Chris Murray

It is an honour to follow that eloquent and impassioned maiden speech by our new colleague, the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin). I can tell that we will be hearing a lot more from her in this House, and while I am sure that her colleagues are pleased to have their number back up to five, I think we can all understand that her lucky number is six. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the support provided to my office by the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project. I would like to make a couple of points about the amendments, drawing on the evidence we heard in Committee. The purpose of this legislation is to stop the small boat crossings in the channel. They are too dangerous and too many vulnerable people die in the attempt. They represent a lack of grip on the immigration system, because it should be the Government who decide who comes into this country, not people smugglers. The previous approach manifestly failed. That is because the Rwanda scheme meant we could never reduce demand enough. As Dr Walsh from the Migration Observatory told us in our evidence sessions, demand for crossing the channel is essentially inelastic and we will never get it down enough. Deterrence alone therefore will not work. If we want proof, we should consider that of all the asylum seekers in the system, those who went to Rwanda represent one 4,000th of 1%. Rather than tackle demand, we should tackle supply. We need to make it harder to get in boats and to organise crossings, and we need to disrupt the supply chain that drives this multimillion-pound industry and seize the phones of those making the crossing. On new clause 3 on safe routes, let us be clear that there is absolutely a wider case to be made for safe routes and there is a national obligation to help where we can, but let us also be clear that safe routes already exist at significant scale. Some 500,000 people sought sanctuary in the UK through them over the last few years. We must be clear, too, that given the vast numbers of people in the asylum system just now, no one can argue that Britain does not have enough refugees. Most importantly, safe routes fall into the same logical trap as the Rwanda scheme, in that they aim to reduce demand rather than to tackle supply. Rwanda said, “Don’t come because there’s a tiny chance you’ll be sent to Rwanda instead.” Safe routes say, “Don’t come because there’s a tiny chance you can come through safe routes instead.” The purpose of the Bill is to reduce channel crossings. There are good arguments for safe routes on many levels, but having worked on migration policy for 15 years before coming here, I know we have to recognise that they will not play a role in reducing this cross-channel travel.