All 2 Debates between Suella Braverman and Marion Fellows

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Suella Braverman and Marion Fellows
Monday 22nd May 2023

(11 months, 1 week ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Suella Braverman Portrait Suella Braverman
- View Speech - Hansard - -

Part of our plan to stop the boats focuses on causal factors such as serious organised immigration crime gangs, which are networked and highly resourced. We have had some success in arresting hundreds of people involved in those gangs and disabling several such gangs, but we are employing more resource in our National Crime Agency and increasing the numbers of officers working with the French so that we can clamp down on the problem at cause.

Marion Fellows Portrait Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

T10. In her previous resignation letter, the current Home Secretary wrote:“Pretending we haven’t made mistakes, carrying on as if everyone can’t see that we have made them, and hoping that things will magically come right is not serious politics.”Was she right? Has she made a mistake? Will she accept responsibility? Will she resign?

Suella Braverman Portrait Suella Braverman
- View Speech - Hansard - -

As I said earlier, in the summer of last year I was speeding. I regret that I was speeding. I paid the penalty and I accepted the points. At no time did I seek to avoid any sanction or consequence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Suella Braverman and Marion Fellows
Monday 20th March 2023

(1 year, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Suella Braverman Portrait The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

I refer the hon. Lady to the statement in my name that appears on the front of the Bill. I would add that I am satisfied that the provisions of the Bill are capable of being applied compatibly with the human rights convention and compliant with our international obligations, including the refugee convention.

Marion Fellows Portrait Marion Fellows
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

Apparently the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees does not agree with the Home Secretary. They have said that this legislation amounts to an “asylum ban”, adding that it would be a

“clear breach of the Refugee Convention”.

Does the Home Secretary not realise that the very nature of human rights is that they are universal and that it is not for Governments to pick and choose which rights apply to which groups of people?

Suella Braverman Portrait Suella Braverman
- View Speech - Hansard - -

I refer the hon. Lady to article 31 of the refugee convention, which makes it clear that there is not an absolute duty on states to offer provision to asylum seekers, particularly if they have come from a safe country. It is important to note that the Bill applies to people who have come here illegally from a safe country. It is important that we instil a framework that enables us to detain and swiftly remove them so that we can stop the boats and stop the people smuggling gangs.

--- Later in debate ---
Suella Braverman Portrait Suella Braverman
- View Speech - Hansard - -

My hon. Friend knows my position on that issue. He also knows about the guidance we have issued on the policing of non-crime hate incidents. He will note from the announcement recently that we are encouraging the police to strike a better balance, so that freedom of speech is more protected in their efforts to keep the public safe. The College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council will be working on new guidance to reflect the new offences in the Public Order Bill, but I reassure him that we are doing everything to ensure that the sensitive balance is struck, so that freedom of speech is protected while safeguarding the public.

Marion Fellows Portrait Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

T4. The Refugee Council estimates that if 65,000 people crossed the channel this year, it would cost £219 million to detain them for 28 days, or £1.4 billion to detain them for six months. Are figures such as those the reason for the Home Secretary’s refusing to share the economic impact assessment of the Illegal Migration Bill with the House?