Chris Philp MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 9 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Deng Majek from Sudan is an illegal small boat migrant who was sentenced last week to 29 years in prison for the brutal murder of Rhiannon Whyte. He stabbed Rhiannon 23 times as she desperately tried to defend herself. Given timing of Majek’s arrival, in the summer of 2024, he would have been eligible for deportation to Rwanda, but Labour cancelled the Rwanda plan and instead accommodated this illegal immigrant in a hotel at taxpayers’ expense. Does the Home Secretary now accept that it was a huge mistake to cancel, just before it started, the Rwanda plan, which would have seen Majek deported, thereby preventing Rhiannon’s murder?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Rwanda scheme never started because this Government cancelled it. The Home Secretary talks about gimmicks. Her Government’s gimmicks have failed, and that is why cross-channel migration is up 42% since the general election. I am afraid that this is not an isolated case. Hundreds of crimes are being committed by illegal immigrants, including a 30-year-old woman raped on a Brighton beach, a 15-year-old girl raped in Leamington Spa by two Afghan small boat migrants, and a girl aged just 12 strangled and raped by two illegal immigrants in Nuneaton. Does the Home Secretary agree that this cannot go on, that only radical action will fix it and that, just as the Father of the House said earlier, we need to leave the European convention on human rights and deport all illegal immigrants within a week of arrival, because then the crossings will stop?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Police Reform White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement—especially after her busy weekend chairing the national executive committee, which excluded Andy Burnham from returning to Parliament. Anyway, the Home Secretary’s statement— [ Interruption. ] There seems to be some concern from the Benches behind her on that. The Home Secretary’s statement is striking for what it does not say, because there was no mention—not one word—of her plans for total police officer numbers. The reason for that is simple: total police officer numbers are falling under this Labour Government, as figures due for release later this week will confirm. The last recruitment intake before the election was in March 2024, and there were 149,769 officers in post—the highest number in this country’s history. By the same time the following year, under Labour officer numbers had fallen by over a thousand, and in the current financial year, numbers are falling even further, with the Met alone saying that it will lose a staggering 1,500 officers this financial year. On officer numbers, the Government are engaged in a con trick. They are transferring officers away from crime investigation, 999 response and other teams into neighbourhood teams, so they can say neighbourhood numbers are going modestly up. But total police officer numbers are falling, so there will be fewer 999 response and investigation officers, response times will be slower and investigations will not be as effective. The Home Secretary can set targets and make announcements, but the fact is she is presiding over falling total police numbers and the public will be less safe as a result. The Home Secretary has said that she will change the structure of policing. Briefings over the weekend said the reorganisation will be complete in—I had to double check this—2034, nearly a decade away. But we have a crime crisis today. Shoplifting and phone theft are surging under this Government, with shoplifting now at its highest level ever. Knife crime in London is up by 80% under Mayor Sadiq Khan. Women are being let down, too, with sex crimes up by 9%, rape up by 6%, stalking up by 5% and harassment up by 6% under this Labour Government. That requires action today, not in 2034. The Home Secretary’s plan includes mandating the merger of police forces. Briefings over the weekend suggest a reduction from 43 down to 10 or 12, so a single police force might cover an area from Dover to Milton Keynes or from Penzance to Swindon. Such huge forces will be remote from the communities they serve, and resources will be drawn away from villages and towns towards large cities. The biggest force in the country is the Met, and yet it has the worst crime clear-up rate of any force; it fails to solve 95% of reported crimes. That goes to show that large scale does not automatically deliver better results, and therefore we will oppose the mandated merger of county forces into remote regional mega-forces. Police forces are warning that Labour’s early prisoner release scheme means more crime and more demands on policing. Most criminals will now be released after serving just one third of their prison sentence, and even rapists will serve only half of theirs. To make things even worse, Labour plans to abolish prison sentences of under one year, so even the most prolific shoplifters will never face jail. That is a recipe for disaster, cooked up by the Home Secretary in her previous role. We can agree on some things, because the Home Secretary has copied them from us. I am glad that she is continuing the roll-out of artificial intelligence and live facial recognition started under the previous Government —we fully support that. It is right for Home Secretaries to have greater powers to intervene; we announced that policy at our conference last year, and of course we support it. She now says that she will abolish non-crime hate incidents. We need to see the details, but might she explain why Labour voted against that measure when we tabled it as an amendment just last year? The simple fact is this: total police officer numbers are falling under this Home Secretary’s watch. As a result, 999 response times and crime investigations will suffer. Shoplifting, phone-snatching and sex offences are all rising under this Government. Regional mega-forces will make things worse, not better. Her grand plans will not even be fully implemented until 2034, but action is needed today. These announcements will not make our streets safer this year or next year, and the public will see that rapidly.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  Let us be in no doubt about the threat that China poses: MI5 has warned that Chinese intelligence is actively trying to disrupt our democracy; bounties have been placed on the heads of Hong Kong campaigners; Members of this House have been directly spied on by China; China actively supports Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine; and China is infiltrating universities and businesses to acquire sensitive technology, as well as stealing it directly. Yet this Government have failed again and again to take the action needed. This Government failed to place China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. This Government failed to properly support the case against two men accused of spying for China on MPs in this House. And now this Government have shamefully approved plans for a Chinese super-embassy. Despite everything China has done on our soil, China has been rewarded with exactly what it wants: a super-embassy that will be a base for espionage, not just in the UK but likely across Europe as well. The Government have capitulated to Chinese demands. The Prime Minister himself said to President Xi at the G20 in November 2024, “You raised the Chinese embassy building in London when we spoke on the telephone and we have since taken action by calling in that application.” In other words, the Prime Minister did precisely what President Xi told him to do and then he faithfully reported back afterwards. The decision has serious implications. Last week, The Telegraph published plans showing 208 secret rooms and a hidden chamber just 1 metre from critical data cables. Our economy depends on those cables, so what assurance can the Minister give that those cables will be secure from Chinese interference? In paragraph 97 of his decision notice, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who made the decision, admits that he had not even seen unredacted plans before making his decision. How can he possibly have assessed the risk, as the decision maker, without having seen those plans? He also admits in paragraph 13 that he did not follow our suggestion to hold section 321 closed hearings to take evidence. Once again, how can the Secretary of State possibly have taken the decision in an informed way without having personally assessed the risk? It gets worse, because paragraph 8.63 onwards of the inspector’s report admits that China can legally refuse to allow UK authorities to inspect the building during or after construction—so we are going to have no idea what is being built in there in any event. The Minister referred to the ISC. He said that someone in Government has seen unredacted plans, although we know that that was not the decision maker, the Secretary of State. Has the ISC seen those unredacted plans? It has been suggested to me that it has not. The ISC says that the risks can be mitigated, but mere mitigation is not enough. Mitigation entails only a partial exclusion of risk, and nothing is said about how to manage future developments in China’s capabilities—developments that we cannot anticipate today. The Minister for some reason forgot to quote this, but the ISC also says that the Government process was not robust enough. It says that it lacked clarity on national security, that the key reports lacked the necessary detail and that the Government do not have the “dexterity” required to handle China. Does the Minister accept those elements of the ISC report? Others share those concerns. A US Government source was recently quoted as saying that the UK had “downplayed” the risks. Last week, the White House was reported to be “deeply concerned”, and the chair of the US House of Representatives China committee says that he opposes the plans on the grounds that Americans’ data may be “at risk”. Does the Minister agree with our American allies? It is clear that this decision is timed to be shortly before a planned trip by the Prime Minister to China. He apparently intends to seek some kind of economic deal with China to fix the mess he and the Chancellor have created here, with jobs down and unemployment up since the election. From its timing and from President Xi’s clear demands, this planning consent appears to be linked to the Prime Minister’s imminent visit and to the economic deal. It seems clear to me that the Government are trading national security for economic links, and that this is a shameless capitulation to China’s demands. China is spying on us. It is subverting our democracy, it is repressing people on our soil and it is stealing our technology. Is the truth not this? In those circumstances, giving them what they want is simply the wrong thing to do.

• 14 Jan 2026 · West Midlands Police · Hansard source

  More

  I am talking about section 40.

• 14 Jan 2026 · West Midlands Police · Hansard source

  More

  This is a shameful episode. West Midlands police had evidence that Islamist extremists based in Birmingham planned to attack Maccabi Tel Aviv fans. Let us call that what it is: vicious antisemitism. We cannot allow violent Islamists to impose their will on our country, yet that is exactly what West Midlands police, through weakness and fear, allowed to happen. The force should instead have confronted the Islamist extremists. In fact, it should have investigated the extremists for inciting racial hatred, as Jonathan Hall KC said only yesterday. Instead, the force capitulated to the Islamist mob by banning the Maccabi fans. But it gets worse. The West Midlands police force then tried to hide what it had done. The police fabricated a claim that it was the Maccabi fans who were the dangerous ones. They claimed that a previous game in Amsterdam had led to violence by the Maccabi fans. That claim was a pack of lies from start to finish. The Mayor of Amsterdam and Dutch police have now confirmed that West Midlands police simply made the whole thing up. The chief constable must be fired. A moment ago, the Home Secretary claimed that she has no powers to dismiss the chief constable, but she failed to mention section 40 of the Police Act 1996, which remains in force today. Under that, she as Home Secretary has the power to direct the police and crime commissioner to do things—including dismissing the chief constable—where “any part of a…force is failing to” act “in an effective manner”. That test is clearly met: part of the force—the chief constable—is indeed failing to act in an effective manner, by the Home Secretary’s own analysis. If she is unfamiliar with that legislation, I have a copy of it here. The Home Secretary must today use her section 40 powers to direct the police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster, to dismiss Craig Guildford. She must stop pretending to have no power and actually act. We now come to the role of the Home Secretary in this scandal. In a briefing to the BBC on 17 October, a source close to the Home Secretary—we all know that means her special adviser, acting with her authority—said that the Home Secretary first knew about the possibility of a ban on 16 October, the previous evening. We now know that is untrue. From evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee last week, and from the Home Secretary’s own admission just now, we now know that Chief Constable Guildford personally briefed the Home Secretary on 8 October that it was likely that away fans would be banned, and that that was the police’s recommendation. Will she apologise for allowing her adviser to give the BBC untrue information on 17 October? The Home Secretary must now answer this. She knew on 8 October that it was likely that away fans would be banned. That was over a week before the final decision was taken on 16 October, yet in those critical eight days, it appears that she did nothing to investigate further, or to try to stop the ban. In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee last week, the chief constable said that when he briefed the Home Secretary on 8 October about the likelihood of the ban, she merely “noted”—that was his word—what he said; she did not ask further questions, or show curiosity about what she was being told. She did not personally convene any meetings attended by her in the following eight days, or take any personal steps to clarify the situation. She expressed concerns and took action only after the decision became public on 16 October, by when it was too late. She was asleep at the wheel at the critical time. Given the disgraceful events that followed, does the Home Secretary now accept that she was wrong to personally ask no questions—officials may have done, but she did not—between 8 October and 16 October? Does she accept that it was wrong to stand by and do nothing during those critical eight days? By the time she did take action—after 16 October—it was too late. By standing by during those critical eight days, she allowed the ban to happen and let the Islamists win. Will the Home Secretary apologise to the House for that inexcusable inaction during those critical days? Will she also commit to exercising her section 40 powers to direct the police and crime commissioner to dismiss the chief constable?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

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

• 5 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

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

• 5 Jan 2026 · Asylum Hotels · Hansard source

  More

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