Nigel Farage MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 May 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q8. We at Reform, a party that is alive and kicking, very much enjoyed your speech on Monday. You seem to be learning a very great deal from us. But can I encourage you please to go further as a matter of national security? Over the weekend, an illegal immigrant from Iran, who we believe came by boat, was arrested in the north of England on serious charges of terrorism. Since the speech on Monday, 1,000 undocumented young males have crossed the English channel. Does the Prime Minister agree that now is the time to declare the situation in the English channel a national security emergency?

• 12 May 2025 · Immigration System · Hansard source

  More

  The Home Secretary will be aware that five years ago I warned that if we did not leave the European convention on human rights and immediately deport those who arrived in Dover via small boats, there would be an invasion. Sure enough, I was right. Already today, a further 600 young men have been processed through Dover, perhaps the odd Iranian terrorist among them—who knows? [ Interruption. ] Does the Home Secretary accept that the Government’s policy of “smash the gangs” is a complete and total failure? If that is the case, why should we believe anything else that they say?

• 30 Apr 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  To date so far this year, 10,000 young undocumented males have illegally crossed the English channel into our country—a 40% increase on this time last year—many coming from cultures that are somewhat alien to ours. They are being housed at a cost of many billions of pounds a year in hotels and, increasingly, in private rented homes. The effect on communities is one of a sense of deep unfairness, bordering on resentment. In Runcorn alone, there are 750 of these young men just in one community. Is it not time to admit that “smash the gangs” was nothing more than an election slogan, not a policy, and is it not time to declare a national emergency and to act accordingly?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Spring Statement · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Chancellor agree that GDP as a measure of growth and relative wealth is not the most relevant number to our constituents? As we are living in an age of mass immigration and a rising population, surely, what matters to our constituents is GDP per capita, which has fallen consistently for the past two years and is falling still. Should we not tell people that, actually, they are getting poorer?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is quite possible that sugar should be banned, so yes, I agree. It is possible, but I do not think that is what the Government are here to do. The Government can educate; individuals should make up their own mind. Some of the nonsense I have heard this afternoon has been quite extraordinary. A smokefree generation! We even had the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) suggesting we would be smokefree by 2030. To begin with, the idea that nobody born after 2009 could buy the tobacco products that those born before then could is just another aspect of two-tier Britain. And not a single Member—not one, despite the fact that we are discussing nicotine and tobacco products—so far has mentioned drugs. Oh, no! Let’s forget about that, because drugs are illegal already and we cannot do anything about them. I have been hearing for decades that there will be a war on drugs. Where is it getting us? Drug use is rocketing, and class A drugs in particular, with all the associated crime, are proliferating everywhere. Here is the danger: believe it or not, an ounce of tobacco is now more expensive, if purchased legally in a shop, than an ounce of silver, so already we have a rocketing trade in illegal cigarettes and loose tobacco. If we carry on down this route, with age bands and so on, we will find ourselves in the position that Australia has stupidly put itself in by over-taxing tobacco and making it very difficult to smoke. There have been 40 fire-bombings of premises in Melbourne alone in the last two years. Do not drive tobacco into the hands of the criminals. Do not create a new black market. I totally agree with the Minister: this is not an activity that we should encourage. We are not keen for our kids to smoke, but please treat us as grown-ups. Educate us. Let us make our choices. Do not let the criminals win.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I must declare an interest: I am a co-founder of Action on World Health. I have to say, I find the tone of moral superiority in the Chamber this afternoon almost unbearable. Members clearly believe they are better human beings than those outside who choose to pursue activities that Members perhaps would not pursue. It would come as a bit of a shock, I suppose, to some in this Chamber, but there are some of us who like a smoke—we do. We even go for a few pints in a pub, we have a punt on the horses and I am even tempted to have the odd doughnut—I know; that is perhaps the naughtiest of all. We want to have fun. We want to make our own minds up. This place can educate us, tell us, give us the facts, but the idea that it should make those decisions for other people shows me that the spirit of Oliver Cromwell is alive and well.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  It may be a great irony that a remainer Prime Minister used our Brexit freedoms as effectively as he did yesterday. Indeed, as No. 10 briefed, we are now in a unique position compared with the rest of Europe, and yesterday was a triumph. I also applaud him for saying such positive words about President Trump and our relationship with America, even if nobody behind him agrees. But here is the key: President Zelensky has now accepted that he will sign the minerals agreement with America. America is going to put in £100 billion or whatever it is, and thousands of Americans will be in Ukraine. Is that, in itself, enough of a security guarantee, or does it mean that we need to send British troops? If we do, and given the size of our Army, how many?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  What is agreed universally is that the cost is £9 billion—the Government do not question that at all. Whether there is front-loading or not, we do not yet know, but let us assume that the cost is £90 million a year for 99 years. A lot of people in the media and in politics seem to have a problem with basic arithmetic and compounding: £90 million a year, index-linked at 3%, is £52 billion—a completely eye-watering sum. I am very surprised that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are not using that number, or perhaps they are just so embarrassed about having begun the negotiations themselves—I do not know.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  As an elected representative of a very young political party, I watch this game going on between the two old parties and find it difficult not to conclude that it is anything other than a complete and utter charade. Although I agree with the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who made the argument that this is British sovereign territory and that there is nothing—literally nothing—to be gained by giving it away, and I see those on the Benches behind her cheering, as we heard earlier, this was the party that went through 11 rounds of negotiations. The Conservative Government were happy to surrender the sovereignty of the Chagos islands, but did not like the final shape of the deal. Then the Government tell us that this deal has to be done because of legal uncertainty, but of course there is no legal uncertainty whatsoever. Labour Members can shake their heads if they want, but they know I am right. The International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction over this whatsoever, so why are we doing it? I guess that it is because of post-colonial guilt and a Government run by human rights lawyers. Beyond that, I really do not understand it. I made a comment earlier about the cost. I promise the House that £90 million a year for 99 years with 3% compounded inflation is £52 billion. That of course is madness. Members of this House have been saying, “Why are we not debating health or other issues?” Well, 50 billion quid is a very good reason to debate this. I have tried in this House and elsewhere to make these arguments. I have explained that China already has a smart city right next to Port Louis. I have explained that Huawei is the communications system. We see now that Prime Minister Modi is worried about missing out on the action. There is a 200-mile marine park, which potentially has cobalt and other mineral resources that could be worth tens, perhaps even hundreds, of billions of pounds over the next few years, and we are prepared to give it all away. The timing of the debate is perfect, because the Prime Minister is mid-Atlantic as we speak. I have spoken in the course of the last week to American Cabinet Ministers. While they are concerned about Chagos, they are even more concerned about bringing an end to the war in Ukraine, which I think we are all very keen to see, provided that it is on the right terms. There is also going to be a big debate about tariffs. Here is the point: Chagos is not especially high on the American agenda at the moment. I would love to see the American Administration veto this terrible deal, but I am not even sure then that this Government would move their position. They are clearly hellbent on giving away the Chagos islands, whatever the risks to global security or our own budgetary constraints, completely ignoring the will of the majority of the Chagossian people. If that is the case, I would rather see America have the sovereignty of the Chagos islands than a corrupt Mauritius. If we are going to give up this sovereignty, we should sell and get a few billion quid for the Chagos islands. Mauritius has no legal basis and no legal claim. Investment would come, and the Chagossians could go back and get well-paid jobs. I want us to keep sovereignty, but if the Government are prepared to give away this country’s interests, they should sell the territory to America, not give it away to corrupt Mauritius.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Chagos Islands · Hansard source

  More

  ( Urgent Question ) : To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the negotiations of the transfer of sovereignty of the Chagos islands to Mauritius.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Chagos Islands · Hansard source

  More

  The Mauritian Parliament had the opportunity yesterday to debate this at length, but it seems the Minister was perhaps rather more reluctant to be here today. Jonathan Powell, our national security adviser, has been doing the rounds in Washington, where he has been telling everybody, including members of the new US Cabinet, that this is necessary—that we have to give away the sovereignty of the Chagos islands—and that in those circumstances a negotiated 99-year lease is the best option. But that is just not true, is it? It is not true at all. It does not stand. There is no legal basis on which we have to give away the sovereignty of the Chagos islands. An advisory judgment from the International Criminal Court has no force of legal power whatsoever; indeed, America disregards it so much that it is not even a member. The Americans, by the way, have been pretty busy with foreign policy just lately, so it is perhaps no wonder that Diego Garcia has not been high on their agenda, but when they wake up to the fact that this has been done—wholly unnecessarily—I would not be surprised if we find ourselves, together with the European Union, in their tariff regime. Can the Minister confirm that there is no binding legal basis for this transfer of sovereignty whatsoever?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I can assure the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) that Reform wants healthcare to be free at the point of delivery— [ Interruption. ] I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but there appears to be some panic on the Labour Benches—I am not surprised. I would like to ask the Prime Minister for some advice— [ Interruption. ] They really are panicking, aren’t they?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to ask the Prime Minister for some advice. What do I say to the 25,000 constituents in Clacton— [ Interruption. ]

• 5 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  What do I say to the 25,000 constituents in Clacton—including 99-year-old Jim O’Dwyer, who flew a full set of missions on Lancaster bombers as tail-end Charlie—who are losing their winter fuel allowance and feeling the pinch, while at the same time we are prepared to give away a military base and pay £18 billion for the privilege of doing so?

• 4 Feb 2025 · UK-US Bilateral Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  When it comes to debating the potential of the special relationship with this incoming Administration, I think I am in a fortunate position. It is not just that for 10 years I have stood up and defended President Trump—I was very much on my own in those days—but that I know half his Cabinet. We should consider ourselves incredibly lucky, because it is not just the President who is an Anglophile, as the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) said. I promise Members that half the Cabinet are; indeed, senior members of the Administration have children at school in London as we speak. We have a unique opportunity over the next four years and I really hope we exploit it. During his last term as President, Trump said to me personally that he really wanted to do a free trade deal with the United Kingdom. Now, I know he is very keen on tariffs—tariffs are being put on all over the world, and no doubt the EU will feel some of that—but with us he was very happy to have a free trade deal. He felt that it would not be unfair, because we are roughly operating on similar levels and with similar costs. Those opportunities are fantastic. On defence, we should face the fact that without America we are defenceless, so it matters, but we should think about the bit that we give back. Diego Garcia is probably the single most important thing that we give America right now. Without it, America does not have access to the middle east, India and much else. It is the single most important island in the world for America—after Hawaii, obviously—so it really matters. We have had news in the last hour that the Government are going to push ahead with the surrender of the sovereignty of the Chagos islands, at a reported cost of up to £19 billion—I am sure that cannot be true. I warn the Government that they may not be getting huge pushback from America at this moment in time, because they have a list as long as your arm of other priorities, but once they realise that we do not even have that to give them any more, our value to them in that two-way relationship will be considerably reduced. I genuinely fear that if this continues and the American Administration wakes up to it—I could quote three members of the Cabinet I have spoken to personally about it—our chances of not just avoiding tariffs but moving on to a sectoral free trade deal will all but evaporate. The special relationship will be dangerously fractured if the Government carry on with this, so I urge them to please, please give the American Administration a few weeks to think about this while they settle into office. I will finish on one quick point about the economics. In 2008, the eurozone economy was exactly the same size as the American economy, but 16 years on the American economy is double the size of the eurozone. We do not have to say, “America not Europe,” or “Europe not America”; the really important thing is to understand where the growth is and where the investment will come from. Whatever new terms we seek with Brussels—if it is just a good relationship, that is fine—we must not tie ourselves to an EU rulebook that prohibits free trade with the USA. Economically, it is the future, and the EU is the past.

• 28 Jan 2025 · A133-A120 Link Road · Hansard source

  More

  I am here to support my geographical neighbour, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). He is absolutely right: it would be wholly irresponsible to commence the building of thousands of houses without knowing that a road will be completed. So I completely support what he says, and I am sure that constituents in all neighbouring constituencies overwhelmingly agree. I just wonder whether, when these things are debated, be it here or in the main Chamber, we ever pause for a moment to understand what we have done—what both Conservative and Labour Governments have done—a 10 million increase in the population in the last 20 years; the Office for National Statistics this morning suggesting that another 3 million to 4 million will be added in the next few years. These are all problems of uncontrolled mass migration and the population explosion. I wonder whether many Members level with their constituents about the causal factors here.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I do not. Whatever measures are in the Bill to protect children—we all want to see children protected, for goodness’ sake—will not protect them. The Prime Minister is doing his best to tell us that there has been an inquiry: the Jay inquiry. Well, there has, and it is 459 pages long. Grooming gangs are not mentioned once. Rotherham is literally mentioned once, in passing. The scope of that inquiry was like a shotgun: it was to cover a whole range of areas in which children were being abused. What we need, and are calling for, is a rifle-shot inquiry that looks specifically at the question: to what extent were gangs of Pakistani men raping young white girls? Ultimately, it seems to me that there is a deep racist element behind what happened. I might be right or I might be wrong, but does the country not deserve a full, open and national inquiry? I believe there is now overwhelming support on all sides of the political spectrum for that; Parliament should not be in denial. If the Government will not hold it, we will raise the money at Reform UK and appoint independent arbiters, because we need the truth to be out there. I will vote for the amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, although I note that as Women and Equalities Minister from 2022 to 2024, she did not meet a single victim of the rapes, and never raised the issue once. Insincere though the amendment may be, we will vote for it. However, I beg Labour Members to think. Do their constituents not need to know the truth about this great evil that has happened in our country?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have no doubt that the Bill is based on socialist dogma. It will reduce choice and competition, and take away parents’ freedom to educate at home. I am against it. I will vote against it, and Government Members will vote for it—that is how politics works in this country—but how on earth can we look at the words “Children’s Wellbeing” in the title of the Bill, and debate and vote on that subject, when out there in the country, our constituents are talking about what we used to call grooming gangs, although I think we have moved on to calling them mass and gang rapes? Since 2012, I have tried to campaign for more truth and honesty about what has gone on, although the former Labour MP for Keighley, Ann Cryer, was doing that as far back as 2002. Every attempt at a proper national debate on the scale of the problem has been shut down. We thought initially that in half a dozen northern towns, there was a serious problem—mass sexual assaults, and rapes of children and young women. However, after recent research, journalist Charlie Peters at GB News says that he is certain that this has taken place in at least 50 towns in our country, and is still going on today.

• 6 Jan 2025 · General Election · Hansard source

  More

  The idea of a £22 billion black hole is nonsense. It is £2.7 trillion. The national debt is massive. It exploded over the course of the last 14 years—it increased two and a half times—and it is set to go higher still, so we are in much deeper difficulties economically. Even to talk about a £22 billion black hole is not to understand the problems that we have. We have zero growth in this country. As for foreign investment into Britain, yes, there is money coming in, but it is not coming in at anywhere near the rate we need. We have major, major problems. I actually believe that this Government have talked us into a recession, because confidence is falling to that degree. Members might note that the more rapidly legal migration rises—the more rapidly the population expands —the poorer we get as individuals. In the last two years, we have seen record levels of net migration into Britain, and in six of the last eight quarters, GDP per capita has fallen. Ultimately, the issue that led 3 million people to ask for another general election is perhaps the breach of trust between Westminster and the country on immigration. I am not even discussing the boats; I am talking about the impact of the population rising by more than 10 million in the past 20 years on primary school availability, housing and people’s wages. That is the ultimate breach of trust. Labour Members have not promised anything at all on legal immigration, but they need to be aware that if the net migration figures are anywhere near what they have been in the past few years, confidence in their party will fall further. I think the whole system is in need of absolute, fundamental change, and I suspect that this petition is just a symptom of a much bigger cry for a different kind of politics in the United Kingdom. Members can con themselves as much as they like, but the old two-party system is breaking up before our eyes. The next general election is going to see a very, very different Parliament.

• 6 Jan 2025 · General Election · Hansard source

  More

  I generally find that the best ideas in life come from pubs, so it is no particular surprise that Michael Westwood is a publican. I represent Clacton, which has the third highest number of people who signed the petition. I do not think that the 8,000 people in Clacton who signed it did so just to get a fresh general election. They knew that that would not happen; what they were actually expressing was a sense of utter disenchantment with the entire political system. The debate this afternoon can be used as a game of ping-pong between the two political parties that have dominated British politics since the end of the first world war, but actually something bigger is going on out there. Have a look at the turnout, which was the second lowest ever at a general election, despite the introduction of mass postal voting. Have a think about the fact that the Labour party got a third of the vote and two thirds of the seats. For every Labour MP there are 34,000 votes; for every Reform MP there are 820,000 votes. When we think about that and give it some context, perhaps it is not surprising that confidence in the whole system is breaking down. Having studied politics for a long time—not as long as the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), obviously, but over 50 years—I cannot think of a Government who have seen a collapse in confidence as quickly as this one. There are 26,000 pensioners in the constituency of Clacton alone who are losing their winter fuel allowance; they had no idea on the day of the general election that that was going to happen. There are 100 family farms in the Clacton constituency; many of the farmers I have met are frankly in tears, because they cannot see how their husbandry of that land, which in some cases has gone on for hundreds of years, will be able to survive inheritance tax. The national insurance increases are yet another hammer blow for the men and women running small businesses in this country. They had not expected it; they were promised in the run-up to the general election that it would not happen. We now find that even GP surgeries in the constituency and hospices close to it are affected, so perhaps we can see why people are upset: they feel that things are being done to them that they did not have realistic expectations of. The broader problem, I think, is the economy as a whole. The economy works on confidence: people borrow money and lend money according to confidence in each other. In the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we have two people who look as if they are going to a family funeral every day. There is an air of miserabilism. Even a speech from the Prime Minister is the complete opposite of one from Tony Blair: not “Things can only get better”, but “Things can only get worse”.

• 18 Dec 2024 · British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  That is fair enough, Mr Speaker. If we respect the sovereignty of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, on the basis that it is what the people want, can we have a referendum of all the eligible Chagossians and let them decide the future sovereignty of the Chagos islands? That, surely, is the only fair solution.

• 18 Dec 2024 · British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  I have just returned, hotfoot, from a very full Mar-a-Lago. I spoke to several members—senior administrators, especially—of the incoming Administration, which will be in the White House in 32 days’ time. Let me assure you that there is very deep disquiet among them all as to what this deal may mean for the long-term future of Diego Garcia and whether such a deal will hold, given the precedent of the deal break over Hong Kong. They also cannot understand why we would surrender the sovereignty of the islands on an advisory judgment from a pretty obscure court. This is about sovereignty, and you keep saying yourself that the sovereignty—

• 2 Dec 2024 · Migration and Border Security · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the Home Secretary, who was right to highlight that 2023 was a year of shame for a Government who had repeatedly promised net migration of tens of thousands a year, not nearly a million; perhaps they will never be forgiven for it. But I also see that in 2023 asylum claims were made by 84,000 people. Everyone talks about the small boats and yet 69% of those 84,000 did not come across the English channel in boats. Will she tell me, please: where did they come from? Were they overstayers? Were they on student visas? Who were the 69%?

• 2 Dec 2024 · Chagos Islands: UK-US Defence Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  The presentation of what the American Administration believe is a fantasy. Joe Biden is going—in fact, many think that he has gone already. I have been contacted by very senior officials and advisers from the incoming Republican Administration, and every single one of them is appalled at this deal. They know that the leasehold agreement will not survive, just as the deal with China over Hong Kong did not survive. Has not the time come for the Government to admit that this is a rotten deal for the UK, a rotten deal for America and an even worse deal for the Chagossians? If the Minister cares so much about the sovereignty of the Falklands being in the hands of the Falkland Islanders, why not have a referendum of the Chagossians and ask them to settle who should have sovereignty over those islands?

• 25 Nov 2024 · Speaker’s Statement · Hansard source

  More

  Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In the last six months of 2005, the United Kingdom took over the rotating presidency of the European Union, and Prime Minister Blair wanted to make a big success of it. One of his concerns was that there was a young British MEP who was prone to behaving very badly in the Chamber and being particularly rude to visiting Heads of State, so John Prescott was sent to see me. He himself, of course, had served as an MEP and was a big project supporter—he loved everything about the European Union—so he came to explain to me that it would be very bad for Britain if I were to stand up and cause a scene when Prime Minister Blair was speaking. I will not say that he threatened me, but I certainly felt deeply intimidated and behaved myself impeccably over the course of the next six months. That was the bruiser John Prescott perhaps. A couple of years later, on Remembrance Sunday, when the ceremony was over and the parades had finished, I was walking up Whitehall and there, to my astonishment, walking on his own and without any security, was the Deputy Prime Minister. I said hello and wondered what he was doing. John had seen a group of Arctic convoy veterans on the other side of Whitehall. A seafarer himself, he had gone over to speak to the men who had endured such appalling hardship during the last couple of years of the war, and said to them, “I’m going to fight to make sure that you guys get a campaign medal after all these years, recognising what you’ve done.” They did get the medal, and I got the message. I understood why he had been so phenomenally successful from humble roots: he connected, he got on with people and he was very human. We mourn his passing, but perhaps we also mourn the passing of big working-class characters in politics. We need far more of them.