March 2026

As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as I have said previously, the governing criteria for settlement have always applied at the point of application, rather than at the point of entry. He will also have heard from me that one in 30 people in this country came during the last three or four years, so a significant problem must be resolved in terms of pressure on public services and fairness to the British taxpayer. That is why we are looking at this issue so closely.

Parliamentary appearance by Irene Campbell

I follow the hon. Gentleman’s work. He always says no to large sites and no to hotels, and then proposes fantastical third countries that he is not capable of naming. Ultimately, this is the choice: do people want fantasy, more empty rhetoric and argument, or do they want change and action with this Government? I know what I choose.

As I have said to other colleagues, I can confirm that the income threshold, and particularly how it is resolved at a family unit level, was part of the consultation. We have had more than 200,000 replies, and we are looking at them closely.

Of course we take a lens on reform. The hon. Lady will know that those seeking asylum cannot work in such environments, so they would not be germane to that conversation. We look very closely at the impacts of our policies and publish reviews at the appropriate moments.

First of all, I can offer the hon. Gentleman some degree of comfort: this is a targeted pilot at this stage. It cannot act as a pull factor, because people will not be eligible for it. Other countries that offer money, including Denmark, are seeing their numbers go down, which can also give him a degree of comfort.

As I have said to the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, the Rwanda scheme would not have removed those people; it would have removed a tiny proportion, at an eye-watering cost. We are ramping up removals of those who have no right to be here. If the hon. Gentleman is really saying that he wants to rip up the ECHR because he wants to send people back to countries that are not safe, he should name which ones.

The hon. Gentleman has heard what I have said to his colleagues: the choice is between paying £158,000 for those families to live in hotels and paying £40,000 for them to leave the country. I do not know whether he needs a calculator, but I think that is a good equation.

As a father of two young boys, I want to be clear that I have approached these Lords amendments, particularly Lords amendment 38, not only as a legislator, but as a parent. I have seen at first hand the pressures that social media places on children, and I have considered this matter with the utmost care. To date, I have received 1,309 emails from residents across North Somerset calling for immediate action to raise the age of social media access to 16. That makes this campaign one of the larges

I will talk about that in a second, but I appreciate the hon. Member’s patience. Social media was sold to us in that way, but these platforms have been driven not by connection, but by engagement algorithms optimised purely for profit—something altogether more troubling. Parents such as me are locked in a daily battle, which they simply cannot win alone, of fighting platforms that have been specifically designed to keep children hooked. This is not just my experience. A 2024 report found that 78