 We have a plan to deliver the Rwanda deal, they are not listening so they might want to listen to this. We have a plan to deliver the Rwanda deal and we will do whatever it takes to stop the votes. Mr Speaker, illegal immigration is a huge global challenge, and that challenge is growing. It was a topic that I regularly raised with countries across Europe and around the wider world in my former role as a foreign secretary. Mr Speaker, monthly illegal migrant numbers are trending upwards right across Europe, with an exception. Our numbers are falling. Illegal migration is dangerous. It undermines the laws of our country. It is unfair on those who come here legally and on the British people who play by the rules. It must and it will stop. This is a wonderful country, and I recognise that because I had a chance to see it as others see it from overseas. And inevitably people aspire to come here. But more people coming here illegally is not fair for those struggling to get GP appointments. Those are trying to get housing or access to schools or those people who are living near asylum hotels. The impacts are felt on some of the poorest in our society and we have a duty to address their concerns. While the Conservative government has taken action to protect our country, the Labour Party has voted time and time again not to protect our borders over 80 times. Rwanda is ready and willing to help. The UNHCR operates its own refugee scheme in Rwanda. Rwanda is ready to receive thousands of people, process their claims, give them excellent care and then support them to integrate into Rwanda. This is an African country full of potential and promise. We have a future focus, a mutually beneficial partnership with them and we plan to deliver. The Rwanda plan has only ever been one tool in our toolbox. We have a plan to drive down numbers and our plan is working. Before the Prime Minister launched a 10-point plan in December, the number of people entering the UK illegally in small boats had more than quadrupled. While illegal migration in the rest of Europe continues to rise, crossings to the UK are now down by a third. We are tackling illegal migration at every stage in the journey of a would-be illegal migrant. Our plan is working. Last year, the Prime Minister agreed the largest ever small boats deal with France. We have expanded our joint intelligence cells to deepen intelligence sharing and dismantle the criminal gangs. Cutting edge surveillance technology is in play and we have beefed up security infrastructure such as CCTV at keyboard crossings across the channel. We have ensured that more French officials and officers patrol French beaches and they are working closely with UK staff. So far, in 2023, nearly 22,000 crossing attempts have been prevented because of the close coordination between British and French officials. That means less money that the British taxpayers have to spend on hotels, less profits for the criminal gangs and fewer people to process. It sends a clear message to the gangs and those who want to cross that we will stop them. As foreign secretary, I work closely with my right honourable friend, the immigration minister, to agree a new deal with Albania. With better data sharing, closer operational working and financial support and in response to the work that he and I did. The number of Albanian small boat arrivals has fallen by 90%, 90% so far during 2023 and we have returned over 4,600 people in just 10 months. We also want to make sure it's harder to get into one of those boats in the first place, including reducing the supply of boats. We are targeting the movements of these goods such as dinghies, such as engines that are used to facilitate the crossing in order to undermine a key component of the smuggler's business model. Those who do make it through will not be able to stay. We have expediated returns agreements with countries including France, Albania, Turkey and Italy. We have increased the number of illegal working rates by almost 70%. We have cut the asylum legacy backlog by over 59,000 cases. We have freed up hundreds of hotel beds with the use of alternative sites. We have announced the closure of the first 50 asylum hotels and we have passed the Illegal Migration Act, the most ambitious immigration legislation in decades, which makes clear that the only route to asylum in the UK is via one of the safe and legal routes we have put in place. Anyone who comes to the UK illegally will not be able to stay. They will be removed either to their home country if it is safe or to a third country if it is not. I can assure you that our commitment to ending illegal migration is unwavering. We are a positive outlier in Europe. Our efforts are working. Small boat crossings are down. Our decision making is faster. We are removing those with no right to be here and taking action against those who are working illegally. We have done deals with multiple countries and will continue to do so. In conclusion, a rival is down. Decisions faster. Returns up. We are getting on with the job and we will do whatever it takes to deliver on our commitment to stop the boats. I commend this statement to the House. I welcome the new Home Secretary to his post. He is the eighth Conservative Home Secretary in eight years of what a mess he has inherited. The court conclusions today are damning. It exposes the complete failure of the Prime Minister's flagship Rwanda policy. It exposes a complete failure of the Prime Minister's judgment in making it the central part of his policy and the complete failure of Conservatives to get the most basic grip of their boats and asylum chaos. No serious plan on the dangerous boat crossings that are undermining our border security and putting lives at risk that all of us want to see end. No serious plan to sort out the chaos in the asylum system, people in costly asylum hotels because of the soaring backlog that should be ended, and the readiness to spend over £140 million of taxpayers' money on this plan. Money we can't get back now, now that this policy has totally failed. It adds to the disastrous judgment of the Prime Minister, not just appointing and backing the previous Home Secretary, who was unfit for the job. Now, I don't agree with pretty much anything his predecessor as Home Secretary ever said, but she was right on this message to the Prime Minister. She said, if we lose in the Supreme Court, you will have wasted a year and an act of Parliament only to arrive back at square one, your magical thinking has meant you have failed to prepare any sort of credible plan being. Wasting time, wasting money and letting the country down. That is the Conservatives record. I've outlined the catalogue of problems with the policy, but Ministers knew all about them. When it was first announced 18 months ago, I raised in this House the problems with the Israel-Rwanda deal. They were warned many times about failures and weaknesses in the Rwanda asylum system, but they just pressed on. Even if it had been found lawful today, they've admitted it would only have covered a few hundred people anyway at a time when 100,000 people applied for asylum in the UK last year on the Conservatives watch. That would have also cost around twice as much per person as deciding cases in the UK. The truth is, the government has wasted not just one but five years of failing to deal with this. Five years ago, there were just a few hundred people crossing in boats, but they let criminal gangs take hold along the channel. They let asylum decisions collapse so the backlog soared and there are now 20% more people in asylum hotels than there were when the Prime Minister promised to end them. Will he now tell us how much in total has the government spent on this failed Rwanda plan so far? The House has a right to know. He says he wants a new treaty. How much more will that cost? The court judgment says, despite his optimism, it says of the changes that are needed, the Rwandan government indicated that the contemplated arrangements might not be straightforward to implementing practice. The court says, the provision of resources does not mean that the problems we have described can be resolved in the short term. So again, more of the magical thinking. What does this mean for the Prime Minister's flagship legislation? Because he boasted about passing it only yesterday, but the government hasn't actually commenced the central clauses of the law because without Rwanda, and frankly, even with Rwanda, the policy doesn't work and will just lead to an endless, ever-increasing permanent backlog. So can he confirm now he won't in fact be implementing the central tenets of that law this year? And can he confirm that this means the Prime Minister's pledges to introduce the new law, to stop the boats and to also to end hotel use will all be broken this year? And why would he not put that money into a proper plan to tackle the boats? I don't believe the new Home Secretary ever believed in the Rwanda plan. He distanced himself from it and his predecessor's language on it. He may even, on occasion, have privately called it bachit. But he and I agree. We need action to stop boat crossings that are undermining border security and putting lives at risk. We need a properly controlled and managed system for asylum and refugees. So let's concentrate on the things that can work. We support the work with France along the northern coast. We want it to go further. We support the work with Albania, with other countries across Europe to tackle the gangs. But it is frankly far, far too weak. We need a proper comprehensive, massively scaled up plan to go after the criminal gangs and a proper system to clear the backlog to have a proper returns unit in place so we can end hotel use. And instead of that cost going up from £6 million to £8 million a day on his watch, let us end hotel use and save the taxpayer £2 billion. That should be common ground. So I could suggest to him that he stops wasting taxpayers' money on more failing schemes, that he ditches the magical thinking and the culture wars of his predecessors and that he ditches the gimmicks and finally gets a grip. I think one of the dangers of writing critique of government policy before you've read the facts laid out in the statement is the statement makes the critique obsolete. She talks about hotel usage, which I might remind the House is coming down. She talks about smooth boat arrivals in the UK, which I will remind the House are coming down. She talks about closer working relationships with our European partners, which I will remind the House we are already doing. I've written here in response to the various questions. Does she have a plan? Does Labour have a plan? If the bench is opposite, could curb their enthusiasm and listen to what I was about to say next. I was going to concede that it clearly do have a plan. And their plan, their great idea, is to do what the government is already doing. Mr Speaker, which is why we are bucking the European trend when other countries are seeing 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 100% increases in their illegal arrivals, we are seeing a third reduction in ours bucking the trend. We have always said, Rwanda and the deterrent effect of the Rwanda plan is an important tool in our toolbox. We have never claimed it was the only tool in our toolbox. We have pursued, and when I say we, I of course mean my right hon. Friend the immigration minister with me watching him from King Charles Street, but the collective we is appropriate here. We have always pursued a range of options and, as I set out in my statement, those activities are having an effect. And, Mr Speaker, my final point, the mask has slipped. The mask has slipped because the glee that I detect on the other benches for this temporary setback on the delivery of this plan displays what we on the R side of the House know to be true. They don't want migration control to work. They don't want to take control of their own borders. They would rather delegate it to anybody else. I won't sit here, the Home Secretary. I don't need the front bench. You may pull your face. The bottom line is I won't hear it quietly, because our people also at home, our constituents want to hear it. When you're chunering solo, they cannot. The Home Secretary. Indeed. In which case, Theresa May. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I, first of all, welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position? The Home Office is a great Department of State, and I hope he will enjoy his time there as much as I enjoyed my time as Home Secretary. Can I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that the judgment that the Supreme Court made today was not contingent on the ECHR? Indeed, the fundamental judgment was made regardless of the ECHR. Mr Speaker, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and predecessor. She was a fantastic and long-served Home Secretary. I intend to try and compete with her on both of those metrics. She makes it an incredibly important point. We look very closely at the judgment. The judgment draws our attention to work that we can do, working with our partners in Rwanda to address the court's concerns about people being returned to unsafe countries. That is where we will address our focus, because that will be the pathway to ensuring that Rwanda stays a key element of our basket of responses to legal migration. She's right. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We on these benches were very glad to see the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court today. It really is quite ridiculous for the new Home Secretary to come here today to tell us that his predecessor's dream will never die. It's gone. Give it up. Do something else instead. Before the extremists on his own benches start to blame the European Convention on Human Rights, the Supreme Court judge Lord Reid was very clear that it's not just about the ECHR. It's about the Refugee Convention. It's about the UN Convention against Torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. It's about the UN international covenant and civil and political rights, as well as our own domestic legislation in this place. The Supreme Court made clear that Rwanda is not a safe country. At the very heart of the judgment today is the principle of non-refoilment, which means that people must not be sent back into harm's way. The UNHCR provided very compelling evidence of Rwanda doing so, even after they signed the memorandum of understanding with the UK, as well as in their earlier deal with Israel. They pointed out that they had rejected claims from countries such as Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan absolutely ludicrous that those claims could be rejected. It also pointed to the lack of integrity in Rwanda's own systems. It is a serious problem. One that the Minister claims today that he wants to fix, but he should focus his attentions instead on fixing his own departments multiple failings. So what are now for the illegal migration act and for the people who will be left an immigration limbo now without any recourse to claiming asylum? This incompetent Tory government can't eat them back to Rwanda and it won't process their claim. So what happens to this group of people? Mr Speaker, this solution to this does not lie in puncturing the market in rubber dingies. It is in creating functioning safe and legal groups. In the first half of this year, the largest group in small boats were Afghans. Afghans who have positive that the schemes that the government claims exist just aren't working. Many people make these dangerous journeys because they have no other options. This remains the reality whoever the Home Secretary is. So I ask when will they stop wasting public money chasing fantasies around £1.4 million at least on just the legal challenges, never mind the rest of this incompetent scheme? When will they create a system which treats the world's most vulnerable with the dignity and respect that they are due to build their lives here in the UK? The immigration minister hasn't even given Glasgow's MPs the meeting he promised to discuss the people they are about to make homeless through their bulk processing. So I ask him if he will not take his responsibilities seriously on immigration, on refugees, will he at least allow Scotland to have the right to do so because we want to welcome people to the world? If the Scottish Government want impractical terms to be more generous to people seeking refuge here, they can do so. In my experience, they choose not to. With regard to the work that we are doing, in my statement I made clear the various work trends that we are doing in close cooperation with countries around the world to address all elements of the illegal migration pipeline, including interrupting the logistics. It is working. I draw her attention to the fact that many other countries around Europe, countries that we have close working relationships with, are seeing significant increase in their illegal arrivals in stark contrast to the reductions that we are seeing here in the UK. She talks about a number of things, but ultimately I am drawn ultimately to the remarks that the court made about reformant. It says that structural changes and capacity building needed to eliminate the risk of reformant may be delivered in the future, and that is exactly what we are seeking to address. Can I welcome my right hon. Friend and neighbour from Essex to the great position of Home Secretary, and I wish him well in all his endeavours on this incredibly difficult issue. He has actually just touched on the whole issue with regard to the Supreme Court's decision on reformant. There judgment was clear on this issue today, but it is not new and it has been raised earlier on this year in the Court of Appeal. If I may say so, Madam Deputy Speaker, ministers have had the opportunity to address some of these practical measures and means thus far prior to today's judgment. Can I please urge the Home Secretary to take every necessary step and measure to work with the Government of Rwanda on the practical and operational delivery of this policy around the economic and migration partnership to give all those assurances? Because this partnership is absolutely clear, it is integral to making sure that we can break that model, the business model, of stopping the evil trade of people smuggling. If we can address this principle, this will go a long way to bringing in this essential deterrent in the illegal migration bachol. My right hon. Friend, my good-long, my long-standing friend, my right hon. Friend and predecessor is absolutely right in the point that she is making. We will break the people smuggling gangs. We will undermine their business model. We will pursue all the various work streams that she will be familiar with from her time in this fantastic office. In parallel to that, just as she has suggested, we will work. Indeed, we are already working in response to the comments made by the lower courts. We are already working to address the issues that were raised by judges in lower courts to ensure that we can approve what they need to see, which is that we will remove the risk of reform. Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, Dame Diana Johnson. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new role? This morning at the Home Affairs Select Committee, David Neil, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, told us that the biggest challenge facing the Home Office is being professional, maintaining objectivity, being fair and understanding human rights. The inspector also said that what keeps him up at night is the question of who is protecting our borders and are they doing that to the best of our collective abilities. I just wondered, for the Home Secretary, just tell us whether today's ruling on Rwanda proves or disproves Mr Neil's concerns. Madam Deputy Speaker, this Government is responsible for protection of this country, and it's a role and responsibility we take incredibly seriously. It's the primary function of governments. In this statement and in the other statements that I intend to make in the Minister's and the Department will make in the Dispatch Box, we will show the House and the country that we take on this side of the House with responsibility incredibly seriously, and we will take whatever action is necessary to ensure the protection of the people of this country and the borders of this country. It would be helpful, frankly, if the party opposite would break the habit seemingly of a lifetime and, actually, once in a while, vote to support the actions that we take. As well as welcoming my right hon. Friend most warmly to this post, something where his and my former London Assembly constituents in Bexley and Bromwick are massively proud to see him, may I congratulate him upon the tone and the manner of his statement, because he's right as a law and a rule of law country that will respect the decisions of the courts however they go. The Supreme Court was asked a legal question and it gave a legal answer. Does he agree that it's quite clear that this decision is essentially facts-specific applied to well-established legal principles, and the solution is, first of all, to look at the way in which those facts can be rectified to make it compliant? My hon. Friend, my long-standing friend and former South East London representative is absolutely right. Their Lordships told us what we need to do to address their concerns. We intend to do what they said needs to be done. We will address their concerns, we will operationalise this plan, we will break the business model and we will stop the vote. 2% of those claiming asylum in this country are LGBTQI plus people fleeing countries where just being themselves can be a death sentence. Does he agree with his predecessor that they're pretending? If the Honourable Gentleman wants to know my views on things, he can ask me my views on things rather than ask me to comment on other people's views. Can I welcome the new Home Secretary to his place as I'll share his disappointment at the judgment this morning? As we've heard, the Supreme Court focused on the principle of non-reformant and hopefully that can be addressed in a new treaty and perhaps would be made more robust if we could work jointly with other European partners who have expressed an interest in a random type scheme. But can I ask him why was this not considered in the original Bruanda treaty and which law officer was responsible for giving legal advice to the Home Office about how it might stand up to challenge in the court? The Honourable Gentleman knows that government legal advice is for informing the decision-making of Ministers. It's not appropriate and we will not discuss government legal advice at the dispatch box and he knows that. The point is, of course, we do always prepare for a range of eventualities. As I said in my statement, we recognise that this was one of the decisions that might come from the courts. We listened carefully to the statements made by the judges at the lower courts and we have already started to take action in response to the concerns that they have raised. Can I also welcome the new Home Secretary to the dispatch box? He's got a difficult job but it's in everyone's interest that it should be done well. Can I also welcome that part of his statement where he says we are not going to put forward proposals simply to manufacture an unnecessary round for short-term political gain? That match, at least, will be a refreshing change. But he should be aware that his Honourable Friend, the Member for Ashfield, the Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party, is reported as having told ITV that the Prime Minister should ignore the laws following the Supreme Court decision. Will he dissociate himself from these comments? The Government, this country prides itself on being a law abiding country. To hear the Government's position on things, listen to the statements of Government Ministers. I have made it clear. We respect the judgment, we listen carefully to the comments made by their Lordships and, of course, the lower courts. We will respond, indeed, to say that we are already responding to the comments they make, to make sure that the actions that we take when the Rwanda scheme is operationalised are in strict accordance with international law. Will the Home Secretary explain to those of us who are not experts in this area why it is that people who arrive illegally on our shores from a safe nearby country cannot immediately be returned to that safe nearby country? It is clear that it would be in breach of certain laws, so can he set out, perhaps, in a statement what those laws might be? I think that receiving countries have got to consent. That is at the nub of this, which is why it is so very important that the Minister's department, particularly the immigration minister, has spent so much time working with those countries from whom we have traditionally received legal migration, including France, but others, most notably in terms of statistics, Albania, where we have developed an excellent working relationship. I will claim a bit of credit because my right hon. Friend the immigration minister and I had something of a tag team with Government in Tirana, and we are seeing the success that comes about from pragmatic but determined relationships with European partners and others. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for that work. I too warmly welcome the Minister to his post, not just because I know people in the Foreign Office who are rather sad to see him go. However, can I try that question again? What does he think about the 2% of people who claim asylum on the basis of their sexuality because they face massive persecution and death threats in their own country? Does he think that they are pretending to be lesbian, gay or bisexual? If he does, will he provide the evidence for that? He will know. He can't prove a negative. That's a fallacy. The point is that in my former role, I thank him for the kind words he said about my time as Foreign Secretary, he will know, because he's clearly got a mole inside my old organisation, he will know how passionately I pursued the rights of LGBT people around the world, including having some people who are very, very difficult conversations where necessary. I absolutely want to make sure that those people are protected, but we should also recognise that bad people hide amongst good people, sometimes people lie to take advantage of the good will of others. The point is nonsense to suggest that everybody who is suffering from persecution or claiming to suffer from persecution because their sexuality is lying, and I certainly would never say that, but we do need to make sure, as we do with any process, as we do with any system, we need to make sure that people aren't attempting to abuse the process because it limits our ability to help those who genuinely are in need. I recognise that the LGBT—what did I say?—LGBT—he knows what I mean. Do face genuine persecution around the world. We do want to support and help them. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Listening to a lot of the Supreme Court judgment earlier today, it was encouraging, particularly around the actual principle of what we're looking to do with Rwanda, being offered, and yet again a high court endorsing that. But, of course, as was touched on earlier, a lot of this turned on the facts, in particular the facts relating to refoundment, i.e. the transfer to another country that may see those transferred to Rwanda a return to a country where they would face persecution. So, can I test him on what work he is doing? We look at, for example, the Home Office's decision-making capability to help Rwanda build up its decision-making capability, and also what we may be doing with our own judiciary to look at working with Rwanda's judiciary to address some of the Supreme Court's points on that area. Madam Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, because I know that he did a lot of the work on this very subject, and it goes to the heart of how we operationalise the Rwanda plan, because their Lordship set out exactly the point that he raised, and it is about capacity building. It is about professionalising their system. I've had exchanges this morning with my Rwandan opposite number who I've met before. The Rwandans are keen partners to build and strengthen their institutional structures. They see us as a key partner in achieving that, and together we will work to operationalise this, and as I say, I pay tribute to the work he did on this very issue. The Supreme Court's judgment has put paid to the lazy, ill-informed argument that it's the European Convention on Human Rights and only the European Convention on Human Rights that's blocking this Government from dealing effectively with asylum and immigration. His Government have spent two years formulating a policy that's proven incompatible with a multitude of international treaties to which the UK has signed up, and numerous provisions of our domestic law, and the Supreme Court were very clear about that. So my question for the Home Secretary is, when is he going to explain to his backbenchers that the UK Government's response to this judgment must be to produce a humane asylum policy that works, not an effort to try and overcome the vital checks and balances of the rule of law and human rights law that's stymied bad policy decisions and protect human rights? My Lord Speaker, our immigration policies, as I said laid out by the figures that I ran through in my statement, is having the positive effect that we committed to. We are bringing down small boat numbers, we are bringing down the need for hotel places, et cetera, et cetera, and I've said in my statement that their lordships have set out the route to successful operation life. I'm not just recognizing the Rwanda scheme, it is through addressing those concerns about reformat. We will focus on what we need to achieve to unlock this. We recognize that this is a constant battle against criminals, and just with all constant battles against criminals we focus on what's effective and what's right, the lordships have set out exactly what that is, and that's what we will focus on. Sir Ian Duncan Smith. Madam Speaker, can I welcome my right hon. Friend genuinely to his place at the Spatchbox? A believer in speaking softly and carrying a big stick is always a very good way of behaving. Can I say to him that—no reference—can I just say to him that I also fully agree with all of his intentions and the direction of travel that he wants to go to settle this issue in terms of the proper organization such that these concerns are therefore dealt with in the courts? And I do say to him—does he not agree with me—those who greet this judgment with glee need to remember that people are dying in the channel trying to cross in the boats. But I ask him to ask his right hon. friend, the attorney, at some point to come to the Spatchbox in due course, to reflect on the judgment, because it does appear to me that this is much wider than the migration judgment, because we're now linking directly to applicability in UK law agreements that were made with the UN that were never bound by the law. Now, whether one wants it or not, that does widen the whole issue of what then becomes justice. It would be great if she would then come at some point to deal with that issue. I once again thank my right hon. friend for his kind words. My focus in this role is making sure that the Department is highly effective in protecting the British people and protecting our borders. It's not about trying to look tough, it's about trying to deliver for the British people, and that will be my relentless focus. The Attorney General, my right hon. friend, reminds me that her advice, like all very good in-house lawyers, is limited to the client, which is how much she's gone by. I have no doubt that I can persuade her to meet in a private basis with my right hon. friend. I also want to welcome the Home Secretary to his new role. I also am sure that he would want to join with me in expressing gratitude to all those in our public services who came here as refugees and make such a fantastic contribution to our country. At the heart of this case are a series of asylum seekers, one of whom I know has been confirmed as a victim of trafficking. He's been stuck in an asylum hotel since May 2022. As yet, the government has not even begun to look at his claim for asylum. So, can the Home Secretary tell us when his Department will actually begin to process the claims of these people and actually get on with finding out whether or not they are illegal asylum seekers, or is he just going to continue with the shroud that he can make Miranda workable? I don't have details of the individual case that she raises, so I can't comment on the specifics of that, but I will remind her and the House that, as part of the Prime Minister's 10-point plan, reducing or eliminating that historic backlog of case files was a commitment. The start of this process is to the 91,000, and it has now been reduced to less than 30,000. We are delivering on our commitment to work through that backlog of cases. It was one of the areas that we committed to. We are delivering on it, and we will pursue all the elements of our plan. I would urge colleagues to be brief in their questions so that the Home Secretary can be brief in return, because we have a very packed agenda today, and I want to make a great effort to get everyone in. The key word, it seems to me, is time today, because we cannot keep relitigating this question to achieve what seems to be an ever-moving target in terms of what the courts want us to achieve. Our constituent sent us here with a very clear message to sort the small boats issue. The Parliament has passed legislation to sort this issue. Can my right hon. Friend be specific as to the point at which the attempts by the Government to recondition the agreement that was ran into treaty form will allow and a notwithstanding clause of the kind that my hon. Friend from Harborough has set out will become the only tool by which we can actually ensure that the will of this House takes action. It takes effect because we cannot allow the cycle to continue indefinitely. I did just say brief. I'll just remind people of that. I listened very carefully to my right hon. Friend's comments. We are absolutely determined to maintain the deterrent effect of the Rwanda scheme. To an extent, it is already demonstrating utility by the fact that we know, and anecdotally I'm not going to over-interpret these figures, that we know the fear of this as part of our arsenal is already having a deterrent effect, which is exactly what it was designed for. National Governments can't just vote themselves out of international commitments and they are things I recognise as a former Foreign Secretary are incredibly powerful tools as we try and do good around the wider world. By giving him this commitment we remain relentlessly focused on making sure that we continue to drive down these small boat crossings using the full range of capabilities that are disposed of. The Secretary of State is right to prioritise the legal immigration and ending it as a priority. However, in his statement today, I think I counted six times he talked about having a plan. The only word he left out of that was a cunning plan, because his plan seemed to be as one of a plan. It was a workable, effective and chaotic as Baldrick would have suggested in the Blackadder series, but it's no laughing matter, because whilst the plans are not working, we're still pressure on our infrastructure, there are still criminal gangs profiting from people's misery and people who use the legal routes are being disadvantaged. Will the Secretary of State give us a commitment that if the European Court of Human Rights continues to be a barrier to the will of this House that the government will take action and will ignore the demands of the human rights court? Madam Deputy Speaker, the Honourable Gentleman, I have a huge amount of respect for what he knows that I know, he believes that. One of the points that I took from the judgment today is that it's not just about the ECHR, their lordships set out a number of international agreements that we have made, but they also set out what we need to do to get the Rwanda plan up and running, and it's on a very specific legal point, which we are already in the process of addressing. I would respectfully disagree with him, because small boat arrivals are down as opposed to almost everywhere else in Europe where they are significantly up. The use of hotel bed spaces is down because of the arrangements that we have put in place. The speed of processing has increased and the volume of processing of asylum claims has significantly increased, so there are always multiple strands to this plan has set out in the 10 points that my right hon. friend, the Prime Minister, put forward, and they are having the desired effect and we will just keep working to deliver on our commitments. Does my right hon. friend agree that one of the glories of our parliamentary democracy is that Governments have to obey the law the same way that individual citizens or corporations have to obey the law? Does he also agree that those looking at the judgment carefully thinking that there is a simple one-leaver-to-pull solution are going to be disappointed? I'm going to quote a very wise woman, Georgia Maloney, who herself is quoting an even more wise woman, Margaret Thatcher. This is a constant battle, and in that battle both domestically and internationally, one of the real strengths, and I saw this as foreign sectory, one of our real strengths on the international stage is that when we speak, when we demand other countries abide by the rule of law, we are taken seriously because of our posture on this. And we will continue to ensure that we abide by the rule of law, while simultaneously, and we approve and we can do both, while simultaneously delivering on the commitments we made to drive down legal migration to stop the boats. I would like to welcome the Home Secretary to his new position. One fifth of my constituency case work comes from his new department, and it is a catalogue of human misery. Just one very brief example from the hundreds I could give. Asylum application made December 2020, interview November 2022, still waiting for a decision, has two young children, has twice attempted suicide, a huge cost to them, the NHS and the police. Will he just get a grip and stop making magical thought thinking and just fix his department and the asylum process? Madam Deputy Speaker, I completely sympathise with the frustration that her constituent must feel, and it's reflected in the frustration that I detect in her question, but I remind her and the House that we never claimed that the Rwanda deal was the totality of our response to this issue. We made a commitment to increase the speed of decision making and drive down the backlog, and we have demonstrably done that. My constituents are disappointed by the judgment today. They will be harmed by the Government's commitment to stop the boats, but they are impatient as the Government threaten to take over RAF Scampton. They are impatient that the boats will stop as soon as possible. I understand his plan is to upgrade the treaty with Rwanda. Can he advise the House how long will that take? Will that be potentially subject to legal challenge, and if so, how long could those legal challenges take? Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm not able to give certainty on timelines. I wish that I could, but she will know that I have a constituency interest in getting this right. RAF's weatherfield on my own constituency is being used as an asylum centre. In my conversations in the constituency capacity with my right honourable friend, we discussed the need to drive down the demand for accommodation, whether it be at Scampton, whether it be at Weathersfield or indeed anywhere else. The best way of closing down Weathersfield, not needing Scampton, is to stop the boats. We are relentlessly focused on doing so. We are relentlessly focused on doing so. For all the reasons I've discussed earlier. Jeremy Corbyn Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the Home Secretary to his position, and I also welcome the Court Judgement this morning. But what I noticed in his statement was a complete lack of empathy as to why people seek asylum in the first place, why people risk all, risk their lives and risk everything to try and cross a dangerous channel to get to what they hope to be a place of safety. He's right to confirm that there is a global rise in the number of refugees massively. Shouldn't all governments be working together to address the causes of that? The poverty, the wars, the human rights abuses and all of those issues. Will he confirm that this country will not walk away from the very important advances made over the last decades by the existence of the European Court of Human Rights to improve human rights, not perfect, but improve them all across Europe, including in this country? Home Secretary Madam Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman tempts me to refer back to my previous role as Foreign Secretary, and I can assure him and the House that a huge part of the work that is done by the Foreign Conwealth and Development Office are on exactly those issues, addressing climate change so that rural farmers in the developing world have crops that they can grow, sell and eat. We are addressing the drivers, but the idea that somehow we can un-invent illegal migration, I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman, is naive beyond belief. So we do have to also address the fact that people are abused by criminals, they are used as a product to smuggle, and we have to break the business model of the people smuggling. As well as addressing the issues that drive people away from the countries that they originated. David Jones I have my voice to the general welcome to my right hon. Friend. He's told the House that his department had anticipated the decision of the Supreme Court that was announced today. That being the case, can he tell the House if he's made an assessment as to whether legislation will be necessary in order to remedy the problems that have been identified? And if so, when would he anticipate being in a position to introduce that legislation? David Jones I can assure my right hon. Friend that as a thoughtful and proactive department, the Home Office, and I can't claim credit for this because much of this work is done before my arrival, but of course the department looks seriously at the range of potential outcomes from this judgment. We have already set in place the work to turn the MOU into a treaty, thus by addressing some of the concerns of their Lordships. The Prime Minister and I have both made it clear that if there needs to be legislative work domestically in order to ensure we do this, we are unafraid of putting that forward. Clive Efford I know from my recent visit to Calf's school that they will welcome their former pupil to his new role as I do. Can I urge him to resist calls from people on his own benches to remove us from the Convention on Human Rights? Clive Efford To my old school and get there, congratulations directly at some point in the future. I'll let him know of course that I'll be training in his hallowed turf. Clive Efford Clive Efford Clive Efford Clive Efford Clive Efford Clive Efford Clive Efford Clive Efford Clive Efford Clive Efford Clive Efford Clive Efford Clive Efford Clive Efford Clive Efford Clive Efford Clive Efford Clive Efford Clive Efford Clive Efford Clive Efford Clive Efford Clive Efford Clive Efford Clive Efford Clive Efford Clive Efford If you want to deter the small boats we need to be able to remove significant numbers of people extremely quickly. Given the comprehensive nature of this judgement this morning, can I encourage my right hon. Friend against an incremental approach? It's clear from this ruling that we need to do something stronger now. We chose in the IMA not to take notwithstanding provisions. I think we do need them now. I hear the point that he makes about a powerful deterrent. We are absolutely committed to that. Do that, but I do say again there in circumstances challenging as this. There are very rarely, and in my whole time in government and politics, I've never once yet come across the silver bullet solution. We have to pursue all our lines of effort. I give him my assurance we will continue to do so. Harold Williams Y Llywydd, dweud hynny, dwi'n ddigwydd hwnnw i'n ddwylo ei wneud hyn, oherwydd ni wedi'w o wir materiant fan hyn o ddimsuстваiedraeth a fluentu, i bew beg 196g ac i'r rôl hiredr yn eu robot wathol. Ym ni diwy i moridolaethAllrydym? Fodd bydwchâ'n gallu h Eyell-והins. Byddai eich 10-fold yn rherog gennymau ar yr datblyguALLYm Joesfaam. Ryf wnaeth ziew meddyn gyddon i'n meddwl, beth maeheithio dros iechyd. Ysgriffwyr y Cymru llawer i ymddian nhw i'n pethau i ymddian nhw i maes eu nhw i fynd i'ch wneud wneud mewn cyfnodau i'w gweithiau a'i gwneud y swyddfaeth yma, a chdi wneud yndd yma felly i'r swyddfaedd i'u gweithio i'w gweithiau i gael symud o'r ysgawr y Llywodraeth i'r Rhwyandda i'r adion. Ysgriffwyr y voyagei'n gweithio i'r ddweud werth o unrhyw o'r ddweudolol eich ar y maesailum ar y peirwadau Iesuio ti'r parwysiau i'r byd y mor ysgrifennu hwnnw, i'r perthynai llwyth gyrsledig yng Nghymru o gychwynusydd yn iddyn nhw. Maesailu'r wybodaeth ti'r wneud i datblygu bod bod yw'r gynhwys gwybodaeth cwmwysiaeth i wneud fwg fawr i'r brwyth ym m kör am ysgrifennu? Mae ymgyr错iwyr yn gjelogu gyda'r drwy hynny ymddai'r gwleidder, ynglynthi gyda'r gwir yn cael ysgrifennu, We are focussing on delivering for the British people, delivering quickly. As I said, we have always had a multi-strand approach, and we will make sure that the domestic legislative framework is fit for purpose, and will ensure that we can deliver on our commitment to stopping the bows. Patrick Grady Gwyll 잔 yn yordsyn, pan os yw sefydlu ar gyfer spicy hongylchedder y Llyweddor Ie stallai celu? Ergeusio brio gynnig embully Марfa! Oedd gen değil ychydig garwosod fan bakelion wrth eicias? 잠깐만ru nyfin ge wratholowach i siaradol ichael haunted? Rydw im rhan gwybodaeth o Gwreach yrhole�on nhw ni! premysgr很 hwnnw, felly iawn bobl hwnnw i gydagion draFatherとll nifer i rests muniano. Mae bhinformรai megี ganutwydau y domlango yng Nghy темперhybi Morwaith. truck with you is free to pick up the trophy. I welcome the point raised by my honourable friend. It is often the least报griff community who feel the burden most heavily, and it is our duty to the a gafodd hynny'n gwych chi'n gweithio, rwy'n gweithio. Rwy'n gweld yr unrhyw. Angela Glyfydd. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning, I met a British Palestinian woman called Wafia. She told me that 30 members of her family have died in the last month in Gaza. She told me about her cousins who so far survived but are utterly traumatised and completely terrified. Now, should those cousins and their children somehow make it to these shores, gyda cwmpi iswled90 athatwm ni'n cael ei mynyddoedd drafod o'r polisi. Dyma oes eu ótag at fathgu digon o anghyddau a ddrindau ar yndda gyda'r Pallestynius a phabosuniau chi i ddarparodau'n prosu. Ghost Bamelur, Uli, LL whom i Gairwyr, neu finally i amlragiolau o hy analy Interesting Ian naech yn gelfon o'i roi…fyn Ancient Enli a'n Gawodrawer o'r prifysgau cewael a'r hynny'n chi amlragiolaeth holl o'n ni, dyfodwod yn gywyddu ychydig. Mae'r Chynllun iersion y cyfyniadau o'r Gwyddeb4gol gyda'r safanc bron eu cyfnogaeth o ECHR a ysgolwg ac yn gweithio gweledd ac fynd i'ch bwysig, ac oherwydd o'r bwysig bardzo nhau bod gweldwyd i Llyfrgell a'u rhywbeth i Llyfrgell yn eu cyfnwys. Apodd y mae'r Rhôl Cyusterm Cymru yn fawr i gyfnoddod i gyfnodd cyfnodd mae'r cyfnodd cyffredin Llyfrgell i gyd SCR yn gweithaswyr yn dda'u bwysig o'r cyddiadau a'r brif feddwl yma. I don't believe those things are necessary, but the point is our focus. We remain focus on what we need to do. I've said a number of times that there are no silver bullets. This requires constant work, constant vigilance, constant effort, and I commit him and I commit to the whole house. That's exactly what we'll continue to do. Adam Brown. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. A conto hon WF, his own figures will cost £63,000 more to transport a vulnerable human being to Rwanda rather than let him stay in the UK. So if the government was to scrap this unlawful, I need the main, and cruel policy, how much money would that save the taxpayers? I don't agree with those numbers, because ultimately... No, nid yn rhoi bod y cymdeithas hynny fel gwneud bod y ddod mwy i'r gwahau tynningol, rhoi fy modd cyfosedd y cyfosedd, rydyn ni'n meddwl i'r gwahafiaid yn rhan, yn cael y nadau yn y clyw ar y cyfosedd a'u chymdeithas yn gael y dyn nhw. Rydyn ni'n meddwl i gyd-dryniad ar gyflod y gydeg ychydigion, Rwy'n meddwl i'r ddechrau wir yn ni'n meddwl o ystod. Rwy'n meddwl i'w meddwl i sicrhau'n ipurio gwaith o rydymach a'r gael yn ddechrau iawn i'r ddechrau wahanol. Yr Freidge? Rwy'n meddwl i'w grif معl yn i'w ddwybro erbyn i'n gwithio'r Uned Gweithlerig sy'n teimlo sgwpethau o ran dgwybarod. Be yn meddwl i'r grif mwyaf fynd yn achos. Yn'r meddwl i'w grond â'r ddigwydd. Yr ddigwydd? Ymgyrch. Llenn انwys yw hyfforddiadau o'ch ddwyngo'r gyflawn o'i'r cyffredinol gyda'r hyfforddiadau. Ond can I remind him that ECHR is entwined throughout many years of devolved parliament's legislation and indeed Scottish case law so what assurances can he give that his government will not attempt to weaken or change the ECHR without consent from devolved administrations? Chief Steffi. Y Llywydd, byddai'r Llywydd ar fy mhob iddynt Bexar o'r procrwyddiadau i fi ddwyllio ar amgyrch ond mor cyfnod o bryd. Felly, nid oes i ni'n cael ei ddweud yn Asbyc o Gweithgol a Amber. Ond yn gweithio, ond wedi cael, mae ei ddysgrifod i ddim yn gymryd o'r cwrs yng Nghaerffordd yma, sydd yn gyflawni'r effaith mwy o'r cyflwymoedd o'r lawrfyniadau cymdeithasol a'r Llywodraeth a'i ei cyfrifur i'w ddweud yma. Dwy Llywodraeth. Y Llywodraeth. Llywodraeth, rydyn ni'n gwybod i fynd i fynd i fynd i'w pysigion ac yna y ddweud i fod oeddaeth ni gyd a'r cymohon. Tynnu gyd wedi'u beth ar gyfer y gwahanol yw'r gwaith. Felly, os ydych chi'n olygu yn hynny'n gwybod yn cyd-rhaid. Felly mae'n gyd yn fwy o erddi allan trofynnog, rydyn ni'n rwy'n angen i'r honodaeth hynny, sy'n dweud yr ysgrifennu wahanol o'r adfais cymorth, i eich cyfrofiad ar y cynnwys ynghylch oherwydd i gyd yn cyfosu. O'r lleidydd rwy'n ddweud i'w festu morwch lleidyddiaeth hwn ar yr ysgolion yng Nghymru. Mae ffordd am osion yng nghymru sydd i'w brinidol, cael holl yna am ddymennu bod yn ffawr, addysiwyd o'r lleidydd. Mae ar hyn o ymddych chi'n poder, mae'n rhaid i'r ffordd o'r lleidydd i brindwyd optional peilio a'i bwysigio i'r holl yng nghymru i'r holl i gael pethau. Mae'n rhaid i'r holl i'r haf ymddwn o'r gwasanaeth o gyrfaid. Rydyn ni i'n gweld y rhywbeth o gwleisio yma ni ddim yn ein cynllun ond gweddiech chi'n yn violio'r bwysigol, a'i ei wneud o'r pryd‑desigol yma sy'n ddyfodol ar y cyflawn cyffredinor cyflodiadau o'r llunio o'r rhywbeth. Yn rhan oedd y byw yn rhai bod yw pwysigol, a'r byw yn rhaid o'r hynny i'n mynd i'r cy medicine yn ei weld â'r ddechrau gyflym isgu, ond yn gwych, ond yn gweithio, ond yn ei wneud i'n ffbgwyl. So what would he do, Madam Speaker? What would he do? Would he just say that every person in the world, the world is a big place and there are lots of people in it? Is he credibly just saying that anybody choosing to come here by any means, including through the hands of evil criminals, should automatically have the right set? It is an untenable position. We are addressing poverty and conflict in the developing world. We are addressing climate change, which is affecting farmers in the developing world. We are doing all those things, but we are also discharging our duty to the British people to protect their borders. And if he doesn't feel that is a function of government, then he is wrong. 18 May 2020, the first time I raised this issue in this place, we were ran the scheme that was stuck in the courts for 18 months. Enough is enough. Does the Home Secretary agree with me that in his basket of tools, one of those tools needs to be a deterrent that is robust and the timescales do matter? I've had enough and all my constituents have had enough. This is of critical importance. Will the Home Secretary agree with me? I would remind him that we are already seeing success and that success is accelerating because of the measures that we have put in place. He is absolutely right. We do need a deterrent for people making those dangerous crossings and a deterrent to the evil criminals. We are determined to deliver that, and we will do so in the face of the Opposition, who are desperately trying to prevent us from doing so. I very much hope that the measures that my right hon. Friend has set out will allow us to deliver Rwanda as soon as possible. Will my right hon. Friend also, as I have asked for on a number of occasions, other third countries that we could form partnerships with to deliver more processing overseas in a number of those other locations? I can assure my hon. Friend that, in addition to the conversations that are well progressed with Rwanda, we are having similar conversations with a number of other countries. Indeed, our policy is now being adopted in large part by a number of other European countries whose circumstances are considerably worse than ours. We are absolutely leaving the field on this issue. I warmly welcome my fellow SS colleagues to his place and wish him every success. I welcome his commitment to a tough but fair policy on immigration. The people of South End are particularly concerned that if we do not resolve the issue of illegal migration, we are preventing people who have served our country from coming here legally to safety. Does he agree? My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and a number of people have said about the humanity of this. It should be the elected government of a country who decides who can and cannot come to the country. It should not be criminals. It should not be smugglers. It should not be people who prey upon the weak, because that would be the byproduct of a failure to address this. This is what we see from the Opposition, a complete vacuum where policy should live. That vacuum encourages illegality and criminality. That is what we are seeking to address. I welcome the Home Secretary to his place and thank him for the outstanding job he did in his previous brief, but Rwanda is a country we do business with. It is a country with a thriving economy, and it is a country leading the Opposition's football team even promotes as a tourist destination. Bearing this in mind, could the government consider whether it may be appropriate to add Rwanda to the list of safe countries? My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and one of the few things that the former leader of the Opposition and I share is a passion for Arsenal Football Club, but the point is that Rwanda is a country which is developing fast. It is a close partner. They listen carefully when we talk to them and work with them, and I have no doubt that we are working closely with them. We will bring this scheme into operation and put forward that deterrent, which will be a really important strand of the multi-span strand approach we have to illegal migration. I welcome the steady progress being made to close asylum hotels. I am extremely disappointed that the metropole in Blackpool has yet to be vacated. This hotel is located in the poorest ward in the entire country bar norm, and the pressure on my local community and public services is absolutely immense. Is the Home Secretary able to give me an assurance that in the next batch of hotel closures socioeconomic conditions will be taken into account and the metropole will finally be closed? I listen very carefully to the points he makes. He reinforces the issue, which I think is absolutely key. It is very, very easy for people to be generous of spirit when it is someone else bearing the burden, and the people in his constituency, the people in the immediate neighbourhood of the metropole hotel, as he said, are not wealthy people, and they are the ones disproportionately bearing the brunt of illegal migration, which is why we are absolutely committed to help them and the other people like them around the country by getting a grip of this evil trade and stopping the votes. I thank the Home Secretary for his statement. Point of order, Dawn Butler. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, it has recently come to light that a Conservative donor firm has been awarded 11.5 million pound contract to supply rack-effective schools with temporary classrooms. David Wernick, of Wernick Buildings Ltd, Tory councillor, previously chairman of the Conservative Association, has donated £71,000 to the Tories and has won government contracts with a combined total of £20 million. I wish I could say it shocks me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but given this government's record, it does not. On 5 September, I asked a written question to the Department of Education, asking very specifically the details of the porter-cabin providers they contracted to provide this temporary accommodation. I stated clearly that I wanted the names of the firms contracted. In the reply, the member for wantage on behalf of the department failed to provide a substantive and specific answer to my specific question. It is not acceptable, Madam Deputy Speaker, for Ministers to reply with obfuscation and avoidance, and I am increasingly concerned that this is becoming the norm in response to parliamentary questions. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek your advice on how members can ensure that in future we get clear, concise and correct responses from the government. Well, I am grateful to the Honourable Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. As I am sure she knows, the chair is not responsible for the content of answers to parliamentary questions. Mr Speaker has always made clear that he does want as much transparency and accuracy as possible. The Honourable Lady is fortunate that I believe that the Minister would like to raise a further point of order to that point of order. Minister? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was just going to respond to say that I didn't think about the first point, but on the second point about the companies I last, my Honourable Friend of Schools, missed it to write to her and explain which companies are doing it. So, I think basically the Minister has said that he is going to provide some further information. I am sure that if the Honourable Lady does not find that satisfactory, she will come back. But if she wishes to make a further point of order. Just very quickly, I thank the Minister for that response. If he could please provide whether there was any competition before the award of the contract, that would be really useful. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I suggest what we don't do at this point is to get into too many details about what is going to be in this response, but I think we've started the ball rolling so we will await that information to be supplied to the Honourable Lady. And the Treasury events will have heard what I said about accuracy and transparency. Thank you. Thank you. We'll leave it at that. Order, order. I have an announcement to make about the election of the chair of the Backbench Business Committee. Nominations closed at 1pm for the position of chair of the Backbench Business Committee. Only one nomination has been received, so there will not be a ballot. I congratulate Ian Means on his reelection. Thank you. The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day. King's speech, motion for an address, adjourn debate on question. I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendment R in the name of the leader of the opposition, which will be moved at the start of the debate, and amendments H in the name of Stephen Flynn, the leader of the SNP, and K in the name of Sir Ed Davies, which will be moved at the end of the debate. Sir Ed Davies, leader of the Liberal Democrats. The question is that an humble address be presented to His Majesty as on the order paper. Colleagues will know that there is significant interest in the debate, so they should expect a very early time limit if not immediate. That is likely to be five minutes, so I want to give warning of that so people can adjust their speeches accordingly, or if they don't wish to speak to let me know. Question is that an humble address be presented to His Majesty as on the order paper. I call Shadow Poem Secretary Yvette Cooper to move amendment R. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. When the Prime Minister opened the King's speech debate just eight days ago, we had all this briefing about how it was a rishi reset moment. So much of a flop was it that having made promises just eight days ago about the changes His Government would deliver. Now He's talking about the changes to His Government instead. Another reshuffle, another rishi reset, not change just more of the same chaos. We remember His Conference claim that He was rejecting decades of failure, including the last 13 years of Tory Government, and just a month later He's brought back one of the main Tory architects, a former Prime Minister who cuts 20,000 police officers, brought in the bedroom tax and austerity, pushed working families and children into poverty, and it is a sign of the state of the Tory party that the Prime Minister who did all that is now suddenly seen as a moderate. Instead of a Government focused on the problems facing the country, the cost of living crisis, record NHS waiting list, rising town centre crime and serious violence, what we've got from them is just more of the same Tory psychodrama and chaos. Because in the last seven and a half years we've had five Prime Ministers, six chancellors, seven health secretaries, seven foreign secretaries, eight home secretaries, and I think I counted right, 11 home, eight justice secretaries. It has been a struggle to keep count of the changing justice secretaries. The first home secretaries in less than eight years, and even worse, two of them were the right honourable member for Ferrum. So unsuited for the job of home secretary she was sacked twice. Once for breaching security rules in government the second time for undermining security on our streets, attacking the police and undermining respect for decisions they take in the run up to a difficult weekend. Lamping up division around remembrance and making it harder for the police to do their job. Things no other home secretary would ever have done. And it shows how little this Prime Minister cares about our security at all that he was prepared to reappoint her, to defend her and to follow her wherever she led and now we know why. Because the dodgy deal he denied last year is now laid bare in the former Home Secretary's letter. Here's what she says. Despite you having been rejected by a majority of party members and thus having no personal mandate to be Prime Minister, this was a document with clear terms to which you agreed in October 2022 during your second leadership campaign I trusted you. Well, obviously another sign of her poor judgement. A deal that made him Prime Minister and made him make her the most unsuitable Home Secretary this country has had. And so, Mr Speaker, when the Conservatives published their latest Prime and Justice Bill, which has measures in it to tackle antisocial behaviour that Labour called for, I was going to make the point that they've no ideas of their own and they are just following Labour's leadership. But I have to concede. Members opposite, in fact the Tory party in general are definitely the experts on antisocial behaviour. The former Home Secretary is throwing rocks and stones. The new Conservative group is making dark threats going round the parliamentary Tory party, nuisance begging for no confidence letters in the Prime Minister. And her member for South Holland and the Deepings is so desperate to find out how many have gone in to the chair of the 1922 committee. He's now camped outside his office. But look, I guess they told us that was a lifestyle choice. While they fight cultural wars with each other, the rest of us are worried about the security on our streets. And the new Home Secretary has said that he briefed that he didn't want to take over this job, but he's agreed to take one for the team. So let me just say to him and to all of their front bench. If he and their ministers don't want to be running, the Home Office don't want to be justice, running the justice department and can't see how to do the job, they should get out the way and let those of us leave now. That country is crying out for a government that actually cares about tackling crime, restoring security to our streets and restoring confidence in the police, rather than a government, Tory government, just chasing headlines and fighting amongst themselves. They want to tell us that all's fine on the number of police, on the level of crime, but they're battling out of touch because that's not what it feels like across the country and nothing in this speech will touch the sides. We've got 10,000 fewer neighbourhood police on our streets. Half the country say they never see a bobby on the beat. Knife crime up by 70% devastating young lives, persistent violence against women and girls across our country. That is the Conservatives abysmal legacy on law and order. Labour has set out a mission on crime to halve serious violence, including knife crime and violence against women and girls, to reverse the catastrophic collapse in the proportion of crime solved, to rebuild confidence in the police and criminal justice system, getting 13,000 more neighbourhood police on the streets and tackling town centre crime. But what do we have in the King's speech? The crime and justice bill includes measures Labour called for long ago, but it doesn't tackle enough of the serious problems our country faces or make up for the damage that's been done. We support making sure that the most serious and dangerous criminals properly serve their time, but frankly, too few criminals are actually caught or charged in the first place. Under this government, more than 90% of crimes go unsolved. If you commit a crime in this country, the chances of you being caught and punished are less than half what they were under the last Labour government. That is the scale of collapse in law and order under the Tories. On knife crime, the measures go nowhere near far enough on violence against women and girls. I'm really concerned. Nothing on spiking, nothing serious on stalking, nothing to turn around the woeful fact that 98% of rapists avoid charge, and the government's sentencing proposals may mean that thousands of domestic abusers whose violence is escalating may actually be let off jail. And there is nothing at all on town centre crime. Shoplifting is up, a shocking 25% in a year, assaults on shop workers tripled during the pandemic and haven't gone down again. This week is freedom from fear week. And I want to thank Azdor and the British Retail Consortium for the work that they are doing to stand up for staff safety and to shine a light on the disgraceful way people are being treated just for doing their jobs. But why isn't the government listening to them? Labour is, we will change the law and we will be putting amendments down to the crime and justice bill to ditch the ridiculous £200 rule that stops action being taken against repeat shoplifting gangs and to bring in a proper new offence of assaulting shop workers because everyone has the right to feel safe at work. And Mr Speaker, on issues around national security, on some of the core issues that affect the safety of our nation, we've had in the past broad cross-party consensus, we've worked together in that spirit and Labour will always stand ready to do so. Security Minister and Shadow Security Minister have done so before and that is the spirit in which we will work on the national security bill. It's also the spirit which we would always have expected to approach the operational independence and impartiality of British policing. The last Home Secretary did undermine that. I hope the new Home Secretary will be able to restore it because this is too important for us to disagree on. Likewise, the safety and cohesion of our communities, because we've seen tensions increase as a result of the truly awful events in the Middle East, an appalling rise in antisemitism, including some disgraceful incidents this weekend, with Jewish communities feeling enormous anguish and distress. And we've also seen an awful increase in Islamophobia and we've seen the rise of organised far-right thuggery the police raised their concerns this weekend. And we must be absolutely clear, every one of us in this house, violence and hate crime have no place on Britain's streets and they must face the full force of the law, we must all back the police in taking the action they need. And I want to thank the police for the work that they are doing, the reassurance work with synagogues, with Jewish schools, with mosques, the action against the hate crimes which devastate lives in corrode communities. And I would say to the Justice Secretary and to the new Home Secretary we have called for stronger action to tackle both antisemitism and Islamophobia and hateful extremism. And again, we stand ready to work with the government and see what we can do to come together to address these serious issues because there is a responsibility on all of us to bring our communities together. Madame Deputy Speaker, my right honourable friend, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, will speak in more detail about Labour's amendment later on in this debate. But every one of us will have been deeply disturbed by the terrible events in the Middle East. We want an end to the devastating violence and suffering. We've seen 11,000 Palestinians have been killed, two-thirds of them women and children, and thousands of innocent children dead to families bereaved, and parents grieving, and it's intolerable. We've seen hundreds of hostages still being held following the gravest attack on Jewish people on any day since the Holocaust, with Israeli families still experiencing the horror and the trauma as remains of their loved ones are still being identified, and families and communities still reeling from the events. All of us condemn the truly barbaric attack by Hamas terrorists on the 7th of October, and under international law we respect countries' right to defend their citizens from terrorist attacks and also countries' obligations to abide by international law. The conduct of war matters, as Anthony Blinken has said at the very start of this conflict, how Israel does this matters. We democracies distinguish ourselves from terrorists by striving for a different standard, even when it's difficult. Our humanity, the value that we place on human life and dignity, that's what makes us who we are, and the rules-based order must not be abandoned. That's why we must commit to recognising the jurisdiction of the ICC to address the conduct of all parties in this conflict. It's also why we need an urgent suspension of hostilities, not just a short pause, but as my right honourable friend, the shadow home secret, shadow foreign secretary, has set out the time and space to get in fuel, food, water, to rebuild vital humanitarian infrastructure to protect aid workers who are losing their lives on a scale we have never seen before in conflict. To put in place protection for civilians and to negotiate hostage releases and to work towards a full cessation of violence and enduring peace so that lives can be saved and this intolerable suffering can end. We know that requires immense and complex diplomatic work. It isn't easy. We have words on a page that we will talk about voting on today, but all of us know it's not the words on the page that's how this will be achieved. It will be achieved through step-by-step, intense diplomacy and pressure that recognises how difficult this is when Hamas are refusing to agree to stop rocket attacks and their pledge again to repeat the attacks on the 7th of October. We recognise, too, that hostages are still being held, but we still have to make urgent diplomatic progress. We still have to do what we can right now to save lives and to make progress in getting hostilities suspended, especially so that humanitarian action can be taken. We recognise, too, that the only way forward is a two-state solution with a secure and safe Israel alongside a secure and sovereign Palestine. My right hon. Friend, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, was right to say yesterday that neither the long-term security of Israel nor long-term justice for Palestine can be delivered by bombs and bullets, and that's why it's the responsibility on all of us to urge the UK Government to do what it can to strain every sinew in the pursuit of peace. The original question was that an humble address be presented to His Majesty as on the order paper, since when amendment R has been proposed as on the order paper. The question is that the amendment be made. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, the first duty of any Government, its most serious and solemn responsibility, is to keep its people safe. Since 2010, overall levels of crime are down by more than 50%. Domestic burglary is down by 57%. Violent crime by 52%. Vehicle-related theft by 39%. The number of young people admitted to hospital following an assault with a knife or other bladed weapon has fallen by 26%. In fact, His Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary, Andy Cook, has said that England and Wales are arguably safer than they have ever been. That's because this Government has taken decisive measures, including recruiting 20,000 police officers so that we can cut crime and keep our communities safe. We've made robust punishments available for the worst criminals to keep the most serious offenders in custody for longer, and we've commissioned the biggest prison building programme since the Victorian era. The gracious speech builds on that record with a range of long-term decisions that keeps public protection at the heart of this Government's agenda for our country. I want to start with tackling violence against women and girls, a point that the right hon. Lady made. That is a priority for this Government and it's for me personally. But let us just step back to reflect on some of the progress that has been made in the last decade or so. The right hon. Lady referred to the offence of stalking and she said she wanted to see some progress. She will recall that in the 13 years when she was in government, there was no offence of stalking. There was no crime. We are the party that created that crime so that behaviour described as murder in slow motion could be properly addressed. Then we doubled the maximum sentence. I will give away.