Chris Philp MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 9 Dec 2025 · Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  Let us remember that victims are at the heart of this. Young girls, some only 10 years old, were groomed and gang raped by men of mainly Pakistani origin—girls like Jane, who was just 12 years old when she was raped by an illegal immigrant; when she was found by police, instead of arresting the rapist, they arrested Jane. Anna, only 15 years old, repeatedly told social workers that she had been gang raped, but instead of helping her, they allowed her to marry her main abuser in an Islamic ceremony that was attended by the very social worker who should have protected her. Last week, sentencing remarks from several of these terrible cases were published. I warn the House that some of them are extremely graphic. One perpetrator, Mohammed Karrar, raped a 12-year-old girl, and when she tried to fight back, he hit her with a baseball bat and then inserted the handle into her vagina. He also injected her with heroin and forced her to take crack cocaine. Another man, Arshid Hussain, viciously beat a young girl, stubbed out a cigarette on her chest and tied her up; she was then repeatedly raped by numerous Asian men. The same man, Arshid Hussain, also called a victim, who had been raped and abused since the age of just seven, “white trash”. He said that Asian girls would not do what he was forcing her to do. There was an explicit racial element to his crime; he was raping his victim because she was white. The identity of the majority of the perpetrators is something that should not be hidden. A 2020 study by academics at the University of Southampton and the University of Reading reviewed 498 grooming gang convictions. They found that 83% of the perpetrators were of Muslim background, and specifically mainly of Pakistani heritage. The Casey and Telford reports made similar observations. The fact is that these crimes were deliberately covered up by those in authority who were more interested in so-called community relations and in avoiding being called racist than they were in protecting young girls. I spoke to a retired police officer who was told by a serving chief superintendent to stop investigating abuse by Pakistani-origin taxi drivers in Bradford because the local police did not want to offend Bradford’s Muslim community. I have sent the name of that officer to the police for investigation. A former Labour MP, Simon Danczuk, was even told by the then chair of the parliamentary Labour party to stop asking questions, in order to avoid antagonising the Muslim community in his town. Yet when the need for a national inquiry was raised in January, the Prime Minister disgracefully smeared those calling for an inquiry as “far right”. What the Prime Minister claimed in January was a far-right bandwagon had become Government policy by June, so will the Home Secretary apologise on behalf of the Prime Minister for what he said last January? The truth is that it should not have taken several months and the threat of a vote in Parliament to agree to the inquiry in the first place, and it should not have taken another six months to appoint a chair. That is what the survivors and their families told me yesterday. One of the most disturbing elements of this scandal is the deliberate cover-up of the crimes, as I have said, so will the Home Secretary assure the House that those in authority who covered up the crimes will be prosecuted for the offence of misconduct in public office? Will she also ensure that the inquiry refers such cases to the police for investigation? Can she confirm that the inquiry will formally start in March 2026, and that the final report will be published publicly three years later, in March 2029? We have not yet seen the terms of reference. Survivors and their families, whom I met yesterday, are concerned that the scope of the inquiry may be too broad. Will the Home Secretary confirm that it will focus specifically on localised, group-based grooming gangs, and that it will analyse and report on the ethnicity and religious background of the perpetrators? She mentioned local inquiries sitting underneath the national inquiry. Can she specifically confirm that those local inquiries will be completely independent of the bodies they are investigating, particularly local councils and local police forces? They cannot be allowed to investigate themselves. Will the Home Secretary also confirm that the parents of survivors and victims will be able to serve on the panel? I spoke yesterday to two parents of survivors who felt that they had been excluded from the previous panels. For many survivors and victims, the truth has been hidden for far too long. These crimes were covered up because those in authority were more concerned about so-called community relations and avoiding being called racist than they were about protecting young children. That was an abject moral failure. The truth, at last, must come out.

• 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.

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

  More

  It is only a matter of time!

• 20 Nov 2025 · Migration: Settlement Pathway · Hansard source

  More

  As always, I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. She has had a busy week. I wonder whether this burst of hyperactivity has anything to do with her leadership bid. As her shadow, I will say this: I am rooting for her in her tussle with the Health Secretary as to who gets to replace the Prime Minister, although I fear my endorsement may not be entirely helpful to her! Immigration under successive Governments has been far too high. That has included illegal immigration across the channel, which has surged since the general election, with 10,000 illegal immigrants crossing just in the 75 days that the Home Secretary has been in post. Last year—the first year of a Labour Government—there were a record number of new asylum claims. The number of illegal immigrants accommodated in hotels has gone up under this Labour Government, even though they promised they would reduce numbers. Besides illegal immigration, on which this Government are so clearly failing, legal migration has been far too high, too, absorbing the equivalent of half the new housing supply in recent years. Allowing mass low-skilled migration is bad for the economy, not least when we have 9.5 million working-age people out of work. Mass low- skilled migration without integration has placed all kinds of pressures on society, not least because there are a million people here who do not speak English properly or at all and 10,000 foreign citizens in prison. Where I suspect we and the Government agree is that very limited, high-skilled migration is a good thing, but the days of mass, low-skilled migration must come to an end. There is much in this statement that I support, not least because so much of it is so familiar. The idea of a 10-year route to indefinite leave to remain is something that we proposed in amendments to the Government’s Bill around nine months ago. Inexplicably, the Labour party voted against those measures, and now they have adopted them. We also proposed removing benefits from foreign citizens, including those on ILR who do not have British citizenship, and this consultation document now looks at doing the same thing. I am delighted to see that the Home Secretary, upon arrival at 2 Marsham Street, got out her laptop and started copying and pasting Conservative policies. I have one or two detailed and specific questions, which I ask in a spirit of constructiveness, given that the Home Secretary has adopted so many Conservative policies. Importantly, she said that these policies on ILR qualification would apply to those people here already. She is absolutely right to say that, and I support it. She mentions transitional arrangements. I just urge her to be cautious about those, lest they create loopholes. Can she give the House an estimate as to when these new measures will be implemented? I think the previous rules around legal migration took effect in January 2021, so the people who arrived under them will become eligible under present ILR rules from January 2026—just a few weeks’ time. When will these changes be implemented? I hope it is as soon as possible. The Home Secretary also says that to qualify for ILR at 10 years, people will need to have made national insurance contributions. I have tried to get through the consultation document in the past half hour, and I think I am right in saying that the qualifying threshold is to have earned £12,570 for a period of three years. She can correct me if I have got that wrong, but that strikes me as a very low level of earnings—some £12,500 for three years would not represent a net economic contribution to this country—and I urge her seriously to consider setting the threshold a great deal higher. The Home Secretary also mentions the possibility of volunteering meaning that people get ILR at five years, rather than 10. We know how people game the system when it comes to immigration, such as by pretending to convert to Christianity to get asylum. I urge her to draft those rules carefully and to be extremely cautious, lest she creates some loopholes. Will the Home Secretary consider adopting one last Conservative policy, since she appears so enthusiastic about them, by introducing a binding cap on legal migration? It could be voted for by Parliament each year so that this House can democratically decide the level of inward migration. She has adopted so many of our other policies, and I strongly urge her to adopt that last one too.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policies: Danish Model · Hansard source

  More

  Okay, I will ask a question. Will the Home Secretary agree with us that in order to control our borders we must come out of the European convention on human rights, enabling us to deport all illegal immigrants within a week of their arrival?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policies: Danish Model · Hansard source

  More

  Our leader is not going anywhere, but the right hon. Lady’s leader most certainly is—out of No. 10! The Home Secretary talks about the Rwanda scheme. That scheme never even started. It worked in Australia and it would have worked here. After her Government cancelled it with no replacement, numbers have surged. The truth is that under this Government, illegal immigration has gone up, and there is a crime wave going up with it, including rape and murder. Her ideas are not radical enough. She wants to give illegal immigrants a 20-year path to citizenship—

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policies: Danish Model · Hansard source

  More

  The Home Secretary wants to give illegal immigrants a 20-year path to citizenship. We want to deport them. Will she accept our proposal to come out of the ECHR so that we can actually control our borders?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policies: Danish Model · Hansard source

  More

  Well, it is good to see the Home Secretary here, taking some time off from her leadership campaign. She is quite clearly preparing a one in, one out policy for No. 10 Downing Street! The Home Secretary has announced that she wants to replace the Government’s entire immigration policy with Denmark’s. Is that because the Government have failed so badly in the year and a half since the election? Since the election, illegal channel crossings have surged 55%, up to 62,000; new asylum claims have reached record levels; and the numbers in asylum hotels have gone up. In just 75 days, since the right hon. Lady became Home Secretary, 10,000 illegal immigrants have crossed the English channel, but the Home Secretary—

• 17 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Last October, a Sudanese small-boat illegal immigrant murdered 27-year-old Rhiannon Whyte by stabbing her 23 times with a screwdriver. In September, an illegal immigrant from Egypt was jailed for brutally raping a young woman in Hyde Park. Just last week, an Iranian and two Egyptian small-boat illegal immigrants were committed to trial for the rape of a 33-year-old woman on Brighton beach. How many more murders and rapes must there be before the Home Secretary agrees to the immediate deportation of all illegal immigrants within a week of arrival?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Police Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. The Minister mentioned at the beginning the Government’s plans to bring forward a police reform White Paper. That was announced, from memory, about a year ago, but there has not been a single sniff of that White Paper. Can she tell us when we can expect it and why the Government are so bereft of ideas that they have taken a year or more to publish it? Today’s statement about police and crime commissioners represents tinkering around the edges from a Government who are failing on crime and policing. They are simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. This Government are failing. Police numbers are falling. They fell by 1,300 during Labour’s first year in office on a like-for-like, March-to-March comparison. Police numbers are not only continuing to fall, but will drop even more this year. Crime under this Government is surging: shoplifting is up by 13% in this Government’s first year to record levels, leaving shopkeepers in difficulty, and we have seen theft from the person going up by 5% and sexual offences going up by 9%. If it were not enough to see all those crime types surging under this Labour Government, senior police officers are warning that they face a funding crisis. Indeed, the chief constables of our four largest forces—Merseyside, the West Midlands, Greater Manchester and the Metropolitan police—all said publicly just a few months ago that they face a funding crisis under this Labour Government. It is clear that this Government are failing on police and crime, with falling police numbers, increasing crime and a funding crisis, yet the Policing Minister comes to us today with some minor tinkering around the edges. The Government say that they want to transfer PCC powers to mayors where they exist and where the territories are coterminous. Broadly speaking, that is the approach the previous Government took. In fact, I recall transferring one of the Yorkshire forces, I think, into the mayoral model a year or so ago. She asserts that the mayoral model is superior to regular police and crime commissioners, and I wonder what evidence she can produce to support that, because the biggest police and crime commissioner in the country is the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who is also the worst PCC in the country. Knife crime is up 86% under Sadiq Khan, and the Met has the lowest clear-up rate of any force in the country at a lamentable 4.7%. He has closed down half the front counters in London, and police numbers are plummeting. How can the Minister make such an assertion? For areas outside mayoralties, the Minister proposes essentially to abolish PCCs and replace them with some kind of committee comprised of local councillors. Will those have the same powers as police and crime commissioners? It is implied that they will, and if so, it will not save any money, other than from the election and the police and crime panel, which are very small costs. As far as I can see, this proposal will not save any money, but will remove a directly elected public official—the police and crime commissioner—who is accountable to the public and would certainly be more visible than some faceless committee of local bureaucrats. That is a retrograde step. In the Government’s announcement today, they are tinkering around the edges. They are rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic while crimes such as shoplifting rocket, police numbers fall and the police face a funding crisis made in the Home Office.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, at Prime Minister’s questions earlier today, the Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) no fewer than five times whether he was aware of any prisoner being released early, having claimed asylum. We now know that he had in his possession at that time a folder containing details of the accidental release of Brahim Kaddour-Cherif from Wandsworth prison last week—a man previously convicted of sex offences and who is, as we speak, at large and posing a risk to the public. It has emerged since then that another man, William Smith, was accidentally released on Monday. The Deputy Prime Minister failed to disclose that relevant information to this House. The House and the public are entitled to be told about such things, but the Deputy Prime Minister withheld that information. The police have subsequently confirmed that they have no objection to that information being released, contrary to briefings from the Government. Will the Justice Secretary come to this House before the close of business and make a statement so that Members can question him? We cannot wait until the House returns on Tuesday for a proper account.

• 3 Nov 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think the Home Secretary may have misheard me during my question. I was saying that I was not concerned about the disproportionality of stop and search, because when we compare its use with the offending population, there is no disproportionality. I was encouraging further use of the tactic. I wanted to make sure the Home Secretary had heard and received that message.

• 3 Nov 2025 · Huntingdon Train Attack · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. Our thoughts are with the victims of this appalling attack and their families, as the Home Secretary rightly says. I join her in paying tribute to the emergency services who responded so fast and the brave interventions by members of the public and the train staff that prevented an even worse tragedy from occurring. They are truly heroes. This attack has horrified and shocked the whole nation. People simply travelling by train were indiscriminately attacked. The horror the passengers experienced will likely stay with them forever. Anthony Williams has now been charged. As the Home Secretary says, he had been involved in previous incidents in Peterborough and, in the early hours of Saturday morning, was also allegedly involved in an attack on the docklands light railway in London. Will the Home Secretary confirm that, as I have been told, police in London knew Williams’s identity following that attack, and if so, whether Cambridgeshire police were informed so that they could track him down? In essence, I am asking whether there were any opportunities to prevent this attack from occurring. The Home Secretary says that Williams was not previously known to the security services, Counter Terrorism Policing or Prevent. Can she tell the House whether Williams was previously known to the police more widely or to mental health services? This all comes just weeks after a murderous Islamist terror attack on a Manchester synagogue and just days after the horrendous murder of Wayne Broadhurst by an Afghan asylum seeker, both using knives. Although homicide has thankfully fallen by about 15% since 2010 and, as the Home Secretary said, knife crime has fallen in recent years, every homicide and every knife attack is one too many. The Minister for Policing and I saw the grief it causes at the funeral of 15-year-old Elianne Andam, who was murdered in Croydon just over two years ago. Speaking in general—not in relation to this incident—does the Home Secretary agree that knife crime and knife homicide figures are still too high, and that we must do yet more? Does she agree that more knife crime offenders should go to jail? This is important because when offenders are in jail, they cannot attack the public. Does she agree that we must ensure that more people who carry knives, especially where they use them to threaten others, are jailed? Of course, there is pressure on prison places, but by deporting more of the 10,000 foreign nationals in prison, we could create more space. We also need to take more knives off our streets, which means we have to dramatically increase the use of stop and search. A study this year by Professor Lawrence Sherman, the Met’s former chief scientific officer, found that raising stop and search levels in London to 2011 levels would lead to a one-third reduction in knife homicide. Some complain that stop and search is used disproportionately in relation to some groups, but, when measured in relation to the offending population, the disproportionality disappears, as was set out in a recent Policy Exchange study. We should triple the use of stop and search to get knives off our streets, and we should introduce year-round surge policing in the top 5% of high crime hotspots, which will include many train stations. We must also use technology more. I know that there is work under way at the Home Office on scanning for knives at a distance, and it is hoped that it can distinguish knives from keys or mobile phones. This could help police rapidly identify those carrying a knife in a public place. I wonder if the Home Secretary could provide an update on the development of that work, either straightaway or in writing later if she would prefer. I really do think that it could make a big difference. Finally, retrospective and live facial recognition can identify wanted criminals, including those involved in knife crime. In Croydon town centre—the borough that the Minister for Policing and I represent—in the last couple of years around 200 wanted criminals were arrested using live facial recognition, including two wanted rapists and others guilty of knife crime who would not otherwise have been caught. Crime in Croydon town centre, including knife crime, has gone down as a result. The images of innocent passers-by are immediately and automatically deleted, which addresses civil liberties concerns. I really hope that the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing agree that rolling out this technology nationally would make a dramatic improvement to public safety, and they will certainly have my full support if they choose to roll it out. I know that everyone in the House wants to see knife crime eradicated—today more than ever before, I am sure—so I hope the House will also support the tough steps needed to eradicate knife crime. We owe the victims of these appalling crimes actions as well as words.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  The DPP said the opposite of what the Minister has said. He said that the issue was a question of fact, and not—categorically not—the policy of the last Government.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has said twice in the last minute that the question was the policy of the last Government. Let me take him to page 4 of the letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions, dated Thursday of last week. In that letter, the DPP said—

• 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.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  It is misleading.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the Minister give way?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Rape Gangs: National Statutory Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  This scandal arose because young, mainly white girls were systematically gang-raped and it was covered up by those in authority because the perpetrators were mainly of Pakistani origin. It is all the more shocking that when calls for a national inquiry became public in January, the Prime Minister smeared campaigners as “jumping on a far-right bandwagon”. Comments like that are a disgrace and are what led to this scandal being covered up in the first place. Months later, just two days before facing a vote in Parliament, the Government finally agreed to the inquiry, but it is clear that they never wanted this inquiry and were forced into it. Perhaps that is why, months later, the Government have said nothing substantive publicly and their inquiry is descending into chaos. What we have heard publicly is that victims and survivors on the liaison panel have no confidence in the Government or the inquiry. In the last 24 hours alone, two have resigned. Fiona Goddard resigned from the panel, saying that “the secretive conduct and conditions imposed on survivors” —by the Government— “has led to a toxic, fearful environment, and there is a high risk of people feeling silenced all over again.” Hours later, Ellie-Ann Reynolds also resigned, saying that the remit of the inquiry had been widened to “downplay the racial and religious motivations behind our abuse.” The Minister shakes her head, but that is what Ellie-Ann Reynolds said. Fiona also raised the issue of Sabah Kaiser, who has been acting as a liaison officer on behalf of NWG. Just two years ago, Ms Kaiser described calling out the fact that the majority of perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage as “destructive, distracting, irresponsible”. Given those frankly appalling views and the complaints about them by survivors, will the Minister ensure that Ms Kaiser plays no further role? Victims and survivors have also questioned the suitability of former police officers or social workers to chair the inquiry. They do not believe that people from the professions that failed them so badly are suitable. Will the Minister accept this feedback and appoint a judge to lead the inquiry? Will the Minister confirm that the scope of the inquiry will not be diluted, as both Fiona and Ellie-Ann say is now happening, and that it will focus on the cover-up of the rape gangs scandal because of the fact that the majority of perpetrators were of Pakistani origin? Finally, Fiona said this yesterday: “I just won’t be gagged and controlled by the Government while they turn this inquiry into a cover up.” Will the Minister apologise to Fiona and Ellie-Ann?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Rape Gangs: National Statutory Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the recent criticism of the statutory inquiry into the rape gang scandal.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement · Hansard source

  More

  Don’t just read that out. Answer the question.