Laila Cunningham is at her 'wits' end' over Piddington

I just want you to sit back and imagine you live in Piddington and you wake up and you hear that accommodation for more than 1,200 illegal migrants, males, has been approved right by you. Now, the government knows very well there's fierce opposition. Of course they do. Yet it has approved the plans anyway. How would you feel? I would be absolutely fuming. I mean, I've got teenage kids and girls and I'm like, how are they going to go out about their day? How am I going to be comfortable with that? I'd be absolutely livid. And by the way, if you're sitting there thinking, well, it's not my problem, it's only about Piddington, think again. The government has very kindly said that we all have to take our fair share like it's some kind of war effort. But think about what that means. It's coming to a street near you, your street, your neighbourhood, where you're bringing up your kids. I mean, how many more Piddingtons are there going to be? And then I think about planning permission. You know, as a London dweller, I speak to developers who tell me that they have to wait seven years. To get planning permission to build homes that are desperately needed in London. Seven years! Yet somehow, the government can find a way through the planning system when it wants to provide accommodation for illegal migrants. I mean, what are we supposed to do here? Who is the government serving? Whose interests come first? And honestly, who wants this? And if you want this, because I assume some people must want this, I really want to hear from you. If this is a vote winner for you, if you're watching this and saying, man, they're so lucky in Piddington. I wish that was in my town. Please call me. You know, if this makes you more likely to support the government, call in. Because surely they must be doing this to please someone. And tell me whether, you know, you'd be so happy to see that. I've sat across from people in interviews and said that among those arriving are rapists, killers, people with ISIS links, IRGC. And they look at me and they go, oh, you know, you're so racist. How dare you call them all rapists? They're not all terrorists. I've got one thing to say to those people. One is enough. If one, just one out of those 1250 ...is a rapist, I really don't want him next to me. One terrorist is enough. In fact, I just learned that an IRGC operative who arrived illegally was living in Kensal Rise, near where I grew up. I don't want anyone next to me. Who would? That's why actually knowing, you know, there's a massive unknown about these people. We have no idea who they are. And that unknown does present a huge risk. So when somebody arrives without documents, how can we establish who they are, what they've done, what danger they pose? Oh, you know, they'll tell you, oh, don't worry, we take fingerprints. But what's the point of fingerprints if there's not a screening system to compare it, to check it against something? And, you know, and sadly, that unknown presents a huge risk. And guess who carries that risk? Guess who carries the consequences of that risk? Yeah, it's the public. And then to make it even worse, you know, I bet there's 1200 men or whatever are getting that famous government leaflet telling them that actually it's kind of illegal to rape children. Rape is illegal in this country. By very virtue of producing that leaflet, the government admits that some of them are sexual predators. And they're like, you know what? Doesn't really matter. We'll still house them in Pittington. How do they sleep at night? I mean, the fact that the government has to spell this out to these men. It means they recognise the risk. And we all know that a leaflet isn't going to do anything. Um... And I just don't understand how Andy Burnham, Shabana Mahmood, anyone in government sits, you know, sleeps at night and thinks, you know what, we know some of these men have been rapists, we know some of them are IRGC, doesn't really matter, we'll just go ahead with it anyway. Because we have actually just seen two men convicted of spying for the IRGC in Britain. Who would want an IRGC operative as their neighbour? Really? Who'd want someone working for a terrorist organization as their neighbor? And these are real threats. You know, they're not imaginary. They're not scare monging. This is the truth. And I'm not being racist and I'm not cruel for saying that people who arrive here illegally should be detained and deported. In fact, it seems that instead of detain and deport, the government, this one and the previous, have a very interesting policy. It's house and support. And so I want to ask a fundamental question tonight. What is the role of government? I believe that its first role is to protect us. Because let's face it, the state has a monopoly on violence. The state is the only one that has the power to arrest people, detain them and enforce the law. I can't just go up to some illegal migrant that I'm not happy is housed next to me, beat him up and lock him up. Of course not. And it shouldn't be. I'd be arrested for assault. And that's why it's their first duty, because it's something that I absolutely do not have a right to do. And by the way, we give the state those powers. And if they have the power, and we do not, then they absolutely have a duty to protect us. And let's take the very unfortunate but probable scenario that a crime does happen. If one of those 1,200 men do commit a crime, who's going to be accountable? Is the government going to stand up and say sorry? But even if they do, who cares? Who's going to look the victim in the eye and say, you know what, I'm sorry? And does that remove the harm? And if the government ignores warnings, ignores all the safeguards, Is it to blame? Are they to blame if a crime happens? It's their decision. It's effectively them who impose that risk on the women of Piddington and any other village. And I think it's fair to say it's actually the reversal of what they're supposed to do. It's the reversal of protecting us. They're exposing the women of Piddington to danger. Would Burnham even accept responsibility? Who's going to be accountable? He talks about hope, but hope, for me, is living in a town where I feel protected by the government. What's the point of anything else if you don't feel safe? What are we supposed to do? Honestly, I'm at my wit's end. You know, you vote Conservative, they promise to stop it. It doesn't stop. You vote Labour, they promise to smash the gangs. It doesn't stop. It just keeps going on and on and on. Nothing really changes. And if you're sitting there thinking, what do I have to do here? So many times I've voted against this. They promised me they're going to stop it. And they completely ignore us. Me, what kind of democracy are we living in? I always believe that power is supposed to go from the people up to the government. We elect them to serve us, do what they promised they would do. Do you think that what they're doing now in housing these people in Pittington, are they serving the women of Pittington? Because I don't think they feel that they are. It doesn't feel like they're protecting them. And then you'll get some people who go, oh, well, you know. It's about the ECHR. You know, we can't leave the ECHR or be in the same group as Belarus. Frankly, I don't care. I couldn't care less about the ECHR. Do you think the women in Pittington now care about the ECHR? Imagine them. They're being told now, well, you know what? We really can't do anything because the ECHR stops us from doing it. Who the hell wants to hear that? If that's what's stopping you, then remove us from the ECHR. Change the law. Do whatever you can. Pull whatever levers are necessary, because nobody, and hear me out, and listen, if you do, please do ring. I don't think anyone wants a rapist or a terrorist living next to them. Is that difficult to understand, Mr Burnham? You're the government. Protect us. If the law is stopping you from doing so, then change the law. I do sincerely believe, and I think perhaps, I hope those listening agree with me, legislation is there to protect us. You know, institutions are supposed to serve us and if the ECHR is preventing the government from protecting citizens who they elected, then it is no longer fit for purpose. Simple as that. And they talk about fairness. I mean what? Fairness isn't just about those arriving. What about those already here who expect their government to put them first? The young people who can't afford somewhere to live? The families watching every penny? The people working and paying for all this? What about people who came here legally? Listen, I want, and they're going to go on and on about how, you know, illegal arrivals have stopped and reduced, sorry, reduced. I don't want it reduced. I want it stopped. I want for those who arrive illegally, I want a policy of detain and deport. Instead, again, we have housing support. And the problem is, is that they're going to find another hotel, another site, and they're going to send the bill to the taxpayer. I mean, let's have a look at Wethersfield in Braintree. There's a gym on site. Imagine a gym. Imagine working, paying your taxes and cancelling your own gym membership because you can't afford it. Then discovering that illegal migrants have their own gym, own gym at home that you are funding. What? Explain the fairness to that. And then when people object, the government just says, well, what are we supposed to do? That cannot be the answer. And it can't just be move it to the next village because the next village doesn't deserve it either. And don't be distracted by Piddington because it's not a question of where. It's a question of stopping illegal arrivals completely. Otherwise it keeps compounding. More arrivals, more accommodation, more money. Another Piddington here. Closing a hotel and opening a former military site doesn't stop.