Chris Philp MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 Jun 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the Deputy Prime Minister’s remarks about the tragic air crash in India, and of course about our dear colleagues Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. I also join her in calling for de-escalation between Israel and Iran, while noting that everything possible must be done to stop Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition and I met survivors of the rape gang scandal and their family members. Fiona, Teresa, Lucia and Marlon told us how authorities deliberately covered up the systematic rape of young girls, and some boys, by gangs of predominantly Pakistani-heritage men. They covered it up because they cared more about so-called community relations than protecting vulnerable girls. That is disgusting. The survivors told us that they will only have confidence in an inquiry if it is independently led, has full statutory powers, and covers all 50 towns affected, including Bradford. They will also only have confidence in it if those who covered this up are prosecuted, foreign perpetrators are all deported, survivors are closely involved, and it is set up before the summer recess. Can the Deputy Prime Minister give the survivors and their families those assurances?

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  I intend to talk about both. I have been talking about legal migration, and I will come to illegal migration in a moment. The hon. Gentleman raises our Immigration and Visas Bill, and one of its measures speaks directly to the question of legal migration. The numbers have been far too high for decades, and the only way that this democratically elected House can get a handle on this issue is by having an annual binding vote in Parliament to set a cap on the level of legal migration. When the cap has been reached and the agreed number of visas has been issued, the Government would simply stop issuing any new visas. Never again would we see a situation where migration numbers end up being far higher than expected, because this democratically elected House would decide. The system would be transparent and open, and the level could be set at a number that is far, far lower than anything we have seen in recent history. But when we put that in an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill last Monday, the Labour party voted against the measure, which would at last give Parliament powers to limit inward migration. I call on the Government to think again and to support our Immigration and Visas Bill, which would provide Parliament with those powers. Let me turn to the question of illegal migration, because the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) has invited me to do so, and it would be churlish not to respond to an invitation of that kind. The main mode of illegal immigration into this country—it is not the only one—is in small boats crossing the channel. First, there is no reason at all for anyone, no matter their circumstances, to cross into the UK by small boat from France, because France is a safe country. France has a well-functioning asylum system, and there is no war going on there. No one is being persecuted in France, and people do not need to get into a rubber dinghy to flee from Calais. Not a single one of the people coming across need to do so for reasons of fleeing persecution, and they should claim asylum in France. The Government’s record in this area is lamentable. When they came into office last July, they cancelled the Rwanda scheme before it even started. Amendment (b), in the name of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, is grossly misleading. It describes the Rwanda scheme as being “in force”, but the scheme was never in force. It was not due to start until 24 July, so the amendment is deeply misleading. Last July, the new Government set out their alternative plan, which was to “smash the gangs”. How is that going? Well, since the election, about 37,000 people have illegally crossed the channel—a 30% increase on the figure for the same period 12 months prior.

• 19 May 2025 · National Security Act 2023: Charges · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I join her in paying tribute to counter-terrorism policing and the security services for the work they do daily to keep us safe. Let me straightaway put on the record that the Opposition support the Government’s plans to place Iran into the enhanced tier of the FIRS regime, and we will also support the moves they wish to make to increase proscription powers and any other powers that are necessary to keep us safe. We will support those measures. The whole House should be in no doubt about the malign influence that Iran spreads around the world. It is responsible for supporting Hamas, who perpetrated the sickening massacre on 7 October 2023. Iran takes western hostages, including Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who was held in squalid conditions for years. Iran supports the Houthis, who have attacked and tried to sink civilian merchant shipping in the Red sea as part of their war against the Saudi-backed, internationally-recognised Government. In Ukraine we see Iranian drones and military equipment used by Putin to murder Ukrainians and further Russia’s illegal invasion. Of course, Iran also threatens to acquire a nuclear weapon. Iran also persecutes its own people. Women are abused, imprisoned, and in some cases even killed, for not adhering to the behaviour demanded by the ayatollahs. Twenty-two-year-old Mahsa Amini was arrested and killed by the Iranian religious police simply for wearing what she wanted, and I am sure every single Member of this House will condemn that atrocity. People who are gay in Iran are persecuted and sometimes killed, and those who oppose the Iranian regime are brutally oppressed and often murdered. We should be in no doubt about the threat that the Iranian regime poses to its own people and to international peace. The tentacles of the Iranian state now stretch on to our very own soil here in the United Kingdom. Iran International TV, an independent TV channel, had to temporarily locate to the US not long ago, because its premises and people here were threatened by Iranian agents. Iranian dissidents on UK soil are threatened and harassed. And, as the Home Secretary set out, just two weeks ago eight Iranian nationals were arrested while planning attacks on UK soil. In opposition, the Home Secretary said that she would proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—she said so a number of times, including from this very Dispatch Box on 15 April last year. The Home Secretary has now been in office for nearly a year, so my first question is this: why has she not yet done what she said she would do by proscribing the IRGC? She said that the Iranian ambassador has been summoned. That is not an adequate response. Why have Iranian diplomats, including any suspected of supporting espionage activity, not been expelled? What further steps can be taken to develop international sanctions against the Iranian regime? The Home Secretary confirmed that the three individuals charged over the weekend entered the UK illegally, including by small boat. As recently as March this year, just a few weeks ago—I think it was on 6 March—extremist Abu Wadee entered the UK by small boat. He had previously been pictured on social media wielding an AK47, throwing pipe bombs and calling for the slaughter of Jews. This is the kind of illegal immigrant who is able to enter the country by small boat. The Home Secretary talks about her new Bill, which we debated a week ago today, but the truth is that it will not make very much difference. Confiscating mobile phones from illegal immigrants and slightly enhanced powers to monitor communications will not stop the crossings. The Border Security Commander has no actual powers other than to publish an annual report and set some strategic objectives. I do not think people smugglers are going to worry too much about that. What will stop the crossings is a proper deterrent so that all those who arrive—not just some, but all those who arrive—are removed. Then, they will not bother to attempt the crossing in the first place. This deterrent approach worked in Australia about 10 years ago. The Home Secretary must by now be regretting the decision to cancel the Rwanda deterrent before it even started. Crossings since she became Home Secretary are up by 30% year on year, and 2025 so far has been the worst in history. Does she finally agree that it is time to follow other countries and establish a proper removals deterrent applying to all those who arrive illegally by small boat? It is time to bring back Rwanda. In their first six months in office, the Government have not returned a single Iranian to Iran—not one—including Iranian criminals. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is now time to repeal the Human Rights Act for immigration matters, so that criminals and other dangerous people can be more easily removed from the UK and can no longer persuade UK judges to allow them to stay here on ever-more tenuous human rights grounds? The only way to protect our borders and ensure security is to remove all illegal immigrants as soon as they arrive. I hope she urgently adopts that policy.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Foreign Influence Registration Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I start by thanking the Security Minister for advance sight of his statement, which he provided with his customary professionalism and courtesy. We on the Conservative Benches welcome the commencement of the FIRS regime, legislated for in the last Parliament, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Members for Witham (Priti Patel), for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), for their work in bringing that legislation forward. I also welcome the announcement that Iran and now Russia will be included on the enhanced list, meaning that all activity undertaken in the UK by those countries or those acting for those countries must be registered. However, I will address the bulk of my remarks to the elephant in the room, which the Security Minister did not mention at all in his statement: China. MI5’s director general, Ken McCallum, said in July 2022, almost three years ago: “The most game-changing challenge we face comes from the Chinese Communist Party. It’s covertly applying pressure across the globe.” In October 2023 he added: “We have seen a sustained campaign” of Chinese espionage on an “epic scale”. In January 2024 the director of the FBI, Christopher Wray, said that China is “the defining threat of our generation”. As such, I have a very simple question for the Security Minister this afternoon. He had plenty to say about Iran and Russia, quite rightly, but why is he silent on China? We know that China engages in industrial-scale espionage, seeking to steal technology from Governments, universities and industry. It represses Chinese citizens in this country and has sought to infiltrate our political system. In 2022, MI5 exposed that China sought to infiltrate this very Parliament via its agent Christine Lee. It has set up undeclared and illegal police stations in the UK, and in December last year it placed a bounty on the head of three Hong Kong dissidents living in the UK. I would like to ask again a question that was not answered last time: why has the Chinese ambassador not been summoned to explain that? There is no question in my mind that China should be in the enhanced tier of FIRS, and it is an astonishing omission that it has not been listed as such already. Why are the Government silent on this issue? In the past, Governments have prioritised economic growth in their relations with China, but we now know a lot more about how China operates than we did 10 or 15 years ago—we know what it is up to. Is the truth not that, in their desperation to get economic growth going after the Chancellor’s rather unfortunate autumn Budget, the Government seem to be prioritising economic links over national security when it comes to China? I imagine that is why the Government appear to be intending to grant planning permission to China for its super-embassy, which we all know will be a base for espionage activity. The Minister has rightly spoken about the threat posed by Iran and Russia. He is right to take action, and we support him in doing so. However, MI5 and the FBI have both warned about the epic threat posed by China, so will he please answer this simple question: will he place China in the enhanced tier?

• 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 · 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?

• 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.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  Smearing those who raised this issue is exactly what led to the victims being ignored and the crimes covered up in the first place. Therefore, will the Home Secretary apologise on behalf of the Prime Minister for his language last week? It is not true to say that the previous Government did nothing following the IICSA report. They set up the grooming gangs taskforce following the IICSA report, which led to 550 arrests of perpetrators in the first year alone, and I am glad that the new Government are continuing that work. In April 2023, the data collection on the ethnicity of perpetrators was initiated, but the initial publication of that—I think last November—showed that the collection is incomplete. Will the Home Secretary ensure both that the police follow through on the work initiated in April 2023 and that the data is collected more comprehensively? The mandatory reporting recommendation was introduced as an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, which fell due to the early general election. I am glad that the Government say that they will now pick that up and take it forward. Previous reports and reviews did not go far enough. The IICSA report itself was mainly not about these rape gangs. In fact, it barely touched on the issue and looked at only six towns. We now believe that as many as 50 towns could have been affected, so the IICSA barely scratched the surface. The Home Secretary just announced Government support for only five local inquiries. That is wholly inadequate when we know that up to 50 towns are affected. I have some serious questions for the Home Secretary. First, how are the other 40-plus towns supposed to get answers to the questions that they have, and how will these initial five towns be chosen? Secondly, the Home Secretary said nothing in her statement about the powers that these local inquiries will have. It seems that they will not be statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005. That means that these local inquiries will not have the power to compel witnesses to attend, to take evidence under oath or to requisition written evidence. If that is the case, how can they possibly get to the truth when faced with cover-ups? It was precisely that problem—the lack of powers—that reportedly led the chairs of the Manchester local inquiry to resign last year. They were not given the information that they needed by public authorities, and did not have the powers required to force its release, so they resigned. Legal powers are needed, because these crimes were deliberately covered up in some cases. We heard just a week or two ago from the former Labour MP for Rochdale Simon Danczuk, who said that the then chair of the parliamentary Labour party told him not to raise these issues for fear of losing Muslim votes—truly appalling. Not a single person has been convicted for covering up or ignoring these crimes. In my view, the criminal offence of misconduct in public office might apply. Moreover, those vile perpetrators who can be deported should be deported, every single one of them—changing the law if that is needed to do it, and using visa sanctions on countries such as Pakistan to ensure that they accept eligible perpetrators. What the Home Secretary has announced today is totally inadequate. It will cover only a fraction of the towns affected, and it appears that the inquiries will not have the legal powers they need. That is why we need a proper, full national public inquiry, covering the whole country and with the powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 that are needed to obtain the evidence required. It is not just me who thinks that; in the last week or two, the Labour Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) have called for a full national inquiry, as has Andy Burnham, the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester. I commend those Members and Andy Burnham for their courage in speaking out. Recent polling shows that the vast majority of the public want a full national public inquiry, including 73% of Labour voters. Most importantly, so do victims. Jane was groomed and abused at the age of just 12. She was gang raped repeatedly. She told the police and she told her social worker. At one point, the police even found her being abused by an illegal immigrant, but instead of arresting him, they arrested her. Jane still does not know if any of her abusers have been jailed, or if any of the public officials who let her down so badly have been held to account. Jane now wants a proper national public inquiry—Home Secretary, why don’t you?

• 10 Oct 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, may I start by welcoming your new Chaplain, Rev. Mark Birch, to his role? I am sure we all look forward to working with him. Let me also extend warm birthday wishes to the Leader of the House. It is hard to believe, but today is a very significant birthday for her. The whole House extends warm wishes to her and her family. I am sure there will be a lavish party to mark the occasion, but I am genuinely concerned for the right hon. Lady. To keep up with her Cabinet colleagues, she will need, at a minimum, a personal DJ booth and a luxury penthouse to host the party in. I can see from the look on her face that she is a bit concerned about how she will fund all that. Since it is her birthday, I will give her some free advice: she should not follow the example of her Cabinet colleagues and send the bill to Lord Alli. Anyway, I wish her a happy birthday. I must start today with the shocking failure of the Government to inform this House first about the proposal to give away the strategically vital Chagos islands. The Government should have waited a few days until Parliament was sitting, or waited a few weeks until the Mauritius election was over, and told this House first. They showed total contempt for Parliament. Will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to apologise to the House now and explicitly commit that this will never happen again? The Chagos proposal is shocking: paying—yes, paying —to give away sovereign territory to a country allied with China, which might be allowed to place military or intelligence assets near the Diego Garcia base; downgrading a sovereign base to merely a leased base, when leases can of course be terminated; and ignoring the Chagos islanders themselves. The Opposition will oppose the plans every step of the way. Will the Leader of the House now expressly confirm to the House that there will be a Bill on these proposals and a CRaG—Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—vote on the treaty itself? Can she tell the House when that will happen? Members across the House are horrified by the Government’s callous plan to strip winter fuel payments from most pensioners, including 84% of those in poverty. The Government refused to provide the equalities impact assessment in response to a written parliamentary question from one of my colleagues, but just a few days after the vote they slipped out that assessment via a freedom of information request. That denied Members of Parliament the chance to see the impact assessment before voting, presumably because the Government wanted to disguise from their own Back Benchers the fact that over 70% of disabled pensioners will lose their winter fuel payment. The failure to disclose key information to this House appears to me to be a breach of section 1.3(d) of the “Ministerial Code”. First, will the Leader of the House apologise to the House for hiding that information before the critical vote, and will she ask the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests to investigate that as a potential breach of the ministerial code? If she will not, then I will. The public up and down the country are horrified at the Prime Minister’s insatiable and venal appetite for freebies. He has had more than any other MP in the last five years, totalling over £100,000: designer suits, £1,000 spectacles, pop concerts and stays in an £18 million penthouse, all paid for by Lord Waheed Alli, who was rewarded with a Downing Street pass and influence over appointments. Not a Government of service, but a Government of self-service, feathering its nest courtesy of Lord Alli’s extremely capacious credit card. Is the Leader of the House ashamed that the Prime Minister has been doing that at the same time as stripping pensioners of their winter fuel allowance? He has paid back £6,000 of the £100,000. Can she explain why it is £6,000? Will he be paying back any more? Finally, this weekend marks 100 days since the formation of the Labour Government. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I wouldn’t get too excited. It is fair to say that they have been busy: a chief of staff fired; millions of pensioners on low incomes stripped of their winter fuel allowance; inflation-busting pay rises for train drivers and the unions, without any performance improvements in return; and schools in chaos as a result of botched VAT plans that even the trade unions—even the trade unions—say should not be implemented in January. Many successful people, it turns out, are now leaving or planning to leave the country. In the Budget in a few weeks’ time, it appears that tax rises and ballooning borrowing are coming as the debt rules are rewritten, all breaking election promises. Perhaps it is no surprise that the Prime Minister’s personal poll ratings have gone down faster than Lord Alli’s bank balance after a shopping trip with the Cabinet. A recent poll showed that the public actually now prefer the last Government to this one. If they carry on like this, it will not just be Sue Gray who is in need of a new job.

• 12 Sept 2024 · Sir David Amess Adjournment Debate · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to wind up the Sir David Amess Adjournment debate for the Opposition. All of us who served in the House with Sir David remember him with enormous affection. We all remember his sense of humour and dedication to Southend with enormous fondness. I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for opening the debate and for his words about Sir David, which I am sure all of us will remember for a long time to come. We have had something like 25 speeches this afternoon. It will be difficult to touch on all of them in such a short time, but I will try to canter through some of the more memorable moments. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), a fellow south Londoner, spoke eloquently in his maiden speech. He clearly brings profound personal experience of caring to the House and we look forward to hearing a great deal more from him during his time with us. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) spoke with his customary passion about fire safety, and he made some extremely important points about the need to expedite the remedial work to the cladding on tall buildings, which we will be following carefully on both sides of the House. I congratulate him on his triumphant election, or acclamation, as Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee. We had another fine maiden speech from the hon. Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey). I learned that her constituency is the setting for “The Wind in the Willows”, and we heard how she drew inspiration from her mother, a teacher, and her father, a police officer. It was not exactly a maiden speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) —perhaps he gave one some time in the mists of the 19th century, I don’t know—but he recalled those who served in the second world war and drew the House’s attention to the importance of strengthening the independence of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which he had the distinction of chairing in the last Parliament. We had another maiden speech from the hon. Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur). We heard that the Mayflower set sail from Southampton and it has a premier league team once again, but I hope that Crystal Palace, the premier league team in my borough of Croydon, secure victory whenever we meet. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) also spoke. I was told that he was the best man at the wedding of the hon. Member for Southampton Test—is that right?

• 5 Sept 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  A warm welcome back to everyone following the summer recess. I thank the Leader of the House for setting out those recess dates. That will make her popular with everybody across the House. She has just saved me from booking a flight that I would have had to cancel, so I am personally very grateful to her. I also thank the Leader of the House for confirming a debate on building safety. I know that the whole House sends our heartfelt sympathy to the victims of the Grenfell disaster and their families. I have personally heard harrowing testimony directly from survivors who lost loved ones. What they experienced was truly horrific. We must ensure that it never happens again, and that those responsible, including the cladding manufacturers who lied and covered up evidence, suffer the consequences, including criminal sanctions. Governments must never again ignore safety warnings, as happened over a period of decades. Like many MPs, I have been contacted by constituents — [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) is clearly being contacted by constituents as we speak. My constituents are desperate with worry about Labour’s planned removal of the winter fuel payment from almost all pensioners. I am glad that there will a debate and a vote on that next Tuesday. Labour Back Benchers may be less glad at the prospect of being whipped to vote to remove winter fuel payments from pensioners on less than half the minimum wage. Under the proposals, 84% of pensioners in poverty will lose the winter fuel payment. Is that Labour Members’ idea of a Government of service—leaving pensioners in poverty shivering at wintertime? Yesterday, the Prime Minister refused to explain why he is choosing to fund huge pay rises for train drivers and other state sector workers while slashing benefits for impoverished pensioners. That is not the kind of change that Labour voters thought they would get from a Labour Government, is it? The Prime Minister also refused to say yesterday how much less energy support an 80-year-old on just £13,000 a year would receive this winter, compared with last. Perhaps he does not know the answer. Perhaps he does not care. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the answer is that an 80-year-old on £13,000 a year will receive £600 less energy support this year? One pensioner wrote to me saying: “the allowance meant I could turn the heating on. Now I fear hypothermia during the coming winter months”. No wonder the public oppose this policy by a margin of two to one. Several Labour Members agree, and have already signed a motion condemning it and will, presumably, vote against it. I hope that all decent Labour MPs do the same, but will the Leader of the House confirm whether, if they do, they will lose the Whip, like their rebellious colleagues last July? At this rate, it will not just be pensioners’ heating gone by Christmas; it will be Labour’s majority as well. I call on the Leader of the House to arrange a debate on ethics and integrity in the Government. The independent civil service commissioner—a former Labour MP—has had to initiate an inquiry into improper appointments by this Government. A “Government of service”? It turns out they mean service to their cronies and donors. It is just wrong to stuff party donors and cronies into what are supposed to be impartial civil service positions. Can Members imagine the howls of protest if the previous Government had done that? [ Laughter. ] To the civil service? No. The Times reports that the Chancellor did not disclose to her permanent secretary the fact that she had appointed a Labour party donor to a senior civil service position, which would be a breach of the ministerial code. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether The Times report is true? We have even seen a Labour party donor, Lord Alli, receive a Downing Street pass for no apparent reason—other than being a donor, of course. Who gave him that pass? Was it the Prime Minister, whose clothes Lord Alli apparently pays for? That is extraordinary. Has anyone else here had a donor pay for their clothes? I certainly have not. Or maybe Sue Gray issued the pass, perhaps forgetting to declare that Lord Alli also contributed to her son’s election campaign. Will the Government now come clean and disclose all the politically affiliated appointments that they have made to the civil service? Will they confirm whether the conflicts were disclosed, as required by the ministerial code? Will they provide a list of all passes to Government buildings issued to anyone other than Ministers, civil servants and special advisers? I strongly suspect that this self-proclaimed Government of service will not admit to any of those things, so later today I will write to the adviser on ministerial interests and the civil service commissioner, asking that they investigate independently these important questions. A lot has happened this summer—a lot has gone down, as they say—but the main thing that has gone down is the Government’s approval ratings. Just last week, More in Common found that the Prime Minister’s approval ratings have plummeted by 27 percentage points in a matter of a few weeks, plumbing a new low of minus 16%. It turns out that parading around in £16,000-worth of expensive suits paid for by Lord Alli, subverting civil service independence by stuffing the service with cronies and donors, and stripping impoverished pensioners of their benefits is not that popular. Even the Leader of the House will now have to admit the truth: this has been an exceptionally poor start to government.