Chris Philp MP: speeches

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?

• 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.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Dawn Sturgess Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Security Minister for advance sight of his statement. Let me set out straightaway that the Opposition of course fully support the Government’s work in keeping our country safe. I think I agree with and support everything the Security Minister said in his statement. I particularly welcome the additional sanctions that he announced on certain members of the Russian security services. I join the Security Minister in remembering Dawn Sturgess, who lost her life as a result of this reckless and barbaric attack. Leaving highly dangerous chemical weapons lying around was a reckless undertaking by those Russian agents, and Dawn Sturgess’s death lies squarely at their door. I pay tribute to Sergei and Yulia Skripal for the bravery they have shown when faced with targeting by agents of the Russian state, who came to this country specifically with the purpose in mind of killing them. I also pay tribute to the emergency services and security services, as the Security Minister did, who responded so bravely, and some of whom, such as Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, were themselves harmed as they responded to the attack. The emergency services and security services, on that day and in the days following, distinguished themselves greatly, and I know the whole House will want to thank them for the work they did. The chair of the inquiry concluded, as the Security Minister said, that this operation would have been signed off or agreed to at the very highest level of the Russian state by President Putin himself. I think that makes the important point that Russia is a dangerous and hostile state, and that Vladimir Putin is a dangerous and hostile leader—a man who, as this inquiry has found, personally sanctioned the assassination of civilians on British soil. Of course, the atrocities that the Russian state and President Vladimir Putin have perpetrated are not confined to those we are discussing today. We have seen, on its own soil, the Russian state murder domestic political opponents such as Alexei Navalny. We have seen them shoot down civilian airliners, and we have seen them interfere across Africa. We have seen Putin support former President Assad of Syria in persecuting civilians in Syria, including supporting the use of chemical weapons. So we should be in no doubt at all about the threat that Russia and President Putin pose not just in Russia or Ukraine, but on our soil and across the whole world. I think there is a lesson there for the way in which we in the west collectively consider the Ukraine conflict, which the Security Minister spoke about. I think the actions we have been discussing are one of many reasons that we in the west should be steadfast and unwavering in our support for Ukraine. The lessons of history are quite clear: appeasement does not work, and showing weakness when faced with aggressive dictators simply emboldens them. I hope people in our Government and other Governments, particularly the American Administration, keep that in mind as they conduct negotiations in the coming days and weeks. I know that, quite rightly, the Security Minister will not be able to comment on details, but the House would appreciate an update and assurances about the work being done to protect us domestically against Russian threats. He did not mention cyber-threats in his statement — [ Interruption. ] I do apologise. He did mention them, and we know that Russia repeatedly and deliberately targets both governmental infrastructure and private sector IT infrastructure. So far as he is able to provide one, an update on the work he is leading to counter that would be welcome, as would any indication about whether we are proactively engaged in degrading Russia’s capability in that area. I appreciate that there are severe limitations around what he can say, but any indication he can provide to the House would be very much appreciated. The lessons we can draw from this episode relate not just to Russia, but to any state where we have intelligence or information that they are engaged in aggressive hostile acts. We know, of course, that it is not just Russia: other states, including China, are engaged in different but potentially equally damaging espionage and other activity on our soil. The lesson that this episode teaches is that we cannot be complacent. We cannot, for example, prioritise economic links above national security. We need to be on the front foot when it comes to these threats. In that spirit, and drawing that lesson from this episode, perhaps the Security Minister can explain to the House why China is not in the enhanced tier of FIRS, which in my opinion it should be, and why the Government appear to be contemplating granting planning consent for a super embassy for China on a very sensitive site close to sensitive communications infrastructure, and from which it is very likely China will conduct large-scale espionage activities? The lesson that this episode teaches us is that we cannot be complacent, and we must be active and energetic in protecting our national interest. In general terms, I fully support the direction of travel the Security Minister has set out, and, of course, the Opposition will support him personally and the Government in the work they are doing to keep our country safe.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban · Hansard source

  More

  Last month, Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were banned under the threat of antisemitic mob violence and a highly politicised anti-Israel campaign. Let me be clear: we must never allow the threat of mob violence to dictate policy. West Midlands police cited concerns about the Tel Aviv fans based on a previous game in Amsterdam, but the Dutch police have now shown that those concerns were completely false. There was no mob of 500 fans targeting the Muslim community in Amsterdam. In fact, many Maccabi fans were themselves attacked. Nobody was thrown in a river, apart from one Maccabi fan. The Maccabi fans were not skilled and organised fighters; that was just made up. What will the Government do to hold West Midlands police to account for providing that false information? Unless they have a good explanation, the chief constable should resign. Disturbingly, two members of the safety advisory group, Waseem Zaffar and Mumtaz Hussain, both previously expressed vehement anti-Israel views, so they were not impartial. We have seen the Palestine solidarity campaign in Birmingham trying to hunt down Maccabi players before the game—that is despicable. When my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) went to the game, he was abused and called a “dog” by pro-Palestine protesters, thereby revealing their true colours. We have now discovered through a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston) that the Home Office was made aware of the possibility of the ban as early as 2 October—a full two weeks before the decision was taken. Why did the Home Office then do nothing to ensure that Maccabi fans could be properly protected? Do the Government really think it is acceptable that the threat of antisemitic mob violence can dictate policy? That is morally wrong and should never be allowed to happen in this country.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  “In my opinion, China poses an active and current threat to the United Kingdom.” That is all that the Government needed to say to the Crown Prosecution Service in order to secure this conviction, and yet they did not. As recently as 12 days ago, the director general of M15 said that China posed a daily threat. In July 2022, he and his FBI counterpart said that China was posing a growing threat. The former Security Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), said it in April 2024, from that Dispatch Box, and the July 2021 integrated review said that China posed the “biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security.” It is pretty simple. I have said it, and the Government could have said it, but they did not. The Government’s commentary on this case has been evasive and sometimes misleading. For example, the Prime Minister claimed in India, on 7 October, that what mattered in this case was the previous Government’s designation of China. He said it again, from that Dispatch Box, on 15 October. He said that the issue was the position of the last Government, and the Paymaster General said it again in his opening speech. That claim, made by the Prime Minister and made again by the Paymaster General earlier today, is categorically untrue. We know it is untrue because on page 4 of his letter, the Director of Public Prosecutions said it was untrue. He said: “The test was therefore positively not what the then Government was prepared to… say in public…whether framed as…policy or otherwise…but…whether China was—as a matter of fact—an active threat to national security.” He said it again in evidence yesterday. He said: “We were looking to the DNSA to provide evidence of the actual threat…and not what government policy was.” The DPP has said that categorically in writing and in evidence yesterday. What the Prime Minister said was misleading, and I ask this Minister, the Security Minister, to retract it on the Prime Minister’s behalf. Moreover, the Security Minister himself said on 15 September that the collapse of the case had come as a big surprise to the Government, and that they heard about it only that morning. He said: “the decision was communicated this morning”. —[ Official Report , 15 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 1187.] That, I am afraid, was not true. The decision was communicated on 3 September at the latest, and it most certainly did not come as a surprise to the Government. It was not the case that, as the Minister claimed, he could not comment on why the case had collapsed, as if he did not know about it, because on no fewer than nine different occasions, according to the DPP, the Crown Prosecution Service pleaded with the Government—begged the Government—to say those simple words that I said a couple of minutes ago and the Government, over two years, refused to say. In June 2024, December 2024, February 2025, May 2025, July 2025—twice, on 3 and 10 July—August 2025, 3 September 2025 and 9 September 2025, the CPS begged the Government to say those simple words, and the Government would not say them. Why exactly was the Security Minister acting all surprised on 15 September, claiming that he did not know what was going on, when on nine separate occasions the CPS had pleaded with the Government? Now we come to the meeting of 1 September, a meeting that the Home Secretary, quoted in The Telegraph on 5 October, claimed did not happen. Well, we now know that it did happen. What we do not know, however, is precisely what was discussed at that meeting. We have not seen the minutes of it, and we do not know the actions arising from it. We do know that it was chaired by Jonathan Powell, the National Security Adviser. We know that many people were there. We know that the deputy National Security Adviser, Matt Collins, was there. We also know that on 14 August, two and a half weeks before that meeting, he attended a conference that included the First Treasury Counsel, at which it became clear that Mr Collins would not change his evidence, and the case would therefore collapse. So Mr Collins went into that meeting on 1 September, most likely knowing that the case was unlikely to proceed. Was that discussed? Was the possibility of providing more evidence discussed in that meeting? We do not know. That is why the minutes need to be published. We know for a fact that, on 3 September, the Director of Public Prosecutions informed the Cabinet Secretary and the DNSA that the case was not going to be proceeding on the evidence as it stood. The DPP also said in page 6 of his letter: “It was agreed that” the Cabinet Secretary “might inform a limited group, including some ministers.” I therefore ask the Security Minister to tell the House now which Ministers were informed pursuant to that meeting on 3 September, and whether they took any action as a result—for example, deciding to provide better evidence, which they could have done. It was recently reported in The Sunday Times that the Home Secretary got wind of this around that time, and decided to try to intervene. I did ask the Security Minister this in an urgent question last week, and many of my hon. Friends did as well, but he did not answer the question, so perhaps he now can: when did the Home Secretary become aware of the collapse of the trial? Did she try to intervene? If so, how? It is quite clear that the Government, had they wanted to, could have intervened between 3 September, when the Cabinet Secretary was informed and was given permission to inform Ministers, and the meeting on 9 September, six days later, when the CPS tried, one last time—at least the ninth time—to get the evidence it needed, but, once again, it was not forthcoming. Did the Government have any discussions in that period, between 3 and 9 September, about further evidence that they might have provided? If they did not, why not? A few simple words were all that were needed—words not about the previous Government’s policy, but about the facts as they stood on the ground. I uttered those words just a few minutes ago—it was simple enough—and if this Government had said what I said a few minutes ago, this case would have proceeded. Why did they choose not to do that? Members of this Parliament have been spied on by a hostile state: a state that has stolen intellectual property on an industrial scale, both covertly and through acquisition; a state that plans to build a large embassy, probably for espionage purposes among other things; a state that has opened secret police stations; a state that has put bounties on the heads of people living in the United Kingdom; and a state that has actively supported Russia in its war against Ukraine. The Government could not produce evidence that it was an active and current threat, even though I think it is quite clear to everyone in this Chamber that it was. Why did the Government not provide the evidence they were asked to provide at least nine times? Is it because they are more interested in getting some sort of economic bailout from the Chinese, to fix the mess they have created, than they are in our national security? That is the question they need to answer. If this House and the country are to understand exactly what happened with this case, we need full transparency and full disclosure: the minutes of those meetings, the actions arising from them, and the correspondence with the CPS. If they really want transparency—as the Minister for the Cabinet Office said earlier—all they have to do is support this motion and put this material where it belongs: in the public domain.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Manchester Terrorism Attack · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. At 9.31 am on the morning of Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, we saw the sickening terrorist attack on worshippers at Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester by an Islamist extremist. The brutal attack left two men dead, Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby, and three more injured. Our thoughts and prayers remain with the victims and their families whose lives were so wickedly torn apart on that holy morning. I want to thank Greater Manchester police and others in the security and emergency services for responding so quickly, and the brave worshippers inside the synagogue who stopped the attacker from entering. I join the Home Secretary in saying that I hope the IOPC completes its work quickly and that its conclusions reflect the fact that the police officers acted with courage in what was a very dangerous, unpredictable and fast-moving situation. Sadly, we know that antisemitism is at record highs in the UK. The Community Security Trust recorded over 1,500 antisemitic incidents across the UK in the first half of this year, the second-highest level ever, and Jewish people in our country, tragically, face far higher rates of hate crime than any other community. We must stand with this country’s Jewish community and fight with all our resolve and energy the ancient evil of antisemitism wherever it is found. It has no place on these shores—not ever. To be clear, attacks based on race or religion are totally unacceptable. The recent attack on a mosque in Peacehaven was appalling, and I know that we all unreservedly condemn it. Everyone in this country in all communities, including the Muslim community, must have the courage to stand up to extremism wherever we see it. Standing by and saying nothing when encountering extremism is complicity. That is why the antisemitism that is rife on university campuses must also be fought. The Home Secretary mentioned that in her statement, but will she work with her colleagues in Government to withdraw funding from universities that do not do enough to fight antisemitism? We must do more than just call out extremism. Anyone espousing extremist views or who expresses support for terrorism, or racial or religious hatred of any kind, including antisemitism, who is not a British citizen should be removed from this country. Will the Home Secretary commit today to using her powers under the Immigration Act 1971 to remove from this country any foreign national who expresses extremist views or sympathy for political violence, terrorism, antisemitism or any other form of religious hatred, whether or not the criminal threshold is met? She could make that commitment now. Will she show that she is serious about fighting extremism by doing so? I agree with the Home Secretary that the protests on 7 October this year, the anniversary of the terrorist murders by Hamas and just days after the Manchester attack, were appalling—“un-British”, in her words, which I agree with. The protests have continued even after the recent peace agreement relating to Gaza was signed, and, of course, they started before Israel’s military action in Gaza. In principle, I support her proposed introduction of a new cumulative impact test to sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act, but will she also consider expanding that test to also account for intimidation felt by other communities as a result of protest? Does the Home Secretary also agree that anyone expressing support for a proscribed terrorist organisation or who incites violence, for example by calling for jihad or intifada, should be arrested and prosecuted? Since the attack, the police confirmed the attacker pledged allegiance to Islamic State and was influenced by extreme Islamist ideology, as the Home Secretary acknowledged. Islamist extremism is sadly a threat we know all too well in the United Kingdom. In July, we remembered the 52 people murdered by Islamist terrorists in the 7/7 bombings, which took place 20 years ago—the deadliest terrorist attack committed on British soil. We also remember Sir David Amess, also murdered by an Islamist extremist, and the 22 victims of the Manchester Arena attack, also murdered by an Islamist extremist. We should not be afraid to call out this extremist ideology wherever we see it. It has no place in this country. Will the Home Secretary pledge to drop any definition of Islamophobia that would make calling out Islamist extremism any harder? The fact is that 75% of MI5’s terrorism-related caseload is related to Islamist extremism, and the vast majority of terrorist murders in the past 25 years were perpetrated by Islamists, yet only 13% of the Prevent caseload is Islamist related. What does the Home Secretary propose to do about that? Britain gave perpetrator Jihad al-Shamie a home when he arrived here from Syria. He then carried out a brutal attack on a synagogue, deliberately targeted at Jewish people, on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. We need to reflect very deeply on the implications of that. Today, we must all stand together and fight the hatred of extremism and terror. Attacks like this one are an attack on our whole nation. We will never change our way of life, and we will never allow our fellow citizens to be threatened or attacked simply because of their background. I know that the whole House will want to send out that message today.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Official Secrets Act · Hansard source

  More

  Let me start by thanking the Security Minister for the briefing and information he provided ahead of his statement. Let me also join him in paying tribute to the officers in our police force and in the security service. They work so hard and take personal risks to keep us safe. Let us start with Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee’s assessment of China, published a year or two ago. It found that China had penetrated every sector of our economy. When the Security Minister a moment ago said that China merely posed a “challenge”, he was wrong I think to use that word. China poses a threat. It poses a threat because it participates and organises systemic espionage into our public institutions, including Parliament. It purloins intellectual property from universities and from companies, particularly in the technology sectors, and it routinely spies on the UK as a state. They also engage in transnational repression of Chinese citizens here, for instance running secret, undeclared police stations and putting bounties on the heads of individuals. The word “challenge” is not strong enough; the state of China poses a threat. The Security Minister said that the Government would “robustly challenge China”, but let me gently point to some of the decisions that the Government have taken in practice. We saw a signal back at the G7 last year, when the Prime Minister was, I am afraid to say, obsequious in dealing with President Xi, appearing to prioritise economic links above security considerations. We have not seen any decision to place China in the enhanced tier of the FIRS scheme, although that regime has been in place for several months, and the Government seem to be viewing with favour the application for a new super-embassy in London, to which our allies, including America, are urging us not to consent and which many of our intelligence services say will be used as a base for espionage activities. So the Government’s record on China causes deep concern, but of equal concern is this specific case—and, Mr Speaker, you explained why that is of particular concern to Parliament, given that the alleged espionage activities touch directly on Parliament and the way in which Members of Parliament do their duty. I have in front of me a briefing provided to the press by the Crown Prosecution Service, dated 26 April 2024, when these charges were first laid. That briefing states that one of the subjects was commissioned over a period exceeding a year, between December 2021 and February 2023, by a Chinese intelligence asset. There are 34 reports on what this note describes as “very specific topics”, some of which relate directly and personally to Members of Parliament. One of the deputy national security advisers told the Crown Prosecution Service that he assessed this information to be “directly or indirectly, useful” to the Chinese state, and said that it was “prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.” Given the gravity of that assessment, it is astonishing that these charges have now been withdrawn. The Crown Prosecution Service clearly assessed these allegations, and the evidence, against the law—against the 1911 Act —in 2024, and found the test to have been met; so why today, more than a year later, have we suddenly been told that the test is no longer met? My question to the Security Minister is a simple one: given the gravity of the charges that I have just read out, what has changed between last year and this year? Why has a case that met the threshold and met the test in April 2024 all of a sudden been determined not to do so? May I ask specifically whether anyone in the Government put any pressure on the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to this case? Did the Government co-operate fully with the police, the security services and the CPS in providing the information required, including information relating to the definition of “an enemy”? Can the Security Minister give the House those express assurances? I certainly share your concern, Mr Speaker, and, I am sure, the concern of many others, that what appears to be extremely serious espionage, assessed as such in the written disclosure that I read out—assessed by the deputy national security adviser as being prejudicial to our national interests—has all of a sudden, and with no explanation, been dropped, even though previously, just a year and a bit ago, it was assessed that this case did meet the threshold. The House and the country need to know what exactly has changed.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests · Hansard source

  More

  We—in common, I hope, with everyone in this House—fully and unequivocally support the right to peaceful protest, including on issues in the middle east, whether the hostages who remain captive or civilians in Gaza, whose plight concerns us all. However, in exercising that right to protest, violence is never acceptable. Palestine Action has committed deliberate criminal damage against various premises, used a sledgehammer to attack a police officer, and deliberately sabotaged RAF planes. No matter how strongly people feel about an issue, and whatever the rights and wrongs of that issue, using violence to advance a political agenda is never acceptable. It is not how we do things in this country; we settle things through debate and elections. The Security Minister has given the House assurances about the necessity of this measure. I have not been briefed, or been offered a briefing on that, but the Minister commands widespread respect across the House, and Members will take his assurances seriously. Will he give an assurance that the police are taking all possible preventive action against Palestine Action where it may be planning future attacks against premises, or future acts of violence, including using the offence of conspiracy to commit public nuisance, under which the police have wide-ranging powers? I join the Minister in extending my thanks to the police for the difficult work they do keeping us safe. Finally, I will use this opportunity to express my support for a protest that took place on Sunday in Parliament Square, and the Campaign Against Antisemitism march, which I addressed. It was regrettable that neither the Home Secretary nor a senior Minister addressed that march, so will the Security Minister take the opportunity to express the Government’s resolve to combat antisemitism wherever it is found?

• 14 Jul 2025 · UK-France Migration: Co-operation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. She comes to the Chamber today sounding rather pleased with herself, but I am afraid she has no reason to. A year ago, she promised to smash the gangs—she said again and again that that was her plan. Indeed, it was her only plan, yet today there is no mention of what was once her favourite catchphrase. That is because her claim to smash the gangs has become a joke—an embarrassment to her and to the Government. We warned that law enforcement alone would not be enough, as did the National Crime Agency, but she did not listen, and what then happened? The 12 months following 5 July last year have been the worst such period in history, with small boat crossings at 44,359—up 40% year on year. The first 13 days of July have also been the worst in history, with 2,510 in less than two weeks—up 213% year on year. This calendar year so far has been the worst in history as well—up 57% on last year. The Home Secretary is setting records, just all the wrong ones. These boat crossings are now the worst ever. Does the Home Secretary accept that she has lost control of our borders and is failing in her most basic duty to protect the United Kingdom? The Home Secretary says she has a new deal with France, yet President Macron says it needs EU agreement. Is that true? If so, has the EU provided it? A deal must of course involve an agreed number, yet when the Home Secretary is asked, she is unable to say what numbers are involved. Will she now come clean and tell Parliament what number, if any, has been agreed? If there is no agreement with the EU, and no agreed number as part of the deal, then there is no deal at all, only vacuous spin. The only number we have seen reported is just 50 illegal immigrants a week. That number was put to the Prime Minister last Thursday, and he did not deny it. Fifty a week represents only 6% of illegal arrivals, meaning 94% could stay. Does the Home Secretary seriously think that allowing 94% of illegal immigrants to stay will be any kind of deterrent? Her claim to smash the gangs was a gimmick and so is her 6% returns deal. The truth is this: the only way to fix this is to remove, without judicial process, every single illegal arrival as soon as they get here, either to their country of origin or to a third country. That would be a real deterrent. We saw that approach work in Australia about 10 years ago and such a scheme— [ Interruption. ] I am glad hon. Members mention Rwanda. Such a scheme for the UK was ready to start in July last year. The previous Government had done all the legal and logistical work needed. All the Home Secretary had to do was press go, but she and the Prime Minister cancelled the scheme just days before it was due to start, and as a result we now see record numbers crossing. Will she now admit that she made a terrible mistake, and will she now start a proper 100% removals deterrent? The damage done by illegal immigration at this scale is immense. Far from closing asylum hotels as the Government promised, there are now nearly 3,000 more people in asylum hotels than at the time of the last election. I have personally witnessed rampant illegal working from the very hotels that the Home Secretary runs. I saw Deliveroo, Uber Eats and Just Eat bikes in the compound of an asylum hotel whose residents have no right to work. Will she at least commit today to ending illegal working from the very hotels that she runs? We also see reports of migrants based in hotels being charged with serious crimes, including rape and sexual assaults on women and children. Louise Casey has warned that a significant proportion of sexual offences are committed by those seeking asylum—cases like that of 29-year-old Afghan, Sadeq Nikzad, convicted of raping a 15-year-old girl. His defence counsel claimed that he did not understand that was wrong due to cultural differences. This madness has to stop. The Home Secretary cancelled a proper deterrent plan just days before it was due to start. Her claim to smash the gangs lies in tatters. She has presided over the highest number of illegal small boat crossings in history. Will she now apologise to the House and to the country for her appalling failure?