Iranian State Threats

Chris Philp Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I thank the Security Minister, once again, for his courtesy in giving me advance sight of his statement. The House should be in no doubt about how serious the threat posed by Iran is. Iran sponsors terror organisations across the middle east. It is an enthusiastic and significant supporter of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen and it backs Shi’a militias in Iraq and Syria. Those organisations kidnap, murder, rape and commit terrorist atrocities. Without Iran’s support, those terror organisations would not be able to operate in the way that they do. Iran therefore bears a heavy burden of responsibility for enabling those terrorist actors to perpetrate atrocities.

Let us not forget that Iran is also an enthusiastic supporter of Putin’s murderous regime and its invasion of Ukraine. Iran supplies drone technology to Russia and more recently, according to the Foreign Secretary, has supplied ballistic missiles to Russia, which are being used in furtherance of their illegal and barbaric invasion. There is no question that Iran is a hostile state; it promotes terrorism, undermines freedom and undermines democracy. We have recently seen actions by Iran on British soil and journalists being harassed to the point that one media organisation had to relocate its activities—thankfully, only temporarily—from London to New York. That is completely unacceptable.

We of course support the Government in the listing of Iran in the enhanced tier of FIRS, and we will support the relevant statutory instrument when it comes before Parliament. I am glad that the National Security Act 2023 is being used, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) —I see he is in his place—for his work in putting that Act on the statute book.

Having welcomed this move, I have some questions, however, which are essentially in this vein: is merely requiring registration a strong enough sanction? I put it to the House that it is not, because under FIRS all that is required is registration, and that alone is not enough. We saw our allies, the United States, in 2019 designate the IRGC as a terror organisation; we saw our Canadian allies do the same just last year. Yet I have heard nothing on proscription.

The Minister said they do not comment on proscription, but the Home Secretary did comment on it in January 2023, when in opposition, and in unequivocal terms:

“The IRGC is behaving like a terror organisation and must be prescribed as such.”

She then said in April 2024 that she would like to make changes to the legal architecture. Yet it is only today that the Security Minister has announced the review by Jonathan Hall. Why has it taken seven months to initiate a review, which the now Home Secretary talked about nearly a year ago?

Then we come to the views of Jonathan Hall himself, because he said— coincidentally, also in April 2024—that the National Security Act 2023 is good enough for the purposes of dealing with Iran. My question to the Security Minister is this: who is right? Is it the Home Secretary, who in 2023 called for outright proscription? Is it the Home Secretary, who in 2024 called for a change in the law about which nothing appears to have been done until today? Or is it Jonathan Hall, who said also in April 2024 that the National Security Act is sufficient? There is some confusion about the Government’s position, which seems to have moved over time, so clarification on that would be welcome. Why is the Home Secretary not introducing outright proscription, as she said she would do in 2023?

More needs to be done to counter the threat posed by Iran on our shores. The Security Minister hinted at this towards the end of his statement. For example, are there more diplomats that we could expel who might be undertaking espionage activities or directing some of the activity on British soil? I see that the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention—my successor as Policing Minister—the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), is in her place. Is there more that the police could do to investigate this activity?

Are we doing enough to provide protective security to potential victims of this activity? It was, in my view, completely unacceptable that the independent Iranian dissident media group had to move temporarily to New York. We should make sure that no one has to move again as a result of these threats. And are we using sanctions enough? The Security Minister mentioned this in his statement, but should we be using more sanctions against individuals in the Iranian regime and organisations that are part of the Iranian security apparatus? I think we should, and we should certainly be using the levers at the Home Office’s disposal, such as visa sanctions—that is to say, not issuing entry visas to people we suspect of being complicit in these activities, or denying visas to high-ranking or other well-connected Iranian officials to act as a deterrent.

The Security Minister talked about the wider context of hostile state threats. He said in the previous urgent question that he would address in this statement the question of whether China should be placed in the enhanced FIRS tier—

[Dan Jarvis]

indicated dissent.

[Chris Philp]

Well, he said he would address it, and eagle-eyed Members will notice that he did not address it, so I will ask him the question directly now and there will be no avoidance because there is no further statement. Will he place China in the enhanced tier of FIRS? Will he please confirm that to the House, because I think all of us would support him if he did?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for the points he has raised, which I will endeavour to work through. First, let me agree with his characterisation of the Iranian regime. I hope there is no disagreement among us about that, which is precisely why it is right that we proceed with the measures I have described today. He was right to mention the National Security Act 2023, a landmark piece of legislation—I pay tribute to all those who were involved in it, including my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat). It is an incredibly useful tool that is already delivering and making a significant contribution to our national security. It is a mechanism that we will continue to use and also to build on.

Perhaps the shadow Home Secretary will forgive me if I suggest that he was seeking to make a bit of mischief over the issue of proscription—heaven forbid. He will understand, because this was the case when he was a Minister in the Department, that Governments do not comment on organisations or entities that are being considered for proscription. He knows that is a long-standing protocol and will understand very well the reasons for it. He would not expect me to break from that long-standing precedent today, and I am not going to.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to comments made previously by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary, when in opposition, absolutely rightly identified the challenge that we are now seeking to address in government. I know that there is huge respect for Mr Hall. Clearly, he is independent of the Government and supremely well qualified. He is a credible and authoritative figure who is perfectly placed to look at the legislative framework and give advice independently to the Home Secretary about how best to proceed, given our concern that the architecture that is in place is better geared towards a terrorist entity—an organisation such as al-Qaeda, for example—than to a state-backed entity. I think that is entirely the right way to proceed. We will obviously look very closely at Mr Hall’s findings. I am very happy to discuss them further with the shadow Home Secretary and others, and of course we will give a further update to the House as soon as possible.

The right hon. Gentleman entirely reasonably asked what more could be done. Again, as a former Home Office Minister he will completely understand that there are lots of things that we are doing that we are not going to talk about, and he will understand the reason for that, but I can give him the assurance that we are doing everything we possibly can to combat the threat that we all know we face.

The right hon. Gentleman also made an important point about protective security. Again, we take that matter very seriously; it has been tested on numerous occasions in recent years. He will understand that the Home Office works closely with other Government Departments, as well as with the relevant agencies and law enforcement, to ensure that we are providing the proper protection for those individuals who have been identified as at risk, and that the police and the security services work tirelessly to investigate those threats and to take other steps to ensure the safety of those concerned. Tailored, protective advice is offered to those individuals considered to face specific threats and, where necessary, more extensive security options can be put into effect.

Finally, the shadow Home Secretary—again, slightly mischievously—sought to infer that I had made a commitment in my previous response, but that was not quite the case. He will understand that announcements about FIRS will be made in this House. Today’s announcement specifically relates to the decision that we have taken on Iran; it is specifically about that country, and other announcements that are made with regard to FIRS will be made in due course.

Hong Kong Democracy Activists

Chris Philp Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the bounties placed on Hong Kong democracy activists in the United Kingdom by the Chinese Communist party and other authorities in Hong Kong and China.

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question on what I agree is a very serious matter.

Security is the first duty of Government. As such, we are deeply concerned by the recent bounties placed on Hong Kong democracy activists resident here in the UK. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Foreign Secretary issued a statement condemning those bounties. As he said at the time, the individuals were merely exercising their right to freedom of expression. As the Foreign Secretary has also said, we call on Beijing to repeal the national security law, including its extraterritorial reach. We also call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their targeting of individuals in the UK and elsewhere for seeking to exercise their basic rights. Ministers have raised those concerns with the authorities during recent visits to both Hong Kong and Beijing. The continued safety of Hong Kongers remains a priority for this Government. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on individual cases, but I want to be clear that we will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially here in the UK

We have received assurances from counter-terror policing that the appropriate measures are in place for the individuals in question, and we regularly assess potential threats to the UK and use all available levers to counter them. Where we identify individuals at heightened risk, we are front footed in deploying protective security guidance and other measures as appropriate. Anyone—anyone—acting to coerce individuals in the UK is liable to prosecution under the National Security Act 2023. To date, there have been six individuals charged under the new Act.

The Government’s position is clear: we will protect the rights and freedoms of all individuals in the UK. We will use every available power and tool to uphold the principles we hold dear.

[Chris Philp]

This is an incredibly serious issue. The Chinese Communist party is an authoritarian regime which has been persecuting people in Hong Kong, mainland China and elsewhere for some time. Nearly 100 people—that we know about—have been arrested for political reasons in Hong Kong since July last year. It is completely unacceptable that harassment and intimidation takes place now on British soil. It is a gross infringement of the liberty of the individuals concerned and it is an affront to British sovereignty.

Bounties, amounting to approximately £100,000 each, have apparently been placed on three people who are in the United Kingdom: Tony Chung, aged 23; Carmen Lau, aged 30; and Chloe Cheung, aged only 17. All fled Hong Kong owing to persecution. Chloe Cheung was apparently advised by the police to dial 999 if she felt under threat, which strikes me as an inadequate response. I understand that posters appeared near the home addresses of two of those people, and that letters were posted to their neighbours, offering a reward if they were “delivered to the Chinese embassy”. That is completely unacceptable. That cannot be tolerated and robust action must be taken.

I have a couple of questions to put, respectfully, to the Security Minister. First, has the Chinese ambassador been summoned by the Foreign Secretary to the Foreign Office to have it explained to him that this is unacceptable and to ask what is being done to stop it? My understanding is that no such summons has been issued, which is unacceptable. Does that not make clear that giving the Chinese permission to build a mega-embassy in London is completely inappropriate? It will simply be used as a pan-European base for Chinese spying. Are investigations into the perpetrators under way? Why is China not being placed into the enhanced tier under the foreign influence registration scheme? Surely China should be placed into that tier as a matter of urgency. What is the update on the Chinese police stations operating covertly in the United Kingdom? I was briefed on that as Policing Minister a year or so ago. Where are we with those? Finally, the Security Minister says that we will not tolerate this happening. I am sure the whole House will agree with that, but what concrete and tangible action is being taken to prevent these outrages?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for his points and questions. Let me again, for the avoidance of doubt, be absolutely clear about the Government’s position. The safety and security of Hong Kongers in the UK is of the upmost importance and the UK will always stand up for the rights of the people of Hong Kong. Wherever we identify such threats, we will use any and all measures, including through the use of our world-class intelligence services, to mitigate the risk to individuals.

The shadow Home Secretary asked a number of questions, so I shall attempt to respond to them. First, he asked about raising concerns with the Chinese authorities. I can tell him that concerns have been raised at every opportunity, including by the Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), who has met with the families of the individuals involved.

Secondly, he raised a point about the Chinese embassy. A final decision on China’s planning application for a new embassy has yet to be made. As I am sure he will be aware, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in her independent, quasi-judicial role, will make the final decision in due course. However, the House should be aware that a joint letter sent by the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary to the Planning Inspectorate on 14 January outlines that the Home Office, working with the Foreign Office, has considered the full breadth of national security issues in relation to this planning application. In the joint letter, the Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary also made it clear that they would want to see the implementation of suitable mitigations for any public order and national security risks before China was permitted to build a new embassy at the Royal Mint Court site.

Thirdly, the shadow Home Secretary asked about overseas police stations. As I am sure he will understand, the police have carefully examined these allegations. We have made clear to the Chinese authorities that the existence of undeclared sites in the UK is completely unacceptable and that their operations must cease, and the Chinese authorities have confirmed that they have been closed.

Fourthly, he asked about FIRS. As he will be aware, I am due to make a statement shortly that will include an update on the implementation of FIRS, so I will not get ahead of myself. However, I will say that FIRS strengthens the resilience of the UK political system against covert foreign influence and provides greater assurances on the activities of certain foreign powers or entities that are a national security risk. As a result, the UK will be better informed about the nature, scale and extent of foreign influence in this country.

As I am sure he will be aware, since coming to power in July, we have ensured that more people than ever are now working on FIRS implementation. The case management team have been recruited and are in place in dedicated accommodation, and an IT system has been identified and a contract signed for its delivery. We plan to lay before the House the regulations underpinning the scheme shortly ahead of the scheme going live in the summer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Border security is fundamental, but between the July election and yesterday, 25,135 people illegally and dangerously crossed the English channel—a 28% increase on the same period 12 months earlier. Does the Home Secretary now regret ignoring the National Crime Agency’s advice that law enforcement alone is not enough and that a removals deterrent is needed?

[Yvette Cooper]

I will just point out to the shadow Home Secretary that when the Conservatives were in government, we saw that many people arrive in the space of just over 100 days, because they completely lost control of our borders and let criminal gangs take hold along the channel. Some 84,000 people arrived in small boats while the Rwanda policy that he somehow wants to reintroduce managed to send just four volunteers. We have increased returns by over 20% to 19,000, which is important. I hope he will explain why he voted against counter-terrorism powers to go after smuggler gangs.

[Chris Philp]

The Home Secretary talks about the Rwanda scheme. Of course, it never even started, as she well knows. The first flight was due to take off after the election, but she cancelled it.

She mentions that returns have gone up. What she fails to mention is that the vast majority of those people did not enter the country by small boat. The number of small boat returns went down after this Government came into office, and it represents only 4% of people crossing the English channel. Does she really think that letting 96% of illegal immigrants stay here is going to deter anybody?

[Yvette Cooper]

I just say to the shadow Home Secretary that the Rwanda scheme ran for two years. It was running for two years—

[Chris Philp]

It never started.

[Yvette Cooper]

Exactly! All they managed to do—

Prevent: Learning Review

Chris Philp Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I start by thanking the Security Minister for providing advance sight of his statement and advance sight of the Prevent learning review into Sir David Amess’s tragic murder. I thank him for the courtesy and collegiality with which he has conducted our discussions on this topic in recent days.

Let me add my words to those of the Security Minister in remembering our colleague, Sir David Amess. All of those who served with him in this House held him in great affection and the highest regard. He was a colleague who was loved, and is remembered fondly, across the House. His particular form of charm, kindness and good humour is something that everybody who ever met David will remember. Every day, I walk into this Chamber and see his shield up there on the wall opposite—I see Jo Cox’s, too—and I remember David and the loss that we, everyone in his constituency and most of all his family have suffered.

I spoke earlier today to Sir David’s wife, Julia, and I pay tribute to her and her daughters for the courage and fortitude they have shown over these past few years in campaigning to get the answers they need. I also thank the former Member of Parliament for Southend West, Anna Firth, who has been supporting Julia and her family throughout this difficult time. I thank the Home Secretary, as well, for meeting Lady Julia recently. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for taking the time to do that.

Turning to the Prevent learning review, which I recently received and which I believe is about to be published, I noticed that it is a redacted version. I would be grateful if the Security Minister confirmed that nothing material has been redacted. I am sure that it has not, but it would help to have that clarified.

We heard in the Security Minister’s statement—and I thank him for the thoughtful and considered way in which he made it—that the Prevent learning review identified a number of failings in the way that Prevent handled the murderer of our late colleague, and that there had been opportunities for further intervention. While I welcome the fact that the report has been published, and that the new Prevent commissioner will conduct a further review, there are still questions relating to this case and others that perhaps merit a more formal inquiry to ensure that we get to the bottom of it.

There are other cases where there are questions around whether perpetrators of violence either encountered Prevent and could have been better identified and interdicted, or encountered mental health services. Those that may merit further inquiry include: the case of Ahmed Hassan, where 50 people were injured on a tube train following the detonation of a device; the case of Usman Khan on London Bridge; the case of Khairi Saadallah, who murdered three men in Reading; and, the Southport case that we have discussed in this House recently. It strikes me that there are systemic issues, both with the failure of Prevent to identify and stop potential perpetrators and, associated with that, with the operation of the mental health system and whether more could be done. Because these are systemic issues, I think a more formal inquiry is merited, and I would welcome the Security Minister’s views on that.

On the more systemic issues, there are two things on which I would be interested to hear the Security Minister’s response. I mentioned them to him individually a few days ago. The first is that in the past 26 years, 94 out of 101 murders committed by terrorists in the United Kingdom since 1999 were committed by Islamist terrorists. That is 94%, yet for the most recent figures available, only 13% of the Prevent caseload relates to Islamist extremism. That strongly suggests on the face of it that Prevent is under-engaging those with Islamist ideologies who go on to commit serious offences. I know that the Shawcross review in part addressed that issue, but it is so serious and the disparity so stark that I would appreciate the Security Minister’s views on that. That is a topic that a further inquiry might address.

The second area, which the Security Minister and I briefly discussed on Monday evening, concerns the Mental Health Bill currently making its way through the House of Lords. Many of the cases entail extremist terrorist ideology, but many also touch on mental health issues and whether better treatment should be given or, indeed, whether people should be sectioned and detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 to protect the public. That consideration is relevant, of course, to the Valdo Calocane case, as well as to some of the other cases I have mentioned.

The Bill as drafted, for reasons that Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care have set out, makes it harder to detain people under the Mental Health Act. I am concerned that that might inadvertently have adverse implications for public safety, if people who should be detained under the Mental Health Act to protect the public might now not be detained. That is a matter of concern. I know that the Security Minister will want to respond specifically to that issue.

This matter started from a terrible tragedy. Sir David was more than just a loved colleague: he was a husband and father who lost his life in the course of doing his duty as a Member of Parliament. It is testimony to him—and a memorial that will last forever—that Southend is now a city, but let us also learn the lessons and take the actions needed to ensure that this does not happen again.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for the points he has raised and for how he has approached the statement. He mentioned—I am pleased that he did—that he had spoken to Lady Amess this morning. Let me take the opportunity to reiterate how courageous the Home Secretary and I think that the Amess family have been in pursuing answers about Sir David’s murder. They, entirely understandably, wanted the Government to publish the Prevent learning review, and we have done that today. As I referenced earlier, the Home Secretary has also asked the independent Prevent commissioner to look carefully at the details of this case, and we will progress that at pace. The Home Secretary, as I referenced earlier, has also written to Essex police about this matter. Let me also say that we continue to want to work very closely with the Amess family. The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and I stand ready to meet them again in the near future to discuss what more we might be able to do to support them.

The shadow Home Secretary specifically asked me about redactions in the Prevent learning review. I am happy to confirm that nothing material has been redacted. The report is now live on gov.uk and contains only minimal redactions to obscure the names of people who worked with the perpetrator, including teachers and police officers, and personal information about the perpetrator’s family as well as some national security sensitivities. Nothing material has been redacted.

I say to the shadow Home Secretary that I hope there is much common cause here. I hope he will acknowledge that there are a number of reforms to the Prevent programme, which we have recently referenced, including with regard to the point he rightly made about mental health provision. I will say a bit more about that in a moment.

Let me respond to the shadow Home Secretary’s particular point about the threat from Islamist extremism and the referrals to Prevent. He is right that we should never forget the horrendous death toll caused by Islamist extremism over the past 20 years. It is the foremost threat that we face, and we must and will address it head-on. Last year, the number of Islamist referrals to Prevent increased by 17%, but that was from too low a base. Work is already under way to improve ideology training and build awareness of the ideologies that drive radicalisation.

We should be clear about the fact that the threat is evolving fast. In October, the director general of MI5 said that 75% of counter-terrorism work was of Islamist extremism in nature and 25% was extreme right wing, and that 13% of those being investigated by MI5 were under the age of 18. He flagged that MI5 was seeing a

“dizzying range of beliefs and ideologies”.

The Southport attack reflects how that particular threat is changing.

I come back to the shadow Home Secretary’s point about mental health. As he knows, the Government’s mental health legislation is currently in the other place. The purpose of the Mental Health Act 1983 is to ensure that clinicians have the power to detain and treat mentally unwell people who present a risk to themselves or to others. The new Bill will not change that. It is specifically designed to make it more likely that those detained will seek help, complete their treatment successfully and stay in contact with authorities where needed, reducing the risk to themselves and others.

NHS England has asked every mental health trust to review the findings of the Care Quality Commission report published in August and set out action plans for how they treat and engage with people who have serious mental illness, including how they work with other agencies such as the police. The trusts have also been instructed not to discharge people if they do not attend appointments. I hope that goes some way to answering the shadow Home Secretary’s questions, but I am happy to continue the conversation with him.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Chris Philp Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House, while welcoming measures to create new immigration criminal offences, declines to give a Second Reading to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, because an effective removals and deterrence arrangement is fundamental to stopping illegal immigration, but the Bill abolishes laws passed under the previous Government to ensure removals, and abolishes laws passed under the previous Government to ensure a deterrent by restoring illegal migrants’ ability to claim indefinite leave to remain and British citizenship; and because the Bill contains no proposals to limit legal migration, nor limit the eligibility criteria for settlement and citizenship, which means that the Bill will lead to increased illegal and legal immigration.”

It has been seven months since the Government came to office, so we have had a chance to look at their record. I am afraid it does not make for happy reading. Since the general election on 4 July, 24,793 people have illegally, dangerously and unnecessarily crossed the English channel. That is a 28% increase on the same period 12 months previously. The Home Secretary tells us how good her Government’s record is, yet illegal crossings have gone up by 28% on her watch. She promised that she would end the use of asylum hotels. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) asked her when she would deliver on that manifesto commitment, and she did not answer the question. The truth is that, after the election, there were 6,000 more people in asylum hotels: a failure on her watch.

The Home Secretary crows about removal numbers, not mentioning of course that three quarters of those removals were voluntary, and only a tiny fraction relate to people who arrived by small boat. In the first three months of this Government, the number of people who were removed having arrived by small boat actually went down. In fact, the removals of small boat arrivals in those first three months—the most recent period for which figures are available—amount to only 4% of small boat arrivals, so how can she tell us that letting 96% of illegal immigrants stay here is some kind of deterrent? It is not.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

The shadow Home Secretary seems keen to reflect on the records of Governments. In 2010, the number of people in the asylum system reached an over-20-year low. By the time the Conservative Government had left office, the number had ballooned by 13 times to 225,000. Will he reflect on who was responsible for that?

[Chris Philp]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman knows which Government gave an effective asylum amnesty; it was the previous Labour Government. If he is so interested in the asylum backlog, does he know whether it has gone up or down under the new Government? It has gone up, as has the number of illegal migrants crossing the channel, leaving a safe country—France—from which there is no necessity to depart in order to find safety. France has a fully functioning asylum system, does it not?

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

In 2018, 400 people crossed. On the Conservative Government’s watch, 130,000 people crossed the border. Will the shadow Home Secretary apologise?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman is obviously not aware that in 2023 the numbers were going down. Since his Government came to office on 4 July last year, the number has gone up by 28%.

[Sammy Wilson]

The shadow Home Secretary notes that the number of asylum claims has gone up since the Government came to power, yet thousands have been wiped off because those people have been automatically given permission to stay in the United Kingdom. Does he not think that one reason we will continue to see people flooding in is that they know we are an easy touch? They can just come here and get granted asylum.

[Chris Philp]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The asylum grant rate in this country has gone up in recent months, and is high in comparison with some other European countries. That is obviously a potential pull factor for people considering a dangerous and unnecessary crossing of the English channel.

Let me say a word about the Bill in general before discussing its specifics. The Bill cancels the obligation on the Government to remove people who have arrived illegally. That is a shocking move. It creates a pathway to citizenship for people who have entered the country illegally, which will only increase the pull factor, and completely cancels any prospect of establishing a removals deterrent, which the National Crime Agency says is necessary.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

How many people were removed under the previous Government’s so-called deterrent?

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the deterrent never even started. The first flight—[Interruption.] The first flight was due to take off on 24 July, but his Government cancelled the deterrent before it had even started. That was their mistake, and as a result illegal crossings have gone up by 28%. This is not a border security Bill, given the measures that I have mentioned; it is a border surrender Bill. It is a weak bill from a weak Government.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I was in opposition when we had ferocious debates about Brexit, and Conservative Members used words like “surrender”, “traitors” and “weak”. The shadow Home Secretary is now doing the same in opposition. Does he honestly believe that such language is conducive to getting to a solution? Does he think that it makes any person in this House feel better about themselves? Does he think that it gives him the moral high ground? I think it exposes his inability to conduct an argument in a way that is vaguely civil.

[Chris Philp]

I think a Bill that creates a path to citizenship for illegal migrants and cancels the obligation on the Government to remove people who arrive illegally is a shocking piece of legislation. That is why we tabled a reasoned amendment.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the shadow Home Secretary give way?

[Chris Philp]

I have given way a lot. Let me make some progress.

The Home Secretary asked about the Opposition’s position on various topics. Our reasoned amendment makes it clear that we support measures to increase criminal penalties and to legislate against articles for use in serious and organised crime—measures that we introduced as part of the Criminal Justice Bill last year—but we do not support a path to citizenship for people who arrive illegally, and we do not support cancelling the Government’s obligation to remove them. That is why I moved the reasoned amendment.

[Yvette Cooper]

Perhaps the shadow Home Secretary can confirm that the measure in the Illegal Migration Act on citizenship was never commenced because it was unworkable. The Government have strengthened the powers to ensure that small boat arrivals cannot get citizenship by strengthening the rules. We have done more in seven months than the Conservative party did in 14 years. If he really wants to support counter-terrorism-style powers, why is he going to vote against the Bill on Second Reading?

[Chris Philp]

The reasoned amendment makes it very clear that we support those powers, but we do not support the totality of the Bill. In terms of tough action, the Home Secretary has yet to explain to the House why illegal crossings have gone up by 28% on her watch.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Home Secretary give way?

[Chris Philp]

I will make some progress.

Let me turn to the detail of the Bill. The only problem with the Border Security Commander is that he cannot actually command anything. There are no powers at all in the Bill, merely functions. They include, in clause 3, publishing a strategic priority document and, in clause 4, a duty to prepare an annual report. Preparing a strategic priority document and publishing an annual report are unlikely to smash the gangs. The Border Security Commander has no clear powers, merely an ability to publish documents and reports.

[Tom Hayes]

Will the shadow Home Secretary give way?

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman has been extremely persistent, and that deserves its reward.

[Tom Hayes]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for the reward, and I hope to return one. The director general of the NCA has said:

“The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill should help UK law enforcement act earlier and faster to disrupt people smuggling networks and give us additional tools to target them and their business models.”

The Conservative party is about to vote against the Bill. Why does the shadow Home Secretary think that he knows better than the director general of the National Crime Agency?

[Chris Philp]

The point of a debate is to engage rather than read out a pre-prepared question. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the National Crime Agency has said that we need a deterrent. The Bill removes any legislative prospect of a deterrent, which is why we oppose it.

The Home Secretary talked about various new offences, including endangering life at sea and activities preparatory to supporting illegal migration. Of course, no one from any party in this House wants those things to happen, but the measures that she proposes duplicate the existing provisions in section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971, as amended by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. Facilitating illegal immigration—quite a broad term—is already a criminal offence. Unlike her offence of endangering life at sea, which carries a five-year maximum sentence, section 25 of the Immigration Act states that facilitating illegal migration carries a maximum sentence of life, recently increased from 14 years. Guess who voted against that increase in the sentence? The Home Secretary.

Although we support the thrust of the clauses in the Bill, they are already covered by the tougher existing offence of facilitating illegal immigration. Clauses 19 to 26 contain plans to seize phones, which in principle we support, but that power exists already in section 15 and schedule 2 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. There is an element of duplication.

Let me move on to the more objectionable parts of the Bill. Clause 37 repeals the entirety of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That appears to command some rather unwise enthusiasm from the Government Benches. As I said, the first flight under the Rwanda scheme was due to leave on 24 July, following extensive legal challenge and legislation in this House. Very unwisely, the Government chose never to start that scheme, which would have had a deterrent effect, because it stands to reason that if people know that if they try to cross illegally into a country such as the UK they will be removed to Rwanda, they will not bother in the first place.

We have seen that kind of scheme work elsewhere, with Operation Sovereign Borders in Australia around 10 years ago. We have seen it work here as well, with the 2023 removals agreement with Albania. Crossings by Albanians, who were the most numerous cohort crossing the channel, went down by 93%. Again, it stands to reason that if people know that if they arrive here they will be removed, they will not bother crossing in the first place. But hon. Members should not take my word for it. The National Crime Agency says that we need a deterrent, and even the Government’s own Border Security Commander, Martin Hewitt—who cannot command very much—says that we need a deterrent.

[Mr Brash]

That is the second time the shadow Home Secretary has said that the National Crime Agency has suggested that Rwanda would be a deterrent. The head of the National Crime Agency has said specifically, “Others are implying that we support Rwanda, and that isn’t true.” Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw that?

[Chris Philp]

No, what the National Crime Agency said was that we need a deterrent. That is what it said, that is what I quoted, and the Government’s own Border Security Commander made the same point.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Last year, as part of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I visited Rwanda to see the accommodation at Hope hostel that was to be provided to people who were moved under the Rwanda scheme. I learned from that visit that, yes, people would have been deterred from going across the channel, but that migrants who were sent to Rwanda would have been well looked after, well cared for and able to set up a new life, free from the war and famine that they were fleeing.

[Chris Philp]

I thank my hon. Friend for taking the time and trouble to visit Rwanda, which almost no supporter of the Bill has ever bothered doing. It is clear that the Rwanda scheme would have had a deterrent effect, had the Government allowed it to start. The National Crime Agency has said that, and we have seen it work in Australia. The fact that this Government are removing only 4% of people who cross by small boat—meaning that 96% are able to stay—explains why so many more people have crossed the channel under this Government than under the previous regime.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Can the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members look themselves in the mirror, with a hand on their heart, and say in good conscience that for a great nation like ours—a country that believes in the international rule of law—to outsource its asylum policy to a country like Rwanda is the correct way to behave? Can he really say that that is the right policy for this country?

[Chris Philp]

The right policy for this country is for the Government, not people smugglers, to decide who comes into this country. Unlike this Government, we have a plan to deliver that. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that France is a safe country. There is no need to cross the English channel to flee war or seek asylum. France has a perfectly well-functioning asylum system.

When it comes to people who are genuinely in need, this country has a proud record. The Home Secretary referred—rather generously, I might say—to initiatives undertaken by the last Government. They include the Ukraine scheme, which allowed in 200,000 or 300,000 people; the resettlement scheme that welcomed around 25,000 Syrians from about 2015 to 2020; the provisions made for British nationals overseas who came here from Hong Kong, and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme and Afghan relocations and assistance policy. That is the record of this country, and of the previous Government, on people who are in genuine need. But people—overwhelmingly single young men—leaving France, conveyed here by people smugglers, are not the people whose entry we should be facilitating.

Let me move on to the Bill’s provisions to repeal much of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. One such provision to be repealed, therefore depriving the Government of the ability ever to use it, is section 2, which created an obligation on the Government to remove people who come here illegally. Let me point out to those people who are concerned about genuine asylum seekers that section 2(4) of the 2023 Act makes it clear that the provision does not apply if someone comes directly from a place of danger. That is consistent with article 33 of the 1951 refugee convention, which Members will be familiar with. But people who come here directly from France—a safe country where no one is being persecuted, which has a perfectly well-functioning asylum system—should not illegally enter the United Kingdom.

The Bill will also repeal section 32 of the 2023 Act, which prevents people who enter the country illegally from gaining citizenship. By repealing that section, the Bill will create a pathway to citizenship for people who entered the country illegally, and I think that is unconscionable.

The Bill will also repeal sections 57 and 58 of the 2023 Act —a topic on which the Minister for Border Security and Asylum and I have had some correspondence—which concern scientific age assessment methods. Every European country apart from this one uses scientific age assessment techniques, such as an X-ray of the wrist, although there are other methods. That is important because quite a few people entering the country illegally who might be in their early or even mid-20s falsely claim to be under the age of 18, and without a scientific age assessment method it is very hard to determine their age. That creates serious safeguarding issues. There have been cases of men in their mid-20s ending up in schools with teenage girls, which carries obvious safeguarding risks.

A statutory instrument passed in early 2024—quite soon before the election—commenced the power to use those age assessment techniques. I really hope the new Government will use those powers and start using wrist X-rays, or other techniques, to ensure that people cannot falsely claim to be under 18. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on that in her winding-up speech, because we would certainly support her work in that area. As I say, there is an important safeguarding element to this matter, as well as a migration element. I note that in repealing section 57 of the 2023 Act, the Government will no longer be able to treat as over 18 somebody who refuses one of those tests. There are some predating provisions in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, but the provision being repealed is stronger, and in the circumstances that may be rather unwise.

There are various things missing from the Bill. We will table various amendments during its passage that will seek to introduce much stronger measures, but I want to point to two in particular now. The first addresses the fact that there is no mechanism in the Bill for a binding annual cap on legal migration.

[Peter Swallow]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Chris Philp]

No—I have taken lots of interventions.

I think we can all agree that numbers in recent years have been far too high, and what is needed is a binding cap that Parliament can vote on, so that it can decide how many visas are issued each year. I believe the Prime Minister was asked about that and said he did not agree with it, but I think the Bill is an ideal opportunity to create that power for Parliament—for us, the directly elected representatives of the people—to vote each year on how many visas get handed out. Perhaps the Minister for Border Security and Asylum will execute a considered U-turn and embrace the suggestion I have just made.

On the topic of legal migration, the previous Government —in fact, I think it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), the former Home Secretary, who is in his place—announced an increase to the threshold for dependant visas. It went up somewhat in April last year, and it was due to go up again this April to about £38,000. I would be grateful if the Government could clarify whether they will go ahead with that plan, which would, of course, control some of the numbers.

The second area that requires further legislation is indefinite leave to remain, which the Leader of the Opposition and I spoke about last week. Indefinite leave to remain, as the name implies, confers an indefinite right to reside in the UK and provides a number of privileges, including access to full benefits, social housing and pension rights. It is the Opposition’s view that it should be granted only if a person, having come here for work purposes, has made a genuine contribution—if they have earned more than they have paid in taxes, which we could measure by reference to a salary threshold. If, after someone comes to the UK to work, it turns out they have not worked and have become a burden on the taxpayer, or have worked for a very low level of wages, implying they are not making a net contribution, it strikes us as fair that they should not be granted indefinite leave to remain and that their visa should not be renewed.

Last September, the Office for Budget Responsibility published an analysis showing that migrants on low wages carry a lifetime fiscal cost to the rest of the taxpayers of £500,000. The Centre for Policy Studies recently published an analysis showing that the fiscal cost of those who might be granted ILR in the next four or five years will amount to £234 billion over their lifetime. We do not think it is reasonable for taxpayers to bear so high a cost for people who have arrived only relatively recently and have not made a significant contribution, so we will be tabling amendments to ensure that only those coming here on work visas who have actually made a contribution will be eligible for indefinite leave to remain. I would be grateful to know whether the Minister for Border Security and Asylum will support that measure.

The Government have presided over 25,000 illegal crossings since they came into office—a 28% increase on the same period 12 months ago—and have failed to remove 96% of the people who have crossed the channel. They scrapped the Rwanda deterrent before it even started, even though the National Crime Agency and their own Border Security Commander said that a deterrent is needed and we have seen it work in Australia. The Bill will cancel the Government’s obligation to remove people who have come here illegally, and we see the Government creating a path to citizenship for illegal migrants. This is a weak Bill from a weak Government, and that is why we will oppose it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Southport Attack

Chris Philp Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I thank the Security Minister for providing a copy of the statement so early, and for providing a copy of the rapid learning review. I am grateful to him for his courtesy and consideration.

Let us keep in mind the three young innocent victims of this savage attack: Bebe King, just six years old; Elsie Dot Stancombe, who was seven; and Alice da Silva Aguiar, who was nine. Their lives were cruelly cut short at a Taylor Swift dance class. These young girls had their whole lives in front of them—lives they will now never lead. Their parents and families will suffer forever from the unimaginable grief caused by their loss. I know that they will be in the thoughts and prayers of every single Member of this House.

As the Minister said, it is vital to learn the lessons. I welcome and support the inquiry announced by the Home Secretary a couple of weeks ago. The Security Minister described it a moment ago as a public inquiry. Will he confirm that it will be a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005? It is important that it has powers to compel witnesses to attend, take evidence under oath and obtain documents. It is vital that we get to the truth about the opportunities that may have existed to stop Rudakubana committing these sickening murders.

I am pleased that the Security Minister said that Prevent thresholds are being reviewed. Page 35 of the lessons learned review highlights a number of areas for further investigation. The first of those is mental health interventions, which he referred to. Will he confirm that the inquiry will consider what mental health interventions may have taken place, and whether powers should have been used to section and detain the perpetrator in this case? That is particularly relevant because just today we saw the NHS report into the psychotic triple murderer Valdo Calocane, which raised similar mental health detention issues. Both Rudakubana and Calocane could have been sectioned and detained under the Mental Health Act. If that had happened, perhaps these murders could have been avoided.

The Government announced the new mental health Bill in the King’s Speech. Pages 83 to 85 of the accompanying notes state that the Government have plans to increase the threshold for detention under the Mental Health Act—that is to say, make it harder to detain people. It goes on to note concerns about black people being more likely to be detained under mental health powers. Does the Security Minister share my worry, especially following these six murders committed by Rudakubana and Calocane, that making it harder to detain dangerous people under the Mental Health Act because of racial sensitivities is not the right thing to do? Will he raise that point with his colleagues in the Department of Health to ensure that dangerous people such as Calocane and Rudakubana can be sectioned and detained when that is needed to protect the public? I am sure that he would share my view that misplaced political correctness about racial quotas cannot be allowed to endanger the public.

Let me say a word about wider concerns regarding Prevent. Does the Security Minister agree with William Shawcross that we cannot lose focus on the main threats that we face, besides the important threats that he discussed in his statement, with which I generally agree? Since 1999, 94% of terrorist-caused deaths have been caused by Islamists, yet only 13% of referrals to Prevent relate to Islamist extremists. Does the Security Minister share my concern about this disparity? What steps will he take to make sure that those at risk of committing acts of Islamist terrorism are properly identified and handled?

Let me turn to the question of openness and transparency. In the aftermath of the murders, basic information about Rudakubana’s identity and the fact that he was found in possession of ricin and an al-Qaeda terrorist manual were not made public, even though in other cases such information has been made public. Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has said that it should have been made public. The information about the ricin and the terror manual was made public in October, well before the trial and without risk of prejudice, and Merseyside Police has subsequently said that it wanted to release more information but could not do so. That created an information vacuum that was filled by untrue rumour, which arguably fuelled the subsequent riots.

Will the Minister confirm that the inquiry into the Southport tragedy will cover communications to the public afterwards, and whether more should have been disclosed more quickly? That is a vital aspect of this case and the inquiry must cover it. I would be grateful if the Security Minister confirmed that it will.

[Dan Jarvis]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his questions. He is absolutely right to focus our thoughts on the victims and the unimaginable pain that their families will continue to suffer. I am grateful for his support for the public inquiry. Let me confirm that it will begin on a non-statutory footing. That is deliberate, in order to get it up and moving as quickly as possible, but I can assure him that it will then be moved to a statutory footing.

The right hon. Gentleman made an important point about mental health interventions, which will have been on the minds of hon. Members across the House. The inquiry’s precise terms of reference are still being agreed, because we need to agree and discuss that with the family members, but I understand why he has made that point and why he referenced the terrible attacks that took place in Nottingham. He may know that this Government are supporting an inquiry into those attacks. More generally, I assure him that we will always do what is necessary and right to safeguard the security and protection of the public.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned William Shawcross; as I have said from this Dispatch Box previously, we have now implemented 33 of the 34 recommendations of the Shawcross review. He also asked me about the review of Prevent thresholds, which the Home Secretary has referenced on a number of occasions. We are reviewing the thresholds—in short, because we think that they have been too low in previous times. That is why we are looking very carefully at them again.

I understand why the right hon. Gentleman sought to make the point about transparency. The Home Secretary, myself, and all the Ministers in the Department and across Government, followed very carefully the guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service. I know that he will understand, as a former Minister in the Home Office, that our absolute priority was delivering justice for the victims. We could not have got ourselves into a situation where we put ourselves in contempt of court, which would have undermined the judicial process. Rightly, we would never have been forgiven for that. We were incredibly careful to ensure that we did not do that, while at the same time respecting the obvious requirement for transparency.

The inability to answer certain questions in the aftermath of the attack did give rise to the questions asked at the time, and they require careful consideration. We will shortly confirm arrangements for independent expert analysis of these particular issues, because I understand why he raises them. I assure him that the one thing that we did not want to do was prejudice ongoing legal proceedings.

Extremism Review

Chris Philp Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the Government’s extremism review reported on today.

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

In our manifesto, the Government set out our commitment to redoubling efforts to counter extremism, including online, to stop people being radicalised and drawn towards hateful ideologies. A number of strands of activity have been established to progress this work, which, among other things, have led to the appointment of an interim Prevent commissioner, Lord Anderson, to drive improvements. We have published plans to introduce youth diversion orders to tackle young people at risk of terrorism.

Many documents produced across Government as part of commissioned work are not implemented and do not constitute Government policy. This work did not recommend an expansion in the definition of extremism, and there are not and have never been any plans to do so. To be clear, the leaked documents were not current or new Government policy.

As we have said repeatedly, Islamist extremism followed by far-right extremism are the biggest threats we face. Last week, the Home Secretary set out our plans to carry out an end-to-end review of Prevent thresholds on Islamist extremism, because we are concerned that the number of referrals is too low. Ideology, particularly Islamist extremism followed by far-right extremism, continues to be at the heart of our approach to countering extremism and terrorism.

But, as the horrific Southport attack shows, we also need more action on those drawn towards mixed ideologies and violence-obsessed young people. As the Home Secretary set out in the House last week, there has been a troubling rise in the number of cases involving teenagers drawn into extremism, including Islamist extremism, far-right extremism, mixed and confused ideologies, and obsession with violence. This includes a threefold increase in under-18s investigated for involvement in terrorism. Some 162 people were referred to Prevent last year for concerns relating to school massacres. Our Five Eyes counter-terror partners have also warned about the growing radicalisation of teenagers and young people.

We will continue to drive work to counter the most significant extremist threats in the weeks and months ahead, as the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have already set out.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp]

Yesterday evening, Policy Exchange put into the public domain the Home Secretary’s review into extremism, or at least a version of it. It contained some deeply concerning proposals that I would like the Minister to directly address.

The report apparently says that the definition of extremism, for the purposes of Prevent and other programmes, could be extended to include the spreading of misinformation, the so-called online “manosphere” and misogyny. First, does the Minister agree with Prevent reviewer William Shawcross that we need to focus the attention of Prevent and counter-terrorism policing on those with extremist ideologies and not risk diluting attention with these much wider issues? Ninety-four per cent of terrorism-caused deaths since 1999 were caused by Islamist terrorism. Does the Minister agree that combating Islamist terrorism is more important than policing the manosphere? The wider issues referenced, such as violence against women and girls and more general violence obsession, are, of course, serious. However, they are best dealt with by the police, the criminal justice system, social services or mental health services, which have the power to section people that pose a risk.

Secondly, will the Minister commit to retaining the changes to non-crime hate incidents made by the last Government? Police should not be looking into matters or recording personal data where there is no imminent risk of criminality. To do so would waste police time and infringe freedom of speech. Any move away from that will enable the thought police to stop anyone telling uncomfortable truths that left-wing lawyers do not like.

Finally, the report the Home Secretary commissioned repeats the Prime Minister’s previous smear that campaigning against rape gangs, which we now know consist of Pakistani-heritage perpetrators, is far-right. The report also says that commenting on elements of policing policy is extremist and far-right. That is nonsense. Campaigning against rape gangs is not extremist or far right, and commenting on policing, whether we agree or not with the comments, is simply the exercise of free speech. Will the Minister categorically disown those remarks, which were contained in the Home Secretary’s report?

[Dan Jarvis]

Let me gently remind the shadow Home Secretary that his remarks refer to a leaked report, which, I could not have been clearer, does not and will not represent Government policy. The work, as I understand it—because it is not entirely clear which version of the report was leaked—did not recommend an expansion in the definition of extremism, and as I said to the House earlier, there are not nor will there be any plans to do so.

The shadow Home Secretary mentioned William Shawcross. Again, I will gently remind him that this Government have implemented all but one of the recommendations in the Shawcross review. He also asked about non-hate crime incidents. Again, the Home Secretary has been very clear about that: a consistent and common-sense approach must be taken with regard to non-hate crime incidents. The Government have, again, also been crystal clear that our top priority for policing is to deliver on the safer streets mission, rebuild neighbourhood policing, restore public confidence and make progress on the ambition to halve knife crime and violence against women and girls.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that this Government will always approach these matters in a level-headed and consensual way. It is the case that previous Governments sought to use these issues as a political football.

[Chris Philp]

indicated dissent.

[Dan Jarvis]

It is the case that previous Governments were, on occasion, motivated as much by a desire to score political points. That will never be the approach of this Government. We are motivated only by a desire to protect the public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member asked me a question previously at Home Office orals, specifically in the context of engagement by the Home Secretary and her Ministers.

[Chris Philp]

Answer the question!

[Dan Jarvis]

The shadow Home Secretary is chuntering from a sedentary position, but I was literally shown the Hansard transcript before this urgent question. [Interruption.] If he will allow me, I will respond to the question.

The hon. Member asked me previously about engagement with the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers. I clearly cannot account from the Dispatch Box for other Ministers’ activities. However, I am happy to look at the circumstances he has raised. I am happy to confirm to him that Government policy has not changed, and if there are specific points I need to come back to him on, I am very happy to do so.

Southport Attack

Chris Philp Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement and for the briefing she kindly arranged.

First, let us remember the three young, innocent victims of this savage and senseless attack: Bebe King was just six years old, Elsie Dot Stancombe was seven and Alice da Silva Aguiar was nine years old. Their lives were cruelly cut short as they attended a Taylor Swift dance class. It should have been a time of joy, part of a precious and innocent childhood to be cherished and remembered, and yet the darkest of shadows fell over Southport that day as those girls were robbed of their young lives. Let us not forget that eight more children and two adults were seriously injured on that day as well. Many of us in the House are parents or grandparents, and many people listening today will be too. We can only begin to imagine the pain and grief the parents and family of Bebe, Elsie and Alice must now be feeling. We should recognise and thank the first responders who arrived at the scene.

We owe it to the memory of those children and to their bereaved parents to learn the lessons from this terrible incident and to take steps to make sure it does not happen again. In that spirit, I welcome and support the inquiry announced yesterday. Will the Home Secretary confirm that it will be placed on a statutory footing as soon as possible, to ensure its independence and to enable it to compel disclosure of the evidence it may need? It is vital to get to the truth about the opportunities that may have existed to stop the evil perpetrator, Axel Rudakubana, from committing those sickening murders.

Rudakubana was encountered multiple times, as the Home Secretary has said, by the police, social services, the school system and the Prevent programme over a period of several years. The inquiry will find out, I hope, whether mistakes were made or whether the law needs to change. The Home Secretary mentioned some areas that will rightly be looked at, and I support that. Will the Home Secretary confirm that the inquiry will include consideration of whether the Mental Health Act 1983 was adequate for this case?

The Home Secretary has rightly referred to Prevent. A review of Prevent was conducted by Sir William Shawcross and the last Government responded to that in February 2024. Will the Home Secretary now commit to implementing all the recommendations of the Shawcross review?

I now turn to what happened after the murders and to the importance of openness and transparency. First—this is a serious and important question—will the Home Secretary confirm that the inquiry will also cover the Government, police and CPS response to the murders and especially the handling of public communications and the appalling riots that followed? It is a very important question, and I will be grateful if the Home Secretary answers that directly in her response.

The Prime Minister this morning acknowledged that he knew about the background to the case and to Rudakubana himself, including that he had been referred to Prevent on three separate occasions and that he had been found to be in possession of ricin—a highly toxic chemical—and a manual detailing al-Qaeda terrorist methods, which is itself an offence under the Terrorism Act 2006. The Prime Minister also said this morning that he did not disclose any of that to the public in the days and weeks after the murders for fear of prejudicing the subsequent murder trial.

It is, of course, important for journalists, politicians and this House to do nothing that might prejudice a trial. However, Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said this, in the context of the case, on the “Today” programme in October:

“The Government has to be aware…that if there is an information gap…then there are other voices, particularly in social media, who will try and fill it.”

He went on,

“if there is any information you can give, put it in the public domain, and be really careful that you don’t fall into the trap of saying ‘we can only say zilch, because there are criminal proceedings’.”

He continued:

“Quite often, there’s a fair amount…that can be put into the public domain”.

Jonathan Hall concluded by saying that that police realise now

“that just saying ‘there’s a charge, we can’t say any more’, is not going to cut it these days.”

The independent reviewer is therefore saying that the Government and police can put some material into the public domain without prejudicing subsequent trials.

In fact, on 29 October, Rudakubana was charged with possessing the ricin and the terror manual, and that was then made public. If that can be made public in October without risking prejudice of the murder trial, it follows that it could have been made public in August without prejudicing that same trial. Background facts on other cases over the years have been made public after arrest and before trial without prejudice—the shields relating to two of those cases are in this Chamber. Why, therefore, did the Prime Minister not make public some of that background information in August when he knew it, when later disclosure of that information in October demonstrated that such disclosure could be made without prejudice? Why, too, did the Deputy Prime Minister, on 31 July, dismiss as “fake news” those saying that there may be further facts to come out?

Briefly, before concluding, let me explain why that is important. As Jonathan Hall said, if there is a void, misinformation can fill that void, especially online. That appears to be what happened here and some of that information, it is said, originated overseas from hostile states. It is possible—indeed, even likely—that that misinformation that was put into the void fuelled the totally unacceptable riots we then subsequently saw. Will the Home Secretary therefore accept, given what Jonathan Hall and I have said, that there should and could have been more openness and transparency, as I just set out, without prejudicing the trial, and that disclosing more of that truth openly and transparently would have helped combat the damaging misinformation that circulated and which, arguably, fuelled the riots? Will she confirm the inquiry will look at that aspect of events?

This was an appalling tragedy: young girls, murdered, with their whole lives ahead of them. Let us all learn the lessons from this tragedy in honour of their memory.

[Yvette Cooper]

The shadow Home Secretary raised a series of points, which is obviously a substantial shift in position for him and his party from the one they took in government. He asked about the status of the inquiry. I can confirm that it will start quickly on a non-statutory basis, in the same way that the Angiolini inquiry did. However, I can also confirm that it will be given whatever powers it needs, including on a statutory basis, so that it can get any information that it needs.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Shawcross review. I can confirm that the Government have implemented 33 out of the 34 recommendations. I will gently point out, however, that the approach that the Shawcross review took was to say that the Prevent programme should be narrowed and should focus particularly on the cases around terrorism. That could have risked including fewer cases like this one, where ideology is less clear.

The shadow Minister then raised the issue about the information that was provided. He will know that the Contempt of Court Act was set out in 1981. Jonathan Hall has highlighted the problem of disinformation online, with social media actors not bound by the same rules that the police, the media and the Government follow. He refers, for example, to the name and nationality being provided, which in practice they were in this case after misinformation appeared online. Ultimately, he has also said that all that is governed by the Contempt of Court Act 1981, and the Law Commission is reviewing that. However, it is not for the Government to ignore the law or the advice that we are given when justice for families is at stake.

I will point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the previous Conservative Government did not publish information before the trial about the Prevent referral for the perpetrator who killed Sir David Amess. None of us criticised them for that because none of us wanted to put at risk justice for Sir David’s family. Nor did they publish information before the trial on the Prevent referral of the asylum seeker who killed Tom Roberts. In fact, they did not even publish that after the trial; it only came out in the inquest. Further, the Minister, who even after the trial refused to answer my questions on whether they knew that the asylum seeker was wanted for murdering two people in Serbia when he was allowed to enter the country, was the current shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick).

We have been keen to publish the information on Prevent referrals from the start, but the advice to us has been clear throughout. If we had ignored the advice that we were given about the case that was put to us and about the information that the police and the CPS were working through in order to get justice, and if, as a result, a killer had walked free, no one would ever have forgiven the Government or anyone else. The most important thing is to get justice and then, once justice is secured, to make sure at this point that the questions are answered about what went wrong and why three young girls’ lives were lost. That is the question the shadow Home Secretary should be focusing on right now.

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Chris Philp Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Let us start by remembering the victims of this scandal. Thousands of young girls, often in their early teens, were systematically raped by gangs of men, predominantly of Pakistani heritage. Those in positions of authority—the police, local councils and the Crown Prosecution Service—ignored them and, in some cases, even covered up these horrendous crimes because of absurd concerns about so-called cultural sensitivity.

Ten days ago, the Prime Minister compounded this by saying that it was a “far-right bandwagon” to raise these issues and call for a proper inquiry. Let me say this: it is not far right to stand up for rape victims, and smearing those who raised this issue is exactly what led to the victims—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The shadow Home Secretary will be heard.

[Chris Philp]

Smearing those who raised this issue is exactly what led to the victims being ignored and the crimes covered up in the first place. Therefore, will the Home Secretary apologise on behalf of the Prime Minister for his language last week?

It is not true to say that the previous Government did nothing following the IICSA report. They set up the grooming gangs taskforce following the IICSA report, which led to 550 arrests of perpetrators in the first year alone, and I am glad that the new Government are continuing that work.

In April 2023, the data collection on the ethnicity of perpetrators was initiated, but the initial publication of that—I think last November—showed that the collection is incomplete. Will the Home Secretary ensure both that the police follow through on the work initiated in April 2023 and that the data is collected more comprehensively?

The mandatory reporting recommendation was introduced as an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, which fell due to the early general election. I am glad that the Government say that they will now pick that up and take it forward.

Previous reports and reviews did not go far enough. The IICSA report itself was mainly not about these rape gangs. In fact, it barely touched on the issue and looked at only six towns. We now believe that as many as 50 towns could have been affected, so the IICSA barely scratched the surface.

The Home Secretary just announced Government support for only five local inquiries. That is wholly inadequate when we know that up to 50 towns are affected. I have some serious questions for the Home Secretary. First, how are the other 40-plus towns supposed to get answers to the questions that they have, and how will these initial five towns be chosen?

Secondly, the Home Secretary said nothing in her statement about the powers that these local inquiries will have. It seems that they will not be statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005. That means that these local inquiries will not have the power to compel witnesses to attend, to take evidence under oath or to requisition written evidence. If that is the case, how can they possibly get to the truth when faced with cover-ups? It was precisely that problem—the lack of powers—that reportedly led the chairs of the Manchester local inquiry to resign last year. They were not given the information that they needed by public authorities, and did not have the powers required to force its release, so they resigned.

Legal powers are needed, because these crimes were deliberately covered up in some cases. We heard just a week or two ago from the former Labour MP for Rochdale Simon Danczuk, who said that the then chair of the parliamentary Labour party told him not to raise these issues for fear of losing Muslim votes—truly appalling. Not a single person has been convicted for covering up or ignoring these crimes. In my view, the criminal offence of misconduct in public office might apply. Moreover, those vile perpetrators who can be deported should be deported, every single one of them—changing the law if that is needed to do it, and using visa sanctions on countries such as Pakistan to ensure that they accept eligible perpetrators.

What the Home Secretary has announced today is totally inadequate. It will cover only a fraction of the towns affected, and it appears that the inquiries will not have the legal powers they need. That is why we need a proper, full national public inquiry, covering the whole country and with the powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 that are needed to obtain the evidence required. It is not just me who thinks that; in the last week or two, the Labour Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) have called for a full national inquiry, as has Andy Burnham, the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester. I commend those Members and Andy Burnham for their courage in speaking out.

Recent polling shows that the vast majority of the public want a full national public inquiry, including 73% of Labour voters. Most importantly, so do victims. Jane was groomed and abused at the age of just 12. She was gang raped repeatedly. She told the police and she told her social worker. At one point, the police even found her being abused by an illegal immigrant, but instead of arresting him, they arrested her. Jane still does not know if any of her abusers have been jailed, or if any of the public officials who let her down so badly have been held to account. Jane now wants a proper national public inquiry—Home Secretary, why don’t you?

[Yvette Cooper]

These are the most vile crimes, against teenagers, children and young girls. Very often they involve sadistic abuse, rape and the most appalling trauma that can last for many years. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse ran for seven years and took evidence from 7,000 victims and survivors across the country. Too many of those voices, and the bravery that those victims showed, have just being ignored. The right hon. Gentleman says that he took action, but I am afraid the Conservative party had 10 years to introduce a duty to report child abuse, make it a responsibility of professionals to report it, and make it an offence to cover up child abuse. I was calling for that 10 years ago. The Prime Minister was calling for it 12 years ago. The right hon. Gentleman failed to do it, and we have lost a decade as a result.

The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse also ran a two-year investigation of child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs. One of the shocking things that it found was that less is now known and understood about the prevalence of this appalling crime than prior to 2015. In the period 2015 to 2022, even after we knew about what had happened in Rotherham, and Baroness Louise Casey had identified its impact and the failure to address issues of race and ethnicity, the previous Government went backwards on gathering data and information, and the need for proper evidence. That is why this Government have commissioned Baroness Louise Casey to instigate a rapid review to uncover the prevalence of this appalling crime across the country, with no holds barred, in the way that we know she will conduct this inquiry, to fill the gaps in the evidence, rather than rerun the same questions without the evidence and data that we badly need.

I also point out to the shadow Minister that his party weakened the disclosure and barring rules in 2012, again making changes that I and the Policing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), opposed at the time, and that the independent inquiry rightly recommended reversing in order to keep children safe. Again, his party failed to act.

I hope the action we have announced will be supported right across the country. It includes the duty to report child abuse; proper penalties for covering it up; stronger sentences for grooming gangs; new rights for victims to get an independent review on reopening their case; new action to reopen historical police investigations; new standards for the police to meet; a new victims and survivors panel; a new audit of the scale and nature of child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs, led by someone who uncovered a lot of the problems in Rotherham, including the failure to confront Pakistani-heritage gangs; the gathering and publishing of new ethnicity data, which the shadow Minister failed to do; new national support for local inquiries, including the Telford model; victims panels; new work on accountability linked to the Hillsborough law to hold failures to account, because we will strengthen the law to do so; and a proper timetable for taking forward the independent inquiry, because this has to be about action and protecting children and keeping them safe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Since the Government came to office, 23,000 illegal migrants have crossed the English channel—an increase of 29% compared with the same time last year. Do the Government now accept the National Crime Agency’s advice that a deterrent like the Rwanda scheme, which they cancelled before it even started, is needed? Last week, the Government were trumpeting their removals figures. Will they honestly accept that only a tiny fraction of removals relate to people who arrived by small boat? In fact, in their first three months, the removals amounted to only 5% of people who entered the UK by small boat. Will the Minister accept that allowing 95% of small boat arrivals to stay is no deterrent at all?

[Seema Malhotra]

The shadow Home Secretary appears to have forgotten what happened when he was in Government. In fact, he will know that for the first six months of last year the numbers of those arriving on small boats was the highest for any six months on record. He will know that the previous Government spent over £700 million on a failed Rwanda scheme that saw four volunteers go to Rwanda. I will not take any lessons from the shadow Home Secretary. The Conservatives should take responsibility for their record and apologise for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the victims of the grooming and rape gangs. Will the Home Secretary agree with the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham and the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden)—a Labour MP—that we need a proper national public inquiry?

The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse report touched only on grooming gangs and covered only six of the towns affected. Local inquiries such as the Manchester one that the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister referred to do not have the legal powers to compel the production of evidence, which is why the Manchester chairs resigned. One Oldham victim, Jane, who was groomed and gang-raped at the age of 12, has called for a full national inquiry—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Philp, this is topicals. You could have got this in earlier with a lengthier question. The first part of your question was absolutely accurate, but you cannot just roll on at topicals or nobody else will get in.

[Yvette Cooper]

These are horrendous crimes involving rape, sadistic violence and cruelty, exploitation, intimidation and coercion, so we need action, truth and accountability for those terrible crimes. That is why we support further investigations, inquiries and action into child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs, including new action to get police reporting evidence on the scale of grooming gangs, including on ethnicity, which has still not been done. The most important thing is to get more police investigations to get these criminals behind bars.

[Chris Philp]

Does the Home Secretary agree that it is untenable for the Government’s own anti-corruption Minister to be under investigation for benefiting from the proceeds of corruption? Should she stand down while the investigation continues?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Member will know that the Minister has referred herself to the ministerial standards adviser, and that is the appropriate way for this to be addressed. More broadly, we take seriously the full range of crimes that our country faces and will continue to work closely with the police always to take action against crime.