MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I will indeed respect the amount of time for the third party, which I understand is 10 minutes. Thank you for giving me that time, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Ten minutes is a guide, not a target that the hon. Gentleman has to reach.

[Max Wilkinson]

Your advice is noted, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Of course it would be inappropriate to house 1,200 asylum seekers on a military base next to a village of a few hundred people, and of course it would be inappropriate to house them on a site that has never previously been used for residential accommodation. That goes without saying. The Liberal Democrats can back that element of the motion, even if we do not agree with the wording deployed by the official Opposition. I will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) to deal with the specifics of the local matter when he contributes later.

What must be disputed, however, is the second part of this deeply harmful motion. Brexit has made us all poorer. It has reduced Britain’s standing in the world and made it more difficult for this country to run a safe and controlled asylum system. So why on earth are the Conservatives suggesting leaving the ECHR, which would be Brexit 2.0? Not only would that make the UK a pariah state, but it would likely result in the end of the Brexit deal that they negotiated. The Conservatives often tell us that the Brexit settlement must not be reopened, but that is exactly what they are suggesting.

Once again, the Conservative party is arguing that this country should pursue what would basically amount to a no-deal Brexit, except this time it is not a fringe argument being contested among factions in the Conservative party, but the position of the shadow Front Bench and the Leader of the Opposition, backed by all Conservative MPs. Indeed, their leader has told them that they will be barred from their party unless they adopt the position, which is why so many of them have now changed their mind on the issue.

The drift of the Conservatives away from the centre-right to the hard-right is a dereliction of duty. It runs counter to many of the traditions in British Conservatism. But we know why they are doing it: they are terrified of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) so they chase after him. They increasingly make his arguments as they prepare for their grubby deal. We all remember what happened in 2019, when the hon. Member for Clacton stood down his candidates in alliance with Boris Johnson. People up and down the country are more than aware that those two parties would engage in the same sort of stitch-up again without a second thought, no matter how much Tory MPs and their leader plead the opposite in public.

[Dr Mullan]

The hon. Gentleman talked about the UK becoming a pariah state if we are not in the ECHR. Does he think that Canada, which is not in the ECHR, is unable to provide a framework of rights for its citizens?

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

The point is that we are in Europe, we are a European nation and most of our relationships are with the ECHR nations. I gently caution the Conservatives that every time they change position in an effort to catch up with Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton will move further and further to the right. This week that resulted in the horrifying suggestion made by Reform that our military should be told to murder civilians on small boats in the English channel.

The suggestion that leaving the ECHR will help us to deal with a broken asylum system is absolute nonsense—a system that was broken by the Conservatives, by the way, who now spend so much time brazenly telling us that they alone have the solution. Leaving the ECHR will not stop a single small boat crossing from France. It will not, as the Conservatives suggest, make it easier to deport people, because when a nation ditches international agreements, others are less likely to work with it.

What leaving the ECHR would do, as I have said, is make this nation an international pariah. It would likely result in the conditions once known in the public debate as a no-deal Brexit, which the Conservatives told us they were against. In fact, the trade and co-operation agreement makes continued UK adherence to the ECHR a major part of our current Brexit conditions. If we were to leave the ECHR, we would also end co-operation with our neighbours on law enforcement and criminal justice, which risks leaving dangerous criminals walking free, unidentified and able to escape overseas and evade prosecution, and would seriously jeopardise public safety, including that of women and girls. That is deeply irresponsible.

[Pete Wishart]

It would also have huge implications for settlements across the United Kingdom. The Conservatives did not know this, but there would be a massive implication for Scottish devolution, for all our legislation is predicated on a commitment to being compliant with ECHR regulations. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Conservatives exactly what this would do to our internal arrangements across the UK?

[Max Wilkinson]

I will come to that point later, I hope, with specific reference to Northern Ireland.

There is more than that to this debate, though. Leaving the ECHR would also rob British people of hard-won British rights—rights that have for so long been championed across political divides, in so many notable cases by Conservatives, who now argue that we must scrap those rights on the altar of the debate about small boat crossings. Article 2, for instance—the right to life—helped the brave families of the Hillsborough victims to secure fresh inquests to get to the truth of what happened in that tragedy. Article 3 helped the victims of John Worboys, the black cab rapist, to get justice and build into British law additional protections for victims. Alongside article 3, article 4 helped victims of the Rochdale grooming gangs—who Conservative and Reform Members talk about so often—to secure damages and better justice from Greater Manchester police.

Article 10 protects the right to freedom of speech and expression, something that the right tells us is so important—just for them; maybe not so much for everybody else—although certainly not important enough to retain and protect it in law for all of us. This article also guarantees the right for journalists to protect their sources. While it is not for me, as a one-time rubbish journalist and now a politician, to tell journalists how to do their job, there has so far been disappointingly little scrutiny from the fourth estate, particularly in the right-wing media, on the Reform and Tory proposals on the ECHR. Article 10, by the way, also protects the rights of people to hold their politicians to account in the most direct terms. This is established in law.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

The Minister spoke fondly before of working for a former Home Secretary who, on one occasion after 9/11, disapplied part of the European convention on human rights using article 15. Does the hon. Member recognise that there is a difference, perhaps, between leaving the European convention and suspending elements of it while we deal with a crisis?

[Max Wilkinson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Of course, the second part of the convention does tackle those sorts of derogations. It is important that we see the convention in its entirety.

As I said earlier, all of this is before we consider the implications for Northern Ireland, which have been well rehearsed in this Chamber. When British people up and down the country hear Conservative and Reform politicians pledging to erase those rights, we must all ask ourselves whether we trust those politicians to give us back those rights when they no longer exist. The answer is, of course, that they will not give us those rights back. [Interruption.] And do not argue with me about the Wolfson report, because that is nonsense.

Leaving the ECHR will mean that we have even fewer opportunities to work on agreements with the EU—the place small boats set off from—to prevent those crossings, and that goes to the nub of the matter that we are discussing today. If we have learned one thing over the past decade, it is that the concept of the UK becoming more successful and prosperous while distancing itself from its closest allies is a total fiction. It was a lie in 2016, and it is a lie today. The only way to move towards an asylum system that works is by working with our European allies, and that means that this Government must first drop their self-defeating red lines, and secondly apply to join the EU migration and asylum pact.

While the media is excited that the Prime Minister has been more expansive in his wording on relations with Europe, it is important to note that he is pledging to retain all his red lines. He is not promising to remove any of them, even though he knows that those red lines are making us poorer and scuppering our chances of an asylum system that could, in future, command public trust, look after genuine asylum seekers and create a fair system, as this country has always had. It will also cost UK taxpayers more and more money.

[Dr Mullan]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the benefits of co-operation with the EU and how that might help us. Does he accept that when we were in the Dublin convention, we took more asylum seekers than were sent back?

[Max Wilkinson]

The hon. Member will know that the framework within which signatories to the EU migration and asylum pact work is different from the Dublin agreement.

Today we renew our calls for Ministers to drop their red lines on Europe and to join the EU asylum pact. We also renew our calls for the Conservatives to recognise the reality that the first Brexit they gave us has failed this country. Do not pretend that giving us Brexit 2.0 will be any better.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

I wish we had a system in which we could test the hon. Member’s proposition, because at the minute, we have absolutely no idea about the attitudes and values of the people coming from those countries. She is correct to say that we have issues of misogyny in this country, but for our country the equivalent figures to those I have just mentioned are significantly lower. That is the point: these cultures are worse than ours on the many issues we care about in relation to women and girls.

On the one hand, the Government are pledging action on women and girls and driving improvements in that area—we have done so in our society for many decades—but on the other hand they are pretending that the citizens of those countries, which have done none of that work, are exactly the same as us and will come over and treat our women exactly the same. I am afraid that flies in the face of common sense and the clear statistical evidence I gave about rates of crime and the social attitudes of those people.

I am not afraid to say that there is a lot to do when it comes to women and girls in our culture, but we have a significantly better culture towards women and girls than countries such as Eritrea, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and a whole range of others, so it is perfectly reasonable for women being asked to live alongside huge numbers of unvetted people from those countries to be concerned and to have worries.

We should not be afraid to call that out, and it has nothing to do with racism. We have a culture of football hooliganism in this country, and it is predominantly white people who engage in that football hooliganism. I am happy to say that; it does not make me racist towards white people. It does not make me racist towards other cultures when I point out the issues and problems that they have, which we should not be afraid to call out.

[Max Wilkinson]

I think the hon. Member mentioned that 80% of women in one country said they had been sexually harassed in public. What is the rate of women in the UK who report being sexually harassed in public?

[Dr Mullan]

It is around one in four. It was 80% in the country I referenced, which is significantly more. The equivalent figure for this country is much, much too high—I would want it to be zero—but that makes the exact point, which I think the hon. Member did not want to draw out, that those countries are worse than we are. We should not be importing large quantities of unvetted young men from those cultures without a proper way of dealing with that. We do not have a way of doing that.

The Government inadvertently admitted that, as they have had to actively tell those people not to rape women. That is because they know the things I have said about the differences in attitudes towards women in many of those countries. The question is: what do we do about it? I am clear that it should be up to us to decide who comes here from what countries and on what basis. We should decide asylum policy—not the people smugglers—and the routes on which people come. The Conservatives have been clear and admitted that we should have been quicker in bringing in our own deterrence policy, but we are committed to doing that now and have a plan for it. That is what actually counts.

The only country that has successfully dealt with this issue is Australia. It saw a decrease of more than 90% in the number of people crossing the sea and entering illegally by saying, “If you come here illegally under that method, you don’t get to stay—end of story.” That worked, and we should do exactly the same thing. The Government like to talk about the failure of the Rwanda plan and the four people sent as volunteers. They know that those people went voluntarily. It is clearly not a deterrent if someone goes voluntarily, but we were never allowed to use the scheme as a deterrent to deport people whether they wanted to go or not.

The Government can do everything they want to reform and tweak the operation of human rights laws in this country, but there are two ways in which that approach is fundamentally flawed. First, it does not matter if a claim can be successfully rejected if someone cannot be deported to the country they came from. It is completely futile. Unless the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) thinks that we will deport people en masse to Afghanistan or some other third world, war-torn country, clearly, whatever we might want to do around the validity of their claim is worthless if we cannot send them to another country or back to the country they came from. Secondly, we have talked about the nature of the claims and how we might tweak them. The European Court of Human Rights is a precedent-setting Court. If it makes a ruling and sets a precedent, ultimately, that will hold sway.

I asked the hon. Member for South Norfolk to comment on article 3, which he failed to do. That is just one example of how the European convention on human rights has become totally distorted. Article 3 was originally envisioned to prevent people from being deported to a country where they might face torture. That was the aim of the article. It is now used to say that when someone comes to our country and commits horrendous crimes such as rape, but they have a psychiatric illness, it is torture if the country we seek to deport them to does not have adequate healthcare provision. Under article 3, that is not allowed. Who can reasonably argue that that was envisioned by all the people the hon. Member referenced when they created a set of rights which, at the time, were appropriate and applied appropriately? Does he really think that those people envisioned that, 50 years later, that would mean we could not deport a rapist because he would not get adequate healthcare in the country that we were deporting him to?

The article has been totally distorted from its original purpose, and the question of whether we can operate a safe and decent framework of rights in this country without the use of the ECHR is quite clearly scaremongering. Canada manages it, New Zealand manages it, Australia manages it. They all manage to have a framework of rights and international agreements, and that includes Canada, which is seeking a closer relationship with the EU, which is not part of the ECHR.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Although the MOD Bicester site is outside my constituency, it is approximately 11 km from my nearest settlement. I wrote to the Home Secretary on 1 September on behalf of not only female constituents, but Piddington women, who I am so pleased to see in the Gallery today. They contacted me to express their concerns for their safety, and I reiterate that the guidance entitled “Understanding behaviour and expectations in the UK” reinforces their concerns.

I have a migrant hotel in my constituency, and we know the issues that come from having migrants in the area. One big question is what they will do with their time. Rural crime is already an issue, and they could be exploited by existing criminal gangs. I ask the Minister: why have stab vests been issued to security staff working at the base in the last month, when they have never been needed before? The site was deemed unsuitable for an open accommodation centre by the Planning Inspectorate and the local authority more than 20 years ago, and little has changed since then. In the early 2000s, the High Court ruled that no more than 750 people could live there, but now the figure is 1,250. The Home Office argues that not using hotels is ensuring the “better use of public money”, but these large accommodation sites could cost £46 million more, according to the National Audit Office.

All that could be avoided if only the Government would take a robust approach to our asylum system, which means reviewing our position on the ECHR. As Lord Wolfson’s excellent report highlights, the ECHR places significant legal constraints on the Government’s ability to address issues such as immigration. Other countries across Europe are reconsidering their relationship with the ECHR in the light of immigration issues—countries such as Belgium, Italy, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Lithuania and Austria. We are not alone.

[Max Wilkinson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Bool]

I will make progress, because we are very close to the end of the debate.

[Max Wilkinson]

Can the hon. Lady tell us which of those countries are considering leaving the ECHR?

[Sarah Bool]

All those countries have looked at reforming the ECHR.

The European Court of Human Rights has expanded the interpretation of human rights. For as long as the Court regards the ECHR as a living instrument such that its decisions—and, in consequence, the decisions of domestic courts—are not constrained by the actual wording of the ECHR, we will have problems.

Police Funding: North-east England

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I commend the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for securing this debate. I begin by putting on the record my party’s thanks and admiration for our police services up and down the country, and for the vital role that officers play in keeping our communities safe.

The tragic A66 collision that claimed the lives of two police officers, Matthew Blades and Tom Clough, horrified us all. The disorder that followed in the days after that tragedy disturbed people far beyond the north-east, and we must hope it has brought renewed focus on the area’s safety. I commend all the MPs from the region who have spoken so powerfully with one voice in this debate today.

This summer’s disorder underlines the importance of having a police service that is properly resourced, that is visible and that is trusted by the communities it serves. We have long called for a return to genuine community policing, focused on preventing crime through policing that builds relationships with local communities.

Just a few days ago, I was in the north-east, in Peterlee, to appear on a televised political panel debate. It was clear that crime is a real concern for residents in that area. Indeed, it was raised by the audience member who asked the first question. The audience spoke about the impact on their communities and the underlying causes, including the fact that many communities have been hollowed out economically over the last few decades. What came across was a deep frustration and, very sadly, a sense of helplessness from those in the room.

Police presence must be part of the focus to address the concerns of residents across the north-east. Under the Conservatives, Cleveland police lost hundreds of officers—I think around 400—and after the disorder this summer, 200 officers had to be drafted in to deal with what unfolded. This is not an acceptable state of affairs. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s pledge to recruit 13,000 additional police officers, but police numbers have sadly not matched the Government’s ambition. If the Government are serious about restoring neighbourhood policing, they must get more officers back on to our streets, and they will need to recruit many more. We cannot expect overstretched officers to do more with less, as other Members have said, and too many crimes go unsolved.

We hear about these issues regularly in relation to the north-east and elsewhere; they are common to so many places across the country. The Government will tell us that they have increased national police funding, but with reference to the north-east, Cleveland’s funding increase is the lowest in the country, worth £1.65 million a year less than if it had received the 4.5% average increase. On top of that, Cleveland police is being asked to find £3.88 million of savings to balance its budget. Regardless of the regional issue, it is clear that policing must refocus on finding more resources and making the best of the resources it has.

There is also the issue that a huge amount of police time is taken up by online crime, principally fraud but also including child sexual exploitation and violence against women and girls. Unfortunately, the companies that facilitate this behaviour have not acted strongly enough to prevent it from happening. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a new police agency to tackle serious online crime, funded by a levy on big tech and AI companies. Will the Minister commit to taking steps to ensure that the companies that facilitate online crime are called to account and asked to pay for some of the problems that they create, on a “polluter pays” basis? That would help to redirect police resourcing to the frontline, to build and maintain the physical policing presence that our communities rightly expect. It would help to restore a police counter in every community, giving people accessible, convenient places to share information and engage with the police within their communities.

The Government talk about their neighbourhood policing guarantee, but we now need to see change in our communities. We believe that our proposals can help. One other concern lies in police force reorganisation. If merging forces means that officers become more distant from the communities they serve or are less able to respond to local crime—or, indeed, if three underfunded forces become one massive underfunded force—the reforms will have failed. Will the Minister ensure that police reform does not lead to resources being directed away from smaller communities, which are often in rural areas, to larger urban centres? That is particularly important for the rural communities we have heard about today, where crime has become increasingly organised, serious and persistent. We are calling for a countryside copper guarantee, with properly resourced, dedicated rural crime teams or specialists in every police force. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that forces serving rural areas have the resources they need?

Finally, transferring police and crime commissioners’ powers to mayors without sufficient democratic scrutiny risks replacing one flawed model with another. Local crime and police boards made up of local residents and representatives of the community can provide meaningful local accountability and oversight of policing. Is that being considered by Ministers in their police reforms? That is vital, because only by empowering communities to work with local police will we reduce crime across the country, including in the north-east.

National Security

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I start by sharing my support for the police and security services. As the MP for GCHQ, that means a great deal to me, given that so many of my constituents work there.

The murder of Ann Widdecombe shocked us all, and the revelations about the suspect’s plans apparently to attack other MPs are deeply concerning to all of us in the House. Those of us who want protection for politicians must demand it for all, no matter the political persuasion of those politicians; that needs to be said on the record. In return, we must hope that all politicians on all sides moderate their language when necessary to lower the temperature of debate and reduce the threat against us all. That is an important part of the debate that must not be lost.

Those who target politicians must not be allowed to impose their intended chilling effect on our democracy. My thoughts remain with Ann’s family, including my constituent Rev. Roger Widdecombe who leads the congregation at St Paul’s in Cheltenham.

Sadly, the public discourse aimed at politicians has coarsened in the last decade, which has resulted in increased hatred, abuse and offences against politicians and retired politicians at all levels, and politically motivated killings. We must never forget what happened to Sir David Amess and Jo Cox. It is important that we can all do our jobs without intimidation, fear or worse. I know that the Speaker takes that seriously. We therefore welcome the review into the protective security provided to those in public life. It is right that it will be done swiftly.

On another of the many elements of the statement, we must be clearly ever more mindful of the threat to this country from our enemies on the global stage—and those at home, too. We must do all we can to prevent those threats: especially, as we have seen in recent months, those that have wickedly targeted the Jewish community in this country. It is right that today we remember Melvin Kravitz and Adrian Daulby. We welcome the Home Secretary’s comments on an inquiry for the Heaton Park attacks. Let us all remain vigilant to antisemitism and supportive of our Jewish communities—that goes for all political parties.

In April, I wrote to Ministers seeking additional support for the police to account for the added strain on their resources in areas around military bases. Ministers told me that the police should work within their existing budgets without extra support, but given what has recently happened will Ministers look again at how they can support the police forces responsible for the areas around RAF Fairford and other bases? Will the Home Secretary push Ministers to accelerate the previously announced security review and set out what she will do to strengthen the security of all bases in general?

Earlier, the Prime Minister stated that Iran and the IRGC were “highly likely” to have been behind the incident at RAF Fairford. So, finally, what action is being taken against Iranian operatives involved in that activity? Is the expulsion of diplomats being considered?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments and questions. On the issues relating to the murder of Ann Widdecombe, he made a point about our responsibility to lower the temperature. I observe that it is possible to have very robust debate and a thorough contest of ideas without having to cross a line and call into question our collective security. I urge all Members as ever to reflect on their own behaviour to ensure that we are modelling the right behaviour, which we expect our citizens to see. We lead the national discourse and we should seek to do it in an appropriate way without losing all of the political contestation that is a hallmark of a thriving democracy.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments on remaining vigilant on antisemitism as a collective, whole of society response. All political parties have a responsibility to ensure that they are active partners in the fight against antisemitism, which is a pernicious form of hatred. We know that it has increased substantially in recent years, and we all have a responsibility there.

The hon. Gentleman will know that the issue of military bases is primarily one for the Ministry of Defence, but of course it works closely with the police and with us at the Home Office. Let me assure him that I am in good discussions with the Defence Secretary to ensure that all appropriate measures are being taken at our military bases, that we are aware of all the risks and that there are good security measures. It is my belief that there are, but of course we are never going to be complacent on that matter and will always review and ensure that our response is appropriate. I would be happy to discuss that with the hon. Gentleman as well, if needed. If he writes to me again, I can make sure that he gets an updated response that reflects the current and recent events.

Public Confidence in the Police

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) on securing the debate.

Something odd has happened recently that has turned the debate about crime and policing in this country on its head. The hard right have always presented themselves as the defenders of law and order, but a problem has arisen because people on the hard right, in Reform and parties such as Restore, have started to argue about two-tier policing. That is a daft suggestion—there is nothing of the sort—but such accusations are a real problem in this country, because all sorts of issues have arisen and trust in the police has diminished specifically as a result.

According to the Office for National Statistics, confidence in the police has decreased in the past decade, even if crimes against people and property have mostly decreased. Tackling that will require proper resourcing. The hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe mentioned the 20,000 police yo-yo: there were 20,000 police fewer, and then the previous Government restored them. There is still a question about whether the Government have fulfilled, or are on track to fulfil, their pledges on police numbers.

[Jim Shannon]

At the same time as the number of officers remains the same, the population has increased dramatically. Surely the right way of doing this would be to ensure that if the population increases, the number of officers does too. Does the hon. Member agree that the 28,000 would not be enough, and that it should be more?

[Max Wilkinson]

I have an awful lot of sympathy with what the hon. Member says. We could get into a debate purely about police numbers—I know that the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe was not keen to—but we should focus on not just the numbers but the visibility of police officers. We need police counters in our local communities and police officers on our streets.

In contrast with Members who have suggested there is two-tier policing, I would like to place on record my party’s thanks and admiration for hard-working police officers and their public service—I believe there are at least two former officers here today. I would also like to thank the police team in Cheltenham, ably led by Inspector Steve Benbow and Superintendent James Glansfield, who I visited recently. This debate is not about parochial local issues, but it is important when we have experience of joining our police officers on the streets that we reflect that in this Chamber.

During my visit, I learned that police officers in Cheltenham work very hard in increasingly difficult circumstances. I joined Inspector Benbow and Superintendent Glansfield as part of Operation Shield, which followed a summer in which we suffered very visible antisocial behaviour and crime in our town centre, and I know that that has been reflected in towns and cities across the country. One of the most arresting things I learned was that even in Cheltenham, which most people think of as a well-heeled place, there are several, mostly independent, shops where large groups of teenagers are making the lives of the shop workers and owners a misery. We were shown a video captured on a mobile phone by a shop owner of what looked like dozens of teenagers. They apparently go into that shop several times a week, steal stuff and abuse staff. That is not acceptable.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

When we talk about confidence in policing, it is important that we acknowledge that we have a role to play in that as elected representatives. Youth antisocial behaviour has been a problem in my North East Fife constituency over the summer, in places such as Crail and Elie, but when I engaged with local officers, I found they had good intelligence and had dealt with the events pretty robustly afterwards. The fact of the matter is that the community were not aware of that. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have a responsibility to tell the public about the work our local officers are doing?

[Max Wilkinson]

Absolutely. As it happens, I was invited along by my local police force because I was talking about crime and antisocial behaviour in the town centre. The more we talk about the issue and raise it in our constituencies, the more likely it is that the police will be able to get their messages out about extra resourcing and making tweaks to legislation that will help them do their jobs better. I will come later to some of those points, which were raised by the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe.

Another thing that is clear from Cheltenham town centre and across the country is the concerning and increasing aggressive and misogynistic behaviour targeted at women. I have been hugely disturbed to hear reports of women being catcalled and abused with increasingly frequency in my constituency, most notably early in the morning when they are commuting to or from work or the gym. Clearly, a visible policing presence disturbs those who might cause problems and, crucially, gives reassurance to women in our town and city centres.

Will the Minister provide an update on tackling the growing problems with violence against women and girls, much of which is encouraged by the online world? One in four women have experienced domestic abuse. Perhaps more shockingly, fewer than one in six victims of rape or attempted rape report the assault to the police. The reasons they cite include the belief that the police simply will not be able to help, or the concern that they will not be believed.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I am one of the co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group for the survivors of Fayed and Harrods. In recent weeks, the APPG has met the Metropolitan police and the Independent Office for Police Conduct. There is absolutely no doubt that historical failures in investigations have damaged the survivor cohort’s trust in the police and the criminal justice sector more widely. My hon. Friend is talking about violence against women and girls now, but does he agree that historical legacies also play a part?

[Max Wilkinson]

Absolutely. The more we learn about the al-Fayed case, the more shocking it becomes. I commend the work of the APPG, of which my hon. Friend is a leading member, alongside the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson). It is uncovering what seems to be a bigger and bigger scandal every time we hear more about it. We need Harrods to be open and transparent, to start co-operating and perhaps to give more resource to aid the investigation.

The issue of violence against women and girls needs to be tackled now, with taskforces that work in partnership with frontline women’s services. That also requires a very visible presence to reassure women that their safety is a priority. To do that, it is clear that police resource must be more focused on the community, rather than just having officers behind desks—although we of course need desk resource too in these complex investigations. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a police counter in every community to increase visibility across the country. That will allow people to share information and intelligence with the police in a convenient and accessible location. Simply emailing a local police officer does not always bring the desired result for local residents who are trying to work out what is going on or share intelligence. We say that we need extra police counters, in contrast to the huge decline in police counters seen under the previous Government and the specific issues in Labour’s London.

On a more structural note, will the Minister provide an update on the Hogan-Howe review and the Government’s response to it? Can she also update us on whether police force boundaries are now due to match the boundaries of regional mayors? It is important that we hold to account the people responsible for policing. That is of particular interest to rural areas. In recent years we have seen rural crime become seriously organised and persistent, yet it is often overlooked. Rural crime networks can also be harder to detect and prosecute. Will the Minister commit to giving rural police forces the necessary resources to clamp down on organised crime operating in the countryside?

The hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe mentioned public order and free speech, which is a really important point. Big Brother Watch revealed this weekend that more than 60,000 people have been arrested in the last five years for communication offences. There are some high-profile cases, such those of Lucy Connolly and others, who are held up by the hard right as martyrs of free speech, but they are nothing of the sort. They have rightly been prosecuted, even if some people have valid questions about the severity of the punishment.

Despite that, the facts seem clear: too many people are arrested not for committing crimes but for making tasteless online jokes, offering controversial opinions on social media or non-violent protest. It is a result of legislative failure that the police are not able to do their job properly on these issues. That undermines trust in the police and the work of officers, whose job it is to keep us safe, not to intervene in online arguments that would not trouble us if they happened in verbal form in the Dog and Duck. That is a threat to faith in policing, and to the very fabric of our liberal democracy. It gives space for people such as Reform’s James Orr to make bizarre comparisons between free speech in the UK and Russia and to peddle daft conspiracy theories, undermining British democracy in the process. We must all stand up against that in this place. In the light of the Big Brother Watch report, can the Minister confirm what the Government are doing to work with police and crime commissioners and chief constables to clarify the legal position, give officers greater clarity in their frontline work and protect British free speech rights?

Earlier I mentioned the issue with the right, who were previously the big defenders of policing and order. They have traditionally told us that they stand up for those ideas, but the corrosive narrative of two-tier policing has crept into that side of politics. Where they once backed the police, they now use that daft “two-tier” phrase and tell us the police are part of the problem. That places the police alongside those who would do us harm; it is a dangerous narrative, and one that we at the moderate centre of politics must address.

Support must be given to and extended for those working in the police, who put their lives and wellbeing on the line every day. Mind has reported that 91% of police officers report mental ill health. That is a shocking statistic, and it undermines the work they are able to do. Let us ensure that, as part of efforts to boost trust in policing, we are able to support police officers too. Improving their working conditions and the support available is vital to ensuring that we have the police force we need, staffed by brilliant police officers, and that they are able to fulfil their vital role to keep us safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo White]

The commitment is to deliver 13,000 additional neighbourhood policing personnel by the end of this Parliament, which will give us the capacity to ensure that they can be focused on the role they are employed to do.

Since the election, the Government have increased funding to forces by close to £2 billion. This year funding to police forces has increased to its highest cash level of up to £18.5 billion—a 4.5% cash increase compared with the previous year. That means that all forces will receive a real-terms uplift in their funding. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), since March 2025 the Met has grown by 607 neighbourhood officers. We recognise the unique challenges faced by the Met. In 2026-27 the Met will receive up to £4 billion in funding, which is an increase of £175 million.

In addition, we are supporting policing to deliver £354 million of efficiency savings by the end of this Parliament through the police efficiency and collaboration programme, but we cannot stop there. The police funding system we inherited was complex, outdated and the product of legacy decisions rather than strategic design. Many PCCs, MPs and policing partners have complained that the police funding formula is out of date and not fit for purpose. Changes to police governance, force mergers and the creation of the national police service require a new way of allocating funding between forces aligned with those new structures.

[Max Wilkinson]

I asked a specific question about the alignment of boundaries. In my constituency of Cheltenham, we are served by Gloucestershire police. We are apparently due to get a regional mayor with Herefordshire and Worcestershire. We are served by the health board for Bristol and the west, but policing apparently is being sent eastwards. Given the Government’s devolution agenda and the need for transparency and accountability in public services, that causes a real issue. There are rumours that the Government are changing course and trying to align boundaries. Is that the case—yes or no?

[Jo White]

As I am standing in for the Policing Minister, I cannot immediately answer that question, but I am sure that the hon. Member will get an answer as quickly as possible.

We are committed to a wider review of the police funding formula to ensure that force funding is fair and keeps the public safe. A new approach to allocating funding will be brought in as part of our reforms to police structures.

Public confidence in policing depends on communities knowing what they can expect from the local police service and on seeing those expectations met. That is why the Government are introducing local policing guarantees, which will provide greater transparency and accountability on the policing services that matter most to the public.

The Government have committed to setting clear expectations on the issues that matter most to the public, including a target for forces to attend 90% of the most serious incidents within 15 minutes in urban areas and 20 minutes in rural areas, alongside measures to improve the speed with which 999 calls are answered. However, public confidence is about more than response times alone. It is also shaped by whether victims receive a good service and whether forces are effective at tackling crime.

HMICFRS’s recent “State of Policing” report urged forces to make urgent improvements in how they investigate crime and secure justice for victims. Forces must get the basics of investigation right. The Government are strengthening the way police performance is monitored and improved. Through the policing performance system, inspection findings are brought together with analysis against the police performance framework to provide a comprehensive picture. This enables earlier identification of concerns and targeted support in collaboration with the College of Policing, and intervention where required. A stronger focus on delivering better outcomes for victims and the public will play a key part in rebuilding and maintaining trust and confidence for victims of crime and communities.

Dover and Portsmouth: Protests

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

How is that far-right thugs in balaclavas were able to close Britain’s busiest port without the police receiving any prior intelligence? How is it that an apparently separate group with some commonalities was then able to blockade another site the next evening? Will the Minister tell the House whether she will review why the police were caught off guard? More shockingly still—or perhaps just as shockingly—no arrests have been reported. People have drawn comparisons this weekend with the hundreds of sign-holding protesters who have been arrested since July 2025 on other protests. Can the Minister understand why people are confused by the difference in approach? Can she also answer questions from Portsmouth Liberal Democrat council leader Steve Pitt about the lack of local consultation on identifying appropriate landing sites? That is a key question that needs answering, because it clearly caused problems in Portsmouth.

Britain’s transport infrastructure cannot be left vulnerable to far-right mobs. It is a disgrace that this weekend, Reform MPs took to social media to fan the flames alongside people like Musk and Robinson. It is a disgrace that Members of this House support such vigilante action. It was the decision to leave the European Union, championed by those Reform Members and their allies in the Conservative party, that created the small boats crisis in the first place. We will only get a safe and controlled asylum system in line with British values if we join the EU migration and asylum pacts. That will also save taxpayers’ money. The Government are paying at least £500 million for a three-year agreement with France. More money will follow when the agreement is struck with Belgium. The UK’s contribution to join that pact, which would bring order and safety to the asylum system, would be significantly less than what we are currently pledging to pay in those agreements. Joining the pact must be top of the agenda when the Prime Minister meets EU leaders later this year.

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Gentleman asked about the lack of intelligence. It would not be appropriate for the Government to comment on specific intelligence matters in these cases, but we are of course looking at all decisions that were taken, and we will learn any lessons. The two events happened on consecutive days, and there was crossover in the online activity, but they were very different. One was clearly organised by a group called the South-East Patriots, which I think is part of Patriot Platform, which is a kind of far-right racist platform. That was clearly organised, whereas what happened in Portsmouth was a response to a series of events that led to this boat having to dock at Eastney marina. It will have been a mix of local people who were concerned and bad actors who were whipping up activity online and responding in kind. They were two separate events, but we will learn any lessons that we need to.

The hon. Member asked about the landing site and why it was picked. We are making sure that we understand what exactly happened, but taking a step back, Members will have seen a bit of a trend towards people leaving France further to the west. We are looking at what that means and making sure that we are responding in the right way and that enough resource is going into that. We have pushed some of that resource from the French police down the coastline, but we will be monitoring these things.

Policing in Cleveland

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I want to join others in extending my sympathies and those of my party to the families and colleagues of PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough. My thoughts are with their loved ones at this extremely difficult time. By virtue of my in-laws, I am from a policing family, so I know the shock and grief that is being felt in the wider policing community, too. That should be acknowledged today in the Chamber.

At least one of those killed in the Middlesbrough crash is in multiple videos posted on TikTok depicting dangerous driving. This is part of a concerning wider trend on social media platforms, where lives are being risked in the pursuit of clicks, and we must ask: who is benefiting from this? It is some of the world’s richest people. They are getting richer off the back of these platforms, which are currently under-regulated, while communities suffer the consequences. Can the Home Secretary explain why, despite her Government’s intention to force platforms to remove dangerous content that leads to dangerous activities and deaths, such platforms still have no legal obligation to do so? Events in America have shown that these companies can be brought to heel, so will the Home Secretary work with the Culture Secretary to strengthen the Online Safety Act 2023, so that the glorification of dangerous driving is brought into scope?

It is, as others have said, deeply worrying to see the scenes of unrest that have followed this incident. We know that there are national pressures on police resources, so can the Home Secretary tell the House how long mutual aid will continue, and can she say something about the support given to the other forces that are losing resource under mutual aid arrangements? Given the apparent links, is she confident that her reforms will give the police and the National Crime Agency the resources and powers they need to tackle the scourge of organised crime that impacts not only Middlesbrough but so many communities across our country?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the Lib Dem spokesman for his comments and questions. Let me assure him that I am already discussing with colleagues across Government the wider issues of social media platforms and the content that is posted on them. He will know that this Government have been implementing various elements of the Online Safety Act and that from the middle of next year the wider measures within the Act will come online. That will mean that the larger social media platforms, including TikTok, will be under a legal duty to act against harmful content that breaches their terms of service. That will include content of this nature. In the meantime, most of the platforms are taking this content down. It is a reactive process, in the sense that they are responding to content being flagged—it has then, for the most part, been removed from their platforms—but from the middle of next year there will be a duty on those platforms to act proactively, not just reactively.

However, as I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, there are wider questions about the efficacy of the Online Safety Act and whether we need to revisit the measures in that Act and go further, given the unique pressures that some of the content on those platforms poses for law and order, and for criminal justice more broadly. Those are matters that the Government are considering, and other Government colleagues will come to the House to update Members in due course. Let me assure him that I work closely with colleagues on the specific matters raised by this case.

On the hon. Gentleman’s question on mutual aid, that will continue as long as it is needed by the chief constable in Cleveland, but I think this case shows the need for wider police structural reform. Cleveland is a relatively small force, and we can see the pressures on a small force that is having to do local neighbourhood policing as well as the much more specialist investigations that go with organised crime and public order-related issues. As I have made clear before, moving to a three-tier system with local forces, regional forces and also the new national police service will put us in the best possible position to provide a policing service that is able to respond to local issues in the way that local people expect, with a very visible local policing presence, as well as giving us the flexibility to respond to cases across a larger area, such as those we have seen in Cleveland, with the capacity and numbers needed to deal with public order risk, for example, without having to rely on mutual aid to get through and survive day by day, and having a national police service that can take up the types of crime that are prevalent nationally and also have an international dimension. We will bring forward our proposals on reform later this year, and I look forward to debating those with the hon. Gentleman and others across this House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Last year the National Audit Office reported that the cost of asylum accommodation contracts had more than tripled, from under £5 billion to more than £15 billion. Clearly they are bad value for money, bad for communities and bad for the asylum seekers themselves. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has stated his ambition to activate the break clause in these contracts. Given that he is set to become Prime Minister next week, is the Home Secretary planning to rip up the agreements?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Those are contracts that we inherited, and they will be retendered under this Government to ensure that we drive value for money across them. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the cost of asylum accommodation and support has come down by more than £1 billion since this Government came to office, and we will continue to make progress in that regard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The Culture Secretary has quit X and removed her Department from the platform, citing its descent into misinformation and abuse. Does the Home Secretary agree with her decision? What is the Home Office doing about the abuse and misinformation on X? Will the Home Office be leaving, too?

[Sarah Jones]

I think that everyone in this place is concerned about the rise of hatred and division online, not just on X but on other platforms. As a Government, led by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and other colleagues, we are looking at how we crack down on that and at how we create a society in which we try to unite people and not divide them. Members in this place have a strong role to play in that.

Death of Ann Widdecombe

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The news about Ann Widdecombe is shocking and deeply distressing. My thoughts are with her family, including her nephew, the Rev. Roger Widdecombe—my constituent—and his wife Hannah, who lead the congregation at St Paul’s church in Cheltenham. Her death is all the more tragic given what we now know about the upsetting and disturbing circumstances.

Ann Widdecombe was a conviction politician, and also an entertainer. Many did not agree with her views—including me, particularly when she was briefly my Member of the European Parliament—but the style in which she put those views was compelling and captured the attention of the nation, just as her dance moves did. They were deeply held beliefs. She was a passionate public servant who was never afraid to challenge those in power—might I briefly speculate, a strong liberal inclination to challenge power from a strong Conservative politician?

I pay tribute to the police for their rapid response in this case. I also pay tribute to you, Mr Speaker, for the way in which your office gives security support to MPs. It is important that we can do our jobs without fear, intimidation or worse. It is horrifying that three politicians have been murdered in this country in the past decade. Clearly, there is more work to be done.

Might the Government support some amendments to the upcoming Representation of the People Bill to impose a duty on the Electoral Commission to provide more guidance on safety for politicians? Will the Home Office consider supporting measures so that politicians’ safety can be improved?

Finally, some alarming allegations were made on the weekend by the Reform home affairs spokesperson Zia Yusuf. If they are true, they are extremely concerning— but, given his record, many of us have doubts. I am certain that the Government and the House authorities, including you, Mr Speaker, are taking seriously the duty of care to Members from all parties in the House. For the sake of the record, perhaps the Home Secretary can confirm that that remains the case.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. He raised three specific issues. I am happy to discuss amendments to the Representation of the People Bill with him. He knows that the Home Office is not the lead Department on that Bill, but I am happy to have a discussion about any additional legislative measures that might be needed. Of course, the Electoral Commission has its own work to do, and it might be better for duties to be placed elsewhere, but, as I said, I will happily discuss that with him.

Equally, on whether any further obligations or changes of policy in respect of the Home Office, or indeed the Parliamentary Security Department, are necessary, I am happy to engage with the hon. Member and other Members across the House.

I do not wish to speak for you, Mr Speaker, but I think that all of us who are Members can attest to the fact that we are treated equally in this place by the Speaker and for the purposes of the Parliamentary Security Department when it comes to our safety on the estate and in our constituencies. That position is shared by the Government.

There is equal treatment for all in work that we do on security for Members of Parliament. Specific work is undertaken by RAVEC—the executive committee for the protection of royalty and public figures—which is the independent body in the Home Office that looks at security arrangements for some of those in public life. That work is also fiercely independent. It has been the subject of legal proceedings previously, and I have always maintained the independence of that process, which is based on risk assessment and risk management.

Immigration and Asylum Bill

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

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

“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Immigration and Asylum Bill, while welcoming some of its provisions, because the Bill does not ensure all foreign criminals and illegal immigrants will be deported; does not end asylum for illegal immigrants; does not stop modern slavery claims suspending removal; does not stop illegal immigrants getting citizenship; does not make the changes the Government promised to reduce the numbers of people eligible for Indefinite Leave to Remain; because the Bill will allow sponsor human rights claims, which will enable people outside the UK to enter under human rights grounds; because measures in the Bill such as narrowing the ability to make Article 8 and modern slavery claims will not be effective while the UK remains in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 remains in force; and because the provisions in the Bill are not capable of eliminating illegal immigration.”

The reasoned amendment, which stands in the names of the Leader of the Opposition, myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends, is to decline to give a Second Reading to the Bill on the grounds that it does not go far enough to combat illegal immigration or to ensure that all foreign criminals are deported.

First, I cannot help but notice the absence of the hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp), the immigration Minister, whom I was expecting to see in his place. Perhaps the Home Secretary has not yet forgiven him for openly defying her a few weeks ago, leading to her rather extraordinary public campaign to get him fired. No wonder she has so much trouble deporting illegal immigrants—she cannot even deport her own junior Minister from Marsham Street. [Interruption.] Does the Home Secretary deny that she tried to get him fired a couple of weeks ago, unsuccessfully? I notice that she makes no such denial.

At the beginning of her speech, the Home Secretary made a number of claims about statistics, one or two of which I would like to gently take issue with. She referred to small boat crossings. Since the election, 76,000 people have dangerously and illegally crossed the channel by small boat. That is more than under any other Prime Minister. Let us keep in mind that those crossings were undertaken mainly by young men, all of whom were leaving a safe country, France. Nobody needs to flee danger in France.

The Home Secretary also referred to removal numbers. Some 85% of those removals are voluntary, and only a tiny fraction are of people who arrived by small boat. In fact, since the election, removals of people illegally entering by small boat have amounted to only about 5% to 7% of small boat arrivals. Given that someone entering this country by small boat has a 95% chance of staying, and gets put up in taxpayer-funded accommodation, it is no wonder that crossings have occurred in record numbers. The only way of deterring these crossings is if almost everybody arriving gets deported when they arrive.

I observe that of the 80,000 people whose asylum claims were rejected at first instance in 2025, only 12,000 left or were removed. It is true that FNO removals are somewhat up, which I welcome, but if we look at the breakdown by nationality, it tells a rather different story. The numbers of foreign criminals deported to countries such as Albania, Romania, Lithuania and Poland are high when we compare them against the offender population. When we look at countries outside of Europe, the numbers are much lower. For example, Jamaica, Iraq, Nigeria and Somalia together have 1,150 offenders in prison—and many more out in the community—yet last year, only 110, or less than 10%, were removed. Yes, the removal of FNOs to countries in eastern Europe is going well, and I commend the Government on that, but when it comes to removing foreign criminals to countries outside Europe, such as Jamaica, Iraq, Nigeria and Somalia, the figures are very low. The reasons for that are some of the ones that the Home Secretary touched on earlier.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I am reluctant to interrupt the shadow Home Secretary when he is in full flow, but he listed countries to which we are successfully deporting people; does he think that our membership of the ECHR has any impact on our ability to deport people to those countries?

[Chris Philp]

Our membership of the ECHR has less effect on deportations to Europe, because it is hard to make an ECHR-based claim if the receiving country is in Europe. However, when it comes to deporting foreign criminals to countries outside of Europe, such as those I listed, there are frequent ECHR-based claims, as the Home Secretary said earlier. I will expand on that point later, but there is no question in my mind that ECHR-based claims are one of the reasons why it is difficult to deport foreign criminals to those countries I just listed. Human rights claims, combined with asylum claims and modern slavery claims, mean that dangerous criminals remain in this country.

I will give the hon. Gentleman a number. Under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007, the Home Secretary is under a legal duty to deport a foreign national sentenced to more than a year in prison, yet 20,000 people who meet that criterion are at large in the community, and many of them continue to offend. They are still at large in the community because they make claims under the ECHR, modern slavery and asylum routes. Those 20,000 people are a risk to my constituents and to his, and I take exception to some of the Home Secretary’s high-fiving at the beginning of her speech.

Let me touch on the proposal for so-called safe and legal routes, or refugee sponsorship. The numbers that we are talking about would be in addition to the number of asylum claims that we are already processing. Last year saw the highest number of asylum claims in history. From memory, it was somewhere in the region of 109,000. This year, the number will only be a little lower. Adding to that when we already have record numbers of asylum claims strikes me as irresponsible. The Home Secretary said that there would be a cap, but she did not specify what it would be; I would be interested to hear that. She also asserted that the people coming in by these routes would not be a burden on the general taxpayer, because their sponsor would look after them. She neglected to mention that that support has to last only for the first year. Thereafter, the taxpayer could have to pick up the tab. I must say that I do not support the creation of these schemes until we have illegal immigration and asylum claims down essentially to zero.

The argument that the creation of safe and legal routes will somehow stop small boats is absurd, because unless we give access to this country to everybody who wants to come—to everybody congregating in northern France, waiting to get on a dinghy—the ones who do not come in on that scheme will still try to cross on small boats. The idea that safe and legal routes will stop the boats on their own is absurd.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I was quite taken aback by the passion that the shadow Home Secretary showed for wiping out many decades of hard-won human rights that we all enjoy. Human rights are not just for asylum seekers and people from other countries; in the first instance, human rights are for all of us. To put the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) slightly correct, some rights are absolute, and others are qualified and limited.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Max Wilkinson]

I will make progress. [Interruption.] I will give way.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

To put the hon. Gentleman right, it is customary when a Member names another Member, particularly in a critical way, to give way to them freely, not to have to be forced into it.

The fact of the matter is that I would love the hon. Gentleman to list all these absolute human rights. Even in a democracy, there is not an absolute right for people not to put themselves in danger when they get conscripted in a wartime situation. Does he or does he not accept the basic moral fact that, if someone infringes the human rights of other people, they cannot expect their own rights to be fully respected, because they abrogate those rights? If there has to be a clash between an innocent person’s rights being infringed and the perpetrator’s rights being infringed, I—and, I would like to think, most sensible people—would say it is the perpetrator who should lose out.

[Max Wilkinson]

These things are actually defined in law. I saw a human rights barrister on the other side of the Chamber, the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), furrowing his brow at the same time. The shadow Home Secretary mentioned the report by Lord Wolfson, who is in fact a commercial barrister. When he goes into a hospital with a urology complaint, I assume, therefore, that he demands a cardiologist. Maybe he does not, but who knows? Does he seek experts from the right field? Perhaps he does not.

According to the Oxford Migration Observatory, asylum seekers in Calais regularly tell researchers that they know the UK’s absence from agreements with the EU is a weakness in our asylum system. They even use the word “Dublin” in reference to the agreement that we left. If asylum seekers have worked it out, why have Ministers not done so? One commentator has even described how Brexit has turned the UK into the final court of appeal for any asylum seeker in the EU.

It will come as no surprise that the Liberal Democrats will not be supporting this Bill. It is not because we deny the problems in the UK’s asylum system, which impact not only local people in our constituencies but asylum seekers themselves. It is quite the opposite: the backlog is too large, accommodation costs have spiralled and dangerous small boat crossings must be brought to an end for the good of everyone.

However, this Bill does not solve those problems. It piles more bureaucracy on to the Home Office, it risks greater costs to the taxpayer, it undermines integration and it still fails to address the fundamental causes of irregular migration. The Government’s stated rationale for this Bill is:

“Claiming asylum in Britain today is more attractive than elsewhere in Europe”.

However, data from the Home Secretary’s own Department shows this not to be true. Britain was fifth in the number of asylum applications made to European countries in 2025, behind Germany, France, Spain and Italy.

The truth is that many migrants who have had their asylum claims rejected in EU nations are trying their luck in Britain. This is the legacy of the Brexit given to us by Farage and the Conservatives, including the shadow Home Secretary. Our damaged relationship with Europe has created Brexit pull factors, yet nowhere does this Bill attempt to restore an orderly relationship on asylum with our European neighbours to end small boat crossings once and for all. It is an uncomfortable truth for the Conservatives, but it is a problem they created.

There is the issue of the asylum backlog. Accommodation costs have risen sharply, with more and more people stuck in hotels at considerable cost. Poor Home Office decision making is a key cause of this backlog, with two thirds of the concluded appeals finding that the Home Office’s initial decision was flawed, yet the Bill does not address the quality of first instance decisions. Instead, it proposes the wholesale reform of the appeals process, creating the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority, which will not be operational until late next year. Even the Home Office has described the value of this measure as uncertain. If the Government want to solve the problem, they should focus their resources on clearing the backlog by expanding processing capacity and ensuring decisions are right first time.

Those asylum seekers fortunate enough to be successful in their claims will apparently face a later penalty of £10,000. We Liberal Democrats are in favour of asylum seekers and all migrants contributing to our economy and paying taxes. That is the fair thing to do. It is just one way that we believe migration can make our country a stronger place, but only if integration is successful. However, this measure is punitive, and pushes refugees further towards destitution and state support. Refugees with a job after eight years of being here had a median income of just £23,000 per year. It has been suggested that repayments will start when refugees are earning far less than that, which seems unfair. If the Home Secretary was serious about getting refugees to pay their way, she would take the opportunity to allow asylum seekers to work. This would immediately relieve the burden on the taxpayer and bring down costs.

Instead, these proposals create a bigger burden on the state, often falling on already overstretched local councils, which will be forced to look after those who would otherwise become destitute. That is un-British. Sadly, this measure, coupled with potential decades-long waits for leave to remain, will actively undermine the integration that everyone in this House should be aiming for. Costs to the taxpayer are likely to go up and not down. The reviews of refugee status alone are set to cost up to £725 million extra in the first 10 years.

On the unintended yet entirely foreseeable consequences, there are serious concerns that this Bill could inadvertently criminalise victims of modern slavery. It is simply unrealistic to assume that people trafficked here by criminal gangs will be able or willing to raise a claim on arrival. The Home Office’s own statistics suggest that there is not widespread abuse of the current system, so it seems this particular measure is unnecessary and could work against the Government’s aims.

On the point about the ECHR, the Government know that the interpretation of the law remains in the gift of the UK courts—the judges whom the shadow Home Secretary dislikes so much, but who perform such a valuable role in our justice system—and that will be the case regardless of what happens with this Bill. The reality is that this Bill is all show and no substance.

When this House discussed the Home Secretary’s statement last November, something weird happened. An unholy alliance emerged between Labour and the Conservatives, and even the Reform party welcomed the Home Secretary’s approach. The thrust of our response to that statement last November was that there were issues to resolve in the asylum system, which had been devastated by the Conservative Government, but recognition was also needed that immigration has a role to play in our economy and in delivering public services.

I also urged the Government to drop divisive rhetoric on this subject, but that suggestion did not quite find favour with the Home Secretary and others. Indeed, after my plea for moderate language, I was in receipt of some direct and forthright feedback from the Home Secretary, which the Minister for Border Security and Asylum will remember. Lord Gove used his “Quite right!” Spectator podcast to call me “oleaginous”, a word that I later learned means oily, the “king of smuggery” and an offensive term, but I will spare Members’ blushes by simply saying that it starts with d and rhymes with “mick”. That is from a Member of the House of Lords in this Parliament. I continue to wear that as a badge of honour.

In a different recent podcast, the Home Secretary told an audience member who disagreed with her stance on migration and asylum to eff off, and later she joked that she would taser and deport four of her political opponents. I am clear it was a joke, but I am not absolutely certain that those are the actions a Government Minister should be taking. It is clear that the tone of this debate has not improved much since November. Unfortunately, policy heavy and rhetoric—

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Get it right!

[Max Wilkinson]

Unfortunately, this is policy heavy on rhetoric and light on substance, and it risks playing into the hands of Nigel Farage. I thank the right hon. Member for his heckle. He says, “Get it right!” I suggest he gets his knowledge of human rights right.

Accommodation costs will remain sky high, small boats will keep coming, with all the danger that that causes to people being trafficked, and the British people will rightly feel that the system is neither fair nor functional. Until Ministers recognise, as asylum seekers seem to, that not having a proper agreement with the EU is at the heart of the small boats crisis, there will be no resolution. Labour MPs claim that the new Prime Minister will present a reset for the country, and we all hope it does, but if the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) sticks with these plans, it will be more of the same—bad value for money for the taxpayer, failures on integration and no comprehensive plan to stop dangerous small boat crossings. That is why the Liberal Democrats will not support this Bill.

European Entry and Exit System

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is now 10 years on from the Brexit referendum, and in the words of the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), where are we? We are here, stuck in queues at the EU border for hours at a time, because he and his acolytes forced a damaging Brexit on this country. It is interesting to note that the Conservatives have come to the Chamber today complaining about the consequences of the Brexit deal that they negotiated. The Brexit plan of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), implemented by the Conservatives and unresolved by this Government, has left British holidaymakers in this position. Indeed, the Government are guilty not just of failing to plan, but of political and diplomatic failures that have let down holidaymakers. We are already seeing reports of queues of up to five hours—what a way to start our holidays.

What immediate steps is the Minister taking to mitigate disruption? Will he seek an immediate meeting with the European Commission so that contingency measures can be put in place to protect passengers as a matter of urgency? Will the Government drop their red lines on Europe, and commit to joining the single market and customs union? Not only would that reverse the damage done by Brexit and get our economy back on track, but it would mean that we—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Sorry, but you’ve gone way over your one minute. I think your border queue has just gone. I call the Minister.