Alex Norris MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 1 Sept 2026 · Criminal Justice Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I totally agree. It is sad that this needs to be stated, but there must always be places for people to go to prison when they have committed serious offences; the worst-case scenario would be either trials collapsing or people being rebailed back to the situation in which they were offending. That is why we have made the changes we have made.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Criminal Justice Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the chance to address that. That system is coming to an end because it is 15 years old. It is right that we address that. I want there to be much better tech enablement across the Probation Service. I met staff and heard about the importance of AI transcription, which is able to reduce their paperwork load. We of course want to have effective workload management tools in place. That is what myself and my hon. Friend the Prisons Minister are working closely on as we move to the new model.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Criminal Justice Reform · Hansard source

  More

  That is an excellent suggestion by my right hon. Friend; I will be in touch with Bob. We do not intend for this to be a long, drawn-out process. We want to build from the best evidence that is available from those who have been active in this space. I certainly will make sure that I contact Bob to see how he can help us in this process. I remember him very fondly from his time in this place.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Criminal Justice Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think there has to be a binary choice between those two things. I want to recognise the good work that the Parole Board does. I think there is definitely a challenge, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say, around support for those who have been in prison for a decade longer than they were sentenced to. As I say, people in those circumstances might struggle to adapt to life on the outside. It is incumbent on us to work across Government; our Probation Service does so much, and other wraparound things can help us to go further. I think that the hon. Gentleman would accept, as I do, that these sentences have more than had their time—let us work together to bring them to an end.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Criminal Justice Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the shadow Secretary of State’s kind words of welcome. I do not know him well, but I know that he, like me, shares a love for this country and that everything he does is seen through that prism. My commitment to him is to work with him. There will be times, perhaps even including today, when we will need to disagree in the best traditions of this place, but I know there will be a lot that brings us together over the months and hopefully years to come. On plans and changed plans, I make no apology—certainly not to the Opposition—for being able to grab hold of a system that, when we left here in July, was not going to exclude rape offences, child sex offences and those who have taken lives. We have now done that, which is good. I recognise that it has created uncertainty and I apologise to victims, but I hope they understand that it was done with noble purpose. We must now use the time available to make sure that victims get the right support, particularly when it comes to shaping restrictions on offenders if they do come out. The hon. Gentleman mentions plans. The reality is that if we followed his plan, we would have a prison system that would be bust before Christmas. What would that mean for justice in this country? How could that be right? He jumps on the phrase “business as usual”. The point I am trying to make is that this Parliament has changed legislation. The Sentencing Act is the basis on which standard determinate sentences will be governed, and that will be the case for the foreseeable future. Linked to that, he talks about how the changes will come into force. That will be done via varying the commencement order. He talks about home detention. I can say that I have no intention of going any further. The work we have put in as a result of the Sentencing Act is our way of managing the pressure in the system. On capacity, the hon. Gentleman asks for clarity. Well, I can provide a little bit of clarity: we should be clear that we have added 374 places in the adult male estate since the general election. Now, that is nowhere near where we want to get to as the end state—that is why our building programme has 14,000 places in it—but I would hope that wanting to do more is a point of shared interest. Of course, things do come in and out of the estate, including because of fire damage; I would not underestimate the importance of contamination either. Nevertheless, there will of course be significant places added in this Parliament and in our programme to 2031. The hon. Gentleman also asks about the chance to scrutinise the data. He will know that, under the Sentencing Act, we are committed to publishing an annual report. That is what we will do, and I am sure that he and I will get into it at that point. On foreign national offenders, if the hon. Gentleman has doubts, I will state my record to him and to the House. We have increased by 41% the removal of foreign offenders in this country. I gently say that that was my role in the Home Office, so he should not doubt my vigour. He mentions changes to article 3. He will know about the important work done on that at the Council of Europe. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), has done a lot of important work in that space. Similarly, our work on article 8 is important and I hope the hon. Gentleman will support that when it comes before Parliament. He should not doubt our vigour; as I say, we are already doing well better than his predecessors—they are sat next to him, so he can talk to them about that—and we will go further. Let me finish on the IPP point, because I am really interested to see how it does and does not hold. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a champion of individual liberty and a sceptic of what he thinks is uneven justice. If I am able to make this acknowledgment, I hope he will at least reflect on it: there is a real dissatisfaction, as a result of the changes we have had to make, that some people will leave prison earlier than their sentence dictated, and that in many cases there will be people who are still there 10 years after. There is no easy solution to that. All I ask of him is to engage in a process to bring that to its resolution.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  You are not alone in that assessment, Madam Deputy Speaker—you are not alone! It is a privilege to close this debate. Today the House is going through the collective trauma of the loss—the murder—of one of our former Members, Ann Widdecombe. During the Home Secretary statement earlier, colleagues from across the House spoke about the forthright way in which Ann Widdecombe put her views, never fearing to tell people that they were wrong, but always listening and keen to engage. The debate we have had today has been in that very best tradition of this House; I have agreed with lots of what colleagues have said, and disagreed with lots, too. I hope to cover as much of it as possible. It is important to recognise where this Government started from. Two years ago, we inherited a total lack of control and order at our borders; an asylum system in which criminal gangs, not the Government, decided who came into the country; hundreds of hotels being used to house vast numbers of people at enormous cost to the public; and decision making that had quite simply ground to a halt. We have changed that reality. The system that we inherited worked for neither the collective, nor the refugees who wanted protection. It was a reality that has had to change; it is a journey that we are on. We have made significant progress. Asylum decision making is up, costs are down, and we are on track to close all asylum hotels in this Parliament. We are seeing a reduction in demand for asylum, getting us much closer to more usual levels for this country. However, we have a long way to go in order to win back the trust of the British public, which is why this Bill is needed.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am really sorry, but I cannot. On Shabir Ahmed, my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) and for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) made really important points. They heard me say it last Monday, and they will hear me say it again: from the Government’s point of view, all options are on the table. We believe that this legislation provides a really good vehicle to tackle this challenge, alongside working on removals too. I will be very keen to continue to engage with hon. and right hon. Members on this, but I am glad, as I think everyone in this debate has been, that we have the opportunity to move forward on this shared priority. On safe and legal means, my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton and for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) talked about what British people will do if given schemes that are ordered and controlled, and I totally agree. I have seen it in my own community with the schemes on Ukraine, Hong Kong British nationals overseas, Afghanistan and Syria. What British people will not accept is a lack of order and control. That is what is at the heart of this Bill and the Government’s approach. We have the chance to pivot from that broken model to a fixed model that works within our values and keeps public confidence too. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow talked about the overseas domestic worker visa. I would encourage her, if she has not already, to talk to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). She will know that we are reviewing it at the moment, but if she thinks the Bill is a good vehicle for pushing the points that she makes very well, I would agree. Finally, on contracts, I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh said—that is why we are going to reform them. With that, I commend the Bill to the House. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Houses in multiple occupation have always been a part of providing refuge for people with mental health issues, people fleeing domestic abuse and those in many other circumstances. Use of them can be right. We want to find the right balance and ensure, through our policy of full dispersal, that the burden is shared more equitably. Fundamentally, we want to reduce demand—that is at the heart of the debate. The Bill does five things, and I will try to group the points made by hon. Members around those five things. On the independent immigration appeals authority, we heard lots from the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), from my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), for Bassetlaw (Jo White), for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), and from the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). I want to recognise the important work that judges do in the system. They work hard and have been creative to provide more capacity, and I am grateful to them for doing so. Nevertheless, I want to be clear with the House that simply trying to sweat the existing model will not give us the capacity that we need to have a functioning appeals system. That is why we are making these changes. I cannot accept that the lack of legal training in itself is a weakness in this model. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, we see it, for instance, in the magistrates system. We also know that other countries, such as Canada and New Zealand, have lay adjudication as well. Colleagues have made important points about the independence of the appeals body and the potential blurring of lines with the Executive. We have no desire whatsoever to do that. I think that what is on the face of the Bill shows that separation clearly, but we will nevertheless work with colleagues throughout the passage of the Bill to give them the confidence that, as I say, we have no desire to blur those lines. On the impact assessment, a lot of the uncertainty relates to the fact that we are not setting an arbitrary timeline by which the new system must be fully operational. We have to have security that the system will stand up properly, including with a period of double running. That is why there is a degree of uncertainty. Nevertheless, we need the greater capacity that the system will give us. On the European convention on human rights, again, we have heard important contributions from colleagues across the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), and the hon. Members for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) and for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking). On this point, we have a contrast. We have the empty calories offered by the Opposition in their reasoned amendment, with the idea that all our issues could be solved by leaving international agreements—which would, in fact, make all of us weaker. These rights, both domestic and international, are for all of us. In lieu of serious answers, the Opposition try to offer us three-word solutions, but that will not work in this case. They talk about this in the context of returns, but returns need two things: yes, an individual must be barrier-free legally, but there must also be a place for that individual to return to. Having negotiated returns agreements around the world, I say gently to colleagues that resiling from very important international agreements would weaken the process, rather than strengthen it. What I will say to those on the Government Benches, but perhaps not to those on the Opposition Benches, is that we must ensure that we do not defend a broken status quo, although I am happy to say that I did not hear much of that in the debate. We must recognise that it is not unreasonable to seek to align those agreements a little better, particularly when they are being applied more broadly domestically than in Strasbourg case law. I think that is an entirely reasonable thing to do. We have heard from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about the ways in which some people have sought to game the process. We should close the loopholes so that we maintain can public confidence and consent for the ECHR.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid not. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow mentioned core protection. It is right that we simplify the protection status in this country and put into statute what we put into the immigration rules in the spring. I say to those who are concerned about the 30-month status that I have been clear from this Dispatch Box and in other forums that we do not want people to stay on core protection for long periods of time. If they switch to a protected work and study route, it will take them out of the 30-month renewal, as will coming via safe and legal means. Let me turn to asylum support. Important contributions were made by the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) and for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), and by my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) and for North Northumberland (David Smith). In principle, it is reasonable to recognise that support for asylum seekers is a unique thing and that it comes from a significant multibillion-pound contribution made by British taxpayers. It is right, and perfectly in line with the refugee convention and our international obligations, that we ask for a contribution towards that. I cannot recognise or agree with the concerns around destitution. We have been very clear that this is about when people have the means to earn. We do not want to choke off someone’s life that they are building in Britain, and we certainly would not want to push people into poverty. I have heard from colleagues, particularly Labour Members, that they want to see greater detail. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made the commitment in her opening speech that we will publish that regime as this legislation goes through, so that colleagues will know exactly what we are seeking to put into practice. On modern slavery, lots of colleagues talked about their own personal records in this space, and I say to them: well, me too. I have been doing this for nine years in this place; I have always used my platform to push for better protections against slavery. Some colleagues—including the right hon. Members for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) and for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—asked, “Why is this in here?” First, it is an opportunity to strengthen the regime. I have spoken about transparency in supply chains and section 54 for all my years in this place. This provision strengthens that, and it recognises that there are ways in which the system is being used in interaction with the immigration system. On the late disclosures, I accept that not everybody’s recovery from slavery will allow them to immediately disclose that they have been a slave—they may not even recognise it themselves or have overcome their trauma. We are saying that when that is used at the very, very last minute—as it has multiple hundred times in the last hours before removal—the court ought to take into consideration whether that is really being declared in good faith or not. That will still be a rebuttable proposition, but I think that is right. Similarly on the public order disqualification, I urge colleagues to look at what is in the Bill. It is totally reasonable for the Government of the day to say that the interaction of slavery protections should not trump considerations of national security. If people do seek to do terror and are convicted of terror offences, then of course that must be taken into account.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Ukrainian Refugees · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend raises an important issue here. I know from my own community, where the immigration conversation is sometimes very difficult indeed, that those who raise frustration at the lack of order and control in the system—as inherited from our predecessors —are the same people who leaned into the Ukrainian scheme, the Hong Kong British national overseas scheme, the Afghan resettlement scheme and the Syrian scheme. The message that I take from that is that when the British people see that systems are ordered, controlled and for those who need protection, and when we know who is coming, then they lean into it. That is the spirit of our reforms to the system, and I hope my hon. Friend, and all right hon. and hon. Members, will support us in that venture with the Immigration and Asylum Bill.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Ukrainian Refugees · Hansard source

  More

  When people wish to move back, we want to support that in any way we can. The point about savings is a new one to me. If the hon. Lady was to write to me, we would help in whatever way we could.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Ukrainian Refugees · Hansard source

  More

  I am sad to hear about that case. The hon. Lady partially answers the question for me in the sense that the Government have ensured that Artem will be eligible for a 24-month extension period. That gives greater certainty not just to individuals about their future, but to employers and course leaders so that they can take a longer view in the light of the opportunities available to Ukrainians in the UK.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Ukrainian Refugees · Hansard source

  More

  The Government remain grateful to the British public for the generosity shown to Ukrainians who sought sanctuary in the UK. The Ukrainian scheme provides a substantial offer of support and demonstrates our commitment to the Ukrainian people. The Government have been clear from the outset that the offer of sanctuary is temporary, and that position has not changed. We continue to consider future arrangements for Ukrainians in the UK and will provide an update on longer term arrangements in due course.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  We recognise that threat—we monitor hundreds of protests a year. In a democracy, people have to be able to make their case, but that should never tip into harassment, abuse or the type of disruption that the hon. Gentleman talks about. Our job is first to fix the system, and I hope that he will support us today in that venture, but we are clear that we will not accept harassment, intimidation or any type of prejudice.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have fond memories, in both childhood and adulthood, of Blackpool. I am glad to see the Metropole back on the journey to its proper purpose, because I know that it is a crucial part of the golden mile. I am not sure that it is within my ministerial remit to direct refurbishments of hotels. Nevertheless, I want it to be the best possible asset for my hon. Friend’s community, and I have offered to come with him to help promote the local economy to ensure that it is.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question and his time, to Madam Deputy Speaker for her time and advocacy and indeed to the local councillors for their time. I was very concerned to hear the reports about those drinking off site. We are looking closely, as I have said to the hon. Gentleman, at ensuring that that does not happen. We already block merchant codes on Aspen cards to prevent it. We are talking about a relatively small amount of money—£9.95 each week—but we do not want to see that spent on alcohol. The sites themselves are alcohol-free. I am not quite sure that breath testing is the way that we need to enforce this, but I nevertheless share his vigour to stop it.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman will know that 70,000 people have been removed by this Government—41% up on the figure under our predecessors. He makes a good point about data, which has been the subject of our response to a recent report by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. We are looking at the issue closely because we want colleagues in this House and the public at large to have the best possible data to work from, so that we can have the most informed conversation possible.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The ECHR provides important protection both for ourselves and for those who are abroad. We have been clear that we inherited a system without order or control, and we are restoring that order and control to the system. Part of that involves the reform of article 8 of the ECHR, exactly as the hon. Gentleman says. If he has the vigour to support such action, he will not have to wait long—in fact, at 10 o’clock tonight he will have the chance to show it.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am slightly saddened by the hon. Gentleman’s question. He and I had a very good conversation about the nature of the supported population in his constituency, and he knows that we work very closely, under the policy of successive Governments, for full dispersal so that the challenge of supporting the supported population is shared more fairly. Where there have been local disproportionate issues, as in postcodes like his own, we have been able to make positive changes, and I would have hoped he would recognise that. On his original point about data, the May stats release shows a reduction in the hotel population of 35% and an increase— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman can do the questions, but he cannot do the answers as well. There was a reduction of 35% in the hotel population and an increase in the supported population of less than 1%. Even he can do those maths.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for that question and the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman asked it. I recognise his advocacy in helping us to understand that it was the wrong thing in the wrong place, but I know that that is now followed by misinformation—it is not totally different from the contribution of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart)—with people who are planning on creating division over asylum accommodation pointing at another site. To be clear to the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents, we have proposed three new sites and the extension of time at two others. Those decisions have not finally been made, but those named sites are the sites that are under consideration, not his.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I think and talk about the Cladhan hotel a lot, because we are resolute about closing that hotel, but I appreciate that my hon. Friend’s constituents, and others, would not feel much better if they thought that those bed spaces were just being provided in the immediate area instead. Goal one for this Government is to reduce demand, and we are seeing positive trends in that regard. That is allowing us to close hotels, and it will allow us to close more in exactly that spirit, not merely by displacement into dispersed accommodation. As I said earlier, there is a 35% decrease in hotel accommodation, and an increase in dispersed accommodation of less than 1%.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I would stress that, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, no decision has been taken in respect of that site, and suitability assessments continue. We are engaging with the relevant local authorities, health partners, police forces and other partners to minimise the impact on local services and communities in exactly the way that my hon. Friend says.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend. He will know that we suspended family reunion, but as we set out in our White Paper over a year ago, we believe that reform of the family routes system more generally is overdue. We will be introducing a new family policy that creates a fairer and more consistent framework.

• 8 Jul 2026 · European Entry and Exit System · Hansard source

  More

  I have always taken the view that I get to do the answers, but I do not get to do the questions as well—you know that well, Mr Speaker. I will seek to address whatever is put to me to the best of my ability. The hon. Gentleman is right; I spend a lot of my time clearing up the mess made by Tory predecessors, but I am not necessarily sure that this is one of them. However, there are plenty of other messes, including the rampant use of hotels that they allowed, small boat crossings in their entirety, and plenty more.

• 8 Jul 2026 · European Entry and Exit System · Hansard source

  More

  I recognise that it is a shared goal for ourselves, for locally affected Members of Parliament and for the French to ensure that we do not see scenes of huge queues. We know the impact that has on individuals and on businesses. The right hon. Gentleman talks about making more efforts, and I can assure him that we will be doing this on a daily basis, as we already are, both with France and with the Commission. We have pushed on this fundamental point. This is a complex scheme in operation, and when volumes peak shortly, the fundamental question will be the prioritisation of flow or of compliance with the scheme. We are pushing heavily, as we will every day between now and then, to ensure that the French use the flexibilities available to prioritise flow. That is what I want, it is what he wants and it is in everybody’s interest.