Chris Philp
MP for Croydon South · Conservative · United Kingdom
“The Minister mentioned return numbers, but what she did not mention is that the return of 6,000 small-boat migrants in the past two and a bit years amounts to only 8% of illegal immigrants crossing the channel. That is to say, 92% of illegal immigrants crossing get to stay. There is no deterrent whatsoever in that.”
“I cannot give all the many examples, in the interests of time, but they cited one example in which apparently hundreds of Pakistani men claimed to be gay, based on a letter from an individual claiming to be the sexual partner of all of them. That is quite clearly fabricated with the assistance of immigration lawyers.”
“I was on the beaches of northern France just a few weeks ago, waist deep in water as one such dinghy embarked with about 100 illegal immigrants on it, while 10 members of the French gendarmerie nationale, who we pay for—who the Home Secretary pays for—with £660 million of our money, almost all of it unconditional, stood by and did nothing…”
“Numerous rapes have been committed by small-boat illegal immigrants, including the rape of a girl in Nuneaton aged just 12. The Government are using sleight of hand. They are moving illegal immigrants from hotels into apartments, then granting them asylum on an industrial scale.”
“I thank my constituency neighbour, the Minister for Policing and Crime, for advance sight of her statement. I am sure that we all agree that the right to protest is a fundamental part of our democracy, but the right to protest should never be violently exercised or cause serious disruption to other people.”
“Since the general election, over 80,000 illegal immigrants have crossed the channel, all illegally and all unnecessarily, because France is a safe country—nobody is fleeing persecution in France. Almost 20,000 have crossed this year alone, and 625 crossed yesterday, with more coming in the early hours.”
The complete record
Every one of 6,642 lines we hold for Chris Philp, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 133.
“Finally, on police funding, she mentioned some numbers for next year’s funding settlement. She will be aware that when I was Policing Minister, we arranged a £922 million increase in funding for frontline policing for this financial year, compared with last year. The numbers she talked about in her statement are much lower than that, so will she give a commitment that any funding increase for frontline policing that she brings forward in the police funding settlement will be at least as big as the one that I announced last year?”
“Lady confirm that the £80 million for this year is secure, and that she and her colleagues will honour the £230 million commitment over the coming four years? Does the Minister agree that it is important that police spend their time actually investigating crime, not policing thought? Does she agree that the guidelines need to be changed, so that police spend time investigating only real crimes, and investigate non-crimes only when there is a real and imminent risk of criminality? That would mean a change to the guidelines. Will she make that change? On the reform programme, we need to see the details of course, but will the Minister confirm that no money will be taken away from local police forces? Will she confirm that police and crime commissioners and chief constables will continue to be fully empowered?”
“Secondly, will the Minister join me in welcoming the fact that in the past seven years, overall crime, as measured by the crime survey for England and Wales—the Office for National Statistics says that is the best measure of crime trends—has come down by 17%? The written statement yesterday, and the Home Secretary’s speech to the National Police Chiefs’ Council yesterday, mentioned the importance of technology, which I feel very strongly about, as the Minister knows. In the March Budget, the previous Chancellor committed to £230 million of spending on police technology over four years, of which this year is the first. About £80 million was due to be spent this year. Will the right hon.”
“Let me welcome the Policing Minister to her role; she is succeeding me in the job that I did in the last Government. I genuinely wish her well in the job, and I hope that she succeeds in it, because it is important for the whole country. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in thanking the police up and down the country for the work that they do to keep us safe. When they put on their uniform to go to work each morning, they take risks that are required of those in few other professions. In March this year, the police headcount hit 149,769—a record number of police, and 3,000 higher than the previous record. My first question is: will the Policing Minister commit to at least maintaining, if not growing, that record number of police officers?”
“That is a 23% increase on the same period last year, and it is a 66% increase on the same period immediately before the election. Why have these numbers of people illegally crossing the channel gone up? The National Crime Agency has told us that we need a deterrent—that we cannot police our way out of this. Even Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, has said that European member states should look at offshore processing. We saw a deterrent system work in Australia, yet Labour scrapped the Rwanda deterrent before it had even started. The first flight had not taken off and that is why the deterrent effect had not commenced. Will the Minister follow Ursula von der Leyen’s advice? Will she emulate the Australians and reinstate the scheme?”
“Between September last year and 30 June this year, the number of people in contingency accommodation, which is Home Office speak for hotels, went down by 47%—it went down—yet under this new Government it is going up. The Minister has told us how many hotels have opened up, will she tell us how many extra people are now in contingency accommodation, compared with 4 July? Will she also commit to always notifying Members of Parliament in advance—at least two weeks in advance—that a hotel will be opening in their constituency? We all know the cause of this problem. It is the illegal and dangerous channel crossings. I am afraid the position has got even worse since the figures my right hon. Friend quoted were drawn up. Since the election, 19,988 people have crossed the channel.”
“I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) on securing this urgent question. He is right to raise this issue. As he said, Labour promised in its manifesto to end the use of hotels, yet the Minister has just admitted at the Dispatch Box that, far from ending the use of hotels, the Government are in fact opening up even more. She has just admitted to 14. Perhaps it should come as no surprise now that, once again, Labour is doing the precise opposite to what it promised in its manifesto. When the Conservatives were in government, they were in fact closing down hotels. Luckily, I have the figures in front of me.”
“It certainly does not undermine the very important principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty.”
“I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I would like to add some context to the question of racial bias. There were allegations of racial bias a few years ago. The system was tested by the national physical laboratory about two years ago and, at the settings used by the police, no racial bias was found. That was one of the conditions set in the Bridges litigation about four years ago, and I hope that gives my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members some reassurance on the question of racial bias. It has been tested by the national physical laboratory.”
“I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; I am looking forward to this debate and to concluding it for the Opposition later. On the question of changing the burden of proof or undermining the concept that someone is innocent until proven guilty, the technology absolutely does not change that. What it does is give the police a reason to stop somebody and check their identity to see whether they are the person wanted for a criminal offence. It certainly does not provide evidence on which a conviction might be secured. In fact, it is no different from the police stopping someone because they are suspicious of them, and it is a lot more accurate than stop and search, about which I am sure the hon. Lady has views. It is simply a tool to enable the police to stop somebody and check their identity to see whether they are the person who is wanted.”
“The vast majority of people are not on the watchlist, as we would expect, and their image is immediately and automatically deleted. Where a person is on the watchlist, the police will stop them and ask if they have any form of identification. To be very clear, no one gets convicted on the basis of that facial recognition match, so it is not overturning the presumption of innocence, and if it turns out that the person stopped is not the person on the watchlist, obviously they can continue on their way. However, if they are the person on the watchlist, a normal criminal investigation will follow, with the normal standards of evidence.”
“It is different from retrospective facial recognition, which we have not debated today and, in the interests of time, I do not propose to go into. As some Members have already said, live facial recognition starts with a watchlist of people who are wanted by the police. It is not the case that anyone can get on that watchlist, which generally comprises people who are wanted for criminal offences—often very serious offences—people who have failed to attend court, and people who are registered sex offenders, where the police want to check that they are complying with their conditions. As people walk down a high street, they are scanned, typically by a CCTV camera on a mobile van, and then compared to the watchlist.”
“It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing the debate and on the characteristically thoughtful manner in which he approached his speech. I think this is the first time that I have appeared opposite the new Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention—the job that I was doing until a few months ago—so let me congratulate her on her appointment. Although I will of course hold the Government to account, I will do everything I can to constructively support her in making a great success of the job, and I really do wish her well in the role. I want to start by reminding colleagues of the way that live facial recognition works.”
“NPL testing is the gold standard of testing and this technology has been tested relatively recently. For the benefit of Members, I will read out what the results of that testing were: “The NPL study found that, when used at the settings maintained by the Met”— that is the 0.6 setting that the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) referred to earlier— “there was no statistically significant difference in the facial recognition technology’s accuracy across” different demographic groups. In other words, the technology as it is being used today—not five years ago, when there were issues—has been certified by the NPL and it has been found that there is not any racial bias at the settings used.”
“That is a good point; we must ensure that the operating procedures are adhered to, and I will come on to that a little later. However, to be absolutely clear, if someone is identified as a match, a normal criminal investigation is conducted to normal criminal standards. Nobody is convicted on the basis of this evidence alone—or, indeed, on the basis of this evidence at all. Let me come to the question about racial disparity. When this technology was first introduced, about seven years ago, there were reports—accurate reports—that there was racial bias in the way that the algorithm operated. The algorithm has been developed a great deal since those days, and it has been tested definitively by the national physical laboratory, the nation’s premier testing laboratory.”
“As we speak, it is arresting criminals in Croydon and elsewhere who would not otherwise be caught. I urge her to continue supporting the police to roll it out. I think some money was allocated in the Budget for the current financial year, to continue developing the technology. I would welcome an update from the Minister on whether that money is still being spent in the current financial year. I do hope it has not somehow been snaffled by the Treasury in a misguided cost-saving effort—”
“There is a debate to be had about whether, for the sake of clarity and democratic accountability, we in Parliament should set something out more formal; my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon made that point. I think there would be some merit in clarifying at a national level where the guidelines sit, but I would not go as far as Europe. If we had done so, those rapists would not have been arrested. I would also be careful to ensure that any legislation is flexible enough to accommodate changing technology. Primary legislation may not be the right vehicle: a regulation-making power might be a more sensible approach, so that things can be kept up to date from time to time. While we consider that, I strongly urge the Minister not to halt the use of the technology.”
“However, it is not true that there is a complete vacuum as far as rules and regulations are concerned. The Bridges case at the Court of Appeal in 2020 looked at how South Wales police were using the technology between 2017 and 2020. It found that some of the ways they were using the technology were not appropriate because they broke rules on things like data protection privacy. It set out in case law the guidelines that have to be adhered to for the technology to be lawful—things like public signage, the rate of accuracy and having no racial bias. Secondly—I do hope I am not taking the Minister’s entire speech—there are guidelines for police. The College of Policing has national authorised professional practice guidelines that the police are supposed to stick to.”
“It is only the fact that they walked past a camera outside East Croydon station or somewhere that has meant they were stopped by the police. They will now have a normal trial with the normal standards of evidence, but they would not have been caught in the first place if not for this technology. I have done quite a lot of public meetings on this. I explain, “These are the people who get caught, and the price the public pay is that you might get scanned when you walk down Croydon High Street, but if you are innocent your picture is immediately deleted.” By and large, the overwhelming majority of the people in Croydon think that a reasonable trade-off. There should be protections, of course. Several hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, have rightly said that there should be guidelines, rules and procedures.”
“The answer is yes: one of the guidelines is that public signage must be displayed telling the public that the technology is in use. Over that period in Croydon, there have been approximately 200 arrests of people who would not otherwise have been arrested, including for all kinds of offences such as class A drugs supply, grievous bodily harm, fraud and domestic burglary. It has also included a man who had been wanted for two rapes dating back to 2017. That wanted rapist would be free to this day if not for this technology. Just a couple of weeks ago, a man was stopped and subsequently arrested in relation to a rape allegation from June this year. There are people who are alleged to have committed rape who would not have been stopped—who would still be walking free—if not for this technology.”
“That means that this technology is 4,500 times less likely to result in someone being inappropriately stopped than a regular stop and search. It therefore hugely—by three orders of magnitude—reduces the likelihood of someone being improperly stopped and searched. I turn to the use of the technology on the ground. I asked for it to be trialled in the centre of Croydon, which is the borough I represent in Parliament. Over the past nine months or so, it has been deployed on a relatively regular basis: about once a week. I believe that the Minister was supposed to go down this morning to have a look; I certainly encourage her to go again as soon as she can. By the way, the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) asked whether people know when the technology is being used.”
“On the misidentification rate, I think the Bridges court case set a standard of a false positive rate of one in 1,000: out of every 1,000 people stopped, 999 are the people the police think they are, while one is misidentified. The Minister may have more up-to-date figures, but from my recollection the system in practice is running at about one in 6,000. That is an extraordinarily high accuracy rate—much more accurate than a regular stop and search. About 25% to 30% of regular physical stops and searches, where a police officer stops someone and searches them for drugs or a knife or something, are successful. About 70% are unsuccessful, while the equivalent figure for live facial recognition is 0.02%.”
“None more so than me. I will conclude by saying that this is an important technology: it takes people off the streets who would otherwise not be caught. The Minister has my support in continuing its roll-out and deployment.”
“(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a statement on the recent increase in dangerous, illegal and unnecessary channel crossings by small boat?”
“Just a few weeks ago, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen encouraged member states to develop their own returns hubs outside the European Union. Will the Minister follow Ursula von der Leyen’s advice and urgently implement offshore processing? May I also draw attention to the success that Belgium has had in stopping boats by the shore? Will the Minister ask France to do the same? Finally, because of their failings Labour are breaking their manifesto pledge to end hotel use, so will she pledge not to open any more hotels?”
“Had they allowed that to go ahead and the scheme to continue, the deterrent effect would by now have started. We know it works, because it worked in Australia under its Operation Sovereign Borders about 10 years ago. We know the deterrent effect of returns works: it worked with Albania where we secured a 93% reduction in arrivals. Do not just take my word for it: the National Crime Agency said that law enforcement alone is not enough and we need an effective removal scheme to deter crossings. The Government’s announcements in Glasgow on Monday are simply not enough, and they repeat work that is under way already. The NCA and I are not the only ones saying that we need a returns deterrent.”
“Shadow Home Secretary; thank you, Mr Speaker. I am afraid the Government’s actions belie the reality. Since they came to office, 17,520 people have crossed the English channel, more than twice the number they have removed. That is one and a half times the number in the previous four months and 15% more than the same period last year. In October alone, last month, 5,417 people crossed, three times higher than in last October. Tragically, since this Government came to office 50 people have lost their lives or gone missing—more than in the previous 18 months put together—and, tragically, that includes 16 women and children. This Government decided—they chose—to cancel the Rwanda scheme before it had even started. The first flight was due to take off, from memory, on 24 July but they cancelled it.”
“The OBR says that it will be 38% of GDP—higher even than we warned when Labour called us liars. That is the highest tax burden ever in our country’s history. So the Government were elected on a false prospectus. The OBR has now told us that will result in lower growth by the end of the forecast period and higher inflation. The truth has finally come out: the Government are going to tax more, they are going to borrow more, and they are going to spend more, and now we know who will pay: working people, to the tune of £19 billion a year.”
“That is £19 billion a year lower wages as a result of yesterday’s Budget. That is not me; that is the OBR. So perhaps the Leader of the House would like to apologise to those working people for the £19 billion pay cut she has just handed them. During the election campaign, Conservative Members warned that Labour’s plans would result in a £2,094 tax increase per working household, and Labour called us liars. I remember being on the radio and the TV, and Labour shadow Ministers at the time—including the Leader of the House, I think—called us liars. We now know the truth: £40 billion a year. That is £2,173 per working household, so about £100 more than we warned. Perhaps she can apologise for that as well. We also warned that the tax burden would increase to 37.4% of GDP.”
“Apparently, working people would not be affected. In the last couple of hours the Chancellor herself, on the BBC, has admitted what we all knew all along: that working people would be affected, as a result of lower wages. In fact, we can quantify that, thanks to the OBR’s analysis—I am now quite a fan of the OBR. It published yesterday its “Economic and fiscal outlook”. It is 205 pages long, so some Labour Members might not have had a chance to read it all, but I have. On page 54, in paragraph 3.11, it tells us exactly how much of that £25 billion national insurance increase will fall on the shoulders of working people. The OBR says that “76 per cent of the total” will result in “lower real wages” for working people. So 76% of that £25 billion increase will fall on the shoulders of working people.”
“Will she come here and apologise for providing that number to the House, given that the OBR report shows that it was simply not true, and certainly does not justify £40 billion-worth of tax rises—the largest tax rises in any Budget in history? Let me turn to election promises and trust in politics, because when we make promises to the public, it is important that we keep them. [ Laughter. ] I do not know why you are laughing, because these are your promises. The Labour party said that its plans did not require any extra tax rises. Yesterday, the Government announced £40 billion-worth of extra tax rises. They said that there would be no increase in national insurance, but yesterday they announced a £25 billion increase in national insurance. Let me turn now to their final fig leaf: working people.”
“The Chancellor asked the Office for Budget Responsibility to produce a report into this matter, which was published yesterday. It is called the “Review of the March 2024 forecast for departmental expenditure limits”—a snappy title. I have read that report, as I am sure others have, and nowhere does it mention £22 billion. That number is not there at all. In fact, the only reference to a number is found on page 2 and in table 1. Even the Treasury, straining every sinew, could only find numbers that added up to £9.5 billion, and even there the OBR says that “it is not possible to judge how much of the £9.5 billion” might actually have been realised. When the Chancellor said that there was a £22 billion black hole, yesterday’s OBR report now proves that that was simply untrue.”
“Mr Speaker, I echo your thanks and congratulations to Robin James, who retires today after 40 years of service. In this House, we all rely on the service of the Clerks, and I know that we are all extremely grateful to Robin for the work that he has done over four decades. I am sure that the whole House will also want to send our thoughts, prayers and best wishes to those affected by the terrible floods currently happening in Spain. Some British citizens are affected as well. It is good that we will have such ample time to debate the Budget, because it raises some extremely serious issues. On 29 July, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stood at the Dispatch Box and told us that there was a £22 billion black hole. That claim has been repeated by Labour Ministers subsequently as a pretext for the tax rises that they planned all along.”
“Does she accept that by engaging in organised campaigning in this way, Labour is putting party interest before national interest, and will she organise that debate? [ Interruption. ]”
“She wrote in that deleted post that there were “10 spots available” for campaigning in the swing state of North Carolina, and she said, “we will sort your housing”. It looks to me as though that is being organised by the Labour party’s director of operations. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is damaging to our national interest—this is a serious point—if the governing party, the Labour party, is organising interference or campaigning in another country’s election? [ Interruption. ] Does she agree that it will make it difficult for His Majesty’s Government to deal with the newly elected Administration in America if the other side wins, and that that will undermine our national interest?”
“Finally, I ask the Leader of the House to organise a debate on foreign interference in elections—an important topic that concerns us all, and something that Members on both sides of the House have criticised. I understand that more than 100 Labour party staffers are enjoying themselves in the United States in the presidential election that is under way. Ministers have claimed that this is all spontaneous and has all been organised and paid for by the staffers themselves, but that claim appears, to put it politely, grossly implausible now that it has emerged in a now-deleted social media post that the whole thing was arranged by the Labour party’s director of operations, Sofia Patel.”
“Will the Leader of the House confirm that he will make a statement upon his return next week? I understand that one of the topics under discussion is the question of reparations. My view is that it is totally wrong to be demanding money, amounting to as much as £18 trillion, for sins—very serious sins—committed hundreds of years ago. Will the Leader of the House confirm that it is her view and the Government’s that it is totally wrong to entertain discussions about reparations in relation to things that happened hundreds and hundreds of years ago? I believe that is the Government’s position, and I believe the Prime Minister has ruled out even entering into discussions on that topic, quite rightly. Will she confirm that that remains the position of His Majesty’s Government?”
“When it comes to the winter fuel payment regulations, which we discussed previously, we should have had the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee before we debated and voted on that important measure. The committee has now finally written its report, and it says that it is concerned about the take-up of pension credit, that the Government’s forecasts of fiscal savings have question marks hanging over them and that we need a full impact assessment, which the Government did not bother providing. The committee has also called for specific changes to the regulations. Will the Leader of the House bring the regulations back to the House for us to consider again now that we have the committee’s report and it has recommended changes? I believe that the Prime Minister is in Samoa attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit.”
“Yesterday, we had regulations that would ordinarily be taken in Committee, and business ended early on Tuesday. We expect that at the end of a Government’s time in office, but it is a little early for this Government to be running out of steam. At this point in the 2019 Parliament, we had had 31 new Bills introduced; we currently have only 18, a third of which had been published or consulted upon previously, and those Bills that are coming forward are being rushed. The Employment Rights Bill, which had its Second Reading on Monday, has much of its policy deferred into regulations, to be debated in Committee at some point in the future, denying the full House the opportunity to properly debate those important issues.”
“It is rather telling that only one Government Member appears to be excited about the prospect of the Budget next week. They obviously know what is coming. Let me start by congratulating Morgan Edwards on his appointment as director of customer experience and service delivery here in Parliament. He starts his role in December. Apparently he was previously employed at Legoland in Windsor. Quite why the parliamentary authorities thought someone with experience of presiding over squabbling juveniles was well suited to working here, I really do not know. I have to say that the business has been a little thin in recent weeks. We have a general debate today and a general debate on Monday—we have had no fewer than 10 days of general debate so far.”
“150C (Appointment of Independent Expert Panel Chair and Members) and for a period of 6 years from 25 November 2024: (1) Sir Adrian Fulford be appointed as Chair of the Independent Expert Panel; and (2) Lyndsey de Mestre, Andrew Hoyle and Wendy Williams CBE be appointed as members of the Independent Expert Panel.”
“As the Leader of the House has said, Sir Adrian Fulford is an extremely distinguished, very senior member of the judiciary, and the other three members being appointed have extremely impressive professional and legal backgrounds as well. I particularly add my endorsement to Wendy Williams, who I worked with at the Home Office when I was Minister of State for Police and Crime and she was one of His Majesty’s inspectors of constabulary and fire & rescue services. She certainly discharged those duties with great effectiveness, as I saw during my time as a Minister in that Department. I am only too pleased to endorse the remarks that the Leader of the House has made. Question agreed to. Resolved , That, in accordance with Standing Order No.”
“I will not detain the House long, Members will be delighted and relieved to hear—I can see that is a popular position. I simply echo the sentiments that the Leader of the House expressed. The Independent Expert Panel obviously plays an extremely important role in scrutinising allegations of misconduct, and it is right that there is an independent mechanism to do that, free from political interference. I add my thanks to the thanks that the Leader of the House has expressed already to the outgoing members, and in particular to Sir Stephen, the inaugural Chair of the IEP. I add my commendation for the newly nominated members.”
“Once again, I find myself in agreement with the Leader of the House on the substance of this issue. Perhaps it will become a habit; I do not know. The Opposition support the intention behind the motion. Clearly, if a Member of Parliament has a serious long-term illness or injury, it is reasonable that that Member can still exercise his or her vote even if absent. However, I should like to know how the threshold will be defined. Who decides whether a particular Member has or has not met the threshold, and what sort of evidence will be required? Might it be, for instance, a doctor’s certificate? That may be the kind of question that the Procedure Committee will answer. I should be interested to know the thoughts of the Leader of the House on those specific practical questions, but in principle we support this change.”
“Even the European Commission is now looking at a Rwanda-style scheme. Will the right hon. Lady therefore consider reinstating the scheme, given that the European Commission itself is now looking at it? And why have the Government closed the Bibby Stockholm, leaving them instead frantically renting expensive hotels? The Government are failing on illegal immigration. The country and the House need answers.”
“The Government initially denied that the Met was pressured, which now appears to be untrue. Will the Government finally come clean and tell the truth about exactly what pressure was put on the Met and by whom? Finally, will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on illegal immigration and asylum accommodation? It emerged this week that the Government are seeking even more hotels, at huge expense, to cater for the large number of illegal arrivals. Over 13,000 illegal immigrants have crossed the channel by small boat since the election. The Government must now regret cancelling the Rwanda scheme before it had even started. The deterrent effect would by now have kicked in. We have seen the same approach work in Australia. We have seen the deterrent effect work with returns to Albania.”
“Apparently, the Home Secretary, the Attorney General, the Mayor of London and, inevitably, Sue Gray then pressured the police into changing their mind and providing one, violating the police’s operational independence. We now know that among the many freebies that the Prime Minister has eagerly scrounged for himself were tickets and a backstage pass to that very concert. And it was not just him: the Home Secretary, the Science Secretary, the Culture Secretary, the Health Secretary, the Education Secretary, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Minister for School Standards and the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary all had free tickets too. What were they doing? Having a Cabinet meeting at the concert? Does the Leader of the House understand how bad this looks?”
“Another man phoned in to say he was closing down too. This Government are driving businesses to close and making successful people leave the country. Their policies will destroy jobs and reduce the amount of tax collected. I say to them sincerely that there is time in the next 13 days to stop and think again. I appeal directly to Labour Back Benchers, whom the Prime Minister is more likely to listen to than me, to please appeal to their Prime Minister to think again. Otherwise, his personal poll ratings—already minus 36%—are likely to plummet further. Speaking of the Prime Minister, will the Leader of the House arrange a statement on the special police escort for Taylor Swift? It is reported that the police decided initially that no special escort was needed.”
“The Institute of Directors called it “a poll tax on business” and said that “the costs will be borne by workers.” My final witness is Rachel, from Leeds, who apparently used to work briefly at the Bank of England. In 2021, the Chancellor herself admitted that a rise in employers’ national insurance is, in fact, in her words, a “tax on working people”. Now, Labour Members could have been honest in the election and made the argument for the increase, but they were not honest; they pretended that they had no intention of increasing NI, to trick people into voting for them. However, this is not just about Labour’s election dishonesty. In a Radio 5 Live phone-in yesterday, I spoke to a man who is closing down his business and leaving the country because of the high taxes and increased regulation proposed by this Government.”
“There was not much enthusiasm from Labour Members when the Leader of the House announced that—I cannot imagine why. Labour solemnly pledged in its manifesto that it would not raise national insurance, so raising employer’s NI would break that promise, as well as hitting working people and destroying jobs. But hon. Members should not just take my word for it. Paul Johnson of the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies said that Labour’s NI plan is “a straightforward breach” of its manifesto commitment. The Federation of Small Businesses said it would be “a clear manifesto breach” and will “hit working people”. UKHospitality said it is “a tax on jobs”. The British Chambers of Commerce said it will “hobble growth and lead to…less money to invest” in workers.”