Chris Philp MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 7 Sept 2026 · Dover and Portsmouth: Protests · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my constituency neighbour, the Minister for Policing and Crime, for advance sight of her statement. I am sure that we all agree that the right to protest is a fundamental part of our democracy, but the right to protest should never be violently exercised or cause serious disruption to other people. I am sure all of us would equally condemn any form of protest where those guidelines are abused, and support the police in ensuring that protest, where it occurs, is lawful and peaceful. However, these events should be a wake-up call for the Government. It is not just the protesters in Dover and Portsmouth who feel so angry about large-scale illegal immigration. Millions and millions of people up and down this country feel angry as well. Since the general election, over 80,000 illegal immigrants have crossed the channel, all illegally and all unnecessarily, because France is a safe country—nobody is fleeing persecution in France. Almost 20,000 have crossed this year alone, and 625 crossed yesterday, with more coming in the early hours. Every day when the sea is calm, hundreds of illegal immigrants cross the channel. The numbers this year would have been higher, were it not for rough seas in the past few months. The Government should not be complacent at all. This problem is not solved and I do not think the plan is working, if indeed there even is a plan. I was on the beaches of northern France just a few weeks ago, waist deep in water as one such dinghy embarked with about 100 illegal immigrants on it, while 10 members of the French gendarmerie nationale, who we pay for—who the Home Secretary pays for—with £660 million of our money, almost all of it unconditional, stood by and did nothing. They could easily have stopped the boat embarking in knee-deep water. After that happened, I asked one of the gendarmes why they did nothing, and he said they were under orders not to intervene. Almost all the French officers are prohibited from preventing embarkations in the water and they do not prevent the migrants getting to the water’s edge either. As long as that continues, the crossings will continue as well. The Minister mentioned return numbers, but what she did not mention is that the return of 6,000 small-boat migrants in the past two and a bit years amounts to only 8% of illegal immigrants crossing the channel. That is to say, 92% of illegal immigrants crossing get to stay. There is no deterrent whatsoever in that. The people who cross illegally are costing billions and billions of pounds to accommodate in hotels and apartments, and then costing even more once they get asylum and start claiming welfare. The people are angry—not just because of the numbers and the expense, but because of the crime being committed. A few weeks ago, I met Siobhan Whyte, the mother of Rhiannon Whyte, who was brutally murdered by a Sudanese illegal small-boat migrant called Deng Majek. Rhiannon was stabbed 23 times, including in the neck. Numerous rapes have been committed by small-boat illegal immigrants, including the rape of a girl in Nuneaton aged just 12. The Government are using sleight of hand. They are moving illegal immigrants from hotels into apartments, then granting them asylum on an industrial scale. Just this afternoon, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—hardly a bastion of right-wing extremism, I am sure the Minister will agree—said that Home Office asylum decision making meets its own standards in only half of cases. The UNHCR, no less, said that many illegal immigrants being given asylum do not deserve to be granted that status under the Government’s own rules. A whistleblower in The Times today said that only 1% of asylum claims are really genuine. I cannot give all the many examples, in the interests of time, but they cited one example in which apparently hundreds of Pakistani men claimed to be gay, based on a letter from an individual claiming to be the sexual partner of all of them. That is quite clearly fabricated with the assistance of immigration lawyers. When the system is being abused on that scale, it is no wonder that people get angry. This Government repealed most of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which prohibited illegal immigrants from ever getting citizenship. If the Minister wants to create a deterrent, I strongly suggest that she reinstitutes that measure. This Government cancelled the Rwanda scheme, which would have seen illegal immigrants getting deported, before it even started. If the Government are serious about fixing this issue and ending public anger, they need to get serious about the measures, leave the European convention on human rights and deport illegal immigrants as soon as they arrive—then people will not be so angry.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Policing in Cleveland · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I know that the whole House will join the Home Secretary and me in paying tribute to those brave officers tragically killed in the crash on the A66 in the early hours of 22 August. Our thoughts are with the families of PCs Matthew Blades and Tom Clough, whose lives were cut short by a car recklessly driven on the wrong side of the road by criminals. Those brave officers made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. They will never be forgotten. Every day, police officers up and down the country risk their lives to keep us safe. We owe them all a deep debt of gratitude. This tragedy has sent shockwaves through Cleveland police and the public more widely. The Home Secretary has set out some of the steps being taken to support local police, but will she confirm that every request for extra assistance made by Cleveland police has been met? In the aftermath of 22 August, I was shocked to see so-called tributes staged for some of the men directly responsible for PCs Blades and Clough’s deaths that included cars being driven dangerously and set on fire. Criminal activity of that kind is wrong in principle and deeply offensive in these circumstances. Will the Home Secretary join me in condemning that activity and calling on the police to ensure it does not happen again? Organised crime was allowed to take hold in whole parts of Middlesbrough. Criminal gangs ran rampant and engaged in retaliatory attacks on one another. Homes and properties were attacked with no consequence, and that escalated even further in the days after 22 August. Although it is welcome that 27 people have finally been arrested, such lawless gang chaos should never have been allowed to take root in the first place. The police need proper resources to stop that. Many campaigners, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), the shadow police Minister, who I see in his place, have raised concerns for some time that there is a multi-million pound shortfall in funding for Cleveland police in the current financial year. Even the local Labour police and crime commissioner, Matt Storey, said this Government’s financial settlement this year “completely fails to deliver the resources required to meet the demand faced by Cleveland Police and falls far short of what is needed.” Does the Home Secretary accept her own police and crime commissioner’s assessment that the funding she put in place for Cleveland police this year is inadequate? Lawless chaos followed that underfunding, and I think the Home Secretary should apologise for that. The £2 million just referred to is only 0.5% of Cleveland’s budget and is clearly wholly inadequate in the circumstances. I am afraid that that reflects a wider national trend that goes beyond Cleveland. The last Government left behind record ever police numbers, but there are now 1,800 fewer police officers under this Government. As a result, crime has increased by 10% and antisocial behaviour has gone up by 15% in just the last year. The Home Secretary must accept that cutting overall police numbers was a mistake. Will she take steps to reverse that decline? The truth is that only zero tolerance of crime and disorder will ensure that criminals are the ones who are afraid, and not the law-abiding public. We have seen the consequences, with the rampant gangs going unchallenged in Middlesbrough, and it is clear now that a zero-tolerance approach is required to keep the public safe.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Death of Ann Widdecombe · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I start by offering my deepest condolences to Ann’s family and friends. She will be terribly missed. Ann sat as the Conservative MP for Maidstone for nearly a quarter of a century, and in the European Parliament for the Brexit party. She served in government and in opposition, including as shadow Home Secretary. She always fearlessly spoke her mind. She did not worry about whether her opinion would be popular or fashionable; she always said exactly what she believed and exactly what she thought. Her integrity and her fortitude were unmatched. I first met Ann 29 years ago at a university debate, where we were speaking on opposite sides. I was a callow 21-year-old student; she had just left government and was at the height of her powers. I remember starting my speech by asking her to treat me more gently than she had recently treated Michael Howard. Needless to say, I was put very firmly in my place. Ann was also a much-loved celebrity, with memorable appearances on “Celebrity Big Brother” and “Strictly Come Dancing”, where she was whirled around by Anton Du Beke. We will all remember Ann fondly as a public figure who was always formidable, always charming and always entertaining. As we discuss this appalling murder, we should heed the words of Devon and Cornwall Assistant Chief Constable Matt Longman, who said over the weekend: “We are aware of online and public speculation, particularly with regards to motive… I urge people not to share or engage with that speculation. It’s unhelpful” and distressing to Ann’s friends and family, and is particularly harmful to the police’s investigation. Criminal barrister Dennis Kavanagh has also pointed out that speculation makes the police’s job harder and, in some cases, could even prejudice a trial. I urge everyone debating this issue to keep that in mind. It has just been confirmed by the Home Secretary that counter-terrorism police are now leading the murder investigation. In order to help to avoid that speculation, can the Home Secretary properly share any further information about this matter without prejudicing the investigation? I thank the police for releasing the information they have so far, including about the identity of the suspect. It is always important to release as much information as possible in the interests of transparency and to avoid misinformation filling the void, as Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has said previously. I will turn now to threats against those in public life. Any threats against MPs, who have been democratically elected to represent their constituents, or against others in public life, should be taken extremely seriously. In the past 10 years, two MPs—Jo Cox and Sir David Amess—have been murdered, and now a former MP has been murdered, too. The threat is clearly real. I remember when, in 2017, terrorist Khalid Masood drove a car into pedestrians along Westminster bridge, injuring more than 50 people, four of them fatally, and then ran into New Palace Yard—just yards from where we sit in this Chamber—where he fatally stabbed PC Keith Palmer. That was also an attack on democracy itself. Mr Speaker, I would like to thank you personally for all the work you are doing to protect MPs and those in public life. As the Speaker of the House of Commons, I know that you have made the safety and protection of those in public life your highest priority, and I would like to thank you for that. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] We must redouble our efforts to ensure that public political figures—both those who are MPs and those, like Ann, who are not—always receive the proportionate protection that they need. I would be grateful if the Home Secretary could confirm that she will review all the arrangements with that objective in mind. I believe that, in this country, we should be able to debate each other robustly on important issues, but that we should also speak to each other in a way that is civil and respectful. Of course, nothing excuses violent attacks on public figures, but we should all also set an example of civility and calm, and not inflame matters. We need people to step up and become MPs and to speak in the public square. Debate and disagreement are what make our country great. Ann Widdecombe exemplified that every minute of her life, and I pay tribute to her. I know that we will all remember Ann forever.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I need to finish. While I agree with the diagnoses that the Home Secretary eloquently set out in her speech, the measures that she proposes simply will not work. I know that because I have tried to introduce such measures in the past, including by amending section 63, and the courts do not let them stand. Until we come out of the ECHR and the ECAT treaty, stop illegal immigrants claiming asylum and end judicial review of most immigration cases, we will not get control of our borders and the public will continue to lose trust in mainstream politics. That is why I moved the Opposition’s reasoned amendment.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will take one last intervention before finishing.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. When it comes to foreign criminals, and people who enter this country illegally, having exited a safe place, namely France, I do not think that they should be given all the protections that we have been discussing this afternoon. Let me turn to some of the specifics that the Home Secretary has put in the Bill. The changes to the immigration tribunal system, and the measures dealing with modern slavery and trying to better define article 8 constitute small steps in the right direction, but on their own, they are not going to work. Past Governments have attempted to make such measures work, but they have essentially failed, and I think that they will fail again. For example, better defining article 8 in domestic law was attempted in—I think, from memory—section 19 of the Immigration Act 2014, which I believe created section 117 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. That was an attempt to do, broadly speaking, what the Home Secretary is trying to do now, and it did not work, because judges—not just those in Strasbourg, but our domestic judges, empowered by the Human Rights Act—simply continued interpreting family rights very expansively and allowing foreign criminals to stay. I admire the Home Secretary’s effort to do this, but it has been tried before and it did not work. Excluding modern slavery claims by foreign criminals has also been attempted before. The Bill essentially seeks to amend section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which was an attempt by a previous Government to fix this problem four or five years ago, and it has been repeatedly struck down by the courts. Because of the ECHR and the way in which it is incorporated by the Human Rights Act, it does not matter how we legislate. As with section 63 a few years ago, following the Home Secretary’s most recent attempt today judges will use the European convention on human rights, empowered by the HRA, to circumvent laws passed by this Parliament. The Home Secretary experienced that herself just last week, when her “one in, one out” scheme was upset by vexatious modern slavery claims. She tried valiantly to fix the loophole in guidance, and last week a court struck it down. The conclusion that I have reached—having suffered in the Home Office in the past as she is suffering now, trying to fix these issues within the construct of the ECHR and modern slavery legislation, and the examples that the Home Secretary gave only support this—is that the only way to fix this issue is to come out of these institutions entirely. We cannot do it by tinkering, which is what the Bill seeks to do. The previous Government tried it, I have tried it personally, the Home Secretary’s predecessor tried it, and she is now trying it again. The truth is—

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that the situation in countries such as Afghanistan creates large movements of people—that is correct—and fixing problems at source is clearly the best thing to do. However, I do not think transferring potentially tens of millions of people—he gave the number just then of 60 million or 70 million—into the west is the right solution to this problem. Those people who are displaced are probably better helped close to their country of origin. Transporting people en masse into this country is not the solution. When we have illegal migration under control, by which I mean at zero, there is a case for a limited safe and legal route, but until such time as we do that, I do not think such a transfer is reasonable. By the way, the people who are crossing by small boat are not the most vulnerable. They are not typically women and children, or people who are sick and vulnerable. They are mostly young men who are paying people smugglers. If we were going to choose who to help, it would not be them.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  When the ECHR was first conceived and entered into as a treaty in 1950, it was developed for very good reasons. It was designed to avoid a repetition of the horrors of the second world war, which the hon. Gentleman refers to, but over the years judges in Strasbourg and domestically, using the living instrument doctrine, have expanded and expanded and expanded the definitions of the articles, which are necessarily very vaguely worded. For example, article 3 of the ECHR is on “freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment.” When it was written, that meant “Don’t send people to concentration camps.” On the face of it, the words are very reasonable; if we were to sit down today and come up with a convention, it would have those words in it. But the way it is applied by judges today means that we cannot send foreign criminals back to other countries, like Zimbabwe, in case they face hostility there as foreign criminals. We cannot run our border system because of the way the articles are interpreted. The balance has now shifted so far that it is preventing border control and a number of other things as well, and that is why we have to leave the ECHR. I do not accept the proposition that the only thing standing between us and barbarism is the ECHR or the Human Rights Act. This country has led the world in human rights, not just for decades but for centuries. If there are any gaps in our protection of rights that this Parliament feels are exposed by leaving the ECHR, the proper remedy is for this sovereign, democratically elected Parliament to legislate to fill them. If there is a gap in our domestic statute or our common law, and this House feels that the gap needs to be filled, the right way to do so is not by having judges make up expansive case law; it is by having this democratically elected parliament debate the issue, as we are doing now, and take a vote on it. That is the way in which democracy should function. I think that one of the reasons mainstream politics is coming under pressure, if I can put it euphemistically, is that pledges made at elections, by successive Governments, on issues like immigration do not get delivered. One of the reasons why is that the human rights legal framework prevents them from being delivered. The Home Secretary gave examples of that, and it is essentially a democratic deficit; this Parliament, not judges, should decide how our borders are run. While I welcome these measures as small steps in the right direction, I do not think that they will work. I do not think that the measures in this Bill go far enough, because they do not address the fundamental problem.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. For many nationalities that cross the English channel by small boat—Afghan, Iranian, Iraqi, Eritrean and Sudanese, to name just six or seven—the asylum grant rate is well over 90%. In some cases, it is very close to 100%, which means that crossing by small boat is tantamount to an automatic right to stay here, even though those illegal immigrants—and they are illegal immigrants—are leaving a safe country. They are not fleeing danger; they were in France already. I agree that that creates a massive pull factor.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Let me finish the point. The truth is that tinkering like this does not work when we have very expansive rights-based conventions. The only way of fixing this properly is to exit the ECHR entirely, repeal the Human Rights Act entirely, exit the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings—the modern slavery treaty—and say that people entering the country illegally, particularly from a safe place such as France, simply cannot claim asylum. That would enable us to legislate in this House without courts’ effectively circumventing our legislation, as they do on a near-daily basis. It would enable us to deport not just some foreign criminals but all foreign criminals, and it would enable us to deport, within a week of arrival, anyone entering the country illegally by small boat, either to their country of origin or to a safe third country if we could not deport them to their country of origin. That would be a genuine deterrent to prevent these unnecessary crossings, and would give us back control of our borders. While I share many of the diagnoses in the Home Secretary’s speech, I honestly do not think that these measures, which are incremental and an attempt to work within the existing framework, will work. Only radical solutions will actually work. I see that the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) is twitching with excitement, so I think I had better give way.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows nothing about Facebook clips, but let me be honest: mistakes were made in the past, and the policies that we have now developed, under new leadership, will fix those issues. In fact, this indefinite leave to remain policy was first proposed by us about a year ago, and then, very wisely, the Home Secretary adopted it. Let me come to the commitment that the Home Secretary made on Shabir Ahmed, the vile gang rapist who should be deported back to Pakistan. We support the amendment to section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971, although section 33 of the UK Borders Act 2007—I think it is subsection (1)(b)—might need some attention as well. I would only ask the Home Secretary not to do that by amending this Bill, which will probably take a year or so to reach the statute book. I hope that she will consider doing it instead through emergency legislation in September, which could be completed in a couple of weeks; we took the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020 through Parliament in, I believe, 15 days in February of that year. There is not a moment to lose, and this can be fixed quite quickly. As for the substance of the Bill, I agree with some of the Home Secretary’s analyses of where the problems lie. She is right to say that the immigration appeal system, modern slavery laws and human rights laws are being abused on an industrial scale by foreign criminals, and also by people with no legal right to be here, including people who came here illegally in small boats. These illegal immigrants and foreign criminals do make repeated claims, time after time. The Home Secretary gave the example of a foreign criminal whom it took four years to deport. I was aware of the case of a Somali man who entered the country illegally and participated in the violent gang rape of a 16-year-old girl. On his release from prison, it took eight years to deport that man back to Somalia, because he made two or three different claims on sometimes contradictory grounds. I think that he made two modern slavery claims, and a number of human rights claims as well. There have been other cases in which foreign criminals have avoided being deported. For example, an armed robber avoided being deported back to Nigeria on the grounds that his mental health needs would not be taken care of perfectly there. Another man, a drug dealer, was not sent back to Iraq on ECHR grounds because, apparently, he had become too westernised. There was not a single thought for the safety of British children and the need for them to be protected from paedophiles. A Zimbabwean paedophile was not deported to Zimbabwe because he might get treated with hostility there. The judge gave no thought to protecting British children, and no thought to protecting our citizens from criminals. In another case, a man was taken off a charter flight to Jamaica, again on human rights grounds—I think it was article 8—and about six months after being removed from that flight, he murdered someone on the streets of south London. That happened because of the supposed human rights of a criminal who went on to commit murder. I agree with the analysis that our immigration legal system, our modern slavery system and the human rights system are being abused on an industrial scale, and that has to end.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  First of all, I do not think that Winston Churchill would ever have envisaged that the ECHR, which he helped create, would lead us to being unable to control our borders. Secondly, on the Good Friday agreement, I urge the hon. Lady to read the 175-page report by Lord David Wolfson KC, which explains how our Good Friday agreement obligations could be upheld after leaving the ECHR. Thirdly, on her point about protecting rights, the ultimate guarantor and protector of the rights of people in this country should be this democratically elected Parliament, not judges handing down expansive definitions of vaguely-worded clauses that have acted as a charter for illegal immigrants and foreign criminals. I ask the House to support our reasoned amendment. While these are small steps in the right direction—

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  For the benefit of the House and for clarification, does the Home Secretary intend to implement her proposed ILR changes via amendments to the Bill, or via the immigration rules in the autumn?

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way again, but I want to make a bit of progress first. There will be plenty of other opportunities later. I will briefly touch on indefinite leave to remain, which is conspicuous by its absence from the Bill. We heard the policy proposal when it was announced last November, but we still do not have any of the details laid out. I agree with the thrust of the Home Secretary’s proposal to increase the period to 10 years, because otherwise a large number of people—about 2 million—who entered in the past four or five years will get a permanent right to stay, including a full right to benefits. That includes people who came in on skilled worker visas sponsored by, among others, kebab shops and fried chicken shops. I am keen to make sure that the Home Secretary sticks to her previous pledge that these rules would apply to people who are in the country already, and does not give in to pressure from her Back Benchers. I remind the House that the Home Secretary said to the Institute for Public Policy Research on 5 March this year that the change to a 10-year qualification period means “applying any rule changes to those who are in the UK today, but have not yet received settled status.” I hope she stands by her commitment. If she does, we Opposition Members will vote for it. She has our support on that. While we are speaking about legal migration, let me urge the Home Secretary to reconsider her plan to introduce remote language tests, which are open to enormous fraud and abuse. Australia and Canada rejected them for that reason, and some domestic professional bodies, including the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, have stopped carrying them out because they are so open to fraud. I know that this testing is more efficient and I know that it will save money, but it is massively open to fraud.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Home Secretary was not as quite as clear as she was previously. Vile rapist Shabir Ahmed must be deported back to Pakistan along with all eligible rape gang perpetrators. Separately, survivors like Fiona Goddard have said that they are terrified at the prospect of rape gang perpetrators being released early from prison in the coming weeks. First, will the Home Secretary bring forward emergency legislation to ensure that Ahmed can be deported? Secondly, will she urgently make the changes needed to ensure that no rapists will ever be eligible for the Government’s expanded early release scheme?

• 13 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, I join you in paying tribute to Ann Widdecombe. She was a formidable campaigner who served with huge integrity. She will be missed. I know that the whole House supports the police in delivering justice for Ann. Reports today suggest that the Home Secretary and the new Prime Minister plan to capitulate to some of their open-border MPs on the Government’s own indefinite leave to remain plans. Previously, the Home Secretary was clear that the changes will apply to those in the country already. Will she now repeat that pledge, or is the new Prime Minister doing his first U-turn before he has even entered Downing Street?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Belfast: Violent Disorder · Hansard source

  More

  Monday night’s attack was disgusting and barbaric. The victim suffered serious injuries to his neck and lost an eye. I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with him. I thank the police and emergency services for responding and pay tribute to the members of the public who so bravely intervened. I commend the police for confirming the suspect’s identity swiftly, because full transparency is vital in these cases. Will the Minister confirm that the PSNI will have all the resources needed to deal with these issues? We have all seen the footage of the appalling attack, featuring a Sudanese illegal immigrant, but let me be clear: violence of any kind in protest is never justified. Innocent people should never be targeted and nobody should ever set fire to houses or cars. Speaking as a father, no one should ever feel unsafe in their homes. I hope that the police will bring the perpetrators swiftly to justice. I do understand, though, why people are angry. The suspect came into the UK illegally—he should never have been here in the first place. Mainstream politicians must now understand how angry the public are about mass illegal immigration. If mainstream politics does not stop this, the public will turn elsewhere. Since the election, 73,000 people have entered the country illegally via small boat, mostly young men, and many have committed serious crimes. I recently met the mother of Rhiannon Whyte, a young woman brutally murdered by a Sudanese small-boat migrant. There have been multiple rapes and sexual assaults, with victims as young as just 13. Over time, I have come to realise that there is ultimately only one way to end illegal immigration: by leaving the European convention on human rights so that we can deport all illegal migrants upon arrival. Illegal migration will then stop, and these appalling crimes with it.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The “Police Anti-Racism Commitment”, a copy of which I have here, published in March 2025 by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, asks police to reverse engineer the same arrest rates for different ethnic groups, even though offending rates are different. It expressly calls for different racial groups to be treated differently, saying that people should not treat “everyone ‘the same’” or be “colour blind”. This is a formal policy requirement for two-tier policing. I have been raising this issue for over a year, and I have never had an answer, including from the Home Secretary last Tuesday. Let me try again: does she agree that this racist and dangerous policy document should be immediately withdrawn—yes or no?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Home Secretary still gives no clear answer. We have repeatedly raised serious concerns with the Government’s Islamophobia definition. South Wales police has now instructed staff to record anything that goes beyond “legitimate discussion of Islam”, even if there is no crime. That could then be disclosed on someone’s Disclosure and Barring Service check. Police officers in south Wales will now have to decide what is or is not legitimate discussion of Islam. No other religion is treated that way in south Wales. That is completely wrong. Parliament has rightly repealed blasphemy laws, and criticising religion is part of free speech, so does the Home Secretary agree that the guidance is wrong and should be scrapped immediately? Let’s try a simple yes or no.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Illegal Migration · Hansard source

  More

  Nigerian illegal immigrant Gift Oladele was recently jailed for the brutal rape of a teenage girl. He dragged her into isolated woods, leaving her terrified, and she now has recurrent nightmares. Oladele had committed previous violent sexual offences, and the Home Office rightly tried to deport him, yet an immigration judge allowed him to stay because of Oladele’s human rights, and he went on to violently rape the teenage girl. I believe the rights of women and girls to be protected are more important than the supposed human rights of foreign rapists to stay here. Is it not time to leave the European convention on human rights, so that all criminals such as Oladele can be deported?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Murder of Henry Nowak · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Home Secretary, and you, Mr Speaker, for ensuring that the Government came to the House today. The murder of Henry Nowak is devastating for his family. He was an innocent young man on the way home when he was brutally killed. Henry’s family have suffered an unimaginable loss, and I know the thoughts of the whole House will be with them all. The evil murderer Vickrum Digwa lied from start to finish, including in a false allegation of racism. On arriving at the scene, the police appeared more concerned with the accusation of racism, and even the possibility that Digwa was injured, than with helping Henry. Henry told the police that he could not breathe nine times. He told them that he had been stabbed four times. The response from the officer, which we have all heard, was, “I don’t think you have, mate.” Henry was handcuffed and dragged across the ground as he lay dying. Can you imagine what he must have felt as he cried out for help and was ignored—as the officers who should have worked to save him instead handcuffed him and inquired after the welfare of his killer, standing just inches away? Henry’s dad Mark said: “Henry did not die with dignity. He did not die with the care he deserved. He lost consciousness before anyone believed him.” We need the IOPC to urgently and transparently report on how it was that the police attending were more concerned with the accusation of racism than with helping a dying man. We cannot tolerate a situation in which false allegations of racism by criminals are believed. We cannot allow the colour of someone’s skin to be a consideration in how the police or other public services treat people, yet that has happened. Just recently, we learned that Valdo Calocane, who murdered three people in Nottingham, was not sectioned by mental health professionals because they thought there was “an over-representation of young black males in mental health detention”. The consequent failure to section Valdo Calocane, in part because he was black, led directly to the murder of three innocent people. The headteacher of Axel Rudakubana was accused of racist stereotyping when she described Rudakubana as a threat to safety, and the risk assessment was watered down. Rudakubana, of course, went on to stab and murder three young girls at a Southport dance class. This has not happened by accident; it is enshrined in the police’s own policy documents. The police anti-racism commitment, published in March 2025 by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing, urges police forces to reverse-engineer arrest rates for ethnic groups so that those rates are the same, even though the offending rates are different, by treating different ethnic groups differently. Let that sink in for a moment: an official police document actually says that people should be treated differently based on the colour of their skin. I have said before at this Dispatch Box—at least twice—that that document should be withdrawn. The dangerous ideology of so-called anti-racism, which allows people to be treated differently based on race, must end. Extreme activists have hijacked the policymaking process, and this is where that has led. It has no place in policing; it has no place anywhere. Does the Home Secretary agree that the so-called police anti-racism commitment must urgently be withdrawn? It is morally wrong and dangerous. Police forces must focus on catching criminals and keeping the public safe. They must simply treat everyone exactly the same. I will finish with the words yesterday of Mark Nowak, Henry’s father. He said: “Henry was 18. He was kind, ambitious, loved and full of promise. He had his whole life ahead of him. That future was stolen from him, and no verdict or sentence will ever give it back.” It is true that nothing can bring Henry back, but let us ensure that no one ever again experiences what Henry did in his last tragic moments.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Southport Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. Let us remember the three victims of this savage attack—Bebe King, aged just six; Elsie Dot Stancombe, aged seven; and Alice da Silva Aguiar, aged nine—and the eight more children and two adults who were seriously injured. I also want to thank Merseyside emergency services, who responded to this event. As the Home Secretary rightly said, this report identifies very serious repeated failings by public bodies. Sir Adrian said that a “merry-go-round of referrals, assessments, case-closures and ‘hand-offs’” meant no agency took the lead or properly addressed the danger Rudakubana posed. Multiple opportunities were missed to prevent this tragedy. Sir Adrian also found that Rudakubana’s parents created “significant obstructions to constructive engagement.” Sir Adrian makes important recommendations. I am glad the Home Secretary will respond by the summer, and we on the Conservative Benches will support necessary actions. During the inquiry, we heard evidence given by Rudakubana’s former headteacher Joanne Hodson. She told the inquiry that she was pressured by mental health services to water down the education, health and care plan to minimise the danger posed by Rudakubana because of his ethnicity. Miss Hodson told the inquiry: “my efforts to include this information in the EHCP were met with hostility by the father and also by mental health services. Miss Steed”, who was from child and adolescent mental health services, “even went as far as to accuse me of racially stereotyping AR as ‘a black boy with a knife’. Nothing could be further from the truth”, but “in the end…the wording of the EHCP was re-written in many places”. This contributed to the clear risks being missed. The Nottingham inquiry into the three tragic murders there identified exactly the same issue: mental health professionals in Nottingham decided not to section Valdo Calocane because they were concerned about an “over-representation of young black men in detention”. Even the Government’s notes on the Mental Health Bill accompanying the King’s Speech refer to that issue. The fixation with ethnic disproportionality is deeply damaging. Ethnicity should never be a consideration: when an agency is taking steps to protect the public, everybody should simply be treated exactly the same. We cannot allow dangerous individuals to avoid detention for public safety simply because of their ethnicity. Everybody should be treated the same. It would be helpful if the Home Secretary made clear from the Dispatch Box that she agrees with that approach and set out how the Government will change their approach in the future. Today’s report also makes it clear that Rudakubana’s autism was wrongly allowed to inhibit the way he was dealt with, yet the Government’s King’s Speech notes on the Mental Health Bill again expressly said that people with autism should be sectioned less often. Given the findings of today’s report, will the Government reconsider that? I also want to raise the aftermath of this tragedy, which saw serious rioting. It is of course important to avoid prejudicing criminal trials. However, as Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said: “The Government has to be aware…that if there is an information gap…then there are other voices, particularly in social media, who will try and fill it.” He went on: “Quite often, there’s a fair amount…that can be put into the public domain”, and indeed in October, two or three months after the attack but well before the trial, information concerning the al-Qaeda terror manual and ricin was put in the public domain without prejudicing the trial. The failure to provide information created an information vacuum in those early days of August 2024, and that vacuum was filled by untrue speculation online, some of it originating outside the UK, which fuelled the riots. Will the Home Secretary therefore commit to making sure that in future such information is routinely released in cases of public interest? As the mother of Elsie said at the inquiry, this tragedy must be a “line in the sand.” We owe it to the victims, to the survivors and to their families to learn the lessons from this tragedy and to make sure it never happens again.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I will pursue these questions with the Security Minister, when he gives his statement later. Media reports suggest that the Home Secretary is under pressure from the former Deputy Prime Minister on her indefinite leave to remain policy, so will the Home Secretary tell the House who is running the Government’s immigration policy now? Is it her, or is it the former Deputy Prime Minister? Will the Home Secretary confirm to the House now—