Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

We—in common, I hope, with everyone in this House—fully and unequivocally support the right to peaceful protest, including on issues in the middle east, whether the hostages who remain captive or civilians in Gaza, whose plight concerns us all. However, in exercising that right to protest, violence is never acceptable. Palestine Action has committed deliberate criminal damage against various premises, used a sledgehammer to attack a police officer, and deliberately sabotaged RAF planes. No matter how strongly people feel about an issue, and whatever the rights and wrongs of that issue, using violence to advance a political agenda is never acceptable. It is not how we do things in this country; we settle things through debate and elections.

The Security Minister has given the House assurances about the necessity of this measure. I have not been briefed, or been offered a briefing on that, but the Minister commands widespread respect across the House, and Members will take his assurances seriously. Will he give an assurance that the police are taking all possible preventive action against Palestine Action where it may be planning future attacks against premises, or future acts of violence, including using the offence of conspiracy to commit public nuisance, under which the police have wide-ranging powers? I join the Minister in extending my thanks to the police for the difficult work they do keeping us safe.

Finally, I will use this opportunity to express my support for a protest that took place on Sunday in Parliament Square, and the Campaign Against Antisemitism march, which I addressed. It was regrettable that neither the Home Secretary nor a senior Minister addressed that march, so will the Security Minister take the opportunity to express the Government’s resolve to combat antisemitism wherever it is found?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks and the tone of them. On his final point, yes, let me take the opportunity, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, to state our absolute abhorrence of antisemitism wherever it rears its ugly head. I hope he knows that the Government will do everything we possibly can to stand against the forces of racism wherever they seek to rear their ugly head.

I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that violence is never acceptable in pursuing a political agenda, and I am pleased that we are able to establish a consensus across the House in that regard. On his point about briefings, we briefed the shadow Minister ahead of the proscription action back in July, and as he knows, I would be happy to brief him on Privy Council terms whenever he should wish. I am also able to give him the assurances that he seeks about the work the police are doing. As a former Home Office Minister he knows that the police are operationally independent, but I assure him that the police will be taking all necessary measures to guard against future attacks. I am happy to speak to him about those matters further, and I am grateful for his support for these matters today.

Omar al-Bayoumi: Arrest and Extradition

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Let me start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on securing the urgent question and The Sunday Times on its reporting. As the Minister said, 9/11 was one of the most sickening terrorist atrocities of our lifetime, committed by Islamist extremists. Yesterday’s piece in The Sunday Times raises serious questions about the case of Omar al-Bayoumi. It appears that the UK police and the FBI had clear evidence that Omar al-Bayoumi assisted terrorists and had close links to the Saudi Government—or elements of the Saudi Government—and indeed was their agent.

It is not me saying that: just last week, US district court judge George Daniels sitting in New York found there was “reasonable evidence” that two Saudi citizens—one of whom was al-Bayoumi—were sent by the Saudi Government to assist the hijackers. That raises some extremely serious questions that I would like the Security Minister to answer. I gently say to him that the ongoing civil proceedings in New York by no means preclude him from answering; I ask him not to hide behind that.

First, why did the UK police release al-Bayoumi so quickly when they held other suspects, including someone in an adjacent cell, for extended periods—in that case for five months? Secondly, did the Saudi Government or the US Government pressure the UK Government to release al-Bayoumi early and not pursue the matter? Does the Security Minister agree with the judge that al-Bayoumi assisted terrorists and that he was sent by the Saudi Government to do so?

Will the Security Minister release all the relevant documents, including those held in the National Archives? Will he look into this matter and report back to the House? Finally, does he agree that the Intelligence and Security Committee should urgently investigate this matter?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks. He understandably referenced the article in yesterday’s edition of The Sunday Times, which I accept raises a number of important questions that are absolutely worthy of scrutiny and deserving of the House’s attention. I give him an assurance that the Government and I, as Security Minister, will look closely at the matters raised in the context of the debate. I do not accept the point he made that we are seeking to hide behind the legal proceedings taking place in the US. An article was published in a newspaper yesterday, and I give both the shadow Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) an assurance that we will look carefully at the detail contained within it.

The shadow Home Secretary also made a reasonable point about the Intelligence and Security Committee. As an experienced Member and a former Minister, he will know that it is not for me to direct the activities of the ISC. It is an independent Committee, and it is very much a matter for the Chair and the Committee to decide what they wish to pursue. However, knowing the Chair as I do—he will be well known to hon. Members right across the House—I would be surprised if he did not want to take a look at it.

Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Chris Philp Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement.

Let us remember that victims are at the heart of this: young girls, some only 10 years old, were groomed and gang raped by men of predominantly Pakistani origin. They were girls like Jane, who was just 12 years old when she was raped by an illegal immigrant, but when she was found by police, instead of arresting the rapist, the police arrested Jane; or like Anna, only 15 years old, who repeatedly told social workers that she had been gang raped, but instead of helping her, they allowed her to marry her main abuser in an Islamic ceremony, and the social worker even attended the ceremony. The ring leader of the Rochdale rape gang, Shabir Ahmed, was actually employed as a welfare rights officer by Oldham council.

In another case, a man tried to rescue his young daughter from being raped, but instead of protecting her, the police arrested her dad. I spoke to a mother whose daughter was raped by taxi drivers of Pakistani origin. When she complained to social services, they said that if she dared to raise the matter again, she would lose her daughter.

I spoke to a retired police officer who was told by a senior officer at the time to stop investigating abuse by Pakistani-origin taxi drivers in Bradford because the police locally did not want to offend Bradford’s Muslim community. A former Labour MP, Simon Danczuk, was even told by senior Labour party figures to stop asking questions in his constituency to avoid antagonising the Muslim community. These crimes were deliberately covered up by people in authority because so-called community relations were seen as more important than protecting young girls. That is a disgrace.

The Minister claimed in her statement a moment ago that nothing had been done about this issue previously. I do not want to dwell on this, but I gently remind her that it was the last Government who set up the original Rotherham inquiry in 2014 and set up the long-running independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which was much broader but did touch on this issue. We started to collect data on the ethnicity of suspects and set up Operation Soteria to combat sex crimes; I attended many meetings on that. We set up the grooming gangs taskforce, which led to 550 arrests in its first year, and I am glad that that is continuing. We introduced legislation to require mandatory reporting, and I am again glad that the Government are continuing that work.

It is clear that much more is needed. However, this Government have had to be dragged kicking and screaming every step of the way. When the Government’s rejection of Oldham’s call for a national inquiry became public on 6 January, the Prime Minister disgracefully smeared as “far-right” those supporting calls for that proper inquiry. That kind of language is how these crimes got covered up in the first place. Some 10 days later, the Government partially U-turned and announced local inquiries. On 16 June, faced with a parliamentary vote two days later, the Government finally announced a statutory national inquiry not because they chose to or wanted to, but because they were forced to. What the Prime Minister claimed was a “far-right bandwagon” in January had become Government policy by June. Here we are, three months later, and almost no progress has been made.

My office has been in contact with survivors in Oldham today, and they have heard nothing. We now discover that no chair has been appointed and there are no terms of reference. There is no news on towns such as Oldham or Bradford, and nothing of substance at all. That is just not good enough. Will the Minister tell the House a precise date when a chair will be appointed and when we will have terms of reference? Will this inquiry have full statutory powers under the 2005 Act? Will she confirm that all 50 towns affected will be covered?

Will the Minister confirm that no police force or council will be able to investigate themselves? Perhaps most importantly, will she confirm that this inquiry will look at those in authority—the police, the CPS and local councils—who deliberately covered this up? Those people were more interested in appeasing certain minority communities than in protecting young girls. Finally, does she agree that those individuals responsible for deliberately covering up this issue should be prosecuted for misconduct in public office and, if they are convicted, sent to jail?

Borders and Asylum

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. The Government have now been in office for well over a year, and I think it is fair to say that not even their kindest friends would say they think it has gone well, but listening to her statement, it sounds like she thinks everything is fine and that if there are any problems, it is somehow somebody else’s fault. Is she living in a parallel universe? After over a year in office, she must now take responsibility for what is happening under this Government.

It was interesting to note that, during her statement, she did not mention her favourite phrase from a year or so ago—namely, that she was going to “smash the gangs.” I wonder why she was so silent on her previously favourite catchphrase. The answer is that it is not going very well. She mentioned National Crime Agency disruptions. Let me gently point out that 84% of those National Crime Agency disruptions that she cited a few minutes ago are classified as not being high impact, and National Crime Agency arrests for organised immigration crime actually went down by 16% in the last financial year. That is hardly smashing the gangs. In fact, the NCA’s arrests for organised immigration crime in that financial year were only 26—a drop in the ocean compared with the tens of thousands crossing the channel.

It was also rather conspicuous that the Home Secretary did not mention even a word about the numbers illegally crossing the English channel. I wonder why that was. I wonder why she forgot to say a single word about that. The reason, I am afraid, is pretty clear. Far from smashing the gangs, so far this year, 29,000—to be precise, 29,003—illegal immigrants have crossed the English channel. That is the worst year in history, and it is up by 38% compared with last year. That is not success; it is failure. Things are not getting any better; they are getting worse. This Government are failing and everyone can see it. That is why there are protests up and down the country, and where those protests are peaceful, I support them. That is why 75% of the public think the Government are handling immigration and asylum badly. That is a shocking figure; let it sink in.

Let me turn to hotels. In the nine months before the last general election, 200 hotels were closed down, including the Bell hotel in Epping, but since the election the numbers in asylum hotels have actually gone up by 8%. Had that previous trend of closures continued, there would be no asylum hotels open at all today. I ask the Home Secretary to confirm that she will not reduce hotel usage simply by shunting asylum seekers from hotels into flats and houses in multiple occupation, which are desperately needed by young people. Will she give the House that categoric assurance?

Last week the Home Secretary’s lawyers said that the rights of illegal immigrants were more important than the rights of local people in places such as Epping. When this was expressly put in those terms to the Education Secretary yesterday on “Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips”, she shamefully agreed. Those statements are a disgrace. Does the Home Secretary realise how angry that makes people feel? It speaks of a Government not on the side of the people in this country. It means the Government appear to care more about the rights of illegal immigrants than our own citizens. Will she apologise for what her lawyers and the Education Secretary said, and will she undertake to ensure that Ministers and their lawyers will never say that again?

The Home Secretary talks about her returns deal with France. It has been reported that the deal will return only about 50 people a week, amounting to 6% of arrivals. Does she accept that allowing 94% of illegal arrivals to stay will act as no deterrent at all? If she does not accept that figure of 50 a week, will she tell the House exactly how many immigrants crossing the channel will in fact be returned under her deal? She may recall that back in July we were told by the Government that the first returns would happen “within weeks”. Will she confirm to the House that the number that has actually been returned so far is precisely zero?

The Home Secretary said to the House a couple of minutes ago that there would be security checks on those people reciprocally taken from France into the UK, but will she confirm that her agreement with France says expressly that the French Government will not provide the UK Government with any information at all—any personal data about those migrants—so if there are criminal convictions or suspicions about extremism or terrorism, the French Government will not provide information to us? If that is true, as her agreement says, how can she possibly conduct security checks?

The Home Secretary talked about tweaks to family visa rules. Let me be clear about the Opposition’s position on this. If someone enters this country illegally, they should not be allowed to bring in any family members. In fact, everybody entering this country illegally should be immediately removed, to their country of origin if possible, and if that is not possible, to a safe third country such as Rwanda—a scheme which she cancelled just days before it was due to start. The public expect that approach—an approach which she cancelled—because the numbers crossing the channel so far this year have been the worst ever; the worst in history.

It is not just that the numbers are high. Hundreds of migrants, having crossed the channel and living in those hotels, have been charged with criminal offences, including sexual assaults on girls as young as eight years old and multiple rapes. This is not just a border security crisis; it is a public safety crisis as well, and people up and down this country are furious. That is why they are protesting, and that is why 75% of the public think this Government are failing on asylum and immigration.

If this Government were serious about fixing this problem, they would know that little tweaks here and there are not enough. Tweaks to article 8 are not going to be enough. Tweaking the family reunion rules is not enough. Returning maybe 50 people a week, if we are lucky, to France is not going to be enough. Intercepting maybe a few boats—worthy though that is—is not going to be enough. The only way these crossings will stop—the only way we are going to get back control of our borders—is if everybody crossing the channel knows that they will be returned. We tabled a Bill in Parliament a few weeks ago to do that. We had a plan to do that: the Rwanda Bill. We need to go further by disapplying to immigration matters the entire Human Rights Act 1998, not just tinkering with article 8. If the Government were serious, that is what they would do.

If the Home Secretary really wants to control our borders, and if she really wants to get down the record numbers that have been crossing on her watch, she would back our plan, disapply the Human Rights Act in its entirety to immigration matters, and ensure that every single person crossing the channel is immediately removed.

[Yvette Cooper]

I worry about the shadow Home Secretary’s amnesia. In the 14 years that the Conservatives were in government, they never managed to do any of the fantasy things that he claims they did. Let us come back to reality from his fantasy rhetoric.

The shadow Home Secretary talked about the approach that his Government were taking before the election. It is worth reminding the House of what that approach was. Asylum decisions dropped by 70%. The Conservatives effectively had a freeze on taking asylum decisions, and they were returning those asylum seekers nowhere—not to France, not to the safe countries that people had passed through, and not to Rwanda, despite running that scheme for over two years with only four volunteers going at a cost of £700 million. Their approach left us with a soaring backlog. Had we continued with that totally failed approach—not taking asylum decisions, not returning people anywhere—there would have been tens of thousands more people in asylum accommodation and hotels across the country right now. That is the kind of chaos that his policies were heading towards. It is the kind of chaos that he is promising again now.

The House will remember the shadow Home Secretary’s personal record. Small boat arrivals went up tenfold on his watch as immigration Minister. Fewer than 1,000 asylum seekers were in hotels by the time he became immigration Minister, but there were more than 20,000 by the time he left his post. On his new concern for local councils, he was the immigration Minister who wrote to local authorities to tell them that he was stopping the requirement on them to agree to accommodation and that he had

“instead, authorised Providers to identify any suitable properties that they consider appropriate.”

We agree with communities across the country that asylum hotels must all close, and I understand why individual councils want to take action in their areas, but I say to the shadow Home Secretary that a party that wants to be in government should have a proper plan for the whole country, and not just promote a chaotic approach that ends up making things worse in lots of areas. That is the Conservatives’ record. We have asylum hotels in the first place because the Conservatives did no planning and let the Manston chaos get out of control. As immigration Ministers, both the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and the shadow Home Secretary rushed around the country opening hotels instead of taking a practical, steady approach to get to the heart of the problem, reduce the asylum system, strengthen our border security and tackle and reform the appeals that are causing huge delays.

Let me make a final point. The Government strongly believe that sex offenders should be banned from the asylum system altogether. That is why we have put those details into the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which the shadow Home Secretary’s party has voted against time and again and is still resisting in the House of Lords. If Opposition parties supported and worked with us, that law could be on the statute book and we could have stronger powers against sex offenders, stronger counter-terrorism powers to go after criminal gangs, and stronger powers to tackle the offences being committed in the channel and across the country.

The trouble is that what the Conservatives are doing in opposition is an even worse version of what they did in government: ramping up the rhetoric with policies that would make the chaos worse. This Government will fix the chaos that we inherited and strengthen our border security for the sake of the whole country.

Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on criminal activity by illegal immigrants at asylum hotels.

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

As the House will be aware, on Tuesday 8 July an arrest was made by Essex police following incidents that took place in Epping earlier that day, and a man was subsequently charged. His trial is due to start on 26 August, and he has been remanded in custody until that time. These are very serious allegations and it is vital that criminal justice procedures are able to run their course—Superintendent Tim Tubbs of Essex police has said that

“the last thing we want is for any public discussion to hinder an ongoing prosecution.”

I thank Essex police both for its swift response on that case and for handling the protests in Essex yesterday evening and in previous days with diligence and professionalism.

Criminal activity of any kind is totally unacceptable, wherever it occurs and whoever it is perpetrated by. As outlined following the recent Casey report, we are improving joint protection arrangements between the police and immigration enforcement linked to the asylum system. We are clear that where crimes are committed, every effort must be made to catch, prosecute and punish those responsible.

Let there be absolutely no doubt: foreign nationals, including asylum seekers, who abuse our hospitality by breaking our laws should expect to be removed from this country. In the first year of this Government, 5,179 foreign national criminals were removed from the UK—a 14% increase on the previous year. That is important progress, but we want to go further. Through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, we are changing the law to ensure that individuals convicted of any registered sexual offence are not granted asylum, and we are legislating to allow for the tagging of any migrant considered to pose a threat to public safety or national security, as well as strengthening our crackdown on illegal working.

But we must go further to end hotel use. This Labour Government inherited an asylum system in chaos, with 400 hotels in use at the peak in 2023 at a cost of almost £9 million a day. We are changing that, clearing the asylum backlog and increasing returns to end the use of asylum hotels all together by the end of this Parliament. Alongside those actions, we are mounting a comprehensive and wide-ranging effort to tackle small boat crossings, including the intensified co-operation and pilot returns scheme with France outlined by the Home Secretary in her statement last week.

There is no quick fix for the chronic problems this Government inherited, but, for the first time in years, there is now a serious and sensible plan to restore order and proper management to the asylum and immigration system. Let me state plainly to the House that we expect rules to be respected and enforced, and we expect the law to be followed. When it is not, we expect those involved to face the full force of the law. We are taking every possible step to deliver the strong border security that the country needs, because nothing matters more than the safety of the British people.

[Chris Philp]

The Policing Minister was crowing about the Government’s action on small boats, but the truth is this: so far this year, the Government have allowed in 23,000 illegal immigrants across the channel—that is 52% up on last year; this year has been by far the worst ever; and numbers in asylum hotels are now higher than at the time of the election. This is a border security crisis, but it is also a public safety crisis, especially for women and girls. Many nationalities crossing—for example, Afghans—commit up to 20 times more sex offences than average; Louise Casey made that point in her report.

Now we have press reporting on the huge scale of the crime committed by illegal immigrants housed in the Government’s own asylum hotels. The Sun found 339 charges in the last six months based on only half the hotels currently operated. The Mail on Sunday found 708 charges based on only a third of those hotels. Those crimes included multiple cases of rape, sexual assault, violence, theft and arson, including the case that the Minister referred to in Epping, where a 38-year-old Ethiopian man has been charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. An illegal immigrant in Oxford has been convicted of raping a 20-year-old woman in a churchyard. A Sudanese man was convicted of strangling and attempting to rape a woman in a nightclub toilet in Wakefield. Violent protest in response to those appalling crimes is never justified. The public, though, are rightly sick of this illegal immigrant crime wave. It has to end.

Will the Minister commit now to doing the following things? First, will she record and publish the immigration status of all offenders? Secondly, will she close that asylum hotel in Epping? Thirdly, will she repeal the Human Rights Act for immigration matters? Finally, will she emulate Greece’s new approach, which started today, and deport all illegal immigrants on arrival from France without judicial process either back to their country of origin or to a safe third country? Will she give the House and the country those commitments?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Let me repeat to the House that any allegation of crime or sexual assault—including by individuals in the asylum system—is incredibly serious and is to be treated so by the authorities and by the Government. I regret the tone that the shadow Home Secretary is taking on such a serious and important matter. I also gently remind him to look at his record and that of the Conservative party on this issue. More than 400 asylum hotels were in operation at their peak, housing over 50,000 people at a cost of almost £9 million a day. Enforced returns were down 50% on 2010. Returns of foreign national offenders had fallen by a thousand. Criminal smuggler gangs were able to exploit our weak border security—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

It is the worst year ever.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

There was no proper management of public safety risks posed by individual asylum seekers. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Do we both understand?

[Chris Philp]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

Okay. Carry on, Minister.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

There was no proper management of public safety risks posed by individual asylum seekers, and migrants could work illegally in the gig economy with few sanctions for the companies responsible.

This Government are gripping the situation and turning the system around. We have removed 5,179 foreign national offenders in our first year in office. Just to put that in perspective for the benefit of the House, that is more foreign criminals than were removed in the entire 20 months when the right hon. Gentleman was the Minister for Immigration.

[Chris Philp]

We had covid!

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Excuse, excuse, excuse.

I would say that the same pattern is true of illegal working—but actually it is even worse. In the first quarter of this year, we delivered more raids, more arrests and more fines for illegal working than the shadow Home Secretary managed in the entire time he was Immigration Minister. We did more in three months to crack down on illegal working than he managed in 20. Now—

[Chris Philp]

That’s nonsense!

[Dame Diana Johnson]

It is not nonsense; it is facts.

Now we are trying to go further in all these areas, but it is clear that the Conservatives and their friends in Reform are the ones trying to stop us. We introduced counter-terror measures at the border to smash the gangs responsible for the vile trade; they voted against the Bill that delivers that. We introduced measures to ban sex offenders from getting asylum in the UK; they voted against the Bill that delivers them. We introduced tagging for those arriving illegally who pose a risk to the public, and extended illegal working duties to cover the gig economy; once again, they voted against it. We have seen 14 years of inaction, leaving our borders exposed and our communities fractured—yet the shadow Home Secretary has the cheek to lecture us about keeping the country safe.

UK-France Migration: Co-operation

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. She comes to the Chamber today sounding rather pleased with herself, but I am afraid she has no reason to. A year ago, she promised to smash the gangs—she said again and again that that was her plan. Indeed, it was her only plan, yet today there is no mention of what was once her favourite catchphrase. That is because her claim to smash the gangs has become a joke—an embarrassment to her and to the Government. We warned that law enforcement alone would not be enough, as did the National Crime Agency, but she did not listen, and what then happened?

The 12 months following 5 July last year have been the worst such period in history, with small boat crossings at 44,359—up 40% year on year. The first 13 days of July have also been the worst in history, with 2,510 in less than two weeks—up 213% year on year. This calendar year so far has been the worst in history as well—up 57% on last year. The Home Secretary is setting records, just all the wrong ones. These boat crossings are now the worst ever. Does the Home Secretary accept that she has lost control of our borders and is failing in her most basic duty to protect the United Kingdom?

The Home Secretary says she has a new deal with France, yet President Macron says it needs EU agreement. Is that true? If so, has the EU provided it? A deal must of course involve an agreed number, yet when the Home Secretary is asked, she is unable to say what numbers are involved. Will she now come clean and tell Parliament what number, if any, has been agreed? If there is no agreement with the EU, and no agreed number as part of the deal, then there is no deal at all, only vacuous spin. The only number we have seen reported is just 50 illegal immigrants a week. That number was put to the Prime Minister last Thursday, and he did not deny it. Fifty a week represents only 6% of illegal arrivals, meaning 94% could stay. Does the Home Secretary seriously think that allowing 94% of illegal immigrants to stay will be any kind of deterrent? Her claim to smash the gangs was a gimmick and so is her 6% returns deal.

The truth is this: the only way to fix this is to remove, without judicial process, every single illegal arrival as soon as they get here, either to their country of origin or to a third country. That would be a real deterrent. We saw that approach work in Australia about 10 years ago and such a scheme—[Interruption.] I am glad hon. Members mention Rwanda. Such a scheme for the UK was ready to start in July last year. The previous Government had done all the legal and logistical work needed. All the Home Secretary had to do was press go, but she and the Prime Minister cancelled the scheme just days before it was due to start, and as a result we now see record numbers crossing. Will she now admit that she made a terrible mistake, and will she now start a proper 100% removals deterrent?

The damage done by illegal immigration at this scale is immense. Far from closing asylum hotels as the Government promised, there are now nearly 3,000 more people in asylum hotels than at the time of the last election. I have personally witnessed rampant illegal working from the very hotels that the Home Secretary runs. I saw Deliveroo, Uber Eats and Just Eat bikes in the compound of an asylum hotel whose residents have no right to work. Will she at least commit today to ending illegal working from the very hotels that she runs?

We also see reports of migrants based in hotels being charged with serious crimes, including rape and sexual assaults on women and children. Louise Casey has warned that a significant proportion of sexual offences are committed by those seeking asylum—cases like that of 29-year-old Afghan, Sadeq Nikzad, convicted of raping a 15-year-old girl. His defence counsel claimed that he did not understand that was wrong due to cultural differences.

This madness has to stop. The Home Secretary cancelled a proper deterrent plan just days before it was due to start. Her claim to smash the gangs lies in tatters. She has presided over the highest number of illegal small boat crossings in history. Will she now apologise to the House and to the country for her appalling failure?

[Yvette Cooper]

The shadow Home Secretary just wants to pretend that the last eight years never happened. He knows that this crisis—this small boats chaos—went on for 340 weeks under the Tories. During that period, when he was in charge as Immigration Minister, overall migration nearly trebled and the number of small boat crossings increased tenfold. During those 340 weeks when the Tories were in charge, 128,000 people crossed the channel, and how many were returned to France? Zero. How many were sent to Rwanda? He said himself it was zero, because he did not even want to count the four volunteers. He keeps saying that somehow it was ready to start, but if it had been ready to start, the Conservatives would not have called the election. They would have introduced the scheme which had, in fact, been running for more than two years, at a cost of £700 million and with just four volunteers sent.

I can also tell the shadow Home Secretary that since the election this Government have returned more than 35,000 people who have no right to be here. That is a 24% increase in the number of enforced returns compared to the last year in which his party was in charge. It is a 28% increase in the number of failed asylum returns compared to the last year in which his party was in charge.

As for the agreement with France, which he does not seem to want to talk about very much, I asked him about exactly that back in 2020, when I was Chair of the Home Affairs Committee and he was Immigration Minister. I specifically asked:

“what chance do you put on being able to get a bilateral agreement, say with France, for them to take back people who have arrived here from France…?”

He said—this was five years ago—that that was what he was working on. Indeed, he told the Committee:

“one of our priorities will be to reach those agreements and…it is, I think, strongly in the French national interest to agree such a returns agreement… That gives me significant cause for optimism.”

Well, it turns out that he should have been optimistic—about the return of a Labour Government, reaching an agreement where he had failed.

He also said at the time:

“We intend to return as many illegal migrants who have arrived—

by small boats—

as possible… we have flights planned in the coming days to return these individuals back to France and we will be looking to ramp up this activity.”

Well, that was five years ago. The flights never went, and the activity was never ramped up. The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), tried to return people to France. The shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), tried to return people to France, and even called for the UK

“to take one asylum seeker”

from France

“in return for one illegal migrant that we return to them. Or indeed more than one.”

As for interception in shallow waters, the right hon. Gentleman said, when he was Immigration Minister:

“Some boats that are just 250 yards away from the French coast have not been stopped by the authorities. This must change.”

I agree, but that was five years ago, and he did not change a thing. The Conservatives never understood that it is not possible to change things simply by jumping up and down and shouting about them. It needs partnership working and hard graft, and that is what this Government have done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I gently remind the Minister that the number of immigrants in asylum hotels has gone up since the general election. I recently visited an asylum hotel and saw bikes from Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber Eats in the hotel compound. Local eyewitnesses confirmed that the illegal immigrants in the hotel had been illegally working. That creates a pull factor, because people smugglers actively market illegal working opportunities. It also creates risk for women and girls, who might receive deliveries late at night from these undocumented illegal immigrants. Will the Minister at least commit now to preventing this illegal working from taking place from the hotels that she runs?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We have had a 50% increase in raids and arrests on illegal working since we came into government, so perhaps the shadow Home Secretary should have spent more time when he was in government enforcing the rules on illegal working. We are doing more, including extending the law on illegal working to the gig economy. That measure is in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which he voted against.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right that we need the additional neighbourhood policing in West Yorkshire. I welcome the 12 additional officers in her constituency, the 100 additional neighbourhood police officers across West Yorkshire and, of course, the additional police officers in Pontefract and Castleford town centres. We have made it clear to police forces across the country that the focus this summer needs to be on tackling town centre crime.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I associate myself with the Home Secretary’s remarks about the terrorist atrocities perpetrated on 7/7. The 52 victims and their families of course remain in our prayers. The whole House will want to send thanks to the emergency services for what they did on that day and what they do every day.

It is now clear that the Home Secretary has lost control of our borders. So far, 2025 has been the worst year in history when it comes to illegal immigrants crossing the channel. Her claim to be smashing the gangs is clearly laughable. The French are having almost no effect, despite spending hundreds of millions of pounds, and the press report that not much will change in the negotiations this week. Returns of small boat arrivals are down, representing only 5% of overall arrivals, so will—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is topical questions. You have to help me get the Back Benchers in, but you are not at the moment. I am sure you are coming to an end now.

[Chris Philp]

I am, Mr Speaker. Will the Home Secretary finally admit that the only way to fix this situation is for there to be a removals deterrent whereby every single illegal immigrant is immediately removed?

[Yvette Cooper]

The shadow Home Secretary seems to have forgotten that in the short period for which he was immigration Minister, net migration near-trebled and the number of small boats went up tenfold. Not only that, but the funding for France that he has referred to was agreed by his Government when he was at the Home Office. If he really wanted to see serious action against small boats, why did he vote against counter-terror powers for smuggler gangs, against clamping down on illegal working in the gig economy, and against stronger action to stop those dangerous crossings?

[Chris Philp]

The Home Secretary talks about stopping those dangerous crossings, but there have been record numbers on her watch as Home Secretary.

Is the Home Secretary aware of the so-called “Police Anti-Racism Commitment”, which is itself flagrantly racist? It says that the racial equity commitment means

“not…treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind’”.

It says that the police should treat people differently in order to artificially engineer equality of policing outcomes. Does she agree that that is itself flagrantly racist? The police should treat everyone the same. Will she call on the National Police Chiefs’ Council to cancel the commitment? If it will not, will she legislate to give herself the powers?

[Yvette Cooper]

As the shadow Home Secretary knows, the police’s oath makes it clear that they have to police without fear or favour, and that is what they do right across the country. It is a shame that he will not support the police in the difficult job that they do, just as the Conservatives voted against cracking down on off-road bikes, against new spiking and stalking laws, and against respect orders. They are against supporting our police.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call shadow Home Secretary, Chris Philp.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to the people and emergency services in Liverpool.

On the Home Secretary’s watch, this year so far has been the worst in history for illegal immigrants crossing the channel. The Government’s laughable claim to “smash the gangs” lies in tatters—they are not smashing gangs; they are smashing records. The right hon. Lady mentioned the French. The French prevention rate on land is lamentably under 40%, and even those who are stopped are then released to attempt a crossing again the next day. Although she talks about action at sea, nothing has happened whatsoever. At the weekend we saw pictures of the French police just standing there taking photographs while illegal immigrants departed. Does the Home Secretary agree that the recent 12-year fishing deal should be suspended until the French agree to stop those small boats at sea and prevent illegal immigration?

[Yvette Cooper]

Let me remind the shadow Home Secretary that when he was Immigration Minister he said:

“I will continue to push my French counterparts to look hard at interceptions at sea.”

Five years of Conservative government later, the French Government had not agreed to any changes at all. This Government have reached a new agreement with France, and we are now pressing for that to be operationalised as swiftly as possible. But we will not take lessons from a former Immigration Minister who, on his watch, let legal migration treble and small boat crossings soar more than tenfold.

[Chris Philp]

Immigration is at a record level on the Home Secretary’s watch, but as usual she does not answer the question or take responsibility. Let me try this instead: it emerged yesterday that the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, chose not to refer for a longer sentence under the unduly lenient sentencing scheme—as the Attorney General can—a man who had been given just 28 months for rape, yet Lucy Connolly got more prison time for a tasteless tweet. Why does Lord Hermer think rape is less serious than Twitter comments? This is two-tier justice in action. Does this not show that Lord Hermer has appalling judgment and the Prime Minister should fire him?

[Yvette Cooper]

The question comes from a former policing Minister under whose Government charge rates for rape and domestic abuse plummeted, while charge rates for crime dropped substantially. This Government support much stronger action on violence against women and girls because we recognise the serious damage that those crimes do. Shamefully, the previous Government left us with a shocking legacy on crime, on immigration and across the board, but this Government are turning that around.

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.