On the first question, after somebody arrives from a safe country and is declared inadmissible, we will seek agreement from that country to return them for proper consideration. If not possible, their claim will be considered here. The accommodation provided is reasonable and good; currently 60,000 people are accommodated. Last year, the system made 20,000 grants of asylum or protection, welcomed more unaccompanied minors than any other European country, and resettled 25,000 people directly from conflict zones over five years. After settling remaining refugees under previous pledges, we will continue with future resettlement as context allows. Safe and legal routes are in place; last year, over 6,000 came via refugee family reunion. These changes prepare us for life after Dublin, deterring unnecessary dangerous journeys across the English channel. Future agreements will be discussed once current European negotiations conclude.

Let me reassure the shadow Minister on one or two points. She concluded her questions by asking about the risk of destitution. To be clear, if somebody who is in the inadmissible cohort is unable to make provision for their own accommodation or upkeep, they will be eligible for accommodation in the normal way... [full text of the answer]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. As he says, I think these proposals and this approach will command widespread public support. The public do not understand why people should cross the English channel in dangerous circumstances, facilitated by criminals, when they could perfectly easily claim asylum in France or somewhere else... [full text of the answer]

First, as I have said, the people in this cohort will not be in limbo, because after a reasonable period, if no return to another country is possible, the asylum claim will be substantively considered here. The possibility of limbo that the hon. Gentleman referred to does not exist... [full text of the answer]

I thank my right hon. Friend, who has a distinguished legal background, for his question. He is absolutely right: we need to deter these crossings, and we need to ensure that our legal process works effectively... [full text of the answer]

On the Select Committee Chair’s question about accommodation and support, I can confirm that it will be available, as I have said already, because not to provide it would breach article 3. That support will be available and people will not fall into destitution. On the negotiations, back in May—I believe it was 19 May—we tabled an EU proposal on these matters, but if that is not agreed to in the course of the current discussions, we will seek bilateral agreements with various countries. As I said to the right hon. Lady’s Committee a week or two ago, individual member states have been asked by the Commission not to engage in such discussions while the European negotiations are ongoing, so we will commence those as soon as we are able to. Even in the absence of those discussions, it is possible to raise returns cases on a case-by-case basis with member states, which, of course, we can do from 1 January. Critically, the new provisions prepare the way—they lay the foundations—for agreements that we may reach in future, besides facilitating case-by-case action. Finally, although currently in force, the Dublin regulations have not been terribly effective. The right hon. Lady will know that the numbers we successfully return under Dublin are really rather small, numbering in the low hundreds per year. I am confident that, through active negotiation, not only can we replace Dublin but we can improve on it.

I thank my hon. Friend and Stoke-on-Trent for their work to welcome genuine refugees, including as part of the resettlement programme. He raises a good point, because some parts of the country decline to take unaccompanied asylum-seeking children as part of the national transfer scheme, thereby putting enormous pressure on gateway authorities such as Kent, Portsmouth, Croydon and Hillingdon; and many other authorities, despite proclaiming themselves to be cities or even nations of sanctuary, often do not give consent for dispersed accommodation for asylum seekers. I say to any of those local authorities and to the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales: please help us by accepting unaccompanied asylum-seeking children under the national transfer scheme, particularly from Kent, Portsmouth, Hillingdon and Croydon, and please give consent for dispersed accommodation, because it is essential that we have that available to accommodate people who are seeking asylum.

I have already given the assurance about destitution to the shadow Minister and to the Chair of the Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the asylum system in general does provide support, accommodation and other support, the cost of which is getting on for £1 billion a year, so it is generous in nature. He talks about the refugee problem around the world, which we recognise. That is one reason why we spend a great deal of money on overseas aid. Even after the recent adjustment, that will still be many, many billions of pounds, probably in the region of £10 billion, which is more than almost every other country in the world, so we are doing our bit that way. We are also doing our bit through the resettlement scheme, which I talked about earlier. It is the largest resettlement scheme of any European country—25,000 people over the past five years. Of course I accept that the people who choose to make their home in this country can, and very often do, make a significant contribution, which we welcome. That is why the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), set up the points-based immigration system with the Home Secretary, which went active very recently. It is essential that people either claiming asylum or entering the country for work and other purposes do so legally, and all Members of this House, including the former Leader of the Opposition, should be very clear with migrants in Europe that they should not attempt this dangerous crossing and they should not pay dangerous people smugglers. If they need protection, they should claim it where they are in Europe.

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I am afraid that, as it stands, the legal system is, as my right hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham and for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, unfortunately routinely abused with repeated unmeritorious claims. We are determined to prevent that from happening. Of course people will have a fair hearing, but we cannot have our legal system abused. I am very much looking forward to my hon. Friend’s assistance in making sure that this legislation is tightly drafted to ensure that there are no loopholes.

As I have already said, we have a very effective resettlement scheme, which takes people directly from conflict zones. The resettlement schemes that we have run over the past five years have principally focused, for obvious reasons, on Syria. A total of 25,000 people have come in via those schemes over five years. The Dubs scheme focuses on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in Europe. If we have to prioritise our scarce resources, we should prioritise people, including children, who are in dangerous places such as Syria, not people who are in Italy, who are already in a safe European country. Furthermore, in terms of UASCs in Europe, this country had more UASC applications last year than any other European country. The figure was about 3,800 applications, which means that we are doing our bit for UASCs in Europe, but it is right that we prioritise people in dangerous places, not people in countries such as Italy when it comes to direct resettlement.

My hon. Friend is right: the measures in this set of rules are only a first step. The asylum and immigration system has far more systematic and fundamental problems that cause it, unfortunately, to be abused on many occasions. We need to have fundamental legislative change and, as I said in oral questions just a few days ago, we intend to legislate in the first half of next year to make sure that the legal system is tightened up, so that it cannot be abused and we have a system that is fair to those who need protection, but firm on those trying to abuse it.

Mr Philp explained that Penally was set up carefully but admitted it was due to the rise in accommodation needs from 48,000 to about 60,000 people during coronavirus. He also stated reducing such emergency accommodations relies on support for more dispersed housing.

Mr Philp stated that these contracts followed a thorough process and that accommodation generally compares favourably with others internationally. He invited the MP to write specific issues for investigation.

Mr Philp acknowledged the use of hotels due to coronavirus pressures but stated intentions to reduce their use as the pandemic subsides.

Mr Philp explained that additional units were needed due to coronavirus and assured the intention to speed up cessations.

Mr Philp affirmed the need for quicker decisions, promising more recruitment and improved technology for faster processing.

Mr Philp pointed out current spending of about £1 billion a year supporting asylum seekers, highlighting measures like elevating minimum wage and increasing tax-free allowance.

Mr Philp confirmed plans to introduce legislation in the first half of next year, subject to consultation.

Mr Philp assured robust screening processes are already in place and stressed the importance of applying the law.

Mr Philp agreed that EU countries are safe for asylum claims, reiterating the principle that asylum seekers should not attempt dangerous crossings.

The changes aim to enter into agreements with other countries and discourage unnecessary entries facilitated by criminals. Coronavirus impacted asylum decision making but improving efficiency is a top priority for the coming year.

My hon. Friend is right; unmeritorious claims crowd out genuine ones, so we are determined to legislate next year to ensure that genuine claims are treated quickly and fairly.

The policy is to discourage dangerous journeys facilitated by criminals and encourage asylum claims in safe countries like France, Germany or Spain.

We will legislate next year to ensure that unmeritorious claims are rejected, giving constituents confidence they have every right to expect.

The inadmissible cohort is entitled to accommodation, as we work closely with Glasgow City Council. The support complies with legal and moral obligations.

Careful measures like signing in and out processes are taken to ensure nothing untoward happens in local communities.

Support to avoid destitution will be available while seeking another country's agreement. The guidance on timeframes will be laid shortly.

Yes, we intend to ensure failed asylum seekers are returned to their safe country of origin swiftly, which is fair to individuals with valid claims and taxpayers.

The rules apply only where persistent antisocial behaviour occurs; offers of help are made, and funding is available to assist people getting off the streets.