Immigration

Chris Philp Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House regrets that there have been a record-breaking number of small boat crossings, amounting to over 12,000 this year alone and a lack of action from the Government to tackle this; further regrets that the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill scraps the Government’s ability to remove illegal immigrants to a safe third country, designed as an effective deterrent; and calls on the Government to support the Immigration and Visas Bill introduced by the Shadow Home Secretary, which will prevent foreign nationals, including rape gang perpetrators, from exploiting the courts with spurious human rights claims to avoid deportation, double the residency requirement for Indefinite Leave to Remain and ensure that those who have become a burden can be removed, introduce tighter visa rules for civil partners, allow deportation of all foreign national offenders, and introduce a binding cap on migration, to be set by a vote in Parliament.

For decades, the British people have demanded and politicians have promised dramatically lower immigration. For decades, successive Governments, including the last one, have failed to deliver that. That failure over decades has undermined faith and trust in democracy itself, and it is now time to end that failure and deliver what the public want. That is why we have tabled the Immigration and Visas Bill, which presents a serious, credible plan to fix immigration issues.

According to Ipsos last week, 67% of the British public think that immigration is too high. The British public are right. There are around 11 million foreign-born people in the UK, and for too long immigration numbers have been far too high. Immigration at that level has serious consequences. Some 48% of social housing in London has a head of household who was not born in the UK. In the last 10 years, migration has absorbed around 50% of new housing supply, and some nationalities are exceptionally dependent on social housing—for example, 72% of Somalis live in social housing compared with only 16% of the population more generally.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I think the right hon. Gentleman may have revealed something early on in his speech. He has told us that now is the time for “a serious, credible plan”. Is he therefore admitting that in the 14 years when his party was in government, there was not one serious or credible plan?

[Chris Philp]

I will talk a bit in a moment about the record of the last Government, but I have already said that for decades, under successive Governments—including the last one, but previous ones, too—immigration has been far too high. That is a failure by Governments over a period of decades, and it is now time to listen to the British people and put that right.

High levels of immigration, especially when there is not proper integration, undermine social cohesion. A nation state and a society cannot function properly when there are fractures in social cohesion.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Will the shadow Home Secretary give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I will give way in a minute. In advancing the case that we have a problem with social cohesion and a lack of integration, I will present some evidence—it is not an assertion—in support of that. The most recent census revealed that a million of our fellow citizens do not speak English at all or properly. In one part of east London, 73% of children do not speak English as their first language. Some nationalities have extremely low rates of economic activity or very high rates of economic inactivity. For example, among people born in the middle east and north Africa, economic inactivity rates are 40%. That is double the rate for people born in the UK. Among people born in south and east Asia, the economic inactivity rate is 50% higher than it is for people born in the UK. By contrast, the economic inactivity rate for those born in Australia or New Zealand is only half the level of the UK-born population.

I am afraid to say that when it comes to crime and offending, there are some immigrant groups where levels of criminality are very high. For example, Afghans are 20 times more likely to commit sex offences than average. People of Congolese origin are 12 times more likely to commit violence, and Algerians are 18 times more likely to commit theft.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Will the shadow Home Secretary give way?

[Chris Philp]

I will give way in just a moment. These figures illustrate that we have a problem with integration, and that is why we need to get these numbers dramatically down, until such time as we can address these issues.

Let me turn to the economy, because it has long been thought that net migration is an unalloyed economic good. Indeed, that is one reason why successive Governments of both colours over some decades allowed immigration to get so high and to stay too high. [Interruption.] Both Governments, over many decades. Recent analysis, however, has shown that that belief is simply not true. Office for Budget Responsibility analysis last year showed for the first time that low-wage migration costs the Exchequer money. It is not a net contributor, but a net draw on the Exchequer. It costs other taxpayers money at low-wage levels, particularly where there are large numbers of dependants. It has reduced per capita GDP, which affects the level of affluence enjoyed by the population, and it is one reason that productivity in our economy has flatlined for so long. Businesses have reached for mass low-skill migration instead of investing in technology or automation, or simply becoming more productive.

That has all happened while 9 million of our fellow citizens of working age remain economically inactive. Many of those have caring responsibilities, some genuinely cannot work and others are studying, but many of those 9 million—likely more than half—could and in my view should be in the workforce, instead of large numbers of low-wage, low-skilled migrants being imported.

It is time for a different approach. We need to end the era of mass low-skilled migration and instead focus on small numbers of very high-skilled workers who should be welcomed. We need to invest more in technology and we need to get more UK residents of working age into work, including by investing in training and by reforming the welfare system. I think somebody wanted to intervene, so I will give way.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

When the right hon. Member has finished denigrating every community that has made its home in this country, will he reflect for a moment on the massive contribution made in education, in health, in transport and in many other industries by people who have come to this country? When he goes into a hospital, does he criticise those people who have come from another country and are working in our hospitals, looking after us and the health service, or is he interested only in denigrating people because they were born speaking a different language and they look different from him?

[Chris Philp]

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was listening very carefully. I expressly said that highly skilled migrants do make a contribution and should be welcomed, and when I referred to issues involving social housing, economic inactivity and criminality, I was reading out facts. I was reading out census data published by the Office for National Statistics. Those are facts. The right hon. Gentleman may not like the facts, but they are facts none the less. [Interruption.]

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) has just said, from a sedentary position, that my right hon. Friend was “race-baiting”. My right hon. Friend was simply reading out official statistics in contributing to an important debate about the future of our country. Does my right hon. Friend think that the hon. Gentleman should stand up and put his views on the record, and tell his constituents what he thinks about their legitimate concerns?

[Chris Philp]

I think he should do that, because the British public have expressed very clear views on this issue, and if we cannot, in this House of all places, lay out the facts—published data—as a way of having an honest debate about it, I do not know where we have got to. That kind of shouting down, saying that it is somehow beyond the pale to discuss these facts, is precisely why we ended up in this mess in the first place.

Let me come on to some of the steps taken late in the time of the last Government—[Hon. Members: “Too late!”] Yes, they were too late: that is right. Those steps took effect in April 2023 and April 2024, and they included preventing social care workers and students from bringing dependants, and raising various salary thresholds. The official forecasts published by bodies such as the Office for National Statistics and the Office for Budget Responsibility show that, thanks to those measures, net migration is likely to fall by 500,000 compared to the peak—and those measures are already having an effect. If Members compare the number of visas issued in the second half of last year with the number in the second half of 2022, they will see a 76% reduction in the number of social care visas, a 21% reduction in the number of student visas, an 89% reduction in the number of student dependant visas, and a 45% reduction in the number of skilled worker visas; many of those people were not, in fact, skilled.

The truth is, however, that we need to go further, and the White Paper published last Monday does not go far enough. On the Laura Kuenssberg programme, on the Sunday before last, the Home Secretary said that the Government’s measures would have an impact of only 50,000 on net migration, whereas the number accompanying the White Paper was 100,000. Whichever number we take, however, it represents only between one tenth and one fifth of the impact of the measures taken by the last Government. That simply does not go far enough.

[Mr Brash]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Philp]

I am going to make some progress.

I have a question for the Immigration Minister. She is welcome to intervene if she wishes to do so, or else respond in her speech. The last Government set out a plan to increase the salary threshold for family visas to £38,000, which was due to take effect on 1 April this year, just seven or eight weeks ago. The new Government suspended that measure, which will obviously have the effect of increasing immigration. Will the Government implement the increase in the threshold, as set out by the last Government? As I have said, the measures in the White Paper go nowhere near far enough, whereas we have delivered a detailed plan.

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only are the measures inadequate, but they potentially open a big new route for inward migration? At the weekend, the Paymaster General suggested that the youth mobility experience scheme that we have with the EU was comparable to the scheme that we had with Uruguay. That involved 500 visas a year. We read in the papers today that the EU is asking for hundreds of thousands of youth visas. Is my right hon. Friend as concerned as I am about the possibility of this being a back door to very substantial migration?

[Chris Philp]

Yes, I am. It could create an enormous new loophole. There are potentially around 60 million people eligible for that visa route, and we have no idea at all of the cap. A couple of days ago, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister what a numerical cap might be. Characteristically, he did not answer the question. There is no answer to the question of whether people coming over on the scheme could claim benefits, and no answer to whether they could bring dependants. Some European countries grant citizenship to illegal immigrants just three years after they get asylum, and they would be eligible to come as well. It seems to me that this route could create an enormous loophole in our asylum system.

[Mr Brash]

It is really important that the right hon. Gentleman clarifies something to aid this debate. I have read his motion carefully, and the vast majority of it is about illegal migration. It repeatedly feels like illegal migration and legal migration are being conflated as the same issue, which does not help the debate. Could he clarify whether that is his intention?

[Chris Philp]

I intend to talk about both. I have been talking about legal migration, and I will come to illegal migration in a moment. The hon. Gentleman raises our Immigration and Visas Bill, and one of its measures speaks directly to the question of legal migration. The numbers have been far too high for decades, and the only way that this democratically elected House can get a handle on this issue is by having an annual binding vote in Parliament to set a cap on the level of legal migration. When the cap has been reached and the agreed number of visas has been issued, the Government would simply stop issuing any new visas. Never again would we see a situation where migration numbers end up being far higher than expected, because this democratically elected House would decide. The system would be transparent and open, and the level could be set at a number that is far, far lower than anything we have seen in recent history. But when we put that in an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill last Monday, the Labour party voted against the measure, which would at last give Parliament powers to limit inward migration. I call on the Government to think again and to support our Immigration and Visas Bill, which would provide Parliament with those powers.

Let me turn to the question of illegal migration, because the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) has invited me to do so, and it would be churlish not to respond to an invitation of that kind. The main mode of illegal immigration into this country—it is not the only one—is in small boats crossing the channel. First, there is no reason at all for anyone, no matter their circumstances, to cross into the UK by small boat from France, because France is a safe country. France has a well-functioning asylum system, and there is no war going on there. No one is being persecuted in France, and people do not need to get into a rubber dinghy to flee from Calais. Not a single one of the people coming across need to do so for reasons of fleeing persecution, and they should claim asylum in France.

The Government’s record in this area is lamentable. When they came into office last July, they cancelled the Rwanda scheme before it even started. Amendment (b), in the name of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, is grossly misleading. It describes the Rwanda scheme as being “in force”, but the scheme was never in force. It was not due to start until 24 July, so the amendment is deeply misleading. Last July, the new Government set out their alternative plan, which was to “smash the gangs”. How is that going? Well, since the election, about 37,000 people have illegally crossed the channel—a 30% increase on the figure for the same period 12 months prior.

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Chris Philp]

Let me just make this point.

This year has been the worst in history for illegal channel crossings. Today, an observer has counted 820 illegal immigrants arriving in Dover, which will make this the worst day of the year so far. The plan to smash the gangs is in tatters and is not working. Far from closing down asylum hotels, as the Government promised to do, they are opening them up. As of 31 December, there were 8,000 more asylum hotels than there were a year before.

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

Would the right hon. Member take a moment just to reflect on and remember the woman and small child who lost their lives today in an incident in French territorial waters?

[Chris Philp]

Yes, of course I would. A number of people have tragically lost their lives crossing the channel, and that is precisely why we need to stop these crossings entirely, as Australia did about 10 years ago. If we can stop the crossings entirely, lives will not be put needlessly at risk and we can avoid tragedy.

[Carla Denyer]

I have to say that I am disgusted by the narrative coming from Conservative Members, who are continuing, even in opposition and in using this Opposition day debate, to scapegoat migrants for their own 14 years of failure to deliver proper public services, tackle inequality and tackle poverty in this country, which led to many of the problems the right hon. Member has listed. Now that he has moved on to tackling small boats, will he not acknowledge that, without providing safe and regulated routes for people to claim asylum, they are pushed into the hands of people smugglers, and that the most rational as well as the most compassionate thing to do would be to provide those safe and managed routes?

[Chris Philp]

No, I do not accept that. First, every single person getting on one of those boats is able to claim asylum in France, and they do not need to get into one of those boats to claim asylum in the UK. Secondly, unless every single person that wants to come to the UK is given a safe and legal route, those people who are not given a place on what would presumably be a capped scheme would none the less try to cross by small boat. So the idea that that is a solution to small boat crossings is manifestly absurd.

There are of course safe and legal routes. Some were set up for specific purposes, such as the Ukrainian scheme, the British national overseas scheme, the UK resettlement scheme that saw 25,000 people from Syria resettled here, the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme and the Afghan relocations and assistance policy for Afghanistan, and the refugee family reunion route. There are plenty of safe and legal routes, and as I say, unless every single person who wants to come here is given a safe and legal route, there will still be illegal crossings, which are anyway unnecessary because France is safe and people are able to claim asylum there.

[Connor Naismith]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Philp]

I will make some progress.

The Government’s amendment makes reference to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, and the obvious truth is that their Bill will not make a great deal of difference. It creates a Border Security Commander. I know Martin Hewitt and I have every respect for him, but the Border Security Commander has no powers. All the Bill provides are functions, and those functions include preparing an annual report and publishing a strategic priority document. With all due respect to the immigration Minister, I do not think the people smugglers will be very concerned by an annual report or a strategic priority document. The so-called counter-terror-style powers in the Bill amount to confiscating mobile phones and using slightly enhanced surveillance tactics on the criminal gangs. This is a tiny step in the right direction, but the truth is that it will make no difference. As the National Crime Agency has said, law enforcement alone will not fix this problem, because if we dismantle one gang, another will simply pop up in its place. That is what the National Crime Agency assessed a year or two ago.

We do know what worked in Australia, which had an even bigger problem than us about 10 years ago, with about 50,000 people crossing to Australia. It set up Operation Sovereign Borders, which entailed a removals deterrent, and they used Nauru rather than Rwanda. In a few months, after only a few thousand people had been removed there, the illegal maritime crossings to Australia stopped entirely. The number went down to zero because the deterrent effect meant that people in Indonesia did not even attempt the crossing in the first place, and because those crossings were stopped, hundreds and hundreds of lives were saved. So it is clear to me that we need a removals deterrent, like Rwanda, to prevent these crossings.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I visited Rwanda, and I was impressed by the facilities being built for the migrants due to go there. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, had the Rwanda scheme not been cancelled by the current Government, the people due to go there would be being cared for and would be setting up new and successful lives, and we would not have people dying in the channel?

[Chris Philp]

Yes, I completely agree, and I commend my hon. Friend for going to look at the facilities there. Had that scheme been started as intended, on 24 July, the deterrent effect would by now have stopped these crossings. In fact, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees sends people to Rwanda, so it is clearly good enough for them. Other countries, including Germany, are now looking at removals deterrents. It is clear that the Government should restart a proper removals deterrent, and I urge them to do so urgently.

We have presented a Bill to this House which contains serious and credible measures to limit legal migration, to take action against illegal migration and to ensure people with no right to be here are removed, including foreign national offenders. One of the most important measures is to repeal the Human Rights Act in relation to immigration matters, because over the years UK judges in the immigration tribunal have adopted evermore expansive definitions of ECHR articles to allow dangerous foreign criminals to remain in this country. There are thousands of examples of the definitions of the articles—not just article 8, but article 3 as well—being stretched and stretched over the years beyond any definition of common sense, and certainly beyond anything contemplated by the framers of the ECHR 70 or so years ago.

That is why the Human Rights Act must be repealed so that Parliament decides the rules, not judges applying expansive interpretations. I will give just one example. There was a Zimbabwean paedophile who failed to be deported back to Zimbabwe. A judge—I think using article 3, not article 8—said no, the paedophile could not be sent back to Zimbabwe in case he faced some hostility back in Zimbabwe. What about the rights of children in the United Kingdom to be protected from paedophiles? What about the rights of British citizens to be protected from foreign national offenders? That is why we need to repeal the Human Rights Act in relation to immigration matters. That is why it is in our Bill, and I call on the Government to support it.

It is time to deliver what the British public want. The Opposition have developed a credible and detailed Bill to do that. I call on the Government, if they are serious, to support it.

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

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to en and insert

“notes that 127,896 people crossed the Channel while the previous Government was in office, as a criminal smuggling industry took hold on the French coast; further notes that 84,151 of those people arrived while the previous Government’s £700 million Rwanda scheme was in force, with only four volunteers travelling to Kigali during that time; welcomes the fact that the current Government deployed the 1,000 staff working on that scheme to process asylum decisions and deportations instead, resulting in 24,000 people with no right to be in the UK being removed in just nine months; further welcome the progress made since July 2024 in establishing the Border Security Command, cracking down on illegal working, and increasing the resources allocated to identifying, disrupting and dismantling smuggling gangs; and looks forward to the crucial agreements reached with France, Germany, Italy, and Iraq to increase enforcement cooperation taking full effect, and the counter-terror powers introduced in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill becoming law.”

I note that the motion begins by regretting the fact that we are 20 weeks into this year and more than 12,000 people have crossed the channel by small boat. Let me start on a note of consensus: I agree with the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) that numbers are too high and I agree that they must come down. I will come on to the action we are taking to achieve that aim.

But first, I must address what we on Merseyside would call the shadow Home Secretary’s brass neck. What he did not say in his speech was that in the last 20 weeks when he was immigration Minister, it was not 12,000 people who crossed the channel, but 13,000. It was not 230 small boats that made the crossing, as we have had so far this year; during his last 20 weeks in charge, it was almost 500. Where was his motion of regret then? Where were his expressions of outrage then? In fact, let me tell the House just how bad it was in his last 20 weeks in charge, from the end of April to the middle of September 2021. More people crossed the channel by small boats in those 20 weeks than in the previous 40 months put together, all the way back to the start of the crossings in 2018: 173 weeks-worth of crossings and he managed to get them to exceed that total in his last 20 weeks in charge.

That was not the right hon. Gentleman’s only claim to fame during his period in office, because he was the Minister in charge when net migration started to run completely out of control. In the 19 months he was in charge, net migration rose from 170,000 to 470,000, a 300,000 increase in less than two years.

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Lady should correct the record. I never had ministerial responsibility for legal migration, so I would be grateful if she withdrew that.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Collective responsibility apparently never used to matter to the Conservative party, but if we remember some of the history we will know that that was actually true.

I want Members to cast their minds back to the summer of 2022, and the 20-week period from Chris Pincher having his night at the Carlton Club all the way through to when the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) had to write an emergency Budget. The Conservative Government descended into utter chaos, with three different Prime Ministers and four different Home Secretaries taking turns in office. What was happening with small boats in the channel during those particular 20 weeks? We had not 12,000 or 13,000 arrivals, but 30,000 arrivals.

National Security Act 2023: Charges

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I join her in paying tribute to counter-terrorism policing and the security services for the work they do daily to keep us safe. Let me straightaway put on the record that the Opposition support the Government’s plans to place Iran into the enhanced tier of the FIRS regime, and we will also support the moves they wish to make to increase proscription powers and any other powers that are necessary to keep us safe. We will support those measures.

The whole House should be in no doubt about the malign influence that Iran spreads around the world. It is responsible for supporting Hamas, who perpetrated the sickening massacre on 7 October 2023. Iran takes western hostages, including Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who was held in squalid conditions for years. Iran supports the Houthis, who have attacked and tried to sink civilian merchant shipping in the Red sea as part of their war against the Saudi-backed, internationally-recognised Government. In Ukraine we see Iranian drones and military equipment used by Putin to murder Ukrainians and further Russia’s illegal invasion. Of course, Iran also threatens to acquire a nuclear weapon.

Iran also persecutes its own people. Women are abused, imprisoned, and in some cases even killed, for not adhering to the behaviour demanded by the ayatollahs. Twenty-two-year-old Mahsa Amini was arrested and killed by the Iranian religious police simply for wearing what she wanted, and I am sure every single Member of this House will condemn that atrocity. People who are gay in Iran are persecuted and sometimes killed, and those who oppose the Iranian regime are brutally oppressed and often murdered. We should be in no doubt about the threat that the Iranian regime poses to its own people and to international peace.

The tentacles of the Iranian state now stretch on to our very own soil here in the United Kingdom. Iran International TV, an independent TV channel, had to temporarily locate to the US not long ago, because its premises and people here were threatened by Iranian agents. Iranian dissidents on UK soil are threatened and harassed. And, as the Home Secretary set out, just two weeks ago eight Iranian nationals were arrested while planning attacks on UK soil.

In opposition, the Home Secretary said that she would proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—she said so a number of times, including from this very Dispatch Box on 15 April last year. The Home Secretary has now been in office for nearly a year, so my first question is this: why has she not yet done what she said she would do by proscribing the IRGC? She said that the Iranian ambassador has been summoned. That is not an adequate response. Why have Iranian diplomats, including any suspected of supporting espionage activity, not been expelled? What further steps can be taken to develop international sanctions against the Iranian regime?

The Home Secretary confirmed that the three individuals charged over the weekend entered the UK illegally, including by small boat. As recently as March this year, just a few weeks ago—I think it was on 6 March—extremist Abu Wadee entered the UK by small boat. He had previously been pictured on social media wielding an AK47, throwing pipe bombs and calling for the slaughter of Jews. This is the kind of illegal immigrant who is able to enter the country by small boat.

The Home Secretary talks about her new Bill, which we debated a week ago today, but the truth is that it will not make very much difference. Confiscating mobile phones from illegal immigrants and slightly enhanced powers to monitor communications will not stop the crossings. The Border Security Commander has no actual powers other than to publish an annual report and set some strategic objectives. I do not think people smugglers are going to worry too much about that.

What will stop the crossings is a proper deterrent so that all those who arrive—not just some, but all those who arrive—are removed. Then, they will not bother to attempt the crossing in the first place. This deterrent approach worked in Australia about 10 years ago. The Home Secretary must by now be regretting the decision to cancel the Rwanda deterrent before it even started. Crossings since she became Home Secretary are up by 30% year on year, and 2025 so far has been the worst in history. Does she finally agree that it is time to follow other countries and establish a proper removals deterrent applying to all those who arrive illegally by small boat? It is time to bring back Rwanda.

In their first six months in office, the Government have not returned a single Iranian to Iran—not one—including Iranian criminals. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is now time to repeal the Human Rights Act for immigration matters, so that criminals and other dangerous people can be more easily removed from the UK and can no longer persuade UK judges to allow them to stay here on ever-more tenuous human rights grounds? The only way to protect our borders and ensure security is to remove all illegal immigrants as soon as they arrive. I hope she urgently adopts that policy.

[Yvette Cooper]

I just say to the shadow Home Secretary that he was an immigration Minister when the number of small boat crossings soared and when net migration soared. On his watch, controls were reduced. Under his party, we saw returns plummet. This Government are clear that the rules need to be respected and enforced. That is why this Government are introducing counter-terrorism-style powers to strengthen our border security, something that his party, shockingly, has repeatedly voted against. The right hon. Gentleman still refers to his Rwanda scheme, which cost £700 million and, in the two years that it was operational, sent four volunteers—just four volunteers—to Rwanda.

Border security is a part of our national security. Frankly, I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not taking sufficiently seriously the national security threats that we face. I supported the work that his Government did to introduce the National Security Act, but, as he will know, I warned repeatedly that the powers were not strong enough, and that we could not use legislation designed for terrorism to proscribe state-backed organisations. We called on his Government repeatedly, if they were unable to proscribe the IRGC, to strengthen and amend the powers to be able to do so under national security provisions. In fact, we even put forward an amendment to the National Security Act in the previous Parliament, and the Conservatives voted against it.

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman now says he will support our measures to strengthen our national security and bring forward stronger proscribing powers that can be used against all kinds of state or state-backed organisations that might attempt to do us harm. Our national security is the first duty of any Government, which is why this Government will continue to take ever-stronger action to pursue issues around criminality and extremist or terrorist, border and national security threats. That is how we keep our communities safe.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Chris Philp Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I think they probably call that campaigning, but it is up to them to justify how long they spend in the pub, or indeed in this Chamber.

Moving to serious crime prevention orders and interim serious crime prevention orders, Government amendments 14 to 19 will remove Scotland and Northern Ireland from clause 48, which allows electronic monitoring as a condition of serious crime prevention orders and interim serious crime prevention orders in terrorism-related cases. The amendments will ensure that the devolved Governments retain full legislative competence over their existing electronic monitoring regimes.

For now, I commend all the Government amendments to the House and look forward to contributions from other right hon. and hon. Members on the gargantuan group of amendments we are dealing with tonight.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 14 and 18, and to various other new clauses and amendments that stand in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Let me start by paying tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) and for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), who are sitting beside me. They toiled with enormous fortitude and patience through 12 Committee sittings. They did extremely diligent and good work, and I put on record my thanks to them both.

The new clauses and amendments that we have tabled are made necessary by the Government’s abject and appalling failure, since they came to office last July, to control small boat crossings of the English channel. They came to office saying that they would “smash the gangs”, a claim that is now in tatters. Let us take a look at what they have done since 4 July last year. Since the election, 35,048 people have illegally crossed the English channel. That is a 29% increase on the same period the previous year.

This year—2025—how is smashing the gangs going so far? Well, 11,806 people have crossed, which is the worst start to a year in history. That is an appalling and abject failure, for which this Government are responsible. Yesterday alone, 232 people crossed, and we understand that today, as we stand here, several hundred more people have made that illegal crossing. There is no control over who they are. There are suggestions that some of the suspects in the recent Iranian terror case were living in asylum accommodation and may therefore have crossed by small boat. I certainly recall that some people crossing the channel had very serious prior convictions. The Government have no idea who these people are, and they certainly have no control.

The people crossing are almost entirely young men. They have pushed themselves to the front of the queue by paying people smugglers. I do not see them as victims; they are committing a criminal offence by entering the United Kingdom in this way. It is a criminal offence contrary to section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, as I am sure everybody knows.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

rose—

[Chris Philp]

If the former leader of the Liberal Democrats wants to say something to the contrary, I would be glad to give way.

[Tim Farron]

I could not help myself, I’m afraid. Some 87% of Eritreans coming over are refugees. The right hon. Gentleman talks about young men. The refugees are young men, because Christian young men in Eritrea are conscripted to murder their own communities, so of course they are disproportionately represented. Why does he not take part in this debate on the basis of evidence, rather than playing tabloid nonsense?

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman will know that around the world, there are very many female and child refugees. The last Government welcomed many of them here under the UK resettlement scheme from Syria. The young men who push themselves to the front of the queue in Calais are displacing potentially more deserving applicants. They are embarking from France, which is a manifestly safe country with a well-functioning asylum system. Nobody—including young men from Eritrea—needs to leave France to seek sanctuary when they can perfectly well claim asylum in France. Article 31 of the refugee convention, which in general terms prohibits the criminalisation of refugees, expressly says that that only applies if someone comes “directly” from a place of danger. France is not a place of danger. Much better that we choose the deserving cases, rather than having people pay criminal gangs to enter this country illegally from a place, namely France, which is safe.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The last Government introduced the idea of having age verification. That is important, because the evidence supports the suggestion that some young men claim to be younger than they are. Many other countries use medical age verification systems. Does my right hon. Friend have a reason why the Government decided not to take our amendments forward in Committee, and why they are not considering implementing them now?

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. In fact, he draws me to new clause 12, which we tabled. It mandates the Government to get on with implementing scientific age assessments, which scientifically verify if someone is or is not over the age of 18. Every other European country uses these tests. It could be, for example, an X-ray of the wrist.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Philp]

I will give way in a minute. There are more complicated techniques these days, such as testing DNA methylation, and other less intrusive tests. We are the only country not to use them.

Many people who illegally cross the channel claim to be under 18—they usually claim to be 17—when common sense would often suggest that they are far older. There are documented cases where men with beards have ended up in schools with teenage girls. [Interruption.] I am going to give way to the hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) in a moment. I ask the Minister, when she replies, to explain to the House her plans for introducing these tests. We are an outlier in Europe; we are the only country not to use them. It is important from a safeguarding perspective to make sure that people who claim to be 17 really are 17, and not in their mid-20s. The hon. Member for Dover and Deal was very keen to intervene, and I think enthusiasm deserves its reward.

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his condescending tone after his deluded rant. I must say to him that he is misleading the House: 400 crossed in 2018, and more than 150,000 have crossed since. The majority of those were on the Conservative Government’s watch, so how they can claim that that happened on Labour’s watch is beyond me. As the new expert—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I certainly agree that the hon. Gentleman has had long enough, and his constituents may well agree in a few years’ time. I gave the figures very clearly: since the election, 35,000 people have crossed the channel. That is a 29% increase on the same period a year before. So far, this year has been the worst year on record—the worst year in history—for illegal channel crossings. The claims to smash the gangs lie in tatters.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We missed the right hon. Gentleman in the Committee. Given the sophistication of the organised immigration crime threat to the country, will he explain why he plans on voting against the Bill tonight when it provides counter-terrorism style powers that the National Crime Agency and our security services have told us they want to be able to bring to bear on this serious question?

[Chris Philp]

I missed being in Committee as well, and I missed the prospect of spending hours and hours in the hon. Lady’s company. Perhaps on some other occasion an opportunity will present itself.

The hon. Lady invites me to comment on a Third Reading matter, but since she asked the question, when we vote on a Bill at Third Reading—a yes or no vote—we are voting on it in its totality. While the counter-terror measures may have a very marginal benefit—it will be no more than marginal, as she should know—the Bill will also do some extremely damaging things that will make it a lot harder to control our borders. For example, clause 38 repeals pretty much the entirety of the Illegal Migration Act 2023.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Chris Philp]

I will answer the question first.

Among other things, the Illegal Migration Act requires the Government to remove people who arrive here illegally, and it says there is no path to citizenship for somebody who comes to this country illegally, which is a very sensible measure. This Bill repeals almost all of that. The Bill also removes from the statute book the legislative basis to implement a removals deterrent. One of the first things the Government did on coming into office was cancel the Rwanda scheme.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Chris Philp]

No, I will answer the question first.

The Government cancelled the Rwanda scheme before it even started. The first flight had been due to take off on 24 July. Everybody, including the National Crime Agency, has warned that without a removals deterrent we are not going to stop the boats. Law enforcement alone—important though it is—is not enough, and a border security commander with no powers is certainly not enough.

Experience from around the world shows that we need a removals deterrent. If people enter the UK illegally from France and are rapidly removed to somewhere else, be it Rwanda or elsewhere, others will not attempt the crossing because they know that removal will follow. Australia tried something very similar about 10 years ago—it was called Operation Sovereign Borders. Australia had a bigger problem than we did—at that time there were 50,000 people a year crossing—and within the space of only a few months, the removals deterrent it used stopped the illegal maritime arrivals, as Australia called them, entirely. The number went to zero, and it saved lives in the process. Australia used an island called Nauru rather than Rwanda, but the principle is the same.

Home Office Ministers must by now be regretting their hastiness, because in the absence of any removals deterrent, the numbers have gone through the roof. As I said already, this year so far has been the worst in history. Without a removals deterrent, there is no hope of stopping the crossings.

Clause 37 of the Bill repeals the entirety of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, and amendment 32 seeks to remove clause 37. There will probably come a time—if not today, then in six months; and if not in six months, then in 12 months—when Labour Ministers will realise that their plans are not working, that the numbers are getting worse, and that without a removals deterrent they are not going to stop the boats. That is why this Bill and their policy is so misguided, and it is why the numbers this year have been the worst in history.

[Jo White]

I wonder whether the shadow Home Secretary could comment on the views of his colleague the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), who said during the Public Bill Committee that

“immigration is too high. Previous Governments have failed to solve it.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 18 March 2025; c. 347.]

I wonder whether he could also comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), who said in Committee:

“The system is broken. It has been broken for many decades, and that is now plain to see.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 18 March 2025; c. 335.]

[Chris Philp]

I agree with both my colleagues, and that is why we have tabled amendments and new clauses to address this issue. I will come on to those in a moment.

It was a Labour Government that chose to cancel the removals deterrent before it started, and that is why the numbers are higher than they have ever been in history. It is a result of their choices.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Talking of the Rwanda scheme, the previous Tory Government spent £700 million on a scheme that saw four volunteers removed. That figure included £290 million given to Rwanda for nothing in return and £134 million on IT systems that were never used. Can we get a refund?

[Chris Philp]

As I said already, the plan was never started. The first plane was due to take off on 24 July, but the Labour Government cancelled it within days of coming to office. The money would have been extremely well spent had the scheme started, because the deterrent effect would have stopped the boats, meaning that we would not have tens of thousands of people in hotels costing billions and billions.

While we are on the topic of hotels, let us look at how the Labour Government’s pledge during the election to end the use of asylum hotels is going. The numbers in asylum hotels have gone up by 8,000 so far under this Labour Government. Speaking of removals deterrents, I was in Berlin four or five weeks ago talking to members of the CDU party, which is now in Government. The incoming German Government intend to implement a removals deterrent very similar in concept to the Rwanda scheme. So other Governments around the world have realised that they have to do this; it worked in Australia, and the new German Government will be doing something very similar. It is just our Government who are going headlong in the opposite direction.

[Mike Martin]

Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Philp]

I will make some progress.

Turning to the amendments on indefinite leave to remain, new clause 11 would limit eligibility for ILR to 10 years, and new clause 17 would set various conditions on ILR. New clause 17 essentially says that to get ILR after 10 years a person has to have made an economic contribution, and cannot be a burden on other taxpayers. Those strike me as very fair measures.

I notice that in the immigration announcement by the Prime Minister this morning, he made reference to 10 years for ILR, despite the fact that the Minister and her colleagues voted against that measure just a few weeks ago. I wonder what has magically changed their minds. If they are serious about such a measure, will they support new clause 11, which would implement what the Prime Minister announced this morning, and vote for it later today?

If I understand the Prime Minister’s announcement correctly, he said that when someone reaches 10 years of residence, they automatically qualify for indefinite leave to remain under the Government’s proposals. What we propose in new clause 17 is that there should be conditionality, even after 10 years. The person should be making some kind of contribution to the country in order to qualify for indefinite leave to remain. Will the Minister take the opportunity to agree with that approach and therefore support new clause 17?

I will turn now to the two new clauses that we intend to push to a vote this evening. First, new clause 18 would establish a binding cap on immigration numbers each year, to be voted on in Parliament. It would be democratically accountable and completely transparent. It will be up to Parliament to debate what the number should be, but I would argue that it should be a lot lower than any recent number we have seen, and indeed a lot lower than the recent forecasts from the Office for National Statistics and the Office for Budget Responsibility.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Chris Philp]

Let me finish my point.

The critical point is that whatever one’s views on the number, it would be Parliament that voted to cap migration every year. Never again would we see immigration rise to levels far higher than anyone intended. We would never again see unintended consequences, where visa rules are set up but numbers end up being much higher. A good example of that is the health and social care visa, which was initially supposed to be for only a few thousand people but ended up being for hundreds of thousands. With a cap mechanism in place, that would never happen again.

I invite the Minister to tell me, when she responds, whether she would support a binding annual cap, decided by this Parliament. Will she support democratic accountability for that number, and if not, why on earth not? I can see no reason at all why this elected Parliament should not set the limit each year and why we should instead end up with numbers that many of us would think are far too high.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is speaking with great confidence, as ever—and great volume, I have to say. He is very clear about having the cap, but it is less clear what level he believes it should be set at. He says that it should be lower than the current numbers, but from his experience and with his confidence, what level does he feel it should be set at? What would his first proposal be for the cap?

[Chris Philp]

How about the hon. Gentleman votes for the cap this evening, and then we can debate what level it should be set at? We are not going to debate the level of a cap that currently does not even exist. His own Front Benchers are trying to deny him and every Member of this House a voice on this issue. If Labour Members believe in Parliament deciding these issues and in democratic accountability, they will vote for new clause 18 and let Parliament decide what the cap should be.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The cap idea builds on work that the last Government wanted to bring forward in relation to refugees and asylum seekers. The last Government asked councils to work out how many they could accommodate. It seems remarkably practical to say that while we are a generous nation able to look after people in need, that comes with a capacity. The whole idea would be to implement a cap and for all councils in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to say what number they could hold, and for us to vote on it as a nation. Is that something my right hon. Friend would consider when it comes to dealing with asylum seekers?

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and it is germane to the earlier discussion about people crossing the channel illegally. So long as we have 11,000 or 12,000 people crossing the channel a year—as I said, this is the worst year ever—it is very difficult to create safe and legal routes, because our capacity is completely taken up by people entering the country illegally.

If we can stop illegal migration by using the measures I suggested, and a removals deterrent in particular, that will create capacity for a limited safe and legal route for people who we—the Government and Parliament—judge to be deserving. We did that for the Syria crisis, where the UK resettlement scheme went to refugee camps on the Syrian borders, identified the most vulnerable refugees—often women and children—and brought them to the UK, instead of having people crossing the channel illegally and pushing their way to the front of the queue. That is exactly what a new, tougher approach on illegal immigration would facilitate.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Chris Philp]

I am going to make a bit of progress.

The second amendment that we intend to put to a vote, new clause 14, concerns the Human Rights Act. The Government, through the Home Secretary in her statement and the Minister in her remarks a few moments ago, talked about tinkering with article 8, but the truth is that that will not make any meaningful difference.

It is worth reminding ourselves of the history of this. The European convention on human rights is an international treaty that we entered into—indeed, we helped to draft it—in 1950. In 1998 the Blair Government passed the Human Rights Act, which essentially incorporated the ECHR into domestic law. So UK courts, when making any immigration decisions, or indeed any other decisions, can use their interpretation of the ECHR when interpreting legislation passed by this House and to prevent the Government from taking a particular executive action that might include removing or deporting someone.

The Act empowered UK judges to use the ECHR however they saw fit. The problem with the ECHR is that it is not like a piece of domestic legislation such as the Bill we are considering, which is detailed and has everything precisely defined. The ECHR is vaguely worded. For example, article 3 is on freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and article 8 is on the right to a private and family life. There is nothing objectionable about those articles in themselves; the problem is that, over the years, judges have expanded their interpretation of them in ever more extraordinary ways, which defy common sense. Let me just give the House a couple of examples of such judgments.

A paedophile of Zimbabwean nationality quite rightly fell for deportation under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007. He should have been deported, but a UK judge—not a Strasbourg judge—said “No, no.” They said that, under their interpretation of the ECHR, that convicted paedophile might face “some hostility” if they were returned to Zimbabwe in a manner that breached their article 3 rights—not their article 8 rights—so they said that that convicted paedophile could stay here in the UK. What about the human rights of British children to be protected from paedophiles like that? What about the rights of British citizens to be protected from foreign offenders?

In another case, an Iraqi drug dealer rightly fell for deportation back to Iraq, but a judge found that he had become too westernised and therefore could not be returned to Iraq, his country of nationality and country of origin. Those are just two examples of thousands where domestic UK judges have stretched the definition of ECHR articles in a way that defies all common sense, and certainly goes far beyond anything the original framers of the ECHR had in mind when they signed up to it in 1950.

That is why, as a first step, we propose to repeal the Human Rights Act in relation to all immigration matters so that domestic UK judges would no longer be able to apply their own creative and expansive interpretations of the ECHR when making immigration decisions; instead, they would have regard solely and exclusively to domestic legislation that we have passed in this House. That strikes me as a common-sense measure that would end the handing down of ridiculous judgments and enable the Government to ensure that people with no right to be here and dangerous foreign criminals could be removed. At the moment, judges are preventing that, using interpretations that completely defy common sense.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member is clearly concerned about child protection. Did he read the testimony of the Children’s Commissioner about the children who made their way to our country and went missing in the system? They were victims of rape, sexual abuse and exploitation—some of the most horrendous things that can happen. Does he regret the role of his Government in facilitating such abuse?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am sure the shadow Home Secretary is aware that time is running on.

[Chris Philp]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I will follow your injunction to wind up. Of course, we need to pay attention to the rights and protection of children, but having people smuggled across the English channel on boats does not in any way help with that.

If the Government are serious about getting back control of the immigration system and stopping illegal immigration, they will support our measures that would put a cap on migration and repeal the Human Rights Act in relation to immigration matters.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

New clause 8 will deny refugee status to those who commit sexual offences. We also have the work being announced on narrowing article 8, which will allow Parliament to give more direction to judges about how the rules ought to be interpreted. The immigration rules reflect the requirements of the ECHR generally, including the qualified nature of article 8, setting requirements that properly balance the individual right to respect for family and private life with the public interest in safeguarding the economic wellbeing of the UK by controlling immigration.

[Chris Philp]

The Minister mentioned the provision to prevent certain sex offenders from claiming asylum. While that is a welcome step, what will happen in practice is that the sex offender will simply make a claim under article 3 of the ECHR instead. I have seen dozens and dozens of cases like that, and that is precisely why we need to disapply the Human Rights Act 1998 from all immigration matters. Otherwise, there will just be a huge loophole, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) pointed out.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

If we disapplied the Human Rights Act, people would just go to the ECHR anyway, and a lot of these cases would end up in Strasbourg, which would take even longer. Disapplying the Human Rights Act would also mean that other countries that we have to work and collaborate with to deal with cross-border people smuggling would not work with us. The Conservatives had many huge rows with people and went around the world making it look as though they did not believe in the rule of law. This Government do believe in the rule of law and we will carry on upholding the rule of law; we regard that as an important part of the value system we have in this country.

On new clause 18 and the cap on non-visitor visas, as always the Conservatives talk a good talk now that they are safely in opposition, having not delivered when they were in government. They promised time after time to reduce net migration down to the tens of thousands—they did it in their manifestos and in the many different manifestations of Conservative Governments that we saw plough through the House, especially in the past four years—and what did they do? They quadrupled net migration. We do not need a cap; we need to get migration down, fundamentally lower than it is now, to make the system fair and effective. In order to do that, we have published a White Paper today and introduced further measures in this Bill. We will come back to this issue to ensure that we can deliver—unlike the Conservative party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this unexpected opportunity. The reason the Opposition will vote against the Bill is that it does nothing to restore control of our country’s borders. It repeals the legislative basis for a removals deterrent, which is needed to stop people crossing the English channel. The fact that the Labour Government cancelled that deterrent before it started is why illegal crossings have gone up by 29% since the last election, and why this year has been the worst in history for illegal crossings of the English channel. This Bill weakens border controls, and it removes the powers that the Government could otherwise exercise to control our borders. They are failing, and this Bill will do nothing to restore control of our borders.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Immigration System

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement—not that it was necessary, given the extensive leaks and pre-briefing. The Prime Minister claimed all of a sudden this morning that he wants to control immigration. I must say, it came as something of a surprise to me. He seems to have undergone a miraculous conversion, and has apparently repudiated everything he has ever believed. Perhaps he is doing what he always does: saying whatever he thinks people want to hear at any given point in time. Perhaps he sees his minus 36% approval rating, and this White Paper is his desperate response.

We know what the Prime Minister really thinks about immigration, because he has often told us. He once described immigration law and border control as racist. He signed a letter opposing the deportation of dangerous foreign criminals, including murderers and rapists. He pledged that he would reintroduce full free movement of people, and he sermonised enthusiastically about the benefits of migration. He even said that the Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre should be closed down. Perhaps the Home Secretary can tell us if she will be following the Prime Minister’s advice on that one.

Given what the Prime Minister really thinks about immigration, it is no surprise that this Labour Government have presided over the worst start to a year for the number of illegal immigrants crossing the English channel in history; that number is up 30% since the election last year. It has been the worst start to a year ever, and it happened under this Labour Government.

It is also no surprise that this plan is so weak that it barely scratches the surface. On its first page, it seeks to create a false impression. It says—the Home Secretary repeated this—that

“visa applications are down…40%”

since the election, implying that that is somehow down to the Government. Why are visa applications actually down by 40%? Because of the changes made by the last Government, which came into force in April 2024. From the previous peak, net migration is already forecast to reduce by about half a million.

If the Home Secretary is all of a sudden so keen on reducing migration, will she explain why she suspended the Conservative plan to increase the family visa threshold to £38,000? That was due to come into force last month. When will that change now be introduced? The truth is that this plan is weak and will have little impact. The Home Secretary admitted on Laura Kuenssberg’s programme yesterday that the measures will reduce net migration by only 50,000, which is just one 10th of the impact of the previous Conservative changes.

The honest truth is that we need to go much further than this White Paper does. Immigration needs to come down a lot more. Under new leadership, the Conservative party is taking a new approach. [Interruption.] Labour Members can vote on this later, if they are so keen. High immigration has put pressure on housing, public services, social cohesion and the economy. Mass low-wage, low-skilled migration undermines our economy’s productivity and costs other taxpayers money, because low-wage migrants consume services that cost the Exchequer more than they pay in tax, particularly where there are dependants, so we need to go much further.

That is why later today the House will vote on two Conservative proposals in amendments to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. [Interruption.] I can see Labour Members are excited about the prospect. The first amendment would create a binding annual cap on migration, to be set and voted on democratically by this Parliament. It would allow full democratic parliamentary control over migration numbers, deliver complete transparency and ensure that immigration is drastically reduced. I see the Minister for Border Security and Asylum talking enthusiastically on the Front Bench; I assume that means that she will support the measure.

The second amendment would repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 from all immigration matters. We would not just tinker with article 8, as the Home Secretary says she will, but stop foreign criminals, and others who have no right to be here, abusing human rights laws in UK courts, including article 3. I have a simple question for the Home Secretary.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

She won’t answer it.

[Chris Philp]

I will try anyway. If the Home Secretary is really serious about controlling immigration, will she vote later today for the immigration cap, and will she vote to repeal the Human Rights Act for all immigration matters?

[Yvette Cooper]

I must have missed a bit of the shadow Home Secretary’s response—the bit, maybe at the beginning, when he apologised to the House and the country for his party’s policies, which quadrupled net migration in just four years. He tells us his concerns about the level of migration; his party is responsible for that huge increase in net migration.

I must have also missed the bit when the shadow Home Secretary confessed that from the point at which he became an immigration Minister in 2020—when all these policies were introduced—to the point at which the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), finished being immigration Minister in 2023, net migration rose from 170,000 a year to 870,000 a year. I must have missed that confession, and that apology, which the shadow Home Secretary should have made. Until he admits his failure and apologises for the damage and chaos that he and his party caused, no one will take seriously a single word that he says.

The shadow Home Secretary referred to visa changes that were made before the election. We supported changes made by the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), but he had to reverse some of the changes that the shadow Home Secretary made when he was an immigration Minister.

As for a cap, the White Paper provides for caps on low-skilled migration on the temporary shortage list. The right hon. Gentleman’s targets and caps are as meaningless as all the other ones that his party introduced when they were in government. Indeed, let me quote from the time of the Conservative Government’s reforms that caused a lot of these problems:

“I especially thank the Home Secretary for removing the annual limits on work visas and on international students: I lobbied for both”.—[Official Report, 19 December 2018; Vol. 651, c. 815.]

That was the current Leader of the Opposition, so the idea that that lot have anything to offer is like people who burgle your house and then turn up the next day and offer to sell you a dog. If the Conservatives are serious about making the changes and serious about tackling small boats, they should vote for our counter-terrorism powers to tackle the smuggler gangs that the right hon. Gentleman and the other right-wing parties have repeatedly voted against. That is not serious. This Government are.

Irish Republican Alleged Incitement

Chris Philp Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Our thoughts today are with our dear friends Sir David Amess and Jo Cox. They were brutally murdered on a surgery Friday doing their job on behalf of their constituents. Tragically, they were not the first MPs to be murdered; the crest of Airey Neave is up there above the door, with those of Sir David and Jo behind me. Those who incite the murder of MPs are attacking democracy itself. Will the Minister join me in condemning unreservedly the despicable evil that Kneecap represent in the appalling comments they made?

I would like to ask about the funding. In November 2024, the Department for Business and Trade decided to end its support for the legal challenge—a decision that resulted in the band winning and becoming entitled to the money. Why did the Government make that decision? In the light of what we now know, will they appeal against that decision? Critically, will the Minister give categoric assurance from the Dispatch Box that this band will never, under any circumstances, receive public money again from any source, including the National Lottery and Northern Ireland Screen?

This organisation has also expressed support for Hamas and Hezbollah, which are proscribed terrorist groups. The Minister said that he did not want to comment on the police investigation. However, the Government commented quite extensively on the investigations after Southport, so I would like him to make clear, as the Government did last summer, that they consider it in the public interest that the police investigate and, if there is evidence, prosecute these offences or potential offences. If he is not willing to do that now, he risks the perception of two-tier justice.

Finally, I had a meeting very recently with Sir David’s widow Julia and his daughter Katie, who bear an enormous burden of grief. They want to make sure that the lessons are learned from Sir David’s murder. As the Minister knows, the perpetrator had been in the Prevent programme previously, like the perpetrators in Reading and Southport. Julia and Katie Amess would like Sir David’s murderer and the failings of Prevent to be looked at alongside the Southport case, which is being investigated, and the Reading case. Will the Minister honour his memory by agreeing to that today?

Child Rape Gangs

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the child rape gangs scandal.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

The shadow Home Secretary was away when I updated the House on the Government’s response to the independent national inquiry into child sexual abuse, and on the action that we are taking to investigate and tackle child grooming gangs across the country. As I have said many times, people up and down this country are understandably horrified by the appalling crimes committed by despicable grooming gangs. Children were subjected to the most unthinkable sexual violence. Frontline services, local authorities and elected politicians turned away or even blamed the children, rather than their rapists. I know this because I speak to victims week in, week out, and I have done so for decades.

This Government are determined to get to the truth of both historical and current grooming gangs, to ensure that perpetrators are punished and to deliver justice and accountability for victims and survivors. That is why we are pressing ahead with the key recommendations of the independent inquiry, including the mandatory duty to report. Baroness Casey, who conducted a no-holds-barred review into grooming gangs’ offending in Rotherham, is currently overseeing a national audit of group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse. The audit will identify what further work is needed. It is looking at the scale, nature and profile of group-based abuse, including the characteristics of offenders. It will conclude in the coming weeks, and I have already committed to publishing the findings.

The Home Secretary and I have always been clear that the first priority in tackling this heinous offending is getting perpetrators behind bars, and getting justice for the victims and survivors. That is why all police forces in England and Wales have been asked to review historical grooming gangs investigations that were closed with no further action, and to pursue new lines of inquiry and reopen investigations where appropriate.

We are also going further than ever before to support local areas to hold independent local inquiries, which can drive action and accountability at a local level. That is what inquiries in Telford, Manchester and Rotherham have delivered effectively, and that is the approach we would like to see rolled out elsewhere. In January, we said that we would support five local inquiries. We are moving ahead with that commitment, and we have confirmed that funding will be made available to Oldham council as part of this work. We are currently working with a range of experts to develop a best practice local inquiries framework, so that local areas that conduct inquiries do so in a way that actually delivers justice, accountability and truth, commanding the support of victims and survivors.

Our focus is on delivering meaningful, tangible change for victims and survivors. That means delivering on the key recommendations of Professor Jay’s national inquiry, getting perpetrators behind bars and, most importantly of all, protecting children today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

The whole nation is shocked by the rape gangs scandal. Thousands of young teenage girls were systematically raped over years by men of predominantly Pakistani heritage—girls such as Jane, who was repeatedly gang raped at the age of just 12. The police found her being abused by an illegal immigrant, but instead of arresting the illegal immigrant, they arrested her. That is sick. The last Government took action by setting up the wider Jay inquiry and the grooming gangs taskforce, but the truth is that that is not enough.

There is now clear evidence that those in authority covered up these rapes because the perpetrators were mainly of Pakistani heritage. Last week, I met retired Detective Chief Inspector John Piekos. In Bradford, he witnessed the abuse of a young girl in a car, but he was then instructed by a chief superintendent to drop the matter in order to avoid antagonising Bradford’s Muslim community. Covering up the rape of young girls for that reason is one of the most immoral things I have ever heard, yet not a single person—not one—has ever been held to account for these cover-ups.

That is why we need a national statutory public inquiry that can compel the production of evidence. Even last year, authorities in Manchester were still covering up, leading the chairs of the local Manchester inquiry to resign. Five local inquiries, which cannot compel the production of evidence, just will not do. Fifty towns were affected, not five. Bradford, where some of the worst abuse occurred, is refusing to co-operate with any inquiry at all. There has never been an inquiry in Bradford, because the council is refusing to participate.

The Home Secretary promised on 16 January that Baroness Casey would complete a rapid audit within three months. Three months have now passed and we have heard nothing whatsoever. The Government said there would be five local inquiries, but we know nothing about four of them. The man charged with setting them up, Tom Crowther, told the Home Affairs Committee on 1 April that he had been sidelined by the Minister over there, and “did not know” what was going on.

Finally, I recently met Marlon West, whose daughter was trafficked, abused and raped by mainly Asian men, including in Bradford. He said that this Government should be ashamed of themselves, and they should hold a national inquiry. Jane, who was trafficked and gang raped at 12, also wants a statutory national inquiry. Labour Mayor Andy Burnham, Harriet Harman and the Labour MP for Rotherham—the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion)—all agree. So will the Minister do what they, and Marlon and Jane, are all begging for, and hold a national inquiry so that those who covered up this scandal are at last held to account?

[Jess Phillips]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary. I do not need to read out the things found in other local inquiries to know, because I speak to the victims. I spoke to some of the victims of grooming gangs this morning, and I will speak to some more tomorrow. I have spoken to them from Oxford, from Birmingham, from Rochdale, from Rotherham and from Oldham. I know exactly the issue of the cover-up, as does everybody already, because of the many local inquiries that have told us this happened and the national inquiry that has told us there were cover-ups.

What we must focus on is making sure, as happened in Telford, that there is a local process of accountability that actually changes things on the ground, and that is what I will do. I have been trying to change things on the ground all my life, since the very first time I met a girl who had been ignored. I will continue to do that, and do what is right for the victims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

We have committed to five, but I expect to go further.

[Chris Philp]

When?

[Jess Phillips]

I will answer the question of when. The framework for what local authorities will be tasked with will be released later in May, as will Baroness Casey’s review, which I have committed to publishing. All those things will be dependent on each other. I cannot stand here and say exactly what that will look like, because I do not know what Baroness Casey will say about any particular area and what I might need to focus on. I will go on the basis of facts—something that does not happen very often in this debate, I have to say. I will follow the facts; wherever they tell me that there are victims who need help, that is where I will go.

Foreign Influence Registration Scheme

Chris Philp Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I start by thanking the Security Minister for advance sight of his statement, which he provided with his customary professionalism and courtesy. We on the Conservative Benches welcome the commencement of the FIRS regime, legislated for in the last Parliament, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Members for Witham (Priti Patel), for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), for their work in bringing that legislation forward. I also welcome the announcement that Iran and now Russia will be included on the enhanced list, meaning that all activity undertaken in the UK by those countries or those acting for those countries must be registered.

However, I will address the bulk of my remarks to the elephant in the room, which the Security Minister did not mention at all in his statement: China. MI5’s director general, Ken McCallum, said in July 2022, almost three years ago:

“The most game-changing challenge we face comes from the Chinese Communist Party. It’s covertly applying pressure across the globe.”

In October 2023 he added:

“We have seen a sustained campaign”

of Chinese espionage on an “epic scale”. In January 2024 the director of the FBI, Christopher Wray, said that China is

“the defining threat of our generation”.

As such, I have a very simple question for the Security Minister this afternoon. He had plenty to say about Iran and Russia, quite rightly, but why is he silent on China? We know that China engages in industrial-scale espionage, seeking to steal technology from Governments, universities and industry. It represses Chinese citizens in this country and has sought to infiltrate our political system. In 2022, MI5 exposed that China sought to infiltrate this very Parliament via its agent Christine Lee. It has set up undeclared and illegal police stations in the UK, and in December last year it placed a bounty on the head of three Hong Kong dissidents living in the UK. I would like to ask again a question that was not answered last time: why has the Chinese ambassador not been summoned to explain that?

There is no question in my mind that China should be in the enhanced tier of FIRS, and it is an astonishing omission that it has not been listed as such already. Why are the Government silent on this issue? In the past, Governments have prioritised economic growth in their relations with China, but we now know a lot more about how China operates than we did 10 or 15 years ago—we know what it is up to. Is the truth not that, in their desperation to get economic growth going after the Chancellor’s rather unfortunate autumn Budget, the Government seem to be prioritising economic links over national security when it comes to China? I imagine that is why the Government appear to be intending to grant planning permission to China for its super-embassy, which we all know will be a base for espionage activity.

The Minister has rightly spoken about the threat posed by Iran and Russia. He is right to take action, and we support him in doing so. However, MI5 and the FBI have both warned about the epic threat posed by China, so will he please answer this simple question: will he place China in the enhanced tier?

[Dan Jarvis]

To begin on what I hope will be a point of consensus, I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for the gratitude he expressed in general terms for the progression of this scheme. I certainly hope that there is cross-party agreement about the importance of this new tool, and I am very grateful for his support. I am also grateful for the work done by the previous Government on the development and subsequent implementation of the National Security Act 2023.

Before I turn to the question that the shadow Home Secretary posed, I just say to him that we are trying, through the use of FIRS and other means and mechanisms, to ensure that the UK is as hard a target as possible, and to make it the most challenging operating environment for those who would do us harm. The Government take these matters incredibly seriously, and I hope he would acknowledge that we have progressed the process of FIRS at pace, despite some accusations from one or two Opposition Members that that was not the case.

I hope that the shadow Home Secretary would acknowledge that the main geographical focus today was on Russia. We covered Iran a number of weeks ago, but in addition to the other remarks I have made about FIRS, the focus has been on Russia. He did not have very much to say about Russia, but I welcome him welcoming the fact that we have specified Russia on the enhanced tier.

For reasons that I completely understand, the shadow Home Secretary asked about China. He will recall the remarks I made to this House on 4 March, where I was very clear that countries will be considered separately and decisions will be taken by this Government based on the evidence. I said then, as I say again now, that I will not speculate on which countries may or may not be specified in future. That is the right way to proceed, and I hope he understands that.

I hope that the shadow Home Secretary recognises that the Government, with the wider strategy we are pursuing on China, are taking a consistent, long-term and strategic approach to managing the UK’s relationship with China. I did not agree—this will come as no surprise to him—with how he characterised the nature of the relationship with that country. The Government’s policy is clear: we will co-operate where we can, compete where we need to and challenge where we must, including on issues of national security.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Many seeking asylum, including from Syria, enter the UK by illegally crossing the channel, which is, of course, completely unnecessary, as France is a safe country with a well-functioning asylum system. In relation to those channel crossings, will the Minister accept that the Government’s plan to smash the gangs lies in tatters? Crossings are up by 31% since the election—they are about to break 300,000—and the first three months of this year have been the worst on record. Does the Minister accept it was a catastrophic mistake to cancel the Rwanda deterrent before it even started? I was in Berlin last week, and the new German Government, and other European Governments, are looking to implement removals deterrents very similar to the Rwanda deterrent. Will she now do a U-turn and implement a removals deterrent so that all illegal arrivals are rapidly removed to a safe third country?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Some 84,000 people crossed the channel from the day the Rwandan deal was signed to the day it was scrapped. The Conservatives failed to deter a single boat or deport a single person. Instead, they spent £700 million and sent four people—four failed asylum seekers—to start a new life in Kigali with free housing, free private healthcare and free university education, at a cost of £150,000 each. If the right hon. Gentleman really thinks that paying £150,000 per removed asylum seeker was an adequate answer to the challenge of small boat crossings, then I do not know what planet he is living on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Has the Home Secretary seen the police’s anti-racism commitment that was published last week, which says that the police do not have to treat everyone the same regardless of race and calls for arrest rates to be artificially engineered to be the same across racial groups? Does she agree that this two-tier approach to policing is totally unacceptable?

[Yvette Cooper]

The police operate without fear or favour, and they respond to the crimes they face across the country and to the perpetrators of those crimes, whosoever they should be and wheresoever they are. That is the right approach for the police to take, whether they are dealing with the most serious violence—which we have prioritised—or with neighbourhood crimes in communities. As the shadow Home Secretary will know from the approach we are taking to the Sentencing Council and the importance of us bringing forward rapid emergency legislation in that area, we are very clear that there can be no preferential treatment for anyone in the criminal justice system. It is really important that the principle of fair treatment for all is always maintained.

[Chris Philp]

I completely agree with the Home Secretary that people should stand equally before the law and be treated exactly the same, regardless of their race or identity. I agree with the Home Secretary about all of that, but unfortunately the anti-racism commitment published last week does not say that—in fact, it says the opposite. It expressly says that

“It does not mean treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind’”.

Given that the Home Secretary and I agree that the law should be blind to race and that everyone should be treated the same, will she join me in tabling an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill to override those provisions in the anti-racism commitment?

[Yvette Cooper]

The police already have to swear an oath on their impartiality and policing without fear or favour. That is the responsibility of every single police officer right across the country. The shadow Home Secretary will know that there are dedicated police officers who do exactly that and will continue to do exactly that, to ensure that they treat everyone appropriately and make sure that everyone faces justice before the law.

Asylum Hotels and Illegal Channel Crossings

Chris Philp Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on asylum hotels and illegal immigrants crossing the channel.

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

As the right hon. Member is aware, the Home Office discharges its statutory duty to provide accommodation and to support destitute asylum seekers through seven asylum accommodation and support services contracts. Those contracts were entered into by the previous Government, commencing in 2019, and are split between three providers: Clearsprings Ready Homes Ltd, Serco Ltd, and Mears Ltd.

Significant elements of the behaviour and performance of one of the sub-contractors of Clearsprings Ready Homes fell short of what we would expect from a Government supplier. That is why the Home Office has informed Clearsprings Ready Homes that it must exit the arrangements with a subcontractor in its supply chain, Stay Belvedere Hotels. We will not hesitate to take further action in respect of Clearsprings and its wider supply chain if that proves necessary, and we are conducting a full audit of our supply chain.

We expect the highest standards from those contracted to provide essential services, and this Government will always hold them to account for delivery, performance and value for money. Where there are concerns about how contractors or their subcontractors are discharging their contractual obligations, we will not hesitate to take swift and decisive action.

The Home Office progresses matters relating to these contracts with its providers in commercial confidentiality. I will not give a running commentary, but I assure the House that whatever the position with any of its providers, the Home Office remains focused on maintaining continuity of service and ensuring that our statutory obligation is met at all times, and has contingency plans in this regard. None of that takes away from our commitment to reducing the huge cost of asylum hotels, which remains our priority.

In relation to channel crossings, this Government have put forward a serious, credible plan to restore order to our asylum system, including tougher enforcement powers, ramping up returns to their highest levels for more than half a decade, and a major crackdown on illegal working to end the false promise of jobs, used by gangs to sell spaces on boats. Increased law enforcement action and disruption is already showing some indication of pressure on the business model of the gangs, and we are introducing new powers for law enforcement to use against the vile trade in people smuggling and trafficking.

[Chris Philp]

Last summer, the Government were elected on a promise to end the use of asylum hotels. Well, it has now been nine months, so let us see how they are getting on. The use of asylum hotels has gone up by 8,000 since the general election—it has not gone down; it has gone up. Some 38,000 mainly illegal immigrants are now in those hotels, costing hard-working taxpayers around £2 billion a year. It is completely unacceptable that taxpayers are asked to foot a bill that size. The people living in those hotels broke our laws by coming here from France, which is a manifestly safe country that nobody needs to leave. I have a very simple question for the Minister: when will the Government end the use of asylum hotels?

During the election campaign last summer and subsequently, the Government also promised to “smash the gangs”, but that promise now lies in tatters. In the nine months since the election, 29,162 people—nearly 30,000 people—have illegally crossed the English channel, which is a 31% increase on the same period 12 months before. In fact, 2025 is even worse. Since 1 January, more people have crossed the English channel illegally than in any year in history—this is the worst year. It is 38% worse than the previous worst year, so things are getting worse not better. They have not smashed the gangs, but capitulated to them.

The hon. Lady mentioned returns. Most of those returns do not relate to people who arrived by small boat. In fact, those people being returned who came by small boat amount to only about 4% of small boat arrivals; I do not know how letting 96% of people who arrived by small boat stay here is a deterrent.

At the weekend, we saw briefings—to the press and not to Parliament, Mr Speaker—that the Government are now considering some kind of offshore removal scheme. That sounds vaguely familiar! At last they have realised that some kind of removals deterrent is needed. Will the Minister now apologise for cancelling the Rwanda deterrent before it even started and, as a consequence, losing control of our borders?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I will not take any lessons from the shadow Minister. In his last three months as Immigration Minister, nearly 10,000 people crossed the channel in small boats, but he is complaining about half that level of crossings happening in the past three months. Neither will I take any lessons from someone who served in a Government who presided over a situation where, at its height, there were 56,000 people in more than 400 hotels. We are getting a grip on the problem by starting up asylum processing once more, but we inherited a huge backlog. There was a 70% fall in asylum processing in the run-up to the general election, with more than 100,000 people stuck without being processed in the asylum system. We are getting a grip of that, but by definition, the backlog and chaos that the Conservatives left us is taking time.

Crime and Policing Bill

Chris Philp Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Let me start by paying tribute to the brave police officers up and down the country who, on a daily basis, put themselves in the line of danger to protect us and our constituencies. Every morning when an officer puts on their uniform, they do not know what they might encounter during their working day—they do not know whether they might be attacked—yet they take that risk to protect us. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in expressing our thanks and gratitude to those brave men and women for the work that they do on our behalf every single day.

When I was the Policing Minister a year or two ago, I was moved at the national police memorial service—I think it was held in Cardiff that year—marking the memory of the officers who had lost their lives in the line of duty. I remember meeting their families, whose lives had been devastated by losing a wife or husband, son or daughter, father or mother. I am sure that all of us have come across such cases in our constituencies. I am thinking particularly of Sergeant Matt Ratana, who lost his life in the Croydon custody centre a few years ago—I attended his memorial service—and all of us will be thinking of PC Keith Palmer, who lost his life not far from here, protecting us in Parliament. We owe them all a debt of gratitude.

I would like to start by addressing one or two of the broader points the Home Secretary raised in her speech before turning to the substance of the Bill. The first point is about the question of police officer numbers, which she spoke about quite extensively. I noticed that she picked out one particular subset of police officer numbers, and I wondered why she kept doing so. I think I know why: it is because the total of police officers last March—on 31 March—stood at a record ever number. There were 149,679 police officers, which is more than we have ever had at any point in our country’s history.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Philp]

What an appealing choice! I give way to the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra).

[Navendu Mishra]

The shadow Home Secretary is making an important point, but does he accept that, between 2010 and 2024, the population of the UK increased and so did the complexity of crime? I often meet police officers in my constituency and across Greater Manchester who are stressed out and working very long hours, often covering for other officers. Does he accept that the argument he is making is slightly flawed because the population has increased, the complexity of crime has increased and the amount of time officers spend on tackling crime has changed?

[Chris Philp]

As I said, there was a record ever number of police officers, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to measure police officer numbers against demand, one of the relevant metrics to consider—

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Can I have another go?

[Chris Philp]

I am just going to answer the question, if I may.

One of the relevant metrics to consider is the overall volume of crime that the police have to investigate. That might be the number that one looks at in deciding whether police numbers need to go up.

[Mr Brash]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Philp]

I am just going to actually make the point first, if I may.

According to the crime survey for England and Wales, which the Office for National Statistics says is the only statistically meaningful measure of crime, between 2010 and 2024—just to pick a couple of arbitrary dates at random—overall crime fell from 9.5 million to 4.7 million incidents, or a reduction of 51%. So over that period, we saw a 51% reduction in overall crime, but an increase in the number of police officers to that record number. Those are the facts.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

Does the shadow Home Secretary recognise that the number of reported crimes involving sexual violence went up by 300% under his Government? When he talks about police numbers, would he also like to mention how many police officers left because of conditions in their police force and because of mental health and physical health issues?

[Chris Philp]

Attrition in the police forces is something we need to take very seriously. I am trying to recall the numbers, but from memory, each year approximately 3% to 4% of police officers leave owing to retirement, and a further approximately 3% to 3.5% leave before their retirement age. A 3% non-retirement rate of leaving is of course much lower than in most professions, but I am sure we would all like it to be lower. The last Government started doing work on mental health support for police officers, which I am sure the current Government will continue.

Let me say a word about the future, because having hit record ever police officer numbers, I am rather anxious to make sure—

[Mr Brash]

rose—

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

rose—

[Chris Philp]

I am going to make some progress, but then I will give way.

I am rather anxious to make sure that those record ever numbers are maintained. The funding settlement for the police, announced by the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister a few weeks ago, increased by £1.089 billion, and they made a big play of that figure. However, when we go through the funding pressures that police forces across England and Wales face and add them all up, including the £230 million extra that police forces will have to pay in national insurance, the funding pressures add up not to £1.089 billion, but to £1.205 billion. The funding pressures in the coming financial year, which starts in just a few weeks’ time, are about £116 million more than the funding increase. There is a gap, and the consequence is that the 43 police forces across England and Wales may have to cut 1,800 officers to make up that funding shortfall.

[Mr Brash]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman is showing extreme enthusiasm, which I feel should be rewarded.

[Mr Brash]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for giving way. He makes play of the numbers from 2010 and 2024. As a former councillor, I can tell him that the ward I represented in 2010 had a full-time police officer and two full-time PCSOs. When his Government left office in June 2024, the ward had one part-time PCSO and was a third larger. Would he care to apologise to the people of Hartlepool for that disgraceful record?

[Chris Philp]

I will not apologise for delivering record police numbers. If the hon. Gentleman’s local force is not deploying those officers in the best way, he should take that up with his local police and crime commissioner. In the light of the number of Members who want to speak, I ought to get on to the Bill.

When I first picked up this Bill, I must confess to experiencing a frisson of excitement. The Home Secretary had been in opposition for 14 years—not quite long enough, but still 14 years—and I thought that, during those 14 years, she must have come up with lots of good new ideas. I picked up the Bill, excited to find out what new things it might contain. But as I turned the pages to scrutinise its contents, a strange feeling of familiarity came over me—almost a sense of déjà vu. I had seen quite a few of its measures somewhere before, mostly in the last Government’s Criminal Justice Bill.

The Government’s press release, which they modestly issued on First Reading a couple of weeks ago, highlighted 35 headline measures. I checked to see how many had been copied and pasted from the previous Government, and the answer was about 23 of them. Two thirds of this Bill has apparently been copied and pasted from the previous Government. Now, I know the Home Secretary works closely with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and views her as something of a role model, but emulating her copy-and-pasting is probably not the best thing to do.

These new measures—the spiking offence, the intimate image offence, the duty to report, the new criminal offence of possessing a bladed article with intent, and the new maximum penalty for selling dangerous weapons to under-18s—are all good measures introduced by the last Government. Of course, they would have been legislated for by now if not for the unfortunate early general election—[Interruption.] Yes, it was unfortunate. I congratulate the Home Secretary on using the ctrl-C and ctrl-V functions on her Home Office computer to emulate so many of the previous Bill’s measures.

[Neil Coyle]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it increasingly sounds like he is saying that—on police powers, on the measures in this Bill, on police officer numbers and on resources—the voters got it wrong? That sounds incredibly insulting to the public. Frankly, an apology would be better. Is he aware that, in Southwark, we had fewer officers at the time of the last election, which he says came too soon? It did not come soon enough for my electors, who still have fewer police officers in 2025 than they had in 2010.

[Chris Philp]

The Metropolitan police, as a whole, does in fact have record officer numbers, but it could have had about an extra 1,500 officers had its police and crime commissioner, Sadiq Khan, bothered to recruit them. In fact, Sadiq Khan was the only police and crime commissioner in the country to miss his recruitment target.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the record of Conservative police and crime commissioners is unlike that of some police and crime commissioners representing other parties in this House? In Devon and Cornwall, Alison Hernandez has overseen the reopening of 14 police front desks. Perhaps police and crime commissioners representing other parties might like to take lessons from that.

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend is quite right. Conservative police and crime commissioners do tend to have much better track records on keeping police stations open and delivering lower crime figures.

I want to ask the Home Secretary some questions, and maybe the Policing Minister will respond to them at the end of the debate. Some measures that were in the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill have disappeared from this Government’s Bill, and I would be genuinely interested to hear the Government’s thinking on them.

One area that is conspicuously missing from this Bill is the measures on nuisance begging. The previous Government intended to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824 using a statutory instrument once new replacement measures—contained in the old Bill—were on the statute books. I see that the new Bill, tabled by this Government, does not contain those nuisance begging measures.

Could the Policing Minister, either by intervening now, or in her winding-up speech, tell the House what the Government’s plans are around repealing the 1824 Act—or not—and around nuisance begging? Of course, were they to repeal that Act using a statutory instrument without introducing any new measures, there would be a lacuna in the criminal law. I am sure the whole House would appreciate an update.

Secondly, the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill contained a measure to compel perpetrators who had just been convicted of a criminal offence to appear in the dock for sentencing, with a power to use reasonable force to do so. There had been some distressing cases in which someone who had been convicted then refused to appear in the dock to face justice. That measure, as far as I can see, is not in the new Bill, and I would appreciate knowing the Government’s thinking on that.

The third omission I have noticed so far relates to the new offence of assaulting an emergency worker—also announced by the previous Government, I might add. The criminal behaviour order for people who assault a shop worker is welcome, but the previous Bill, as announced, contained a measure that said if someone repeatedly assaulted a retail worker—I think it was three times or more—they would be subject to electronic monitoring: a tag. I do not see that particular provision in this Bill. Again, I would be interested in the Policing Minister’s views on that.

I turn now to a matter that the Home Secretary made a great deal of in her speech, which is the change made in 2014 around shop theft involving goods worth £200 or less. Listening to the Home Secretary and Government communications around this matter, one might think it had ceased to be a criminal offence in 2014. That is, of course, not the case. Shoplifting goods of any value, including under £200, was and always has been a criminal offence, subject to section 1 of the Theft Act 1968.

[Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Philp]

I am just going to develop a point, and then I will be happy to take interventions—particularly from the Home Secretary.

In 2014, it was changed from being an either-way offence to a summary-only offence. Either-way means the offence can be tried in the magistrates court or the Crown court; summary-only means magistrates court only. It was still a criminal offence, and people could still be convicted and sentenced to up to a year in prison for committing it—it certainly was not decriminalised. In fact, the Government’s own impact assessment says that about 90% of the charges for shoplifting involved goods under £200 and were tried in a magistrates court. If it was ineffective, why did 90% of charges relate to goods under £200?

The Home Secretary claims that this alteration will herald some sort of extraordinary change in the way shoplifting is treated, but I would respectfully refer her to page 28 of her economic note 1007, which I am sure Members present have all read—silence. Paragraph 144 says that the central scenario in the Government’s impact assessment assumes that the number of charges, with this change, will remain constant. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, there will be no change in the number of charges as a result of this alteration. The Home Secretary points to this matter as some kind of silver bullet, but I am afraid to say that her own impact assessment says something very different indeed.

The measure has potentially adverse consequences too. This is a serious point, and I genuinely ask the Home Secretary to think about it carefully. When the offence is made either-way, rather than summary only, lots of people who are charged will elect to have a Crown court jury trial instead of a magistrates court trial. A magistrates court trial, for a not guilty plea, is generally heard in six to eight weeks—it is relatively quick—but a Crown court jury trial could take a year and a half to be heard.

The first adverse consequence that I would caution about is that, instead—[Interruption.] I am making a serious point, so it would be good for hon. Members to think about it. Instead of those cases being heard in the magistrates court in six to eight weeks, there could be a delay of one and a half years. I am sure that that is not the Government’s intention, but that is what could happen if the change is made.

The second adverse consequence is that if lots of shoplifting cases that are currently heard in the magistrates court end up in the Crown court before a jury, valuable and scarce Crown court jury trial time that should be used for serious cases such as rape, murder and grievous bodily harm will be taken up with shoplifting. I understand that the Home Secretary wants to send a signal—I really do—but I ask the Government to reflect carefully on the potential unintended consequences. That is a serious point, and I ask the Government to consider it. The change may end up having the opposite effect from what they intend.

The Home Secretary raised one or two other things that I would like to talk about, the first of which is knife crime. There are some measures in the Bill that are designed to address knife crime. We will support those measures; I am sure that all hon. Members want to fight the scourge of knife crime, which is responsible for about a third of all homicides. Almost all hon. Members will have encountered a constituency case; I will never forget attending the funeral of 15-year-old Elianne Andam in Croydon. She was murdered at 8.30 am on the morning of 27 September 2023 on Wellesley Road in central Croydon by a 17-year-old perpetrator with a knife. I will never forget seeing the grief that her parents and her little brother Kobi suffered. I am sure that we would all want to fight knife crime for that reason.

In addition to the measures in the Bill, which we will support, I would be grateful if the Policing Minister could confirm that the patrolling of hotspots, started under the last Government, will continue in areas where knife crime is a problem, and that the funding will continue. That could make an important difference.

It is also important that stop-and-search powers are used. In my view, taking knives off the street is the most important thing. In London, in the past, stop and search took about 400 knives a month off the streets—knives that could have been used to kill someone like Elianne. I am concerned that stop-and-search numbers are down due to misplaced concerns about community tension. I encourage the Government to get police forces to use stop and search more, and to amend legislation, including PACE—the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—code A, to make the use of stop and search easier.

I spoke to a police officer in Croydon last Sunday, and he said that he felt that the police were worried about misconduct proceedings if they used the power of stop and search. I would like to make it easier for police officers to use those powers to protect the public. I would like to hear the Government’s views on that, but we are minded to table amendments in this area to give the police more confidence to use stop-and-search powers to save the lives of people like Elianne.

When I was Policing Minister about a year ago, I provided some funding to invest in exploring new technology to scan for knives at a distance of perhaps 10 metres—not very far. That would mean that people walking down the street in areas where knife crime is a problem could be scanned and, if they had a knife concealed on their person, it would be identified. About a year ago, that technology was emerging and I put the money behind it to develop it to the point where it could be deployed. I was told by the company doing that, and by Home Office officials, that by about spring 2025, a version of that technology would be available that could be used experimentally on the street.

I would be grateful to know, perhaps in an intervention from the Policing Minister now, whether that work has been carried forward and whether that scanning technology is ready to deploy. It could, I think, help to take knives off our streets and save lives. I would be happy to take an intervention now.

[The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)]

indicated dissent.

[Chris Philp]

The Minister will come back to it later.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

It seems to me that the Government’s good work in this Bill in criminalising the possession of knives with intent will be undermined if the police have to wait for someone to take out the knife and commit an attack before they can discover whether they have a knife. Surely, if there is a separate offence arising from mere possession, as my right hon. Friend says, it is particularly important to enable the police to discover that someone possesses that knife before they have had a chance to do harm with it.

[Chris Philp]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we are to prosecute these offences, put more potential perpetrators in prison and, critically, protect the public, we need to detect more of the knives that are routinely carried on our cities’ streets. That means more stop and search and the use of knife-scanning technology of the kind I just described to identify those knives before they are used. My right hon. Friend put it very powerfully.

The Opposition may also be minded to table amendments on the setting up of a statutory national inquiry into rape gangs. For some reason the Government have only set up local inquiries in five areas. Some local authorities are refusing to hold inquiries, which is scandalous. About 50 towns are affected, so inquiries into just five of them is not good enough. Moreover, those local inquiries do not have the statutory powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 to compel witnesses to give evidence. The chairs of the Manchester local inquiry resigned last year because, even then, public authorities were covering this up. We need a national statutory inquiry, and we intend to amend the Bill to achieve that if the Government will not agree to one. Local councils and councillors, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service were all involved to a greater or lesser extent in ignoring or even covering up these terrible offences. We need to get to the truth.

[Amanda Martin]

Thank you for giving way. We as a Government are taking very seriously the culture of child grooming and gangs. In your previous role as Minister for crime and policing—

[Amanda Martin]

In the right hon. Member’s previous role he attended 352 meetings. Could he please explain why not one of those was on child grooming?

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Lady will know that child grooming falls under the portfolio of the Safeguarding Minister who, during the Conservatives’ time in office, had dozens of meetings on that topic. I had multiple meetings on Operation Soteria, which is designed to combat rape and serious sexual assault.

I think that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are keen to move on to Back-Bench speeches, since there is so much interest in this Bill.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

There are a lot of really good things in this Bill that my right hon. Friend has not mentioned, particularly around tackling violence against women and girls, with the legislation on stalking. Some of that work was carried out cross-party over the past few years, such as on increasing the age of consent for marriage from 16 to 18, and tackling forced marriage issues, hymenoplasty and virginity testing, which I helped put through in the last Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should try to convince the Government to introduce legislation around first cousin marriage—a very serious issue—and include in this legislation some of the sexual offences that relate to that?

[Chris Philp]

I support my hon. Friend’s proposals around first cousin marriage. The health implications are deeply alarming. We could take that forward in the Bill and put it to a vote of the House.

Lastly, will the Policing Minister provide an update on the use of technology to combat crime, particularly the use of retrospective and live facial recognition, which enables the police to catch criminals who would otherwise not be caught? She knows that I support that strongly, and I would gladly support her if she wants to continue that work.

[Neil Coyle]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Chris Philp]

I have to finish now.

I am glad to see so many familiar clauses in the Bill. The Opposition broadly support the intent of the Bill, but what really matters is delivery—making sure that those record police numbers mean that we catch criminals and increase the conviction rate. Those police numbers and the results that they deliver are the yardstick by which the Government will be measured. I look forward to scrutinising the Bill as it passes through the House, and to tabling constructive amendments during its various stages.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

It is always a genuine pleasure to be intervened on by the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for rising to his feet. What I said was that if this was a Lib Dem Bill—I look forward to one coming forward in the fullness of time—we would not spend as much time talking about this as a criminal act. There are many priorities for the Government, and I will talk about a number of measures that we were disappointed not to see included in this 340-page Bill, at the expense of the issue he raises.

For example, we have waited with bated breath for the new Government to crack down on water companies that pollute our rivers with impunity. Nowhere is that issue clearer than in my community; sewage has been dumped in our rivers, and part of the Chadkirk country estate, a beloved green space in my constituency, was turned into a sewage swamp after heavy rainfall in the new year. The field beside Otterspool Road, which the council planned to transform into a well-kept community meadow, was flooded with raw sewage. Current laws allow the water companies to get away with that. Liberal Democrats will continue to push to make sewage dumping a specific criminal offence, so that water company executives can be held accountable for the damage they do to our communities.

The Government’s failure to reference rural crime even once in the Bill is unacceptable. I heard the Home Secretary’s response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who is no longer in his place, and it is indeed welcome that a rural crime strategy is on the way, but we Lib Dems will push for a commitment to this issue in the Bill. Rural crime is not an inconvenience; it is a growing crisis. The National Farmers Union reported that the cost of rural crime soared to over £52 million in 2023, with organised gangs targeting farm machinery, vehicles and GPS equipment, yet fewer than 1% of police officers are in dedicated rural crime teams. I heard that for myself when I met a dozen local farmers at Far Benfield farm in Cowlishaw Brow last week. I clearly heard about the impact that organised fly-tipping and organised equipment theft has on farming families.

Finally, there is a gap in the Bill where a discussion of regulating or legislating for live facial recognition should be. The Liberal Democrats have been clear that the technology is a threat to privacy, is discriminatory and does not make our streets safer. The previous Government pushed ahead with its use, despite serious concerns from human rights organisations, legal experts and even their own independent biometrics commissioner. The police should focus on evidence-based crime prevention, not rolling out flawed and biased surveillance technology. Any use of it by the police must be transparent, unbiased and regulated. We can see police forces coming up with their own rules within which to operate. It is long past time for the Government to set the framework.

[Chris Philp]

The system being used is not biased. It has been tested by the National Physical Laboratory, and the bias problems that existed seven or eight years ago have been resolved. The hon. Lady says that the technology is unregulated; it is not. A Supreme Court case set out the parameters, and they are now enshrined in authorised professional practice, which is national College of Policing guidance.

[Lisa Smart]

I do not recall hearing a question from the shadow Home Secretary, but I am sure that he would welcome the matter being further clarified in the legislation. He said at the Dispatch Box that live facial recognition is not mentioned in the Bill. I agree. I am sure that we would both welcome scrutinising it, perhaps from different starting points, but ending up with a situation in which our police forces were confident that they knew exactly what the rules were, and exactly how to make best use of any new technology coming through.

The Government and this Bill have the potential to deliver real change, but only if the Government listen. That means a return to proper neighbourhood policing, to giving rural police the resources that they desperately need, and to protecting civil liberties. It is time for the Government to show that they are serious about preventing crime and enabling our police to act when crime has been committed. All our communities across the whole country deserve nothing less.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)]

It is an honour and privilege to wind up the debate on what is, as the Home Secretary set out in her opening speech, a critically important Bill. It is critically important for all sorts of reasons, many of which have been highlighted during the debate. It has been a wide-ranging discussion, which is unsurprising given the Bill’s scope and breadth.

There have been many excellent and powerful contributions, particularly from the Government Benches, with over 57 Back-Bench speakers. There is a thread that binds all the Bill’s measures together: this Government’s unwavering commitment to the security of our country and the safety of our communities and people we all represent. We are on the side of the law-abiding majority, who have had enough after 14 years of Conservative Governments.

This Bill will support and progress our safer streets mission, which is integral to the Government’s plan for change. We are determined to rebuild neighbourhood policing, restore confidence in the criminal justice system and reduce the harm caused by crime. We have already taken action to strengthen the response to threats, including knife crime, antisocial behaviour and violence against women and girls, but to deliver the change that the British people want and deserve, we must go further, and this Bill will allow us to do that.

It is evident from the debate that there is broad cross-party support for many of the Bill’s measures. It has been helpful to have the insights and experience of hon. Members who have previously served as police officers—my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) and for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop)—as well as the wise words from a former Crown prosecutor who now sits on the Government Benches, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth).

Many of my hon. Friends welcomed the commitment to neighbourhood policing, the focus on antisocial behaviour, the introduction of respect orders and the new powers for vehicles being used for antisocial behaviour. In fact, there is a very long list of those Members: my hon. Friends the Members for Telford (Shaun Davies), for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor), for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith), for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones), for Erewash (Adam Thompson), for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale), for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), for Makerfield (Josh Simons), for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert), for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith), for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Mansfield (Steve Yemm). They all spoke with great passion about their constituencies and the effect that antisocial behaviour has had on their communities.

Similarly, many hon. Friends spoke about retail crime and the ending of the shoplifters’ charter, and welcomed the new offence that will better protect retail workers. We heard about that from my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Sean Woodcock), for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson), for St Helens North (David Baines), for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) and for High Peak (Jon Pearce).

Members spoke eloquently in support of the new offences to tackle child criminal exploitation, stalking, cuckooing, spiking and knife crime, including my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington South (Sarah Hall), for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), for Colchester (Pam Cox), for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey).

I also pay tribute to the Members who have campaigned on these issues for some time, including the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and my hon. Friends the Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones). The measures for which they have been campaigning are in the Bill. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, who we recognise is a doughty campaigner, that we are certainly considering dangerous cycling in detail.

In the limited time available to me, I will focus on a few of the points raised throughout the debate, but there will clearly be opportunities during line-by-line scrutiny in Committee to debate all the matters raised this evening fully and properly. I will start with the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who asked a number of questions—some of which were not a surprise, given his focus on technology in particular. In his speech, he seemed to be suffering from amnesia about what has happened to policing and crime over the past 14 years. It is worth gently reminding him that, in the period from April to June last year, when his Government were still in post and, in fact, he was Policing Minister, police numbers were going down. I just thought that I would gently remind him of that, because he obviously needs a bit of help to recall what was happening on his watch. Of course, neighbourhood policing was decimated under the previous Government.

Let me get to some of the specific questions that the shadow Home Secretary wanted me to answer. We all agree that rough sleeping and nuisance begging are complex issues. We are working closely with the Deputy Prime Minister and her Department to ensure that such individuals, who are often vulnerable, are appropriately supported—that is set against our commitment to stand by the police and effectively tackle crime and antisocial behaviour. As it stands, the Vagrancy Act 1824 remains in force, and we know that police forces in many areas also use the ASB powers to tackle the antisocial behaviour associated with begging and rough sleeping.

The shadow Home Secretary also asked about the provisions to compel offenders to attend sentencing hearings. As announced in the King’s Speech in 2024, those measures will be introduced in the forthcoming victims, courts and public protection Bill.

[Chris Philp]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I would really like to get on actually. The shadow Home Secretary had quite a lot of time at the beginning of the debate, and I would like to respond to the Back Benchers who have spent many hours in the Chamber in order to make their points. However, in response to a question that he asked about knife scanning technology, the Home Office is still working with industry partners to develop systems that are specifically designed to detect at a distance knives concealed on a person. That work is part of the Innovation competitions that were launched last year, and phase one is expected to be delivered by the end of May, resulting in the first prototype systems.

Facial recognition was mentioned by the shadow Home Secretary and a number of hon. Members, and such technology is an important tool to help the police to identify offenders more quickly and accurately. It is showing significant potential to increase police productivity and effectiveness, and it could substantially contribute to our safer streets mission. We need to support the police by ensuring that they have clarity, especially where there is a balance to strike between ensuring public safety and safeguarding the rights of individuals. I will be considering the options for that, alongside broader police reforms that will be in the White Paper later in the spring.

Public order, particularly the issue of protest, was raised by a number of hon. Members including my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Bristol North East (Damien Egan), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart). The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental part of our democracy, and we are fully committed to protecting and preserving that right. However, it is vital that we strike the right balance between the right to protest and the rights of the wider community. I am sure we will debate that issue more fully in Committee. We will also be carrying out expedited post-legislative scrutiny of the Public Order Act 2023, beginning in May. That process will look at how the legislation has operated since coming into force, and we will consider carefully the outputs of that review.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) asked me to confirm that any amendments to the Bill on the subject of abortion will be subject to a free vote. All women have access to safe legal abortions on the NHS up to 24 weeks, including taking early medical abortion pills at home where eligible. We recognise that this is an extremely sensitive issue, and there are strongly held views on all sides of the discussion. My hon. Friend will understand that whipping on the Government Benches is a matter for the Government Chief Whip.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) spoke knowledgably about the issue of mandatory reporting. He referred particularly to religious groups and spoke about the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and he asked for a meeting to discuss the matter further. The purpose of mandatory reporting is obviously to improve the protection of children, and our aim is to create a culture of support, knowledge and openness when dealing with child sexual abuse. That is why we consider it more appropriate for those who fail to discharge their duty to face referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service, and professional regulators where applicable. Those bodies can prevent individuals from working with children, potentially losing their livelihood, which is a serious consequence. The strongest possible sanctions will apply to individuals where deliberate actions have been taken to obstruct a report being made under the duty. Anyone who seeks to prevent a reporter from carrying out their duty to report will face the prospect of up to seven years’ imprisonment.

My hon. Friends the Members for Gower and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert), and the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) asked whether the Bill could be used to reform our prostitution laws. I assure hon. Members that the Government are committed to tackling the harms and exploitation that can be associated with prostitution, and ensuring that women who want to leave prostitution are given every opportunity to find routes out. The Government are closely monitoring new approaches that are being developed in Northern Ireland and parts of mainland Europe, working closely with the voluntary and community sector, and the police, to ensure that the safeguarding of women remains at the heart of our approach.

The repeal of part 4 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 was also raised regarding unauthorised encampments, including by my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and for Liverpool Riverside. I thank my hon. Friends for raising that issue. The Government are considering the High Court’s decision and will respond in due course.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) raised questions about the application of certain provisions in the Bill to Northern Ireland. I assure him and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who raised similar questions, that we are continuing to discuss with the Minister for Justice in Northern Ireland whether further provisions in the Bill should apply to Northern Ireland.

Questions about domestic abuse were raised by the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, and by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). As was discussed in the debate, domestic abuse covers a wide range of behaviours and is already considered by the courts as a factor that increases the seriousness of offending, which may lead to an increase in the length of a sentence. I am sure that the Minister for Safeguarding would be happy to talk to the hon. Member for Eastbourne about his specific concerns about the current legislation.

In conclusion, this is a wide-ranging and ambitious Bill. It has the straightforward purpose of making our country safer. It will achieve that by restoring neighbourhood policing, by giving law enforcement stronger powers to combat threats that ruin lives and livelihoods, and by rebuilding public confidence in the criminal justice system. It is clear that people around the country want change. They want to feel protected by a visible, responsive police service; they want to know that when our laws our broken, justice will be sought and served; and they want to have a sense of security and confidence, so that they can go about their lives freely and without fear. That is why we have put the safer streets mission at the heart of our plan for change, and it is why we have brought forward this Bill, which I wholeheartedly commend to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Crime and Policing Bill: Programme

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Crime and Policing Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 13 May 2025.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

Question agreed to.