Alex Norris MP: speeches

Speeches

• 7 Jan 2026 · Draft Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (Application To Immigration Officers and Designated Customs Officials In Northern Ireland) and Consequential Amendments Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (Application to Immigration Officers and Designated Customs Officials in Northern Ireland) and Consequential Amendments Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. The regulations were laid before Parliament on 4 December. They apply certain provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 to customs officials and immigration officers in Northern Ireland, thereby fulfilling a commitment made by the previous Labour Administration in 2009 during the passage of Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, and replacing stop-gap measures that have been used subsequently. By way of background, section 22 of the BCIA was intended as a temporary measure to ensure that customs officials transferring to the former UK Border Agency from HM Revenue and Customs had access to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 powers they needed to do their jobs. The ultimate intention at the time was to replace that measure in due course with separate regulations that applied the relevant provisions of PACE to customs officials and immigration officers investigating crime. That was achieved for England and Wales in 2013 through the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Application to Immigration Officers and Designated Customs Officials in England and Wales) Order 2013. However, it was not possible to make the same provision for Northern Ireland at the time. Immigration officers have hitherto relied on statutory powers in subsequent and preceding immigration Acts to discharge their duties, but those do not provide adequate powers, nor do they allow for the level of interoperability and co-operation that is essential in the modern law enforcement environment. That brings me to the two principal reasons for bringing forward the regulations that are before us today. The first is to replace the temporary application of PACE powers in respect of customs officials with a permanent legislative solution in Northern Ireland that grants those officers greater legitimacy and assurance in their use of PACE powers. As I say, they have been operating under a supposedly temporary fix from the BCIA. There will not—I think it is reasonable to say—be significant practical changes, but this puts them on a more solid legislative footing. The second purpose is to bring immigration officers in Northern Ireland, specifically those engaged in criminal investigation work, into line with their counterparts in the police and the National Crime Agency and, indeed, in England and Wales. That will remove the reliance on the incomplete powers afforded to them by various immigration Acts. It will also reduce the need for multiple briefings for the same operation, and minimise confusion about which officers are empowered to fulfil which functions. It will support interoperability with An Garda Síochána counterparts working in cross-border operations. Again, in substance, the regulations will not significantly change the powers available to those individuals, but rather will ensure that the regime they are working under is effective, so that, as I say, they do not need multiple briefings and the like. By addressing these dual needs, the regulations will provide the legislative framework needed for customs and immigration investigations conducted by both Border Force and immigration enforcement in Northern Ireland. The powers conferred on immigration officers and customs officials by virtue of these regulations will be limited to the exercise of their functions in relation to immigration and customs matters where a criminal prosecution is realistically in prospect. Only officers who have been trained in connection with the exercise of these powers will be permitted to use them. We are committed to tackling immigration and border-related crime throughout the United Kingdom. The regulations will aid us in that critical effort, and I commend them to the Committee.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Draft Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (Application To Immigration Officers and Designated Customs Officials In Northern Ireland) and Consequential Amendments Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to colleagues for their thoughtful contributions. The rather shrewd assertion of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, about the similarity of the country mix seen at the common travel area border to that seen at Kent shows that we need to have those common powers across the piece. I want to assure colleagues about our commitment to the protection of the common travel area. It is of course a very different challenge from protecting the channel itself, but it is nevertheless just as important. For obvious reasons, much focus is given to efforts in the channel, but it is crucial that we do not forget the importance of the CTA. That speaks to the point that the hon. Member for South Antrim raised about our work with An Garda Síochána. The work between the UK and the Republic of Ireland to ensure a balance between freedom of movement and trade and not making ourselves more vulnerable to organised immigration crime is important. We are having those conversations and we intend for the powers to work exactly as the hon. Gentleman said: in a way that promotes the good movement of goods and trade, but keeps a protected border. I think that is what his constituents would expect. Operation Comby is a good example of our work across UK and Irish police services, and with the National Crime Agency, to target smuggling gangs. It is taking cash off the table, generating arrests and showing the criminals who think that this is a different way of perpetuating their horrendous trade how seriously we take it. The powers and alignment of powers in the regulations do that. I hope that addresses the hon. Gentleman’s point about An Garda Síochána and customs. The shadow Minister also raised accountability. The accountability regimes in Northern Ireland will be unchanged and will remain as were, so that the regime remains robust. The powers can only be used by trained individuals, so we will make sure that those using the powers have all the right training and guidance to be able to do their jobs properly. On the shadow Minister’s point on engagement, he will know that I am not always able to say how the sausage gets made in policy term. However, I give him a commitment, just as I have given a commitment to the hon. Member for South Antrim in the Chamber, about how seriously I take our engagement with the Northern Ireland Executive on these and other matters—including communities matters, in connection with which I had a joyful visit to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency with him last year—so that the decisions we make in this building are effective, and they include, as in this case, decisions affecting what is a very important land border, as the hon. Gentleman said. Those conversations, on all issues relating to immigration—which is of course a matter for this Parliament—happen as a matter of course. I have those conversations with the devolved Governments and their leaders. They are often very difficult conversations, but they are important in making sure we get it right, so we will of course do that in the usual way. The regulations are a series of sensible changes to make sure that the right powers are in the right places to keep our borders secure. Question put and agreed to.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work in this area and to the Select Committee for its work and its recent visit. My experience of working with France is that it wants to solve the shared challenge. There is no silver bullet, but my hon. Friend has mentioned ways in which it can be solved. That is why we have the “one in, one out” pilot, as well as our ordinary day-to-day intelligence co-operation. We want to do more with our neighbours and solve this problem together.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member may have heard me say earlier that we have started the process of hotel exit, which means we have reduced the amount of money we are spending on that. We want all British citizens to be adequately housed, which is why we released the homelessness strategy at the end of last year. Beyond that, we want order and control in our asylum system, so that the British people’s proud record of providing shelter can continue, and so that people can have confidence in that order and control.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The consultation document released under the settlement proposals is very clear about what deductions apply in what context and what other hurdles people may have to clear. Maybe my hon. Friend and I should have a conversation to get to the bottom of the particular example he mentions.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for that question. As my hon. Friend says, this Government have supported Chevening scholars and those with fully funded scholarships in Gaza to come to this country to study during the 2025-26 academic year. I have heard from my hon. Friend on multiple occasions that there is demand for more support, and we are aware of that; it is, as she knows, a fluid situation on the ground, and we are looking at it closely and seeing what may be done in the future.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Asylum Hotels · Hansard source

  More

  I know my hon. Friend’s constituency well and of where he speaks. We are clear that that hotel and all hotels being used for this purpose must shut. I know colleagues will want information as soon as possible. They may not have to wait too much longer, but it is right that we do this in an orderly and controlled way to ensure that the system works.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Asylum Hotels · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman knows—I am sure he remembers with a degree of pain from the general election—the commitment we made to close the hotels. Of course, the vast majority of them were opened by Opposition colleagues. We will close those hotels within this Parliament. Colleagues will always want specific dates, but it is right that we bring these things forward when we are ready and able to do so. I am of course happy to meet him.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Asylum Hotels · Hansard source

  More

  I have absolutely no truck with those who seek to exploit the vulnerabilities of others for their own ends. I know my country; I know my city of Nottingham—when the system is ordered and controlled, our communities step up to meet the moment and provide shelter for people who need it. But that simply cannot be done while the system is disordered, lacks that control and has public manifestations of failure, such as hotels being used for that purpose.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Asylum Hotels · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman should spend less time reading newspapers and more time listening to what is said in this Chamber. He will have heard from me and from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary through our asylum policy statement about the most significant change to our asylum system in a generation—certainly in my lifetime. It is not just about managing those who need support in the here and now; it is about reducing numbers. The number of people seeking sanctuary in this country is up significantly at a time when it is down significantly across the European Union—we are seen as the golden ticket.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Asylum Hotels · Hansard source

  More

  As has been said from this Dispatch Box by myself and the Home Secretary, we are looking at ex-military sites, of which my hon. Friend names one. We are doing all the feasibility assessments there and at Crowborough training camp. When we have made that final decision, we will announce that in the right way, but this approach has to be the right one. Moving people away from very public accommodation often on high streets, which has a significant impact on cohesion and the local economy, and pivoting to larger military sites is clearly a better option.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Asylum Hotels · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman knows that this is not purely a financial arrangement. We know that hotels have a profound social and economic impact on communities in this country. We believe that big military sites are better places to house asylum seekers. I appreciate that that is a point of difference, but the hon. Gentleman needs to know that when he advocates against our proposals to use larger military sites, he is saying yes to the use of hotels across the community. To say otherwise simply does not stand up—that is the choice. His view is very clear, as is ours.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Asylum Hotels · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman was, I remember, sat right there in that seat—well, the Leader of the Opposition had moved him down one—to hear my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary talk about building this country’s deterrent factor. He was there because he was opposing our Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, which passed only in the last few days of the previous year. It is part of our deterrent—he knows that, because he opposed it. The idea that we should instead leave international agreements, which would mean all our returns agreements would need to be entered into again, is, I am afraid, for the birds. We are getting on with serious action; the Conservatives are just getting on with their press releases.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Asylum Hotels · Hansard source

  More

  This Government will close every asylum hotel. We are making progress with spend in this area reduced by a third. We are restoring order and control to the system, speeding up case working, maximising the use of our estate, including ex-military sites, and continuing to increase returns.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Asylum Hotels · Hansard source

  More

  We are very mindful that, whatever the nature of the supported accommodation, it should tread as lightly as possible on the community and on its neighbours. I would say to my hon. Friend that we are standing up capacity within the Home Office to make sure that local police are sharing information, and that we are sharing information with local police, about possible vulnerabilities, particularly in some of the cases he is talking about. If he is able to share that information with us, we can make sure that local authorities and local police, alongside the national Government, are supporting the community to the fullest degree possible.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Asylum Hotels · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman shouts at me from long range—having been near him at the football, I know he has a pair of pipes on him when he wants to use them. There is a reason he does not want to hear me answer the question: he knows he will get not a three-word answer, but a serious one that says that we are going to reduce the numbers of people who need support in this country. That is how we will close the hotels.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Asylum Hotels · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I can assure his constituents and hon. and right hon. colleagues that he persists with me on this issue on virtually a daily basis, including over the Christmas period, which was very welcome indeed. I could not be clearer: we do not want to see hotels in Bournemouth used for this purpose. As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) said, that is part of the wreckage that was left by the previous Government. We want that to change. I know that colleagues want information as soon as possible. I am asking them to be a little bit patient. It may not be too much longer before they start to hear news in this space.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for securing this debate, which has been very interesting. Colleagues have spoken with real passion and purpose, which reflects how strongly they and their constituents feel about the UK being a nation that is able to provide people with sanctuary, treating them with dignity and ensuring a fair balance so that we can sustain our obligations in the long term. That has been a theme throughout the debate. She and colleagues raised many points, which I will seek to cover shortly. I just want to set out where we are starting from today and perhaps demonstrate the objectives of the reforms that we are pushing. I think it is a point of consensus that the system we inherited in 2024 was a broken one. Reflecting on that any further in the time available is probably undesirable, but it is understood. It is an expensive system and, for the individuals in it, not a good one. It helped and pleased nobody, so fixing it is a top priority for us. That is why we have doubled the rate of decision making, which has resulted in a record high number of decisions. We have already reduced the number of people awaiting initial decision by 39% in the last year alone. Hotels are a very visible sign of failure. We have reduced the cost of those by some £500 million, and £1 billion overall has been taken out of the system in the process of improving it. That is really crucial for public confidence. Parliament recently passed the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, which will give us more tools to make sure our border is strengthened, improving our asylum and immigration system. In the last 12 months alone we have removed 37,000 people who have no right to be here, including 5,000 foreign offenders. That degree of pace shows our intent, but this is a big piece of work. We still live with the signs of failure, which is why last month we published “Restoring Order and Control”, our blueprint for the asylum system. I will talk about that in due course, but in simple terms, the heart of the plan is to do what the public expect, which is to reduce the number of those coming here illegally and increase the removal of those who have no right to be here. That is vital for public confidence and the only way to have a fair, effective and functioning system that maintains our long and proud tradition of helping those fleeing peril. A theme of the hon. Member’s contribution was a fear that in our plans the Government are insufficiently reflecting on protected characteristics. I know that she will need to see in concrete terms that our policies pass her test, but I think she will find that they do. There is no system of Government more concerned, at its root, with protected characteristics than this one; it is the whole point of assessing someone’s claim for asylum. The hon. Member said that I might not be able to give her the assurances she sought on safe countries. I can, actually, in the sense that an individual’s case will always be assessed on its individual merits. Syria, which colleagues have mentioned, is a good example: the grant rate in relation to Syria has gone from about 90% to about 10% because of significant and profound changes there. Nevertheless, a country changing from unsafe to safe will not mean that a blanket decision is made about a collective group of people and their claims. Every claim, and any reassessment of a claim, will be based on the individual’s circumstances. I am aware, as a white and probably now middle-aged cisgender heterosexual man, that parts of the world might be safe for me but would not be safe for a colleague who might look, sound and be like me in every way except for, say, their sexuality. The system will always have that at its heart. The hon. Member is right to remind us that the Home Office is very much within the scope of the public sector equality duty. We are very mindful of that, and it is considered throughout the policymaking process. We will always comply with that duty; similarly, we will always comply with our responsibilities with regard to equality impact assessments. As we bring forward the concrete policies that sit within the frame of “Restoring Order and Control”, colleagues will have access to that information so that they can be part of Parliament’s crucial role of scrutinising the plans of the Government of the day. The point about appeals is really important. Many colleagues have talked about effective and swift decision making, of which appeals are a big part. At the moment, the average wait is about 54 weeks. As is to be expected, as we have rapidly increased the initial decision making, more stress is being created in the appeals system because there are more cases in which decisions are being appealed. Our intent, in the policy package that we set out, is to have the most streamlined system possible. As a trade unionist who has sat countless times with members and helped them with their issues at work, I know that the fullest statement of case as early as possible is always in their interests, because that is the best way to get the treatment that they are afforded under the law. I accept the hon. Member’s point that that is sometimes hard for an individual; if the basis of a claim relates to sexuality, say, that is a very individual journey in respect of what someone is or is not comfortable saying. The challenge, which I hope the hon. Member accepts, is that we can only make assessments based on the information in front of us. We cannot foresee future disclosures. As a result, we have a system in which a lot of extra information appears later in the process. I accept that there can be good reasons for that, but there is a danger that the system may be gamed with the constant addition of new material. It is about trying to find the balance whereby we get the fullest information as early as possible, but an individual has opportunities to disclose later in the process. I cannot agree with the point that the hon. Member and other colleagues have made about work. We know—not least because we see it in the marketing materials of the traffickers—that the sense that people can work illegally in Britain is already a significant factor in people finding it an attractive country to come to illegally. Simply allowing that would only turbocharge it, so that is not something that we plan to do. The hon. Member and others also made an important point about core protection status. I will return to that point once I have dealt with some other issues raised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made a characteristically thoughtful contribution. I always listen to what he says about the issue, because I know that he and his community are at the sharp end of it. He speaks with a lot of experience, informed by the experience both of the individuals who come to this country and of the communities who live with the impact, so I listened very carefully. He said that he wants a system with safer routes, faster processing and better integration. Actually, we can have that system. The ability to have that system, with safe and legal routes and community sponsorship, is there in the policy document—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made thoughtful remarks about that, to which I will return shortly—but I say gently to my right hon. Friend that we cannot have one without the other. We have to be intolerant on dangerous journeys across continents and across channels for children. The right number for that is nil. The right number of children in hotels is nil. The one thing missing from this debate—

• 17 Dec 2025 · Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics · Hansard source

  More

  I will take an intervention from my right hon. Friend before I go off on a tangent.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics · Hansard source

  More

  That is a really important point, which I was coming to. There will be cases in which, whether because of the nature of the trauma that people have suffered on their journey or because of other issues such as disability, they are not able to work in those ways. There are other ways to contribute, and that is reflected in our earned settlement consultation, which is ongoing. That will look at how to do that right, but of course there will be protection for people in those cases. What I cannot agree with in the opening speech by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North is that because some people will struggle to make that contribution and will need a different type of support within the system, nobody should therefore have to contribute. Under the system we have at the moment, no matter what someone does, they can come to this country and get protection. No matter whether they break the law or sit at home instead of going to work or learning the language, they are treated exactly the same as someone who goes to work, learns the language and integrates into their community. I do not think that is right. I accept that that may well be a point of difference, but I do not believe that it is right. I hope that what hon. Members have heard from me today, and from the Home Secretary when she introduced this package, is that individual policies will come forward, with all the equality impact data that colleagues would expect, but that there is time and space to shape it. If we had published our final policy position some four weeks ago when the Home Secretary stood up, colleagues would rightly have said, “Who did you talk to? Why did you not have people helping to craft it who are experts by experience, or organisations that work with them?” It is slightly challenging to have people say, “There’s not enough detail here.” That is the whole point of developing policy and seeking to work with people in doing so. It is right that we have set our framing for what we are seeking to achieve, but we will have those conversations in this place and I will be very happy to engage with any and all colleagues who are interested in telling us how they feel about the issue. I hope that I have given a degree of comfort to colleagues on some points. There is a lot more to do, and I have no doubt that we will have many more opportunities to discuss it. I will always do so with the fullest candour.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Dr Huq. I have a lot of things to say today, but I am basically not going to say any of them. I will try to respond instead to what colleagues have said, because I think it makes for a more interesting debate. There are no children in detention. We have no intention to detain children. I take pelters in the main Chamber when I say what I am about to say, which is that the best level for voluntary returns is 100%. I would happily have every return be voluntary, and that is particularly true in the case of families—that is why we are seeking to improve the support for that—but detention is not in our plans. I hope that that gives my right hon. Friend a degree of assurance. What I am most surprised not to have heard in this debate is that the people who have the most agency in our system at the moment are human traffickers. The worst people on the planet—the people who have the most callous indifference to harm, the people who will exploit any pain to monetise it—have the most agency over who comes to this country. We should be really angry about that, and we should be resolute in changing it. Of course our important work around organised crime and the provisions in the Act will help us in that regard, but we have to change the demand. That is at the root of the changes to the protection model, which I will come to momentarily. The hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) made a point about the 20-year period. I will come back to that point, because my carriage is going to turn into a pumpkin shortly. The hon. Member for Strangford made an interesting contribution about the experience of people in Newtownards. I know only a little about Newtownards, mostly from our conversations about it, but I know that it is not that dissimilar to my community, and that it can therefore be at the crunchy end of the immigration conversation. What he points out is exactly the same for my community. When the schemes were ordered and controlled—be that the Syria scheme, as in his example; Afghan resettlement, which other colleagues have mentioned; Homes for Ukraine, as the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) said; or the Hong Kong BNO scheme—my community leaned into them because they were confident that we knew which people were coming and that they needed our protection. They stepped up. We want to capture that spirit outside individual country circumstances, because there are other people around the world who would benefit from such protection. I think my community will step up to that, but they will not do that while they feel that the people with the greatest agency are human traffickers and there is a lack of control over who comes and crosses our borders. I think that that is right, which is why I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and to colleagues that we cannot have one without the other. We cannot have a new, orderly, humane, dignified system with safe and legal routes and maintain public confidence if we are not willing to say that we have zero acceptance of people coming through trafficking routes and across the channel on dangerous journeys, and that the right number for that is nil. That informs our point around protection in “Restoring Order and Control”. The 20-year route is for a person who comes to this country illegally and then chooses not to learn the language and not to work or contribute. We want everybody to switch out of that core offer and on to a protected work and study route. If people learn the language, work or contribute, they will be able to earn a reduction in that period to 11 years. Moreover, if they enter the system through safe and legal means, their starting point is 10 years, and they can earn a reduction to five years. Those numbers are not coincidental. At all points, the goal is to dissuade people from making dangerous irregular journeys and instead ensure that doing the right thing—whether that is contributing in-country or coming via regular means—is always in their best interests.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to give way, but I remind the hon. Lady that we are very short on time.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I can assure Members, especially those from Northern Ireland, that we are talking closely with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) knows well from our many discussions on the topic how much I value my relationships with them. I met several of them on Monday and I will continue to do so to make sure that the application of this provision and beyond is as good as possible and works seamlessly across all parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that provides a degree of comfort. Lords amendments 41 and 42 relate to clause 62, the commencement clause, and the commencement of clause 42, which provides legal clarity for EU citizens and their family members with EU settlement scheme status—those who are in scope of the withdrawal agreement and have that as the source of their rights in the UK. The amendments change the commencement provision so that clause 42 will be brought into force on Royal Assent, to provide legal certainty as soon as possible for all EU citizens and their family members with EUSS status as to their rights in the UK. This is a really important Bill. The work done in the other place was excellent, and I commend Lord Hanson of Flint especially on his work. Colleagues in the other place worked hard to improve the legislation, which we appreciate, and I ask the House to support our amendments today.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman really does have to let me finish my point before I give way. He heard about this Government’s commitment to that, and about the work that is under way. Having known each other for as long as we have, I hope he will take it in good faith that we are committed to publishing stats that will mean people know what is going on in this area. On that basis, the hon. Gentleman does not really need to support the Lords amendment, but I will let him make his case.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As I said in my opening speech, it is right that we take our time to develop the right package of data, so that we can publish it and the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) and I can sit down and discuss it in great detail. [ Interruption. ] As always, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley wants it now, but as I suspect he is learning, opposition does not always work on a “now” timeline. The Conservatives may well have some time in which to find that out.