The government has now been in office
for well over a year.
>> And I think listen and I think it's fair
to say not even their kindest friends
would say they think it has gone very
well. But listening to her statement, it
sounds like she thinks everything is
fine. And if there are any problems,
it's all somehow somebody else's fault.
Is she living? Is she living? Is she
living in a parallel universe? After
over a year in office, she must now take
responsibility for what is happening
under this government.
>> Now, it's very interesting during her
statement, Mr. Speaker, uh to notice she
did not mention her favorite phrase from
a year or so ago that she was going to
smash the gangs. I wonder why she was so
silent on her previously favorite
catchphrase. Well, the answer is it's
not going very well. Now, she mentions
national crime agency disruptions. Let
me gently point out that 84% of those
National Crime Agency disruptions that
she cited a few minutes ago are
classified as not being high impact. And
if we look at National Crime Agency
arrests for organized immigration crime,
they actually went down by 16% in the
last financial year. hardly smashing the
gangs. And in fact, the NCA's arrests
for organized immigration crime in that
financial year were only 26. A drop in
the ocean compared to the tens of
thousands crossing the channel. Now, Mr.
Speaker, it was also rather conspicuous
that the home secretary did not mention
at all, not even a word, about the
numbers illegally crossing the English
Channel. Now, I wonder why that was. I
wonder why she forgot to say a single
word about that. Well, the reason I'm
afraid is pretty clear because far from
smashing the gangs. So far this year,
29,000
to be precise, 29,03
illegal immigrants have crossed the
English Channel. That is the worst year
in history. And it is up by 38%
compared to last year. That is not
success. It is failure. Things are not
getting any better, they are getting
worse. This government is failing and
everyone can see it. That is why there
are protests up and down the country.
And where those protests are peaceful, I
support them. That is why, this is a
shocking figure, 75%,
let this sink in, 75%
of the public think the government is
handling immigration and asylum badly.
75%.
Now let me turn to hotels. Now in the
nine months before the last general
election, 200 hotels were closed down,
including the Bell Hotel in Eping.
>> But since 200 hotels closed down, but
since the election, the numbers in
asylum hotels have actually gone up by
8%.
Now, had that previous trend of closures
continued, today there would be no
asylum hotels open at all, but I asked
the home secretary to confirm this. Will
she confirm that she will not reduce
hotel usage simply by shunting asylum
seekers from hotels and into flats and
HMOs, which are desperately needed by
young people? Will she give the House
that categoric assurance?
Now, Mr. Speaker, last week the Home
Secretary's lawyers said that the rights
of illegal immigrants are more important
than the rights of local people in
places like Eping. And when this was
expressly put in those terms to the
education secretary yesterday on the
Trevor Phillips program, in those words,
she shamefully agreed. Those statements
are a disgrace. Does the home secretary
realize how angry that makes people
feel? It speaks of a government not on
the side of the people in this country.
It means the government appears to care
more about the rights of illegal
immigrants than our own citizens. So,
will she apologize for what her lawyers
and the education secretary said? And
will she undertake that ministers and
their lawyers will never say that again?
>> Now, Mr. Speaker, the Home Secretary
talks about her returns deal with
France. Now, it has been reported that
it will only return about 50 people a
week, amounting to 6% of arrivals.
Does she accept that allowing 94% of
illegal arrivals to stay will act as no
deterrent at all? Does she accept that?
And if she doesn't accept this figure of
50 a week, will she tell the house
exactly how many immigrants crossing the
channel will in fact be returned under
her deal? Now, she may recall that back
in July, we were told by the government
that the first returns would happen
within weeks. That was back in July.
Will she confirm to the house that the
number who have actually been returned
so far is precisely zero? Now, she also
said to the House a couple of minutes
ago that there would be security checks
on those people reciprocally taken from
France into the UK. But will she confirm
that her agreement with France expressly
says the French government will not
provide the UK government with any
information at all, any personal data
about those migrants. So if there are
criminal convictions, if there are
suspicions about uh extremism or
terrorism, the French government will
not provide information to us. And if
that is true, as her agreement says, how
can she possibly conduct security
checks? Now, Mr. Speaker, the Home
Secretary talked about tweaks to family
visa rules. Let me be clear about the
opposition's position on this. If
someone enters this country illegally,
they should not be allowed to bring in
any family members. In fact, everybody
everybody entering this country
illegally should be immediately removed
to their country of origin if possible
and if not possible to a safe third
country such as Rwanda. A scheme which
she cancelled just days before it was
due to start.
The public expects that approach. The
public expects that approach. An
approach which she cancelled because the
numbers crossing the channel so far this
year have been the worst ever. The worst
in history. And it's not just the
numbers are high. Hundreds of migrants
having crossed living in those hotels
have been charged with criminal offenses
including sexual assaults on girls as
young as 8 years old and multiple rapes.
This is not just a border security
crisis. It is a public safety crisis as
well. And people up and down this
country are furious. That is why they
are protesting. And that is why 75% of
the public think this government is
failing on asylum and immigration. Now,
if this government were serious about
fixing this problem, they would know
that little tweaks here and there are
not enough. Tweaks to article 8 are not
going to be enough. tweaking the family
reunion rules are not enough. Returning
maybe if we're lucky, 50 people a week
to France is not going to be enough.
Maybe intercepting a few boats, worthy,
worthy though that is, it is not going
to be enough. The only way these
crossings will stop, the only way we're
going to get control of our borders back
is if everybody crossing the channel
knows they will get returned. Now, we
tabled a bill to do that in parliament a
few weeks ago. We had a plan to do that,
the Rwanda bill. We need to go further
by disapplying the Human Rights Act, not
just tinkering with Article 8,
disapplying the entire human rights act
from immigration matters. If the
government was serious, that is what
they will do. So, I have one last
question for the home secretary. If she
really wants to control our borders, if
she really wants to get down the record
numbers that have been crossing on her
watch, she would back our plan. She
would disapply the Human Rights Act in
its entirety from immigration matters
and she would ensure that every single
person crossing the channel was
immediately removed.