EU Pact on Migration and Asylum
Monday, 26 October 2026
Contributions
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)Liberal Democrat
2. What assessment she has made of the potential merits of the UK joining the EU pact on migration and asylum.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)Labour
I have an excellent working relationship with EU partners, particularly with France, which has helped prevent over 50,000 crossings since the election. The EU asylum pact has yet to resolve the challenges of returns within Europe, and currently those returns are not happening at scale, so the pact is not a silver bullet.
The Prime Minister has said that he wants access to the Eurodac database. How does the Government propose to negotiate that without breaching their EU red lines?
I am not going to conduct a negotiation with the European Union from this Dispatch Box. The hon. Member will know, as I have said to Liberal Democrat Members before, that we are of course always thinking about how we can work more collaboratively with our partners in Europe on law enforcement co-operation and data sharing. I am sure that will be the subject of much discussion at the UK-EU summit.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)Labour
Illegal immigration is by definition a cross-border phenomenon, which is why we are required to work with our friends and partners across borders. The Home Secretary has already talked about the 50,000-person reduction from France; we increasingly hear reports that for those in the camps in northern Calais, smugglers are hard to find. That is a far cry from the situation under the previous Government, who could not even decide if France was a friend or a foe. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is by working with our allies on international challenges that we can address the problems of illegal immigration, which is what the public are asking for?
My hon. Friend is right. That is why this Government have been working to reset our relationship with the European Union. Of course, our co-operation with France is central to our being able to deal with the challenge of the small boats, and I was pleased to make the recent deal with the French—the successor to the Sandhurst agreement. We have set aside money that we will spend only on measures that we know have an impact on small boat numbers, which are down by 43%.
Mr SpeakerSpeaker
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)Liberal Democrat
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and we are indeed flattered to see the Prime Minister discussing improved relations with the EU as a way to solve issues in the asylum system, but when the Government say that they will negotiate access to various agreements, including Eurodac, without dropping their red lines, they are engaging in Brexit delusion of the type we saw under the Conservatives. If we want useful co-operation on asylum and a good deal for taxpayers—because it will cost less if we are in the pact—we will have to join the EU migration and asylum pact, and that means dropping the Government’s red lines, doesn’t it?
The delusion here is the hon. Member assuming that the EU asylum pact is up and running, and that it is a silver bullet. He will know that across Europe, while there is greater co-operation on data sharing and so on, everyone wants to remove people from their country, but nobody wants to receive them. On returns under the pact for the countries that are in it, those returns are not happening at scale. He knows that was also the case under the Dublin regulation, of which we were part; in our last five years in it, we did not deport as many people as we managed to under our agreement with France.
We await more on the agreement with France, and perhaps with Belgium and many other countries. It might just be simpler to have an agreement with the entire EU. It grieves me to say this, but internal difficulties have arisen within the Labour party over migration. Cabinet members seem to be struggling to defend the Home Secretary’s position, and Government Back Benchers have a wide range of opinions. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has called for an “honest discussion” about EU freedom of movement. Will the Home Secretary back down and get behind the Prime Minister, who is open to freedom of movement, or will she stay loyal to her Back-Bench allies in the blue Labour faction, who are so hostile to it?
Honestly, what absolute piffle from the hon. Gentleman. He will know that the Prime Minister has been discussing having an open debate; that is not the same as settled policy, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware. The Prime Minister has also observed that there were very significant issues with freedom of movement when we were in the EU. Having an honest debate means actually being honest about all aspects of the issue, not cherry-picking, as the Liberal Democrats so often do.
Source: UK Parliament Hansard API. Debate ID: 5424475.