Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Philp Excerpts(2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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(6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Philp Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Home Secretary to her place. I very much look forward to the exchanges that we will have, so long as the Prime Minister leaves her in post. When it comes to human rights, does she not accept that tinkering around the edges simply will not work? She said in her answer a second ago that she wants to see the ECHR reformed, but her own Government’s Attorney General Lord Hermer said just four days ago that ECHR reform is a “political trick”. Perhaps she and the Attorney General should get themselves on the same page. Given that the Attorney General says that reform is not possible, does she not agree that more fundamental changes are needed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) said a moment ago? This year has been the worst in history for illegal immigrants crossing the channel—the number is up 38%, compared with last year. Only radical change will fix this mess, so will the Home Secretary back the Conservative plans to completely disapply the Human Rights Act 1998 and ensure that all illegal immigrants are immediately removed upon arrival?
Mr Speaker
Order. You know the score; you know we have to get through questions. When colleagues do not get in, they will blame the shadow Home Secretary. Please try to help others.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary accept that her predecessor was moved because this Government are failing on immigration? Indeed, 75% of the public think that the Government are failing. Illegal migration is up 38%, making this the worst year in history. Let me try again: will the Home Secretary take this opportunity to commit to real action, back our plans to disapply the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to all immigration matters, and immediately remove every illegal immigrant upon arrival?
Shabana Mahmood
I will take no lessons from anyone sitting on the Conservative Benches. Their Government utterly failed on both legal and illegal migration. This Government, and this Home Secretary, will clean up their mess.
Chris Philp
The Home Secretary has some brass neck. This has been the worst year in history, with illegal migration up by 38%. Press reports this week suggest that a handful of illegal migrants might be removed to France—she has been silent about that so far—but that amounts to only 5% of people crossing. Does she accept that allowing 95% of illegal immigrants to stay will be no deterrent, and will she commit to publishing full data on a weekly basis?
Shabana Mahmood
On the subject of brass neck, I will have to buy the shadow Home Secretary a mirror, so that he can stare at one. As I said, I will not take any lessons from him or any Conservative. This Government have got removals up to 35,000, got asylum decisions moving again, and struck an historic agreement with France. We are working with our partners in France to get flights off the ground.
Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests
Chris Philp Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.