Saqib Bhatti
MP for Meriden and Solihull East · Conservative · United Kingdom
“My constituents in Meriden and Solihull East are greatly concerned about abuse of the European convention on human rights, including article 8. They deem cases like that of the Albanian criminal who was not deported because his son would not eat foreign chicken nuggets to be an insult.”
“I have lots of time for the Minister who will be closing the debate as well, but I have not heard him speak yet, so I will reserve judgment. The hon.”
“It is there to ensure that trade unions and the hand of the state can interfere with private enterprise. We are starting to see the consequences, which will only increase. My right hon.”
“The consequence of the Government’s policies is that youth unemployment is high, at 14.5%—much higher than when they took office in 2024—and among 16 to 17-year-olds it is 30.7%. Those are huge numbers, and I worry about them. I recently held a debate in Westminster Hall on the impact of the Government’s policies on rural pubs.”
“It is basic economics that interference in the labour market will have a consequence: naturally, business owners must make logical decisions and will decide to adjust their employment numbers accordingly; they will do what they can afford, and they must make a profit.”
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for his excellent speech. I agree with everything he just said. This is a really important debate, and the motion put forward by His Majesty’s Opposition is so significant for young people.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Saqib Bhatti, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 12.
“Thank you for calling me, Sir Jeremy; you will be pleased to know that I do not have a 26-minute winding-up speech. I thank all Members across Westminster Hall for their contributions. I thank the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), for the challenge he set, and the Policing Minister for the constructive way in which she engaged in the debate. I absolutely accept the stats that the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) set out. Although the suspect-adjusted disparity stats still show that black men are more likely to get searched, it is much more targeted, but no stats are perfect. It is really important that communities have trust in policing, and I am conscious of a narrative being built up that might undermine police officers in those communities.”
“They are the risk takers who turn a profit, which pays the taxes that fund our public services. Unfortunately, the Bill does not recognise any of that. In fact, businesses are anxious and are worried about what it is introducing.”
“I had friends who joined trade unions, even though they were not in a unionised workplace. I encouraged it. They needed representation, and I thought it was a good thing to do. I have no problem with trade union relationships in the modern workplace, but a balance must be achieved. A comment was made about economic units. Economic units are the businesses that create economic growth. Of course workers are really important. My employees were really important to me, because my business could not run without them. The majority of business owners recognise that. Conservative Members recognise that there is a symbiotic relationship between the people who run businesses and the employees who work in them. Those individuals running businesses are drivers of economic change. They are innovators who come up with the ideas.”
“We are yet to see the impact of the new amendments—a further move to a more socialist version of the Bill—and their cost to businesses. The right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), who is a friend and neighbour, talked about the modern workplace. I agree that the workplace has changed since the 1950s and even the 1970s, but the Bill will take the workplace back to the 1970s. It fails to achieve a balance between working people and businesses, and a relationship between trade unions and businesses. In fact, it goes way, way down the line in favouring trade unions, and it makes it much harder for people to run businesses. When I was president of the chamber of commerce, I was perfectly fine with trade unions and having good relationships with them.”
“Also, before being elected, I was president of the Greater Birmingham chamber of commerce, one of the largest and oldest chambers of commerce in the country and the world, representing thousands of small businesses. Let us be in no doubt: this is a terrible piece of legislation. It is a love letter from the Labour Government to trade unions, and it will lead to a trail of socialist carnage and destruction that will leave the country reeling for many, many years to come. It harms business, undermines employment, will drive up unemployment and will do nothing to increase growth or investment in the United Kingdom, the purported aims of the Government. In fact, the Government’s original impact assessment, when the Bill was first introduced, talked about the cost to business being about £4.5 billion, reaching almost £5 billion.”
“I would like to address the hon. Lady’s point that being pro-worker is pro-business. We Conservative Members believe that. The only problem is that this legislation is not pro-worker or pro-business. It will drive up unemployment and the regulation of businesses. The workers whom she purports to represent and support are exactly the people who will suffer as a result of this legislation. We Conservative Members absolutely get that. I will talk in favour of amendments on the political fund, new clause 88 and amendments 291 and 299, and will refer to access to the workplace. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, not least because I worked in a small family business and retain an interest in the family business.”
“They are absolutely are. The Deputy Prime Minister, when challenged to name a business that supported the Bill, could not do so. [ Interruption. ] I am sure the hon. Member will have an opportunity to speak on the matter in his own way.”
“I could not have made the point better. The number of amendments, and the cost and regulatory burden being placed on businesses, large, medium and small, have worried many businesses, not just in my constituency but across the country. This will do immense harm, and it will take a long time to fix the mess that has been created.”
“Before—and after—the election, and during the passage of this legislation, Labour has said time and again that it was listening to businesses. Clearly that is not the case. Businesses continue to feel that they have been led up the garden path by this damaging Labour Government.”
“I am more than happy to extend that invitation. Madam Deputy Speaker may get annoyed with me if I take 24 interventions, although I do not see anyone jumping to their feet, so we will take that for what it is. There is also anxiety about the clauses on access to the workplace. The Government have now gone further and talked about digital access. This is a huge burden to put on small businesses, and it is shameful of the Government wilfully and blindly to ignore their concerns. Labour Members will have to answer many questions from businesses in their communities. Those same businesses contribute to the Treasury coffers and pay for the public services that Labour Members champion. This will be really important, and the burden will of course increase.”
“As we have heard from Members from across the House, only the Conservatives will stand up for businesses. I have questions for all Labour Members. People ask what this Labour Government stand for. They undermine businesses and working people, so that is a legitimate question. I fail to see who, other than trade unions, the Labour party now stands for. When people asked what we Conservatives stand for, Margaret Thatcher had a very good answer. She said that the Labour party— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who spoke before me, read out a quote; I think I should do so as well. Margaret Thatcher said: “The Labour Party believes in turning workers against owners; we believe in turning workers into owners.””
“The hon. Lady should speak to the Deputy Prime Minister, who failed to name a single supportive business when challenged to do so. In the short time I have left, I will make a couple of quick points. Labour Members keep saying that the Bill will lead to fewer strikes. It will not; it makes it easier to strike. In fact, the Transport Secretary today said that strikes will be necessary in the areas covered by her portfolio. The Bill will make it easier to strike, not harder. [Interruption.] Labour Members are exercised; I am sure that they will get a chance to comment. The country is at risk of being turned into a 1970s-style striking country. This Bill should be a wake-up call for all working people and businesses that will be undermined.”
“I am more than happy to work with him on that, as the shadow Minister. To add to the uncertainty, the Government are yet to publish their guidance on how the changes to the scheme will work. When the shadow Minister in the other place asked the Minister there whether the new annual limit of £25,000 per institution on claims from the listed places of worship grant scheme will apply to works begun before that date, the Minister was able only to say: “We will provide updated information on scheme applications and eligibility in due course, before April.” Can today’s Minister clarify that? Many people will be looking for an answer. Those working behind the scenes to fund restoration projects deserve a bit more clarity and certainty from the Government, which I hope will be forthcoming.”
“Concerns have been raised about the impact that the increase in national insurance and the decrease in the thresholds will have on churches, and particularly parish administrators who work only a few days a week. The Opposition are clear: churches that are not under the strong stewardship and care of the Churches Conservation Trust must not be left to decay and neglected. The Government’s decision to continue the listed places of worship grant scheme was welcome, and I thank the Minister for what he did on that, but there was a cut in funding. The decision to commit to only one more calendar year leaves churches in a worrying period of uncertainty. Was the impact of the new cap on the scheme taken into account when laying the draft order, and will the Minister consider a more permanent grant or relief scheme—not a rebate?”
“As many Members will be aware, there are sadly 969 places of worship on Historic England’s 2024 heritage at risk register. That is a significant change from 2023: while 23 were removed, 55 were added, marking an increase of 26 above the total on the 2023 register. Cathedrals, parish churches, chapels and meeting houses make up 959 of the 969 places of worship on the register, with the other buildings belonging to other faiths. Churches are closing at an alarming rate and the Chancellor’s Budget has unfortunately placed an additional financial burdens on every aspect of society and culture, including churches. Many churches have staff who are part-time or on lower wages within the congregation.”
“Without the funding provided to the Churches Conservation Trust, the churches that it cares for now may have been listed only in the history books, and there is no doubt that communities would have been all the poorer for it, so I welcome the funding. Thanks to the fantastic work of the trust, the buildings are tourist attractions that bring visitors to UK cities, towns and villages. They are spaces for education and development, they are meeting spots for local residents and, as they are all still consecrated, they remain open for worship. Looking forward, I hope that the Government recognise the place of churches in modern society and the wider benefits that they bring in terms of education, tackling loneliness, bringing communities together and attracting visitors.”
“For example, the Churches Conservation Trust regeneration team works with community groups, charities, social enterprises, businesses, entrepreneurs and public bodies to find new uses for closed places of worship and other heritage sites. That helps to revitalise and rejuvenate the spaces for the benefit of local communities. Its core mission is to make sure that the buildings are preserved and remain at the heart of local communities. The regeneration team tries to instil the key principle of sustainable stewardship, which includes ensuring that problems such as decay or irrelevance are identified early to prevent them from becoming overwhelming.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the Minister for introducing the draft order. His Majesty’s official Opposition warmly welcome the Government’s support for the Churches Conservation Trust. I suspect I may end up repeating some of what the Minister said, but the Opposition take this very seriously. The Churches Conservation Trust performs a crucial role in protecting at-risk churches. The trust funds repairs and maintenance on the over 350 churches in its portfolio, and attracts over 2 million visitors per year. All the trust’s churches are listed at either grade I or II and some, as the Minister said, are scheduled ancient monuments. However, it is important to highlight, as he already has, that the trust’s work extends far beyond repairing churches.”
“I urge the Government to consider the costs of their decisions that will be imposed on market towns, and to ensure that our cultural heritage is not lost in the decline of our local businesses and town centres.”
“Ensuring that market towns continue to perform their traditional civic functions is as important as preserving their heritage. Making more public services such as libraries and social mixed-use spaces available could go a long way in shaping the appeal of market towns. The House of Lords Built Environment Committee has led important research in reversing high street decline. It is important that its findings are reflected in the decisions taken by the Government in the context of market towns. Historic market towns are an irreplaceable part of our cultural heritage. It is vital that the Government understand their contribution to our country’s heritage and do not push policies that actively harm their future.”
“That has to be more than just a slogan, and it is equally true of our market towns. It is our historic pubs, our crafts and shops that give historic market towns so much of their character. Yet so many are now unsure whether they can continue under the burden that is being placed on them by the current Government. In particular, the increase in employer national insurance contributions, the reduction in retail, hospitality and leisure relief on business rates, as I have mentioned, and the increase in the national living wage are all going to weigh heavily on those small businesses. I urge the Government to reconsider those policies in the context of our historic market towns, which we are at risk of losing to closure and decline.”
“I hope the Government can provide more clarity on the impact that that will have on the tourism that many market towns rely on. At the most recent oral questions, I asked for an impact assessment—not from this Minister, I should add. I know that she is stepping in today, but perhaps she can discuss the impact assessment, if indeed there is one. Our historic market towns face many of the same pressures affecting high streets and town centres across the UK. While traditional markets have an enduring appeal, there is no denying that many have also been affected by online shopping, developments in out-of-town centres and recent policy decisions. Thriving market towns need a strong local economy and a strong local community to maintain them. Small businesses are the bedrock of local communities.”
“VisitBritain’s research into international tourism highlights the importance of market towns and other historical places that attract visitors from overseas: 78% of tourists said they value a destination having history and heritage to explore. That shows the value of our historic market towns and what they do to bring tourism and promote our culture. Although I welcome the Government’s commitment to growing tourism outside London and the south-east, I question whether the business rates relief reduction to 40% for retail, hospitality and leisure will help our market towns to prosper. Perhaps the Minister could answer that point. There is also concern about the increase in the cost of electronic travel authorisations for those visiting the UK.”
“It is welcome to see that Historic England recognises the benefits that permitted development rights have brought market towns. Historic England notes how outdoor markets support “the cultural heritage offer and the economic future for historic high streets” and that revitalising market squares “benefits those historic centres whose unique character is a product of a long market tradition.” I urge the Government to continue the work begun under the previous Government, to ensure that permitted development rights become permanent, providing certainty for the future of traditional markets. Inhabitants of market towns are not the only ones to recognise the cultural heritage on offer; millions of tourists visit them each year.”
“Does she recognise that the Government’s proposal to rapidly expand housing could risk market towns losing their identity and sense of community, a point that was made earlier? How will Labour’s planning laws protect the heritage of our beautiful historical market towns? My right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold made an eloquent point about family farms and our concerns about the impact of changes to business property relief and agricultural property relief. Those farms play a huge part in the future of our historic market towns. I previously raised the issue of the impact of changes to business property relief and APR on the future of stately homes, which are essential to many market towns. The Conservative party has committed to reversing those changes to APR and BPR.”
“With many rural communities near market towns concerned about the impact of housing targets, it is essential that the Government listen to the concerns of local people and ensure that there is sufficient infrastructure to deal with a rising population, a point made by numerous hon. Members today. Many people are already stuck on long waiting lists for GP appointments, are struggling to get their kids into the best schools and are seeing road networks take even more strain. Will the Minister confirm that our market towns will continue to be supported properly when their populations are likely to increase? Will the voices of local communities be taken into account, as we are concerned that they are being written out of that legislation?”
“Permitted development rights have allowed historic market towns to host markets in their public spaces and sell food and drink in marquees at listed buildings, without the need for planning permission, providing a regular business outlet for local craftspeople, farmers and traders, who might otherwise lack large indoor spaces. Those development rights have given local businesses and market towns the flexibility to make the most of their cultural heritage. It is vital that we do not allow the new planning proposals put forward by the Labour Government to create huge headaches for local communities in and around market towns.”
“The fact that over 2.7 million people took part in those cultural events, hosted by historic high streets, is a testament to how the scheme has renewed people’s pride in local market towns, as well as providing a much-needed boost to high street businesses and local communities. It is vital to create the conditions to allow market towns to thrive, embracing their rich heritage as well as new opportunities for growth. An area with particular success in combining history with innovation is the revitalising of historic market squares and the hosting of outdoor markets through permitted development rights introduced by the previous Government.”
“The scheme has seen local partnerships work tirelessly to improve the quality of life in market towns across England. To date, 20 historic places and market towns have been revitalised through the scheme, and 157 historic buildings have been brought back into use through restoration. Equally encouraging has been the success of the high streets heritage action zones: 67 historic high streets across England have received new investment, more community engagement and hosted more cultural events through the scheme, with more than 460 shopfronts and 224 historic homes restored.”
“It is striking just how much continuity there has been in the history of market towns, with even 20th century new towns designed around the principles from medieval times. Preserving that wonderful heritage is no mean feat, and it is vital that we recognise the work of Historic England and other organisations in doing so. Its role in providing a voice for historic places, managing England’s national heritage list and educating us on the benefits of our cultural heritage is invaluable in supporting market towns and in raising awareness of their contributions to our society. It has been deeply encouraging to see the success of Historic England’s heritage action zones, from the Dewsbury living market town to the north Lowestoft heritage quarter.”
“It was trade that spurred on the development of urban centres and the exchange of knowledge and ideas, as well as goods and services. Our network of medieval market towns is the most enduring example of that history. A royal charter to hold a market was a jealously fought for privilege. The earliest date to over 1,000 years ago and some remain in force today, as we have heard. The fortunes of many of our great historic towns were won and lost by their right to host a market and to reap the rewards that commerce brought. Market towns brought ordinary working people together to engage in civic and economic life. Evidence of that can still be seen today in the architecture of our market towns, with market crosses standing proudly in the centre of grand open squares and market stalls nestled among guildhalls and churches.”
“Although I will not be able to recognise all the Members for their contributions, I particularly want to call out the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean), who reminded everyone how, during the plague, Parliament decanted to Hertford Castle. While decanting is not something I advocate in the current debate, it is always nice to know that we have options. I thank Members who have raised venues that relate to food. As I fast through Ramadan in the month ahead, I will certainly be thinking of them. Throughout history, market towns have been a defining feature of economic and social life. Informal markets have existed since before Roman times, and trade was a hallmark of the interaction between Celtic, Roman and Saxon peoples.”
“Thank you for calling me to speak, Sir Jeremy. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and long may it continue. It is a privilege to take part in this debate on the cultural heritage of market towns. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) on securing the debate and thank him for his remarks, which were well placed; he made lots of good points. We have had some excellent speeches. Unfortunately, I will not be able to canter through them all, but I particularly want to recognise some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), which I will address, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for his comments. He has just inherited a new market town—he seems to be collecting them.”
“According to VisitBritain, the estimated value of inbound tourism in 2024 will be in the region of £31.5 billion, so it is a huge economic contributor to the United Kingdom. When speaking to tourism businesses that rely on seasonal tourism, alongside the rising cost of ETAs, they express great concern that the reduction in national insurance thresholds and the rise in employer national insurance contributions mean that many more workers will be caught in a damaging tax trap. It will mean that businesses have to reconsider how many people—many of them young, and many of them in their first jobs—they can employ while remaining profitable. Does the Minister have an impact assessment of the effect of those NI rises, and what does it say about how many jobs will be created or lost as a result of Labour’s jobs tax trap?”
“Now, when we are faced with a changing global scene, with Ukraine where it is, Donald Trump doing what he is doing and Putin coming to the fore, the Chancellor cannot commit to not coming back for more taxation. It is inevitable.”
“They are the ones who suffer because they end up costing the most—not in terms of their salary, because they will normally be on the national living wage, but in terms of training costs and the time that is taken. Those are real consequences of the decision that the Chancellor is taking. I feel a great amount of sadness when I hear Members on the Labour Benches say that they listen but do not agree and talk about how great their businesses are doing. I just do not believe they are talking to those businesses, because at least 99% of the businesses that will be affected will not be happy about the changes. When the Government came in, they had decisions to make. If the fictitious black hole is to be believed, they could have fixed the roof when the sun was shining.”
“I will not repeat everything that he said—it is not all repeatable—but he talked about the rise in national insurance contributions and the impact that that will have on the cost of the products that he is selling. Rick Cressman from Nailcote Hall has a great hospitality business. What is happening to hospitality businesses is not reflected in the comments from Government Members. Hospitality businesses across the board are up in arms because the reduction in rates relief and the reduction in the threshold of national insurance—not just the increase in national insurance—are having a huge impact. Fundamentally, it means that young people will not get their first jobs in hospitality.”
“It was looking to be a billion-pound turnover company by 2030, which means more jobs and more products for supply chains. They have had to put a hold on that because if the father of that business now passes away, the inheritance tax bill will come to about £2 million, and, as it is a family business and dividends will have to be found, it will have to find something like £18 million to fund that. The father said that it will probably have to sell about 7% of the business to be able to finance an inheritance tax bill, which is incredibly difficult for it to prepare for. Eric Lyons, a butcher’s shop in my constituency, is over 100 years old. Nick, who I shall be meeting in the coming weeks, says that it is a great family business, which serves many of my constituents. He was very vocal on LinkedIn.”
“When we see the inflation rate increase from 2%, which it was when we left Government, to 3% now there will of course be consequences, especially given the decisions that the Chancellor is making. I understand that Labour Members may not want to accept that today, but they may well want to reflect on that. The hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) talked about our motion—I note that he did not name the Tory Members that he respects, and I hope that he does at some point—and I have to tell him that these are not things that we made up; they are things that businesses are telling us. This is what they are talking about every day. [Interruption.] I am more than happy to give some examples. The other day, I spoke to a family-run business, which is over 160 years’ old and has a subsidiary in my constituency. It has a £400 million turnover.”
“Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) put it correctly when, in his intervention on the shadow Chancellor, he said that the Budget is a toxic concoction of measures, which means that now, for the first time, many people will be wondering whether it is even worth setting up in business. The decisions that we take in this House matter, because they result in costs. Businesses, and family businesses in particular, are not just some opaque term; they involve individuals with hopes, dreams and aspirations. The political choices and decisions that the Chancellor has made and that Labour Members our now defending will incur costs for businesses, which will then be passed on to consumers and clients. Ultimately, they will feed into the cost of services and therefore the cost of living.”
“I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As a qualified chartered accountant, I spent the best part of a decade in my family business. [Interruption.] I am a fully qualified chartered accountant with a certificate to match. My family business, which was set up by my father, was a firm of accountants. I wish to reflect on some of the remarks made by those on the Government Benches. I do so with a degree of sadness and anger, which is reflected in what is said by the businesses in my constituency as well as by many family businesses across the country. We should be in no doubt that the Chancellor’s Budget has been deeply, deeply damaging. My hon.”
“When Putin invaded, he thought it would be a matter of weeks. Three years on, Ukraine is still standing. I am proud of how we as a House and as a nation stood up for Ukraine. That includes many of my constituents, for which I commend them. My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary asked about sanctions, but I did not hear an answer from the Foreign Secretary, so he perhaps he can shed some light. When the Prime Minister meets President Trump, will he raise the issue of new sanctions, which I would welcome? Will we urge the US to follow suit?”
“Q10. Earlier this week we learned that the Prime Minister’s close friend, the Attorney General, has in the past advised Caribbean nations on seeking trillions of pounds in reparations. He has been a key player in the surrender of the Chagos islands and the related fiasco, which will cost taxpayers up to £18 billion, and he has even advised Gerry Adams, who is standing in line to get compensation from the British Government in Northern Ireland legacy payments, the quantum of which could cost up to £2.7 billion. Given the Attorney General’s track record, does the Prime Minister have faith in his motives, and does he have confidence that his best friend represents good value for the British taxpayer?”
“The Bill’s weak tinkering around the edges of the illegal migration system will actually strengthen the gangs, because they now know that they can take advantage of that system. This House is engaged in debate, but the Labour party will win this evening’s vote—of course it will. It has got the numbers; the British people placed a huge amount of trust in Labour, which is now being betrayed, and those gangs will take advantage of it. The one example I will use is that when the Rwanda scheme received Royal Assent, we continuously heard people—and people smugglers—saying that they were not going to come to the UK, and we saw the numbers drop. They will be celebrating the fact that this Bill is going through the House.”
“Since the Labour party has been in government, we have seen a 28% increase in illegal migration, which will inevitably put strain on our resources. The consequence is that society becomes fragmented, and there are those on the far echelons of the political spectrum who take advantage of that for their own ends and crowd out legitimate and reasonable debate. The Bill takes away the deterrent and does not deal in any way with the need for a deterrent. As we have heard consistently from the NCA and other experts, without a deterrent, there is nothing disincentivising the gangs from bringing people over. We all want people who are in need to be taken care of, but this Bill does not do that—there is no guarantee that it will. We have heard the Home Secretary continuously fail to provide an answer on that point.”
“I have talked about our track record of taking in refugees. We have had a consistent record for many years—we have taken in refugees from Afghanistan, from Syria, and of course from Ukraine—but that track record is being constantly undermined by the dramatic increases in illegal migration, making people feel that we cannot do more. My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) made an eloquent case for this being a global issue. That is often forgotten in the debate, whether it is due to climate change or conflict. However, the public want to see the case being made for the nation state—to know that we can control our borders, and can then allow in the people who we want in the country.”
“That is a manifesto pledge that has been broken—the number of asylum hotels and the number of people in them has gone up. Those hotels are funded by the taxpayer, and divert money that my constituents feel could be spent on improving our public services. Earlier, we heard the Home Secretary give no guarantee on when those asylum hotels will be cleared. That will be a consistent and continuous source of consternation for many people across the country, who feel totally helpless when they see pictures and videos of often young men entering this country illegally and being given access to things that my constituents work hard for and pay taxes to sustain. I firmly believe that all of us across this House want to control illegal immigration, but I fundamentally disagree that this Bill will do so.”
“Over the past 14 years and beyond, we have had a great track record of taking in refugees from areas of conflict and other places, but by cheating the system, thousands of illegal migrants are entering the country, with the inevitable consequence that our public services are overburdened. That makes my constituents feel that the system is broken—that it does not work for them. Our schools, NHS and welfare system fail to work properly because of the strains caused by illegal migration, and my constituents are right to feel a deep sense of unfairness. Until they see the fundamental issue being tangibly addressed, which this Bill does not do, they will continue to feel that sense of unfairness. We have seen this with the reopening of the asylum hotels.”
“I will be voting against the Bill and in favour of the reasoned amendment, for the simple reason that I do not believe this Bill will do anything to smash the gangs, which is what the Labour party sold to the British public. Over the past 12 months and beyond, my constituents have regularly brought up immigration on the doorstep, talking about both legal and illegal immigration. They want a fair legal system that ensures that the best and the brightest come to this country, as we have always wanted, but for them, this is really an issue of fairness. They believe that uncontrolled borders are not fair, and I agree. Uncontrolled borders make people angry and undermine the case for taking those who are most in need.”
“I will not give way, because I only have five seconds. This Bill will weaken our borders and strengthen the gangs, and the Labour party really needs to come up with answers to that.”