West Midlands Police

Chris Philp Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

This is a shameful episode. West Midlands police had evidence that Islamist extremists based in Birmingham planned to attack Maccabi Tel Aviv fans. Let us call that what it is: vicious antisemitism. We cannot allow violent Islamists to impose their will on our country, yet that is exactly what West Midlands police, through weakness and fear, allowed to happen. The force should instead have confronted the Islamist extremists. In fact, it should have investigated the extremists for inciting racial hatred, as Jonathan Hall KC said only yesterday. Instead, the force capitulated to the Islamist mob by banning the Maccabi fans.

But it gets worse. The West Midlands police force then tried to hide what it had done. The police fabricated a claim that it was the Maccabi fans who were the dangerous ones. They claimed that a previous game in Amsterdam had led to violence by the Maccabi fans. That claim was a pack of lies from start to finish. The Mayor of Amsterdam and Dutch police have now confirmed that West Midlands police simply made the whole thing up. The chief constable must be fired.

A moment ago, the Home Secretary claimed that she has no powers to dismiss the chief constable, but she failed to mention section 40 of the Police Act 1996, which remains in force today. Under that, she as Home Secretary has the power to direct the police and crime commissioner to do things—including dismissing the chief constable—where

“any part of a…force is failing to”

act

“in an effective manner”.

That test is clearly met: part of the force—the chief constable—is indeed failing to act in an effective manner, by the Home Secretary’s own analysis. If she is unfamiliar with that legislation, I have a copy of it here. The Home Secretary must today use her section 40 powers to direct the police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster, to dismiss Craig Guildford. She must stop pretending to have no power and actually act.

We now come to the role of the Home Secretary in this scandal. In a briefing to the BBC on 17 October, a source close to the Home Secretary—we all know that means her special adviser, acting with her authority—said that the Home Secretary first knew about the possibility of a ban on 16 October, the previous evening. We now know that is untrue. From evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee last week, and from the Home Secretary’s own admission just now, we now know that Chief Constable Guildford personally briefed the Home Secretary on 8 October that it was likely that away fans would be banned, and that that was the police’s recommendation. Will she apologise for allowing her adviser to give the BBC untrue information on 17 October?

The Home Secretary must now answer this. She knew on 8 October that it was likely that away fans would be banned. That was over a week before the final decision was taken on 16 October, yet in those critical eight days, it appears that she did nothing to investigate further, or to try to stop the ban. In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee last week, the chief constable said that when he briefed the Home Secretary on 8 October about the likelihood of the ban, she merely “noted”—that was his word—what he said; she did not ask further questions, or show curiosity about what she was being told. She did not personally convene any meetings attended by her in the following eight days, or take any personal steps to clarify the situation. She expressed concerns and took action only after the decision became public on 16 October, by when it was too late. She was asleep at the wheel at the critical time.

Given the disgraceful events that followed, does the Home Secretary now accept that she was wrong to personally ask no questions—officials may have done, but she did not—between 8 October and 16 October? Does she accept that it was wrong to stand by and do nothing during those critical eight days? By the time she did take action—after 16 October—it was too late. By standing by during those critical eight days, she allowed the ban to happen and let the Islamists win. Will the Home Secretary apologise to the House for that inexcusable inaction during those critical days? Will she also commit to exercising her section 40 powers to direct the police and crime commissioner to dismiss the chief constable?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me first say to the shadow Home Secretary that I have long and very personal experience of standing up to extremists in Birmingham, not least in the last general election campaign. I think my track record speaks for itself, and I am a woman who knows of what she speaks—clearly unlike him. He appears to be unfamiliar with the law, and indeed with Sir Andy’s findings in his report. Let me remind him of a few things.

First, it was the Conservative Government who removed the Home Secretary’s direct power to remove a chief constable. That power used to be in section 42 of the Police Act 1996, but it was repealed by the Conservatives; the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 explicitly removed the power. I will quote from the explanatory notes to that Act. I suspect that the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) drafted and approved them when he advised the former Home Secretary, Baroness May, so he will be aware of what is in them. They say:

“The Secretary of State does not have power to direct a police and crime commissioner to suspend or remove a chief constable.”

That is the law passed by the previous Conservative Government.

[Chris Philp]

I am talking about section 40.

[Shabana Mahmood]

If the shadow Home Secretary made himself familiar with how the law is to be interpreted and implemented, he would well know that section 40 of the 1996 Act, which remains in force following the 2011 Act, cannot be read in isolation. When such matters are litigated before a court, a court would be aware of the direct powers removed by the repealing of section 42—we cannot read the two sections in isolation. If he paid any attention to the detail, he would know that, and he would know that the Home Secretary does not have the power that he claims I have.

Secondly, I suggest that the shadow Home Secretary and other hon. Members, in their own interests, pay attention to what Sir Andy has written in his report of today. On page 11 he deals with what the chief constable has suggested was the reading of the meeting that took place on 8 October. Let me give the House a bit of context. That was a meeting of police chiefs that I called following the attack in Manchester on 2 October. I had already announced that I was going to look at police protest powers and I had asked the most senior chief constables in the land, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing and, indeed, Sir Andy Cooke to attend a meeting with me.

Towards the end of that meeting, we did some horizon scanning of other difficult decisions coming up that might have public order consequences, and this was one such matter. It was mentioned briefly by the chief constable, and his recollection of it is absolutely untrue. The chief constable did not say to me, or indeed to anybody else in that room, that West Midlands police had already made the decision to reduce the allocation of tickets for Maccabi Tel Aviv fans to zero but that it was ultimately a decision for the safety advisory group when it next met—that is categorically untrue. If that had been the case, given the seniority of everybody who was in the room and heard what was said, that would have elicited a reaction not just from me and my officials but from many of the other senior policing officials present.

What was made clear to me was that the ban was a possibility but it was one of a number of options being considered. As late as 15 October, the football policing unit made it clear to Home Office officials and the Policing and Crime Minister that all options were still on the table. The next thing that we or anybody else knew about it was when the decision was taken on 16 October.

It is important that all hon. Members stick to the facts on this matter. As Sir Andy has made clear in his factual findings in his report, there will be those who wish to play politics with this matter, but I am afraid that does not meet the test of evidence as set out in the report. I recommend that the shadow Home Secretary pays some attention to the detail.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Happy new year, Mr Speaker. The Minister keeps saying that he intends to end the use of asylum hotels, but the most recent figures show that there are now more illegal immigrants in asylum hotels under this Government than there were at the time of the election. The numbers are going up: 41,000 illegal immigrants crossed the channel last year, a 40% increase on 2023. Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s admission in an astonishing letter to President Macron that this Government have no deterrent to stop these crossings? Is it not the truth that this Government have no control of illegal immigration and the only way to stop the crossings is to leave the European convention on human rights and deport anyone arriving here illegally within a week?

[Alex Norris]

The right hon. Gentleman was, I remember, sat right there in that seat—well, the Leader of the Opposition had moved him down one—to hear my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary talk about building this country’s deterrent factor. He was there because he was opposing our Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, which passed only in the last few days of the previous year. It is part of our deterrent—he knows that, because he opposed it. The idea that we should instead leave international agreements, which would mean all our returns agreements would need to be entered into again, is, I am afraid, for the birds. We are getting on with serious action; the Conservatives are just getting on with their press releases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

We now know that Alaa Abd el-Fattah expressed racist, anti-white, antisemitic and violent views. Members of the present and the last Government say that they did not know about that beforehand, and of course I accept those assurances, but now that we do know about those disgusting comments, will the Home Secretary use her powers under section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 to revoke his citizenship and deport him on the basis that he meets the statutory test in subsection (2), namely that he is not

“conducive to the public good”?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me say first that those tweets and those comments are absolutely abhorrent, and that I share the horror and revulsion felt across the country by all who have now seen and read them. The shadow Home Secretary used to be the Immigration Minister, and he will know that the power to deprive an individual of citizenship—which, of course, was granted by the last Government in this case—is used in a very specific way to deal with the most harmful offenders, particularly serious and organised criminals and those who pose a threat to national security. I do not propose to change the basis on which those deprivation powers are used.

[Chris Philp]

The statutory test is

“conducive to the public good”,

and the Home Secretary could use that. Will she now confirm that she will use every legal mechanism to prevent the return to the United Kingdom of Shamima Begum, who chose to support the Daesh regime that murdered civilians, raped thousands of women and girls, and killed people for being gay? More broadly, does she agree that anyone who espouses extremist, racist or antisemitic views or supports terrorism, and who is not a British citizen, should be deported from this country immediately? She has those powers; will she use them?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me be very clear. The case in relation to Shamima Begum was litigated by the last Government all the way to the UK Supreme Court, which did not hear the last appeal because all legal questions have now been dealt with. We as a Government have accepted that position, and our position on this case will not change. We will robustly defend it in the European Court of Human Rights. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, I cannot give more detail on the case as it progresses, because it is now subject to that litigation, but this is the approach that the Government are taking, and we will defend the position that has already been set by all our courts, right up to the UK Supreme Court.

Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

Chris Philp Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

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 mainly Pakistani origin—girls like Jane, who was just 12 years old when she was raped by an illegal immigrant; when she was found by police, instead of arresting the rapist, they arrested Jane. Anna, only 15 years old, 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 that was attended by the very social worker who should have protected her.

Last week, sentencing remarks from several of these terrible cases were published. I warn the House that some of them are extremely graphic. One perpetrator, Mohammed Karrar, raped a 12-year-old girl, and when she tried to fight back, he hit her with a baseball bat and then inserted the handle into her vagina. He also injected her with heroin and forced her to take crack cocaine.

Another man, Arshid Hussain, viciously beat a young girl, stubbed out a cigarette on her chest and tied her up; she was then repeatedly raped by numerous Asian men. The same man, Arshid Hussain, also called a victim, who had been raped and abused since the age of just seven, “white trash”. He said that Asian girls would not do what he was forcing her to do. There was an explicit racial element to his crime; he was raping his victim because she was white.

The identity of the majority of the perpetrators is something that should not be hidden. A 2020 study by academics at the University of Southampton and the University of Reading reviewed 498 grooming gang convictions. They found that 83% of the perpetrators were of Muslim background, and specifically mainly of Pakistani heritage. The Casey and Telford reports made similar observations.

The fact is that these crimes were deliberately covered up by those in authority who were more interested in so-called community relations and in avoiding being called racist than they were in protecting young girls. I spoke to a retired police officer who was told by a serving chief superintendent to stop investigating abuse by Pakistani-origin taxi drivers in Bradford because the local police did not want to offend Bradford’s Muslim community. I have sent the name of that officer to the police for investigation. A former Labour MP, Simon Danczuk, was even told by the then chair of the parliamentary Labour party to stop asking questions, in order to avoid antagonising the Muslim community in his town.

Yet when the need for a national inquiry was raised in January, the Prime Minister disgracefully smeared those calling for an inquiry as “far right”. What the Prime Minister claimed in January was a far-right bandwagon had become Government policy by June, so will the Home Secretary apologise on behalf of the Prime Minister for what he said last January?

The truth is that it should not have taken several months and the threat of a vote in Parliament to agree to the inquiry in the first place, and it should not have taken another six months to appoint a chair. That is what the survivors and their families told me yesterday.

One of the most disturbing elements of this scandal is the deliberate cover-up of the crimes, as I have said, so will the Home Secretary assure the House that those in authority who covered up the crimes will be prosecuted for the offence of misconduct in public office? Will she also ensure that the inquiry refers such cases to the police for investigation? Can she confirm that the inquiry will formally start in March 2026, and that the final report will be published publicly three years later, in March 2029?

We have not yet seen the terms of reference. Survivors and their families, whom I met yesterday, are concerned that the scope of the inquiry may be too broad. Will the Home Secretary confirm that it will focus specifically on localised, group-based grooming gangs, and that it will analyse and report on the ethnicity and religious background of the perpetrators? She mentioned local inquiries sitting underneath the national inquiry. Can she specifically confirm that those local inquiries will be completely independent of the bodies they are investigating, particularly local councils and local police forces? They cannot be allowed to investigate themselves. Will the Home Secretary also confirm that the parents of survivors and victims will be able to serve on the panel? I spoke yesterday to two parents of survivors who felt that they had been excluded from the previous panels.

For many survivors and victims, the truth has been hidden for far too long. These crimes were covered up because those in authority were more concerned about so-called community relations and avoiding being called racist than they were about protecting young children. That was an abject moral failure. The truth, at last, must come out.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his remarks. He read out excerpts from some of the court transcripts that have been made public, and like other hon. Members, I have read some of them as well. They make for truly horrifying reading. They are the starkest reminder, for everyone in this House and beyond, that it is absolutely essential that we collectively do right by the victims, who have had such unimaginable horrors inflicted upon them. I hope that that is the spirit in which we can engage across this House as the inquiry gets up and running and continues its work.

Now that we have a chair and a panel in place, this is a moment to elevate the discussion beyond our usual trading of party political points across the Dispatch Boxes. The shadow Secretary of State has a critique of the Government, and I will robustly defend the Government of which I am a part. We have always been focused on the outcome of justice and truth for victims, and less so on the process itself, but it was this Government that asked Baroness Casey to do her national audit. She followed the evidence and recommended this national inquiry. That is what we are doing and what we have supported. Now that we have a chair and a panel, this is a moment to do right by the victims. They are a diverse cohort of people who will have different views and will all feel, regardless of where they stand on the inquiry itself, some degree of anxiety about what will happen next. They will need some reassurance that we can rise above our usual political discourse and unite in support for the chair and the panel as they do this important work.

For most of the shadow Secretary of State’s detailed questions, the answer is a straightforward yes. Let me just reassure him that there will be no dilution of the scope; the inquiry is very clearly focused on the exact problem that was named by Baroness Casey in her national audit.

To the extent that the inquiry finds evidence of potential misconduct in public office or other breaches of the law, it will of course work closely with our partners in law enforcement. The whole point of this inquiry is to ensure that actions result from the investigations and that people are properly held to account, including by facing the full force of the law. I am sure that the inquiry, once it reports, it will have other things to say—potentially even about strengthening the law. It is important that we let the inquiry do its work, but it will not be held back from making findings that lead to further investigations and accountability through the legal system.

On timings, I can confirm to the shadow Secretary of State that the draft terms of reference will be confirmed no later than March, although it could come a little earlier. We anticipate up to three months for the draft terms of reference and then up to three years for the inquiry to conclude, so no later than March 2029. The report will come then, too. That is the timetable that the chair and panel members have signed up to.

On the local investigations, it is of course right that they will not be investigating themselves. The work of the local investigations will be under the auspices of the chair and her panel, who will ensure that those investigations are held to the standard that they will set and follow themselves. They will also decide which other areas they wish to be included in the local investigations, and I am sure that Members will want to make representations to them. No area anywhere in England or Wales will be able to resist having a local investigation under the auspices of the inquiry, which of course has all the statutory powers that one would expect such an inquiry to have.

I think I have dealt with all the issues raised by the shadow Secretary of State. I look forward to a more constructive dialogue between us, hopefully, as the inquiry gets under way.

Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Last month, Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were banned under the threat of antisemitic mob violence and a highly politicised anti-Israel campaign. Let me be clear: we must never allow the threat of mob violence to dictate policy. West Midlands police cited concerns about the Tel Aviv fans based on a previous game in Amsterdam, but the Dutch police have now shown that those concerns were completely false. There was no mob of 500 fans targeting the Muslim community in Amsterdam. In fact, many Maccabi fans were themselves attacked. Nobody was thrown in a river, apart from one Maccabi fan. The Maccabi fans were not skilled and organised fighters; that was just made up. What will the Government do to hold West Midlands police to account for providing that false information? Unless they have a good explanation, the chief constable should resign.

Disturbingly, two members of the safety advisory group, Waseem Zaffar and Mumtaz Hussain, both previously expressed vehement anti-Israel views, so they were not impartial. We have seen the Palestine solidarity campaign in Birmingham trying to hunt down Maccabi players before the game—that is despicable. When my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) went to the game, he was abused and called a “dog” by pro-Palestine protesters, thereby revealing their true colours.

We have now discovered through a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston) that the Home Office was made aware of the possibility of the ban as early as 2 October—a full two weeks before the decision was taken. Why did the Home Office then do nothing to ensure that Maccabi fans could be properly protected? Do the Government really think it is acceptable that the threat of antisemitic mob violence can dictate policy? That is morally wrong and should never be allowed to happen in this country.

[Sarah Jones]

I agree entirely with the shadow Home Secretary that we should not allow the threat of mob violence to stop matches going ahead. With respect, I think that he is jumping the gun a bit with some of the phrases he has used, saying that it was “just made up”. We are not clear on that at this point, and I do not want this House to take what was in the newspaper yesterday and jump to conclusions. That is not to say that we do not want to get to the bottom of what happened; I can reassure hon. Members of that.

Antisemitism has absolutely no place in our society, and we are taking a strong lead in tackling it in all its forms. The Prime Minister made his view about the decision on this match very clear, as did the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she came to this place to speak of it in previous weeks.

We have a duty to find the right balance between operational independence and ensuring that all our communities are protected in exactly the way that we need them to be. Lots of hon. Members here will know of the work of lots of Jewish organisations, in particular the Community Security Trust, which help us in that task. We will not shy away from that or from what we need to do.

As I said, the SAG process was set up following Hillsborough for a different purpose, and we find ourselves in a different world with a different set of situations. If changes to the SAG process are needed, we will make them.

As I also said, I have written to the chief constable of West Midlands police to ask some questions of him, and we have asked the inspector to conduct a review. The Home Secretary is right—[Interruption.] The shadow Home Secretary is right—

[Chris Philp]

It is only a matter of time!

[Sarah Jones]

I think not, but there we are. He is my constituency neighbour in Croydon, so best wishes to him always.

The 2 October was the point at which the Home Office asked officials in the United Kingdom football policing unit for the update, and we were told that a range of different options were being considered. That is certainly true, and I will not shy away from that. It is now important we ensure that where there are lessons to be learned, we learn them.

Migration: Settlement Pathway

Chris Philp Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

As always, I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. She has had a busy week. I wonder whether this burst of hyperactivity has anything to do with her leadership bid. As her shadow, I will say this: I am rooting for her in her tussle with the Health Secretary as to who gets to replace the Prime Minister, although I fear my endorsement may not be entirely helpful to her!

Immigration under successive Governments has been far too high. That has included illegal immigration across the channel, which has surged since the general election, with 10,000 illegal immigrants crossing just in the 75 days that the Home Secretary has been in post. Last year—the first year of a Labour Government—there were a record number of new asylum claims. The number of illegal immigrants accommodated in hotels has gone up under this Labour Government, even though they promised they would reduce numbers.

Besides illegal immigration, on which this Government are so clearly failing, legal migration has been far too high, too, absorbing the equivalent of half the new housing supply in recent years. Allowing mass low-skilled migration is bad for the economy, not least when we have 9.5 million working-age people out of work. Mass low- skilled migration without integration has placed all kinds of pressures on society, not least because there are a million people here who do not speak English properly or at all and 10,000 foreign citizens in prison. Where I suspect we and the Government agree is that very limited, high-skilled migration is a good thing, but the days of mass, low-skilled migration must come to an end.

There is much in this statement that I support, not least because so much of it is so familiar. The idea of a 10-year route to indefinite leave to remain is something that we proposed in amendments to the Government’s Bill around nine months ago. Inexplicably, the Labour party voted against those measures, and now they have adopted them. We also proposed removing benefits from foreign citizens, including those on ILR who do not have British citizenship, and this consultation document now looks at doing the same thing. I am delighted to see that the Home Secretary, upon arrival at 2 Marsham Street, got out her laptop and started copying and pasting Conservative policies.

I have one or two detailed and specific questions, which I ask in a spirit of constructiveness, given that the Home Secretary has adopted so many Conservative policies. Importantly, she said that these policies on ILR qualification would apply to those people here already. She is absolutely right to say that, and I support it. She mentions transitional arrangements. I just urge her to be cautious about those, lest they create loopholes. Can she give the House an estimate as to when these new measures will be implemented? I think the previous rules around legal migration took effect in January 2021, so the people who arrived under them will become eligible under present ILR rules from January 2026—just a few weeks’ time. When will these changes be implemented? I hope it is as soon as possible.

The Home Secretary also says that to qualify for ILR at 10 years, people will need to have made national insurance contributions. I have tried to get through the consultation document in the past half hour, and I think I am right in saying that the qualifying threshold is to have earned £12,570 for a period of three years. She can correct me if I have got that wrong, but that strikes me as a very low level of earnings—some £12,500 for three years would not represent a net economic contribution to this country—and I urge her seriously to consider setting the threshold a great deal higher.

The Home Secretary also mentions the possibility of volunteering meaning that people get ILR at five years, rather than 10. We know how people game the system when it comes to immigration, such as by pretending to convert to Christianity to get asylum. I urge her to draft those rules carefully and to be extremely cautious, lest she creates some loopholes.

Will the Home Secretary consider adopting one last Conservative policy, since she appears so enthusiastic about them, by introducing a binding cap on legal migration? It could be voted for by Parliament each year so that this House can democratically decide the level of inward migration. She has adopted so many of our other policies, and I strongly urge her to adopt that last one too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Well, it is good to see the Home Secretary here, taking some time off from her leadership campaign. She is quite clearly preparing a one in, one out policy for No. 10 Downing Street!

The Home Secretary has announced that she wants to replace the Government’s entire immigration policy with Denmark’s. Is that because the Government have failed so badly in the year and a half since the election? Since the election, illegal channel crossings have surged 55%, up to 62,000; new asylum claims have reached record levels; and the numbers in asylum hotels have gone up. In just 75 days, since the right hon. Lady became Home Secretary, 10,000 illegal immigrants have crossed the English channel, but the Home Secretary—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. You have to at least try to get to a question. Don’t forget that we are having a big statement on this topic shortly.

[Chris Philp]

Okay, I will ask a question. Will the Home Secretary agree with us that in order to control our borders we must come out of the European convention on human rights, enabling us to deport all illegal immigrants within a week of their arrival?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Well, I think we can all agree that the right hon. Gentleman’s leadership campaign is going absolutely nowhere. Once again his party reverts to an unworkable solution that is a total gimmick, just like their failed Rwanda plan, which saw £700 million spent and a total of four volunteers returned. What we always get from the Conservatives are gimmicks and solutions that would never ever work. What we get from this Government is a track record of increasing removals, following the situation we inherited from the Conservative Government, and a proper plan that will fix this broken system.

[Chris Philp]

Our leader is not going anywhere, but the right hon. Lady’s leader most certainly is—out of No. 10!

The Home Secretary talks about the Rwanda scheme. That scheme never even started. It worked in Australia and it would have worked here. After her Government cancelled it with no replacement, numbers have surged. The truth is that under this Government, illegal immigration has gone up, and there is a crime wave going up with it, including rape and murder. Her ideas are not radical enough. She wants to give illegal immigrants a 20-year path to citizenship—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I’m not being funny. The idea is to ask a question. The statement will be coming later, and we are going to go through all this then. This really does not help. You can pick which colleagues from your side of the Chamber you do not want to ask a question, because they are the ones you are taking time away from.

[Chris Philp]

The Home Secretary wants to give illegal immigrants a 20-year path to citizenship. We want to deport them. Will she accept our proposal to come out of the ECHR so that we can actually control our borders?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am sure that all Conservative Members will be delighted to hear that the Leader of the Opposition is going absolutely nowhere—and we are very happy to see her remain in place.

This Government will not come out of the European convention on human rights. We are going to reform the way that article 8 in particular is applied to immigration rules within our country. This Government are rolling up our sleeves and doing the hard work of governing—unlike his party, which just gave up altogether.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Last October, a Sudanese small-boat illegal immigrant murdered 27-year-old Rhiannon Whyte by stabbing her 23 times with a screwdriver. In September, an illegal immigrant from Egypt was jailed for brutally raping a young woman in Hyde Park. Just last week, an Iranian and two Egyptian small-boat illegal immigrants were committed to trial for the rape of a 33-year-old woman on Brighton beach. How many more murders and rapes must there be before the Home Secretary agrees to the immediate deportation of all illegal immigrants within a week of arrival?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before the Minister answers, let me say that the last case is sub judice, so please be careful with the answer.

Police Reform

Chris Philp Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. The Minister mentioned at the beginning the Government’s plans to bring forward a police reform White Paper. That was announced, from memory, about a year ago, but there has not been a single sniff of that White Paper. Can she tell us when we can expect it and why the Government are so bereft of ideas that they have taken a year or more to publish it?

Today’s statement about police and crime commissioners represents tinkering around the edges from a Government who are failing on crime and policing. They are simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. This Government are failing. Police numbers are falling. They fell by 1,300 during Labour’s first year in office on a like-for-like, March-to-March comparison. Police numbers are not only continuing to fall, but will drop even more this year. Crime under this Government is surging: shoplifting is up by 13% in this Government’s first year to record levels, leaving shopkeepers in difficulty, and we have seen theft from the person going up by 5% and sexual offences going up by 9%.

If it were not enough to see all those crime types surging under this Labour Government, senior police officers are warning that they face a funding crisis. Indeed, the chief constables of our four largest forces—Merseyside, the West Midlands, Greater Manchester and the Metropolitan police—all said publicly just a few months ago that they face a funding crisis under this Labour Government.

It is clear that this Government are failing on police and crime, with falling police numbers, increasing crime and a funding crisis, yet the Policing Minister comes to us today with some minor tinkering around the edges. The Government say that they want to transfer PCC powers to mayors where they exist and where the territories are coterminous. Broadly speaking, that is the approach the previous Government took. In fact, I recall transferring one of the Yorkshire forces, I think, into the mayoral model a year or so ago. She asserts that the mayoral model is superior to regular police and crime commissioners, and I wonder what evidence she can produce to support that, because the biggest police and crime commissioner in the country is the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who is also the worst PCC in the country. Knife crime is up 86% under Sadiq Khan, and the Met has the lowest clear-up rate of any force in the country at a lamentable 4.7%. He has closed down half the front counters in London, and police numbers are plummeting. How can the Minister make such an assertion?

For areas outside mayoralties, the Minister proposes essentially to abolish PCCs and replace them with some kind of committee comprised of local councillors. Will those have the same powers as police and crime commissioners? It is implied that they will, and if so, it will not save any money, other than from the election and the police and crime panel, which are very small costs. As far as I can see, this proposal will not save any money, but will remove a directly elected public official—the police and crime commissioner—who is accountable to the public and would certainly be more visible than some faceless committee of local bureaucrats. That is a retrograde step.

In the Government’s announcement today, they are tinkering around the edges. They are rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic while crimes such as shoplifting rocket, police numbers fall and the police face a funding crisis made in the Home Office.

[Sarah Jones]

I am not sure whether or not the shadow Home Secretary is in favour of this announcement—it is not entirely clear. Perhaps he can come back when he has made up his mind.

The right hon. Gentleman asked several questions that I am happy to reply to. He asked when the White Paper on police reform will come out. It will be this year, I can assure him. We have been working with local police chiefs, police and crime commissioners and the staff associations on what the reform will look like, and we are making the final changes to our reform agenda. As a former Home Office Minister, he will know that we need to make many improvements in respect of performance, accountability, technology, and the structure wherein we have 86 decision makers across the country who, basically, ensure that there are huge inefficiencies in the system while performance and productivity do not rise as fast as they should. Again, I assure him that there will be a significant White Paper that we bring out before the end of the year.

We made the announcement about police and crime commissioners today so that we can continue to work in good faith with the commissioners as we finalise our reform programme. It was right to tell them as soon as we could. I spoke to them at some length this morning, and will speak to them again, not least at their conference next week.

The shadow Home Secretary talks about crime rates. I do not have to remind the House of his and the former Government’s record in office. They cut 20,000 police and recruited 20,000 police, so we now have a police workforce that is very new, large numbers of whom have been in post for only a couple of years. Despite the recruitment done at the end of the Conservatives’ period in government, prosecution rates did not improve. The system is so unproductive, so inefficient and so badly managed that we need to make huge reforms. We have been making progress since we came to power—for example, just a couple of weeks ago, we announced an 18% fall in knife murders, 60,000 knives have been taken off the street, and knife crime has fallen by 5%. We are surging neighbourhood policing capacity, which was decimated under the previous Government, and we will have 3,000 extra police in our neighbourhoods by next April.

The shadow Home Secretary asked about the evidence of mayoral success. I encourage him to talk to the mayors and deputy mayors responsible for police and crime. The ability of a mayoral system, with all the public services beneath it working together more collaboratively and more effectively, is clear to see, so I suggest he has a look for himself.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether powers will be transferred to the new models. They were. The new model will not be a faceless committee of local bureaucrats. Its members will be the leaders of the councils and a senior police and crime lead, who will drive the day-to-day work. Accountability will remain, as will the statutory responsibilities. This is an opportunity for us to work across local government and with other partners to make sure that we drive the best possible system.

A saving of £100 million is, I think, quite substantial, not “tinkering around the edges” as the shadow Home Secretary suggests. If he waits a few more weeks, he will see the reform agenda that the Home Secretary is designing in its totality. It will put policing on a much better footing than he left it.

Huntingdon Train Attack

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement.

Our thoughts are with the victims of this appalling attack and their families, as the Home Secretary rightly says. I join her in paying tribute to the emergency services who responded so fast and the brave interventions by members of the public and the train staff that prevented an even worse tragedy from occurring. They are truly heroes.

This attack has horrified and shocked the whole nation. People simply travelling by train were indiscriminately attacked. The horror the passengers experienced will likely stay with them forever.

Anthony Williams has now been charged. As the Home Secretary says, he had been involved in previous incidents in Peterborough and, in the early hours of Saturday morning, was also allegedly involved in an attack on the docklands light railway in London. Will the Home Secretary confirm that, as I have been told, police in London knew Williams’s identity following that attack, and if so, whether Cambridgeshire police were informed so that they could track him down? In essence, I am asking whether there were any opportunities to prevent this attack from occurring.

The Home Secretary says that Williams was not previously known to the security services, Counter Terrorism Policing or Prevent. Can she tell the House whether Williams was previously known to the police more widely or to mental health services?

This all comes just weeks after a murderous Islamist terror attack on a Manchester synagogue and just days after the horrendous murder of Wayne Broadhurst by an Afghan asylum seeker, both using knives. Although homicide has thankfully fallen by about 15% since 2010 and, as the Home Secretary said, knife crime has fallen in recent years, every homicide and every knife attack is one too many. The Minister for Policing and I saw the grief it causes at the funeral of 15-year-old Elianne Andam, who was murdered in Croydon just over two years ago.

Speaking in general—not in relation to this incident—does the Home Secretary agree that knife crime and knife homicide figures are still too high, and that we must do yet more? Does she agree that more knife crime offenders should go to jail? This is important because when offenders are in jail, they cannot attack the public. Does she agree that we must ensure that more people who carry knives, especially where they use them to threaten others, are jailed? Of course, there is pressure on prison places, but by deporting more of the 10,000 foreign nationals in prison, we could create more space.

We also need to take more knives off our streets, which means we have to dramatically increase the use of stop and search. A study this year by Professor Lawrence Sherman, the Met’s former chief scientific officer, found that raising stop and search levels in London to 2011 levels would lead to a one-third reduction in knife homicide. Some complain that stop and search is used disproportionately in relation to some groups, but, when measured in relation to the offending population, the disproportionality disappears, as was set out in a recent Policy Exchange study. We should triple the use of stop and search to get knives off our streets, and we should introduce year-round surge policing in the top 5% of high crime hotspots, which will include many train stations.

We must also use technology more. I know that there is work under way at the Home Office on scanning for knives at a distance, and it is hoped that it can distinguish knives from keys or mobile phones. This could help police rapidly identify those carrying a knife in a public place. I wonder if the Home Secretary could provide an update on the development of that work, either straightaway or in writing later if she would prefer. I really do think that it could make a big difference.

Finally, retrospective and live facial recognition can identify wanted criminals, including those involved in knife crime. In Croydon town centre—the borough that the Minister for Policing and I represent—in the last couple of years around 200 wanted criminals were arrested using live facial recognition, including two wanted rapists and others guilty of knife crime who would not otherwise have been caught. Crime in Croydon town centre, including knife crime, has gone down as a result. The images of innocent passers-by are immediately and automatically deleted, which addresses civil liberties concerns. I really hope that the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing agree that rolling out this technology nationally would make a dramatic improvement to public safety, and they will certainly have my full support if they choose to roll it out.

I know that everyone in the House wants to see knife crime eradicated—today more than ever before, I am sure—so I hope the House will also support the tough steps needed to eradicate knife crime. We owe the victims of these appalling crimes actions as well as words.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks, in particular his opening remarks; I know that the bravery of all those who faced this attack on Saturday has unanimous support across the House, and I thank him for the spirit in which he reflected that.

As I said in my statement, the events in Peterborough are now the subject of an IOPC investigation. It is important that I do not say anything that seeks to get ahead of that, but I am sure all those questions will be answered in the fullness of time. It is standard practice where there has been contact with police in the run-up to an event like this that those matters are referred to the IOPC to investigate and consider.

The shadow Home Secretary will know that I also cannot say anything that relates to the suspect who has been charged and any prior history, or indeed mental health issues. They would be facts that are material to any future court proceedings, so it would be inappropriate for me, or indeed anybody else in this House, to comment or speculate on those matters today. I would ask that Mr Speaker’s words at the opening of the statement be remembered as questions are posed today.

I agree with the shadow Home Secretary that knife crime is far too high. This Government are impatient to do everything we can to eliminate knife crime. It is why we have set ourselves an ambitious target. We are pleased to have made some progress, though I agree that there is much more to be done. Instead of playing politics across the House, I hope that where there is consensus we are all able to work together to bring down the scourge of knife crime in our country. As I say, the numbers have gone in a positive direction. I hope the shadow Home Secretary will welcome that and work with us as we seek to make more progress.

The shadow Home Secretary referred to sentencing. I have to say that it is disappointing when Conservative Members do not reckon with the scale of the crisis in our prison system. This Government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse, and it has meant difficult decisions ever since we entered office in order to prevent the country from running out of prison places entirely. This Government have deported more foreign national offenders since entering office than the previous Government did.

Despite deporting record numbers of foreign national offenders, the scale of the crisis in the prison system means that there are still more prisoners coming into the system than there have been places. It is important that the sentencing reforms are seen in that context. The majority of those who have been in possession of a knife and used it in a threatening manner do attract reasonably lengthy prison sentences. When we know more about the circumstances of this particular case, we will know if there are other lessons for us to draw and other areas of policy for us to consider.

The shadow Home Secretary referenced stop and search, and I think—I hope that I am not putting too much of a spin on his remarks—lamented issues about disproportionality. I gently remind him that it was a former Tory Home Secretary in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament who first started speaking about the disproportionate use of stop-and-search powers and changed the rules to reflect the disproportionate use of that power. That was the record of the previous Government. I hope he will recognise that the police already have the power to use stop and search indiscriminately, where the intelligence suggests that that is required. That is an operational decision for police chiefs. Of course, the decision as to whether to stop and search someone, when there are reasonable grounds and suspicion, is an individual operational decision for police officers. This is a well used and well understood power. It is an important power in our arsenal for tackling criminality, and the Government fully support its lawful use.

The Government will soon consult on a new legal framework to underpin the use of live facial recognition. The shadow Home Secretary will know that when his party was in power, that was left to individual police forces. I believe that South Wales and the Met were the first to roll it out, and they faced lots of legal challenges as a result thereof. The Government then did not change their policy, but this Government will consult on a legal framework so that all police forces across the country can use live facial recognition technology, confident that they will not find themselves defending those decisions in courts in the future. I have also supported the roll-out of 10 specific live facial recognition units across the country, and we will look to do more in the coming months.

In relation to scans for knives, there is much more that we can do to use new and emerging technology to help us tackle this type of criminality. I am happy to write to the shadow Home Secretary about our current plans, but I will set out more on our broader position in the coming weeks.

Knife crime is a terrible crime that claims far too many lives in our country. It is important that we keep doing everything we can to bear down on the damage that it causes and to provide pathways for those who get caught up in the carrying of knives. That is an important bit of policy that we will continue to work on. However, in relation to the attack that we are primarily talking about, I urge the House to wait until more of the facts are known before drawing broader policy conclusions.

Rape Gangs: National Statutory Inquiry

Chris Philp Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the recent criticism of the statutory inquiry into the rape gang scandal.

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

As stated in my previous statement to the House on 2 September and in my letter to the Home Affairs Committee yesterday, the Government remain resolute in delivering Baroness Casey’s recommendations following her national audit of group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse. These crimes committed by grooming gangs are among the most horrific imaginable. Baroness Casey’s report exposed more than a decade of institutional inaction, and we are determined to ensure that such failures are never repeated.

Central to our response is a statutory national inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. It will oversee local investigations and will have full powers to compel evidence. It will also be time-limited to three years to ensure that victims and survivors receive answers swiftly. The inquiry will examine safeguarding systems, accountability and intersections with ethnicity, race and culture, identifying failures and good practice. The inquiry will work alongside Operation Beaconport, a national police operation.

The appointment of the chair is at a critical stage, and we hope to confirm its conclusion soon. Victims and survivors have been at the heart of the process, with trauma-informed opportunities to share their views. We have engaged with them on the chair appointment and the terms of reference, which will be shaped by the chair in public consultation with stakeholders. As has been widely reported in the media, victims and survivors are meeting prospective chairs this week—today, in fact. This process, contrary to the reporting, was managed not by the Home Office but by the independent child exploitation charity NWG Network. We are gathering views to ensure that the perspective of victims and survivors remains central.

We must avoid delays, as were seen in the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and we are progressing as swiftly as thoroughness allows. Misinformation undermines this process. Allegations of intentional delay, lack of interest and a widening or dilution of the inquiry’s scope are false. The inquiry will remain laser-focused on grooming gangs, as Baroness Casey recommended.

[Chris Philp]

This scandal arose because young, mainly white girls were systematically gang-raped and it was covered up by those in authority because the perpetrators were mainly of Pakistani origin. It is all the more shocking that when calls for a national inquiry became public in January, the Prime Minister smeared campaigners as

“jumping on a far-right bandwagon”.

Comments like that are a disgrace and are what led to this scandal being covered up in the first place. Months later, just two days before facing a vote in Parliament, the Government finally agreed to the inquiry, but it is clear that they never wanted this inquiry and were forced into it. Perhaps that is why, months later, the Government have said nothing substantive publicly and their inquiry is descending into chaos.

What we have heard publicly is that victims and survivors on the liaison panel have no confidence in the Government or the inquiry. In the last 24 hours alone, two have resigned. Fiona Goddard resigned from the panel, saying that

“the secretive conduct and conditions imposed on survivors”

—by the Government—

“has led to a toxic, fearful environment, and there is a high risk of people feeling silenced all over again.”

Hours later, Ellie-Ann Reynolds also resigned, saying that the remit of the inquiry had been widened to

“downplay the racial and religious motivations behind our abuse.”

The Minister shakes her head, but that is what Ellie-Ann Reynolds said.

Fiona also raised the issue of Sabah Kaiser, who has been acting as a liaison officer on behalf of NWG. Just two years ago, Ms Kaiser described calling out the fact that the majority of perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage as “destructive, distracting, irresponsible”. Given those frankly appalling views and the complaints about them by survivors, will the Minister ensure that Ms Kaiser plays no further role?

Victims and survivors have also questioned the suitability of former police officers or social workers to chair the inquiry. They do not believe that people from the professions that failed them so badly are suitable. Will the Minister accept this feedback and appoint a judge to lead the inquiry? Will the Minister confirm that the scope of the inquiry will not be diluted, as both Fiona and Ellie-Ann say is now happening, and that it will focus on the cover-up of the rape gangs scandal because of the fact that the majority of perpetrators were of Pakistani origin?

Finally, Fiona said this yesterday:

“I just won’t be gagged and controlled by the Government while they turn this inquiry into a cover up.”

Will the Minister apologise to Fiona and Ellie-Ann?

[Jess Phillips]

The right hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to my remarks at all if he is suggesting that the Government have silenced anybody. The Government have not handled the process; it has been handled by a grooming gang charity. He cited and named a victim of crime.

If the right hon. Gentleman had done anywhere near the level of work that I have done, he would know that not all victims and survivors are of the same opinion. They are not one homogeneous group of people who all think the same thing, who all want the same exposure and who all want their identities known. I have spoken to Fiona Goddard many times, and I will continue that relationship with her, should that be what she wishes. Every single survivor who has been engaged with—there have been many—will have different feelings on the subject.

With regard to the right hon. Gentleman requiring a judge, Baroness Casey said to the House in the Home Affairs Committee that she did not want a traditional judicial-led inquiry. She was explicit about that. Can anyone in the House find me an institution that did not fail these girls over the years? That includes our courts, which took children away from the grooming gang victims and which criminalised some of them. There is no institution in our country that has not failed.

Today, I will meet many of the victims and get their feedback, and I will continue to progress with that in mind. I will engage with all the victims, regardless of their opinions, and I will listen to those who have been put in the media and are put in panels. I will always listen, and I will speak to all of them.

Manchester Terrorism Attack

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement.

At 9.31 am on the morning of Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, we saw the sickening terrorist attack on worshippers at Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester by an Islamist extremist. The brutal attack left two men dead, Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby, and three more injured. Our thoughts and prayers remain with the victims and their families whose lives were so wickedly torn apart on that holy morning.

I want to thank Greater Manchester police and others in the security and emergency services for responding so quickly, and the brave worshippers inside the synagogue who stopped the attacker from entering. I join the Home Secretary in saying that I hope the IOPC completes its work quickly and that its conclusions reflect the fact that the police officers acted with courage in what was a very dangerous, unpredictable and fast-moving situation.

Sadly, we know that antisemitism is at record highs in the UK. The Community Security Trust recorded over 1,500 antisemitic incidents across the UK in the first half of this year, the second-highest level ever, and Jewish people in our country, tragically, face far higher rates of hate crime than any other community. We must stand with this country’s Jewish community and fight with all our resolve and energy the ancient evil of antisemitism wherever it is found. It has no place on these shores—not ever.

To be clear, attacks based on race or religion are totally unacceptable. The recent attack on a mosque in Peacehaven was appalling, and I know that we all unreservedly condemn it. Everyone in this country in all communities, including the Muslim community, must have the courage to stand up to extremism wherever we see it. Standing by and saying nothing when encountering extremism is complicity. That is why the antisemitism that is rife on university campuses must also be fought. The Home Secretary mentioned that in her statement, but will she work with her colleagues in Government to withdraw funding from universities that do not do enough to fight antisemitism?

We must do more than just call out extremism. Anyone espousing extremist views or who expresses support for terrorism, or racial or religious hatred of any kind, including antisemitism, who is not a British citizen should be removed from this country. Will the Home Secretary commit today to using her powers under the Immigration Act 1971 to remove from this country any foreign national who expresses extremist views or sympathy for political violence, terrorism, antisemitism or any other form of religious hatred, whether or not the criminal threshold is met? She could make that commitment now. Will she show that she is serious about fighting extremism by doing so?

I agree with the Home Secretary that the protests on 7 October this year, the anniversary of the terrorist murders by Hamas and just days after the Manchester attack, were appalling—“un-British”, in her words, which I agree with. The protests have continued even after the recent peace agreement relating to Gaza was signed, and, of course, they started before Israel’s military action in Gaza. In principle, I support her proposed introduction of a new cumulative impact test to sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act, but will she also consider expanding that test to also account for intimidation felt by other communities as a result of protest? Does the Home Secretary also agree that anyone expressing support for a proscribed terrorist organisation or who incites violence, for example by calling for jihad or intifada, should be arrested and prosecuted?

Since the attack, the police confirmed the attacker pledged allegiance to Islamic State and was influenced by extreme Islamist ideology, as the Home Secretary acknowledged. Islamist extremism is sadly a threat we know all too well in the United Kingdom. In July, we remembered the 52 people murdered by Islamist terrorists in the 7/7 bombings, which took place 20 years ago—the deadliest terrorist attack committed on British soil. We also remember Sir David Amess, also murdered by an Islamist extremist, and the 22 victims of the Manchester Arena attack, also murdered by an Islamist extremist.

We should not be afraid to call out this extremist ideology wherever we see it. It has no place in this country. Will the Home Secretary pledge to drop any definition of Islamophobia that would make calling out Islamist extremism any harder? The fact is that 75% of MI5’s terrorism-related caseload is related to Islamist extremism, and the vast majority of terrorist murders in the past 25 years were perpetrated by Islamists, yet only 13% of the Prevent caseload is Islamist related. What does the Home Secretary propose to do about that?

Britain gave perpetrator Jihad al-Shamie a home when he arrived here from Syria. He then carried out a brutal attack on a synagogue, deliberately targeted at Jewish people, on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. We need to reflect very deeply on the implications of that.

Today, we must all stand together and fight the hatred of extremism and terror. Attacks like this one are an attack on our whole nation. We will never change our way of life, and we will never allow our fellow citizens to be threatened or attacked simply because of their background. I know that the whole House will want to send out that message today.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his response and for the way in which he made it. I look forward to working with him and with all Members across the House as we deal with what I hope will always be a shared issue and a shared problem. Where there is agreement and consensus in this House on the measures that we should take, I hope we will be able to progress those matters quickly.

The shadow Home Secretary asked specifically about universities. He will, I hope, have seen the comments made by my colleague and right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, who has made clear to universities what their responsibilities are. It is important that she does that engagement before considering what measures to take if universities fail to take all steps to protect Jewish students on campus. This Government are very clear that universities already have responsibilities and they need to demonstrate that they are reflecting those responsibilities and taking appropriate action.

The shadow Home Secretary asked a range of questions on other crimes that are being committed. He will, I hope, recognise that this Government have worked very closely with policing, despite lots of disquiet in some quarters, to ensure that we have absolutely no tail-off in our response to those who support a proscribed terror organisation. He will have seen that there have been many hundreds of arrests. As long as people continue to show support for a proscribed organisation, they will face the full force of the law every time they do so.

On immigration powers, I am considering all immigration issues. The shadow Home Secretary will know that this Government have quite significantly increased the deportations of foreign offenders who have been found guilty of committing a crime in this country, compared to the situation we inherited. I note his points on the wider powers of the Immigration Act 1971, which I am reviewing. I will say more to the House on that in due course.

The right hon. Gentleman also made a number of points on our proposed amendments to sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. I hope that when we bring those measures forward, they will receive support in this House. I am happy to write to him on any further details about the Public Order Act. I am going to review the wider landscape of public order legislation, particularly in relation to the cumulative impact of repeat protests; we are already going to take steps on imposing further conditions and making explicit that cumulative impact is something that the police should take into account, but I am also going to look at the wider framework. Again, I will return to the House in due course with further updates on that legislation.

The shadow Home Secretary rightly noted that the protests have continued both before and after the peace agreement in the middle east. I think we can conclude that not all those protesting truly wish to see peace in the middle east, but it is for them to answer on what their motivations really are. We are very clear that although the right to protest is a fundamental freedom in our country enjoyed by people of all backgrounds, it is often the cause of grave offence to other people who live in this country, and it must be balanced against the right of all people to be able to live in safety.

The shadow Home Secretary mentioned Islamist extremism in particular. Let me be clear to him and to the House that this Government, and I as Home Secretary, have a clear-eyed view of where the threats that face this country are coming from. It is true that within our domestic extremism landscape the largest cohort of work that keeps our security services and counter-terror policing busy is related to Islamist extremism. We will not shy away from confronting those issues and dealing with them in the appropriate way.

What happened in Manchester on 2 October asks a bigger question of all of us. This threat is something that we have been living with for some time, and we have not yet defeated it. I commit myself and the Government to doing everything in our power to stand up to this particular threat without fear or favour, and to destroy it for good. I also note that the first people that Islamists often suppress, hurt and damage are their fellow Muslims. It is in everyone’s interest to fight Islamist extremism wherever it is found.

As the shadow Home Secretary noted, there is a wider and more complex domestic extremism picture in relation to extreme right-wing terrorism, and the emerging threat of those who do not have a fixed ideology but who are fixated on violence. It is important that all of our response is measured and follows where the risks are coming from and that we are always asking ourselves what action will ultimately be effective in dealing with the threats. We will redouble our efforts to interrogate the assumptions that have been made in the past and to assess whether they need to be changed and what new effective action must be pursued. I hope that in that task we will have support from Members across the House.