Migration and Border Security

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I thank Mr Speaker and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for ensuring that we had the proper time to consider the statement.

The Home Secretary seems to have a great deal to say about the last Government and rather less to say about her own record since the election, but fortuitously there was a large release of data last week that gives us an insight into her first five months in office. Having looked at that data, I can see why she is so silent on her own record. Let me start with small boats. Yesterday marked 150 days since 4 July, and in that time a staggering 20,110 people have made the dangerous, illegal and unnecessary crossing—over 20,000 since this Government were elected. That is an 18% increase on the same 150 days last year, and a staggering 64% increase on the 150 days immediately prior to the election.

Why have those numbers gone up so much? Let us turn to what the National Crime Agency said last year. It said that no amount of funding or action against people smugglers would end crossings on its own, and went on to say—and I quote—that “you need an effective removals deterrence.” After the Labour Government were elected, they cancelled that deterrent—the Rwanda deterrent—before it had even started. The first flight was due to take off on 24 July this year, but they cancelled it. Had that flight taken off as planned, we would not have seen the 64% increase in crossings that we have seen since the election, exactly as the National Crime Agency foresaw. It is not just me and the National Crime Agency; even Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, has called for European member states to implement an offshore processing scheme, a proposal that 18 member states are said to support. As such, my first question is whether the Home Secretary will agree with the National Crime Agency and do what Ursula von der Leyen has urged, and re-establish that scheme.

As a consequence of the Home Secretary’s failure to reduce small boat numbers, the use of asylum hotels—which Labour promised to end—has gone up by 6,066 in the three months following the election. The asylum backlog, which the Home Secretary had a great deal to say about, has gone up by 11,000 in the three months following the general election, something that she did not find time to mention. She did talk a bit about her deal in Iraq, which spends £500,000 with the Iraqi Government. That is not a great deal of money—it is what would probably be spent on a road surfacing scheme in any of our constituencies. I am afraid that the idea that spending £500,000 is going to stop people smuggling from Iraq is naive and fanciful. What might have helped smash the gangs is life sentences for people smuggling, so perhaps the Home Secretary could explain why in the last Parliament she voted against a Bill that contained life sentences for the people-smuggling gangs she says she wants to smash.

On the question of legal migration, I agree with the Home Secretary that the numbers have been far too high for many decades under successive Governments. It is welcome that the numbers for the most recent year have come down by 20%, but that is not far enough—we need to go further. I welcome the fact that the Government are going to maintain most of the measures introduced by the last Government that led to that 20% reduction. We have also seen the number of visas go down, which of course are a leading indicator of net migration. Work visas are down by 28% year on year, student dependant visas are down by 84%, student visas are down by 19% and care visas are down by 84%, all thanks to measures introduced by the last Government.

However, I would like to know why this Government have decided to suspend the planned increase in the dependant visa salary threshold up to £38,700 which was due to take effect next April. If they are serious about reducing net migration, as the Home Secretary says, why have they suspended the measure announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) last December? If they are really serious about reducing net migration, as we are, what we really need is a hard cap on the numbers, as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition and me last week. Will the Government follow our suggestion and introduce that hard cap?

Behind all the bluster and all the chat about previous Governments, we see the Home Secretary’s record and her Government’s record: a 64% increase in small boat crossings since the same period before the election, 6,000 extra people in hotels and the asylum backlog up by 11,000—all since 4 July. We see the Rwanda deterrent, which the National Crime Agency and even Ursula von der Leyen say is necessary, cancelled by this Government before it even started. I call on the Home Secretary to think again on those issues, to introduce in April the measures that the previous Government announced and to introduce a hard cap. If she is serious about combating illegal migration and getting the net legal migration figures down, she will adopt those measures.

[Yvette Cooper]

If anyone had believed that flights were going to go off to Rwanda this summer, the Conservatives would not have called the general election when they did. They would have hung on hoping that it might happen. However, we saw just the same thing time and again: they kept promising and kept saying it was going to happen, and everybody can now see that it was a total failure. The policy ran for over two years, and they kept promising that the flights were going to go off, but they never did. They just spent £700 million instead. So much do they know that this was a total failure that their newly elected leader will not even promise to reinstate it, because she knows the whole thing was a con.

Let me remind the shadow Home Secretary that in the first half of this year—the last six months of his Government—crossings hit a record high for that season. If that trend of a record high had carried on and the increase for the first half of the year had carried on through the summer, we would have been dealing with thousands more crossings. Instead, because we had an increase in the number of people arriving from Vietnam, this Government introduced a major charter flight—a return flight—to Vietnam, and we have been working with the Vietnamese Government to make sure that the number from Vietnam comes down. We also had to deal with the total collapse in asylum decision making that the Conservatives left us with, which meant that we have had to get caseworkers who they had deployed elsewhere back in place. The Conservatives also let the backlog soar.

The shadow Home Secretary wriggles a little around the net migration figures, which have gone up to a record high of 900,000 because of the rules that the Conservatives —his Government—introduced in 2021. Who was the Immigration Minister who brought in those rules? It was the shadow Home Secretary.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the families of the Reading victims and the victims of other terror attacks.

Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has said that as much information as possible should be put into the public domain as early as possible to maintain public trust. Can the Minister assure the House that he and his ministerial colleagues have always disclosed relevant information at an early stage in relation to high-profile terror-related cases that have attracted substantial public and media attention?

[Dan Jarvis]

The shadow Home Secretary has raised an important issue. Yes, we agree with Jonathan Hall; he is absolutely right. Our overriding priority will always be to ensure that the victims of crime get justice, and we will look at how best that can be achieved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I say gently to the hon. Member that he has to look at what this Government inherited from his Conservative Government after 14 years, during which neighbourhood policing was repeatedly cut. This Government are committed to restoring neighbourhood policing. We have said that we will bring in 13,000 police officers, police community support officers and specials.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

When?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The shadow Home Secretary is shouting “When?” at me. We are working on this as quickly as we can, five months in, after 14 years of what the Conservatives did to our policing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Let me start by offering the Home Secretary a belated congratulations on her appointment. Having been a Minister in that Department, I know how difficult her job is and I genuinely wish her well in doing it. We will always seek to work constructively with the Government in the national interest. I also associate myself with the remarks she made about International VAWG Day—International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and Girls. Since the election, 19,988 people have dangerously and illegally crossed the channel, a 23% increase on the same period last year. Why does the right hon. Lady think the numbers have gone up so much on her watch?

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his opening words. I think he described his time in the Home Office as his best ministerial job ever. Given that he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury under Liz Truss, we can perhaps wonder why. He was also the Immigration Minister who, I remind him, told the Commons and the Select Committee that he would not rule out using giant wave machines as the way to stop small boat crossings. We inherited record high levels of small boat crossings in the first half of this year. We have taken action to fix the previous Government’s chaos.

[Chris Philp]

I am asking the Home Secretary about her record. I am asking the Home Secretary why small boat crossings have gone up during her time in office. Perhaps it is because, as the National Crime Agency said, we need a deterrent. Yet she cancelled the Rwanda deterrent before it even started. Now we hear Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission President, asking European member states to look at offshore processing. Is that not why it has gone up? Is that not why the Minister for Border Security and Asylum admitted last week that she is opening new hotels instead of closing them down?

[Yvette Cooper]

Seriously, what a lot of chaos! Highest level on record: that was the six months of the last Conservative Government, while the right hon. Gentleman was in government. In fact, the numbers since the summer are not the highest on record. That, unfortunately, was his legacy. While he was the Immigration Minister, he increased the number of asylum hotels by 500% and increased the number of people in asylum hotels by over 900%. Seriously, he should not try to give lectures to anybody else at all.

Police Reform

Chris Philp Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Let me welcome the Policing Minister to her role; she is succeeding me in the job that I did in the last Government. I genuinely wish her well in the job, and I hope that she succeeds in it, because it is important for the whole country. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in thanking the police up and down the country for the work that they do to keep us safe. When they put on their uniform to go to work each morning, they take risks that are required of those in few other professions.

In March this year, the police headcount hit 149,769—a record number of police, and 3,000 higher than the previous record. My first question is: will the Policing Minister commit to at least maintaining, if not growing, that record number of police officers? Secondly, will the Minister join me in welcoming the fact that in the past seven years, overall crime, as measured by the crime survey for England and Wales—the Office for National Statistics says that is the best measure of crime trends—has come down by 17%? The written statement yesterday, and the Home Secretary’s speech to the National Police Chiefs’ Council yesterday, mentioned the importance of technology, which I feel very strongly about, as the Minister knows. In the March Budget, the previous Chancellor committed to £230 million of spending on police technology over four years, of which this year is the first. About £80 million was due to be spent this year. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the £80 million for this year is secure, and that she and her colleagues will honour the £230 million commitment over the coming four years?

Does the Minister agree that it is important that police spend their time actually investigating crime, not policing thought? Does she agree that the guidelines need to be changed, so that police spend time investigating only real crimes, and investigate non-crimes only when there is a real and imminent risk of criminality? That would mean a change to the guidelines. Will she make that change?

On the reform programme, we need to see the details of course, but will the Minister confirm that no money will be taken away from local police forces? Will she confirm that police and crime commissioners and chief constables will continue to be fully empowered? Finally, on police funding, she mentioned some numbers for next year’s funding settlement. She will be aware that when I was Policing Minister, we arranged a £922 million increase in funding for frontline policing for this financial year, compared with last year. The numbers she talked about in her statement are much lower than that, so will she give a commitment that any funding increase for frontline policing that she brings forward in the police funding settlement will be at least as big as the one that I announced last year?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

This is the first opportunity I have had to welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new role as shadow Home Secretary, but I think he might be forgetting a few facts. As I recall, over the previous 14 years, the Conservative Government slashed policing by over 20,000 police officers, and many support staff as well. I acknowledge that the uplift programme was brought in at the end of their period in government, but they got rid of a lot of very experienced, good police officers. Also, just to remind him, we stood for election on a manifesto commitment to providing 13,000 additional police officers, PCSOs and specials as part of our neighbourhood policing guarantee.

I know that the right hon. Gentleman is very keen on technology. That was absolutely one of the things that he focused on. I have certainly taken up some of the issues that he was concerned about to do with live facial recognition, and I want that investment to continue. I think he is again forgetting a few things when he refers to the guidelines for non-crime hate incidents. As I recall, he was the Policing Minister who introduced those guidelines. I have listened to what he said, but I think he needs to remember what he actually did when he was the Policing Minister. I take the approach that this should be about common sense and consistency. His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services talked about the need for consistency and training; I will listen to what it has to say, rather than to the right hon. Gentleman’s view on guidelines that he introduced. Many of the questions that he asks will form part of the consultative approach that we will adopt when our White Paper is laid before Parliament.

Asylum Seekers: Hotel Accommodation

Chris Philp Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) on securing this urgent question. He is right to raise this issue. As he said, Labour promised in its manifesto to end the use of hotels, yet the Minister has just admitted at the Dispatch Box that, far from ending the use of hotels, the Government are in fact opening up even more. She has just admitted to 14. Perhaps it should come as no surprise now that, once again, Labour is doing the precise opposite to what it promised in its manifesto.

When the Conservatives were in government, they were in fact closing down hotels. Luckily, I have the figures in front of me. Between September last year and 30 June this year, the number of people in contingency accommodation, which is Home Office speak for hotels, went down by 47%—it went down—yet under this new Government it is going up. The Minister has told us how many hotels have opened up, will she tell us how many extra people are now in contingency accommodation, compared with 4 July? Will she also commit to always notifying Members of Parliament in advance—at least two weeks in advance—that a hotel will be opening in their constituency?

We all know the cause of this problem. It is the illegal and dangerous channel crossings. I am afraid the position has got even worse since the figures my right hon. Friend quoted were drawn up. Since the election, 19,988 people have crossed the channel. That is a 23% increase on the same period last year, and it is a 66% increase on the same period immediately before the election. Why have these numbers of people illegally crossing the channel gone up? The National Crime Agency has told us that we need a deterrent—that we cannot police our way out of this. Even Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, has said that European member states should look at offshore processing. We saw a deterrent system work in Australia, yet Labour scrapped the Rwanda deterrent before it had even started. The first flight had not taken off and that is why the deterrent effect had not commenced. Will the Minister follow Ursula von der Leyen’s advice? Will she emulate the Australians and reinstate the scheme?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

That was quite a rant. It made certain assumptions that are completely untrue, including that the Rwanda scheme would have worked. We already know that it cost £700 million to send four volunteers to Rwanda. The Conservative party was planning to spend £175,000 per person sent to Rwanda, and it had not managed to send anyone to Rwanda. Had the Conservatives put aside the money, going into billions of pounds, to pay this £175,000 per person sent to Rwanda? No, they had not. No money was set aside. What we inherited was a system where no processing was going on—well, fewer than 1,000 asylum cases a month were being processed. We are now processing up to 10,000 asylum cases a month.

The right hon. Gentleman knows, because he was a Home Office Minister, that there are backlogs and lags between the first decision in processing and all the potential appeals. We cannot exit people from the asylum estate until they have a final decision. We inherited backlogs of more than two years in the tribunal system because the Conservatives did not fund it properly. In the last period, we have returned nearly 10,000 people, which is nearly a 20% increase on the numbers returned last year. We are working on making the asylum system fit for purpose. We inherited an unholy mess from the Conservatives.

Facial Recognition: Police Use

Chris Philp Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. The problem at the moment is that we do not even have national guidelines. There is a complete absence, which I will come to later. I will give way to the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I would like to add some context to the question of racial bias. There were allegations of racial bias a few years ago. The system was tested by the national physical laboratory about two years ago and, at the settings used by the police, no racial bias was found. That was one of the conditions set in the Bridges litigation about four years ago, and I hope that gives my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members some reassurance on the question of racial bias. It has been tested by the national physical laboratory.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

As I understand it, the number of false positives recorded depends to some extent on the threshold at which the technology is set.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) —or I could say my right hon. Friend, if he does not mind—for securing this debate. I have spoken to the Secretary of State and Ministers in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and there is an awareness that we need a lot of careful and considerate thinking on this issue. Obviously, a new Government have just come in and this is not a new issue, as the right hon. Member for Maldon said—LFR was first used in 2017, so there is a lot of clearing up that has to be done.

Live facial recognition changes one of the cornerstones of our democracy: an individual is innocent until proven guilty. With this technology, if the machine says an individual is guilty because they have been identified using live facial recognition, they then have to prove their innocence. That is a huge change in our democracy that nobody has consented to. We have not consented to it in this place, and as we police by consent as a society, that should really worry us all.

[Chris Philp]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; I am looking forward to this debate and to concluding it for the Opposition later.

On the question of changing the burden of proof or undermining the concept that someone is innocent until proven guilty, the technology absolutely does not change that. What it does is give the police a reason to stop somebody and check their identity to see whether they are the person wanted for a criminal offence. It certainly does not provide evidence on which a conviction might be secured. In fact, it is no different from the police stopping someone because they are suspicious of them, and it is a lot more accurate than stop and search, about which I am sure the hon. Lady has views. It is simply a tool to enable the police to stop somebody and check their identity to see whether they are the person who is wanted. It certainly does not undermine the very important principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

[Dawn Butler]

The shadow Minister has hit on an important point regarding reasonable suspicion. What is reasonable suspicion? How have the police got to that point? If he is then going to make reference to watchlists, who is put on a watchlist? We know, for instance, that the Met police has hundreds of thousands of people on its system who should not be there. We know that the watchlist can consist of people it considers to be vulnerable, such as those with mental health issues. Anybody in this room could be put on a watchlist, so I am afraid the shadow Minister has not quite nailed the point he was trying to make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing the debate and on the characteristically thoughtful manner in which he approached his speech.

I think this is the first time that I have appeared opposite the new Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention—the job that I was doing until a few months ago—so let me congratulate her on her appointment. Although I will of course hold the Government to account, I will do everything I can to constructively support her in making a great success of the job, and I really do wish her well in the role.

I want to start by reminding colleagues of the way that live facial recognition works. It is different from retrospective facial recognition, which we have not debated today and, in the interests of time, I do not propose to go into. As some Members have already said, live facial recognition starts with a watchlist of people who are wanted by the police. It is not the case that anyone can get on that watchlist, which generally comprises people who are wanted for criminal offences—often very serious offences—people who have failed to attend court, and people who are registered sex offenders, where the police want to check that they are complying with their conditions. As people walk down a high street, they are scanned, typically by a CCTV camera on a mobile van, and then compared to the watchlist. The vast majority of people are not on the watchlist, as we would expect, and their image is immediately and automatically deleted. Where a person is on the watchlist, the police will stop them and ask if they have any form of identification.

To be very clear, no one gets convicted on the basis of that facial recognition match, so it is not overturning the presumption of innocence, and if it turns out that the person stopped is not the person on the watchlist, obviously they can continue on their way. However, if they are the person on the watchlist, a normal criminal investigation will follow, with the normal standards of evidence.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

On the point about the automatic deletion of data, there are many examples, but the one I can remember is Google incognito browsing mode. That was meant to be very private—only you saw where you went—but Google was found to be storing that data, and it has been legally challenged and prosecuted for breaching the GDPR or other privacy laws. Companies may say that things are immediately deleted, but it is not always true.

[Chris Philp]

That is a good point; we must ensure that the operating procedures are adhered to, and I will come on to that a little later. However, to be absolutely clear, if someone is identified as a match, a normal criminal investigation is conducted to normal criminal standards. Nobody is convicted on the basis of this evidence alone—or, indeed, on the basis of this evidence at all.

Let me come to the question about racial disparity. When this technology was first introduced, about seven years ago, there were reports—accurate reports—that there was racial bias in the way that the algorithm operated. The algorithm has been developed a great deal since those days, and it has been tested definitively by the national physical laboratory, the nation’s premier testing laboratory. NPL testing is the gold standard of testing and this technology has been tested relatively recently. For the benefit of Members, I will read out what the results of that testing were:

“The NPL study found that, when used at the settings maintained by the Met”—

that is the 0.6 setting that the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) referred to earlier—

“there was no statistically significant difference in the facial recognition technology’s accuracy across”

different demographic groups. In other words, the technology as it is being used today—not five years ago, when there were issues—has been certified by the NPL and it has been found that there is not any racial bias at the settings used.

[Dawn Butler]

But when we look at the numbers of people, something like 0.5% of scans—I cannot remember the statistic—still result in somebody being misidentified.

[Chris Philp]

On the misidentification rate, I think the Bridges court case set a standard of a false positive rate of one in 1,000: out of every 1,000 people stopped, 999 are the people the police think they are, while one is misidentified. The Minister may have more up-to-date figures, but from my recollection the system in practice is running at about one in 6,000. That is an extraordinarily high accuracy rate—much more accurate than a regular stop and search.

About 25% to 30% of regular physical stops and searches, where a police officer stops someone and searches them for drugs or a knife or something, are successful. About 70% are unsuccessful, while the equivalent figure for live facial recognition is 0.02%. That means that this technology is 4,500 times less likely to result in someone being inappropriately stopped than a regular stop and search. It therefore hugely—by three orders of magnitude—reduces the likelihood of someone being improperly stopped and searched.

I turn to the use of the technology on the ground. I asked for it to be trialled in the centre of Croydon, which is the borough I represent in Parliament. Over the past nine months or so, it has been deployed on a relatively regular basis: about once a week. I believe that the Minister was supposed to go down this morning to have a look; I certainly encourage her to go again as soon as she can. By the way, the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) asked whether people know when the technology is being used. The answer is yes: one of the guidelines is that public signage must be displayed telling the public that the technology is in use.

Over that period in Croydon, there have been approximately 200 arrests of people who would not otherwise have been arrested, including for all kinds of offences such as class A drugs supply, grievous bodily harm, fraud and domestic burglary. It has also included a man who had been wanted for two rapes dating back to 2017. That wanted rapist would be free to this day if not for this technology. Just a couple of weeks ago, a man was stopped and subsequently arrested in relation to a rape allegation from June this year. There are people who are alleged to have committed rape who would not have been stopped—who would still be walking free—if not for this technology. It is only the fact that they walked past a camera outside East Croydon station or somewhere that has meant they were stopped by the police. They will now have a normal trial with the normal standards of evidence, but they would not have been caught in the first place if not for this technology.

I have done quite a lot of public meetings on this. I explain, “These are the people who get caught, and the price the public pay is that you might get scanned when you walk down Croydon High Street, but if you are innocent your picture is immediately deleted.” By and large, the overwhelming majority of the people in Croydon think that a reasonable trade-off.

There should be protections, of course. Several hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, have rightly said that there should be guidelines, rules and procedures. However, it is not true that there is a complete vacuum as far as rules and regulations are concerned. The Bridges case at the Court of Appeal in 2020 looked at how South Wales police were using the technology between 2017 and 2020. It found that some of the ways they were using the technology were not appropriate because they broke rules on things like data protection privacy. It set out in case law the guidelines that have to be adhered to for the technology to be lawful—things like public signage, the rate of accuracy and having no racial bias.

Secondly—I do hope I am not taking the Minister’s entire speech—there are guidelines for police. The College of Policing has national authorised professional practice guidelines that the police are supposed to stick to. There is a debate to be had about whether, for the sake of clarity and democratic accountability, we in Parliament should set something out more formal; my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon made that point. I think there would be some merit in clarifying at a national level where the guidelines sit, but I would not go as far as Europe. If we had done so, those rapists would not have been arrested. I would also be careful to ensure that any legislation is flexible enough to accommodate changing technology. Primary legislation may not be the right vehicle: a regulation-making power might be a more sensible approach, so that things can be kept up to date from time to time.

While we consider that, I strongly urge the Minister not to halt the use of the technology. As we speak, it is arresting criminals in Croydon and elsewhere who would not otherwise be caught. I urge her to continue supporting the police to roll it out. I think some money was allocated in the Budget for the current financial year, to continue developing the technology. I would welcome an update from the Minister on whether that money is still being spent in the current financial year. I do hope it has not somehow been snaffled by the Treasury in a misguided cost-saving effort—

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the shadow Secretary of State, but I am looking at the time. I am sure hon. Members would like to hear from the Minister.

[Chris Philp]

None more so than me. I will conclude by saying that this is an important technology: it takes people off the streets who would otherwise not be caught. The Minister has my support in continuing its roll-out and deployment.

Small Boat Crossings

Chris Philp Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a statement on the recent increase in dangerous, illegal and unnecessary channel crossings by small boat?

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)]

For too long, smuggling gangs have been undermining our border security and putting lives at risk, which is why the new Government have made it a top priority to address the crisis we inherited. Let us be clear about what that crisis entailed: small boat crossings in the first half of the year at their highest point on record, and over 100,000 arrivals in the five years prior; over 200,000 cases stuck in the asylum system, costing the taxpayer billions in support; and £700 million spent on a gimmick that sent just four volunteers to Rwanda.

When we entered government, we said it was time for grip, not gimmicks, and that is exactly what we are delivering. Since July, we have established the border security command, headed by experienced police chief Martin Hewitt. In the King’s Speech, we set out our intention to bring forward legislation to give the border security system stronger powers to investigate and prosecute organised immigration crime. We are recruiting 100 new specialist agency and investigation officers at the National Crime Agency to target and dismantle the criminal networks behind this phenomenon. We have also announced an extra £75 million to bolster border security, bringing our investment in the border security command over the next two years to £150 million. This Government’s border security funding boost will go towards a range of enforcement and intelligence activities and capabilities including covert technology as well as hundreds of staff and specialist investigators as we crank up the pressure on the smuggling gangs.

This is an international problem requiring international solutions. Since the general election we have intensified co-operation with partners overseas. We recently struck a new anti-smuggling action plan with G7 partners and the Prime Minister and Home Secretary both attended the Interpol general assembly in Glasgow on Monday to press the case for a much stronger and more integrated global response to organised immigration crime.

As well as tackling the issue upstream, we have taken action to speed up decision making and stepped up returns of those with no right to be in this country. The result of all this action is 9,400 returns since this Government took office including a 19% increase in enforced returns and a 14% increase in returns of foreign national offenders.

Sticking plasters and gimmicks have failed. The smugglers and traffickers have been getting away with it for far too long. It is time to show them we are serious, not with words, but with action. The security of Britain’s borders is paramount and under this Government it always will be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

Shadow Home Secretary; thank you, Mr Speaker.

I am afraid the Government’s actions belie the reality. Since they came to office, 17,520 people have crossed the English channel, more than twice the number they have removed. That is one and a half times the number in the previous four months and 15% more than the same period last year. In October alone, last month, 5,417 people crossed, three times higher than in last October. Tragically, since this Government came to office 50 people have lost their lives or gone missing—more than in the previous 18 months put together—and, tragically, that includes 16 women and children.

This Government decided—they chose—to cancel the Rwanda scheme before it had even started. The first flight was due to take off, from memory, on 24 July but they cancelled it. Had they allowed that to go ahead and the scheme to continue, the deterrent effect would by now have started. We know it works, because it worked in Australia under its Operation Sovereign Borders about 10 years ago. We know the deterrent effect of returns works: it worked with Albania where we secured a 93% reduction in arrivals. Do not just take my word for it: the National Crime Agency said that law enforcement alone is not enough and we need an effective removal scheme to deter crossings. The Government’s announcements in Glasgow on Monday are simply not enough, and they repeat work that is under way already. The NCA and I are not the only ones saying that we need a returns deterrent. Just a few weeks ago, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen encouraged member states to develop their own returns hubs outside the European Union. Will the Minister follow Ursula von der Leyen’s advice and urgently implement offshore processing?

May I also draw attention to the success that Belgium has had in stopping boats by the shore? Will the Minister ask France to do the same? Finally, because of their failings Labour are breaking their manifesto pledge to end hotel use, so will she pledge not to open any more hotels?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman —the shadow Home Secretary—to his new Front-Bench position. What a pleasure it is to be opposite him; I am going to look forward to jousting with him over the years.

On the Rwanda scheme, during the period from when it began to when we scrapped it, 83,500 people crossed in small boats. If that is a deterrent, the right hon. Gentleman has a peculiar view of the meaning of “deterrence” in the English language.

When I realised that we were doing this urgent question, I took the opportunity to look at the right hon. Gentleman’s record as a Home Office Minister. During his first stint at the Home Office—from September 2019 to 2021—23,849 people crossed the channel on small boats. During his second ministerial sojourn at the Home Office, 50,637 people crossed the channel in small boats, so his overall total is 74,486. In September 2020, the shadow Home Secretary answered an urgent question. He said that the last Government would

“not rest until we have taken the necessary steps to completely end these crossings.”—[Official Report, 2 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 168.]

How did that go?