Engagements

Q1.   If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 11 December.

May I start by welcoming the fall of Assad? The people of Syria suffered for far too long under his brutal regime. What comes next is far from certain. We have been talking to regional and global allies to ensure that it is a political solution that protects civilians and minorities, and absolutely rejects terrorism and violence.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks welcoming the fall of Assad, and with his hope for the Syrian people.

Since Middlesbrough council has returned to Labour control under Mayor Chris Cooke, it is no longer subject to Government intervention in its children’s services or to a best value notice—and it is on track to become financially stable. I know that the Prime Minister will want to join me in congratulating Mayor Cooke and the council on their recent successes. Can he confirm that the spending review will not simply end 14 years of Conservative austerity, but will unwind it, and provide the resources that councils need to properly serve our communities?

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to that mayor, and to all local representatives across the country, who did a fantastic job even when funding was cut to the bone during the past 14 years of Tory government. We are boosting local government funding by £4 billion, and investing £1.6 billion to improve roads. I was proud to see the work on the carbon capture cluster in Teesside, which will create 2,000 new jobs.

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Last week, the Prime Minister did not seem to want to talk about appointing fraudsters to his Cabinet. In fact, he seemed to want to talk about immigration, so let us talk about immigration. He has relaunched yet again, with many new targets, six milestones and five missions, but why was cutting immigration not a priority?

I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition now wants to talk about immigration. Last week, she said that she did not want to—and for good reason, because the previous Government presided over record high levels of immigration. The figures just a few weeks ago showed net migration of nearly 1 million. That is unprecedented—a one nation experiment in open borders under the last Government. She was the champion; she stood up and praised the then Tory Home Secretary for listening to her on removing caps on migration visas. She was applauding it. Now, she is furious about what she was campaigning for. We will drive down lawful migration; we will drive down illegal migration.

The Prime Minister talks about open borders, but he was the one campaigning for free movement. I was, in this House, asking for a lift in skilled migration; he was supporting all the people who should not have been in this country. He wanted us to relax immigration, but as he is so keen to talk about the past, let us look at his record. Four years ago, the Prime Minister signed a letter demanding that foreign criminals be allowed to stay in Britain. Dozens of Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs repeatedly signed these letters, insisting that rapists and murderers be allowed to stay here. One of those criminals, Ernesto Elliott, had 17 convictions, including for knife crime. After his deportation was blocked, Elliott went on to murder someone. He was able to stay here and murder because people like this man campaigned against deporting criminals. Will he apologise for signing these letters?

First, I remind the Leader of the Opposition that the number of migrants coming to this country under her Government’s watch—nearly 1 million—was over four times the number who did so when we were in the EU. They lost control of the borders, and the particular example she puts to me is an example of failure, under her Government, to take the necessary measures to keep our country safe.

That is a ludicrous assertion. The Prime Minister is the one who was repeatedly signing those letters. He even asked us to pause all deportations. He does not want to talk about his past, but that letter is just the tip of the iceberg; there is more. The Prime Minister actually complained that the immigration system was working to

“deter migrants rather than provide support.”

He said that he was

“proud to have served as Jeremy’s Shadow Immigration Minister”.

He boasted that he

“took the last Labour Government to court for cutting benefits for asylum seekers”,

and said that he would never take

“a target-based approach to immigration.”

If he wants to talk about immigration, let us talk about his record; we can talk about it all day. The Prime Minister says that he wants to talk about immigration. I have committed to a cap on migration—why won’t he?

The Leader of the Opposition talks about my record. For five years, I was the chief prosecutor, prosecuting people who went to prison, many of whom were then deported. While she was talking, I was actually doing the hard yards, convicting those who should be in prison. She presided over record numbers of asylum seekers in this country—a record number of lawful and irregular migrants—in 14 years in which her Government lost control of the borders. They set a cap for each of those 14 years, but it was not hard, it did not stop people coming, and they got a record number. They should apologise for what they have done with their open borders policy.

The Prime Minister did not answer a single—[Interruption.]

Order. Does the hon. Member interrupting want to leave? If you have not got the guts to stand up to the comments, you should not be in here.

The Prime Minister did not answer a single question. He never answers questions. He wants to talk about the past; the fact is that we have acknowledged where things went wrong, but he will never take responsibility. He has scrapped a deterrent that the National Crime Agency said we need. Since he came into government and scrapped the Rwanda deterrent, small boats arrivals have increased by nearly 20%. His own MPs are complaining about having to house asylum seekers, so can the Prime Minister tell the House how much more his Government will spend on hotel accommodation because he scrapped the deterrent?

I am invited to tell the House what went wrong under the last Government—that would take us all afternoon. We are going to smash the gangs that are running this vile trade. We signed a landmark agreement with Germany this week. [Interruption.]

Order. Mr Philp, you have been very loud. I think now we are going to have a little bit of silence from you.

This week, we signed a landmark agreement with Germany. The Leader of the Opposition should welcome that, because it will make sure that we have the powers to take enforcement action across the continent, where it is needed. We have set up the Border Security Command; we have committed £75 million on top of the existing £75 million; and we are extending the powers, so that they are like counter-terrorism powers. We have returned 9,400 people who should not be here. A record flight got off. The Opposition talk about getting flights off, and have done for years, but they did not succeed. We got the flights off.

The Prime Minister says that he wants to smash the gangs; the only thing he has smashed is his own reputation. What he has been agreeing is not going to do anything. The cost of the Iraq agreement is half a million pounds. That would not even buy a house in his constituency. Many of the things that he is taking credit for are our agreements. Let us talk about what he put in his manifesto. The Prime Minister promised to end asylum hotels. He promised, and he is Prime Minister now. But in Altrincham and Peterborough, his Government are expanding the use of asylum hotels, because he unilaterally disarmed the deterrent. In fact, a man who arrived by small boat told Sky News he was “happy” Labour was in power. That man said the Conservatives

“wanted to deport us”

but Labour is

“making the procedure easier for us”.

He is right, isn’t he?

The Leader of the Opposition should welcome the Iraq deal. Anybody who wants to deal with this vile trade would have welcomed it. She should also welcome the German deal that we did this week. Many of the boats that are finding their way to the channel are coming through Germany. That is well documented. There has been a difficulty in taking enforcement action, which, if she spent more time researching that than her terrible jokes, she would know about. We have signed an agreement to take enforcement action in Germany to stop those boats getting to the coast. That is effective action. She should welcome it; it is really good news. All law enforcement thinks that it is a good thing. Why does she think it is a bad thing?

Because the numbers are going up, under his watch. The Prime Minister has consistently backed criminals over law-abiding British people. He defended terrorists like Hizb ut-Tahrir in the European Court. He argued that “all immigration law” had a “racist undercurrent”. He voted against life sentences for people smugglers. He voted against more than 100 measures to control migration. He even said it was wrong when the Conservatives took away Shamima Begum’s citizenship. Now he has appointed her defence lawyer as his Attorney General. Events in Syria mean that we may see more small boat arrivals. For once, will he take the side of the British people, and strip citizenship from jihadi terrorists and supporters of Assad who want to come back and destroy this country?