The hon. Lady speaks of what she calls mass deportations. I have already pointed out that, over the last year, of the 5,800 people who have been removed, only 33 have been of Jamaican nationality. The hon. Lady mentioned black versus white. She was insinuating in her question that there was some element of underlying racism in this, but I have pointed out already that the vast majority of people who have been removed this year have been removed to European countries. This policy applies to people from Spain, France and Italy as much as it does to people from Jamaica. There is no element of discrimination in this policy whatever, and the hon. Lady was completely wrong to insinuate that, in some way, there was. The hon. Lady asked about double jeopardy. She said that these people have been punished by a prison sentence already, but I say this: if somebody comes to this country, commits a serious criminal offence and puts our constituents at risk, it is right that, once they have served their sentence, or a great part of it, they should be removed. It is not just me who thinks that; it is the Labour Members who voted for this law in 2007 who think that, some of whom are sitting in this Chamber today. The hon. Lady mentioned the EHRC and the compliant environment. This case is nothing to do with the compliant environment; it is about implementing the Borders Act 2007, as we are obliged to do. In terms of due process, there are ample opportunities to complain and appeal, as many people do, and I have mentioned already the case of a murderer who was taken off the flight just a few days ago following legal appeals. We are protecting our fellow citizens, and I suggest that the hon. Lady takes a similar approach.

My hon. Friend, as always, puts it very well. Of course, when people come to this country as immigrants and make a contribution—to academia, to the work environment, and in myriad other ways—we welcome them with open arms. Our new points-based system, which will become active in just a few days’ time, does precisely that. However, as he says, if somebody comes to this country and enjoys our hospitality, but abuses that hospitality by committing a serious criminal offence, they can, should, and will be removed in the interests of public protection.

The hon. Lady asks about the Windrush scheme. Over 6,300 people have received citizenship and 13,300 documents issued. 226 people have received compensation totalling over £2.1 million. All cases on the plane have been individually assessed, none are eligible for the Windrush compensation scheme. The Government is fully committed to removing those sentenced to custodial terms of over 12 months under the UK Borders Act 2007.

Agreeing with sentiments for protecting British citizens from dangerous criminals. Over half of removals and deportations are to European countries. Less than 1% of removals in the past year have been to Jamaica, so there is no racial element.

In relation to deportations only, the 1% figure is very similar to removals more generally. We did not accept Shaw’s recommendation about age back in 2018 and we do not now. We remain committed to implementing the obligations imposed by the UK Borders Act 2007.

Agreeing with standing up for safety of constituents. Disappointing Labour Members are questioning removal of dangerous foreign nationals now when we have had over 30 charter flights go this year.

Checks have been carried out for those on the recent flight, none are in scope of the Windrush compensation scheme. In relation to historical cases, I will look into and write to her.

Disagreeing with the choice of topic. Government is discharging duty under UK Borders Act 2007 passed by last Labour government. Legal attrition rates on flights are high due to legal claims often made at the last minute.

We do not have any formal agreements but there is an ongoing dialogue about individual flights and operational circumstances.

My hon. Friend speaks as a magistrate, hitting the nail on the head: protecting our constituents from foreign national offenders.

The answer is yes, as she herself voted in 2007 for the Act of Parliament requiring these deportations. The Government has been carrying out these flights throughout summer and autumn with methods found to be covid-safe.

Yes, I agree entirely. These are dangerous offenders whose crimes include murder, rape, and sexual assault against children.

This flight is not part of the compliant environment to which the EHRC report referred. The Home Office is confident none of these cases are Windrush eligible.

We seek to fully abide by the terms of the 2007 Act; every case in scope of the charter flight going in a few days has been very carefully considered.

We are confident about the legal compliance of each case, but there is no equalities impact assessment.

My hon. Friend is right: it is the Conservative Government who prioritise victims and public safety.

When removing people who are not British citizens but put our constituents at risk, it is right that we move to deport them.

My hon. Friend is right; we find abuse of legal process, often immediately before removal or deportation.

No, we certainly will not be stopping the flight but I do know that the hon. Gentleman has written to me about this case.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I can give him that assurance.

As the hon. Lady will know, only people who have been sentenced to a custodial sentence of a year or more are eligible.

I am very grateful for the support emanating from the people of Shipley.

I have already pointed out that these flights are nothing to do with the compliant environment; none of these individuals is in the scope of the Windrush compensation scheme.

Yes, I strongly agree.

The Home Secretary is fully committed to implementing each and every one of Wendy Williams’ recommendations.

Yes I do agree, of course.

The balance between family rights and public safety is set out in statute.

We are looking at ways we can expedite the proceedings.

As always, my hon. Friend speaks very well for his constituents.

There are obviously legal channels through which individuals can raise concerns.

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It has been conspicuous this afternoon that it has been Government Members who have stood up to speak out for victims and for the safety of their constituents; we have heard almost nothing of that from Opposition Members. The British public will have heard that, and they will draw their own conclusions.

The hon. Lady said a few moments ago that the people subject to deportation proceedings are mainly black. That is not true because, as I said earlier very clearly, the majority of people removed and deported are removed and deported to European Union countries, and in the last year well under 1% of people subject to these proceedings have come from Jamaica. In relation to age, the test, as we have discussed already, is set out in statute—in the UK Borders Act 2007. It is an Act passed by the last Labour Government with the votes of a number of her colleagues who are sitting on the Opposition Benches right now.

I am sure the Opposition Members who voted for the 2007 Act are extremely grateful for my hon. Friend’s reminder and thanks, but the thrust of his point I completely agree with. It is right that where someone endangers our fellow citizens, we act to deport them, because if we do not do that, we are exposing our constituents to ongoing risk. That is completely unacceptable, and this Government will take action.

I would not say the Government find it irksome to offer people due legal process; of course we do not, because we respect those legal processes. However, we do find it deeply frustrating and, frankly, at times inappropriate when the legal system and the legal process are used in an abusive or vexatious way, as they apparently sometimes are. That is something we intend to come back to in legislation next year. In relation to access to justice, there are very ample opportunities provided for consultation with lawyers by all kinds of means. I would say that in my observation of people subject to Home Office proceedings, one thing they are not short of is legal advice—very often legally aided. The access to justice point that the right hon. Member makes is certainly amply catered for in a whole range of different ways.