Alex Norris
MP for Nottingham North and Kimberley · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“I am grateful for the Liberal Democrat spokesperson’s contribution. As I hope she heard me say, I do accept that the impact of our taking the summer to carve more offences out of this regime in a way that is safe and means we have a resilient prison estate has had an impact on victims and survivors and on their families, as they wait with…”
“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.”
“To help solve the crisis in adult prisons, I have decided to temporarily hold some 18-year-olds in our youth estate for longer. My job is to balance the sustainability of our prisons with public protection, the rights of victims and public confidence in the justice system.”
“More than 2,000 people are still trapped by indeterminate imprisonment for public protection, or IPP, sentences. They were rightly abolished a decade ago, but offenders are still locked up for far longer than envisaged, often for crimes that, if committed today, would see them spend much less time in jail.”
“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.”
“We have increased removals by 41% compared with the last two years of the previous Tory Government, and we have changed the law to expand the early removal scheme. Now we will go further.”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Alex Norris, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 13.
“I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that important point. We know that those hotels across the country are providing a focal point for people to do things that they absolutely should not do, and we condemn that behaviour in the fullest terms. Our No. 1 goal is to shut the hotels—that is the priority—and I make that commitment to the community of Perth. Alongside that, we work with the local police to ensure that areas are supported and that all tools are used as effectively as possible. I can support the hon. Gentleman in that.”
“My hon. Friend raises that issue with me very frequently indeed, and for good reason. I totally accept his characterisation. The people of Bournemouth have three such hotels, which is an extraordinary pressure not just on public services but on community tensions. I do not want those hotels open a minute longer than they have to be, so Bournemouth is absolutely uppermost in our minds.”
“I am conscious of this issue, and think also of the Cladhan hotel in Falkirk and the impact on the local community, because my hon. Friend is rightly very dogged in raising this with me. I want to see that hotel closed. We are, of course, in the slightly better weather of the year, which puts pressure on services. Nevertheless, we want the hotels closed. We have made a commitment to do that within this Parliament, but I say to colleagues that they will not be open a minute longer than they have to be.”
“Taken together, our reforms will rebalance the system so that support aligns with responsibility. The genuinely destitute will continue to receive help, but those who do not meet that threshold, or who breach the rules, will not be able to rely on taxpayer-funded support. The reforms are necessary to ensure that asylum support functions effectively now and is resilient enough to meet future pressures. In delivering them, we will reinforce public trust and maintain a system that is compassionate, is credible and promotes compliance with the rules. The Government’s position is straightforward: fairness for those who need support and follow the rules, firm action where the rules are not followed, and a clear duty to the taxpayer who funds the system.”
“It undercuts legitimate business and takes genuine work opportunities away from others. We often see very public signs of that in many communities. Allowing illegal working in that way, without consequences, undermines public confidence in the system, where public confidence is already rather low. It also acts as a pull factor—we know from the traffickers’ materials that the ability to work illegally in this country acts as a pull factor. We are changing that reality. The draft immigration and asylum instrument is an important part of that. Under it, illegal working will be a clear and explicit ground for removing section 4 support under the 1999 Act from failed asylum seekers; it will therefore align with the section 98 and 95 provision that was laid alongside these measures and came into force on 27 March.”
“The second draft instrument that we are debating, the draft Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, will enable the discontinuation of an individual’s support solely on the basis of illegal working. Previously, if illegal working was suspected, the Department had to treat such behaviour as potential fraud before support could be withdrawn. By making illegal working an explicit breach of support conditions under the regulations, we are providing a direct and transparent basis for discontinuing assistance in appropriate cases without the need for extended investigative processes. Most asylum seekers do not have the right to work in this country, but some choose to do so illegally, while claiming asylum support and accommodation. That, of course, is not right.”
“The first of the draft instruments to consider, the Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, provides for a key element of our reforms: the shift from a mandatory duty to provide asylum support to a discretionary power, as originally provided for in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It reinforces the fact that state support should be provided to those who genuinely need it. Again, it will be important for the Committee to hear that we will always meet our human rights obligations regarding avoiding destitution, but the flexibility provided by reverting from a duty to a power is essential to ensure that we have an equitable and sustainable system.”
“The changes form part of a longer-term shift towards a fairer, modern asylum support framework—one that upholds our legal responsibilities while promoting compliance and deterring misuse. For context, it is important for the Committee to understand that in the financial year ’24-25, a total of £4 billion was spent by Government on asylum support in the UK. That figure has reduced by 15%, but it is a significant sum of money to support the 107,003 people in receipt of asylum support as of December. Given the burden on the taxpayer, it is right that we ensure that that money is spent properly, in the best possible way. The instruments serve that purpose.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. Both draft statutory instruments were laid before the House on 5 March this year. Our Government have set out their vision to restore order to and control of our borders, and to deliver a fair but firm system for those who seek asylum in our country. As part of the reforms, we seek to ensure that asylum support—both financial provision and accommodation—is provided to those who need it. The reforms set out in the draft statutory instruments before the Committee will enable the development of a system in which assistance is directed towards those who would otherwise be truly destitute, while strengthening our ability to act in cases where individuals disregard the rules.”
“Colleagues have made an interesting range of contributions, and I will try to cover all the points they have made. I will start with the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent. The hon. Member for Fylde finished her thoughts regarding tinkering around the edges. We have committed to replacing this regime with a full framework. It is right that we take time to engage with the local government family—the hon. Member for Woking mentioned them—and with wider interested parties to make sure that is right. The hon. Member for Weald of Kent has heard clearly what the Government intend to do, which is to make sure that those housed at significant expense to the British taxpayer carry out their part of the bargain by not committing crimes. I will come on to the remarks of the hon.”
““Restoring Order and Control”, our document published in November, is the biggest reform of our asylum system certainly in my adult lifetime—probably in my whole lifetime, to be fair. That is all doable within our international obligations. The reality is that the alternative to doing those serious things is just ripping up our international obligations and then spending years trying to work out how to get back return agreements with other countries, never mind our own freedoms.”
“She also talked about scale and suggested that what we know is only a small part of the issue. Through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, the extra powers, particularly on the gig economy, to ensure that those substituting their labour are doing so to people who have a genuine right to work, are a step change in the regulatory regime in this country. They will help us to close the gap and make it very hard indeed to work illegally here. The hon. Member also said that meaningful change is impossible without leaving the ECHR. I always caution colleagues about being quick to discount things that provide a really important underpinning of rights, because they are our rights too.”
“The hon. Gentleman has occupied his second position in about three minutes, so perhaps he needs a little more time. But I cannot get with the argument that because the numbers may be small—of course that is a good thing—the situation is in some way tolerable. The numbers who commit crime across the population are, mercifully, small, but we still seek to prosecute; we still seek punishment. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that unimportant. If something happened in his constituency—despite that very small number of people, a significant crime could take place or illegal working could have an impact on the local economy—the people of Dundee might feel strongly about that. I think that they would. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent, talked about this measure not being enough to provide discouragement.”
“I am on the side of the British people. That is the reason why I am here. It is why I stood for my council. It is why I stood for Parliament and why I wanted to be a Government Minister.”
“I hope that he will be out making the case for that on the doorstep as soon as possible, and at least quantify what we should stop doing, so that we can do more on this. The hon. Member also mentioned destitution. Again, I would rely on the article 3 backstop on that. He talked about a “straw man”, but that is not in the nature of my politics. I reassure him that this is a genuine attempt to grip a system that does not work. We have had lots of debates in the Chamber on the other things we are doing; this is a serious attempt to grasp a serious problem. It is a good thing that the level of offending is mercifully low, but we want that level to be nil, as that is a fair balance with the taxpayer. That is why we are doing what we are doing. The hon. Member for Fylde asked what side we are on—left or right?”
“This is a hopelessly broken system; there is nothing progressive about defending it, which is why we are seeking to change it. The hon. Member set out quite a dystopian vision, but I gently say that for around six years of our nation’s history, between 1999 and 2005, we relied on the power rather than the duty. I was at school at the time and remember those days only tangentially, but it was not exactly a dystopian past, so I do not recognise what he said. The hon. Member said that the support we have today should be a floor, not a ceiling. I have not heard from Scottish nationalist colleagues—even, I suspect, as a feature of the current election in Scotland—a suggestion of what services or public investments they would cut in order to top this up, and in what way.”
“Those principles are of course contested, although not by us, but I hope the hon. Member is reassured that the backstop exists. The SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Dundee Central, spoke at great length about a world that I did not quite recognise, and which I have to say is not in anything we are preparing here. I say gently to him that there is nothing progressive about defending a status quo where human traffickers have the most agency and people routinely lose their lives in the channel, and that is before any sort of transit effects—never mind the impact on the women and children in that transit. If that was a challenge about where I sit on the political spectrum, there was language in what he said I would not recognise.”
“That is why we have modern slavery protections through the Modern Slavery Act 2015. We of course take that exceptionally seriously. That vulnerable group of people will not be affected by these provisions. The hon. Member gave me a slightly impossible challenge by asking me what I will do to make sure that a future Government who do not currently exist do not do something that he and I would not want. I kind of get that, but, as many people have said in this room over the centuries, one Government cannot bind the hands of a future Government. There is a reality there. That is why we have elections and we seek to continue in Government. However, at least in most cases, we have a backstop—we have an article 3 backstop and a refugee convention backstop—that gives universal protections irrespective of the Government of the day.”
“The point about a right to work is one of principled disagreement between us. My strong view is that, if we know that traffickers are saying, “Come to the UK—you will be housed in a hotel and allowed to work illegally”, simply changing the reality so that the people can work legally would be an intolerable pull factor. However, to help close that gap there is the right to work at 12 months, so the gap is not so big. The hon. Gentleman suggested around six months. I do not know if he would go any further, but he certainly mentioned six in his contribution. With regards to important questions around slavery, the hon. Member mentioned that he does not quite understand the definition of “deliberate”. I do not think people will be accidentally working illegally, but I accept they could be compelled to.”
“He talks about a plan; he will have seen what we have said about appeals reform. I hope that he and his colleagues will feel able to support that in due course. The hon. Member also talked about knock-on effects on others. I am particularly mindful of local government; he knows my passion for local government. The intention of this measure is not to shift the burden from the Home Office to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government or to councils. Indeed, he will have seen our plans to reduce homelessness, in respect of which we are a significant stakeholder. Of course we are mindful of those effects. I argue that the article 3 backstop in relation to destitution should give him—I hope it does—a degree of confidence that that is not going to happen.”
“He will know—indeed, I think I have heard him talk about this before—that the original sin, particularly in relation to hotel capacity, comes from the backlog in initial decision making from when the previous Government just stopped making decisions. As a result, a huge backlog built up. I am very pleased that, as a Government, we have been able to get through that backlog. The hon. Member has talked about this before, and I listened carefully to what he said about Nightingale-style decision making. I gently say that we do not need to do that, because of the decisions that have been made at a quicker rate, without affecting the grant rate but with better and improving quality. That of course creates pressures on the appeal system while that cohort of people move through it. That is not a forever thing, although I recognise it.”
“I gently say that I do not think it is my test. The public are very clear about what they think about the system: the system lacks order and control. The test by which we judge our efforts is whether we bring order and control to the system, and that is what we are doing. That allows me to segue nicely to what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking, said about a credible plan; that is the plan, as he well knows, given that he was part of those deliberations and has been on many occasions. He talked about the appeals backlog—a very important point. I gently say that that is a sign of a system that we are getting to grips with.”
“It is not a cop out, as the hon. Gentleman suggests from his seat. It is about saying that there is nothing progressive about defending a broken status quo or a reality that the British public know does not work—and we do know that. We are all knocking on doors at the moment, right? Instead, we seek to build something rooted in British values. That is the side I am on. The hon. Member talked about hotel closures. He challenged me by saying that his community is not seeing change, but the closure of a hotel is a significant change, and that is coming to the 180 or so hotels that are still open, down from 400 at the peak.”
“People enter and exit the system at various points for various reasons. Our number one principle is that we want to reduce demand. In the last two years, there have been more than 80,000 applications. Between 2011 and 2020, there were a third of that number. The No. 1 way to close hotels is to reduce demand. Dispersal accommodation is a factor in all our communities. We operate the policy of full dispersal, which we inherited from the previous Government, to make sure that that is done in an equitable way. [Interruption.]”
“Home Office quarterly statistics show that there were 103,426 individuals in asylum accommodation on 30 December 2025, compared with 108,085 on 30 September 2025 and 96,642 on 30 June 2024. Of course, these time periods are not like-for-like comparisons, but for reference colleagues will be interested to note that in the final September under the previous Government there were more than 119,000 asylum seekers in accommodation, so the comparable figure from September 2025 is well down on that level.”
“I wish that the previous Government—I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would say the same—had used their time to build some houses, because that is the root of our housing crisis. However, it is undoubtedly true that the estate is running hot, which is why he will be pleased to hear of the figures falling from September to September. Without running ahead of its publication, future data is likely to show that trend—one we all support—continuing.”
“The hon. Lady will know that the statement on asylum policy set out the most significant reforms to the asylum system, certainly in my lifetime. We have already introduced the reduced protection period, we are making quicker and better decisions that ever before, and removals have increased by 30% on our predecessors. Together, such measures are decreasing those numbers—that is from September to September—with perhaps future good news to come.”
“My hon. Friend is right. Reform Members say they are a new voice in politics, but they look very similar to the old voice if you ask me. The important thing, which his constituents will know, is that the Tories opened those hotels when in government, and it will be Labour that closes them.”
“I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that creativity is pointing at different dates in the calendar for a profile that he knows has seasonal elements to it, and trying to compare them as like for like—he knows that that does not work. He was, however, kind to give me the opportunity to say that work on tackling organised immigration crime is at its record level, with a 37% increase under this Government and 5,000 disruptions. That is serious work. Conservative Members will throw rocks from the sideline, but that is what they do, isn’t it?”
“I am slightly concerned if the hon. Gentleman thinks that people who come as part of economic migration schemes are in some way in the asylum population, as those two things are significantly different. Nevertheless, we have made significant proposals in that space, including increasing the main basis time to settlement to 10 years, with the ability to earn based on working, not committing crimes, and learning the English language—all sensible changes. Our consultation, which closed last month, had more than 200,000 responses, and we are looking at them closely.”
“The hon. Gentleman knows that we work very closely with our European counterparts, especially France, our nearest neighbour. He mentions the important work that we do together, which has prevented 40,000 crossings since we took office; we want that work to continue. We are having those conversations with France at the moment, and I do not think he would expect me to negotiate from the Dispatch Box.”
“The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that under this Government, removals have now reached 60,000. That is up by 31% on our predecessors, so I cannot accept the argument that we are not removing people at pace and at scale. The routes by which people come generally depend on which country they come from and how likely they are to have their claim accepted.”
“The Secretary of State has a strict legal liability to remove anybody who gets a sentence of a year or more and, from today, anyone who gets a suspended sentence of a year or more. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend has raised an important case. If she sends the details, I will look at it closely.”
“If the right hon. Gentleman checks the record, he will see that I answer an awful lot of questions from colleagues on a daily basis. I seek to give the fullest available information, so that we can have the best and most based in fact debate on what is a very contentious issue. I will have to look more closely at the element he raises, but he will know from his time in government that cost and person time are factors in what we can and cannot pull together to release.”
“The hon. Gentleman secured and hosted a good debate on this subject only last week. It was well subscribed, and we had a very good conversation. As he is well experienced in this place, he will know that when we need primary legislation, there will be primary legislation. When we need secondary legislation, there will be secondary legislation. If things are a matter for policy, they will be a matter for policy.”
“First, the idea of an orderly system—one that takes the agency away from the traffickers, closes down illegal routes into the country and opens up safe and legal ones—sits squarely within the mainstream of Labour’s traditions. The idea that we incentivise by making the best route to settlement by working and contributing, being a good neighbour and not committing crime, is also rooted in the values of our movement. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) covered that point very well. I am proud that we are part of a Government who have been willing—even when it is politically difficult—to say that we intend to pivot the model in that way.”
“But this Parliament and this Government should be the ones to set the terms of that, rather than universities themselves. That must surely be the right balance. The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), talked about our commitment to people from Afghanistan. He knows that in the past few years, we have brought 35,000 people over via safe and legal means. Again, we will offer those protected visa routes, but that should be a decision for this country’s democracy, rather than a decision for universities. My hon. Friend the Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Alloa and Grangemouth and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) talked about values —something I think about a lot.”
“I think that that is the right balance between the individual and the collective. The issue of visa brakes was raised by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, and by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) when he talked about “back doors”. It is a really important point. From the four countries for which we implemented visa brakes—Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan—asylum applications had risen to more than 470% of their 2021 level. In the case of Afghanistan, 93% of those students—all of whom said they had come to the country for a time-limited period—claimed asylum. If that, as the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire posits, demonstrates that there is a need for an asylum-linked study route, I agree, actually. He knows that the Home Secretary has already announced that we intend to bring that in.”
“I will now turn to some of the points on illegal migration. First, on core protection, the 30-month permission, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), is there because, if individuals come to this country and get refuge, but then sit at home without learning the language or contributing to society, we believe that is no life. It is not good for the individual or the collective. If they switch to the protected work and study route, which means they are either working or learning, and are learning the language, not committing crimes, and taking part in society, they can take themselves out of that 30-month renewal regime. It is exactly designed to give people the opportunity to contribute, which is what colleagues have wanted.”
“I am proud that, through our asylum policy statement, this Government were willing to stand up when it was politically difficult to do so, and say that we want to break the model of the traffickers who transport people to this country illegally, while providing safe and legal routes. I cannot accept, however, that time-limited university schemes designed for an individual to come for one, three or four years—an agreement made between that individual with the state and the university—should act as a de facto asylum system. That cannot be right, which is why we are replacing it. However, I heard a lot from the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues that I found heartening with regards to the desire to provide sanctuary, for everyone to have an opportunity to contribute to this country and for integration, because we share those desires, too.”
“I will explain shortly how that will work in practice, but that is not the change he described. The hon. Gentleman also said that the Home Secretary will arbitrarily, at the stroke of a pen, overturn individuals’ protection needs. Again, that is not true. Everybody’s protection need will be individually assessed. I am a white, middle-aged, cisgendered, heterosexual man, but someone who looks like me—just as good looking, Mr Stringer—could be gay, and they would not be safe in certain contexts. That principle will always be the case under this Government, and it is an established principle in this democracy. The hon. Gentleman talked about it making it impossible to find work. Again, that is not at all the intention, which I will cover when I talk about core protection. He talked about the contraction of safe and legal routes.”
“Gentleman talked about the edges of the argument, but I say to him that the edges of the argument at the moment embody, on one side, a nightmarish vision of a Britain that closes its borders, puts up high walls and offers sanctuary to no one; and on the other, a fairytale that pretends that we can do it in all circumstances with all people. That is not right, and the public know it. I will cover the points that the hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members have made, but I do want to address some of the things the hon. Gentleman said in opening that are simply wrong, starting with the idea that the Home Secretary has changed refuge rules overnight from being permanent to temporary. That is not the case. It used to be a five-year grant of settlement; it is now a two-and-a-half-year one.”
“That is set against the instincts of the British people. I know from my own community, in which it is no secret that the immigration conversation is difficult, that those same people who raised those concerns with me about the disorder and lack of control are the same people who leant into the Afghan resettlement scheme, the Syrian scheme, the Hong Kong British national overseas scheme—for which we have one of the biggest populations in the country—and Homes for Ukraine, in which people are literally opening their homes. That showed that when there was control in the system and order, and when we knew those coming forward genuinely needed protection, the community would lean into it. That is an awful lot to build on. The hon.”
“I appreciate the power and the anger with which he spoke, but I know that he has the same power and anger towards those individuals. Personally, I would like to have heard more on that, because we know what the consequences are across the country. Public confidence on this issue is subterranean. The hon. Gentleman made a lot of points about politics, but actually this is much bigger than party politics. Public confidence in the mainstream to deliver meaningful change in this space is subterranean. This is the last go for the mainstream to do this. We know that public order, as a result, is in jeopardy. We must be really careful; I appeal to all hon. Members that there must be no progressive defence of the status quo—they would never hear that from the Government Front Bench. There is only the absolute need to act.”
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer; I shall certainly follow that direction. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate, on a topic he clearly feels very passionate about. He spoke with great power, while also providing a forum for colleagues to do the same and raise interesting and important global, national, regional and local issues. I will seek to cover the wide range of issues that have been raised in this debate, but I start by saying this, because I did not hear it enough in the hon. Gentleman’s contribution: the system at the moment is disorderly and uncontrolled. The people with the most agency in the system now are human traffickers.”
“We are looking very carefully at it—transitional protection was an element of it, and we will return to it. The hon. Member for Woking asked me what I thought of what the Law Society has said about a lack of clarity. I defend the principle that we are consulting and thereby creating clarity. I think that that is the right balance. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) made interesting points about common sponsorship, and I am talking to the union movement about that. We are looking at it closely. I have covered a number of points that were made in what has been an interesting debate.”
“A number of colleagues raised settlement issues—I will not name them all—including my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), who is no longer in her place. We will retain existing safeguards around domestic violence and abuse. On earned settlement, again, it is about ensuring that people’s contributions are recognised, so that working and earning, learning the language and not committing crimes can accelerate a person’s route to settlement. That is why we brought it in. On the point about retrospection, it has always been the case that the rules apply at the point of application, not at the point of entry. Nevertheless, colleagues know that we consulted—the consultation only recently closed, and it had 200,000 contributions.”
“That is a very important point. If people are failed asylum seekers or foreign national offenders, and have no right to be in the country, they should be removed. There is a challenge: public confidence, as I have said, is so, so low. It must be demonstrated that that takes place—I have that conversation with constituents, and they do not always believe me. If my hon. Friend thinks that it is too route one, I accept that challenge, but I cannot accept that we do not need to tell that story, because we absolutely do. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked for a meeting about fishing; I will make sure that it happens with me or with my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp). For sheep shearers, we have announced the one-year extension.”
“I know this country, and I know the protection that people want to provide to those who need it—we have seen that with the Syrian scheme, Afghan resettlement, Hong Kong British national overseas passport holders and Homes for Ukraine—but we can do that only when there is confidence that the system has order and control. These reforms restore order and build the system that the British people deserve.”
“We have tabled further legislative changes to revoke the current legal duty to provide support to asylum seekers, instead restoring it to a power to provide support so that those who can support themselves do so. We are also amending existing conditions of support legislation to enable the suspension or discontinuation of asylum support when an asylum seeker is working illegally. We have started a consultation on our approach to family returns, exploring reforms to the support available to families with no legal basis to remain in the UK and the approach used when enforcing the returns of families who have not departed voluntarily. After years of chaos and crisis, it has fallen to this Government to fix the broken systems we inherited.”