Migration and Border Security

Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 2 December.

“With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a Statement on net migration, asylum and border security, and on the collapse in controls that took place over the last five years, the damage done as a result, and the action we are now taking to turn that around.

Last Thursday’s official statistics show how over the last five years controls in the immigration and asylum systems crumbled, legal and illegal migration both substantially increased, the backlog in the asylum system soared, and enforcement of basic rules fell apart. Net migration more than quadrupled in just four years to a record high of nearly 1 million people, and it is still more than three times higher than in 2019. Dangerous small boat crossings rose from 300 people in 2018 to an average of over 36,000 a year in the last three years—a hundred-and-twentyfold increase. In just a few short years, an entire criminal smuggler industry built around boat crossings has been allowed to take hold along the UK border.

The cost of the asylum system also quadrupled to £4 billion last year. In 2019, there were no asylum hotels; five years on, there are more than 200. Returns of those with no right to be here are 30% lower than in 2010, and asylum-related returns are down by 20% compared with 14 years ago. That is the legacy we inherited from the previous Government, one that former Ministers have themselves admitted was shameful.

We should be clear that this country has always supported people coming here from abroad to work, to study or to be protected from persecution. That has made us the country we are—from the Windrush generation to the Kindertransport; from international medics working in our NHS to the families we have supported from Ukraine. But that is exactly why the immigration and asylum systems have to be properly controlled and managed, so that they support our economy and promote community cohesion, with rules properly respected and enforced, and so that our borders are kept strong and secure. None of those things has been happening for the last five years. The scale of the failure and the loss of control have badly undermined trust in the entire system, and it will take time to turn things around.

Let me turn to the changes that are needed in three areas. First, on legal migration, recent years have seen what the Office for National Statistics calls

‘large increases in both work-related and study-related immigration following the end of travel restrictions and the introduction of the new immigration system after the UK left the EU’.

Conservative Government reforms in 2021 made it much easier to recruit from abroad, including a 20% wage discount for overseas workers. At the same time, training here in the UK was cut, with 55,000 fewer apprenticeship starts than five years ago, and the number of UK residents not working or studying hit a record high of over 8 million. This was an experiment gone badly wrong, built on a careless free market approach that literally incentivised employers to recruit from abroad rather than to train or to tackle workforce problems here at home.

This Government are clear that net migration must come down. We are continuing with the visa controls belatedly introduced by the previous Government, including the higher salary threshold, the 20% discount and the restrictions on dependant visas for students and care workers, but we must go further to restore order and credibility to the system.

Since the election, we have set out new plans to ban rogue employers who breach employment laws from sponsoring overseas workers; we have reversed the previous Conservative Government’s decision to remove visa requirements for a number of countries from which large numbers of people arriving as visitors were entering the UK asylum system instead; and we are reviewing visas further to prevent misuse.

However, we also need to overhaul the dysfunctional UK labour market that we inherited, including by bringing together the work of the Migration Advisory Committee, Skills England, the Department for Work and Pensions and the new Industrial Strategy Council to identify areas where the economy has become overreliant on overseas recruitment, and where new action will be needed to boost training and support. That work will be at the heart of our new White Paper, showing how net migration must and will come down, as we set out new ways to link the points-based system with new requirements for training here in Britain.

Let me turn to the asylum system. Last week’s figures showed how the previous Government crashed the asylum system in the run-up to the election. In their last six months in office, asylum decisions dropped by 75% and asylum interviews dropped by over 80%, so only a few hundred decisions were being taken every week instead of thousands. Caseworkers were deployed elsewhere and the backlog shot up. We have had to spend the summer repairing that damage, getting caseworkers back in place, restoring interviews and decisions, and substantially boosting returns. It will take time to deal with the added backlog and pressure on asylum accommodation that that collapse in decision-making caused, but the swift action we took over the summer has prevented thousands more people from being placed in asylum hotels, saving hundreds of millions of pounds.

Today I am also publishing the full spending breakdown of the previous Government’s failed Rwanda partnership. In the two years that the partnership was in place, just four volunteers were sent to Rwanda, at a cost of £700 million. That included £290 million paid to the Government in Kigali, and almost £300 million for staff, IT and legal costs. The result of that massive commitment of time and money was that 84,000 people crossed the channel from the day the deal was signed to the day it was scrapped. That so-called deterrent did not result in a single deportation or stop a single boat from crossing the channel. For the British taxpayer, it was a grotesque waste of money.

Since the election, we have swiftly redeployed many of the people who were working on fantasy planning for the Rwanda scheme to working instead on actual flights to return those who have no right to stay in the UK. That has helped to deliver nearly 10,000 returns since the election. Enforced returns are up by 19%, voluntary returns are up by 14%, illegal working visits are up by approximately 34%, and arrests from those visits are up by approximately 25%. I can tell the House that this new programme to tackle exploitation and ensure that the rules are enforced will continue and accelerate next year.

Let me turn to border security. Six years ago, fewer than 300 people arrived on dangerous small boats. Since then, an entire criminal industry has taken hold and grown, with routes stretching through France, Germany and beyond, from the Kurdistan region of Iraq to the money markets of Kabul. The criminals profit from undermining border security and putting lives at risk, and it is a disgrace that they have got away with it for so long.

Since the election, we have established the new Border Security Command, announced £150 million over the next 18 months for new technology, intelligence and hundreds of specialist investigators working; struck new anti-smuggling action plan agreements with the G7, and bilateral agreements with Italy, Germany, Serbia and Balkan states; and increased UK operations with Europol and the Calais group. In recent weeks, international collaboration has led to high-profile arrests and shown the smuggling gangs that we will not sanction any hiding place from law enforcement.

I can tell the House today that we have gone further, with a major new international collaboration. The Iraqi Government and the Kurdistan Regional Government share our concerns about the people traffickers operating through their country who have helped to transport thousands of people across Europe and across the channel, but joint action to tackle those problems has previously been far too weak. That is why last week I visited Baghdad and Irbil to sign new co-operation agreements on border security, migration and organised crime. As part of those agreements, we will invest half a million pounds in helping the Kurdistan region to enhance its capabilities on biometrics and security, and in training Iraqi border staff to tackle organised immigration crime. We have also made new commitments on joint operations, information sharing, pursuing prosecutions and disruptions, and further work on returns. Those landmark agreements are the first in the world for an Iraqi Government focused on playing their part in the world.

Most people in Britain want to see strong border security and a properly controlled and managed migration and asylum system where the rules are respected and enforced; one where we do our bit alongside other countries to help those who have fled persecution, but where those with no right to be here are swiftly returned; and where it is Governments, not gangs, who decide who can enter our country. For five years, none of those things has happened, and people have understandably lost faith in the entire system. We now have the chance to turn that around: to fix the chaos, bring net migration down, tackle the criminal gangs and prevent dangerous boat crossings; to restore order, control and fair rules that are properly enforced—not through gimmicks, but through hard graft and serious international partnerships. I commend this Statement to the House”.

15:37:00

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the opportunity to respond to this Statement, although it will not surprise him that I do not agree with the picture painted in it by the Home Secretary. Labour’s historic record on immigration and border policy has been one of consistent failure, and its sudden conversion to the rhetoric of border security and reduced migration will fool no one. Let us not forget that Labour presided over one of the most chaotic periods of migration in British history during its previous time in government. Between 1997 and 2010, it oversaw huge levels of immigration and failed to predict or manage the pressures of EU expansion. It created a system that was riddled with inefficiency. Its lax approach undermined public confidence, overwhelmed local communities and laid the groundwork for many of the issues we are grappling with today. The Home Secretary’s Statement on small boat crossings is a striking example of Labour’s penchant for opportunism. Although it now expresses outrage at the rise in dangerous crossings, it offers no credible solutions. Labour’s record shows a consistent reluctance to back measures that tackle the problems at their root. It opposed the Nationality and Borders Act to such a degree that it set the record for the most defeats to be inflicted on a Bill since 1999—34, to be precise. Labour has resisted stronger enforcement measures and remains vague about what it would actually do to stop the criminal gangs exploiting vulnerable people. I can put it little better than the shadow Home Secretary, whose question the Home Secretary left unanswered when this Statement was made in the other place. He said: “Yesterday marked 150 days since 4 July, and in that time a staggering 20,110 people have made the dangerous, illegal and unnecessary crossing—over 20,000 since this Government were elected. That is an 18% increase on the same 150 days last year, and a staggering 64% increase on the 150 days immediately prior to the election”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/12/24; col. 44.] Perhaps the Minister can inform us why those numbers have gone up so much. No doubt he will confirm that it is right that the approach of simply seeking to “smash the gangs” alone will not prevent or reduce crossings in small boats. Let us also remember that Labour’s alternative to the Rwanda plan has been little more than empty words. It has no credible plan to deter illegal crossings, no clear commitment to returns agreements and no strategy to address the root causes of migration. Finally, since the Statement was debated in the other place, we were told in media reports on Sunday that the Prime Minister has decided to scrap the scheme to help refugees integrate, learn English and find jobs. My right honourable friends Rishi Sunak and Robert Jenrick launched the scheme last year to help to overcome barriers faced by refugees to integrate into local communities and society. The refugee employability programme was backed by a funding deal from the Home Office of £52 million until June 2025. Could the Minister tell us why this decision was taken? Does he not want to see refugees integrate into their local communities? It seems that the Government are too keen to scrap useful schemes just on the basis of destroying our legacy in government. In sum, we have seen time after time that a Labour Government fail on migration. With their empty words on small boats and an asylum crisis of their own making, it is unsurprising that they have taken these baffling decisions, such as scrapping the refugee employability programme and providing no viable deterrent. It is a sad day when we have hit such a high level of illegal channel crossings, with the risk to life that they pose, and, I regret to say, the higher level of deaths in the channel.

My Lords, first, I declare my interests, as I am supported by the RAMP organisation. I start by reflecting on the issues of the past few days, particularly those around the Saydnaya military prison in Syria, where we can see tables with 20 nooses on top of them and a crematorium where people’s bodies are disposed of. That was what people were fleeing from in their numbers when they came from Syria, yet the previous Government refused even to listen. They put a cloth over their ears and said that they would not hear people’s case for leaving. There is an issue for those Syrians who are in this country, seeking refuge. I know that the Minister will tell me that the Government have paused the scheme whereby their cases will be assessed, and I understand why that is the case. However, the longer that they have to wait in limbo, the worse is going to be the sense of personal deprivation and loss of dignity that comes with the system that they find themselves in. I would be grateful if the Minister could start by telling us how quickly the Government intend to deal with this matter in order that they can process those people who are waiting in the queue for their case to be heard. The previous Government left an immigration system which was not working for business, universities, families or migrants themselves. In the legal migration methodology that the last Government used, they did not want to deal with it, and they left huge gaps in what was happening within our social care and university sectors. Despite the expansion in the numbers of people arriving on the health and social care visa, we still see huge challenges, with labour shortages in social care, alongside deeply worrying levels of exploitation of migrants on this visa. As the number of people entering the UK on a health and care worker visa has reduced, what steps are the Government taking to address the labour shortages in the care sector and the reported exploitation of those on that visa where the employer has had a licence removed? In the previous Government’s efforts to reduce net migration, little consideration was given to the impact of these changes and whether the correct balance was being met. One area of concern is the increase in the salary threshold for British citizens to bring their spouse or partner to the UK. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of this policy on British citizens, including children, who are unable to live as a family unit in the UK? We welcome the international co-operation being sought to tackle the criminal gangs involved in channel crossings. However, we urge the Government to address the demand side as well as the supply side. Safe routes have to be part of the solution for those fleeing persecution and using dangerous routes to reach the UK. Will the Government consider a pilot of the humanitarian travel visa system for tiering the high grant-rate countries, and hear how they have to make their cases, just as the people of Syria are still waiting to hear their cases in this country?

I am grateful to the noble Lords. I do not know where the noble Lord, Lord Murray, has been for the past 14 years, but I do not think he has been in the same place that I have been. His solution to the question of small boats and migration, illegal or otherwise, was to establish a £700 million fantasy Rwanda scheme, which removed resources from legitimate areas of tackling illegal migration and focused on trying to stop people crossing the channel in small boats. When that deterrent passed this House, 84,000 people still crossed the channel with it in place. It was not a deterrent: it did not work, and it wasted money on a scheme that stopped us from focusing on the things that this Government are focusing on. We have ramped up the number of returns of people who are not allowed here legally; we have removed 9,400 people since 5 July, including 1,500 foreign national offenders; and we have put additional resources into the Border Force scheme and created a Border Security Command. Only this day, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has met her German and French counterparts to put in place new action on tackling criminal gangs downstream. As we speak now, there is a meeting between Home Secretaries from across Europe to ensure that we tackle this collectively across this area. Talking to European colleagues was something that the noble Lord and his party did not really take to. We have put £150 million into a Border Security Command and have led a new international effort. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been to Iraq to secure an agreement with the Iraqi Government on criminal gangs for both sides of that fence. We have funded an extra 100 specialist NCA officers, increased the number of asylum claims dealt with, and increased the speed of those asylum claims. I remind the House that in 2019 there were no hotels in use for asylum seekers. Because of the failure of the noble Lord’s Government’s policy, there were over 200 hotels used over that five-year period, and we are committed to ending that practice. In short, I will not take lessons from him on migration. He has a record to defend; he cannot defend it. He needs to look at what this Government will do to unpick the mess that his Government left of this asylum system. I say to the noble Lord, Lord German, that the Syria situation is extremely serious. We need to monitor it on the ground. We are very much aware of the atrocities of the Assad regime, and of the further atrocities being unearthed as we speak. We need a political resolution and to look at having stability restored. To be open and honest with the noble Lord, I say that we need time to reflect on how we deal with the asylum issue and claims made—or counter-made—from individuals who were in Syria or who are now in this country accordingly. We need to do that because there are potentially still individuals who might use this circumstance to travel in a way that will damage the interests of the United Kingdom. I hope that he will reflect on the fact that we will certainly need to look at that in time. The other questions that the noble Lord asked are equally valid. He put a number of suggestions forward, which I will consider, as representations on the position as a whole. We have commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to look at the question of skills and the need for future skills, and to report back to the Home Office and the Prime Minister in due course. We have also looked at establishing further work on a White Paper on net migration and other aspects of migration, outlining the needs and where the challenges arise. Both will take time, and although the noble Lord is entitled to scrutinise, to press and to suggest, I hope that he will bear with us. When the new year comes, he can contribute, in a very positive way, to the two challenges of commissioning the Migration Advisory Committee and establishing the route for a White Paper, which will lead to wider discussion.

15:50:00

My Lords, a report in Sunday’s Observer indicated that the quality of decision-making on asylum claims suffered significantly in the interests of speed under the previous Government, leading to an increase in appeals, nearly half of which were successful. What steps are being taken now to improve the quality of decision-making?

My noble friend makes an extremely important point on which the Government are not only reflecting but taking action. The slowness of asylum appeals, the poor quality of some decision-making and the level of appeals taking place all added to the pressures on the asylum system and therefore on accommodation, hotels and the other aspects of providing for people who had an asylum claim that was not yet finalised. We are focused on that area. We are trying to speed up asylum claims, and to ensure that we reach earlier decisions and that the quality of decision-making is improved. They are hard challenges, as she will understand, but they are certainly on the Government’s agenda.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that instability in Syria is likely to give rise to a surge in migration? He will be aware that, when the Soviet Union collapsed, we put in place a Know-How Fund to assist the transition to better governance and a better economy. Does he agree that, with the risk of increased migration from Syria, we should consider, in concert with the European Union and perhaps other willing states from the Middle East, something approaching a Know-How Fund to improve governance and the economy of Syria?

The noble Viscount makes an extremely important point. The Government have put in place an £11 million fund to support humanitarian aid. The Foreign Secretary has met his Turkish and Emirati counterparts and the UN special envoy, and he will look at those issues in due course. With due respect to the noble Viscount and others, if we were talking this time last week we would not have expected to be where we are now. Things are moving very speedily, but the Government are cognisant of the fact that they need to help secure the stability of a new regime and, at the same time, examine the consequences of that regime change in a way that encourages peace in the region.

My Lords, I will pursue the point about casework. Does the Minister agree that there is a balance between speed, accuracy and the application of all the humanitarian factors that one needs to keep in mind? Thinking about what it must be like to deal with the applications, I have only admiration for those who work on them. I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer this, but I wonder whether the Home Office is providing enough support for supervision, as well as general support for those faced with the applications. I also want to mention asylum hotels, which the Minister mentioned. I hear an increasing call for support for people living in asylum hotels—more than just accommodation. Perhaps the Home Office can bear this in mind in its contracting of accommodation, because asylum seekers need more than just a roof over their head. Finally, I will no doubt be showing my ignorance, but perhaps I could ask a question on the Statement. We are told that illegal working visits are up 34%. What are illegal working visits?

First, on that point, legislation was passed in 2014 by the then Conservative Government, which the then Labour Opposition supported. I was the shadow Minister. It was to ensure that we crack down on illegal working in a range of establishments, for two reasons. First, individuals who are here illegally should not be exploited by unscrupulous employers. Secondly, in employing people illegally, those unscrupulous employers are undercutting the ability to pay decent wages and give decent conditions of service to people who work legally, while undercutting the costs of other businesses. Therefore, it is not appropriate. The Government are trying to up that, building on the legislation that was passed. I hope that I have noble Lords’ support in this. We are also looking at building on that legislation to ensure that we can take further steps accordingly. The noble Baroness also mentions two aspects. One is asylum hotels. This is difficult, but it is the Government’s intention to end the use of asylum hotels at an early opportunity. We will be progressing that. At the moment, give or take one or two hotels, we are at the same number that the Government had in July, but we are aiming to reduce that significantly, because it is a cost to the taxpayer and, as the noble Baroness says, it is not conducive to the good health and well-being of those people who are in our care for that period of time. Again, that is a long-term objective. On her first point, we are trying to speed up the asylum system in an accurate way to ensure that asylum claims are assessed quickly. Then, where they are approved, individuals can have asylum, and, where they are not approved and people have no right of abode, they can be removed. At the moment, that system has no energy in it, to the extent that we want it to have. We are trying to put some energy into that system.

The Minister mentioned the work of the Migration Advisory Committee, looking at skills. It rather sounded as though we would be allowing additional people into the UK on its recommendations, whereas I believe the focus should be on upskilling UK young people and UK unemployed so that they can fill the skills gaps that we have. The shadow Minister made a point about the winding down of the scheme to encourage integration in the UK and to encourage people to learn proper English, as you see in other countries. Could the Minister kindly answer the question that was asked?

On the first point, I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness that the purpose of the Government discussing this aspect with the Migration Advisory Committee is to look at the question of skills shortages and where individuals potentially can add to the gross domestic product and contribute to society as a whole. There may well be some skills shortages, but we are reviewing that in relation to the potential for a range of matters. This will be allied with the White Paper, which looks at the level of net migration and how the net migration target that was set previously is managed by the new Government. The noble Baroness’s point about integration is extremely important. Let me take away the points that she and the noble Lord made and give them both a fuller answer as to the outcome of that discussion.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord German raised the question of Syrian refugees, and the Minister was right to point out the situation that prevails at the moment in that country. There is ample evidence, photographic and otherwise, of large numbers of refugees from neighbouring countries making their way back into Syria to go back to their homeland. What are the Government doing to give help and assistance to refugees who want to return to Syria? What assistance is being given to those who may wish to withdraw their application for asylum?

Again, I hope I can help the noble Lord, but this is a very fast-moving situation; we were not here this time last week. There are challenges in Syria, with people moving back there from neighbouring countries and the United Kingdom, and people, potentially, still seeking asylum from a new Syrian regime that they do not support. These issues are all on the table. I hope the noble Lord will understand, but I do not wish to commit now to definitive policy solutions to those issues, because the Government are reflecting on them. So I will simply say that the £11 million of humanitarian aid that the Foreign Secretary announced this week is a start. If the noble Lord and the House will allow us, those are matters that we can maybe discuss in slower time, when the Government have assessed the position fully and determined what best we can do with our partners to assist that position.

My Lords, much has been made of the Syrian situation by many noble Lords this afternoon. Does this not open up a question as to what the asylum rules are really there for? We do not know quite where Syria will end up—it is early days, as the Minister very correctly said—but many Syrians will be looking to go back home. During the years of civil war in Syria, Lebanon warmly accepted many Syrians, but it was quite bizarre that, during the height of Lebanon’s recent problems, many Syrians went home from Lebanon saying that Syria was safer than Lebanon at the time. Are we not in a situation, if Syria does settle down, where we can consider whether temporary asylum is probably a better way forward for the world? Ultimately, is it not the case that the brightest, best, fittest and strongest people, having left their country at a time of conflict, would actually wish and want to return home to rebuild that country for the future? Is that something the Government would support: a temporary asylum basis rather than a permanent one?

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. Individuals can always choose to return if the situation in their home country that they were fleeing and seeking asylum from changes. In this circumstance, we have temporarily paused decisions on Syrian asylum claims while we assess the current situation and we are keeping country guidance under review. With due respect to all noble Lords, we do not yet know how this will pan out; we do not know who the good guys and the bad guys are going to be; and we do not know ultimately what will happen in the new Syria that might emerge from the collapse of the Assad regime. The same is true for Ukrainian citizens and others who flee and seek temporary asylum or relief from a particular war situation or from poverty and hunger. We judge those on an individual basis: asylum is given, or it is not; people are returned, or they are not. I would like to keep to that system, but recognise that circumstances change, as has been shown in the last week in Syria.

My Lords, perhaps I might revert to Syria. The question of war crime trials will arise. Does the Minister agree that the Government should give earnest consideration to going to the Security Council to try to get a resolution remitting war crimes to the International Criminal Court? Or, if that is not possible, for obvious reasons, should the Government consider invoking the Rome statute to achieve that purpose?

If the noble Viscount will allow me, those matters are slightly beyond my remit. I would not wish to commit the Government to any particular course of action on that, but I will certainly pass his comments to the Foreign Secretary who, along with the Prime Minister, will be considering these matters. It is not within my direct gift; I could comment on it and give him a view, but it may not subsequently prove to be the Government’s one—so I wish to retain the right to silence, if the noble Viscount understands what I mean.

The noble Lord, in response to an earlier question, referenced the ambition to close asylum hotels. There has been much discussion recently about the impact of net migration on housing stock, et cetera. Has he evaluated the impact of that policy on the availability of social and affordable housing, and how does he expect to be able to house the net migration figures?

My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has already committed in the House of Commons, in a Statement repeated in this House, to increase dramatically the number of social houses, affordable houses and housebuilding sites generally across the United Kingdom, as a matter of some urgency, to meet the housing need. The question of hotel accommodation, and of what happens to individuals post that, is a significant issue. With the Migration Advisory Committee and the future White Paper, we are trying to look at how we deal with those issues. The immediate government objective is to reduce and ultimately close the number of hotels being used, because they are an expensive way of providing that level of housing for individuals. There were no hotels in 2019; there are now more than 200 in use. It is not good, for a range of reasons, to continue that mechanism of policy, so we are trying to exit it. That takes time, and the evaluation of the consequences of that withdrawal also takes time, but I hope that the noble Earl, along with this House, will bear with us while we wrestle and grapple with those issues.

My Lords, I am sure the Minister shares the world’s horror at the recent announcement from the Taliban of the latest repressive measure against women in Afghanistan, which has banned women from medical training, including banning the training of female midwives. This serves as a reminder of the vulnerability of the entire Afghan population, but particularly those many Afghans who served both the UK military and UK-linked institutions who remain in the region in extremely endangered circumstances. I note that the International Rescue Committee applauded the small initial step that the Government took on family reunion for families separated during Operation Pitting, but what more are the Government doing to assist those Afghans, to whom we have a real responsibility, to find a safe, orderly route to seek asylum in the UK?

It is extremely important that we have a responsibility to those individuals who served and supported what I would call coalition forces in Afghanistan. It is particularly important that we uphold the rights of women to lead their lives in their own way in Afghanistan and to have opportunities to do so. The points that the noble Baroness has made are worthy of reflection. If she will let me, I will report her comments today back to my colleague Minister, who is directly responsible in the Home Office for those matters, and respond to her in due course.

My Lords, in response to questions from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, the Minister gave the impression that not much progress had been made in negotiations and actual action on the ground in dealing with the small boats. I was wondering whether he could acknowledge that a huge amount of work was done in negotiating with France. Can he spell out what action he is taking that is different from what we were doing? Secondly, the individual now heading up the small boats border force said when he was appointed that part of the strategy should be deterrence. Where is that deterrent?

I think there is a different type of deterrent from that which the noble Viscount would wish to exercise, and which I am guessing he supported when the noble Lord, Lord Murray, brought the proposals forward. The Rwandan scheme, in my view, was not a deterrent: it was a costly, £700 million fantasy that would have secured even more resource in due course. We have scrapped that scheme, saved that £700 million, reallocated that resource to Border Force with £150 million as an initial starter, and appointed Martin Hewitt to co-ordinate not just Home Office activity but policing and international efforts. The results of that are the type of thing happening this very day here in London, with agreements being signed by the French, the Belgians, the Dutch and the Germans to secure co-operation on criminal gangs. I hope the noble Viscount will note that the numbers of prosecutions and returns, and the speed of asylum applications, are starting to pick up. That is because the resource we saved from being wasted—it was a legitimate choice for the Government to make, but one I did not support—is now being put to good use.

My Lords, I go back to the questions asked by my noble friend on the Front Bench and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe about the integration and English fund, which was put in place by the former Government and which the current Government have scrapped. I do not expect the Minister to answer this now because he has already said he will write, but was some assessment made on the likely impact that the scrapping of that fund would have on community cohesion? Will he commit to write to the House on this?

Of course. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his contribution. He held the office that I hold now, and he knows how difficult it is and how slow things can be. I will try to answer him as fairly as I possibly can. A good grasp of English and a good level of integration are critical, even when asylum claims are granted, because they make individuals less open to exploitation and abuse. They help with an individual’s general integration into society post any formal asylum application being approved. I will put the correspondence the noble Lord has requested in the Library of the House, and I look forward to him reading it in due course—perhaps even between Christmas and the new year.