Tag: Robert Jenrick

The speech made by Robert Jenrick, the Shadow Justice Secretary, in Manchester on 7 October 2025.

Hello Conference,

It’s great to see you all today.

Isn’t Donna brilliant?

Conference, we are going to get Donna elected as the first Mayor of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.

Forget the King of the North; we’re going to have a Queen of the South.

And it’s going to be Donna Jones!

Now, I want to talk to you today about how four famous blondes tell the story of the predicament our party faces today and how we’re going to overcome it.

Because right now, it’s true: it’s tough being a Tory.

Six months ago, the Tory legend Sir Michael Fabricant went on the Big Brother House.

He lasted four days.

Last week, one of our most energetic young campaigners, Emily Hewertson, entered the Big Brother House.

She lasted just 11 hours.

She didn’t even get to spend the night.

And now, Conference, I’ve heard that a third Tory blonde is in negotiations to enter the Big Brother House: Liz Truss.

But negotiations have broken down, Conference.

She’s asking to be paid by the minute. Too soon, perhaps?

Look, I’ll come back to the blondes in a moment. But, Conference, it’s not all doom and gloom right now.

Last month, I received some good news, courtesy, surprisingly, of Angela Rayner.

Keir Starmer’s emergency reshuffle, otherwise known as, remember, Phase 2. Anyone recall that? Well, I think Keir Starmer would like to forget it too. Anyway, it led to a great privilege for me.

I now shadow a new Justice Secretary: David Lammy.

Now, David has a somewhat chequered past.

You may recall his appearance on the BBC’s Celebrity Mastermind.

David Lammy. Celebrity Mastermind.

You don’t need to be a lawyer to know that was a violation of the Trade Descriptions Act.

He was asked, “Which famous blue cheese is paired with port?”

He replied, “Red Leicester.”

It gets worse.

“Which Marie won the Nobel Prize for Physics?”

He responded instantly, “Marie Antoinette.”

And my personal favourite:

“Which monarch succeeded Henry VIII?”

His answer? Henry VII.

Now, just to clarify, Henry VII preceded Henry VIII, not the other way around.

I’m not sure Mastermind was the show for David.

Perhaps he could try Pointless.

He’d work as either a contestant or an answer.

But in all seriousness, it’s great to be here in the proud, historic city of Manchester.

A city that has given our country so much but which has also suffered great tragedy.

Most recently, last week, when Heaton Park synagogue was attacked.

It was an attack on us all.

Thoughts and prayers? Yes, absolutely.

But I don’t know about you; I’m fed up with platitudes. We’ve had enough of those, haven’t we? I believe in justice and action.

While other parties have waxed and waned, I am so proud that our party, the Conservative Party, has always stood with our Jewish community.

And under Kemi’s leadership, I know we always will.

Because, Conference, a Britain where our British Jewish friends are afraid is just not Britain. And we will never stand for it.

Next year marks the thirtieth anniversary of another devastating attack in Manchester.

The IRA unleashed the biggest bomb to explode in England since the Second World War.

In more recent times, long after the Troubles ended, IRA members used so-called human rights laws to sue the British government for compensation while dragging our soldiers through the courts.

To stop this injustice, the last Conservative government passed the Legacy Act.

We took the side of our brave servicemen, the side of the victims, and above all, the side of the decent people of Britain.

We refused to give in, and that’s something everyone in this room should be truly proud of.

Now, I had a moral reason to back that bill, but also a personal one.

Like most Saturdays, my nan and grandad, Ivy and Sid, were here in Manchester city centre when that bomb went off.

We heard about it back home on the radio and had an anxious couple of hours while we waited.

Until finally, we heard that my grandparents had arrived home safely and were unharmed.

Fast forward to today, and elderly veterans who risked their lives to protect us from terrorists like those who bombed this city face spending their final days being dragged through the courts.

Why? Because Labour wants to repeal our Legacy Act.

It is shameful. Let that sink in.

The last generation’s heroes, betrayed by this generation’s sellouts.

It’s not right. It’s not justice.

And, Conference, never on our watch.

Now, we all knew Keir Starmer would be a bad Prime Minister.

But I don’t think anyone anticipated he would be this bad.

He’s combined the management style of David Brent with the administrative grip of Blackadder’s Baldrick.

He’s proven himself to be a freebie-grabbing, free speech-stifling, criminal-releasing, tax-raising, farmer-hating, Brexit-betraying, aspiration-sapping, sorry excuse for a leader.

And, Conference, this is someone who makes a hole in the air look substantial, Peter Mandelson appears trustworthy, and Mr Bean seems a model of competence and grip.

Despite all this, and this might surprise you, I think we have reason to be optimistic.

Because in the ways that matter most profoundly, the fantasists masquerading as experts are seeing their myths busted.

The people got it right while they got it wrong.

Wrong on mass migration.

Wrong on free speech.

Wrong on net zero.

Wrong on two-tier justice.

Make no mistake.

The old order is collapsing, and a new one is coming.

For too long, the chattering classes drowned out the voice of the people.

Our job, Conference, is to ensure that the people’s will prevails.

But it won’t be easy.

Because right now, the gap between the government and the governed is wider than ever before.

And, ladies and gentlemen, let me give you just one example of that great gulf: the Attorney General, Richard Hermer.

Like one of those infamous mafia lawyers of yesteryear, Hermer always chose a particular type of client: Shamima Begum, Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man, terrorists involved in 7/7.

Since taking office, we’re told Lord Hermer’s advice to Starmer and his cronies has been to give away the Chagos Islands to an ally of China and to pay billions of pounds for the privilege. In each of these incidents, he’s wasted no time establishing himself as a useful idiot for our enemies.

His rise symbolises the central truth of Keir Starmer’s government.

Labour is just not on Britain’s side.

Why on earth would Britain’s Attorney General change the law to enable our country’s enemies to sue the very government he represents?

Well, it makes more sense when you realise another of Lord Hermer’s former clients was, you guessed it, Gerry Adams.

Not long ago, a man with his past would have had no place in mainstream politics.

Now he sits at the cabinet table and influences decisions about our country, the same cabinet table the IRA tried to blow up in 1991.

Shame on him and shame on the man who appointed him.

Last week, at Labour Conference, Labour lined up to attack me for scrutinising judges for mind-bogglingly absurd judgments, like the Albanian criminal who avoided deportation because his son didn’t like the taste of foreign chicken nuggets in Albania.

Labour just don’t get it. They really don’t.

Now, you might be wondering what I have in this box.

Well, don’t worry; I’m not about to do a Michael Fabricant tribute act.

This is actually serious.

For those of you at the back of the room who can’t see, I have here a judge’s wig.

It’s something we should respect and revere.

When a judge dons their wig, it signifies a transition from their everyday personality and identity to that of a legal arbiter.

It’s a visual representation of the judge’s role as an unbiased mediator, focused solely on upholding the law and delivering justice.

An unbiased mediator: that is what a judge should be.

That is what the vast majority of judges in our legal system do.

They wear the wig. They respect and revere it.

And that’s why, in turn, our legal system is respected and revered all around the world.

But we’ve got a problem, Conference.

Today, I’ve uncovered dozens of judges with ties to open-borders charities, who take to social media to broadcast their open-border views, who’ve spent their careers fighting to keep illegal migrants in this country.

Some even continue to do so while, astonishingly, serving as judges.

It’s like finding out halfway through a football match that the referee is a season ticket holder for the other side.

The public rightly ask, how independent are they?

They dishonour generations of independent jurists who came before them and undermine the British people’s trust in the law itself.

Judges who blur the line between adjudication and activism can have no place in our justice system.

Which is why we won’t just tinker with a broken system and reform immigration tribunals.

We will abolish them, once and for all.

And we won’t stop there.

We will restore the proper role of our judiciary, putting ultimate power back where it belongs: in the hands of Parliament and ministers accountable to you, the people of our country.

So, I can announce today that we will restore the Office of the Lord Chancellor to its former glory.

We will reverse the constitutional vandalism of Tony Blair and New Labour.

The Lord Chancellor will once again appoint the judges. No more quangos.

And they will be instructed to never permit activists of any political hue to don the wig, ever again.

They will also be responsible for issuing new sentencing guidelines.

The two-tier Sentencing Council is not fit for purpose, so it must be abolished altogether.

Never again will this country and our people face the prospect of two-tier justice under two-tier Keir.

Every single person will be treated exactly the same.

Not equity. Equality.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the conservative, no, that is the British way to do justice.

Now, I know you’re all wondering: who’s the fourth blonde I mentioned at the beginning?

The one who would point the way to how we recover the fortunes of our party.

Is it Margaret Thatcher? Not this time.

Boris Johnson? No.

Lord Heseltine? Bear with me.

Now, as you can imagine, Michael Heseltine and I do not agree on everything.

But he told me that when he was a young man in opposition in the 1970s under Margaret Thatcher, he would wake up every morning and ask his wife, “How am I going to fight, fight, fight Labour today?”

And at the end of that day, he would lie in bed and ask his wife (he obviously wasn’t the most romantic man), “Tomorrow, how am I going to fight, fight, fight Labour?”

Now, I don’t say that to my wife in bed.

But I do think it.

And that is what each and every one of us must do.

Fight this failing Labour government. Fight for the future of our country.

And when we fight, we win.

Like forcing Sadiq Khan to go after those fare-dodgers who blight the capital.

Stopping two-tier sentencing rules and guidelines.

And ensuring there is equality before the law for everyone.

And, most importantly of all, led by Kemi, shaming the Labour Government to hold a full national inquiry into the rape gang scandal.

Don’t let anyone tell you that opposition is pointless.

It matters. And right now, it matters more than ever.

And, Conference, your support matters.

To the door knockers, the pavement pounders, the envelope stuffers, the tweeters, and the TikTokkers, the members and councillors across the length and breadth of this country: let me say to you, thank you.

Each day, in all kinds of ways, you’re getting things done far away from the wood-panelled corridors of Westminster.

Thank you for everything you are doing. You are making our country a better place.

And please, though it may feel tough, don’t ever forget what you are doing for all of us right now.

Now, we all know that feeling when you’ve eaten too much and you simply think, “Enough.”

As those of you who have known me for a while will know, I used to feel that a lot more often than I do today.

But speaking to people out in the country, I think the British people are now using that same word: enough.

Enough of being overlooked.

Enough of being treated like fools.

They see it, don’t they? When they watch freeloaders brazenly walk out of shops laden with goods they haven’t paid for.

They hear it when morons blast their music in public places with utter disregard for others.

And they feel it when they see the police ignore all these things yet find time to knock on someone’s door and scold them for a post on social media.

Dismissed, derided, and demeaned for so long.

The British people are patient and tolerant.

But only up to a point.

They’ve had enough.

I’ve read countless stories about how talented young people are abandoning the UK, emigrating to Dubai, Singapore, or Australia.

And not just because of the weather.

Conference, this is my message to you: we may be a little down, but our country is not out.

Because there is a better way.

There is so much good in our country that’s worth fighting for.

We’ve got so much to cherish about who we are.

Blue remembered hills, seen from Black Country towns.

Big skies over the flat acres of Nottinghamshire.

The best farmers, food, and drink in the world: from Aberdeen Angus beef to Hawkstone Lager.

A love of pubs, a love of animals.

The common law, jury trials, a Royal Family so admired that they make the most powerful man in the world go weak at the knees, a military that has defeated every force on the planet.

The roar of the crowd at Twickenham when the Red Roses beat the Canadians, or Chris Woakes, arm in a sling, goes out to bat at the Oval.

The quiet kindness of our hospice movement.

The millions of volunteers whose helping hands and broad shoulders make our society strong.

The spirit of builders, of makers, of doers, of givers.

These are the reasons our hearts swell when we think of Britain.

I see it, Conference, and so do you.

I see it when I travel around our country, even making the occasional video.

I’ve developed a Michael Portillo-esque knowledge of Britain’s motorway service stations.

So, if you’re watching, hello to all my friends at Greggs at Peterborough North Services. You might see me later this week.

But above all, as I’ve been visiting communities, I’ve asked a lot of questions.

And I’m telling you, out there, the spirit is strong.

I felt it when I went to Epping and stood with local mums, sick of illegal migration and determined to keep their families safe.

I felt it when I went out with tradesmen, gasfitters like my dad, sick of their livelihoods being wrecked when scumbags break into their vans and nick their tools, then sell them in plain sight at the local car boot sale.

I felt it when I talked to folk putting up flags, sick of their identity being sneered at.

The collapse of the old order is in sight. A new one is coming.

Because the British people are fighting back.

And, Conference, there’s absolutely nothing Labour can do to stop them.

The only choice we have is whether we have the spirit to fight with them.

Are we going to quit when the going gets tough? Or are we going to dig deep and fight like never before?

How long will our battle last?

As long as it takes.

Because Britain, for all its present flaws, is too precious to lose.

Let me not see our country’s honour fade.

Let us see our land retain her soul, her pride, her freedom.

Conference, every tide turns. And I can feel Britain’s fortunes turning.

So, let’s pick ourselves up and dust ourselves down.

Let’s draw on Britain’s greatness to make it greater still.

Let’s fight for a better future.

Let’s build this new order.

Let’s take our country back.

The statement made by Robert Jenrick, the Minister for Immigration, in the House of Commons on 17 July 2023.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a statement of changes in Immigration Rules.

Changes to the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) and EUSS Family Permit

We are making certain changes to the EUSS, which enables EU, other European economic area (EEA) and Swiss citizens living in the UK by the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020, and their family members, to obtain immigration status. In particular, meeting the deadline for the application (or, in line with the citizens’ rights agreements, having reasonable grounds for the delay in making an application) will become a requirement for making a valid application. Consistent with the agreements, this will enable us to consider whether there are reasonable grounds for a late application as a preliminary issue, before going on to consider whether a valid application meets the relevant eligibility and suitability requirements. We will also prevent a valid application as a joining family member being made by an illegal entrant to the UK, thereby reinforcing our approach to tackling illegal migration.

We are closing the EUSS on 8 August 2023 to new applications under two routes not covered by the agreements: family member of a qualifying British citizen (on their return to the UK having exercised free movement rights in the EEA or Switzerland, known as “Surinder Singh” cases) and primary carer of a British citizen (known as “Zambrano” cases). The UK made generous transitional provisions enabling such persons to access the EUSS for more than four years. It is now appropriate, as a matter of fairness to other British citizens wishing to sponsor foreign national family members to settle in the UK, that any new applications should have to meet the family immigration rules applicable to others. The routes will remain open to those who are already on them (or with a pending application, administrative review or appeal) or who have pending access to them via a relevant EUSS family permit.

The EUSS family permit will also close on 8 August 2023 to new applications by a family member of a qualifying British citizen. Those granted an EUSS family permit as such a family member via an application made by this date will still be able to come to the UK and apply to the EUSS.

Extension of the Ukraine Extension Scheme

We are extending the application deadline for the Ukraine extension scheme for a further six months to 16 May 2024.

This change extends the scheme to allow Ukrainian nationals and their family members who obtain permission to enter or stay in the UK for any period between 18 March 2022 and 16 November 2023 to apply to the Ukraine extension scheme and obtain 36 months’ permission to stay in the UK. All applications must now to be made by 16 May 2024.

The extension to the application deadline is intended to encourage people to apply for leave under the Ukraine extension scheme to ensure they maintain a lawful immigration status. This will provide greater certainty and clarity for the individual, the Home Office and other Government Departments and organisations which require evidence of immigration status to confirm entitlement to services.

Student Route (dependants and switching)

As announced by the Home Secretary on the 23 May 2023, and following the Government commitment to reduce net migration, we are removing the right for international students to bring dependants unless they are on postgraduate courses currently designated as research programmes. We are also removing the ability for international students to switch out of the student route into work routes before their studies have been completed.

These changes preserve the ability for dependants already in the UK to extend their stay, and for international students on taught postgraduate courses beginning before 1 January 2024 to bring dependants. They also preserve existing exemptions for dependants of Government-sponsored students and for dependent children who are born in the UK.

The switching restrictions will ensure that students are generally not switching in-country to another route until they have completed their course. Students on courses at degree level or above will be able to apply before course completion to switch to sponsored work routes, as long as their employment start date is not before course completion. Those studying towards PhDs will be able to switch after 24 months’ study.

Asylum—pausing the differentiation policy

Provisions within the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (NABA), which came into force on 28 June 2022, set out the framework to differentiate between two groups of refugees who ultimately remain in the UK: “group 1” and “group 2″.

The primary way in which the groups are differentiated is the grant of permission to stay: group 1 refugees are normally granted refugee permission to stay for five years, after which they can apply for settlement, whereas group 2 refugees are normally granted temporary refugee permission to stay for 30 months on a 10-year route to settlement.

The differentiation policy was intended to disincentivise migrants from using criminal smugglers to facilitate illegal journeys to the UK. This was the right approach. Since then, the scale of the challenge facing the UK, like other countries, has grown—and that is why the Government introduced the Illegal Migration Bill. The Bill goes further than ever before in seeking to deter illegal entry to the UK, so that the only humanitarian route into the UK is a safe and legal one. The Bill will radically overhaul how we deal with people who arrive in the UK illegally via safe countries, rendering their asylum and human rights claims (in respect of their home country) inadmissible and imposing a duty on the Home Secretary to remove them. This approach represents a considerably stronger means of tackling the same issue that the differentiation policy sought to address, people making dangerous and unnecessary journeys through safe countries to claim asylum in the UK.

We will therefore pause the differentiation policy in the next package of immigration rules changes in July 2023. This means we will stop taking grouping decisions under the differentiated asylum system after these rules changes and those individuals who are successful in their asylum application, including those who are granted humanitarian protection, will receive the same conditions. Our ability to remove failed asylum applicant remains unchanged.

Individuals who have already received a group 2 or humanitarian protection decision under post-28 June 2022 policies will be contacted and will have their conditions aligned to those afforded to group 1 refugees. This includes length of permission to stay, route to settlement, and eligibility for family reunion.

On 23 February 2023 the Home Office announced the streamlined asylum processing model for a small number of cases of nationalities with high asylum grant rates: Afghanistan, Eritrea, Libya, Syria and Yemen. Because this model focuses on manifestly well-founded cases, positive decisions can be taken without the need for an additional interview. No one will have their asylum application refused without the opportunity of an additional interview.

Those claims made between 28 June 2022 and the date of introduction of the Illegal Migration Bill (7 March 2023) will be processed according to this model. This, will also include claimants from Sudan. Sudanese legacy claimants are already being processed in line with established policies and processes and will be decided in line with the Prime Minister’s commitment to clear the backlog of legacy asylum claims by the end of 2023.

Improving Clarity Regarding Withdrawing Asylum Claims

The updated paragraph 333C provides clarity on the circumstances in which an asylum application will be withdrawn, whilst strengthening our ability to promptly withdraw asylum applications from individuals who do not comply with established processes.

It clarifies that there will be no substantive consideration of asylum claims that have been withdrawn and provides greater flexibility to accept explicit withdrawals where a claimant requests to withdraw their claim in writing but fails to do so on a specified form, in doing so preventing duplicative correspondence with the claimant.

In addition, the updates will support the efficient progression of applications by helping to prevent absconder scenarios by making it clear that the burden is on the claimant to keep the Home Office up to date with their contact details, and that failure to do so may result in a withdrawal of their asylum claim.

Furthermore, it is now made clear that failure to attend a reporting event may result in an asylum application being treated as implicitly withdrawn, ensuring efficiency with application progression through preventing potential absconder scenarios.

These changes will enable decision-making resources to be concentrated on those who genuinely wish to continue with their asylum claims in the United Kingdom.

The changes to the Immigration Rules are being laid on 17 July 2023.

The changes relating to asylum, pausing the differentiation policy and the changes relating to students will come into force at 3 pm today.

The changes relating to the EUSS will come into effect on 9 August 2023.

All other changes will come into effect on 7 August 2023.

The statement made by Robert Jenrick, the Minister for Immigration, in the House of Commons on 17 July 2023.

This House sent back to the House of Lords its 20 amendments to the Bill, many of which simply drove a coach and horses through the fabric of the legislation. We brought forward reasonable amendments where it was sensible to do so and it is disappointing, to say the least, the some of those have been rejected. I welcome the fact that the 20 issues that we debated last week have now been whittled down to nine, but the issue now before us is whether the clearly expressed views of this House, the elected Chamber—not just in the votes last week, but throughout the earlier passage of the Bill—should prevail.

We believe that inaction is not an option, that we must stop the boats and that the Bill is a key part of our plan to do just that. The message and the means must be absolutely clear and unambiguous: if people come to the UK illegally, they will not be able to stay here. Instead, they will be detained and returned to their home country or removed to a safe third country. There is simply no point in passing legislation that does not deliver a credible deterrent or provide the means to back it up with effective and swift enforcement powers.

We cannot accept amendments that provide for exceptions, qualifications and loopholes that would simply perpetuate the current cycle of delays and endless late and repeated legal challenges to removal. I listened carefully to the debate in the other place, but no new arguments were forthcoming and certainly no credible alternatives were provided.

Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)

I thoroughly endorse what my right hon. Friend says. This is a matter of extreme national interest, as is reflected in the votes of constituents throughout the country. They feel very strongly about these matters. Does he not agree that it is time for their lordships to take note of the fact that the British people want this legislation to go through? They want progress, given the extreme difficulties this is presenting to the British people.

Robert Jenrick

I strongly endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. This is an issue of the highest importance to the people we serve in this place. Of course there is a legitimate role for the other place in scrutinising legislation, but now is the time to move forward and pass this law to enable us to stop the boats.

Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has noted the remarks of Lord Clarke, who is not a particularly vicious right-wing creature. He said this Bill is entirely necessary and that we have to get on with it.

I also wonder whether my right hon. Friend has looked at today’s remarks by Lord Heseltine.

Lord Clarke and Lord Heseltine seem to have come up with a sensible option. We should go ahead with this Bill. We have to have much better European co-operation and, really, we have to build a wall around Europe. [Interruption.] And we have to do much more—this is what the Opposition might like—in terms of a Marshall plan to try to remove the conditions of sheer misery that cause people to want to leave these countries in the first place.

Robert Jenrick

I read the remarks of the noble Lord Clarke, and I entirely agree with his point, which is that, having listened to the totality of the debate in the House of Lords, he had not heard a single credible alternative to the Government’s plan. For that reason alone, it is important to support the Government.

I also agree with Lord Clarke’s broader point that this policy should not be the totality of our response to this challenge. Deterrence is an essential part of the plan, but we also need to work closely with our partners in Europe and further upstream. One initiative that the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and I have sought to pursue in recent months is to ensure that the United Kingdom is a strategic partner to each and every country that shares our determination to tackle this issue, from Turkey and Tunisia to France and Belgium.

Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. I believe that the Bill should go through, as we have to do something about the deaths in the channel, which is an important moral purpose.

I bring my right hon. Friend back to Lord Randall’s amendment on modern slavery. We agree quite a lot on this issue, and the Government have said that they will do stuff in guidance, so Lord Randall has taken the words spoken by my right hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box and put them on the face of the Bill—this amendment does exactly what my right hon. Friend promised the Government would do in guidance. The Government have not issued the guidance in detail, which is why the amendment was made. Why would we vote against the amendment today when my right hon. Friend’s words and prescriptions are now on the face of the Bill?

Robert Jenrick

First, the Lords amendment on modern slavery goes further by making the scheme, as we see it, much more difficult to establish. There are a number of reasons but, in particular, we think the complexity of the issue requires it to be provided for in statutory guidance rather than on the face of the Bill, in line with my assurances made on the Floor of the House. One of those assurances is particularly challenging to put in statutory guidance—where an incident has taken place in the United Kingdom, rather than an individual being trafficked here—and that is the point Lord Randall helpfully tried to bring forward.

We are clear that the process I have set out should be set out in statutory guidance, because the wording of the amendment is open to abuse by those looking to exploit loopholes. Those arriving in small boats would seek to argue that they have been trafficked into the UK and that the 30-day grace period should apply to them, on the basis that they qualify as soon as they reach UK territorial waters. The proposed provision is, for that reason, operationally impossible and serves only to create another loophole that would render the swift removal we seek impossible or impractical. The statutory guidance can better describe and qualify this commitment, by making it clear that the exploitation must have occurred once the person had spent a period of time within the UK and not immediately they get off the small boat in Kent. For that reason, we consider it better to place this on a statutory footing as guidance rather than putting it in the Bill.

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

The Democratic Unionist party is concerned about the trafficking of children and young people. My question is a simple one. We see economic migrants who are fit and healthy but none the less make that journey, and we see those who have had to leave their country because they have been persecuted, discriminated against or been subjected to brutal violence, or because their family members have been murdered. My party and I want to be assured that those who flee persecution have protection within this law, because we do not see that they do.

Robert Jenrick

We believe that they do, because at the heart of this scheme is the principle that if an individual comes to the UK illegally on a small boat, they will be removed back home if it is safe to do that—if they are going to a safe home country such as Albania. In determining that the country is safe, for example, as in the case of Albania, we would have sought specific assurances from it, if required. Alternatively, they will be removed to a safe third country, such as Rwanda, where, again we would have sought sufficient assurances that an individual would be well-treated there. As the hon. Gentleman can see in the courts at the moment, those assurances will be tested. So it is not the intention of the UK Government to expose any genuine victim of persecution to difficulties by removing them either back home and, in the process, enabling their refoulement, or to a country in which they would be unsafe. We want to establish a significant deterrent to stop people coming here in the first place, bearing in mind that the overwhelming majority of the individuals we are talking about who would be caught by the Bill were already in a place of safety. They were in France, which is clearly a safe country that has a fully functioning asylum system.

Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)

Let me take the right hon. Gentleman back to the criticism he was making of the other place, because if the elected House is about to break international law, it is entirely fitting that the other place should try to prevent that from happening. The Minister has stood at the Dispatch Box telling us that this Bill is about deterrence, whereas the Home Office’s own impact assessment has said:

“The Bill is a novel and untested scheme, and it is therefore uncertain what level of deterrence impact it will have.”

As a raft of children’s charities have pointed out, once routine child detention was ended in 2011 there was no proportional increase in children claiming asylum. So will he come clean and accept that this Bill absolutely will have the effect, even if it does not have the intention, of meaning that people trying to escape persecution will not be able to come here, because there are not sufficient safe and legal routes?

Robert Jenrick

I am not sure exactly what the hon. Lady’s question was. If it was about access to safe and legal routes, let me be clear, as I have in numerous debates on this topic, that since 2015 the UK has welcomed more than 500,000 individuals here—it is nearer to 550,000 now—for humanitarian purposes. That is a very large number. The last statistics I saw showed that we were behind only the United States, Canada and Sweden on our global United Nations-managed safe and legal routes, and we were one of the world’s biggest countries for resettlement schemes. That is a very proud record. The greatest inhibitor today to the UK doing more on safe and legal routes is the number of people coming across the channel illegally on small boats, taking up capacity in our asylum and immigration system. She knows that only too well, because we have discussed on a number of occasions one of the most concerning symptoms of this issue, which is unaccompanied children who are having to stay in a Home Office-procured hotel near to her constituency because local authorities do not have capacity to flow those individuals into safe and loving foster care as quickly as we would wish. That issue is exactly emblematic of the problem that we are trying to fix. If we can stop the small boats, we can do more, as a country, and be an even greater force for good in the world.

Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)

Will the Minister set out how my constituent will be protected? He is Albanian and has been subjected to modern slavery by gangs from Albania. He has three bullet holes in his body and, if he returns, perhaps those gangs will give him more. How will he be protected?

Robert Jenrick

The existing arrangement that we have secured with Albania—incidentally, Albania is a signatory to the European convention against trafficking — enables us to safely return somebody home to Albania, with specific assurances to prevent them being retrafficked to the United Kingdom and to enable them to be supported appropriately upon arrival.

On the broader issue of modern slavery, the Bill makes a number of important protections when we establish the scheme. If they are party to a law enforcement investigation, their removal from the country will be stayed. We have said that we will bring forward statutory guidance, giving them a 30-day period, allied to the period set out in ECAT, to come forward and work with law enforcement, which is extendable if that enforcement activity goes on for some time. We would then only remove that person either back home to a safe country, such as Albania, or to a country, such as Rwanda, where we have put in place appropriate procedures to ensure that that Government, in turn, looks after them.

I point the hon. Lady to the judgment in the Court of Appeal that made some criticisms of the Government’s approach, but did not say that the arrangements in Rwanda with respect to modern slaves were inappropriate; it supported the Government in that regard. We will clearly put in place appropriate procedures to ensure that victims, such as the one she refers to, are properly supported.

Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)

Many opponents of the Bill seem to support uncapped safe and legal routes. The reality of that would be that potentially over 1 million people could get the ability to come here. Does the Minister agree that those proposing that should be open and honest about it, and explain what the dramatic consequences would be for public services and community cohesion in this country?

Robert Jenrick

I completely agree. Anyone who feels that this country has sufficient resource to welcome significant further numbers of individuals at the present time, should look at the inbox of the Minister for Immigration. It is full of emails and letters from members of the public, local authorities and Members of Parliament, on both sides of the House, complaining that they do not want to see further dispersal accommodation and worrying about GP surgery appointments, pressure on local public services and further hotels. I understand all those concerns, which is why we need an honest debate about the issue.

That is why, at the heart of the Bill, there is not only a tough deterrent position for new illegal entrants, but a consultation on safe and legal routes, where we specifically ask local authorities, “What is your true capacity?” If we bring forward further safe and legal routes, they will be rooted in capacity in local authorities, so that those individuals are not destined to be in hotels for months or years, but go straight to housing and support in local authorities. That must be the right way for us to live up to our international obligations, rather than the present situation that, all too often, is performative here, and then there are major problems down the road.

Let me reply to issues other than modern slavery in the amendments before us. On the issue of detention, we believe that a necessary part of the scheme, provided for in the Bill, is that there are strong powers. Where those subject to removal are not detained, the prospects of being able to effect removal are significantly reduced, given the likelihood of a person absconding, especially towards the end of the process.

We have made changes to the provision for pregnant women, which I am pleased have been accepted by the Lords, and unaccompanied children, but it is necessary for the powers to cover family groups, as to do otherwise would introduce a gaping hole in the scheme, as adult migrants and the most disgusting people smugglers would seek to profit from migrants and look to co-opt unaccompanied children to bogus family groups to avoid detention. That not only prevents the removal of the adults, but presents a very real safeguarding risk to children.

On unaccompanied children, we stand by the amendments agreed by the House last week. They provided a clear differentiation between the arrangements for the detention of adults and those for the detention of unaccompanied children. The amendments agreed by this House provide for judicial oversight after eight days’ detention where that detention is for the purpose of removal.

On the standards of accommodation, I have been clear that unaccompanied children, including those whose age is disputed, will be detained only in age-appropriate accommodation, and that existing secondary legislation—the Detention Centre Rules 2001—sets out important principles governing the standards of such accommodation.

Last week, some Members asked whether unaccompanied children would also receive age-appropriate care while in detention. The answer to that is an emphatic yes. The operating standards for immigration removal centres contain provisions around the treatment of children, including requirements on the education and play facilities that must be provided for children.

Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)

I thank my right hon. Friend for making it clear that, if there is any doubt about the age of an unaccompanied child, they will be treated as a child. I also thank him for saying that, if a child is detained, it will be in an age-appropriate centre. However, on the issue of what is age-appropriate, I will just say that I have looked at the operating standards to which he referred. It is an 82-page document. It has no mention of unaccompanied children. It talks about who looks after the locks and hinges and where the tools and the ladders are to be stored, but there is nothing about how we keep these children happy, healthy and safe from harm. I point him instead to the guidance for children’s care homes and ask him gently if we could update the rules on detention centres to make sure that they look more like the rules we have for safeguarding children in care homes.

Robert Jenrick

My right hon. Friend makes a number of important points. The guidance is very detailed, but I am sure that it would benefit from updating. Therefore, the points that she has made and that other right hon. and hon. Members have made in the past will be noted by Home Office officials. As we operationalise this policy, we will be careful to take those into consideration. We are all united in our belief that those young people who are in our care need to be treated appropriately.

Let me turn now to the Lords amendment on modern slavery—I hope that I have answered the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). This seeks to enshrine in the Bill some of the assurances that I provided in my remarks last week in respect of people who are exploited in the UK. However, for the reason that I have just described, we think that that is better done through statutory guidance. In fact, it would be impractical, if not impossible, to do it through the Bill.

Sir Iain Duncan Smith

The point that my right hon. Friend made earlier is that, somehow, those people will be able to get into the UK and make a false claim. However, the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 already provides for that, so anyone found to have made a false claim will be disqualified, and disqualified quite quickly. The critical thing is to prosecute the traffickers. That way, we can stop them trafficking more people on the boats. My worry is that this provision will put off many people from giving evidence and co-operating with the police for fear that they may still be overridden and sent abroad while they are doing it and then be picked up by the traffickers. Does he give any credence to the fear that this may end up reducing the number of prosecutions of traffickers as a result?

Robert Jenrick

I understand my right hon. Friend’s position, and it is right that he is vocalising it, but we do not believe that what he says is likely. The provision that we have made in the statutory guidance that I have announced will give an individual 30 days from the positive reasonable grounds decision to confirm that they will co-operate with an investigation in relation to their exploitation. That should give them a period of time to recover, to come forward and to work with law-enforcement. That is a period of time aligned with the provisions of ECAT, so we rely on the decision of the drafters of ECAT to choose 30 days rather than another, potentially longer, period. That is an extendable period, so where a person continues to co-operate with such an investigation, they will continue to be entitled to the support and the protections of the national referral mechanism for a longer period.

Sir Iain Duncan Smith

I just want to make it clear that under the new regulations, the Secretary of State can still feasibly decide that, even if someone is co-operating, they do not need to remain in the UK for that. That is the critical bit: they live under the fear that they can be moved somewhere else to give that evidence. Does the Minister not agree that that will put a lot of people off giving evidence?

Robert Jenrick

I hope that that is not borne out. It is worth remembering that we will not remove anyone to a country in which they would be endangered. We would be removing that person either back to their home country, if we consider it safe to do so, usually because the country is an ECAT signatory and has provisions in place, or to a safe third country such as Rwanda, where once again we will have put in place significant provisions to support the individual. I hope that that provides those individuals with the confidence to come forward and work with law enforcement to bring the traffickers to book.

Vicky Ford

I am particularly interested in the arrival of unaccompanied children in this country, because obviously the Minister has tightened up the eight-day period for them on exit. I believe that he just agreed with me that the standards for age-appropriate accommodation in detention centres need to be updated to look more like those for children’s homes. Is he prepared to concede that no unaccompanied child should be put in such a detention centre until that update of the rules has been undertaken?

Robert Jenrick

I understand the point that my right hon. Friend makes, but I am not sure that that is necessary, because the Detention Centre Rules 2001 are very explicit in the high standards expected. They set the overall standard, and underlying them will no doubt be further guidance and support for individuals who are working within the system. If there is work to be done on the latter point, we should do that and take account of her views and those of others who are expert in this field, but the Detention Centre Rules are very explicit in setting high overarching standards for this form of accommodation. That is exactly what we would seek to live up to; in fact, it would be unlawful if the Government did not.

Vicky Ford

In a children’s home, we would expect there to be the right to access a social worker and advocacy, and for the child to have the care that they particularly need. We would expect Ofsted to oversee that, not prison inspectors.

Robert Jenrick

I am grateful for those points. Social workers will clearly be at the heart of all this work, as they are today. Every setting in which young people are housed by the Home Office, whether it be an unaccompanied asylum-seeking children hotel, which we mentioned earlier, or another facility, has a strong contingent of qualified social workers who support those young people. I am certain that social workers will be at the heart of developing the policy and then, in time, operationalising it.

Their lordships have attempted but failed to smooth the rough edges of their wrecking amendments on legal proceedings, but we need be in no doubt that they are still wrecking amendments. They would tie every removal up in knots and never-ending legal proceedings. It is still the case that Lords amendment 1B would incorporate the various conventions listed in the amendment into our domestic law. An amendment shoehorned into the Bill is not the right place to make such a significant constitutional change. It is therefore right that we continue to reject it.

Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)

Will the Minister give way?

Robert Jenrick

I will not, because I need to close my remarks; this is a short debate.

Lords amendment 9B continues to undermine a core component of the Bill: that asylum and relevant human rights claims are declared inadmissible. The Lords amendment would simply encourage illegal migrants to game the system and drag things out for as long as possible, in the hope that they would become eligible for asylum here.

Lords amendment 23B brings us back to the issue of the removal of LGBT people to certain countries. The Government are a strong defender of LGBT rights across the globe. There is no question of sending a national of one of the countries listed in the amendment back to their home country if they fear persecution based on their sexuality. The Bill is equally clear that if an LGBT person were to be issued with a removal notice to a country where they fear persecution on such grounds, or indeed on any other grounds, they could make a serious harm suspensive claim and they would not be removed—

Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)

Will the Minister give way?

Robert Jenrick

I will not, because I need to bring my remarks to a close now. They would not be removed until that claim and any appeal had been determined. As I said previously, the concerns underpinning the amendments are misplaced and the protections needed are already in the Bill.

On safe and legal routes, Lords amendment 102B brings us to the question of when new such routes come into operation. The amendment again seeks to enshrine a date in the Bill itself. I have now said at the Dispatch Box on two occasions that we aim to implement any proposed new routes as soon as is practical, and in any event by the end of 2024. I have made that commitment on behalf of the Government and, that being the case, there is simply no need for the amendment. We should not delay the enactment of this Bill over such a non-issue.

Lords amendment 103B, tabled by the Opposition, relates to the National Crime Agency. Again, it is a non-issue and the amendment is either performative or born out of ignorance and a lack of grasp of the detail. The NCA’s functions already cover tackling organised immigration crime, and men and women in that service work day in, day out to do just that. There is no need to change the statute underlying the organisation.

Finally, we have Lords amendment 107B, which was put forward by the Archbishop of Canterbury. This country’s proud record of providing a safe haven for more than half a million people since 2015 is the greatest evidence that we need that the UK is already taking a leading international role in tackling the refugee crisis. This Government are working tirelessly with international and domestic partners to tackle human trafficking, and continue to support overseas programmes. We will work with international partners and bring forward proposals for additional safe and legal routes where necessary.

However well-intentioned, this amendment remains unnecessary. As I said to his grace the Archbishop, if the Church wishes to play a further role in resettlement, it could join our community sponsorship scheme—an ongoing and global safe and legal route that, as far as I am aware, the Church of England is not currently engaged with.

This elected House voted to give the Bill a Second and Third Reading. Last Tuesday, it voted no fewer than 17 times in succession to reject the Lords amendments and an 18th time to endorse the Government’s amendments in lieu relating to the detention of unaccompanied children. It is time for the clear view of the elected House to prevail. I invite all right hon. and hon. Members to stand with the Government in upholding the will of the democratically elected Commons, to support the Government motions and to get on with securing our borders and stopping the boats.

The statement made by Robert Jenrick, the Minister for Immigration, in the House of Commons on 17 April 2023.

On 13 December 2022, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement on tackling illegal migration and a clear plan to bring the system back into balance.

Under our immigration system, where we refuse an asylum or human rights claim which is so clearly without substance that it is bound to fail, we can certify it as clearly unfounded under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Where the claimant is from a designated safe country the claim must be certified as clearly unfounded unless the decision maker is satisfied it is not clearly unfounded. Following the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, cases certified as clearly unfounded do not have a right of appeal.

When the power under section 94 was introduced in 2002, the then Labour Government gave an undertaking to Parliament that every case certified as clearly unfounded would be looked at by two specially trained officials, with additional quality checks on top of that.

This Government believe it is important to have procedures in place to ensure that those who make clearly unfounded human rights and asylum claims are quickly removed from the UK. That is why only specially trained caseworkers can decide that a claim should be certified. However, the current requirement for a second check to be conducted by a different Home Office official on every certified decision is delaying the conclusion of claims which are bound to fail. We must maximise our capacity to progress clearly unfounded cases in a more efficient way.

For these reasons, protection and human rights claims which are certified under section 94 as clearly unfounded will no longer have to be checked by a second specially trained official. This change will help ensure that the Home Office can certify unfounded cases more efficiently under section 94, so that those who have no basis to be in the UK can be swiftly removed.

The Home Office already operates a robust quality assurance framework for non-certified decisions which helps to maintain the quality of casework decisions and expertise. The specific quality check undertaken for section 94 decisions is no longer necessary, therefore we are improving the assurance process and aligning it with checks adopted on other decisions. Claims certified under section 94 will be regularly reviewed which will ensure that the certification process continues to be applied with careful scrutiny.

The speech made by Robert Jenrick, the Minister for Immigration, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2023.

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on illegal migration.

Three months ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out a comprehensive plan to tackle illegal migration. We said we would act, and we have. We have increased immigration enforcement visits to their highest levels in recent years: since December, more than 3,500 enforcement visits have been carried out and more than 4,000 people with no right to be here have been removed. Anglo-French co-operation is now closer than ever before and will be deepened because of the deal struck by the Prime Minister earlier this month. We have expanded our partnership with Rwanda to include the relocation of all those who pass through safe countries to make illegal and dangerous journeys to the United Kingdom. Our modern slavery reforms, introduced in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 to prevent those who seek to abuse our generosity from doing so, are bearing fruit. We are tackling the backlog in our asylum system by cutting unnecessary paperwork and simplifying country guidance. As a result, productivity has increased and we are on track to process the backlog of initial asylum decisions by the end of this year.

We must ensure that our laws enable us to deal with the global migration crisis, which is why we have brought forward the Illegal Migration Bill. The Bill goes further than any previous immigration legislation to fix the problem of small boats, while remaining within the boundaries of our treaty obligations. Of course, as we reform the asylum system, we will continue to honour our country-specific and global safe and legal commitments.

But we cannot and will not stop here, because illegal migration continues to impact the British public in their day-to-day lives. The sheer number of small boat arrivals has overwhelmed our asylum system and forced the Government to place asylum seekers in hotels. These hotels take valuable assets away from communities and place pressures on local public services. Seaside towns have lost tourist trade, weddings have been cancelled and local councils have had their resources diverted to manage them. The hard-working British taxpayer has been left to foot the eye-watering £2.3 billion a year bill. We must not elevate the wellbeing of illegal migrants above that of the British people; it is in their interests that we are sent here.

The enduring solution to stop the boats is to take the actions outlined in our Bill, but in the meantime it is right that we act to correct the injustice of the current situation. I have heard time and again of councils up and down the country struggling to accommodate arrivals. This is no easy task; the Government recognise that placing asylum seekers into local areas comes at a cost, and so central Government will provide further financial support. Today, we are announcing a new funding package, which includes generous additional per-bed payments and continuation of the funding for every new dispersal bed available. We will also pilot an additional incentive payment where properties are made available faster.

However, faced with the scale of the challenge, we must fundamentally alter our posture towards those who enter our country illegally. This Government remain committed to meeting our legal obligations to those who would otherwise be destitute, but we are not prepared to go further. Accommodation for migrants should meet their essential living needs and nothing more, because we cannot risk becoming a magnet for the millions of people who are displaced and seeking better economic prospects. Many of our European partners are struggling with the same issue: Belgium, Ireland, Germany and France are having to take similar steps, and the UK must adapt to this changing context.

I have said before that we have to suffuse our entire system with deterrence, and this must include how we house illegal migrants. So today the Government are announcing the first tranche of sites we will set up to provide basic accommodation at scale. The Government will use military sites being disposed of in Essex and Lincolnshire and a separate site in East Sussex. These will be scaled up over the coming months and will collectively provide accommodation to several thousand asylum seekers through repurposed barrack blocks and portakabins. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is showing leadership on this issue by bringing forward proposals to provide accommodation at the Catterick garrison barracks in his constituency. We also continue to explore the possibility of accommodating migrants in vessels, as they are in Scotland and in the Netherlands.

I want to be clear: these sites on their own will not end the use of hotels overnight. But alongside local dispersal and other forms of accommodation, which we will bring forward in due course, they will relieve pressure on our communities, and manage asylum seekers in a more appropriate and cost-effective way. Of course, we recognise the concerns of local residents and we are acutely aware of the need to minimise the impact of these sites on communities. Basic healthcare will be available, around-the-clock security will be provided on site and our providers will work closely with local police and other partners. Funding will be provided to local authorities in which these sites are located.

These sites are undoubtedly in the national interest. We have to deliver them if we are to stop the use of hotels. We have to deliver them to save the British public from spending eye-watering amounts on accommodating illegal migrants. And we have to deliver them to prevent a pull factor for economic migrants on the continent from taking hold. Inaction is not an option. The British people rightly want us to tackle illegal migration. As I have set out today, we are doing exactly that and I commend this statement to the House.