PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Border Security and Asylum - 22 July 2024 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Order. Before I call the Home Secretary, may I just say this to her? The statement did not arrive in my office in time; it was late, and I believe that it was also late for the Opposition. Quite rightly, the Home Secretary made a big thing of this when she was the shadow Home Secretary, so I remind her of her own words: statements do need to arrive on time. This is the second time so far, and I know it will not happen again, because what I have said will be taken on board.

May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for standing up for the Opposition Front Benchers, as I know you have often done for me in the past? I apologise to the shadow Home Secretary for the delay in the arrival of the statement.

Most people in the United Kingdom want to see strong border security, with a properly controlled and managed asylum system where our country does its bit, alongside others, to help those who have fled persecution, but where rules are properly respected and enforced so that those with no right to be here are swiftly removed. At the moment, we have none of those things. Border security is being undermined by criminal smuggler gangs, and the asylum system is in chaos. Tragically, 19 lives have been lost in the channel so far this year, including children. No one should be making these perilous small boat journeys.

Criminal gangs have been allowed to take hold along our border, and they are making huge profit from undermining our border security and putting lives at risk. They should not be able to get away with it. Crossings in the first half of 2024 are up by 10% on last year—the number is going up, instead of coming down. At the same time, the asylum backlog is getting worse, as decision making in the Home Office has dropped. Home Office spending on asylum support has increased sevenfold in the space of just three years. This cannot go on. Since my appointment two weeks ago, I have reviewed the policies, programmes and legislation that we have inherited from our predecessors, and I have been shocked by what I have found. Not only are there already serious problems; on current policies, the chaos and costs are likely to get worse.

On our border security, it is clear that the security and enforcement arrangements we have inherited are too weak. Criminal gang networks are operating with impunity along our border, across the continent and beyond, and across the UK too. Action between Britain and France in the channel has improved, and is preventing some boat crossings. The work of the small boats operational command in the channel is important and will continue, but we need to go much further. We should be taking far more action upstream, long before the boats ever reach the French coast. Co-operation with Europol and other European police forces and prosecutors is far too limited, and enforcement against exploitation and trafficking in the UK is far too weak. Information sharing with our European neighbours has reduced, rather than increased. As a result of these weak arrangements, I am extremely concerned that the high levels of dangerous crossings that we have inherited are likely to persist throughout the summer.

Let me turn to the Rwanda migration and economic development partnership. Two and a half years after the previous Government launched it, I can report that it has already cost the British taxpayer £700 million—in order to send just four volunteers. That includes £290 million on payments to Rwanda and the costs of chartering flights that never took off, detaining hundreds of people and then releasing them, and paying for more than 1,000 civil servants to work on the scheme—for a scheme to send four people. It is the most shocking waste of taxpayers’ money I have ever seen.

Looking forward, the costs are set to get worse. Even if the scheme had ever got going, it is clear that it would have covered only a minority of arrivals, yet a substantial portion of future costs were fixed costs—for example, the annual direct payments to Rwanda, the contracts for escorts, the staffing in the Home Office, the detention and reception centres, and more. The taxpayer would have still had to pay out, no matter how few people were relocated. Most shockingly of all, over the six years of the migration and economic development partnership forecast, the previous Government had planned to spend over £10 billion of taxpayers’ money on the scheme. They did not tell Parliament that. I thank the Rwandan Government for working with the UK in good faith, because the failure of this policy lies with the previous UK Government. It has been a costly con, and the taxpayer has had to pay the price.

I turn to the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which has been in place for a year. We were told that it would stop the boats, but it has clearly failed. The legal contradictions in the Act are so great that they make it unworkable; indeed, 12 months on, the central duty has not even been enacted. It is also costing the taxpayer billions of pounds. Under section 9 of the Act, people who arrive in the UK can claim asylum and get asylum accommodation. However, under section 30, if they arrived after March 2023 and meet key conditions in the Act, no decision can be taken on their case; they just stay in the asylum system. Even if they have come here unlawfully for economic reasons and should be returned to their home country, they will not be, because the law does not work. Only a small minority might ever have been sent to Rwanda; everyone else stays indefinitely in taxpayer-funded accommodation and support.

The Home Office estimates that around 40% of asylum cases since March 2023 should be covered by those Illegal Migration Act conditions. The remaining 60%, under the previous Government’s policy, should still have been processed and cleared in the normal way. However, even though previous Ministers introduced this new law 12 months ago, they did not ever introduce an effective operational way for the Home Office to distinguish between the cases covered by the Illegal Migration Act and the other cases where decisions should continue—that is, between the 40% and the 60%. As a result, decisions cannot be taken on any of them.

I have been shocked to discover that the Home Office has effectively stopped making the majority of asylum decisions. Thousands of asylum caseworkers cannot do their proper job. As a result, the backlog of asylum cases is now going up. This is the most extraordinary policy I have ever seen. We have inherited asylum “Hotel California”—people arrive in the asylum system and they never leave. The previous Government’s policy was effectively an amnesty, and that is the wrong thing to do. It is not just bad policy, it is also completely unaffordable. The cost of this indefinitely rising asylum backlog in hotel and accommodation support bills is astronomical. The potential costs of asylum support over the next four years if we continue down this track could be an eye-watering £30 billion to £40 billion. That is double the annual police budget for England and Wales.

This newly elected Government are not prepared to let this chaos continue, so let me turn to the action we are urgently taking to restore some grip to the system, to tackle the chaos and to get costs down. First, I have informed the Rwandan Government that we will be ending the migration and economic development partnership. We will save £220 million on further direct payments to Rwanda over the next few years and we will immediately save up to £750 million that had been put aside by the previous Government to cover the MEDP this year.

Secondly, we will invest some of the saved money from the migration partnership into a new border security command instead. It will bring together the work of the Border Force, the National Crime Agency, the small boats operational command and intelligence and security officers. The recruitment has begun for a new commander and we will put in place additional cross-border officers, investigators, prosecutors, and intelligence and security officers with the new counter-terror-style powers against organised immigration crime announced in the King’s Speech last week. We are immediately increasing UK officers’ involvement in Europol and the European Migrant Smuggling Centre.

Thirdly, we will replace the Rwanda migration partnership with a serious returns and enforcement programme. We have immediately replaced the flight planning for Rwanda with actual flights to return people who have no right to stay to their home countries instead. We are immediately redeploying Home Office staff away from the failed Rwanda partnership and into returns and enforcement, to reverse the collapse in removals that has taken place since 2010. I have tasked the immigration enforcement team with intensifying enforcement activity this summer, targeting illegal working across high-risk sectors.

Fourthly, we will end the asylum chaos and start taking asylum decisions again so that we can clear the backlog and end asylum hotels. The new border security, asylum and immigration Bill announced in the King’s Speech will bring in new replacement arrangements, including fast-track decisions and returns to safe countries. In the meantime, I am laying a statutory instrument that ends the retrospective nature of the Illegal Migration Act provisions, so that the Home Office can immediately start clearing cases from after March 2023. Making this one simple change will save the taxpayer an estimated £7 billion over the next 10 years. Fifthly, as the Prime Minister has just set out, we will work closely with our European neighbours to tackle the upstream causes of migration, including through the Rome process.

This country will always do our bit alongside others to help those fleeing war and persecution, but we need a proper system where rules are enforced. There are no quick fixes to the chaos created over the last 14 years. It will take time to clear the asylum backlog, to bring costs down and to get new enforcement in place to strengthen our borders and prevent dangerous boat crossings, but there is no alternative to serious hard graft. We cannot waste any more time or money on gimmicks. The country voted for change, and that means it is time for a sensible, serious plan. I commend this statement to the House.

This very important statement overran slightly, so I am more than happy for the Opposition spokespersons also to run over, if need be.

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I welcome you back to your place, on my first opportunity to do so. In my time as Home Secretary and, before that, Foreign Secretary, you were very kind about my minor indiscretions at the Dispatch Box, my late deployment of statements and my slight overruns. You have always been very kind to my family in sometimes quite trying circumstances, which I very much appreciate.

I also take this opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper) on her appointment as Home Secretary. It is a challenging but incredibly rewarding job and, because the nation’s security is now very much in her and her Ministers’ hands, I genuinely wish her all success in everything she is looking to do.

The right hon. Lady inherits a dedicated team of Home Office civil servants who will help her to keep the country safe and secure. They helped me when I was in her position and, although it is disorderly to recognise their presence, if I were to wave my hand vaguely in their direction, I might take the opportunity to thank my previous private office civil servants.

My notes say that I want to thank the Home Secretary and her team for advance sight of her statement, but I will put a line through that.

The Labour party, and indeed the Home Secretary, likes to talk tough on border security, but today’s statement, despite all the hyperbole and the made-up numbers, is basically an admission of what we knew all along, which is that the Labour party has scrapped the Rwanda partnership on ideological grounds, removing a deterrent that the National Crime Agency said we needed.

The level of discourtesy directed towards the people and Government of Rwanda is quite breathtaking. To have them read about this decision in the papers before anyone from the UK Government had the good grace to formally notify them is an error, and no one in this House believes for a moment that this level of discourtesy would have happened had the partnership been with a European country.

Labour has given an effective amnesty to thousands of asylum seekers who were banned under Conservative plans. Labour’s plans amount to doing less than the Conservatives were doing when we were in government, merely changing the signs above a few desks in the Home Office with its so-called border security command and returns unit. Before the election, the right hon. Lady said that she would create a returns unit, and now the narrative is that she will redeploy some staff—not increase the number of staff, but redeploy some staff—which shows that the returns function already exists.

There is no safe third country to which to return people who cannot be returned home, so where will the right hon. Lady send people who come here from countries like Afghanistan, Iran and Syria? Has she started negotiating returns agreements with the Taliban, the ayatollahs of Iran or Assad in Syria? If she is not going to send to Rwanda anyone who arrives here on a small boat, to which local authorities will she send them? We were closing hotels when I was in government, so I wonder which local authorities will receive those asylum seekers. If not Rwanda, will it be Rochdale, Romford or Richmond? Most importantly, can the right hon. Lady now confirm that people who arrive here illegally in a small boat will be able to claim asylum? Finally, how long after the right hon. Lady briefed the media that she is scrapping the Rwanda partnership did she have the courtesy to speak directly with the Rwandan Government?

It is because we now have no deterrent that nobody wants to head her new so-called border security command. Neil Basu, a former senior police officer for whom I have huge respect, was Labour’s No. 1 choice, and he has ruled himself out. We now learn that General Stuart Skeates, a highly respected former general in the British Army, who was, in large part, responsible for delivering the Albania deal, which cut small boat arrivals from that country by 90%, has resigned from his position as director general for strategic operations. To misquote Oscar Wilde, “to lose one border commander could be seen as a misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness”—perhaps even incompetence. I notice that the new job advert—it is available online for those who are thinking of applying—for Labour’s border security command says that the role is not located in Kent, where the channel is, but is flexible from Belfast, Bristol, Cardiff, Durham, Glasgow, Liverpool or Manchester, none of which, the last time I checked, are anywhere near the English channel.

The reality is that everybody knows, including the people smugglers, that the small boat problem is going to get worse—indeed, has already got worse under Labour—because there is no deterrent. People are being sold a lie when they are being smuggled into this country, across one of the busiest shipping lanes. We need to stop them. Too many lives have already been lost. Sadly, six more have been lost in the channel in the last few weeks, and our hearts go out to them and their loved ones. We disagree on many things, but we can agree that we need to put an end to this evil trade. Sadly, the initial decisions made by her Government have made the problem worse, not better.

I welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s words about the dedication of Home Office officials and about the importance of work on national security. As he knows, when I was shadow Secretary of State, I always worked with him and supported him around national security issues. I know he will do the same and I welcome him to his shadow post. I presume what we heard was the first of the Conservative leadership contest speeches.

I will respond to some of the things the shadow Home Secretary said. We need to be clear about what we have inherited from him and his party. Under his party, we have had the highest level of spring crossings ever. Gangs have been left to wreak havoc, not just along the French coast but across our border, through our country and back through Europe. Asylum support costs are set to rise to £30 billion to £40 billion over the next four years as a result of his and his party’s decisions.

As for the idea of deterrence, I am sorry but four volunteers being sent to Rwanda is not a deterrent to anyone for anything at all. The idea that he would spend £10 billion on this fantasy, this fiction, this gimmick rather than ever do the hard graft—£700 million has already been spent on sending just four volunteers in two and a half years. We have often warned that, frankly, it would be cheaper to put them up in the Paris Ritz. As it turns out, it would have been cheaper to buy the Paris Ritz.

As for the amnesty, I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman has ever understood the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which he voted for and he inherited from his predecessors. He asks if people who arrive illegally can claim asylum—that is exactly what happens under section 9 of that Act. They can all claim asylum, enter the asylum system and be entitled to asylum support. That is what happens in the system, which we have inherited, that he has presided over and run since he became Home Secretary. The problem is that people enter the asylum system but never leave. He did not bring in operational arrangements to try to take decisions properly. His Home Office effectively stopped taking the majority of asylum decisions in May. Perhaps he did not know that, but that is what happened in his Home Office. This party and this Government do not believe in amnesties. We think that the rules need to be respected and enforced. His party is the one that has given an effective amnesty to people who can end up staying in the asylum system forever. We believe that the rules should be enforced. The problem is that that is what the shadow Home Secretary believes too. He does not believe any of the stuff that he has just said. He is only saying it for his Tory leadership contest; he is just too weak to tell his party the truth. He thought that the whole policy on Rwanda was “batshit” and then he went out to bat for it. It is just not serious.

I welcome my right hon. Friend to her place and thank her for her statement. We all suspected that policy in the Home Office under the previous Government was a bit of a mess, but we did not realise how much of an expensive mess it was until she provided us with the details in her statement.

Let me ask the Home Secretary about the attraction for people to come here illegally to work in the black economy. If people have suspicions, they have to go to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, UK Visas and Immigration and the police to get action to deal with those activities. I note that the Home Secretary is looking to try to combine the approach to deal with illegal working in the car washing sector. Will that be a systematic change of approach, and will it be applied to other sectors as well? It would be very welcome if that were the case.

My hon. Friend is right. We must tackle the illegal working and also the exploitation that can often drive a lot of what happens. That is why we are intensifying the immigration enforcement, which is part of our new, huge expansion to the returns and enforcements unit. He is right that the process, which has become too complicated and too bureaucratic, needs to be simplified to make sure that the rules are being enforced. We have set out the high-risk sectors on which we wish to focus this summer, but we need a more systematic approach. We have talked about a single enforcement approach, and we will be setting out more details about those plans.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

In 2018, the number of small boat arrivals stood at 299. In 2023, last year, the number had risen to more than 29,000. What happened in those intervening five years? One thing that happened was the closure of the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme, which was introduced by the coalition Government in 2014 and was designed to select some of the most vulnerable people from refugee camps in Jordan, near Syria. What we have seen since the closure of that scheme is people choosing instead to make for these shores rather than applying in refugee camps. Will the Home Secretary rule out the offshore processing of asylum seekers, or will she consider introducing a scheme similar to the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme, which could incentivise asylum seekers applying for asylum close to the war zones afflicting them?

I welcome the hon. Member to his new post. He is right to talk about the importance of the UK doing its bit to help those who have fled persecution and conflict. It is why I strongly believe that the Homes for Ukraine programme was immensely important. Personally, it has been important to our family. It is important that the UK has done its bit, including in previous years around Hong Kong and Afghanistan. That must continue to be the case, but that help must operate alongside a properly functioning system, otherwise criminal gangs will continue to exploit the system whatever it is. At the moment, those criminal gangs are getting away with it.

Let me turn to the specific issue of offshore processing. In fact, the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme was a form of offshore processing, just as the Homes for Ukraine scheme was. There are different ways to arrange these things. Our approach is always to look at what works. As long as it meets proper standards in terms of international law, we should be serious about what it is that works in order to tackle the complex problems that we face.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. I think that my constituents will be incredulous when they are informed of the extent to which the previous Government wasted so much money on this scheme. What commitments can she give the House that we will be able to rescind our commitments to spend further money on any such programmes, and that no further public money will be wasted?

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. I welcome her to Parliament, and I welcome her asking questions on this issue. We have to take a strong, rigorous and robust approach to value for money in every Department. It cannot simply be the responsibility of the Treasury; it has to be the responsibility of the Home Office, and of every Government Department. That is the approach that this Labour Government will take. I am frankly shocked that under the last Government not just the Home Office but the Treasury, the then Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues all signed off on these incredibly high payments and costs. They must have had the modelling that would tell them how much the costs would go up by, yet they signed off on them. Our Government are determined to pursue value for money at every stage.

If the number of small boat crossings are higher next summer than this summer, will she resign?

I realise that the right hon. Member is keen to get rid of me before I have even finished standing up at the Dispatch Box. Unfortunately, we have seen a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries—eight, I think, in the last eight years—none of whom resigned. Two of them were sacked under the last Government—actually, those two were the same person. Look, we have to be serious about this, because the dangerous boat crossings are undermining border security and putting lives at risk. Nobody should be making those journeys, and we have to work not just here but across other European countries to stop boats before they reach the French coast in the first place, to ensure that lives can be saved and the gangs are held accountable for their terrible crimes.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement on the shocking figures that are symbolic of the failure of Conservative Members to restore control over our borders. I note that, despite that spending of taxpayers’ cash, removals of failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders collapsed under the Conservatives. What is the Home Office doing to ensure that those who have no right to be in the UK are swiftly removed and the rules are properly enforced?

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I welcome him to his seat in Parliament. He is right that removals of failed asylum seekers have fallen by a third since 2010. Removals of foreign national offenders have fallen by a quarter. That is not good enough. It means that the rules are not being respected or enforced, and it is why we will set up a new returns and enforcement programme. We have committed to 1,000 additional staff to work on returns and enforcement, to ensure that the rules are respected, not only where we have returns agreements in place but looking at individual cases as well. We must ensure that we have a system that people have confidence in. There is a lot of chaos to tackle, but we are determined to do it.

The Home Secretary is absolutely right to lay into the Conservatives for their shambles of an immigration policy, which will define them for years to come, but all I am hearing is her being harder on asylum seekers. Enforcement seems to be her priority. When will we hear about the safe and legal routes that asylum seekers access to come to this country, and will she stop the dehumanising and scapegoating language, and pledge to take no quarter from the belligerents behind me?

As I said in response to the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), ensuring that the UK always does its bit to help those who have fled persecution is really important. We have done so through different programmes in the past. We had the Syrian families programme back in 2015, which was important, but we also have to ensure that the system works and has credibility, and that the rules are enforced. Too often at the moment the rules are not enforced, but they need to be, so that everyone can respect the system. Also, too often we have criminal gangs causing havoc, able to undermine border security and making huge profits. It has become a criminal industry along our border, and that is deeply damaging. I agree that this cannot be about rhetoric; nobody should be ramping up the rhetoric, especially alongside gimmicks that do not work. We have to be serious about this issue and put in place sensible plans that work.

I welcome the Home Secretary—the Labour Home Secretary—to her place. We have inherited an almighty mess, with asylum accommodation costing £8 million per day. It is absolute chaos and, according to The Sunday Times, there are even middlemen and middlewomen taking advantage and profiteering through the system. How is she going to get a grip of this chaos we have inherited from the previous Tory Government?

My hon. Friend raises an important question. As well as a failure to tackle the criminal gangs taking hold along the channel, there has also been too much of a focus on gimmicks and a failure to have practical planning in place. For example, there was a failure to ensure that there were proper long-term contracts on asylum accommodation, so that instead the chaos at Manston a couple of years ago led to last-minute hotel procurement, which was completely inappropriate accommodation and cost a fortune as well.

We have to tackle that. That is why we have set out plans and we are determined to make sure that we can get that backlog down and end asylum hotel use. As a result of the chaos with the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the fact that the Home Office had stopped taking decisions, that will now take time and it will be difficult to sort out, but that is why the statutory instrument we are laying before the House today is so important. That alone should save the taxpayer £7 billion.

I know the Labour party managed to go an entire election campaign without answering this question, and the Home Secretary failed to answer it again when asked by the shadow Home Secretary, but I will give it one more try. Where does the Home Secretary intend to send failed asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Syria and Iran?

The hon. Gentleman obviously does not understand the system that his party and his Government put in place. All the people who are in the asylum system are staying there. Under his policies for those individuals, they are now being sent all around the country into asylum hotels. That is the system the Conservatives have left us with. We do not think that is the right thing to do. We think that asylum decisions should be taken on a case-by-case basis. That is the right thing to do. We also think we should have proper returns agreements and do what his party should have been doing, under his own policies, for the 60% of people who continued to be entitled to asylum decisions but were not getting them under his Illegal Migration Act. What we will do is run the asylum system effectively, which his system should have been doing.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the forensic work she has been doing in her Department. What considerations has she given to humanitarian visas for people in Gaza to be reunited with their family, if they are studying in the UK or working in our NHS? My constituent has a wife and two little children in Gaza at the moment; he cannot return home, yet the last Government refused to make provision for them to come and be reunited with him in the UK.

My hon. Friend will know that there are long-standing arrangements for family reunion and for refugees. There are also different concerns that have been raised around Gaza, because there is a real importance to people’s being able to return to their homes in the middle east too. If she has an individual case that she would like to raise with my hon. Friend the Immigration Minister, she is very welcome to do so.

When I was in the migrant camps in northern France last year, the migrants told me and some of my colleagues that one deterrent that would stop them coming would be if they were turned back in the channel or sent back the same day. We saw the Border Force agency take a boatload back just last week. Will the Home Secretary now, with that advice, grow a political backbone and order the Border Force to send the boats back the same day?

The hon. Member refers to an incident in the channel where there was co-operation between Border Force and the French authorities that also involved returning people to the French coast. That operational co-operation is important, but I would just say to him that “co-operation” is the really important word. If we want to prevent gangs operating and organising, and prevent boats from reaching the French coast in the first place, we have to work closely not just with France but with Germany and other European countries, and with the countries through which some of the supply chains are operating. It is that co-operation that he and some others in his party have quite often refused, but it will be important and is our best way to stop the criminal gangs.

In a few short days, my right hon. Friend has simultaneously saved the taxpayer a tremendous amount of money and got more people in the Home Office working on getting the system sorted than in previous years. I congratulate her on that. Does she agree that it is entirely in keeping with Labour values to ensure safe refuge for those fleeing war zones, and, at the same time, to ensure that those who are not entitled to be here are repatriated, saving the UK taxpayer money?

My hon. Friend is right. There are principles here about doing our bit to help those who have fled persecution while also ensuring that the rules are enforced so that people who do not have a right to be here should be swiftly returned. At the moment, none of those things applies or is working properly. We have to restore order to the asylum system so that we can go back to the principles that, going back many years, the UK has always stood for.

It is a huge relief that the vile Rwanda scheme has been scrapped. I have listened carefully to the Home Secretary’s statement. Given that 94% of people seeking asylum in this country are ready and eager to work to support themselves, and that freezing them out of work leaves them in destitution and means that the UK misses out on tax revenue from their work, and on much-needed specialists and professionals such as the nurse I met recently in an asylum seeker project in Bristol, will the Home Secretary take the advice of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and urgently lift the ban on asylum seekers working?

No, I do not believe that is the right approach, because we need to make swift decisions and ensure that the rules are properly respected and enforced. I am concerned about employers who exploit those who have sometimes arrived as a result of criminal gangs, trafficking or smuggling. I do not believe that employers should be able to exploit those kinds of routes and journeys. If people who have fled persecution are granted asylum in this country, of course they should be able to work and to do so swiftly, but if they are not entitled to be here—if they have not fled persecution—and should be turned down and returned to their home country, they should not be able to work in the UK.

My constituents take this issue seriously as they are at the very frontline and the Conservatives have left us with open borders. I thank my right hon. Friend for dealing with the matter with such seriousness. How long will it take to put the border security commander in place, and what sort of impact will they have in assisting law enforcement?

I thank my hon. Friend and welcome him to his position. I know that his Dover and Deal constituency has faced real pressures as a result of the criminal gangs and the small boat crossings. I thank him for his work and experience in tackling these issues. He knows very well the work of the National Crime Agency, for example, in tackling the criminal gangs.

We are putting in place the steps for the border security command straight away. We have already begun recruitment not just for the new commander but for additional staff: hundreds of additional cross-border police, security and intelligence officers, and specialist investigators and prosecutors. That work will start straight away. We have already immediately increased the UK presence in Europol and its European migrant smuggling centre so that we can get on with that work to build those partnerships and take action.

I am sure the Home Secretary agrees that this is a moral issue: we must never again see people dying in the channel. However, does she also agree that deterrence must be a part of the panoply of measures that we put forward? I am not clear on what deterrent measures she is going to put in place or—because this question has failed to be answered a number of times—what will happen to failed asylum seekers from countries such as Syria, Iran and Afghanistan?

I agree with the hon. Member that it is devastating that lives are being lost, including children’s. We have seen increasing violence from some of the gangs, crowding more people on to these overcrowded boats, which has resulted in a seven-year-old girl losing her life.

The hon. Member talks about deterrence. The problem with the Rwanda scheme is that it is clearly not a deterrent: four people being sent over two and a half years is not a deterrent at all. There are also no deterrents at all for any of the criminal gangs, which at the moment can operate with impunity, so we have to start by ensuring that the criminal gangs can face justice and that action is taken against the supply chains earlier on—that we have consequences, and that there is a deterrent there.

I would also say that a system whereby people can arrive in the UK and stay in the asylum accommodation system forever, which is the situation under the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which the hon. Member’s party voted for, means that there is no disincentive for anyone. It makes it very easy for people to stay indefinitely and work illegally, even if they have no right to be here. That goes against the rules and means that the system is just not working.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, which contained some really quite revelatory points about the state of the finances. Sandiacre in my constituency has been home to two asylum hotels, one of which I was very pleased to see close recently, but the Best Western hotel remains open. This is a huge cost to people in my constituency and across the nation, and it leaves asylum seekers caught in an endless and inescapable limbo. What steps will the Home Secretary take to ensure that we can close asylum hotels once and for all?

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We need to clear the backlog—not just let it grow and grow, which is what the Conservatives were doing, but clear the backlog so that we can end asylum hotels, which are inappropriate and extremely costly. Having discovered that the Home Office had effectively stopped taking the majority of asylum decisions under the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly)—who does not seem to know what his own Department was doing as a result of his own policies—I am extremely concerned that that will now take longer to do, but it remains an immensely important thing that we have to do. The other thing we will have to do is tackle the backlog in the appeals process that the Conservatives had allowed to grow, which is also slowing down the system.

I congratulate the Home Secretary on her appointment and on her statements to the House. Following on from a previous question, but perhaps with a nuance, will asylum seekers—perhaps after initial registration—be allowed to work and pay taxes while their applications are pending?

If people have a right to be in the UK—if they have fled persecution and been granted refugee status, or they have come to be here on a visa through the normal processes—we will of course have them contributing to our country. That has been the case for generations, but if people are not here lawfully— if they have not fled persecution, and should fail the asylum process and be returned—they should not be working in the UK. This is simply about having a swift system so that we can make decisions quickly and ensure that the rules are enforced.

I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend in her place on the Government Benches. I am proud that Bradford is a city of sanctuary, and of organisations such as Bevan Health, set up by a GP in my constituency, which works to deliver vital healthcare to asylum seekers who are awaiting decisions, sometimes for over 12 months and in many cases in hotels. Can my right hon. Friend provide an assurance that asylum seekers will continue to have access to essential healthcare as our Government work to clear the asylum backlog, so that in future fewer people will be left languishing in hotels?

My hon. Friend is right; it is really important that we try to clear the backlog as rapidly as possible. It includes some people who are very vulnerable and may be in need of support. It also includes people who should not be in the UK, and the system should operate fairly so that they are swiftly returned. But we actually have to get back to decision making. I thought I would be coming to this Dispatch Box and saying, “Well, what we want to do is to speed up or accelerate decision making.” I did not think I would be standing at this Dispatch Box saying, “No, no, we actually have to restart asylum decision making in the first place, because the Conservatives just stopped it.” I really had not expected that. It really is far more shocking than I had imagined, and I really thought I had a good imagination.

When you take a drug dealer off the street corner, guess what: another one appears, because of the vile drugs trade and the amount of money involved. My constituents in Boston and Skegness believe it is exactly the same with trying the Home Secretary’s policy of smashing the gangs. If she smashes one gang, it is like a game of whack-a-mole: another one will appear and then another one, because there is so much money involved. Here is the point: how long will the Home Secretary give her policy before realising that the only policy that will work is the one she actually started last week, which is to pick people up and take them back to France, which we are entitled to do under international maritime law? It will help British citizens, help British taxpayers and help the French, and it will reduce the magnet factor.

I say to the hon. Member that no one should be making these dangerous journeys, and the criminal gangs are making massive profits from organising these boats. I just do not think they should be able to get away with it, and they are at the moment. We should be taking action against those criminal gangs, and I simply do not accept that it is impossible to go after them. We must ensure that we take action not just on the gangs themselves, but on their supply chains, the routes the boats are taking and their finances, and that we properly and substantially increase law enforcement resources. As hon. Members will know, we have had cases where journalists have identified smugglers and those responsible for being involved in some of the smuggler gangs, and I think those gang members should be facing law enforcement. It is essential that we do this. This is about properly standing up for the rule of law, as well as making sure that we do everything we can to prevent these dangerous small boat crossings.

I am very pleased to see the Home Secretary take her place. My constituents in Aylesbury have two concerns: first, that we re-establish control of our borders; and secondly, that we remember the need for compassion for vulnerable people fleeing conflict and persecution. On that point, will she commit to ensuring that there are resettlement routes for people fleeing desperate and dangerous circumstances, and what will she do to ensure that they are viable?

My hon. Friend is right, and I welcome her to her place in this House. I think what people in this country have always wanted is that combination of strong border security and a proper, fair system, so that we do our bit alongside other countries to help those who have fled persecution, but also so that the rules are enforced and those who do not have a right to be here are returned. She will know that there is a series of different resettlement routes or different forms of support—for example, the Homes for Ukraine scheme, which continues, and some of the Afghan resettlement schemes. We are concerned about the operation of some of the Afghan schemes, and we are looking further at that to ensure they are functioning properly.

The right hon. Member makes an important point about what is happening in the Mediterranean, and about the pressures we have seen and the fact that, as the Prime Minister said in his statement, we have seen not just conflicts, wars and persecution, but the impact of climate change, making people travel and sometimes leading them to make dangerous journeys. We should be working to prevent the need for those dangerous journeys in the first place. That is why the Prime Minister announced last week at the European Political Community summit that we will invest over £80 million, alongside work with other European countries, also as part of the Rome process, both to tackle some of the wider criminal gang networks that still operate in the Mediterranean and to ensure that we address the injustices and serious crises that lead to people making such dangerous journeys in the first place.

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to her place. One of the consequences of the collapse in our asylum system over the past few years has been the increasing and intolerable pressure on local communities —my constituents in Hartlepool raise this with me time and again. Will she outline how the steps that she is taking will begin to reduce that pressure on communities such as Hartlepool?

I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. There is a real challenge from the chaotic way the asylum system has been run, which has led to the last-minute procurement of hotels and has ended up being extremely costly. Everybody loses out from spending billions of pounds on this system, but also from local authorities often not having time to work with communities or accommodation providers to ensure that things are managed in the right way. Because asylum decisions stopped being taken, there will now be some challenges in getting the system working again, which means that bringing down the backlog will take longer than we initially anticipated. But we are determined to do this; it is the only way to get back to having a functional system that everybody across the country should be able to support.

I welcome the Home Secretary to her place and wish her well for the future, and I thank her for the helpful and confident answers that she has given.

There is, of course, a glaring issue regarding border security much closer to home: the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This border was patrolled by Republic of Ireland officials, and understandably so as their right to protect their nation is paramount. However, it is also clear that the Good Friday agreement does not preclude the need to conduct checks on the border. What discussions have there been with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and security forces in Northern Ireland to ensure that the open border with the Republic of Ireland does not become a free route for UK immigration?

It is a pleasure to get my first question at the Dispatch Box from the hon. Member, and I look forward to very many more. He raises important issues. The border issues between Northern Ireland and Ireland are of course different; we rightly have different arrangements that reflect our long-shared history. But we also have very close co-operation. We have close policing co-operation, close information sharing, and additional information sharing that is not currently possible under the arrangements we have inherited with other European countries. It is important that those information-sharing arrangements continue, and hopefully we can build on them with other European partners.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. I share her astonishment at the scale of the mismanagement of the asylum system by the previous Government. My constituency of Colchester has hosted many asylum seekers and refugees over the years. We are a city of sanctuary. Our local authorities have played a full part in supporting that work. Will she confirm that those local authorities will be fully engaged in the work going forward to ensure that we have more effective support systems?

My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of working closely with local authorities. We are determined to do that. The Immigration Minister already has work in chain looking at how we can have better working co-operation between the Home Office and local authorities. It is also important to recognise that, through many generations, refugees have come to this country and contributed to our economy and society and been a hugely important part of that. It is partly because we have that important history that it is crucial to get the whole system functioning again, instead of the chaos we have at the moment, which undermines everyone’s confidence.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. The people of Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield want to see these crossings stopped and these gangs smashed, and they will welcome her tough action today. Because of the previous Government’s complete failure to control our borders, they spent millions of pounds a week on asylum hotels. What will she do to speed up the processing of people in these hotels and end their use?

I welcome my hon. Friend to Parliament. We have to do all these things. We have to take action on the criminal gangs exploiting the situation in the first place, which involves much stronger co-operation with European colleagues. That must include the new counter-terror powers that will be in the new legislation as part of the King’s Speech to strengthen powers against organised immigration crime. Alongside that, we have to get the basics right. We have to start taking decisions again, as well as speeding up asylum decisions and making the system work again.