with the hon. Member. As for engagement from the Home Office, we will ensure that he receives the right information in the right way in order to have the engagement with his constituents. That is a commitment that I would make to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to all colleagues.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his statement. It is important that we have the means to help people fleeing really difficult situations, and that we clamp down on illegal immigration. The Minister is aware that the widespread use of asylum hotels has put a considerable amount of pressure on local authorities. We have a situation in which over 140,000 households are in temporary accommodation in the UK, with over 175,000 children sleeping in B&Bs, as the Minister knows.
Frankly, asking asylum seekers to find secure accommodation, a job and universal credit within 28 days of receiving their statements is unachievable. That pressure goes on to local authorities, which are already dealing with a massive backlog. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee did a recent report on the conditions in temporary accommodation. I would be grateful to know what conversations the Minister is having with colleagues in MHCLG to ensure that when our councils procure temporary accommodation, they are not competing with the Home Office.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for that important question. I agree with her that 28 days is too short, which is why we have extended the time limit to 42 days to give people enough time. We have also put in place move-on liaison officers to support that journey. I do not want people who have received good news about their protection to find that their next journey is on the street.
Our engagement with MHCLG is consistent and constant, and we share the goal of reducing homelessness. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) said, MHCLG clearly has a strong view about the impact that we could have on local housing markets. We have those conversations day in, day out in order to tread as lightly as possible. To be clear, we could be out of hotels in three months if we just prioritised the cheapest dispersed accommodation available. I think that would be wrong, and that is what we are not doing.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
I have two issues affecting my constituency. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, Crowborough camp affects the back of my constituency, and Copthorne hotel is close to Gatwick. The Minister, when I met him and the mayor of Uckfield, promised to do proper engagement with MPs. Why did I not find out about the length of stay being extended to 2030 until today? It was the talk of our cadets on Armed Forces Day on Saturday, with London and the south-east affected, and I am very interested in the cost.
On the prioritisation of closures, Gatwick expansion is coming and the Copthorne is one of the 170 hotels where planning permission is running out. It is needed for local uses, and issues of community cohesion and safety are playing out on either side of my constituency. I ask to join Madam Deputy Speaker in hearing from the Minister about Crowborough and Copthorne, because I am seeing this issue play out in real time in my community.
Alex Norris
As the hon. Lady says, this is the choice ahead of us. I believe that the change to larger sites is a good one. The Copthorne must close, and it will. I cannot offer her space in the meeting with Madam Deputy Speaker, but I suspect that she would be keen for the hon. Lady to be there too.
I apologise to the hon. Lady, because I rang neighbouring MPs who have been affected by Crowborough, but not in her case. I hope I will be able to mitigate that, at a point not too far away, when I ring her about Copthorne.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
We are having this debate because of the cost to us all of trying to move from the broken system that this Government inherited to a fair and effective one. We are in this position because the previous Government failed to process people, and the Conservatives now seem to want to rely on creating fiction, rather than fact, about what actually works.
The Minister is absolutely right to argue that we need to tackle the root causes and try to stop people getting into boats. It is also right to recognise that where people are fleeing persecution and that is proven, it is the mark of a good society to help them. It is also more cost-effective. Given that last week the Government lost legal proceedings on the proposal about good character and citizenship, and given the likelihood of more litigation because of the fictitious idea that somebody travelling by an irregular route is somehow less of a person, does the Minister recognise that we will save money by changing the policy and putting integration, not ill will, at the heart of a future system for refugees?
Alex Norris
It is important to recognise the cost of that loss of grip. The previous asylum contract was let on the assumption that there would be about 60,000 people. The previous Government let the figure balloon to double that. It continues to come down, but it is still around the 100,000 mark. We have to make difficult decisions, and that is the nature of the accommodation today.
We have to pivot the model in this country. We were clear in November’s asylum policy statement that we have to make sure that we reduce the pull factors and remove people who have no right to be here, but we also have to make sure that we provide safe and legal means for people to come to the country—that is better. Nobody should ever transit across continents and across the channel.
My hon. Friend’s point about litigation is important. It seems to me that there will always be an element of that in the Home Office, but I think we can pivot to a much better model, certainly through safe and legal means; community sponsorship allows communities to come forward in a positive way. We are not in that place yet, but we are moving to that model. This is an important staging post on that journey.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I thank the Minister for confirming that RAF Scampton is not cost-effective. Frankly, he has been a lot more helpful than his predecessor Conservative Ministers, who have now left the Conservative party, so I thank him.
The problem with these sites, as I know from asking hundreds of questions, is that they are unbelievably difficult to transform into asylum centres, so can I ask the Minister: is this really a deterrent? If someone comes from a hellhole of a country, does it matter where they are going to be sent? However, can I be positive and ask a question in this way: is not the best way to solve this problem to process these asylum claimants very quickly, preferably within a month? There will be some who cannot be sent back because their country is not safe, but surely the solution is to create a returns hub in a Council of Europe country—distant, small—so there is no question of their human rights being abused. That is a real deterrent: to treat them quickly and then send them home.
Alex Norris
On processing, it seems to me that the issue is not now initial decision making, but that we have a significant portion of people waiting for their appeal to be heard, and there is not a quick way to do that. As I say, we have talked about appeals reform, and Members may see things from us shortly on that—I hope we will have their support. The right hon. Member will have heard what my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister has said in favour of returns hubs in the past. Scampton is an important part of Lincoln and Lincolnshire’s economic future, and I look forward to the sale of that site and the positive development of it in short order.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the statement, and the Government’s clear objective to ensure that hotels are eliminated from our asylum accommodation system and that military bases become a short-term stopgap. Can he reassure us all that the Government will continue to focus very closely on processing people more quickly and ensuring that those not eligible to stay here are deported as soon as possible, so that the use of the military bases announced today, which are already up and running, is a temporary measure for as short a period as possible?
Alex Norris
I absolutely agree with that. This is about quicker processing and quicker removals, but I would say—I hope Members can hold this in their heads—that this is also about reducing pull factors. Last year, the volume of people seeking asylum was in the 90,000s. Between 2011 to 2020, the figure was in the 20,000s. That is part of the challenge. Exactly as my hon. Friend says, getting that down to a more steady state will help take out some of the very difficult choices that are having to be made.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
While it is welcome that the proposed use of Cameron barracks in Inverness was ultimately abandoned, that came only after months of unnecessary uncertainty for local communities following an announcement made without meaningful engagement with the Scottish Government, Highland council or NHS Highland. Does the Minister accept that bypassing devolved partners and failing to consult local communities undermines confidence in the asylum system? Will he commit that any future decisions on asylum accommodation in Scotland will be made only after meaningful engagement with the Scottish Government, local authorities and local MPs? Will he acknowledge that, while military sites may relieve immediate pressure on the system, they do not address the underlying failures driving the accommodation crisis, including slow decision making, inadequate planning and a lack of suitable community-based housing options?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that question, and I am very aware of the Scottish Government’s New Scots programme. It is the clear position of the Scottish Government that they want to see people from outside Scotland coming to live there and being part of Scotland’s economic future. I am committed to working with Scottish counterparts to make that a reality. There is a challenge, because that sounds good in a global sense, but down at an individual level, it may sometimes seem less attractive. There are challenges in Scotland, particularly the fact that 60% of asylum seekers in Scotland are housed in Glasgow—that is an equity point in Scotland that I think could change. However, I absolutely will work with my Scottish counterparts. I have met them and will continue to do so.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s closure of the asylum seeker hotel in Dudley. It was a Conservative party policy that was a complete waste of taxpayers’ money. What steps is the Minister taking to reduce the asylum backlog and the dangerous, illegal boat crossings?
Alex Norris
This is about quicker decision making, the commitment we have made to appeals reform and better collaboration with our European neighbours. Those elements are adding up to significant progress, which is why we have seen numbers fall. This is the next step to get us on the final leg of that journey.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
The Minister spoke about necessary arrangements and approvals being followed, but the Haslar immigration removal centre proposals are meaningfully different from those originally planned. The Home Office is bypassing the local planning authority, Gosport borough council, and the public consultation has been utterly derisory. This is a residential urban area, yet local people do not have any opportunity to have a say, because it will be decided by the Secretary of State in Whitehall.
Leaving aside all the rhetoric, can the Minister just answer some straight questions? Will he set out exactly how many people will now be housed at Haslar, who they will be and how long they will stay there? What opportunity will neighbouring residents have to influence the development and how it looks? When will the Home Office have proper public meetings, so that Gosport people can put their questions and have them answered? Will he meet me to answer all the other questions I am getting from my residents, who are furious about what the Government are doing?
Alex Norris
I will of course meet the hon. Lady. Immigration removal centres are, of course, an entirely separate matter from what we are talking about here. I do not have those numbers at my fingertips, but I will get them to her in short order. There is a point of difference in terms of the engagement, as I can see from the correspondence between us on what has and has not been shared at public meetings about the nature of the site, but let us have that conversation so that we are speaking with one version of the truth.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will know that Bracknell welcomed Afghans who supported our armed forces in transitional accommodation under the Afghan resettlement programme, but under the system introduced by the Conservatives that is not taken into account when considering a local area’s ability also to deliver asylum accommodation. He will know that I have been lobbying him on this matter, because small unitary authorities such as Bracknell Forest council cannot be expected to do more than their fair share. Can he provide an update on progress?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend has doggedly pursued me on this very important issue. It is really important that, as the Home Office, we consider the broader context—such as what he says with regard to Afghan resettlement scheme provision—around a community’s ability to sustain a supported population and that full dispersal model we inherited from our predecessors. What we have put in place, in our attempt to close the gap between local government and national Government, is a postcode check process, so that councils can say, “Well, hang on a minute, there is provision in this area that means it might not be suitable.” We are going through that process in Bracknell at the minute and I will work with him to hopefully get to a satisfactory conclusion.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The Minister keeps bragging about closing asylum hotel accommodation from the peak of 400. Can it be put on record that I closed 180 of those asylum hotels in six months and the Labour Government closed only another 30 in two years? I would just like that read into the record.
More broadly, large-scale asylum accommodation centres have a detrimental effect on local communities, as we have seen in Weathersfield: people are unable to sell their houses, and the number of children applying to go to the local primary school is dropping off and it is now close to being financially untenable. That is why there was a time limit on the use of Weathersfield. We also know that when the number of people in these centres is too large, disruption happens and fights break out, which is why there was a cap on numbers. We learn that the Government tried to sneak out over the weekend an increase on the cap and an extension to the time, completely undermining the confidence of the people of Braintree in this Government. Will the Minister now accept that that is a completely unprofessional way of doing this? It is deeply unfair to the people of Weathersfield and the surrounding areas. I urge him now, before it is too late, to rethink his proposals and scrap the foolish extensions of both time and capacity at the Weathersfield asylum centre.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. It is not bragging to say that under the previous Government the number of folks accommodated in hotels was 56,000 at its peak and it is now at 21,000. It is important for the public to understand those changes. He talks about the record in Government. He will know his own Government’s record at Weathersfield and the choices made there, too.
On capacity, the right hon. Gentleman knows—because we have spoken about it—that Weathersfield exists normally in a steady state of around 850, with, as he says, the surge ability to operate at 1,250. With the number of years we have had at Weathersfield, it is right to consider how best that provision can operate. Those are conversations we will have. He will have his chance to go in studs up on me, which he never misses, and come in and tell me what we ought to do differently, but it is right that we look at those things in the public interest. That is what we are doing.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Minister is right that all we saw under the previous Government were the numbers going in the wrong direction and the operation of Government coming to a standstill. Of course, we should never forget the role of the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who does not grace us with his presence in the Chamber, but who was the orchestrator of all this. The Minister is right to bring down the numbers, which are now heading in a positive direction. He will know, because of the many times I have contacted him, about the urgency of returning the Sandpiper hotel in Chesterfield to its proper purpose. It is now being massively underutilised. Will the Minister tell us when we are likely to see the Sandpiper, which has done its turn, being returned to proper use? On appeals, can he tell us more about how we will ensure that the cases of those whose appeals have no serious prospect of succeeding can be expedited so that we do not have the appalling backlog in the appeals process?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I remind colleagues that it is always best to let other Members know in advance if you intend to refer to them.
Alex Norris
In a general sense, a number of the people we now see in leadership positions in the Reform party were previously in the Tory party and had significant agency over this issue. They pretend now to be concerned bystanders, but actually they are the architects of the situation we are now in. I feel for some of our Conservative colleagues who have been left to tidy up behind them—at least they stand and take on the question, as right hon. and hon. Members have done in this debate. On my hon. Friend’s point about the Sandpiper, I cannot give him a date but I will say, to be clear to him and his community, that it will not be open a day longer than needed. The Sandpiper hotel is a vital community amenity that needs to be returned to its public use. With regard to important reforms to appeals, my hon. Friend may not have to wait much longer to see more.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The use of hotels for warehousing asylum seekers is expensive for the taxpayer and utterly miserable for the people who are stuck there waiting for their asylum cases to be heard. Does the Minister share my fear that the atmosphere of hostility towards those seeking asylum is hurting those who desperately need sanctuary. I have an Iranian constituent who is a critic of the regime and a Christian convert—and therefore guilty of apostasy under Iranian law. By any stretch of the imagination, they cannot safely be returned to Iran, but they face that fate unless their case is accepted. Will the Minister look at that case and, more broadly, ensure that genuine refugees do not become victims of political posturing?
Alex Norris
Having visited such hotels, I recognise that they are not as advertised—or distorted—by others. The ultimate distorters are the human traffickers, for whom it is a significant upside to say not only that the conditions are good, but that it is easy to work illegally from the hotels. We must change that reality. I am concerned, as all colleagues would be, about the public conversation on this issue, and the risk that vulnerable people and their neighbours often face. We are never far away from challenge in that space, but it is incumbent on us to ensure that we do not play into that rhetoric. On the case that the hon. Member raises, every case will always be heard individually and on its merits. I cannot promise to intercede in that case, but I will ensure that the system handles it properly.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
This decision looks like the politics of the past, not the future; a decision made in Whitehall, not in our communities. In 2022, RAF Linton-on-Ouse was deemed unsuitable as a site, because the drainage and sewage system would need major restoration, there would need to be an upgrade in the power capacity, and there are no amenities near the site—and the site has deteriorated further since that decision. The inadequacy of public transport, and other forms of transport there, also stands out.
In my human rights city, we rejected the proposal last time, and we worked cross-party in order to put forward that case. People from Linton-on-Ouse contacted me over the weekend, restating those reasons for rejection. Will the Minister listen to local residents and local authorities? City of York council, which I spoke to this afternoon, has said that it has not been offered any resources, planning or engagement regarding the decision, yet Linton-on-Ouse faces York and there would be major implications for the city. Will the Minister ditch this plan, work with MPs and find an alternative way forward?
Alex Norris
I am well aware of York’s status as a city of sanctuary—[Interruption.]—or as a human rights city, forgive me. I always want to work with the people of York to ensure that asylum seekers are humanely housed. Nevertheless, the challenge today is that we have around 100,000 people in the supported population and 170 hotels, give or take. We have to change that reality. There are limited options. I believe that this is the best way forward, but I know from what my hon. Friend and others have said that it is incumbent on us to show that we can deliver it in a way that is respectful of the local community. That is what we are seeking to do.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Missing from the statement, unless I missed it myself, was the word “deterrent”. The Minister suggests that it is good news, and people moving out of hotels into other accommodation is just that. What he does not mention, however, is that other accommodation also includes houses in multiple occupation, and there are only so many military sites that may or may not be available.
Given that I wrote to him on 18 June, would the Minister meet me to discuss Stoke Heath in my constituency, a village—actually, a rural settlement—of about 352 people that is going to see the arrival of up to 121 asylum seekers? This rural settlement has no integrated public services and very few public services at all. The nearest bus stop, for example, is a 30-minute walk away. Will he accept that a community meeting being held on Thursday, chaired by myself, should at least have somebody from the Home Office or Serco in attendance? People are being kept in the dark. There has been secrecy—no consultation and no transparency. People have a right to know what is going on. Would he encourage a member of Serco to come along to that meeting and answer some of the local community’s concerns?
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I am well aware of the matter concerning Stoke Heath, as he has pressed hard both verbally and in writing on that already. I will, of course, have the meeting with him that he asks for. I did not use the word “deterrent”, but I did use “pull factors” in the same context. We have to change the reality of the differential attractiveness that has seen applications for asylum in this country go up while they go down across the EU. This is part of that programme. The right hon. Gentleman mentions an upcoming meeting. Let me speak to the Department and see what we can do to ensure that he can have the fullest discussion possible.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and the serious attempt by this Government to get the backlogs down, change the system and reduce the use of hotels. Peterborough is a warm, generous place, but we already do our fair share in looking after asylum seekers. I ask the Minister to consider my real fear in this, which is the broken trust we have, because too many people in places like mine—myself included—think that the system is rigged by suppliers such as Serco, which pick the cheapest places to put asylum seekers.
When I was elected, based on the record of the Conservatives, Peterborough already had the highest number of asylum seekers in the region. After the general election, under this Government, Serco opened the Dragonfly hotel with no consultation and without informing me or my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), or indeed the council, the police or any local services. It put us in a really difficult position. I know that we are bringing down numbers in the Dragonfly hotel, and I know that the Minister will not be able to tell me today the specific date by which the hotel can be shut. What can he tell us instead about how we can keep control of monsters like Serco, which drive this policy and mean that places like mine feel that the system is rigged and feel left out and left behind
Alex Norris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution and for his continued lobbying in this space. As he says, I cannot give him a date for the Dragonfly’s closure, but I can tell him that it is uppermost in my mind and that the Dragonfly will close as soon as we physically can do that. On the system, we are trying to close the gap between those who administrate the asylum accommodation contracts and local government. Crucially, through our leadership, the responsibility for that belongs to me and other Ministers, rather than the providers. The contract is not good—let us be clear about that. Again, I do not blame previous Ministers who led on that in 2019. We are seeking to change that model through the process we are now undergoing in renewing the contract in 2029. As always, I say that I would municipalise everything. I do not think that is our reality at the moment, but I do want a more mixed economy so that it is more sympathetic to communities and there is greater agency in the system, and that is what we are going to do.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman, who is a diligent and sensible Minister, will understand the deep disappointment in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield that the Ramada hotel on Penns Lane was not included in the recent list of closures, not least because it was on the list before the general election. He was very generous with his time in seeing me and listening to why that location is totally inappropriate in Sutton Coldfield. Can he reassure me that the facility will now be closed as soon as possible?
Alex Norris
The right hon. Gentleman knows my enthusiasm for Royal Sutton Coldfield and the strength of its plan for neighbourhoods programme from a previous, much happier engagement I had with him. I did wince when his number came up the other day, because I knew that he would be pressing hard on why it was not his hotel that had been closed. I assure him that we will close it as soon as possible, and I know how important it is that it is returned back to the people of Royal Sutton Coldfield for marking births, marriages, funerals and all sorts of other things that make life what it is.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
Last week we heard the very welcome news that the final asylum hotel in Dudley borough has closed. The system set up by the Conservatives was a complete failure. It was very inappropriate to house people in town centres, and it was extremely costly for the taxpayer. I am very pleased that this Labour Government are finally sorting it out. Part of the solution is to deport people with no right to be here. Can the Minister outline how many people we have deported since the election and what further steps we are taking to sort out returns agreements for other countries where we are struggling to do so?
Alex Norris
I absolutely can, and I am pleased about the good news for Dudley. Since the election, we have removed 67,000 people who have no right to be here. That is a significant increase—approaching 30%—on the equivalent period under our predecessors, but we must go further. We have secured a number of extra returns agreements. I want us to have returns agreements around the world, because they are the building blocks for safe removal. We also need more detention capacity. Our predecessors left our detention capacity in a much thinner state than it needs to be in order to effect removals at the level we expect to see. I am pleased with the progress that we have made, but there is much more to do.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
People have a right to be angry that the Government have sought to impose hundreds of asylum seekers on their communities without consultation. The Minister has talked today about the deterrent factor. When we spend billions accommodating people, then support them financially and give them services that many local people are not able to get, and in 90% of cases grant them asylum, is that not a pull factor that brings people to the United Kingdom? Is the way to deal with it not simply to make it clear that if someone comes into the country illegally, it does not matter how good their case is—they will not be granted asylum?
Alex Norris
The idea that 90% of cases are granted is for the birds—it is not even half that. It is also not true that people who are accommodated in hotels are living a luxury lifestyle. In reality, that is far from the case. These are not great places to be; they are safe, humane, dignified and legal, but that is it. I just cannot accept the idea that it is a great time for them. It simply is not true. The traffickers exploit the idea of living in a hotel and working illegally. That is the reality we have to change. That is how we get to an ordered and controlled system and reduce demand back to a normal level.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his statement and the work he is doing to tackle this important issue. As my Harlow constituency borders Epping, I am not unaware of the challenges that asylum hotels and the activity surrounding them pose for communities. I thank him for the work he has done on that. Is not the key issue the asylum backlog that was left by the previous Government? Can the Minister outline what this Government are doing to bring down the backlog and deal with the issue of appeals, which he mentioned in previous answers?
Alex Norris
The backlog is one of the major sins that explains why the supported population is much larger than we would expect it to be. We have got through the backlog in initial decision making, and the pressure now is in the appeals system. That is why the King’s Speech referred to important reforms that are coming to the appeals system, and colleagues may get to see those shortly.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The site identified as MOD Bicester sits just over the Buckinghamshire border in Oxfordshire and is incredibly close to villages in my constituency, including Boarstall, Oakley, Long Crendon, Marsh Gibbon, Ludgershall, Twyford, Charndon and others. I can assure the Minister from comments I have heard from constituents over the weekend that nobody thinks this is a good site for such a centre.
I would like to pick up on the answer the Minister gave an hon. Member earlier about medical provision on these sites. He said that medical provision is provided on site. I know from bitter experience in the last Parliament that provision was delivered on site at an asylum hotel, but it was delivered by a local GP practice, which then could not serve everybody else in the area in the normal, timely manner. Can the Minister be really clear, given that he cannot magic up doctors and primary care, that if the Bicester site goes ahead—I hope that it does not —there will not be pressure on local GP services in my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire or, indeed, on the Oxfordshire side?
Alex Norris
We have had success on other large sites where that has not been the case. Individuals need to register with a GP, but it is our intention that the impact on the local health service will be minimal. There is the question of emergency medicine, because there will not be provision for that on site. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is setting that test; it is one that I very much want to meet.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
May I raise my concerns about the site at Stoke Heath, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard)? It is a really rural location, with the nearest town being Market Drayton in my constituency, and people there are very concerned about the appropriateness of the site, with it being 30 minutes’ walk from a bus stop and there being no shop. Shropshire council has raised its concerns about the site’s remoteness.
Given that we have seen increasing far-right infiltration in Shropshire, with people beyond the constituency borders spreading misinformation and hatred on Facebook, I am concerned about the security of the people in the development at Stoke Heath. What measures are being taken to keep those people safe? Will he explain what the criteria are for a suitable location for dispersal accommodation? It seems to me that somewhere without even a bus stop or a shop is a really inappropriate place.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that question. I will mirror the commitment I made to the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) and ensure that the hon. Lady gets whatever information she needs on Stoke Heath. On how sites are chosen, there is a mix of factors, which include local amenities, travel and transport. Those are looked at carefully before providers bring ideas forward. If a local authority has a challenge, it can bring that to the Home Office for adjudication, where all those factors are considered together.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
With 76,000 illegal crossings in the last two years, this is clearly a problem that continues to affect our country, and one that has profound social and economic consequences—largely negative ones—on communities across the country. The Government are talking about a new approach to move this problem away from communities, so I was surprised to read the other day about the specific refugee scheme reported in various media outlets. Surely it will increase the attractiveness of illegal migration via illegal routes. Anyone who travels to the UK via an illegal route should be deported. This scheme is a contribution to the pull factor.
Alex Norris
I can help the hon. Gentleman with that. The whole point on safe and legal routes is that those are not the means by which people are coming into the country. As he will have seen in the commitments we made in the asylum policy statement in November, if people choose to come via irregular means, their route to settlement will be a very long one indeed, with a 30-month renewal of that protection. What we are trying to do is to change those behaviours in exactly the way that I think he and I want.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I have spoken to many asylum seekers who have endured some of the most horrific and atrocious life experiences. The Minister will know that, historically, the courts have deemed an Army barrack unlawful because of the inhumane conditions within it. What assessment has the Minister made of the suitability of the new barracks being considered?
Is not the real issue the processing of these asylum cases? I know that the Minister said that decisions are at a 24-year high, but there are no figures on how many applications have been processed and how many applications are waiting, not including those at the appeal courts.
Alex Norris
First, on lawfulness, this very minute we are operating two schemes very lawfully. On quality, many of these sites—certainly those we brought forward in the past—were good enough for the resettlement of Afghan families, and indeed they have been good enough for our own soldiers. I therefore contest the idea that they are not good enough.
The point about processing is important. As I said, we have functionally got through the backlog; the issue now is the demand in the appeal system, with the statistic being a 58-week wait. Yes, processing is important, but so is the reduction of demand. As I said, we are operating at three times the level we would have been at a decade ago. We have to change that reality, and this announcement is part of doing that.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does the Minister appreciate that the reason he is commissioning former Army bases and spending millions of pounds on more asylum accommodation is that his Government’s policy of smashing the gangs has completely failed? There have been 76,000 illegal crossings across the channel into our country, and until he accepts that those are economic migrants who should be deported when they arrive in our country, this problem will continue.
Alex Norris
The facts do not bear that out. We have a system that separates those who are travelling economically and those who are seeking protection. I do not want this country to lose its proud history of providing protection for people who need it. That is why we are doing this in the way we are doing it. We have taken significant steps forward in controlling the system, alongside our French counterparts. That is why, for the first time, we are seeing asylum applications coming down, as well as positive progress in the channel, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister has said. Of course, the traffickers had a six-year head start on us, but unless I am mistaken, which I really do not think I am, it cannot have felt like failure when we closed the hotel in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Minister said that the business of this Government was to secure the borders of this nation. In that context, can I therefore ask him how many of the buses travelling through the open back door into the United Kingdom from the Irish Republic have ever been stopped and how many of those seeking asylum have had their credentials checked since this Government came to power two years ago? We all know what happened a few weeks ago in north Belfast, where an asylum seeker is now in custody for attempted murder, yet there has been no effort by this Government to close that back door. Why is that? Why are we allowing people to enter this United Kingdom unchecked? We talk about stopping the small boats. When are we going to stop the buses?
Alex Norris
The hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point. I cannot wholly agree with what he says, but this is important. As we win the battle in the channel, the common travel area—which is obviously an arrangement of very long standing indeed—will be a point of challenge. I am working closely with, and have spoken to, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on this point. The work is ongoing to keep the common travel area as protected as possible, and we of course work with the Government of Ireland as well. That collective work is how we make sure that the CTA is not exploited.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Mercure hotel in Dumfries is home to around 100 men of uncertain origin and, thanks to the good offices of the Home Office, I have been able to visit. However, I have not been able to get any clarity on the criteria for closure and certainly not on any kind of timescale for closure. Can the Minister, without recourse to saying, “We will close it in due course”—which is beginning to sound a bit like the old jibe about the first world war: “It will be over by Christmas; we just cannot tell you which Christmas”—offer us a bit more clarity on when these hotels will be closed?
Alex Norris
I think that is slightly unfair. The hon. Gentleman knows that they will all close by 2029, but within that, none of them will be open for a day longer than they need to be. In terms of criteria, a range of factors including size, condition and location goes into the decision making. I appreciate that in a process of reducing the number from a couple of hundred hotels to nil, everybody will want to be the first one, but all of them will close.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his statement and for his clear commitment to addressing these issues. That cannot be in doubt. This continues to be a massive issue in my constituency of Strangford and, indeed, across all of Northern Ireland. The shifting of thousands of individuals out of hotels and into large-scale alternative accommodation sites such as military barracks, vessels and repurposed institutional facilities is not a solution. It is simply moving a massive, expensive problem from one community’s doorstep to another’s, so when will the Government stop managing the symptoms of illegal immigration and start deploying the robust enforcement, rapid detentions and immediate deportations needed to secure our borders and end this accommodation crisis once and for all?
Alex Norris
It is rare that I disagree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. His incredible work on the persecution of Christians abroad, for example, is something on which I agree with him, and it shows the importance of having managed but humane asylum systems around the world. That is what we must have in this country. I did not take it from what he said that we are actually that far apart. He talks about the cost in financial terms and about the cost in terms of the community. I share those concerns. These types of schemes are part of changing that reality, because they will reduce the pull factors so that people are not tempted to come here or exploited by traffickers to do so. I think that that is the right balance.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
It is deeply disappointing that I have to remind the Minister and the Treasury Benchers that paragraph 9.1 of the “Ministerial Code” and paragraph 19.21 of “Erskine May” make it clear that statements on important matters should be made to this House first, not to the press at 10.30 pm on a Thursday night. MPs and their constituents should hear about important policy news in this House first. I expect much better from the Minister. It is totally unacceptable that constituents and MPs hear about important policy matters on the news and not in this House. There is an impact on Members, including me as a constituency MP, and our constituents deserve much better. Minister, we need to see better from you on this.
Asylum Accommodation
Alex Norris Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
This Government inherited an asylum system under significant strain, with hundreds of hotels in use at considerable cost to the taxpayer.
I wish to update the House on the Government’s action to fix the asylum accommodation system, ending the use of asylum hotels and replacing them with alternatives that work.
We are scaling up alternative accommodation by expanding the use of large, basic facilities, including former military sites, to replace unsuitable hotels. Three new ex-military sites are now under consideration: MoD Barnham, MoD Bicester and MoD Linton-on-Ouse. Together, these sites could eventually provide accommodation for around 3,750 asylum seekers, subject to feasibility assessments, planning and the necessary approvals.
We will also seek to extend the use of Crowborough and expand both the capacity and duration of use at Wethersfield. Following detailed assessments, the Government have decided not to proceed with Cameron Barracks in Scotland as a potential site for asylum accommodation, and it will be returned to the Ministry of Defence.
Alongside this, and as part of the next phase of delivering our commitment to end asylum hotel use by the end of this Parliament and return them to communities, we are closing a further 20 asylum hotels across England.
Hotel use has now more than halved since its peak. Just under 170 asylum hotels remain in use, down from around 400 at the height of the previous Government’s reliance on hotels. The number of people accommodated in hotels has also been cut by more than half, from a peak of 56,000 in 2023 to around 21,000.
This follows the first tranche of 11 hotel closures announced in April. These latest closures are part of wider reforms which will restore control of the system, including faster decision making, increased returns, and stronger action to deter illegal entry into the UK.
This marks a decisive shift away from the unsuitable use of hotels that spiralled under the previous Government, and towards a more controlled and sustainable accommodation system that tackles the factors driving demand.
The Home Office operates all sites safely and securely, working closely with local authorities, police and partners, just as we have successfully done at Wethersfield for several years. Public safety and community cohesion will remain central to this work.
The Government will provide further updates to Parliament as this work progresses.
[HCWS155]
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Norris Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
This Government are taking decisive action to restore order and control at our borders. We have removed nearly 70,000 people who have no right to be here, we are overhauling our asylum system to reduce pull factors and we have funded more officers to disrupt organised immigration crime, with interventions at their highest rates and the number of linked arrests rising by over 55%.
Rachel Taylor
I thank the Minister for his answer and for visiting my constituency of North Warwickshire and Bedworth recently. My constituents will strongly welcome the most recent data showing that small boat arrivals are massively down this year, but can the Minister confirm that this important progress is just the beginning of restoring order and control at our borders?
Alex Norris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. When I visited her community, I heard in no uncertain terms on the doorstep how important this issue is to people, as it is for my community and the rest of the country. That is why we are stepping up the international action we have taken, including the important new deal with France. Domestically, we will be legislating through our immigration and asylum Bill to create the system that I know her constituents want, which is a fair but firm one.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Nigerian illegal immigrant Gift Oladele was recently jailed for the brutal rape of a teenage girl. He dragged her into isolated woods, leaving her terrified, and she now has recurrent nightmares. Oladele had committed previous violent sexual offences, and the Home Office rightly tried to deport him, yet an immigration judge allowed him to stay because of Oladele’s human rights, and he went on to violently rape the teenage girl. I believe the rights of women and girls to be protected are more important than the supposed human rights of foreign rapists to stay here. Is it not time to leave the European convention on human rights, so that all criminals such as Oladele can be deported?
Alex Norris
Let me start by saying that I agree that that is a truly awful case. It shows how important it is that we remove people who commit crimes, and we have removed nearly 8,000 foreign offenders since we came into office. But the right hon. Gentleman’s prescription does not match up to a solution: leaving the ECHR would undermine our returns agreements with countries around the world. Instead, our contention is that we can improve it. We have said that we will look at legislating to narrow the domestic interpretation that has sprawled around article 8, and he will have seen the progress we have made internationally on article 3. That is the sensible approach, rather than chasing a sugar high that he knows—because he did not do it when he could have done so—will not work.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Brexit has seen off a number of Prime Ministers, but as we approach the 10th anniversary of the referendum this Prime Minister has apparently been given a period of indefinite leave to remain in No. 10. Ministers are clearly feeling unusually generous, but are they aware of a report by the Oxford Migration Observatory, which shows that Brexit is actually a pull factor for dangerous small boat crossings? It is now obvious that the Government’s one in, one out scheme with France is never going to work at the scale required, so will Ministers today re-state for the official record that Brexit is a large contributor to the small boats crisis, and will they commit to pursuing a new comprehensive asylum deal with the entirety of the EU?
Alex Norris
If we are talking anniversaries, I would like to take this opportunity to wish my fellow class of 2017 intake a happy ninth anniversary today. Our ninth anniversary has been full of Liberal Democrat spokespeople trying to pin every single thing on Brexit. I say to the hon. Gentleman that those conversations, designed just to create division in the country, do not serve the common aim of ensuring we have a robust asylum system. We can do that through ordinary collaboration with our neighbours on the continent. I do that frequently and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary does that frequently. Look at the action that that has delivered with France alone. That is the better way forward.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
The Government committed to new safe and legal routes in the “Restoring Order and Control” statement, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced that the student refugee route will open this autumn, with arrivals in autumn 2027. We are working with partners to design new routes to ensure they are safe and controlled, and we will provide an update to the House in due course.
Perran Moon
In recent years, families across Cornwall have been offering safe and welcoming homes to Syrian and Afghan refugees through the community sponsorship scheme. Without using the words “dreckly”, “mañana” or “in due course”, can the Minister specify when the community sponsorship scheme will be extended, as promised?
Alex Norris
And I thought the hon. Member was my hon. Friend, Mr Speaker! But what he says speaks to the innate goodness of the Cornish people—it is the same in my own community and across the country. Whether it has been the Syrian scheme, the Afghan scheme, Hong Kong British nationals overseas or Homes for Ukraine, the British people have leant in when schemes have been ordered and controlled. We are working with stakeholders on what that looks like, but getting this right is crucial to the programme’s success, which is why it takes a little bit longer—it will take us time to get it right. I make no apologies for that, but I will say that further details will be set out “in due course”.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Dr Alasttal in my constituency is doing vital medical work. In normal circumstances, his wife would be allowed to visit him on the appropriate visa, but because she is in Gaza and would have to travel to Israel or to other cities to give biometric information, she cannot visit or join him here. Will the Government change the rules in the way they did for Chevening scholars, so that people in Gaza can give biometric details in other ways?
Alex Norris
I cannot speak to that individual case, but I recognise the challenges where no visa centres are open in areas of conflict. We have taken what I think is a quite pragmatic and flexible approach, not just with students but medical evacuations as well. If the hon. Gentleman is able to write me and the Minister for Migration and Citizenship, we will look at that case accordingly.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
With the news that the Stradey Park hotel has now gone into receivership, what assurances can the Minister give my constituents in Llanelli that his Department has no plans to use the premises for asylum seeker accommodation?
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
I assure my hon. Friend and colleagues across the House that we are closing hotels, not opening them.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
My constituents hate seeing organised shoplifting taking place with apparent impunity. Norfolk police recognises this and has identified suspects in more than a third of all cases, but what is the point when the Government’s assumption is that any sentence shorter than 12 months will automatically be suspended? What are the Government going to do about it?
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Every few weeks, assorted far-right activists descend on my peaceful city of Perth to holler abuse at asylum seekers placed in hotels by the Home Office. They come tanked up on misinformation and loathing, and the people of Perth are getting thoroughly sick of it. Some who attend have even been served with bans in their own communities, yet they roll up in Perth. What will the Home Secretary do about these individuals? Will she consider something like buffer zones between the protesters and the hotels?
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that important point. We know that those hotels across the country are providing a focal point for people to do things that they absolutely should not do, and we condemn that behaviour in the fullest terms. Our No. 1 goal is to shut the hotels—that is the priority—and I make that commitment to the community of Perth. Alongside that, we work with the local police to ensure that areas are supported and that all tools are used as effectively as possible. I can support the hon. Gentleman in that.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
We are a patient people and a compassionate community in Bournemouth, but there is a feeling in town that, with our three asylum hotels, we are being asked to do more than our fair share. Will the Minister please set out for my constituents that Bournemouth is uppermost in his mind as he closes hotels and that Bournemouth’s asylum hotels are being prioritised for closure?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend raises that issue with me very frequently indeed, and for good reason. I totally accept his characterisation. The people of Bournemouth have three such hotels, which is an extraordinary pressure not just on public services but on community tensions. I do not want those hotels open a minute longer than they have to be, so Bournemouth is absolutely uppermost in our minds.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
Earlier this year, the race and faith network at Greater Manchester fire and rescue service wrote to its firefighters targeting anyone who might be representing Reform UK at the local elections in what can only be described as an attempt at intimidation. Firefighters can legitimately stand in local elections. Does the Minister agree that such politicisation and institutional bullying is wholly unacceptable? What will the defending democracy taskforce do to investigate that and stop it happening again?
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Government have cut the asylum backlog, reduced the number of people arriving illegally and shut more than half the hotels opened by Tory Ministers. Places in Scotland like Falkirk, Perth and Dundee must see further progress this year. When will we see the next phase of the hotel exit plan? How will Ministers ensure that it is equitable across the nations and regions of the United Kingdom?
Alex Norris
I am conscious of this issue, and think also of the Cladhan hotel in Falkirk and the impact on the local community, because my hon. Friend is rightly very dogged in raising this with me. I want to see that hotel closed. We are, of course, in the slightly better weather of the year, which puts pressure on services. Nevertheless, we want the hotels closed. We have made a commitment to do that within this Parliament, but I say to colleagues that they will not be open a minute longer than they have to be.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has publicly thanked the donors who funded the recent Unite the Kingdom marches, which needed a significant police presence. We have heard mention several times this afternoon of equality before the law, so does the Home Secretary agree that the laws regarding the reporting of donations, both from the UK and from overseas, apply to members of all political parties equally?
Illegal Migration: Small Boat Crossings
Alex Norris Excerpts(3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
I have been clear about this Government’s determination to crack down on small boats. No one should be making dangerous journeys, undermining our border security and putting lives at risk. We must restore order and control to our borders. That means bearing down on these dangerous crossings and bringing people smugglers to justice.
I wish to update the House on our joint work with France on tackling illegal migration. The new multi-step approach, delivered under this Government and endorsed at last summer’s UK-France summit, has already had a significant impact: since the election, joint work with the French has prevented over 42,000 small boat crossing attempts through intervention and dispersal. Joint law enforcement operations have also seen 480 migrant traffickers arrested in 2025 alone.
We must go further. Today the Home Secretary will agree a landmark £662 million multi-year partnership with the French Minister of the Interior, Laurent Nuñez. This deal boosts law enforcement boots on the ground, scales up French maritime interventions and increases intelligence sharing to target smuggling networks at every stage of the route. Specifically, this deal includes:
A significant uplift in frontline law enforcement, front-loading deployment in time for the summer. Numbers will increase by 42% to nearly 1,100 law enforcement, intelligence and other frontline officers in northern France to track down illegal migrants and stop them boarding boats.
Five specially trained police units, including a new riot police unit, specially trained in the use of riot and crowd control tactics and equipment will be deployed to deal with violent tactics.
The French will roll out millions of pounds-worth of state-of-the-art drone surveillance, two new helicopters and a new camera system surveillance to track down and intercept people smugglers and illegal migrants.
Expanding maritime capability to intercept taxi boats at sea. In the last two months, the French have stopped six migrant taxi boats, returning all migrants to France and sentencing five smugglers to prison and deportation. We are backing these tactics with a new vessel and an increase of more than 20 additional maritime officers.
Of the total £662 million, the UK has committed to a foundation fund of £501 million, committed over three years, and a new flexible innovation fund of £51 million in year 1 and £110 million in years 2 and 3. If these new tactics are not working, funding will stop after one year and will be put into activity that does. This new deal is underpinned by robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms that ensure every intervention is evidence led and responsive to changing circumstances. Every pound spent will target impact, maximising the effectiveness of UK investment to tackle small boat crossings.
Our work with France is complemented by the most far-reaching overhaul of the asylum and migration system in modern times. This programme of reform, outlined in “Restoring order and control: a statement on the Government’s asylum and returns policy (CP 1418)”, is reshaping the UK’s protection and settlement offer to make the system faster, firmer and significantly less open to abuse. This Government are closing every asylum hotel, moving asylum seekers into basic accommodation, including ex-military sites.
We have already removed or deported nearly 60,000 illegal migrants and foreign criminals since this Government took office—up 31%, and immigration enforcement action to tackle illegal working has reached the highest levels in British history, with an 83% rise in arrests and a 77% increase in raids.
This historic agreement shows how this Government are working with international allies and taking action to secure our borders and deliver a transformed, results-based partnership with strong safeguards for taxpayers.
[HCWS1540]
Draft Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Draft Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Alex Norris Excerpts(3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Members of the Committee paying close attention will have noticed that we have two draft statutory instruments to consider. The Minister will move the first motion and speak to both instruments. At the end of the debate, I will put the question on the first motion and ask the Minister to move the second motion formally. If we are to be interrupted by votes in the main Chamber, I shall suspend the Committee for 15 minutes for the first vote and 10 minutes for any subsequent vote, so that everyone knows where we stand.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Alex Norris
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. Both draft statutory instruments were laid before the House on 5 March this year.
Our Government have set out their vision to restore order to and control of our borders, and to deliver a fair but firm system for those who seek asylum in our country. As part of the reforms, we seek to ensure that asylum support—both financial provision and accommodation—is provided to those who need it. The reforms set out in the draft statutory instruments before the Committee will enable the development of a system in which assistance is directed towards those who would otherwise be truly destitute, while strengthening our ability to act in cases where individuals disregard the rules.
The changes form part of a longer-term shift towards a fairer, modern asylum support framework—one that upholds our legal responsibilities while promoting compliance and deterring misuse. For context, it is important for the Committee to understand that in the financial year ’24-25, a total of £4 billion was spent by Government on asylum support in the UK. That figure has reduced by 15%, but it is a significant sum of money to support the 107,003 people in receipt of asylum support as of December. Given the burden on the taxpayer, it is right that we ensure that that money is spent properly, in the best possible way. The instruments serve that purpose.
The first of the draft instruments to consider, the Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, provides for a key element of our reforms: the shift from a mandatory duty to provide asylum support to a discretionary power, as originally provided for in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It reinforces the fact that state support should be provided to those who genuinely need it. Again, it will be important for the Committee to hear that we will always meet our human rights obligations regarding avoiding destitution, but the flexibility provided by reverting from a duty to a power is essential to ensure that we have an equitable and sustainable system.
The second draft instrument that we are debating, the draft Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, will enable the discontinuation of an individual’s support solely on the basis of illegal working. Previously, if illegal working was suspected, the Department had to treat such behaviour as potential fraud before support could be withdrawn. By making illegal working an explicit breach of support conditions under the regulations, we are providing a direct and transparent basis for discontinuing assistance in appropriate cases without the need for extended investigative processes.
Most asylum seekers do not have the right to work in this country, but some choose to do so illegally, while claiming asylum support and accommodation. That, of course, is not right. It undercuts legitimate business and takes genuine work opportunities away from others. We often see very public signs of that in many communities. Allowing illegal working in that way, without consequences, undermines public confidence in the system, where public confidence is already rather low. It also acts as a pull factor—we know from the traffickers’ materials that the ability to work illegally in this country acts as a pull factor. We are changing that reality. The draft immigration and asylum instrument is an important part of that. Under it, illegal working will be a clear and explicit ground for removing section 4 support under the 1999 Act from failed asylum seekers; it will therefore align with the section 98 and 95 provision that was laid alongside these measures and came into force on 27 March.
Taken together, our reforms will rebalance the system so that support aligns with responsibility. The genuinely destitute will continue to receive help, but those who do not meet that threshold, or who breach the rules, will not be able to rely on taxpayer-funded support. The reforms are necessary to ensure that asylum support functions effectively now and is resilient enough to meet future pressures. In delivering them, we will reinforce public trust and maintain a system that is compassionate, is credible and promotes compliance with the rules. The Government’s position is straightforward: fairness for those who need support and follow the rules, firm action where the rules are not followed, and a clear duty to the taxpayer who funds the system.
Alex Norris
Colleagues have made an interesting range of contributions, and I will try to cover all the points they have made.
I will start with the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent. The hon. Member for Fylde finished her thoughts regarding tinkering around the edges. We have committed to replacing this regime with a full framework. It is right that we take time to engage with the local government family—the hon. Member for Woking mentioned them—and with wider interested parties to make sure that is right. The hon. Member for Weald of Kent has heard clearly what the Government intend to do, which is to make sure that those housed at significant expense to the British taxpayer carry out their part of the bargain by not committing crimes. I will come on to the remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee Central, but I am quite surprised at his defence of that.
Chris Law
I am not supporting illegality; the question is the scale of the illegality. To go back to the 0.3%, 0.05% are found to be guilty, and the cost to the entire United Kingdom per year—bear in mind that we are talking about £4 billion in asylum costs at the moment—is roughly £277,000. Can the Minister not agree that although there are cases, the Government are not allowing people to work and at the same time they expect everybody to be abiding absolutely within their system? That is already leading to ill health and near destitution. The level of crime that I have—
The Chair
Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is passionate on this subject, but interventions must be brief.
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman has occupied his second position in about three minutes, so perhaps he needs a little more time. But I cannot get with the argument that because the numbers may be small—of course that is a good thing—the situation is in some way tolerable. The numbers who commit crime across the population are, mercifully, small, but we still seek to prosecute; we still seek punishment. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that unimportant. If something happened in his constituency—despite that very small number of people, a significant crime could take place or illegal working could have an impact on the local economy—the people of Dundee might feel strongly about that. I think that they would.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent, talked about this measure not being enough to provide discouragement. She also talked about scale and suggested that what we know is only a small part of the issue. Through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, the extra powers, particularly on the gig economy, to ensure that those substituting their labour are doing so to people who have a genuine right to work, are a step change in the regulatory regime in this country. They will help us to close the gap and make it very hard indeed to work illegally here.
The hon. Member also said that meaningful change is impossible without leaving the ECHR. I always caution colleagues about being quick to discount things that provide a really important underpinning of rights, because they are our rights too. “Restoring Order and Control”, our document published in November, is the biggest reform of our asylum system certainly in my adult lifetime—probably in my whole lifetime, to be fair. That is all doable within our international obligations. The reality is that the alternative to doing those serious things is just ripping up our international obligations and then spending years trying to work out how to get back return agreements with other countries, never mind our own freedoms.
Katie Lam
Could the Minister give us a quantitative way in which we can judge whether that has been a success, so that we can decide whether further steps need to be taken? How many people coming here illegally would he be able to tolerate—would enable him to decide that actually that is okay?
Alex Norris
I gently say that I do not think it is my test. The public are very clear about what they think about the system: the system lacks order and control. The test by which we judge our efforts is whether we bring order and control to the system, and that is what we are doing.
That allows me to segue nicely to what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking, said about a credible plan; that is the plan, as he well knows, given that he was part of those deliberations and has been on many occasions. He talked about the appeals backlog—a very important point. I gently say that that is a sign of a system that we are getting to grips with. He will know—indeed, I think I have heard him talk about this before—that the original sin, particularly in relation to hotel capacity, comes from the backlog in initial decision making from when the previous Government just stopped making decisions. As a result, a huge backlog built up. I am very pleased that, as a Government, we have been able to get through that backlog.
The hon. Member has talked about this before, and I listened carefully to what he said about Nightingale-style decision making. I gently say that we do not need to do that, because of the decisions that have been made at a quicker rate, without affecting the grant rate but with better and improving quality. That of course creates pressures on the appeal system while that cohort of people move through it. That is not a forever thing, although I recognise it. He talks about a plan; he will have seen what we have said about appeals reform. I hope that he and his colleagues will feel able to support that in due course.
The hon. Member also talked about knock-on effects on others. I am particularly mindful of local government; he knows my passion for local government. The intention of this measure is not to shift the burden from the Home Office to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government or to councils. Indeed, he will have seen our plans to reduce homelessness, in respect of which we are a significant stakeholder. Of course we are mindful of those effects. I argue that the article 3 backstop in relation to destitution should give him—I hope it does—a degree of confidence that that is not going to happen.
The point about a right to work is one of principled disagreement between us. My strong view is that, if we know that traffickers are saying, “Come to the UK—you will be housed in a hotel and allowed to work illegally”, simply changing the reality so that the people can work legally would be an intolerable pull factor. However, to help close that gap there is the right to work at 12 months, so the gap is not so big. The hon. Gentleman suggested around six months. I do not know if he would go any further, but he certainly mentioned six in his contribution.
With regards to important questions around slavery, the hon. Member mentioned that he does not quite understand the definition of “deliberate”. I do not think people will be accidentally working illegally, but I accept they could be compelled to. That is why we have modern slavery protections through the Modern Slavery Act 2015. We of course take that exceptionally seriously. That vulnerable group of people will not be affected by these provisions.
The hon. Member gave me a slightly impossible challenge by asking me what I will do to make sure that a future Government who do not currently exist do not do something that he and I would not want. I kind of get that, but, as many people have said in this room over the centuries, one Government cannot bind the hands of a future Government. There is a reality there. That is why we have elections and we seek to continue in Government. However, at least in most cases, we have a backstop—we have an article 3 backstop and a refugee convention backstop—that gives universal protections irrespective of the Government of the day. Those principles are of course contested, although not by us, but I hope the hon. Member is reassured that the backstop exists.
The SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Dundee Central, spoke at great length about a world that I did not quite recognise, and which I have to say is not in anything we are preparing here. I say gently to him that there is nothing progressive about defending a status quo where human traffickers have the most agency and people routinely lose their lives in the channel, and that is before any sort of transit effects—never mind the impact on the women and children in that transit. If that was a challenge about where I sit on the political spectrum, there was language in what he said I would not recognise.
This is a hopelessly broken system; there is nothing progressive about defending it, which is why we are seeking to change it. The hon. Member set out quite a dystopian vision, but I gently say that for around six years of our nation’s history, between 1999 and 2005, we relied on the power rather than the duty. I was at school at the time and remember those days only tangentially, but it was not exactly a dystopian past, so I do not recognise what he said.
The hon. Member said that the support we have today should be a floor, not a ceiling. I have not heard from Scottish nationalist colleagues—even, I suspect, as a feature of the current election in Scotland—a suggestion of what services or public investments they would cut in order to top this up, and in what way. I hope that he will be out making the case for that on the doorstep as soon as possible, and at least quantify what we should stop doing, so that we can do more on this.
The hon. Member also mentioned destitution. Again, I would rely on the article 3 backstop on that. He talked about a “straw man”, but that is not in the nature of my politics. I reassure him that this is a genuine attempt to grip a system that does not work. We have had lots of debates in the Chamber on the other things we are doing; this is a serious attempt to grasp a serious problem. It is a good thing that the level of offending is mercifully low, but we want that level to be nil, as that is a fair balance with the taxpayer. That is why we are doing what we are doing.
The hon. Member for Fylde asked what side we are on—left or right? I am on the side of the British people. That is the reason why I am here. It is why I stood for my council. It is why I stood for Parliament and why I wanted to be a Government Minister.
Alex Norris
It is not a cop out, as the hon. Gentleman suggests from his seat. It is about saying that there is nothing progressive about defending a broken status quo or a reality that the British public know does not work—and we do know that. We are all knocking on doors at the moment, right? Instead, we seek to build something rooted in British values. That is the side I am on.
The hon. Member talked about hotel closures. He challenged me by saying that his community is not seeing change, but the closure of a hotel is a significant change, and that is coming to the 180 or so hotels that are still open, down from 400 at the peak.
Mr Snowden
I want to make sure that the Minister does not put words in my mouth. I did not say that this was not a good thing, but that we are waiting with bated breath to find out whether it is a good thing, based on where the people who were being housed in the hotel will be placed.
Alex Norris
People enter and exit the system at various points for various reasons. Our number one principle is that we want to reduce demand. In the last two years, there have been more than 80,000 applications. Between 2011 and 2020, there were a third of that number. The No. 1 way to close hotels is to reduce demand.
Dispersal accommodation is a factor in all our communities. We operate the policy of full dispersal, which we inherited from the previous Government, to make sure that that is done in an equitable way. [Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I am afraid that I must suspend the sitting.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Committee. I have made my points, so I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put.