Matt Vickers MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you believe that someone who deliberately enters the UK illegally from a safe country should face a different immigration consequence from someone who enters using a legal route? If not, what alternative deterrents would the Refugee Council support to discourage people from making those dangerous crossings? Jon Featonby : I am going to focus on the people who enter the UK for the purpose of seeking asylum within the international protection regime. For us, this comes down to how the refugee convention has been interpreted and operationalised since it first came in in 1951. That has been based around countries like the UK requiring somebody to be present in the UK, in their own territory, before they can access the protection systems. By its nature, that means that people have to undertake some of those dangerous journeys to get there. It is important to recognise that the convention talks about somebody being a refugee once they have been forced to leave a country because of war and persecution, and it is then blind to where that person is. There are obviously benefits if those people do not need to undertake dangerous journeys to get somewhere. There are benefits for the individuals who do not need to put their lives at risk—we see the really deadly consequences that has across the world—and benefits for the host countries themselves if people are able to arrive in an orderly manner and do not have to resort to the types of journeys that they have to now. It is also part of this important international context that most refugees—most people displaced from their countries—stay in the countries that border the ones they have fled from. Some people move on, and sometimes that can be because the countries neighbouring the place they have fled are no longer safe for them and no longer allow them to try to fulfil their lives, particularly as we see refugee situations becoming increasingly protracted across the globe. That is one of the things that we see lacking in the UK’s response at the moment. It is not just the UK’s response; we have seen the deterrence measures that you mentioned being adopted by successive Governments. We have seen some impact of that, particularly this year in terms of the drop in small boat arrivals. From the Refugee Council’s point of view, we would argue that the bit that has largely been missing from this is about how you continue to undermine the business model of the people smugglers and the people who take advantage of the people seeking safety. That is where we would talk about the importance of safe and legal routes. The previous Government opened up new routes, and we think that the Afghan and Ukraine schemes are great successes. One of the challenges that we see at the moment is that those safe routes available to people have dropped over the last year; the number of people arriving on safe routes in the last 12 months is down by about 50%. Refugee family reunion has been temporarily suspended for over a year now, and we have seen the closure of the Afghan schemes. We have been promised that new safe and legal routes will open in the new few months, with arrivals next year, but it seems that those numbers will be quite small. If we look at what worked in somewhere like the US under President Biden, it was having two sides to the approach: yes, the enforcement approach, but on the other side of that, quite generous, open, safe and legal routes, so that the people who genuinely need safety are able to get to somewhere like the UK without having to put their lives at risk.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q What is the single biggest border control measure missing from the Bill? Tony Smith: It is more what it does not do, which is exclude people coming from safe third countries, such as France, from claiming protection. That was the intention of the Illegal Migration Act. There is also provision in the 2002 legislation where someone has come from a safe country and, under article 31 of the convention relating to the status of refugees, they are not in immediate fear of persecution. We interpreted that as saying, “If you come from France on a small boat, you could have claimed asylum there—you did not have to—ergo you will not be granted asylum in this country.” The previous Government relied on that for the Rwanda plan, and this Government rely on it for the one in, one out scheme. There is now provision to exclude people from claiming asylum if they come via that route. There is no provision to exclude them from claiming protection under human rights or modern slavery. There are some things in the Bill that I applaud. There are attempts to tighten up on article 8 of the ECHR to stop some claims under human rights and under modern slavery provisions as well, which is to be applauded. But while you continue to run a system where somebody simply needs to get within the 12-mile zone and then make a claim for protection, and you bring them ashore and process that claim in the UK, I am afraid that that is always going to send a message back, particularly to the high-intake nationalities we are talking about, from Eritrea, Sudan, Somalia and Iran, that all you need to do is get within the 12-mile zone and claim protection, and it is very unlikely—only about 4% have ever been removed—that you will be removed. I am afraid that that still creates a factor for migrants who are unsettled in the Schengen zone, who do not want to stay in France and who are determined to come here. It also still fuels the smugglers’ business model—there is profit in this; this is international organised crime—and they will continue to exploit that market.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Minister, the independent Regulatory Policy Committee has rated the Government’s impact assessment of the Bill as not fit for purpose. It says: “Little of the appraisal is quantified and most impacts are…uncertain.” What measurable difference do the Government expect the Bill to make? How many additional removals will it deliver? How much faster will cases finally be resolved? Anna Turley: The Bill is a really important part of our armoury for dealing with illegal immigration and securing our borders in this country. In introducing it, we have tried to be clear that this country has fundamental values of decency, fairness and tolerance that we hold dear. We have an historic role in providing safety to those fleeing war and persecution but, as we have heard today from lots of witnesses, we must recognise that the world is changing. The current system was not designed to cope with a world that is so volatile and insecure, or with people travelling through multiple safe countries before crossing the channel, particularly by boat. We have to confront the situation facing our asylum system, which is one of the most permissive, compared with other countries in Europe. Unfortunately, it is acting as a pull factor, providing a perverse incentive for people who have arrived illegally to switch to the asylum system once here. The Bill, as part of our wider process, tries to tackle that. The Bill is part of a range of measures we have in place to tackle issues raised by the shadow Minister, such as removals. I just want to set it in its context, because we have had a lot of conversation today about whether the Bill will be the silver bullet to stop the boats. I think it is really important to see it in the broader context of all the other measures that we are bringing in. As you know, we have established the Border Security Command, which has been part of the reason why—together with our one in, one out deal with France—we have already seen small boats down by over 40% this year. We have stopped 38,000 channel crossings, and the number of asylum claimants we have awaiting their initial decision is at its lowest since 2019. We are now down to fewer than half the hotels that asylum seekers had been placed in, and we have seen 80,000 removals since the last election, including 11,000 foreign national offenders. As I said, the Bill is one part of the armoury that we want to use. The problems we want to tackle are clear. Some 41% of asylum claims are from people who are already here and hold visas from another form of entering the country. As colleagues have heard, the first-tier tribunals have 156,000 appeals outstanding, with 72 weeks being the current average for asylum appeals. We have a number of late claims mechanisms that people use to threaten removals, and at the moment 95% of asylum decisions get appealed. That is the context we are trying to deal with through the course of the Bill’s passage. We have obviously talked about the Bill’s measures today, and we are confident that they will start to address, as part of that broader armoury, some of the pull factors that are leading to us being seen as having one of the most permissive processes in Europe.

• 6 Jul 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s decision to allow alterations to this Bill will come as a surprise to many who followed it through its earlier stages. As colleagues in the other place observed, this came as a surprise because, throughout the interregnum, the Government repeatedly informed the official Opposition that they were unable to make further policy decisions. That position even extended to measures confirmed as Government policy, such as passport seizure powers. Given that even fundamental issues relating to countries such as China could not be addressed then, it surprising that we are considering further amendments to this Bill now. Nevertheless, we are where we are, and we are considering the Government’s amendments on humanitarian activities. I understand the intention behind them. Nobody wants genuine humanitarian organisations that are carrying out vital work in difficult parts of the world to be caught by legislation never intended to target them, but we also have to recognise the reality of the threats that we face. As the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation recently pointed out, hostile states are willing to hide behind legitimate activity. Just as they might exploit legal or journalistic cover, they might also seek to exploit humanitarian cover. That is why the amendment he suggested was narrower than the one before us today. My concern is that the Government’s wording is capable of broader interpretation, particularly around conduct said to be for the purpose of “the carrying out of humanitarian activities”. That risks creating uncertainty and opportunities for abuse. What is striking is that this is not the position the Government took a short time ago. On Report, the Minister made it clear that genuine humanitarian work would not be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. Indeed, when rejecting amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), she argued that the prohibited purpose test would protect legitimate conduct without creating loopholes for hostile actors. If that was the Government’s position then, what has changed? We would be naive to assume that this defence could never be exploited. We have seen hostile states attempt to use charitable organisations as vehicles for influence and interference. The chief executive of the Charity Commission has warned about those risks, and Ministers themselves have highlighted concerns about Iranian-backed charities operating in this country. Members have worked hard to expose those threats. As we strengthen our powers to tackle hostile state activity, we must be careful not to create new opportunities for hostile actors. This Bill already contains a higher threshold—or safeguards, as some would call them—that creates greater protections for those who support state bodies directing acts of terror, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, than for those who support the terrorist groups that the IRGC funds and directs, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. This threshold, we believe, will make prosecutions far less likely, as the extra hurdle and burden of intent is too high, and necessarily so. In addition, any prosecution requires the consent of the Attorney General, providing a significant safeguard against inappropriate cases. That makes me question whether these provisions are necessary. I appreciate the Government’s intentions, but our first responsibility is to ensure that this legislation is robust. This Bill exists because the threats posed by hostile states are real and growing. If we are giving our police, intelligence agencies and security services the powers they need to respond, we must ensure that those powers are not weakened by loopholes. For that reason, we remain concerned that these amendments, however well intentioned, risk creating opportunities for hostile actors to evade the measures that the Bill is designed to put in place.