Edward Leigh MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 22 Jul 2025 · Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  In the words of Katie Amess herself, “Despite Lord Anderson’s review, the vast majority of our questions about Prevent’s failures remain unanswered. We still do not know why basic checks like social media monitoring or verifying school attendance were not carried out before the perpetrator was released from the programme. He was meant to have seven sessions. He had one, over a cup of coffee at McDonald’s, and was then released. That is simply not good enough, yet Anderson skates over it, ignoring the catastrophic consequences that followed for my family, and our country. Critical records, including minutes from panel meetings and vulnerability assessments, have either been withheld or were incomplete. That does not help any of us. Transparency is essential, yet we continue to face obstacles in accessing these documents. Other than the killer himself, there has been no accountability for my family. The review revealed alarming gaps in the handling of the killer after he was referred. Unsubstantiated claims were made about his supposed progress, yet no one has been held to account. This isn’t about process, it’s about people’s lives and our right to see that those who let my dad down are held fully responsible. Key individuals involved in the case were not interviewed, and the Coroner refused to engage with Lord Anderson, having already refused us an inquest. A full statutory inquiry would compel all those involved to give evidence under oath about the failings. My dad gave his all to this country, and yet he, and we, are being denied the most basic of human rights. It feels like they are trying to hide something, to shut this tragedy down. A statutory public inquiry is the only way to compel witnesses to testify and documents to be disclosed… On behalf of my family, I now call on the current Home Secretary and Prime Minister to do the right thing and to order the inquiry, just as they rightly did for Southport. They told my mother and me and Anna Firth that we could come back to No 10 if we were not happy with Lord Anderson’s review. Well, we most certainly are not happy with it, and I will be asking my team to write to them to request that further meeting they promised us. A public inquiry would honour my father’s legacy by ensuring real accountability and preventing future tragedies. Lastly, my father dedicated his life to public service. The very least he deserves is a thorough investigation into how his murder could have been prevented. We owe it to him and to every potential future victim to get this right. We have had review after review since my father died. We now call for a public inquiry.” Let right be done.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  He was.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  Hear, hear.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to talk about Lord Anderson’s report on Prevent and the death of our wonderful fallen colleague and my dear friend, Sir David Amess, which was published last week. It is obviously appropriate to make this speech today, in the Sir David Amess Adjournment debate, which is rightly named in his honour. However, it is sad that this speech aims to draw attention to the way in which he and his family have been and are being let down by the Home Secretary and this Government. The House is well aware that the Sir David Amess family would like a full statutory public inquiry into the death of their beloved father and husband. Last March, they met the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary at 10 Downing Street. They were supported by their former MP Anna Firth, leading London lawyers, and public affairs expert Radd Seiger, all of whom continue to support and help the family on a voluntary basis. At that meeting, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister asked the family to go away and work with Lord Anderson, to see if he could answer the dozens of questions they still have about why the killer slipped through the state’s safeguarding nets. Against their better judgement, the family did just that. They met Lord Anderson, along with their advisers and Anna Firth, in his chambers in the Middle Temple. They provided Lord Anderson with all the questions that they still needed answering, and they waited patiently for his report, enduring several more months of stress and anxiety. Both the Home Secretary and Lord Anderson specifically promised the family that they would see the report first, and in good time, so that they had time to read and digest it, and take advice, before being subjected to the glare of the media. You can only imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker, how deeply distressing the whole media circus is for the family. Unbelievably, yet again, that did not happen. The family first learned that the report was imminent from an article in The Guardian , and when they received a text from a journalist saying that the report was due to be published soon. Clearly, rather than keep their word to the Amess family, the Government chose quite deliberately to leak the report to the press first. That is an absolute disgrace. The Amess family should have seen the report first, not last. That is a simply unacceptable way to treat any grieving family, let alone that of a distinguished parliamentarian. Once again, the Amess family were bombarded by the media, causing them great pain. All the media wanted, of course, was their individual soundbite, before the family had any opportunity to even read the 170-page report. The Home Secretary should feel thoroughly ashamed. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to apologise to Lady Amess and her family for this latest insult. The Government really need to do far, far, better on how they treat the victims of heinous crimes. Critically, however, there is now no doubt whatsoever, following Lord Anderson’s work, that there must be a full public inquiry on why the string of failures that led to Sir David’s murder were allowed to happen, and on who was responsible, who will be held to account, and what will be done to ensure that there is no repeat. The Amess family have been told repeatedly by the Home Secretary and successive Ministers that lessons had been and would be learned by Prevent, including the lessons set out in the Prevent learning review, which took place shortly after Sir David’s death and was published earlier this year. Heartbreakingly, Southport happened three years later. The two cases are virtually identical. In both, the killer was well known to the authorities and to the Prevent programme, yet was allowed to slip through the safeguarding net. It seems, therefore, that lessons have not been learned. The Amess family feel that both the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister were paying lip service to their agonising search for real answers when they finally met them at No. 10 in March. The family were assured by both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary that they took the family’s concerns extremely seriously, that they too felt the loss of Sir David acutely, and that they would leave no stone unturned to help the family find the answers that they needed. I will finish with the words of Katie Amess herself—

• 22 Jul 2025 · Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery · Hansard source

  More

  Obviously, my first concern is my constituents who work in the refinery in the neighbouring constituency, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers). I am sure that the Minister will give them reassurance about enhanced redundancy. Also, may I ask a question on behalf of my rural constituents in North Lincolnshire—and I declare an interest, as I live there? This is a deeply rural area, where we rely on heating oil because we are not on mains gas. What impact will closure of the refinery have on the price of heating oil?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Of course we all condemn the evil Hamas, but is not Prime Minister Netanyahu the biggest recruiting sergeant for Hamas? For every fighter he kills, he is radicalising the whole world against the state of Israel because of this appalling humanitarian solution. I agree with everything the Foreign Secretary says, but are words enough? I wonder whether he will oblige the House and allow a free vote, which I bet would pass by an enormous majority, on a motion for further action against the extreme right-wing actions of Prime Minister Netanyahu, sanctions, and recognition of the state of Palestine.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity · Hansard source

  More

  This is a real national crisis, and there is such an outcry and such outrage in the country that there is a real danger that people will take the law into their own hands, which we all deprecate. We have to solve this, and the only way to do so is to have a reasonable and proper deterrent. We must arrest the people who land on our shores, detain them and send them back to where they came from. The Human Rights Act 1998 was never intended to cover illegal immigrants of this sort. We have to do this for all our sakes; otherwise, people will wrongly take the law into their own hands.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Freedom of Religion or Belief: UK Foreign Policy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), for securing this important debate and for all his work. The Prime Minister obviously made an excellent choice. Freedom of religion or belief should be the cornerstone of the United Kingdom’s foreign policy to ensure the rights of minorities around the world, in compliance with our obligations under the United Nations declaration of human rights. As has been said, nations with high levels of religious liberty and tolerance are more stable than those that oppress people who wish only to worship in peace. I wish to focus on an issue that I raised a few weeks ago in the main Chamber at Church Commissioners questions: the plight of the Christians in Taybeh in the west bank and the violence from extremist settlers who are seeking to remove them from their land. I dedicate my speech to Mike Huckabee, Mr Trump’s choice as the United States ambassador to Israel, who is an evangelical pastor. He is also a strong supporter of these extremist settlers. The vast majority of our friends in Israel—the peaceful citizens of Israel—are totally opposed to the actions of these extremist settlers in the west bank. Taybeh is an ancient village in the Holy Land, in the occupied west bank. In biblical times, it was known as Ephraim, which according to John’s gospel is the village where Christ went before his passion. It is now the last and only Christian-majority town in the west bank. It is under attack as we speak. Cardinal Pizzaballa, who is the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, the Greek Orthodox patriarch and other heads of churches in Jerusalem visited Taybeh on Monday following the recent violence. I place on record my thanks to the British consul general in Jerusalem, who accompanied the clergy on their mission to highlight to the world the plight of Taybeh. In the ruins of the church of St George, the assembled clergy issued a statement, saying that “radical Israelis from nearby settlements intentionally set fire near the town’s cemetery and the Church of Saint George”— intentionally set fire to a church— “which dates back to the 5th century. Taybeh is the last remaining all-Christian town in the West Bank. These actions are a direct and intentional threat to our local community first and foremost, but also to the historic and religious heritage of our ancestors and holy sites.” Taybeh’s Roman Catholic parish priest, Father Bashar Fawadleh, told the Catholic charity Aid to the Church in Need that following the latest violence the Israeli authorities were called twice for assistance, but no one came. With others, I went to the west bank this year, and we saw that extremist settlers are acting with impunity and not being reined in or called in by Israeli authorities. As I say, the attackers were able to behave with impunity. Father Bashar’s concerns were shared by the leaders of the churches, who called for greater accountability as they said: “Even in times of war, sacred places must be protected. We call for an immediate and transparent investigation into why the Israeli police did not respond to emergency calls from the local community and why these abhorrent actions continue to go unpunished.” As well as the violence that erupted, the intolerable situation is made all the worse by settlements continuing to encroach on Taybeh’s land, with illegal grazing and land seizures affecting the livelihood of the local Christians. These extremist settlers have attacked homes, started fires and even created a billboard outside Taybeh that, translated into English, said, “There is no future for you here”. These are people who are only trying to live in peace. They have lived there for 2,000 years, yet they are told, “There is no future for you here”. It is absolutely outrageous and the whole world should be calling it out. Father Bashar said that illegal cattle grazing in the olive groves risked the harvest’s failing, creating poverty among the Christian community. The heads of churches in Jerusalem are clear: “The attacks by the hands of settlers against our community, which is living in peace, must stop, both here in Taybeh and elsewhere throughout the West Bank. This is clearly part of the systematic attacks against Christians that we see unfolding throughout the region.” There are of course similar acts of intimidation and violence against our Muslim brothers in town after town in the west bank. It is absolutely intolerable. As part of the UK’s diplomatic efforts, we must be willing to be firm with our friends and allies when they are behaving contrary to international law. Christians have been present in the Holy Land since the passion of our Lord, and they have the right to live in peace in the west bank. It is imperative that the UK Government make it clear to the Israeli authorities that this intimidation and violence must end. I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me about what discussions the UK Government have had with the Israeli authorities on this issue, and what steps are being taken to stress the need to protect all religious communities in the west bank. The situation in Gaza is even more dire. Father Gabriel Romanelli is looking after 500 Christians gathered in and around the Holy Family church in Gaza City. Food is being rationed and other supplies are scarce. Death has become routine. There was an 11-week period when all outside aid was halted completely by the Israel Defence Forces. Aid has reached the Christians in Gaza only intermittently through the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem and Aid to the Church in Need. Much of the Gaza strip has been flattened. On Tuesday, I hosted the Channel 4 film on the suffering of medics in Gaza. What is going on in Gaza is absolutely appalling—it is the greatest humanitarian disaster and catastrophe in the world today. Israel seems to have no plan for the future that it is willing to reveal to anybody. No one disagrees that Hamas is an evil organisation that must be destroyed completely, but clearly innocent people are being made victims as well. It is the innocence of the victims of the atrocities committed by Hamas on 7 October 2023 that is so appalling. Why compound those atrocities by committing more in revenge? I hope that all people in the middle east can at last live in peace and prosperity.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Women and Girls with Autism: Mental Health Support · Hansard source

  More

  I will call Jessica Toale to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

• 15 Jul 2025 · SEND Provision: South-east England · Hansard source

  More

  Order. There will be an immediate three-minute limit on speeches.

• 15 Jul 2025 · SEND Provision: South-east England · Hansard source

  More

  Order. The Minister needs to give the Member in charge some time to respond.

• 15 Jul 2025 · SEND Provision: South-east England · Hansard source

  More

  It’s all right—it is a very good speech, but we have to keep to time.

• 15 Jul 2025 · SEND Provision: South-east England · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I am sorry, but there is a three-minute limit.

• 15 Jul 2025 · SEND Provision: South-east England · Hansard source

  More

  Before Mike Martin moves the motion, I should say that 16 Members wish to speak, so I will probably have to impose a three-minute time limit after he has spoken. My aim is to try to get everybody in, so if we can cut down on interventions, that should give everybody a chance to speak.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Afghanistan · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the Secretary of State for his honesty and I agree with everything he says in his statement. What an appalling mess, but part of the original sin was our intervening militarily and then scuttling out. On a wider point, may I take it that we have learnt our lesson and have got over the liberal imperial itch of the Cameron and Blair eras to intervene militarily in ungovernable countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya? Let us now move on, but I support what the Secretary of State said.

• 11 Jul 2025 · Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am so grateful to you, Mr Speaker; you will be grateful to hear that having made those remarks, I am drawing to a conclusion. We have a duty to ensure that punishment is based on actual misconduct in entering a football ground, not suspicion or misjudged behaviour. Fifthly, my hon. Friend’s amendments would allow for practical enforcement. Focusing on completed unauthorised entry would help police and clubs concentrate their resources on the most serious breaches, rather than chasing marginal cases. The amendments would provide necessary implementation time. The two-month delay before commencement gives football clubs, police and stewards time to prepare for the new legal framework, reducing confusion and aiding smooth enforcement. Finally, the amendments would encourage propor-tionality. They keep the law from becoming an unnecessarily blunt instrument and instead preserve a proportionate, targeted response to genuine requests.

• 11 Jul 2025 · Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). It seems to me that the way that he introduced his very modest amendment to remove the word “attempts” was entirely proper. I support the Bill, but I think it is quite dangerous to introduce an offence into criminal law of just attempting to enter a football ground, because it is quite difficult to gather evidence of or police that. I assure the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) that I do not want to delay matters much. I will keep my remarks short, because I support the general principle of the Bill. I support making it a criminal offence to actually enter a designated football match; that is in the Bill’s long title and is something we can all agree on. Widening the scope of the Bill to include attempts to enter a ground is quite dangerous. I assume that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will be rejected, but I wonder whether it would unduly weaken the Bill if they were passed. After all, the Bill is about having a legal deterrent to crowds of people seeking to force their way into a football ground, but there may be many other ways in which people attempt to get into a football ground that are not riotous disorder and may be quite honest in intention. When creating criminal law, it is dangerous to get into aspects of intention—mens rea, as lawyers call it—rather than, in this case, the actual legal fact of entering a football ground. If the law were not changed, someone engaging in this bad behaviour could be punished only by ejection from the stadium, but there are criminal laws of trespass and many other ways in which this very bad behaviour can be identified. When Baroness Casey identified in her review the absence of specific offences as a weakness in stadium enforcement, I am not sure whether she was referring to such minor infringements as attempting to enter a football ground. I will say more about that in a moment. I know that the key motivation for the Bill was the Euro 2020 final and the chaos at Wembley when hundreds of ticketless individuals stormed the venue, overwhelmed stewards and endangered legitimate fans. That mass unauthorised entry posed real risks, but that was really a riot. That is quite a different situation from somebody on their own, or perhaps a father with his children, attempting to get into a football ground when they may not have a ticket. They may have been mis-sold a ticket—they may believe that they have a genuine ticket. They may have been sold, at vast cost, a ticket by a ticket tout, but apparently now they will face the full force of the criminal law. Under the Bill, police and courts will be able to ban repeat offenders, as it makes offenders eligible for football banning orders. Those are quite serious consequences for people who may not be rioters at all; they may just be genuine football fans. We are talking about a fine of up to £1,000 and a trial in a magistrates court. I know that such cases will not go to a Crown court, but that is still a very serious matter for somebody who might just be attempting to enter a place. We will be told by the Bill’s supporters that its enforcement is practical. I understand how entry into a football ground could be enforced, but I am unsure about enforcing an attempt to get into a football ground. Surely police and stewards need clarity. There is no point in us introducing more and more laws when we have a whole slate of traditional laws against riotous behaviour. Laws that may be difficult to enforce just bring the whole system into disrepute. I know that football clubs, police forces and fans’ organisations largely support the Bill, but I am not sure whether they are aware just how widely it is framed. I am sure that if they could talk these matters through with my hon. Friend, they would think his amendment was a wise and moderate compromise, because people already assume that it is an offence to enter a football ground without a ticket; I agree that the Bill removes the gap between assumption and reality. The other thing that slightly worries me is that while I can quite understand how such attempts could be dealt with by a premier league club, which has stewards and the whole panoply of a large football club, we should consider small clubs such as Gainsborough Trinity FC in my constituency. These small clubs have faced huge challenges, and we are just introducing more burdens on them. During covid, Gainsborough suspended season tickets and capped attendance at just 300. Small clubs already have to deal with many regulations and with public health. Their finances are very marginal, and covid worsened already fragile financial situations. I hope that when we consider these undoubtedly worthy Bills—as we look at the Euros, Wembley and all the rest of it—that impose more obligations on football clubs, we remember smaller clubs. The Football Association is not always as helpful as it can be with small clubs. Big clubs get attention and support, so it may well be possible for them to police attempts to enter, but it may be more difficult for a tiny club—a very worthy, important and wonderful club such as Gainsborough Trinity FC—to deal with the intricacies of the law and understand it. We are talking about enforcement and police resources, and therefore the measures in the Bill should be very moderate. There would be £1,000 fines or long banning orders. Are we going to drag people before the courts? I have already talked about the father attempting an entry. Could children or young people who sneak in without harmful intent face having a criminal record? Are we really going to do that? Is that the sort of country we want to create? We do not have a lot of data on how many attempts there are or how much unauthorised entry there is. We should acknowledge that the Euro 2020 final was exceptional. It is unclear whether making this kind of permanent legislative change, and rejecting the amendments, will solve the problem.

• 11 Jul 2025 · Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We know that there is an epidemic of lawlessness on the underground and elsewhere. No doubt somebody will try to bring in a Bill on that as well—and good luck to them—but we are talking about a very narrow amendment and a narrowly focused Bill. I am worried about enforcement, which may vary between clubs or regions. Fans may lose trust if they see the law being applied unevenly, and I do not know how clubs will police these attempts. It is unclear whether banning orders will lead to frequent appeals. People would be tried just for an attempt. I know that that would only be in the magistrates court, but if they faced long banning orders, could there be appeals? We have to apply the law fairly and reasonably; otherwise, it risks being a blunt instrument. Surely we should try to make this sort of Bill tightly focused. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch are sensible. They would better tool the legislation towards its rightful end. First, they focus on the actual harm. By removing attempted entry from the offence, the amendments would criminalise only completed unauthorised entries—clear facts that can be understood and proven. We should target behaviour that truly compromises safety and public order. Secondly, the amendments would ensure that the Bill avoids over-criminalisation. Criminalising failed or minor attempts could lead to disproportionate outcomes, especially for young people or first-time offenders. My hon. Friend’s amendments promote a more measured legal response. Thirdly, the amendments would reduce ambiguity, and the great danger in law is ambiguity. “Attempted entry” is a vague standard and may vary in interpretation by stewards and police. If hon. Members try to imagine the policing of a crowded football match with people pouring in, I wonder whether they would start to agree that “attempted entry” is a vague standard and may vary in interpretation. We are talking about the criminal law. We are talking not just about somebody being ticked off or told they cannot enter the stadium but possibly ending up in court. The amendments would give a clear legal threshold for enforcement and prosecution, on the basis of which somebody can be tried and sentenced in the courts.

• 11 Jul 2025 · Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady makes a fair point, but I am making a point about smaller clubs. We are here because of a political reaction to the embarrassment created by one major failure, but we cannot base good law on one major failure that was on all our television screens. We have to look at all clubs and consider all the difficulties that they would have in implementing this change.

• 10 Jul 2025 · Energy Planning · Hansard source

  More

  We are all in favour of green energy in Lincolnshire, and we do our bit with massive wind turbines in the North sea, but will the Committee do a more in-depth report about the sheer concentration of solar farms in Lincolnshire, with 10,000 acres around the town of Gainsborough? I know that the grid connection is important, but surely the Committee could play a useful role in saying that all parts of the country should do their bit. We cannot simply take 10,000 acres out of good agricultural production in one small part of England.

• 10 Jul 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I support my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), but I want to make a different point of order. Have the Government told you that they will come to the House today to make a statement on channel crossings? The channel is in chaos today—already 220 people have poured across—and 1,195 arrived on 1 June. President Macron and the Prime Minister say that this cannot go on. This is an existential crisis for our country, and we want action. Just taking in a swap of 50 a week is not going to solve the problem. On this vital issue, have the Government come to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and said that they want to make a statement today?

• 10 Jul 2025 · Resident Doctors: Industrial Action · Hansard source

  More

  We can all argue about the past, but if it helps the Secretary of State, I think we should just say today that the whole House absolutely 100% supports him in his robust attitude. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Of course we all love doctors, but the starting salary is not so very bad. They have a job—a very good job—for life, which most people do not have, and he could also mention that they have a much better career structure than most people. A far higher proportion of them get the top job—namely, as a consultant—and the consultant’s starting salary of £110,000 a year is not a bad whack.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Road and Rail Projects · Hansard source

  More

  For 30 long and weary years, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and I have campaigned for a through-train from Grimsby, which would stop at Market Rasen and end up in London. We have been made numerous promises by Network Rail, which is now saying that the platform is too short, that a bridge needs to be built, and that it will cost £25 million—the usual negativity. The Secretary of State is a feisty Minister. I promise her that if she gets us our train, I will campaign for it to be renamed the “Heidi Alexander, Heroine of Lincolnshire”.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to make a brief point of order following the sad death of Lord Norman Tebbit last night. I feel particularly touched by it because I served with him in Parliament between 1983 and 1992, and I suppose I am one of the last Thatcherites left standing here. To us, he was an icon of everything we believed in about small government and deregulation. He was the original Brexiteer and the original campaigner against woke. He had an extraordinary ability with words. He came from humble backgrounds and summed up everything that we believed in by pulling himself up and achieving greatness. I do not want to end on a political note; what I really want to end on is a personal note. I know that he had a reputation as a hard-hitting politician, but above all he was a supremely kind man. He was kind to us younger Members of Parliament. When Mrs Thatcher resigned, I remember sitting in the Tea Room and asking him if he would stand as leader of the Conservative party. To my regret, he felt that he could not. The reason why was those awful events in the bombing of the Grand Hotel in 1984. He showed tremendous courage and stoicism. Above all, although he led our party to victory as chairman in the 1987 election, he refused high office because he wanted to look after his wife Margaret. He devoted his whole life to her in terms of love and devotion as after those terrible events she was in a wheelchair for the rest of her life. It is a great honour and delight in this short point of order to pay tribute to my friend Lord Norman Tebbit.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The number of small boat crossings is driving people mad and eroding support for the Labour Government, just as it eroded support for the Conservatives. I worry for the Labour Government; I want them to do better on this, for all our sakes. Have not our French friends got a point about this country being uniquely attractive to illegal asylum seekers? We do not have identity cards, and we do not do what the Belgians do, which is to refuse to put them in reception centres. Can we make a study of what every other member of the Council of Europe is doing, and replicate the strongest actions, so that this is not the most attractive country for illegal asylum seekers?