Kirsty Blackman MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Mar 2026 · Immigration Policy · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is unhappy that we are conflating two different announcements, but the issue is that the Home Secretary has not actually made an announcement about this matter—she has not come to the Chamber, set out the position and made an announcement. The Government are planning to make these changes without parliamentary approval, because the changes will not come before the House for debate. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that all hon. Members can have a voice, that the changes are not made through a negative statutory instrument, and that MPs from across the House will be able to make our points clear in order to ensure that the goalposts will not be moved after refugees have arrived here?

• 18 Dec 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I back the Minister’s comments about the effectiveness of public health on BBC Radio 4 this morning. I agree about the importance of conducting a public health campaign for this. Women for Refugee Women has surveyed women in the asylum system with no recourse to public funds. It found that 38% of them had stayed in abusive relationships because of their inability to access public funds, and that 38% of those women then went on to be raped. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government will agree to implement fully the Istanbul convention, including article 59, to afford real protections to all women?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree, and there was a very similar case in my constituency. There was a woman here with her young child, and it had been agreed that her husband was eligible for reunification with his family here under the ARAP scheme, but he was in hiding in Pakistan. No matter how much we pressed the Home Office, the woman and her young child were left here without their husband and dad. He was unable to come over, because the Home Office refused to take action. Part of the issue is the lack of humanity and consideration for individual circumstances created by the Home Office machine. Blanket policies discriminate against people in protected groups, not taking into account that there are nuances, differences and family circumstances that need to be in place. Going back to the requirement to contribute, that will cause particular issues for those who cannot, or find it difficult to, contribute in the classical sense. The UK Government said there would be special consideration of vulnerable groups, but have not laid out what those will be and what the consideration looks like. Not making clear who those vulnerable groups are and how those considerations will work risks significantly disadvantaging people. It is worth noting that, eight years on from receiving asylum and the right to work, the average income of refugees in Scotland is only £13,000, which is significantly lower than the median income. That is partly because refugees, by their nature, have suffered trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder and are unable to work full time in many cases, through no fault of their own. Due to that level of discrimination, and partly because they may not have long-term settled status, employers may be less keen to take them on. People who are trying to work, or have even been working full time for eight years, are earning significantly less than average. If we try to measure contribution, compared with people who were born here and have had a settled life—white men, for example—it will be difficult for any refugee from a protected characteristic group to meet that bar. Other issues include regular reapplications and a reduction in appeals. There will be a 30-month period to reapply for status. We know that 50% of appeals from women win. A reduction in the number of appeals, allowing only one and no subsequent appeal, will entrench the fact that the Home Office makes wrong decisions. If 50% of appeals win, the Home Office has clearly made wrong decisions in half the cases that go to appeal. The people more likely to appeal, whose cases are negatively looked at, have more complicated pasts and issues with disclosing what they have faced. Regarding trauma and violence against women and girls, the UK Government have suggested that not disclosing trauma early in the process will likely have a negative impact on their case. If people do not disclose their protected characteristics, there will likely be a negative consideration from the Home Office. People born here who have experienced sexual violence can take 20 years to come to terms with the situation and raise it with the authorities. We are expecting refugees, who have been through significant trauma, to disclose that information to a legal aid lawyer they do not know. He could be a man from their community who looks like an authority figure or the person who abused them, or might be part of the religious community that perpetrated the abuse. We will punish them for not being able to disclose the sexual violence they faced, or their sexual orientation to someone they do not know. We also know that when it comes to legal aid, for example, the increase in the number of appeals will significantly gum up the system, and the system is already significantly gummed up. The UK Government inherited a system that was a mess in terms of the length of time that asylum decisions took. Adding in a significant number of extra reassessments at 30-month periods is simply unworkable. We are already waiting years for people to get decisions—even children who are supposed to have special consideration and who are supposed to receive decisions more quickly. We got an email from a constituent this week whose children have still not received a decision. We have had a number of emails from constituents about asylum decisions, but the one that struck me came in yesterday. We had spoken to the Home Office about it and the email said, “Could you please tell us what is happening with this case?” And the Home Office said, “No. If you have not heard anything by December, get back to us.” The person still has not had a decision, despite the fact that children are supposed to be considered more quickly. If the UK Government cannot meet their obligations now, how will they meet their obligations within a 30-month period? What will they do about legal aid to ensure that legal aid lawyers are willing to take on the more complicated cases, the cases of sexual or domestic violence, or where the individual presenting is LGBTQI? At the moment, legal aid lawyers often look at those cases and say, “No, it is too complicated. The legal aid money does not cover it. Why would I bother doing that when I can do an easier case?” There is a significant problem. If the Government are going to make sweeping changes, especially the significant number of reassessments, they need to fix the legal aid system, or people with protected characteristics will be negatively impacted even more than the people without protected characteristics. Going back to the family reunification changes that are being suggested, Home Office figures tell us that 92% of the people who receive grants under family reunification are women and girls—92%. On the massive reduction in the number of family reunification applications that are accepted or in family reunification routes, 92% are women and girls. I do not understand how the Government can suggest there is not a disproportionate impact on people with protected characteristics when just this one specific measure has a massive impact on women and girls specifically. I understand why the Government have not produced an equality impact assessment. They do not want to see what is in such an assessment, but they should produce one. They have a public sector equality duty to do so. The Home Office is still bound by the public sector equality duty. It does not not apply to the Home Office. It applies to the public sector and it has not published one. On the length of time and the possibility of people being required to wait 20 years to receive leave to remain, we know that the lack of stability adds a significant negative impact on people. We know that that lack of stability is multilayered in the impacts that it has. I have already touched on the issues with employment. Employers are less likely to take people on if they do not have permanent leave to remain. Employers do not necessarily understand the immigration system. Good employers can be terrified of falling foul of the Home Office. If they can see that somebody was born in another country and does not have citizenship yet, they decide not to employ them. That means people are stuck in limbo for a significantly longer time because of the Government’ s decision—much longer than in some other countries, by the way. Not enabling people to work at 12 months makes us an outlier in Europe. In some EU countries, people can work from day one. In many countries they can work from two months. That gives an increased level of stability than if requiring people to be out of work for 12 months, and then only able to access jobs on the occupation shortage list or immigration list. Some of those jobs are not as acceptable or not as possible for people who have protected characteristics. A disabled person may not be able to access some of those roles. If we are more flexible in the roles that people can access, we are more likely to have people able to contribute, because they will be more able to do jobs that work for them. That lack of stability also means, potentially, that people will have no recourse to public funds for a significant length of time. No recourse to public funds is horrific and should be cancelled, particularly for those people with dependants. I never again want to see a family come in to my office whose children are malnourished because the UK Government have said that they have no recourse to public funds, or who are being threatened with homelessness because they are unable to claim anything. I had a family come in whose four children had not eaten fruit for days. How is it acceptable that the UK Government can decide that people have no recourse to public funds, and then keep them in limbo for such a long period? Women for Refugee Women looked at the number of destitute women and spoke to them about what destitution meant for them in the asylum system. Of the women in the asylum system who had no recourse to public funds, 38% had stayed in an abusive relationship because of their inability to access public funds and the fear that they would be homeless or destitute as a result of leaving that relationship. A further 38% of those women who stayed in abusive relationships were raped as a result. The UK Government’s policies are forcing women into destitution and unsafe situations and relationships. Among women in that group who were destitute as a result of the UK Government’s policies, 8% were forced into sex work to get enough money to feed themselves or their children, or to clothe their children. How is this a humane situation when it is negatively impacting women more than men and where those protected characteristics are not being protected?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for chairing this debate, Dr Huq. I thank all Members for contributing. I did not say that nobody should have to contribute—I will thank the Minister not to put words in my mouth in that regard. I do believe, however, that worthiness as a human being should not be determined by the ability to contribute economically. We are talking about humans who have been broken, those who have been persecuted and, specifically in this debate, those who have protected characteristics and have been through absolutely unimaginable horrors. I appreciate the Minister giving some level of clarity that there will be special considerations. We will be looking very closely at what comes forward in the equality impact assessment and on the special considerations. I believe that the Minister did not quite answer the question about improvements in legal aid; if he could write to us about what will happen on that, it would be appreciated. I thank all Members for their contributions today, and those who are standing up for people who have suffered unimaginable horrors. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the potential impact of proposed asylum reforms on people with protected characteristics seeking asylum.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics · Hansard source

  More

  There should be some methodology, but the Government are going the wrong way on this. They are looking to tighten up the modern slavery and trafficking regulations and make it more difficult for women to claim that they have been trafficked—even when they have. We know that there are women that have been held in Yarl’s Wood or detention centres after being trafficked because they do not have the correct paperwork. Of course they do not have the correct paperwork; they have been trafficked, used in sex work and forced into these horrific situations, and the Government are putting them in a detention centre and then saying that they will not get a visa because they did not have the right documentation. We have a responsibility to protect people. It says in “Restoring Order and Control” that there are some rules in relation to the European convention on human rights and the Refugee convention around which there are not discretionary powers. For some—for example, in relation to family life—the public interest can be balanced against that requirement. However, when it comes to trafficking, the Government do not have that discretion. If they refuse to believe trafficked people, and it is later agreed that those people have been trafficked, the UK Government are putting them through more trauma. They are putting people who have experienced worse things than most of us could ever imagine through more trauma because they refuse to believe them. Then, because they may disclose this late, as they do not want to talk about the sex work that they have been forced into and the rapes they have suffered—because it is very difficult to talk about those things—the UK Government say to them, “Well, you didn’t disclose this in time, so you can’t be a true asylum seeker. You can’t be a true refugee because you didn’t come forward and talk about the most horrific moments in your life to a man that you don’t know.” That is in relation to legal aid support. There are major issues with the continuing lack of stability. The changes away from hotel accommodation to some of the accommodation at barracks can mean that people are more isolated and less able to access support. In Aberdeen, we have little in the way of lawyers who can cover asylum cases—and immigration lawyers in general, actually—and people are having to travel significant lengths in order to get that, on their £7 or £9 a week. Someone cannot get from Aberdeen to Glasgow on seven quid a week—it cannot be done for less than about 30 quid, unless it is on a Megabus, and even that can be quite dear. Accommodation does not take into account the fact that provision is not there. If people are going to be put in Cameron barracks in Inverness, for example, it is even more difficult for them to get to Glasgow or Edinburgh in order to speak to the right lawyer who will be able to help and be willing to take on their immigration case. Creating that extra level of isolation for people who are already struggling—putting people in an isolated community in the Cameron barracks, rather than in a community setting where they can integrate—means that people who are isolated will become even more so, and people who are at risk will become even more at risk. We know that even in hotels, people suffer as a result of their protected characteristics, and who are at risk of harm as a result of unsafe situations. That is multiplied when people are moved out of hotels into places such as barracks. I have a few more things to cover. In relation to the assessment of safe countries for removal, the blanket designation of a country as safe is inherently incredibly risky. It may be safe for some people to be in Syria right now, but it is not safe for everyone. It is not safe for a Syrian woman who came here as a result of gender-based violence to go back to her family in Syria—or to go back to Syria at all—because of the likelihood that her family would take action against her. It is not safe for a gay person who fled because they were correctively raped to go back to Syria. The decision about blanket designations is really difficult, considering the Government are saying that they are looking at vulnerable groups and talking about individuals. Creating a blanket safe designation that can be changed at any point in that 20-year period means they can suddenly say to someone, “You are going to have to go back to this country where you were correctively raped, because the UK Government have now decided—with very little in the way of parliamentary scrutiny—that this country is safe.” The problem is that we have not got that information. The Minister may feel that there will be special categories in place, but we have not been told that. We have not been given the impact assessment for how that will look. We have not been told what those provisions will be. Somebody who is living here, who is terrified about being sent back, has no comfort right now, because they do not know whether their case will be considered separately or whether their country will just be deemed safe and they will be sent back.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics · Hansard source

  More

  The UK Government have said that they are looking at increasing the number of countries they have returns agreements with, so that people who have committed crimes can be sent back. Let me talk once more about the LGBT issue. If a trans or gay refugee is here, and it is illegal for them to be trans in their country—they are likely to be beaten up or correctively raped as a result of being, for instance, a lesbian in their country—the UK Government expect them to live openly here, in the sexuality that they are, but with the threat of their country becoming a safe country and their being sent back. People will now know that they are gay, because they have had to live openly here, and that threat of return will now continue for a significantly longer period of time. Gay and trans people are now in a horrific Catch-22: they are forced to live openly here to have their refugee status agreed, but if their country is designated as a safe country, they may be sent back. Pakistan is apparently safe for trans people because, according to the UK Government, people face only discrimination, not persecution, for being trans in Pakistan, despite the fact that somebody can come here as a trans refugee having been persecuted in Pakistan. The UK Government say, “It is okay, because it’s a discrimination thing, not persecution thing; don’t worry—you’ll be fine.” The Government expect them to live as an out trans person here—knowing that their cousin might see them on Facebook, or that somebody might hear about them living their real life and being themselves here—but, as a result of the UK Government’s policies, they will be forced to go back to somewhere where they are at an even higher risk of persecution. On the Equality Act 2010, the public sector equality duty says that public sector organisations must have due regard to protected characteristics and try to ensure that people are not discriminated against because of those characteristics, despite the fact that the Government’s policies will more negatively impact people with protected characteristics. I have asked questions about the special consideration of vulnerable groups, because we need significantly more information about that. I do not expect the Minister to provide all that today, but I would like a commitment that that information will be forthcoming; otherwise, people will be terrified because they will have, hanging over them, the possibility that the Government will not take into account whether someone is trans or has suffered from gender-based violence in other places. On the length of time before disclosure, I just do not believe that we can set a time limit when it comes to violence against women and girls or gender-based violence. We cannot tell people that they have to disclose things within a certain period of time or they will not be granted refugee status. That is not something we can force on victims. Changes need to be made in that regard. There has been no impact assessment. I asked written parliamentary questions about equalities impact assessments, and we were told that they would come in due course. When? When will we get the equality impact assessments? I would love the Home Office to act in a trauma-informed way, but it seems that we are not going to do so. For some reason, the public interest—which is, apparently, in deporting as many people as possible—cannot be balanced with the need to look after people who, through no fault of their own, have gone through unimaginable horrors. That will have a detrimental impact on all those who are seeking asylum. On the legal aid crisis, I would love reassurance from the Minister that the Government are going to make changes to legal aid. I do not understand how they are possibly going to manage a 30-month time period when they cannot manage the current time period. I finish with a statement from Layla, who spoke to Women for Refugee Women about why she came to the UK and what her experiences were here. The UK Government talk about removing the pull factors, but the pull factors are not the economy or the fact that people can get jobs. Layla puts it better than I ever could. She said: “I didn’t see the UK as a cruel type of country. The idea is that the UK is a Great Britain: we will save you, especially women’s rights, human rights. We initiate all the law, international law, you name it. The UK is a very outstanding country. But when I came here, I feel like it’s a fake, because why do you need to show that you are so good in the eyes of the world, but you are treating asylum seekers like this? It’s hypocrisy.”

• 17 Dec 2025 · Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential impact of proposed asylum reforms on people with protected characteristics seeking asylum. There have been a lot of announcements in relation to immigration policy in the year and a half since this Government came into office. There has been a startling lack of equality impact assessments alongside those announcements, and I want to draw the House’s attention to the disproportionate and negative impact on people with protected characteristics of some—in fact, most—of the announcements the UK Government have made since July 2024. I am going to focus on certain groups of people with protected characteristics: women, queer folk and disabled people, and I will also touch on very young and very elderly people. Some of the changes to asylum policy announced by the Home Office, particularly in the “Restoring Order and Control: A statement on the government’s asylum and returns policy” in November 2025, have failed to take account of the fact that the negative impacts are not felt uniformly across the board. They have failed to take account of the fact that many people in groups with protected characteristics already face a level of discrimination and increased barriers simply as a result of being a member of a group with protected characteristics. Before I come to the substance of my speech, I want to thank a number of organisations that have provided a significant amount of information and done a huge amount of research. Those are Women for Refugee Women, Rainbow Migration, the Helen Bamber Foundation, whose briefing was truly excellent and really heartbreaking, and the Scottish Refugee Council. As I say, many of the changes made will have a significant negative impact, such as the change to the length of time that people have to stay and the requirement to contribute in order for people to be granted leave to remain. The requirement to contribute is not well defined and has a disadvantaging impact on those who are not able to work or study in the normal sense. For example, a disabled person might struggle to access full-time employment, and therefore the UK Government might consider that they have not contributed in the same way as other people, so they might be more likely to be refused leave to remain. The same issue applies to women, particularly those with caring responsibilities. For a woman who has come here from Afghanistan, for example, who could not learn when they were in Afghanistan because they were banned from education—certainly further or higher education—or because of the circumstances they were living in, with an abusive family or a requirement for women to stay in the home and not do any learning, it is even more difficult to get into work or study, because they simply do not have the skills due to those gaps in their education.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  One of my constituents was domestically abused by someone on a dependant visa. She has been trying to obtain information from UK Visas and Immigration about whether that person is still in the United Kingdom, or still has a visa. Would the Minister consider a measure similar to Clare’s law, so that people have the right to ask what a person’s current visa status is and UKVI can release that information to them?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Black History Month · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. I have met the Association for Black and Minority Ethnic Engineers. Unfortunately, I did not realise it was having its conference next week, but I thank the hon. Member for letting me know. It is a fabulous organisation. There continues to be a very tough glass ceiling in engineering. We are getting a huge number of more diverse candidates and graduates coming through in engineering, but at the highest levels of senior management—for example, in the energy industry—we are struggling to make that breakthrough, and to have enough black and minority ethnic individuals, so I support his comments. I support the Association for Black and Minority Ethnic Engineers, and I will do everything I can to assist it in breaking that glass ceiling. There is also a glass ceiling for female engineers. There is intersectionality here; it is particularly difficult for black female engineers to get to the highest senior management positions. I will keep doing everything I can to support that organisation and others. To build on what the Mother of the House said, and what the hon. Member for Brent East said about the protests, the societal views being expressed right now are horrific. However, there has been an undercurrent for a very long time, and this is stuff that people have been thinking. Part of what drove some people to vote for Brexit was views such as, “There’s too much immigration—I don’t want all these people here.” I am sure all Labour Members have read “The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists”; they will know that it talks about the Conservatives of the time putting forward the racist narrative that “All your problems are caused by the immigrants. We just need to get rid of them.” This has been a narrative for 100 years, and we still need to counter it—perhaps more so today than ever, and certainly more than we have needed to at any other point in my adult life. We need to do everything we can to stop these racists being allowed to say anything they want.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Black History Month · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. People have had these racist thoughts and have kept quiet about them, but they are now emboldened to say them out loud because of people like the Reform MPs, and because of the racist narratives being brought forward. No one should be looking to chase policies such as mass deportation. None of us should be putting forward those policies. We should recognise and celebrate the impact of people who have chosen to live in our country. I want to tackle one of the narratives put forward by some of the racists in my constituency: they have said that the saltire is a Christian symbol and is only for white Christians. That is not true. The saltire is for anybody who was born in Scotland, or chooses to come to our country to live, to contribute to working life, and to be part of our wonderful, vibrant communities. It is for every single one of us. It is not just for Christians and not just for white people; it is for everyone. We can all—everybody living in Scotland, everybody born in Scotland and, frankly, everybody who wants to—celebrate and love the saltire and claim it for our own. I know I am taking quite a bit of time, but I want to talk about a few more issues, particularly some Government policies. I really appreciate the work being done on removing the pay gaps, including the ethnicity and gender pay gaps. It is looking at what more can be done, and particularly at intersectionality, and cases where people are multiply disadvantaged. All of us have a responsibility to check our privilege. We have a responsibility to think about the fact that we have our privilege—we get high salaries as Members of Parliament, and we may be educated, white and middle-class—while other people face multiple detriments, and multiple forms of judgment and prejudice. They are finding it harder and harder to make it through. They are so tired because of the constant drip, drip—or sometimes gush—of negativity against particular immigrants. A few things in the immigration system disadvantage people who are not white. There is still a significant issue with the refusal of visitor visas for people from countries where people are not white. There is a significant refusal rate for visitor visas for people from Nigeria. I still struggle to fathom why some constituents should be less able to have their mum come over to see them graduate than others who are born in another country, but are white. It feels like there is a racial element to that. Any work that can be done to ensure that the visitor visa system is fairer, and to make it more likely that people can get their relatives over to visit, would be incredibly worthwhile. The “no recourse to public funds” system has now opened up, and applies to far more white people than it used to—I disagree entirely with “no recourse to public funds”—but under the system, there are families who are struggling to feed their children. There are families who were not supported throughout covid. What particularly bothers me is that they include families with young children. I do not think we should have the “no recourse to public funds” system, but if we are going to continue to do so, I do not think it should ever apply to families in which anybody is under five—or under 18. Children should never go hungry because a family has no recourse to public funds, particularly if family members have lived and worked here. Sometimes their having no recourse to public funds is no fault of theirs; a Home Office mix-up has put them in that situation, and they have been banned from working for a period. That is horrific, and “no recourse to public funds” needs to go. On the changes in residency requirements for leave to remain, so many of my constituents have contacted me saying, “I bought a house in Aberdeen because I was under the impression that I would get indefinite leave to remain after a five-year stay. The Government have now changed that to 10 years. I don’t know if they, or the next Government, whoever they may be, will ever allow me the right to stay, but I will have to continue to pay health surcharges every year in the meantime.” Those people may have chosen to live in Aberdeen in order to work in our NHS and to make our communities better. I do not think we should have any change at all in the residency requirements, but any move to make changes retrospective would be incredibly unfair. There would need to be an equalities impact assessment to show what percentage of people disadvantaged by the policy were from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. I am willing to bet that the figure would be incredibly high, and it is therefore a policy that no progressive Government should pursue. However, I wanted to be positive. I wanted to talk about the incredible work that my constituents have done, but I could not do so without recognising that it is a scary time. I hope that voices from across the House today—and the voices of my constituents, uplifting and championing their friends and colleagues, and those who work in charities—can at least bring a ray of sunshine right now. We cannot fix everything overnight, as the hon. Member for Brent East said. This is a very long-term project, but we will get there. We will keep causing a little bit of trouble—good trouble—where we need to, and we will do everything we can to ensure equality, recognise that we have more in common, and make the difference that really is needed.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I am pleased to hear you talking about what scheme members want, not just in terms of the return that they are expecting, but also the projects that are invested in. My question is about consolidation and local concerns that people might have. For example, they may not want a wind farm invested in because they are worried about the infrastructure that goes alongside that. If there is consolidation, will that remove the ability to take account of local concerns and to find great local investment opportunities? Will it dilute the input that people have locally, because it is taking it further away from them, or do you think it will be okay? Councillor Phillips : As we already know, the establishment of the pools does take it away. There is no denying that. The important thing is to have member representation on pools. The scheme advisory board has always been supportive of that, although you need flexibility in how you do it; I certainly would not go for 50:50, because of the governance and regulatory responsibilities that the administration authorities have. I think Border to Coast particularly has employee representatives on there, and that works very well. In particular funds, you will have representatives on the committee and on the pension board. That is always important. Getting the right engagement is always going to be a struggle, with all the rest of it, but, particularly with some of the ESG issues, that helps to better understand some of the issues. Of course, elected members that sit there are representatives of their community as well. They are aware as well. They are also aware that when they sit at the table on a pension, they have a responsibility first and foremost to that pension.

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

  More

  We have a responsibility to deal in the truth and to counter plainly false narratives. The Minister talked about the fact that this protest crossed over into mindless thuggery. Every one of us should stand up here and say that to our constituents or to anyone who gets in touch. People are spreading rumours that have no basis in the truth, including in my constituency, where last year a rumour went around about asylum seekers in hotels. It had absolutely no basis in the truth, but could have caused some sort of mob, like in Epping. This is dog-whistle politics. What is the Minister doing to tell people that, just as not everybody in any community in our country is a rapist, not everybody in migrant hotels is a rapist? We should do what we can to ensure that people are protected and decisions are made as quickly as possible.