Matt Vickers
MP for Stockton West · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Q In your experience, how often does article 8 make the decisive difference between somebody being allowed to remain or being removed? Do you think that the provisions in the Bill will materially and effectively change that situation?”
“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?”
“Q With regards to the article 8 changes, can you give us one concrete example of a category of case where someone could successfully resist removal today on article 8 grounds, but where the Bill would prevent them from doing so in future? Anna Turley: Bas, you have an example—we discussed this earlier today.”
“I know we have recently had an increase, but if we want to get rid of the backlog, we are going to have to address the larger numbers of people coming into the system with no representation at all because they cannot find a lawyer. Most legal aid lawyers cannot make this work on the rates, so they are giving up.”
“Q To get the result that we want—tackling that abuse—what else should the Home Office be doing in that space? If this is not a solution, what would you put forward as an alternative, if that abuse does exist?”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Matt Vickers, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 13.
“Over recent years, the people of Stockton have seen investment in the local health service, with a new diagnostic centre, a new mental health hub and new state-of-the-art robotics. But North Tees hospital is reaching the end of its life. The outstanding staff who work there deserve a first-class place to work, but instead of a new hospital, all they have had from this Government is 600 job losses. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on the urgent need for a new North Tees hospital?”
“I hope Ministers will continue to look at ways to strengthen the role of infra- structure in planning decisions and ensure that local communities have a meaningful voice before developments are approved. Finally, I pay tribute to Richard Pengelly from Strangers Bar who retires today after 37 years. Richard has not just poured pints—he has poured patience, good humour and the occasional reality check for MPs of every party. The place will not be the same without him. I wish him a long and well-earned retirement, and I look forward to reading his memoirs. Stockton West is an amazing place, with amazing people. I am proud to call it home and I am proud to represent them.”
“Across Yarm, Eaglescliffe, Middleton St George and Hartburn, residents increasingly feel that their communities are being asked to shoulder an unfair level of development without the infrastructure to support it. People understand that homes are needed and that young people want somewhere to live, but what they cannot understand is why developments continue to be approved without the roads, school places, GP capacity, drainage and local services keeping pace. Time and again, I hear from residents who feel their voices are ignored. Development should happen with communities, not to them. The Government’s increasing housing targets risk placing more pressure on these communities. Planning should improve places, not simply gobble up the greenbelt to maximise housing numbers.”
“I put forward amendments to legislation that would have made it easier for officers to seize vehicles, ensured that non-roadworthy bikes seized from persistent offenders were not returned and explored greater accountability around the sale of off-road bikes in the first place. Those amendments were not accepted, but the problem has not gone away; if anything, it is getting worse. I urge Ministers to look again at the issue and bring forward a comprehensive package of measures that equips police with the powers they need, tackles the supply of these machines and sends a clear message that those who use off-road bikes and e-bikes to terrorise our communities will face real consequences. Another issue that I hear about almost every day is over-development.”
“I start by joining the many other hon. Members who have paid tribute to Ann Widdecombe. She was a remarkable, inspiring and passionate woman, and I was honoured to welcome her to Stockton on numerous occasions. My thoughts go out to her friends and family. One issue that is raised with me week after week is the growing scourge of off-road bikes and e-bikes. Whether it is in Bishopsgarth or Elm Tree, Ingleby Barwick or Thornaby, residents across Stockton West are fed up with feral, balaclava-clad thugs using these bikes to intimidate communities, tear through parks and footpaths, and make neighbourhoods feel unsafe. Families cannot enjoy parks, older residents feel intimidated and children cannot play safely. This is not simply anti-social behaviour —it is dangerous criminality.”
“It seeks to intimidate, to interfere and to undermine our security, often through the use of proxies and affiliated organisations. That is why it is right that the regulations do not focus solely on the IRGC itself. The Iranian regime does not operate through one organisation alone. It relies on a network of proxies to spread fear, conduct hostile activity and threaten those it regards as opponents. The Minister has already set out clearly why each of these organisations meets the test for designation, so I will not repeat those arguments, but it is important that we recognise the danger they pose.”
“It is right that these measures have been brought forward, and the Opposition will support them. The powers Parliament created through the National Security Act exist for precisely this purpose. They are there to respond to hostile state activity and those who threaten our national security. It is right that they are now being used. That said, we have consistently argued that these powers should have been deployed sooner, particularly against the IRGC. We made the case repeatedly because the threat was clear. While it is disappointing that it has taken this long, it is nevertheless welcome that action is now being taken against these organisations. As we heard throughout today’s earlier debate, Iran continues to pose a serious threat to the United Kingdom.”
“They are an important step and they send a clear message that those acting on behalf of hostile states, or supporting those who do, will find no safe haven in the United Kingdom.”
“That is why our response has to be broader than enforcement alone. Of course we need strong policing. Of course we need capable intelligence agencies. Of course we need robust legislation. But we also need confidence in who we are as a country. We need to defend the values that unite us: democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. Those are not abstract ideas. They are the very things these organisations seek to attack. If we are serious about protecting our national security, we must do both: relentlessly pursue those who threaten us, while strengthening the resilience of the society they seek to undermine. That is why we support the regulations today.”
“When the 2026 Act was before this House, we spent a great deal of time scrutinising how the powers would work in practice. We asked whether there were gaps in the legislation and whether hostile actors might find ways around them. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could reassure the House that the operation of these new powers is being kept under close review, their effectiveness is being assessed, and, if weaknesses emerge, the Government will not hesitate to act. But legislation alone will never be enough. The organisations we are dealing with today are driven by ideologies that reject everything this country stands for. They seek to divide communities, spread hatred and undermine confidence in our democratic way of life. They do not believe in debate; they believe in intimidation. They do not persuade; they threaten.”
“We know that their activities have included threats against dissidents and particular hostility towards Britain’s Jewish community. That brings me to a wider point. The rise in antisemitism we have seen in recent years is deeply disturbing. Jewish people in this country should never have to look over their shoulder because of who they are or what they believe. Equally, those who have come to Britain to escape authoritarian regimes should be able to live here free from intimidation and fear. Protecting those communities is not optional; it is a fundamental responsibility of the state. These organisations, and those who support them, should face the full force of the law. Parliament has provided the powers; now they must be used robustly.”
“We put in place powers that assist in this. The first duty of any Government is to keep the public safe, regardless of which party is in office. We introduced the National Security Act 2023. The Minister and I have had many debates on this subject, pushing for action, and we have been clear and consistent that the powers should have been used much more quickly. If the Government are now doing what is necessary to protect the public, they will have our support. National security should not be a political football. Groups such as the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right demonstrate how quickly new organisations can emerge, targeting people here in the United Kingdom while often acting on behalf of hostile states.”
“Dodgy vape shops are a scourge on our high streets, but even more horrifying are some of the people who run them. Twana Jamal, convicted in France and described as the godfather of people trafficking, has reportedly been found running two vape shops in Leicestershire. Does the Home Secretary agree that that demonstrates the need for stronger powers to tackle rogue vape shops and organised crime? If so, why have the Government cut funding to regional organised crime units, and opposed stronger closure powers for the police and local councils.”
“Under the last Government, police numbers reached a record high. Labour promised to increase police numbers, but instead we have seen them fall. As the Minister was forced to confirm, they are down 1,318 in the last year. Is the Minister doing anything to protect the number of officers in response policing so that when people ring 999 in their hour of need, they are not left waiting?”
“The Home Secretary has moved some way towards recognising the scale of the challenge facing our immigration system, and I welcome that. The Bill identifies many of the right problems, but it still stops short of the bold reforms needed to solve them. For that reason, we have tabled our reasoned amendment. The British people deserve an immigration system that is fair to those who follow the rules, uncompromising with those who do not, and capable of restoring control of our borders. That remains the standard by which the Opposition will judge the Bill. I commend our reasoned amendment to the House.”
“The British people do not want another cycle of announcements followed by disappointment. They want to know that criminal gangs will no longer profit from human misery; that dangerous channel crossings will end; and that those with no right to remain will not spend years exhausting endless appeals while the taxpayer picks up the bill. They want to know that Britain remains a country that welcomes those who come legally, while maintaining control over who enters and stays. Those are not unreasonable expectations, but the foundations of a fair immigration system. As the Bill progresses through Committee, the Opposition will scrutinise it carefully. Where measures meaningfully strengthen border security, improve enforcement and restore confidence, we will support them. Where they fall short, we will seek to strengthen them.”
“Public confidence depends on knowing that the rules matter; that those who have no right to remain will be removed; that foreign national offenders can be deported swiftly; that endless legal challenges cannot frustrate the clearly expressed will of Parliament; and that those who come here legally, work hard and contribute are not disadvantaged by a system that appears unable to distinguish between those who respect the rules and those who seek to exploit them. As has been mentioned, the Home Secretary faces a political challenge from her own Benches. If she wants to come back and deliver real and meaningful reform that will properly secure our borders, and if she needs some support to do that, she can give us a call— [ Interruption. ] Give me a call.”
“Despite repeated promises, the Bill contains no comprehensive reforms to settlement, no clear answer on preventing those who arrive illegally from obtaining citizenship, and no comprehensive removals framework capable of delivering the deterrence that Ministers say is necessary. That is why the Opposition have tabled our reasoned amendment. We believe that the Bill does not yet go far enough to restore public confidence or deliver the outcome that the British people rightly expect. Our alternative is clear: those who enter the country illegally should have no right to stay. Several Members have spoken about public confidence, and they are right to do so.”
“Time and again, the Bill identifies the right issues but stops short of the reforms needed to address them. The Government propose a new independent immigration appeals authority, yet they cannot tell us with any certainty whether it will speed up removals or simply replace one backlog with another. The Bill looks to narrow article 8 claims, while simultaneously creating a new, sponsored human rights claim that risks opening another avenue for litigation. It speaks about strengthening deportation powers, yet it leaves unanswered the wider questions about the legal framework that continue to frustrate removals.”
“To be fair to the Home Secretary, there are measures in the Bill that the Opposition welcome. It is right that the Government are seeking to recover more of the costs of asylum support. It is right that Ministers are finally acknowledging that the article 8 framework has frustrated removals. It is right that they recognise shortcomings in the operation of the modern slavery system. It is right that they acknowledge that the current appeals process is too slow, too cumbersome and too vulnerable to abuse. In truth, one of the most striking features of the Bill is that the Government have finally accepted many of the arguments that they have spent the last two years dismissing. Recognising a problem, though, is not the same as solving it. The Home Secretary and I agree on much of the diagnosis; we disagree on the cure.”
“The question before us today is therefore a simple one: does the Bill contain the measures necessary to stop illegal migration? That must surely be the ambition. The Government’s own impact assessment recognises that deterrence is essential, but it also accepts that the deterrent effect of these proposals is too uncertain even to quantify. That uncertainty goes to the heart of the Bill. The fundamental principle should be straightforward: if someone enters the United Kingdom illegally, they should not be able to stay. Everything else flows from that principle. Without it, public confidence is weakened and genuine refugees lose out. Those who come here legally and contribute to our country are let down, and the criminal gangs continue to exploit the gaps in our system.”
“In many respects, today’s debate brings us full circle. Ministers stood at the Dispatch Box and argued that immigration policy should be about grip and control, not gimmicks and false promises, yet over the past two years, we have seen too many headlines, too many announcements and too many promises, while illegal migration has continued to undermine confidence in our borders. Let me be clear: I do not believe that anyone in this House wants to see people risking their life crossing the channel in small boats. Those crossings benefit organised criminal gangs, undermine confidence in our immigration system, place enormous pressure on communities, public services and public finances, and all too often end in tragedy. Nobody should accept them as inevitable.”
“This has been an important and thoughtful debate, and I begin by thanking Members from across the House for their contributions. There have been genuine differences of opinion this evening, but I think there is broad agreement on one point: our immigration system is not working. Immigration is one of the defining issues facing our country. It goes to the security of our borders, the integrity of our laws, the pressure on our public services, and, ultimately, the confidence the British people have in the ability of the Government to keep their promises. The British people expect an immigration system that is fair to those who play by the rules and firm with those who seek to abuse them. They expect secure borders, swift decisions, effective enforcement and, above all, a Government to deliver. That is the test the Bill must meet.”
“Have they asked for a temporary suspension, relaxation or phased use of EES checks at periods of exceptional congestion? Given the increased traffic, what have the Government done to strengthen plans in case queues spill out of Dover or Folkestone? It is in all our interests to ensure that people can get through border checks quickly, and it is time to ensure that that happens.”
“It is not.” That delusional attitude among EU colleagues is not acceptable. With the EU telling representatives of the travel industry that a full suspension of the system is not needed and not possible, the Government must stand behind the interests of British travellers. For instance, there appears to be a ridiculous situation in which a facility built in Dover cannot be activated until the technology for the kiosks, which is the responsibility of the French authorities, is working. My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands, who chairs the Home Affairs Committee, is right: it is time to “apply maximum pressure” before chaos arrives at the border at Dover. Will the Minister detail what conversations the Government have had, and what pressure they will apply?”
“I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) for securing this important urgent question. Anyone who has travelled or spoken to those who have tried to use the new European entry-exit system understands why the scale of the challenges over summer is so great, and despite all the problems, it has now been reported that a separate new online system to preauthorise entry to the EU will be delayed until next year. That is a pitiful response, indicative of the problems facing so many UK travellers, and there is nowhere near the urgency needed to address the problems facing the EES as we enter the summer holidays. As the president of Airports Council International Europe recently expressed, politicians should “stop pretending...that EES is working just fine.”
“We must be ready to confront the changing dangers posed by new synthetics, so I sincerely hope that the Government act fast to introduce all the measures that they have accepted.”
“Although the three most frequently identified on the digital market are covered by the order, it leaves open the possibility of new substances entering the market without being controlled. The continuing evolution of these drugs means that it is necessary to identify at speed which items are entering the market before they result in further deaths. We have a responsibility to those who have died to be ready to identify any changes. As such, does the Minister know whether conversations have been held with police forces about recognising the new substances? Moreover, given the decrease in police officers, is there sufficient capacity to respond to changes? The order is necessary and comes with the support of the ACMD.”
“In that light, the important question for the Government is: when do they expect to transition from the temporary order to a permanent measure that will offer enhanced powers to stop their use? We all recognise that a transition in leadership can cause difficulties in Ministers offering assurances, but it would be helpful if they could set out a timeline for when we might expect the change to be made. Recognising the dangers posed by this compound, we must also acknowledge the need to be agile and have robust enforcement. A presentation by the Australian Prompt Response Network in June this year, on the emerging threat of new synthetic orphines, identified 14 analogues.”
“Thank you, Mr Vickers, for chairing today’s debate. For the avoidance of doubt, I want to be clear that the Opposition support the Government’s decision, and welcome what I hope is a first step to stop the proliferation of these dangerous substances. The evidence that the Government and our international partners have presented on orphines shows them to be dangerous substances that we must stop being used as quickly as possible. We must act expediently to crack down on new and dangerous substances without medical uses and stop them making their way into our society. Orphines have already been involved in at least 15 deaths since spring 2025, and I share the concerns of both the Government and the ACMD about the urgent steps needed to protect public health.”
“The public deserve better, our best officers deserve better, and the future of policing depends on us getting both police leadership and political leadership correct.”
“At the same time, in London, the Labour mayor chose to pick a public fight with his own commissioner over the use of technology, with the commissioner making it clear that the mayor’s decision would leave the force able to achieve less. How can we demand better leadership while cutting officer numbers and denying forces the technology they say they need? There is much in the report that hon. Members on both sides of the House can support. Better leadership is not a partisan cause—it is a public necessity—but if we are serious about restoring confidence in policing, we cannot stop at identifying what police leaders should do differently; we also have to stop making political decisions that make their jobs harder.”
“The report sits alongside a programme of wider police reform announced by the Government, although reports suggest that the incoming Prime Minister is already getting cold feet about those reforms. That matters, because many of the recommendations assume larger forces and more centralised models. If those reforms do not happen, Ministers need to explain how the recommendations will work in practice rather than simply in principle. There is another contradiction that cannot be ignored. If we want stronger leadership, we need to give police leaders the tools they need to succeed. That means enough officers on the streets and the technology to help them do their jobs effectively. Instead, officer numbers have fallen by about 1,300 across the country.”
“As the authors acknowledged in their letter to stakeholders, much of the evidence made for uncomfortable reading. Perhaps the most alarming finding is that only 13% of constables and just 17% of sergeants surveyed believed that they worked in a well-led and well-managed organisation. Think about that: more than four in five officers who put themselves in harm’s way to keep our streets safe do not believe that they work in a well-led organisation. If that does not ring alarm bells, I do not know what will. Time does not permit me to go through all 27 recommendations, but there is much that deserves support. In particular, I welcome the emphasis on merit. Our best officers should be recognised, developed and promoted because they are the best, not because they have ticked the right boxes. But we also have to be honest about the context.”
“Leadership is not about managing decline or issuing guidance; it is about setting a culture and making it unmistakeably clear that the first duty of every police officer is to protect the public and uphold the law without fear, without favour and without distraction. The report gets to the heart of that when it says that police leaders must refuse to take sides and remain focused entirely on preventing crime, catching criminals and bringing offenders to justice. Culture starts at the top. If we want frontline policing to change, leadership must change first. What struck me most about the report was not simply its recommendations but the evidence behind them. This is not the work of critics looking in from the outside; it reflects what police officers themselves are saying.”
“I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement and pay tribute to the noble Lords Herbert and Blunkett for producing such a timely and thoughtful report. The last year has done real damage to public confidence in police leadership. Of course, the report rightly recognises that there are many outstanding officers leading forces across the country, but the headlines that people remember tell a different story. From the shameful scenes surrounding the Maccabi Tel Aviv match to the heartbreaking murder of Henry Nowak, alongside too many other incidents, the public have been left asking a simple question: who is in charge?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Q4. Since this Government came to office, more than half a million businesses have closed, nearly a million young people are without education, employment or training and graduate recruitment is at an all-time low. These are not just statistics; these are people’s lives, people’s jobs and people’s futures. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House if that is because the Government hiked business rates and slashed reliefs, slammed employers with the jobs tax and buried businesses with the Employment Rights Act, or all of the above?”
“However, given the understandable public concern surrounding the incident, it is vital that the facts are established and we have the transparency that people deserve. Can the Secretary of State confirm the immigration status of the attacker? If, as is reported, the attacker is a foreign national, what steps will the Home Office take? The facts should be put on the public record urgently to avoid speculation and prevent an information vacuum, which the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has warned about. If there have been failings on our borders, this will be yet another reminder that we do need stronger borders, which is why we believe it is time to leave the European convention on human rights. I encourage all who have evidence of the attack to come forward and support the PSNI in its investigation.”
“I echo the Secretary of State’s comments in condemning this dreadful attack. Last night’s attack in north Belfast was horrifying, appalling and deeply disturbing. This was a brutal act of violence that will send shockwaves through the local community and cause huge concern across the city, Northern Ireland and the whole of the United Kingdom. My thoughts, and I am sure those of the whole House, are with the victim, whose condition has been described as serious. I also pay tribute to the PSNI and the members of the public who displayed remarkable courage in stepping in to confront the attacker before the police arrived. The Police Service of Northern Ireland must be given the time and space to carry out a full and thorough investigation, and those responsible must face the full force of the law.”
“We have seen the devastating impact of extremism on our country, with the Jewish community experiencing disgraceful attacks. Does the Minister share my concern about the fact that in recent elections, candidates such as Kate Hollern were threatened with beheading? More recently, we have seen convicted terrorists standing for election. What will the Minister do to prevent that? Does he believe that individuals with terrorist convictions should be allowed to stand for election?”
“I recognise that this challenge has been noted across Government, and that certain Departments are taking steps to respond to it. Is the Minister confident that the Home Office will have the capability to make the changes it needs to? The consideration of animals in scientific procedures can often be fraught, with strongly held views on the subject. Given the sometimes arbitrary division of responsibilities between the Home Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, what steps is the Minister taking to work across Government and with DSIT to ensure that the right regulations are in place to meet targets such as the 35% reduction in the use of dogs and non-human primates by 2030?”
“Thank you, Mr Twigg, for your chairmanship. Fortunately for Members, I will be brief. The regulations before the Committee, together with the Minister’s comments and the assurances in the accompanying documentation, show that the legislation is limited in scope. Maintaining the current regulatory standard while updating it to be wholly in line with our post-EU relationship is clearly the right thing to do and the right step for the Government to take. Appropriately, the measure does not change the regulatory burden but retains the existing standards. I have some questions for the Minister about the change and what the Government intend to do regarding ASPA—the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act—after June. As the explanatory memorandum recognises, any further changes will require primary legislation.”
“She also rightly recognised that, since the change in leadership at the Home Office, the Government have taken some steps in the right direction. While many Labour MPs appear reluctant to support tougher measures, we have consistently said that where the Government bring forward sensible proposals to strengthen the immigration system, we will support them. I hope that the Government move quickly to implement their proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain and to increase the qualifying period for settlement. Such reforms are long overdue.”
“Policy decisions matter. The Oxford Migration Observatory noted that the recent decline in net migration was driven largely by policy changes introduced by the previous Conservative Government. Those measures included restrictions on dependants, higher salary thresholds and tighter work visa requirements. They showed that when Governments are prepared to take difficult decisions and close obvious loopholes, migration can be brought down without compromising the principle of attracting talent. Those measures addressed mistakes that had been made, and it is notable that the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), acknowledged those mistakes early in her leadership and accepted the need for change.”
“Thank you, Mr Stuart, for chairing today’s debate. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing this important debate. As he has highlighted, his thoughtful and comprehensive report sets out a series of practical proposals to close loopholes and strengthen our legal migration system. At a time when immigration remains one of the most important issues facing the country, any serious attempt to examine the system as a whole and identify where improvements can be made deserves careful consideration. Whatever view one takes of his recommendations, nobody could accuse my hon. Friend of lacking ambition. His 30 proposals provide a clear direction of travel, including tightening loopholes, strengthening incentives and ensuring that our immigration system works in the interests of the British people.”