Kieran Mullan
Main Page: Kieran Mullan (Conservative - Bexhill and Battle)Department Debates - View all Kieran Mullan's debates with the Home Office
(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anna Turley
I do not know how much good money the right hon. Gentleman wants to throw after bad, but £700 million on four volunteers was an incredible waste of money.
The British people have a natural sense of fairness. We are a nation that has benefited from centuries of facing outwards towards the world, both reaching out across the globe and welcoming people in. There can be barely a Member here who does not have some historical migration in their family, or family ties to other nations. The British people will always accept those who are genuinely fleeing peril. They will welcome those who come here legally and who contribute. They know we are a place where people can come to build their life and aspire to do great things. Even this House, its representatives and their stories reflect that; we have seen that in the last week or so.
However, the British people will not accept chaos at our borders. They will not accept a lack of control over who comes in. They will not accept the unfairness of a broken system, in which those who break the rules are the ones who benefit from our welcome. Nor will they tolerate expensive and often iconic hotels across their communities being used to house asylum seekers at vast expense to the taxpayers.
Anna Turley
I will make a bit of progress, if I may.
The British people will not tolerate illegal migrants placing pressure on our public services, while efforts to remove them are frustrated. There is no quick fix, but the task of ending the chaos and, crucially, of restoring fairness falls to this Government, and we embrace it. It is only a Labour Government who will fix the broken system, restore control at our borders and bring back fairness to our public services. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) is chuntering from the Opposition Benches, but I am coming to the exact subject of our progress so far, which I hope she will see contrasts nicely with what happened in the previous 14 years.
Anna Turley
I appreciate my hon. Friend drawing attention to that. It was a privilege—in, I think, 2003—to work for the now Lord David Blunkett to close the Sangatte refugee centre, put juxtaposed controls on French shores and end the situation of people coming through as clandestines in the back of lorries with the Bill that we took through at that time as civil servants. It was a privilege to play that role. Here we are, yet again, fixing the legacy of the previous Government.
As I said, the British people will not tolerate illegal migrants placing pressure on our public services while efforts to remove them are frustrated. It is only the Labour Government who will fix the broken system, restore control and bring back fairness, but we will do so without performative cruelty, without the deliberate fomenting of grievance and without destroying our international reputation. Thanks to the action the Labour Government are taking, the picture today is improving, with crossings down, removals up and the system now finally on a more stable footing.
Over the last two years, this Government have acted to restore fairness and control to our asylum system, first by taking the fight to the criminal gangs and bearing down on illegal crossings. One of the first steps the then Home Secretary took following the general election was to establish Border Security Command. The command has had a significant impact, especially in its efforts, alongside a strengthened National Crime Agency, to ramp up law enforcement action on organised immigration crime.
Anna Turley
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman raising the point about deterrence. It is extremely important but, as I said, the Rwanda deterrent was not effective. [Interruption.] Millions of pounds and a handful of volunteers. It has been disproven and clearly did not have any impact. I will come on to the deterrent that is actually working.
We have also given our agencies counter-terror style powers via the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. In the last financial year, organised immigration crime was disrupted on over 3,700 occasions, up by 46% over the same period. This includes organised immigration crime arrests, which were up 74%, as we took down the criminals behind this vile trade. For example, just in June, two men became the first to be jailed under the new “endangerment at sea” offence for piloting dangerously overcrowded small boats across the channel—that is a deterrent, that is working. We are also denying gangs the equipment and infrastructure they rely on. In May, an operation involving the National Crime Agency and German, French and other international partners seized more than 30 boats, over 20 engines, 360 pumps and more than 9,000 life jackets. Since entering office, we have seized over a total of 1,100 boats and engines.
Anna Turley
I am afraid that one moment of consensus has already broken down. I disagree. We are undertaking a range of consultation and engagement on measures with those partners. The Albania agreement was important, but the Home Secretary is making a number of arrangements, and we look forward to announcing them. I hope hon. Members will be patient with us, but I look forward to making more announcements in the weeks and months ahead.
Anna Turley
I am going to move on. Forgive me.
We have driven up removals to the highest level in a decade—an important point to stop and reflect on—because of the progress we are making, with 80,000 individuals returned since the general election, including immigration offenders, people in the country illegally and foreign criminals. We know, too, that the ability to melt into the illegal economy too often lures people here, so we have raised illegal working enforcement to record levels.
As we rebuild our shattered asylum system, we are also lightening the burden on local communities. The Government committed to ending the use of asylum hotels within this Parliament and we will do so. Two years in, we have already emptied one in three, reducing the hotel population by 50% in the last year and by 71% since the peak under the previous Government. We have cut asylum costs from hotels by £1 billion. That is £1 billion that we can spend on the other priorities of the British people and I think that that should be recognised.
We have made significant progress on the chaos we inherited two years ago, but we know there is more to be done to restore fairness to our asylum system: fairness for genuine refugees, who deserve our sanctuary and wish to contribute to our society; and fairness for British citizens, our constituents, who shoulder the current burden in their taxes and in their communities. That is why we continue to work relentlessly at home and abroad to prevent people from coming here illegally in the first place, dismantle the criminal networks that facilitate dangerous and unnecessary crossings, remove those who break our laws and have no right to be here, and ensure that this country maintains its proud tradition of helping the world’s most vulnerable people where it can, but in a secure and orderly way through new safe and legal routes.
That is why we have introduced the new Immigration and Asylum Bill. It will cut the asylum backlog by making decisions faster and fairer, close loopholes so that those with no right to be here can be rapidly removed, and ask those who have benefited from public support to contribute to their costs where they are able. I thank the Members who are currently scrutinising the Bill in Committee.
I turn now, as the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) implored, to the issues around MOD Bicester. For too long, the way in which we house asylum seekers has not been fair. Billions of pounds have been spent putting them up in hotels, while communities have seen those hotels, often at the centre of their towns or cities, become a symbol of a broken asylum system. Areas where housing costs were low and that already felt left behind were asked to bear more than their fair share, which has been a source of anger and frustration for many people—and understandably so.
As well as reducing the backlog, we are working with local authorities on a fairer distribution of asylum seekers across the country. That means ending the use of costly hotels, and instead, moving asylum seekers into more appropriate accommodation.
Max Wilkinson
Your advice is noted, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Of course it would be inappropriate to house 1,200 asylum seekers on a military base next to a village of a few hundred people, and of course it would be inappropriate to house them on a site that has never previously been used for residential accommodation. That goes without saying. The Liberal Democrats can back that element of the motion, even if we do not agree with the wording deployed by the official Opposition. I will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) to deal with the specifics of the local matter when he contributes later.
What must be disputed, however, is the second part of this deeply harmful motion. Brexit has made us all poorer. It has reduced Britain’s standing in the world and made it more difficult for this country to run a safe and controlled asylum system. So why on earth are the Conservatives suggesting leaving the ECHR, which would be Brexit 2.0? Not only would that make the UK a pariah state, but it would likely result in the end of the Brexit deal that they negotiated. The Conservatives often tell us that the Brexit settlement must not be reopened, but that is exactly what they are suggesting.
Once again, the Conservative party is arguing that this country should pursue what would basically amount to a no-deal Brexit, except this time it is not a fringe argument being contested among factions in the Conservative party, but the position of the shadow Front Bench and the Leader of the Opposition, backed by all Conservative MPs. Indeed, their leader has told them that they will be barred from their party unless they adopt the position, which is why so many of them have now changed their mind on the issue.
The drift of the Conservatives away from the centre-right to the hard-right is a dereliction of duty. It runs counter to many of the traditions in British Conservatism. But we know why they are doing it: they are terrified of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) so they chase after him. They increasingly make his arguments as they prepare for their grubby deal. We all remember what happened in 2019, when the hon. Member for Clacton stood down his candidates in alliance with Boris Johnson. People up and down the country are more than aware that those two parties would engage in the same sort of stitch-up again without a second thought, no matter how much Tory MPs and their leader plead the opposite in public.
Max Wilkinson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Of course, the second part of the convention does tackle those sorts of derogations. It is important that we see the convention in its entirety.
As I said earlier, all of this is before we consider the implications for Northern Ireland, which have been well rehearsed in this Chamber. When British people up and down the country hear Conservative and Reform politicians pledging to erase those rights, we must all ask ourselves whether we trust those politicians to give us back those rights when they no longer exist. The answer is, of course, that they will not give us those rights back. [Interruption.] And do not argue with me about the Wolfson report, because that is nonsense.
Leaving the ECHR will mean that we have even fewer opportunities to work on agreements with the EU—the place small boats set off from—to prevent those crossings, and that goes to the nub of the matter that we are discussing today. If we have learned one thing over the past decade, it is that the concept of the UK becoming more successful and prosperous while distancing itself from its closest allies is a total fiction. It was a lie in 2016, and it is a lie today. The only way to move towards an asylum system that works is by working with our European allies, and that means that this Government must first drop their self-defeating red lines, and secondly apply to join the EU migration and asylum pact.
While the media is excited that the Prime Minister has been more expansive in his wording on relations with Europe, it is important to note that he is pledging to retain all his red lines. He is not promising to remove any of them, even though he knows that those red lines are making us poorer and scuppering our chances of an asylum system that could, in future, command public trust, look after genuine asylum seekers and create a fair system, as this country has always had. It will also cost UK taxpayers more and more money.
Max Wilkinson
The hon. Member will know that the framework within which signatories to the EU migration and asylum pact work is different from the Dublin agreement.
Today we renew our calls for Ministers to drop their red lines on Europe and to join the EU asylum pact. We also renew our calls for the Conservatives to recognise the reality that the first Brexit they gave us has failed this country. Do not pretend that giving us Brexit 2.0 will be any better.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Today we are being asked to support a motion calling for the United Kingdom to leave the European convention on human rights. I am going to do something slightly unusual and speak about the detail of a law that we are considering in Committee. While the Conservatives are busy demanding that we tear up an international agreement—an agreement written by one of our greatest wartime Prime Ministers, Winston Churchill—this House is already considering substantive reforms to how human rights law is applied in immigration cases.
The Immigration and Asylum Bill is currently being scrutinised in Committee. That is where we should be having serious discussions about how the system works, what needs to change and how we ensure the law serves the public interest. Clauses 17 to 20 are central to that work. They are not cosmetic changes or empty promises; they are detailed legislative provisions designed to change how courts and tribunals consider human rights claims in an immigration case.
Ben Goldsborough
I am a proud member of the Public Bill Committee, and at the moment we are looking at things such as the ouster clauses that are included in the Bill. We are giving the detail that is needed for the Law Lords and everyone else involved in this process to integrate what needs to be done.
These are not cosmetic changes that we are looking at. Clause 17 addresses sponsor human rights claims. It creates a route for a person based in the UK to appeal the decision refusing entry clearance to an overseas family member where the decision engages their right to family life under article 8. That is a specific change to the operation of the appeal system, with clear rules about how such claims are considered.
Clause 18 goes further by establishing a clearer statutory definition of “family life” for the purposes of article 8 in immigration cases. It provides that “family” would normally be limited to core cohabiting families, partners, and in relevant circumstances children and parents living together. Where someone seeks to establish family life beyond those core relationships, the legislation sets out the circumstances and evidence that courts should consider.
For relationships between adults, that includes whether there are additional elements of dependency beyond normal emotional ties between them. It also makes it clear that the courts must first determine whether article 8 is engaged before going to consider the public interest. That is an important distinction. The existence of a human right does not automatically determine the outcome of an immigration appeal. The court must consider the circumstances and apply the relevant legal test.
Clause 19 strengthens the public interest consideration that courts and tribunals must take into account. It reinforces the importance of financial independence and being able to support and house oneself and one’s family without relying on state support. It also introduces further considerations relating to criminal convictions, co-operation and immigration processes and good character. It clarifies the weight that should normally be given to a private and family life established by people who are in the UK unlawfully having obtained permission through deception or are in serious breach of the conditions of their immigration status. It also strengthens the considerations that apply when decisions could affect a child, including whether removal would have a
“very significant and long-lasting adverse effect”
on them. Those are important changes to a framework within which immigration decisions are made.
Clause 20 addresses cases involving foreign criminals and others liable to deportation. It strengthens the statutory framework for considering deportation, making it clear that the public interest in deporting those liable to deportation must be given significant weight, particularly when such offending is serious. It also sets out exceptional circumstances in which a deportation may be disproportionate, including the impact on qualifying partners and children, and cases involving very compelling circumstances.
Those provisions matter, because the public rightly expect a system that takes criminal offending seriously, enforces immigration rules and makes decisions that reflect the interests of our country. I ask the Conservatives again: if they believe that the law needs to change, why are they not engaging seriously with the changes already before Parliament? If Conservative Members do not think those clauses go far enough, they should explain why, table amendments, test the legislation and make a case using evidence and legal arguments—that is what parliamentary scrutiny is for. Instead, we have a motion before us calling for full withdrawal from the convention as though leaving an international agreement—Brexit, anyone?—would somehow make every difficult question disappear. It would not.
Leaving the ECHR would not by itself clear the asylum backlog, it would not automatically speed up decisions, it would not make every removal straightforward and it would not erase the consequences of years of Conservative mismanagement. The Conservatives had 14 years in government to get a grip on immigration and the asylum system, and they had 14 years to improve decision making, tackle backlogs and ensure that public money was spent effectively, yet they left behind a system beset by delays, mounting costs and a reliance on asylum hotels. Now they want to present themselves as the people with the answers—it is truly extraordinary.
The Conservatives created the conditions of many of the problems the Government are still dealing with; now, they want to distract from that record with another dramatic announcement. Our constituents deserve far better than political theatre. They deserve an asylum system that makes decisions promptly, removes people who have no right to remain, tackles criminality and treats people fairly. They deserve effective enforcement and value for taxpayers’ money. That requires practical solutions, competent administration and legislation that works. It requires a Government who will get on with the job rather than pretending that one grand gesture can solve everything.
A practical example is the Brook hotel in Bowthorpe just outside my constituency: it opened under the previous Conservative Government and closed under a Labour Government. That is what effective management of the asylum system does when a Government are serious, instead of making large grand gestures.
The convention is not beyond reform—there is so much we are doing and so much more to be done—but leaving the convention altogether would be a much wider step than reforming how article 8 is applied. We have already heard about the impact that would have on the Northern Ireland peace agreement. We cannot just singly pull ourselves out of the ECHR.
Sadly, the Conservative party that we all knew when growing up is no longer with us. The action that we are taking in government is what we must do.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. The concerns and worries of women in Piddington about the sorts of people being placed alongside them are shared by women up and down the country. You and I, Madam Deputy Speaker, know better than many exactly what those concerns are, because of the camp in Crowborough. The Government have placed more than 500 young men in Crowborough, in your Sussex Weald constituency, and they are pledging to keep them there all the way till 2030. Madam Deputy Speaker has had to do her best in the face of a Green, Lib Dem and Labour council that has totally failed in its responsibilities to support those residents. The contrast in scale at Piddington, where there are just 350 residents, is even greater.
At the heart of the debate is whether women have a legitimate, reasonable concern to be worried about the people being placed in their communities. I am not afraid to say that I think the culture of the people often placed in these communities is inferior to ours when it comes to women’s rights and attitudes to women. Let us be clear that more than 72% of the people crossing in small boats are men, and the vast majority of them are aged between 18 and 39. They come predominantly from countries like Eritrea, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq. What do the people of those countries—men primarily—think about women and women’s rights? This is not speculation or stereotyping; it is evidence from social surveys and reports of third parties.
In Syria, more than 70% of women report that they are severely restricted in their ability to leave their homes. In Afghanistan, more than 90% of the population think that spousal physical abuse is justified. In Iraq, more than 46% of currently married women are exposed to at least one form of spousal violence and eight in 10 women have suffered some form of sexual harassment. In Pakistan, the UN estimates that between 70% and 90% of Pakistani women experience some form of domestic violence in their lifetime. In Eritrea, misogyny is embedded so deep that over half of women aged 15 to 49 think it is entirely justified for a husband to beat his wife.
Layla Moran
Misogyny exists in many cultures; I would point out that it does in ours, too, and that is well recognised. Did it ever occur to the hon. Gentleman that perhaps some of those people are leaving those countries because they do not agree with those values and that, notwithstanding the issues that we have too, they would rather come to a country that better respects the rights of women? Is he suggesting that every man in those countries holds those views?
Dr Mullan
I wish we had a system in which we could test the hon. Member’s proposition, because at the minute, we have absolutely no idea about the attitudes and values of the people coming from those countries. She is correct to say that we have issues of misogyny in this country, but for our country the equivalent figures to those I have just mentioned are significantly lower. That is the point: these cultures are worse than ours on the many issues we care about in relation to women and girls.
On the one hand, the Government are pledging action on women and girls and driving improvements in that area—we have done so in our society for many decades—but on the other hand they are pretending that the citizens of those countries, which have done none of that work, are exactly the same as us and will come over and treat our women exactly the same. I am afraid that flies in the face of common sense and the clear statistical evidence I gave about rates of crime and the social attitudes of those people.
I am not afraid to say that there is a lot to do when it comes to women and girls in our culture, but we have a significantly better culture towards women and girls than countries such as Eritrea, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and a whole range of others, so it is perfectly reasonable for women being asked to live alongside huge numbers of unvetted people from those countries to be concerned and to have worries.
We should not be afraid to call that out, and it has nothing to do with racism. We have a culture of football hooliganism in this country, and it is predominantly white people who engage in that football hooliganism. I am happy to say that; it does not make me racist towards white people. It does not make me racist towards other cultures when I point out the issues and problems that they have, which we should not be afraid to call out.
Max Wilkinson
I think the hon. Member mentioned that 80% of women in one country said they had been sexually harassed in public. What is the rate of women in the UK who report being sexually harassed in public?
Dr Mullan
It is around one in four. It was 80% in the country I referenced, which is significantly more. The equivalent figure for this country is much, much too high—I would want it to be zero—but that makes the exact point, which I think the hon. Member did not want to draw out, that those countries are worse than we are. We should not be importing large quantities of unvetted young men from those cultures without a proper way of dealing with that. We do not have a way of doing that.
The Government inadvertently admitted that, as they have had to actively tell those people not to rape women. That is because they know the things I have said about the differences in attitudes towards women in many of those countries. The question is: what do we do about it? I am clear that it should be up to us to decide who comes here from what countries and on what basis. We should decide asylum policy—not the people smugglers—and the routes on which people come. The Conservatives have been clear and admitted that we should have been quicker in bringing in our own deterrence policy, but we are committed to doing that now and have a plan for it. That is what actually counts.
The only country that has successfully dealt with this issue is Australia. It saw a decrease of more than 90% in the number of people crossing the sea and entering illegally by saying, “If you come here illegally under that method, you don’t get to stay—end of story.” That worked, and we should do exactly the same thing. The Government like to talk about the failure of the Rwanda plan and the four people sent as volunteers. They know that those people went voluntarily. It is clearly not a deterrent if someone goes voluntarily, but we were never allowed to use the scheme as a deterrent to deport people whether they wanted to go or not.
The Government can do everything they want to reform and tweak the operation of human rights laws in this country, but there are two ways in which that approach is fundamentally flawed. First, it does not matter if a claim can be successfully rejected if someone cannot be deported to the country they came from. It is completely futile. Unless the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) thinks that we will deport people en masse to Afghanistan or some other third world, war-torn country, clearly, whatever we might want to do around the validity of their claim is worthless if we cannot send them to another country or back to the country they came from. Secondly, we have talked about the nature of the claims and how we might tweak them. The European Court of Human Rights is a precedent-setting Court. If it makes a ruling and sets a precedent, ultimately, that will hold sway.
I asked the hon. Member for South Norfolk to comment on article 3, which he failed to do. That is just one example of how the European convention on human rights has become totally distorted. Article 3 was originally envisioned to prevent people from being deported to a country where they might face torture. That was the aim of the article. It is now used to say that when someone comes to our country and commits horrendous crimes such as rape, but they have a psychiatric illness, it is torture if the country we seek to deport them to does not have adequate healthcare provision. Under article 3, that is not allowed. Who can reasonably argue that that was envisioned by all the people the hon. Member referenced when they created a set of rights which, at the time, were appropriate and applied appropriately? Does he really think that those people envisioned that, 50 years later, that would mean we could not deport a rapist because he would not get adequate healthcare in the country that we were deporting him to?
The article has been totally distorted from its original purpose, and the question of whether we can operate a safe and decent framework of rights in this country without the use of the ECHR is quite clearly scaremongering. Canada manages it, New Zealand manages it, Australia manages it. They all manage to have a framework of rights and international agreements, and that includes Canada, which is seeking a closer relationship with the EU, which is not part of the ECHR.
Ben Goldsborough
What solution would the hon. Gentleman come up with? It has been stated by the Republic of Ireland Government and Governments around the world that by pulling out of the ECHR, we would be fundamentally undermining the Good Friday agreement, which means that we cannot operate a safe country and borders.
Dr Mullan
I urge the hon. Gentleman to read Lord Wolfson’s report, which makes it clear that we can engage in international agreements. To make the point valid, the hon. Gentleman has to suggest that no other countries in the world manage to enter into complex legal arrangements without both being part of the ECHR. Of course they do. Agreements will be subject to renegotiation. This country is absolutely right to respond to what our people want us to do, which is to protect our borders and put them first, and not the sorts of people we are putting up at taxpayers’ expense in Crowborough.
Chris Murray
Let me make some points and then I will take interventions.
Charities and groups can go to large sites, which are far away from town centres, unlike hotels and HMOs, and the authorities, by providing things such as transport, can practically organise when people will be in one place, stopping the issues of hotels and people hanging around town centres late at night.
Finally, on safeguarding, one of the issues with hotels is that the police were not informed. At larger sites, we can have trained professionals who can spot depression, isolation, re-traumatisation or worrying behaviours, understand the dynamics in groups, and find opportunities to observe, supervise and intervene. Engaging with police and social services is how we tackle those risks.
Let me share what persuaded me about that. I was sceptical of large sites until I went to Wethersfield, which opened under the previous Government—I think it was opened by the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman). There, they told me that the work they can do around mitigation and safeguarding is far more effective at a large site than a small site.
Chris Murray
I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) and then I will come back to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan).
Chris Murray
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument at all. My argument to the Minister would be that large sites vary. Wethersfield did not work until it was reformed; Northeye did not work.
I am going to do something unusual and say something positive about the Scottish Government for a second—I know the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) is going to have a heart attack over there. [Laughter.] When the Scottish Government opened large sites for asylum seekers from Ukraine on two cruise ships, they were very cost effective compared with the Bibby Stockholm. The argument is not about the principle, but about whether the Home Office can orchestrate it and achieve it through public procurement.
Chris Murray
I absolutely understand why people say that; it is a perfectly reasonable response to risk. However, the role of Government is to mitigate risk. The role of Government is to intervene through public policy and deploy public resources and capacities. That is the best way to mitigate risk. That is normal across policing and all kinds of Home Office security, but in this case it is quite right. The Government of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle placed asylum seekers in hotels without telling anybody in the local community—without social workers, the police or anybody else knowing. The local women had no clue. Most of the cases quoted by the shadow Minister came from that system. He cannot say to the women in Piddington that will leave the ECHR and it will solve everything. That is not realistic and it is not treating them with respect. Far better to say we will try to solve this problem, mitigate the risk and do the stuff required to actually deal with it.
I should have expected to hear what we have heard from the Tories and Reform in this Opposition day debate. These are the people who broke the system and let it spiral, yet they are somehow arguing that leaving the ECHR can happen tomorrow and will solve any issues in Piddington and Bicester—that is for the birds. But I am particularly disappointed in the Liberal Democrats and their amendment. They say that they oppose asylum hotels and they want a better public debate on immigration, but whether it is in Cameron barracks, in Crowborough or now in Bicester, they oppose every large site. They say we should welcome asylum seekers and have a humane system, but it is “not in my back yard” the minute there is one near them. Are they really saying that is for the working-class communities of Britain to tolerate asylum seekers in hotels and in HMOs, but not their constituencies in secure, well-resourced, large public sites? I think that is wrong. The public are fed up of posturing, point scoring, pointless gesturing and nimbyism on this. They want the issue solved, they want it gripped, and if the Government can get large sites to solve the problem, that could be a big part of solving this country’s asylum accommodation challenges.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jo White
This is an imperative for the Home Office. The proposal contained in the planning application includes on-site 24/7 security and CCTV. We have already introduced those measures on other large sites such as Wethersfield, which has operated in that way for years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) identified, safeguarding for the local community is an imperative. It is important and drives the management of the site. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) raised concerns about the planning process. It already includes an environmental impact assessment.
Jo White
The hon. Gentleman has only just walked in.
There were no objections from Natural England. The final cost of the site will only be known following the outcome of the procurement process.
Concerns were raised about article 3. The Government accept that there will be genuinely exceptional medical healthcare cases in which article 3 prevents removal, but they must be exceptional. Article 3 was never intended to guarantee—
Jo White
Cases are inherently fact-sensitive and must always be assessed on their individual circumstances. It is absolutely not for me to say in this House.
Following the recent political declaration on article 3, we are working to secure stronger instant decisions, better prepared litigation and more consistent application of article 3. Further operational policy or legislative reform remain available where persistent barriers are identified.
I say in response to the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) that she was in the Home Office when she approved large sites, including the one that was proposed for RAF Scampton. She knows that in-house services, 24/7 CCTV and security provide a greater level of protection for communities.
This country is proud to offer sanctuary to those fleeing conflict or persecution. It is the right thing to do, and it is a fundamental part of who we are, but that generosity depends on the support of the British public. They must believe that our asylum system is fair. For that, it must be capped and controlled, with decisions and appeals that are fast and fair, and those with no right to be here must be promptly removed. That is the imperative behind every decision this Government take. We are restoring order to our borders. We are making our asylum system faster and fairer, and in doing so, we will ensure that this country can continue to provide protection to those in need—today and for generations to come.
Question put.