Chris Philp MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will come back to it later.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is quite right. Conservative police and crime commissioners do tend to have much better track records on keeping police stations open and delivering lower crime figures. I want to ask the Home Secretary some questions, and maybe the Policing Minister will respond to them at the end of the debate. Some measures that were in the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill have disappeared from this Government’s Bill, and I would be genuinely interested to hear the Government’s thinking on them. One area that is conspicuously missing from this Bill is the measures on nuisance begging. The previous Government intended to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824 using a statutory instrument once new replacement measures—contained in the old Bill—were on the statute books. I see that the new Bill, tabled by this Government, does not contain those nuisance begging measures. Could the Policing Minister, either by intervening now, or in her winding-up speech, tell the House what the Government’s plans are around repealing the 1824 Act—or not—and around nuisance begging? Of course, were they to repeal that Act using a statutory instrument without introducing any new measures, there would be a lacuna in the criminal law. I am sure the whole House would appreciate an update. Secondly, the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill contained a measure to compel perpetrators who had just been convicted of a criminal offence to appear in the dock for sentencing, with a power to use reasonable force to do so. There had been some distressing cases in which someone who had been convicted then refused to appear in the dock to face justice. That measure, as far as I can see, is not in the new Bill, and I would appreciate knowing the Government’s thinking on that. The third omission I have noticed so far relates to the new offence of assaulting an emergency worker—also announced by the previous Government, I might add. The criminal behaviour order for people who assault a shop worker is welcome, but the previous Bill, as announced, contained a measure that said if someone repeatedly assaulted a retail worker—I think it was three times or more—they would be subject to electronic monitoring: a tag. I do not see that particular provision in this Bill. Again, I would be interested in the Policing Minister’s views on that. I turn now to a matter that the Home Secretary made a great deal of in her speech, which is the change made in 2014 around shop theft involving goods worth £200 or less. Listening to the Home Secretary and Government communications around this matter, one might think it had ceased to be a criminal offence in 2014. That is, of course, not the case. Shoplifting goods of any value, including under £200, was and always has been a criminal offence, subject to section 1 of the Theft Act 1968.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to make some progress, but then I will give way. I am rather anxious to make sure that those record ever numbers are maintained. The funding settlement for the police, announced by the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister a few weeks ago, increased by £1.089 billion, and they made a big play of that figure. However, when we go through the funding pressures that police forces across England and Wales face and add them all up, including the £230 million extra that police forces will have to pay in national insurance, the funding pressures add up not to £1.089 billion, but to £1.205 billion. The funding pressures in the coming financial year, which starts in just a few weeks’ time, are about £116 million more than the funding increase. There is a gap, and the consequence is that the 43 police forces across England and Wales may have to cut 1,800 officers to make up that funding shortfall.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady will know that child grooming falls under the portfolio of the Safeguarding Minister who, during the Conservatives’ time in office, had dozens of meetings on that topic. I had multiple meetings on Operation Soteria, which is designed to combat rape and serious sexual assault. I think that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are keen to move on to Back-Bench speeches, since there is so much interest in this Bill.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Let me start by paying tribute to the brave police officers up and down the country who, on a daily basis, put themselves in the line of danger to protect us and our constituencies. Every morning when an officer puts on their uniform, they do not know what they might encounter during their working day—they do not know whether they might be attacked—yet they take that risk to protect us. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in expressing our thanks and gratitude to those brave men and women for the work that they do on our behalf every single day. When I was the Policing Minister a year or two ago, I was moved at the national police memorial service—I think it was held in Cardiff that year—marking the memory of the officers who had lost their lives in the line of duty. I remember meeting their families, whose lives had been devastated by losing a wife or husband, son or daughter, father or mother. I am sure that all of us have come across such cases in our constituencies. I am thinking particularly of Sergeant Matt Ratana, who lost his life in the Croydon custody centre a few years ago—I attended his memorial service—and all of us will be thinking of PC Keith Palmer, who lost his life not far from here, protecting us in Parliament. We owe them all a debt of gratitude. I would like to start by addressing one or two of the broader points the Home Secretary raised in her speech before turning to the substance of the Bill. The first point is about the question of police officer numbers, which she spoke about quite extensively. I noticed that she picked out one particular subset of police officer numbers, and I wondered why she kept doing so. I think I know why: it is because the total of police officers last March—on 31 March—stood at a record ever number. There were 149,679 police officers, which is more than we have ever had at any point in our country’s history.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The system being used is not biased. It has been tested by the National Physical Laboratory, and the bias problems that existed seven or eight years ago have been resolved. The hon. Lady says that the technology is unregulated; it is not. A Supreme Court case set out the parameters, and they are now enshrined in authorised professional practice, which is national College of Policing guidance.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Iranian State Threats · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Security Minister, once again, for his courtesy in giving me advance sight of his statement. The House should be in no doubt about how serious the threat posed by Iran is. Iran sponsors terror organisations across the middle east. It is an enthusiastic and significant supporter of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen and it backs Shi’a militias in Iraq and Syria. Those organisations kidnap, murder, rape and commit terrorist atrocities. Without Iran’s support, those terror organisations would not be able to operate in the way that they do. Iran therefore bears a heavy burden of responsibility for enabling those terrorist actors to perpetrate atrocities. Let us not forget that Iran is also an enthusiastic supporter of Putin’s murderous regime and its invasion of Ukraine. Iran supplies drone technology to Russia and more recently, according to the Foreign Secretary, has supplied ballistic missiles to Russia, which are being used in furtherance of their illegal and barbaric invasion. There is no question that Iran is a hostile state; it promotes terrorism, undermines freedom and undermines democracy. We have recently seen actions by Iran on British soil and journalists being harassed to the point that one media organisation had to relocate its activities—thankfully, only temporarily—from London to New York. That is completely unacceptable. We of course support the Government in the listing of Iran in the enhanced tier of FIRS, and we will support the relevant statutory instrument when it comes before Parliament. I am glad that the National Security Act 2023 is being used, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) —I see he is in his place—for his work in putting that Act on the statute book. Having welcomed this move, I have some questions, however, which are essentially in this vein: is merely requiring registration a strong enough sanction? I put it to the House that it is not, because under FIRS all that is required is registration, and that alone is not enough. We saw our allies, the United States, in 2019 designate the IRGC as a terror organisation; we saw our Canadian allies do the same just last year. Yet I have heard nothing on proscription. The Minister said they do not comment on proscription, but the Home Secretary did comment on it in January 2023, when in opposition, and in unequivocal terms: “The IRGC is behaving like a terror organisation and must be prescribed as such.” She then said in April 2024 that she would like to make changes to the legal architecture. Yet it is only today that the Security Minister has announced the review by Jonathan Hall. Why has it taken seven months to initiate a review, which the now Home Secretary talked about nearly a year ago? Then we come to the views of Jonathan Hall himself, because he said— coincidentally, also in April 2024—that the National Security Act 2023 is good enough for the purposes of dealing with Iran. My question to the Security Minister is this: who is right? Is it the Home Secretary, who in 2023 called for outright proscription? Is it the Home Secretary, who in 2024 called for a change in the law about which nothing appears to have been done until today? Or is it Jonathan Hall, who said also in April 2024 that the National Security Act is sufficient? There is some confusion about the Government’s position, which seems to have moved over time, so clarification on that would be welcome. Why is the Home Secretary not introducing outright proscription, as she said she would do in 2023? More needs to be done to counter the threat posed by Iran on our shores. The Security Minister hinted at this towards the end of his statement. For example, are there more diplomats that we could expel who might be undertaking espionage activities or directing some of the activity on British soil? I see that the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention—my successor as Policing Minister—the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), is in her place. Is there more that the police could do to investigate this activity? Are we doing enough to provide protective security to potential victims of this activity? It was, in my view, completely unacceptable that the independent Iranian dissident media group had to move temporarily to New York. We should make sure that no one has to move again as a result of these threats. And are we using sanctions enough? The Security Minister mentioned this in his statement, but should we be using more sanctions against individuals in the Iranian regime and organisations that are part of the Iranian security apparatus? I think we should, and we should certainly be using the levers at the Home Office’s disposal, such as visa sanctions—that is to say, not issuing entry visas to people we suspect of being complicit in these activities, or denying visas to high-ranking or other well-connected Iranian officials to act as a deterrent. The Security Minister talked about the wider context of hostile state threats. He said in the previous urgent question that he would address in this statement the question of whether China should be placed in the enhanced FIRS tier—

• 4 Mar 2025 · Iranian State Threats · Hansard source

  More

  Well, he said he would address it, and eagle-eyed Members will notice that he did not address it, so I will ask him the question directly now and there will be no avoidance because there is no further statement. Will he place China in the enhanced tier of FIRS? Will he please confirm that to the House, because I think all of us would support him if he did?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Hong Kong Democracy Activists · Hansard source

  More

  This is an incredibly serious issue. The Chinese Communist party is an authoritarian regime which has been persecuting people in Hong Kong, mainland China and elsewhere for some time. Nearly 100 people—that we know about—have been arrested for political reasons in Hong Kong since July last year. It is completely unacceptable that harassment and intimidation takes place now on British soil. It is a gross infringement of the liberty of the individuals concerned and it is an affront to British sovereignty. Bounties, amounting to approximately £100,000 each, have apparently been placed on three people who are in the United Kingdom: Tony Chung, aged 23; Carmen Lau, aged 30; and Chloe Cheung, aged only 17. All fled Hong Kong owing to persecution. Chloe Cheung was apparently advised by the police to dial 999 if she felt under threat, which strikes me as an inadequate response. I understand that posters appeared near the home addresses of two of those people, and that letters were posted to their neighbours, offering a reward if they were “delivered to the Chinese embassy”. That is completely unacceptable. That cannot be tolerated and robust action must be taken. I have a couple of questions to put, respectfully, to the Security Minister. First, has the Chinese ambassador been summoned by the Foreign Secretary to the Foreign Office to have it explained to him that this is unacceptable and to ask what is being done to stop it? My understanding is that no such summons has been issued, which is unacceptable. Does that not make clear that giving the Chinese permission to build a mega-embassy in London is completely inappropriate? It will simply be used as a pan-European base for Chinese spying. Are investigations into the perpetrators under way? Why is China not being placed into the enhanced tier under the foreign influence registration scheme? Surely China should be placed into that tier as a matter of urgency. What is the update on the Chinese police stations operating covertly in the United Kingdom? I was briefed on that as Policing Minister a year or so ago. Where are we with those? Finally, the Security Minister says that we will not tolerate this happening. I am sure the whole House will agree with that, but what concrete and tangible action is being taken to prevent these outrages?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Hong Kong Democracy Activists · Hansard source

  More

  To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the bounties placed on Hong Kong democracy activists in the United Kingdom by the Chinese Communist party and other authorities in Hong Kong and China.

• 24 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  It never started.

• 24 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Border security is fundamental, but between the July election and yesterday, 25,135 people illegally and dangerously crossed the English channel—a 28% increase on the same period 12 months earlier. Does the Home Secretary now regret ignoring the National Crime Agency’s advice that law enforcement alone is not enough and that a removals deterrent is needed?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Home Secretary talks about the Rwanda scheme. Of course, it never even started, as she well knows. The first flight was due to take off after the election, but she cancelled it. She mentions that returns have gone up. What she fails to mention is that the vast majority of those people did not enter the country by small boat. The number of small boat returns went down after this Government came into office, and it represents only 4% of people crossing the English channel. Does she really think that letting 96% of illegal immigrants stay here is going to deter anybody?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Prevent: Learning Review · Hansard source

  More

  I start by thanking the Security Minister for providing advance sight of his statement and advance sight of the Prevent learning review into Sir David Amess’s tragic murder. I thank him for the courtesy and collegiality with which he has conducted our discussions on this topic in recent days. Let me add my words to those of the Security Minister in remembering our colleague, Sir David Amess. All of those who served with him in this House held him in great affection and the highest regard. He was a colleague who was loved, and is remembered fondly, across the House. His particular form of charm, kindness and good humour is something that everybody who ever met David will remember. Every day, I walk into this Chamber and see his shield up there on the wall opposite—I see Jo Cox’s, too—and I remember David and the loss that we, everyone in his constituency and most of all his family have suffered. I spoke earlier today to Sir David’s wife, Julia, and I pay tribute to her and her daughters for the courage and fortitude they have shown over these past few years in campaigning to get the answers they need. I also thank the former Member of Parliament for Southend West, Anna Firth, who has been supporting Julia and her family throughout this difficult time. I thank the Home Secretary, as well, for meeting Lady Julia recently. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for taking the time to do that. Turning to the Prevent learning review, which I recently received and which I believe is about to be published, I noticed that it is a redacted version. I would be grateful if the Security Minister confirmed that nothing material has been redacted. I am sure that it has not, but it would help to have that clarified. We heard in the Security Minister’s statement—and I thank him for the thoughtful and considered way in which he made it—that the Prevent learning review identified a number of failings in the way that Prevent handled the murderer of our late colleague, and that there had been opportunities for further intervention. While I welcome the fact that the report has been published, and that the new Prevent commissioner will conduct a further review, there are still questions relating to this case and others that perhaps merit a more formal inquiry to ensure that we get to the bottom of it. There are other cases where there are questions around whether perpetrators of violence either encountered Prevent and could have been better identified and interdicted, or encountered mental health services. Those that may merit further inquiry include: the case of Ahmed Hassan, where 50 people were injured on a tube train following the detonation of a device; the case of Usman Khan on London Bridge; the case of Khairi Saadallah, who murdered three men in Reading; and, the Southport case that we have discussed in this House recently. It strikes me that there are systemic issues, both with the failure of Prevent to identify and stop potential perpetrators and, associated with that, with the operation of the mental health system and whether more could be done. Because these are systemic issues, I think a more formal inquiry is merited, and I would welcome the Security Minister’s views on that. On the more systemic issues, there are two things on which I would be interested to hear the Security Minister’s response. I mentioned them to him individually a few days ago. The first is that in the past 26 years, 94 out of 101 murders committed by terrorists in the United Kingdom since 1999 were committed by Islamist terrorists. That is 94%, yet for the most recent figures available, only 13% of the Prevent caseload relates to Islamist extremism. That strongly suggests on the face of it that Prevent is under-engaging those with Islamist ideologies who go on to commit serious offences. I know that the Shawcross review in part addressed that issue, but it is so serious and the disparity so stark that I would appreciate the Security Minister’s views on that. That is a topic that a further inquiry might address. The second area, which the Security Minister and I briefly discussed on Monday evening, concerns the Mental Health Bill currently making its way through the House of Lords. Many of the cases entail extremist terrorist ideology, but many also touch on mental health issues and whether better treatment should be given or, indeed, whether people should be sectioned and detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 to protect the public. That consideration is relevant, of course, to the Valdo Calocane case, as well as to some of the other cases I have mentioned. The Bill as drafted, for reasons that Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care have set out, makes it harder to detain people under the Mental Health Act. I am concerned that that might inadvertently have adverse implications for public safety, if people who should be detained under the Mental Health Act to protect the public might now not be detained. That is a matter of concern. I know that the Security Minister will want to respond specifically to that issue. This matter started from a terrible tragedy. Sir David was more than just a loved colleague: he was a husband and father who lost his life in the course of doing his duty as a Member of Parliament. It is testimony to him—and a memorial that will last forever—that Southend is now a city, but let us also learn the lessons and take the actions needed to ensure that this does not happen again.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The reasoned amendment makes it very clear that we support those powers, but we do not support the totality of the Bill. In terms of tough action, the Home Secretary has yet to explain to the House why illegal crossings have gone up by 28% on her watch.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the deterrent never even started. The first flight— [ Interruption. ] The first flight was due to take off on 24 July, but his Government cancelled the deterrent before it had even started. That was their mistake, and as a result illegal crossings have gone up by 28%. This is not a border security Bill, given the measures that I have mentioned; it is a border surrender Bill. It is a weak bill from a weak Government.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration 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, while welcoming measures to create new immigration criminal offences, declines to give a Second Reading to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, because an effective removals and deterrence arrangement is fundamental to stopping illegal immigration, but the Bill abolishes laws passed under the previous Government to ensure removals, and abolishes laws passed under the previous Government to ensure a deterrent by restoring illegal migrants’ ability to claim indefinite leave to remain and British citizenship; and because the Bill contains no proposals to limit legal migration, nor limit the eligibility criteria for settlement and citizenship, which means that the Bill will lead to increased illegal and legal immigration.” It has been seven months since the Government came to office, so we have had a chance to look at their record. I am afraid it does not make for happy reading. Since the general election on 4 July, 24,793 people have illegally, dangerously and unnecessarily crossed the English channel. That is a 28% increase on the same period 12 months previously. The Home Secretary tells us how good her Government’s record is, yet illegal crossings have gone up by 28% on her watch. She promised that she would end the use of asylum hotels. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) asked her when she would deliver on that manifesto commitment, and she did not answer the question. The truth is that, after the election, there were 6,000 more people in asylum hotels: a failure on her watch. The Home Secretary crows about removal numbers, not mentioning of course that three quarters of those removals were voluntary, and only a tiny fraction relate to people who arrived by small boat. In the first three months of this Government, the number of people who were removed having arrived by small boat actually went down. In fact, the removals of small boat arrivals in those first three months—the most recent period for which figures are available—amount to only 4% of small boat arrivals, so how can she tell us that letting 96% of illegal immigrants stay here is some kind of deterrent? It is not.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No—I have taken lots of interventions. I think we can all agree that numbers in recent years have been far too high, and what is needed is a binding cap that Parliament can vote on, so that it can decide how many visas are issued each year. I believe the Prime Minister was asked about that and said he did not agree with it, but I think the Bill is an ideal opportunity to create that power for Parliament—for us, the directly elected representatives of the people—to vote each year on how many visas get handed out. Perhaps the Minister for Border Security and Asylum will execute a considered U-turn and embrace the suggestion I have just made. On the topic of legal migration, the previous Government —in fact, I think it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), the former Home Secretary, who is in his place—announced an increase to the threshold for dependant visas. It went up somewhat in April last year, and it was due to go up again this April to about £38,000. I would be grateful if the Government could clarify whether they will go ahead with that plan, which would, of course, control some of the numbers. The second area that requires further legislation is indefinite leave to remain, which the Leader of the Opposition and I spoke about last week. Indefinite leave to remain, as the name implies, confers an indefinite right to reside in the UK and provides a number of privileges, including access to full benefits, social housing and pension rights. It is the Opposition’s view that it should be granted only if a person, having come here for work purposes, has made a genuine contribution—if they have earned more than they have paid in taxes, which we could measure by reference to a salary threshold. If, after someone comes to the UK to work, it turns out they have not worked and have become a burden on the taxpayer, or have worked for a very low level of wages, implying they are not making a net contribution, it strikes us as fair that they should not be granted indefinite leave to remain and that their visa should not be renewed. Last September, the Office for Budget Responsibility published an analysis showing that migrants on low wages carry a lifetime fiscal cost to the rest of the taxpayers of £500,000. The Centre for Policy Studies recently published an analysis showing that the fiscal cost of those who might be granted ILR in the next four or five years will amount to £234 billion over their lifetime. We do not think it is reasonable for taxpayers to bear so high a cost for people who have arrived only relatively recently and have not made a significant contribution, so we will be tabling amendments to ensure that only those coming here on work visas who have actually made a contribution will be eligible for indefinite leave to remain. I would be grateful to know whether the Minister for Border Security and Asylum will support that measure. The Government have presided over 25,000 illegal crossings since they came into office—a 28% increase on the same period 12 months ago—and have failed to remove 96% of the people who have crossed the channel. They scrapped the Rwanda deterrent before it even started, even though the National Crime Agency and their own Border Security Commander said that a deterrent is needed and we have seen it work in Australia. The Bill will cancel the Government’s obligation to remove people who have come here illegally, and we see the Government creating a path to citizenship for illegal migrants. This is a weak Bill from a weak Government, and that is why we will oppose it.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman has been extremely persistent, and that deserves its reward.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for taking the time and trouble to visit Rwanda, which almost no supporter of the Bill has ever bothered doing. It is clear that the Rwanda scheme would have had a deterrent effect, had the Government allowed it to start. The National Crime Agency has said that, and we have seen it work in Australia. The fact that this Government are removing only 4% of people who cross by small boat—meaning that 96% are able to stay—explains why so many more people have crossed the channel under this Government than under the previous regime.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman knows which Government gave an effective asylum amnesty; it was the previous Labour Government. If he is so interested in the asylum backlog, does he know whether it has gone up or down under the new Government? It has gone up, as has the number of illegal migrants crossing the channel, leaving a safe country—France—from which there is no necessity to depart in order to find safety. France has a fully functioning asylum system, does it not?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The point of a debate is to engage rather than read out a pre-prepared question. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the National Crime Agency has said that we need a deterrent. The Bill removes any legislative prospect of a deterrent, which is why we oppose it. The Home Secretary talked about various new offences, including endangering life at sea and activities preparatory to supporting illegal migration. Of course, no one from any party in this House wants those things to happen, but the measures that she proposes duplicate the existing provisions in section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971, as amended by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. Facilitating illegal immigration—quite a broad term—is already a criminal offence. Unlike her offence of endangering life at sea, which carries a five-year maximum sentence, section 25 of the Immigration Act states that facilitating illegal migration carries a maximum sentence of life, recently increased from 14 years. Guess who voted against that increase in the sentence? The Home Secretary. Although we support the thrust of the clauses in the Bill, they are already covered by the tougher existing offence of facilitating illegal immigration. Clauses 19 to 26 contain plans to seize phones, which in principle we support, but that power exists already in section 15 and schedule 2 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. There is an element of duplication. Let me move on to the more objectionable parts of the Bill. Clause 37 repeals the entirety of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That appears to command some rather unwise enthusiasm from the Government Benches. As I said, the first flight under the Rwanda scheme was due to leave on 24 July, following extensive legal challenge and legislation in this House. Very unwisely, the Government chose never to start that scheme, which would have had a deterrent effect, because it stands to reason that if people know that if they try to cross illegally into a country such as the UK they will be removed to Rwanda, they will not bother in the first place. We have seen that kind of scheme work elsewhere, with Operation Sovereign Borders in Australia around 10 years ago. We have seen it work here as well, with the 2023 removals agreement with Albania. Crossings by Albanians, who were the most numerous cohort crossing the channel, went down by 93%. Again, it stands to reason that if people know that if they arrive here they will be removed, they will not bother crossing in the first place. But hon. Members should not take my word for it. The National Crime Agency says that we need a deterrent, and even the Government’s own Border Security Commander, Martin Hewitt—who cannot command very much—says that we need a deterrent.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, what the National Crime Agency said was that we need a deterrent. That is what it said, that is what I quoted, and the Government’s own Border Security Commander made the same point.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right policy for this country is for the Government, not people smugglers, to decide who comes into this country. Unlike this Government, we have a plan to deliver that. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that France is a safe country. There is no need to cross the English channel to flee war or seek asylum. France has a perfectly well-functioning asylum system. When it comes to people who are genuinely in need, this country has a proud record. The Home Secretary referred—rather generously, I might say—to initiatives undertaken by the last Government. They include the Ukraine scheme, which allowed in 200,000 or 300,000 people; the resettlement scheme that welcomed around 25,000 Syrians from about 2015 to 2020; the provisions made for British nationals overseas who came here from Hong Kong, and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme and Afghan relocations and assistance policy. That is the record of this country, and of the previous Government, on people who are in genuine need. But people—overwhelmingly single young men—leaving France, conveyed here by people smugglers, are not the people whose entry we should be facilitating. Let me move on to the Bill’s provisions to repeal much of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. One such provision to be repealed, therefore depriving the Government of the ability ever to use it, is section 2, which created an obligation on the Government to remove people who come here illegally. Let me point out to those people who are concerned about genuine asylum seekers that section 2(4) of the 2023 Act makes it clear that the provision does not apply if someone comes directly from a place of danger. That is consistent with article 33 of the 1951 refugee convention, which Members will be familiar with. But people who come here directly from France—a safe country where no one is being persecuted, which has a perfectly well-functioning asylum system—should not illegally enter the United Kingdom. The Bill will also repeal section 32 of the 2023 Act, which prevents people who enter the country illegally from gaining citizenship. By repealing that section, the Bill will create a pathway to citizenship for people who entered the country illegally, and I think that is unconscionable. The Bill will also repeal sections 57 and 58 of the 2023 Act —a topic on which the Minister for Border Security and Asylum and I have had some correspondence—which concern scientific age assessment methods. Every European country apart from this one uses scientific age assessment techniques, such as an X-ray of the wrist, although there are other methods. That is important because quite a few people entering the country illegally who might be in their early or even mid-20s falsely claim to be under the age of 18, and without a scientific age assessment method it is very hard to determine their age. That creates serious safeguarding issues. There have been cases of men in their mid-20s ending up in schools with teenage girls, which carries obvious safeguarding risks. A statutory instrument passed in early 2024—quite soon before the election—commenced the power to use those age assessment techniques. I really hope the new Government will use those powers and start using wrist X-rays, or other techniques, to ensure that people cannot falsely claim to be under 18. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on that in her winding-up speech, because we would certainly support her work in that area. As I say, there is an important safeguarding element to this matter, as well as a migration element. I note that in repealing section 57 of the 2023 Act, the Government will no longer be able to treat as over 18 somebody who refuses one of those tests. There are some predating provisions in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, but the provision being repealed is stronger, and in the circumstances that may be rather unwise. There are various things missing from the Bill. We will table various amendments during its passage that will seek to introduce much stronger measures, but I want to point to two in particular now. The first addresses the fact that there is no mechanism in the Bill for a binding annual cap on legal migration.