Mike Tapp
MP for Dover and Deal · Labour · United Kingdom
“I thank the right hon. Member for her passionate intervention. We took on her Government’s open borders. Over the last year, we have seen a reduction of around 41% in small boat crossings.”
“It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for clearly and comprehensively articulating the key facets of the petition that has resulted in us all being here on this sunny afternoon.”
“I am absolutely fed up of being lectured by the Opposition, who gave us this problem. It is like being lectured by the arsonist on putting out the fire. I will go absolutely no further with that. I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock).”
“The hon. Member’s party had 14 years to make changes, but they absolutely failed. We inherited their open borders and their broken system, but we are working hard behind the scenes, as we speak, to make the ECHR more fit for purpose. Let me move on to the contribution of my hon.”
“The Home Secretary made it clear at Home Office oral questions that the announcement on the five to 10 years absolutely stands. We opened a large consultation and had 200,000 responses that are still being worked through. Announcements on transition arrangements and so on will be made in due course—around the autumn, we expect.”
“Friend the Member for Hartlepool that we must mind our rhetoric, because the public do listen to what we say in this place. I have not eaten much today, and the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth talked about some fine-sounding snacks being delivered by Deliveroo.”
The complete record
Every one of 350 lines we hold for Mike Tapp, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 7.
“That will provide further certainty and stability for our Ukrainian guests, so they can continue to benefit from the same rights and entitlements to access work, benefits, healthcare and education. More information on the extension will be made available in due course. I turn to article 8. The Government’s asylum policy statement sets out our plans to tighten the application of article 8 of the ECHR, specifically on claims relating to the right to family and private life, to ensure that it reflects a fair balance between individual circumstances and the UK’s economic and social interests. There is no risk of abandoning the ECHR, which underpins trade deals, peace agreements and returns agreements; this is about making it fit for purpose in modern times.”
“I thank the hon. Member for his question, and I apologise for not hearing him the first time. Yes, this is a consideration for the safe and legal routes, and I fully agree that issues of faith and persecution must be fully considered within them. I will make some progress. The Government have already taken significant steps to further extend support. Since February 2025, individuals in the UK under one of the Ukraine visa schemes have been eligible to apply to the UPE scheme for permission to stay for an additional 18 months in the UK. On 1 September, the Government announced that the UPE scheme would be extended for a further 24 months, following the initial 18 months’ permission.”
“Tom Curry sounds very much like the sort of man I would like to meet—a good bloke and obviously a fantastic campaigner. A number of specific cases have been cited in the course of discussions, all of them deeply moving, and I will go through some of them. The hon. Member talked about a number of extremely emotional incidents that have happened in Manchester, including two incidents of leg-crushing by vehicles. The fear that must have been felt by those officers is unspeakable. Tom Curry, who I have already mentioned, is one of your constituents, I believe. He started the campaign, and I thank him for that.”
“Before this debate, I had a quick chat with my dad and asked whether he had sustained any injuries. He told me that only his ego had been injured, when he was stuck in a lift with nine other overweight officers and they had to call the fire brigade to get them out. That did make the papers—the headline was “Podgy PCs in a jam”. On a more serious note, a lot of the points that have been raised resonate with me personally, and it is in that spirit that I express my sincere gratitude to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) for securing the debate. As was evident from the knowledge and passion with which the hon. Member spoke, this is an issue about which he feels strongly, as do other Members who contributed, to whom I am also thankful.”
“I begin by adding my voice to what I consider to be the prevailing sentiment emerging from today’s discussion, which is that our police officers, firefighters, paramedics and other emergency service personnel are the very best of us. We owe them a massive debt of thanks for the work they do to keep us safe, and for always answering the call when we need help. As a Home Office Minister, I am responding to this debate on behalf of the Government, but as the son of a career police officer and having worked in law enforcement myself, I have listened to today’s discussion with especially keen interest. Every day that my dad went to work, we worried, and I know that the same is true for all the families in the Gallery and the family of every officer who has served.”
“Senior officials have spoken many times to leaders of the campaign; indeed, the previous Minister for Policing met a number of them to hear their thoughts on this important matter. My understanding of the situation is that work continues to identify whether a medal is the best method of recognising emergency services workers who are injured as a result of their duties, and whether it is viable. I realise that the hon. Member for Cheadle and other Members in favour of his proposal would wish me to go further and make a commitment. Respectfully, and with full recognition of the importance of the issue in question, I am afraid I cannot do so today. What I can say is that when any decision is made, it will be communicated to all interested parties, including those in the Gallery today.”
“When dedicated public servants suffer serious injuries in the course of their duties, it is of course incumbent on us as a state and a society to wrap our arms around them and ensure that they are given all the support they need. I turn to the specific focus of the debate. I will summarise the Government’s position, but I will do so with full recognition that I am a relative latecomer to this debate, as has been set out by others in a very long-running discussion. I commit to take any outstanding questions away, including on the case that the hon. Member for Cheadle raised. The first point to make is that the Home Office is well aware of the proposal under discussion.”
“I thank him very much for that. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) for his considered approach. He mentioned Elsie Galt, to whom I send my thanks, who suffered from a road traffic accident. There are clearly physical effects that can have significant or, in the most serious examples, life-changing consequences. Then there is the emotional and psychological impact, which, again, can last for years or even a lifetime. We must always remember that the impact of such incidents is felt not only by the individuals themselves, but by their loved ones, their colleagues and their families.”
“Routine policing can become dangerous at any moment. While we are safe in here, the police are out there on the streets putting their lives at risk. The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) spoke about Bill Maddocks, a firefighter. It sounds like an extremely complex case, so I will not comment on that at this moment. If the hon. Member will write to me and the Minister for Policing and Crime, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), we can get into the detail. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) gave a considered statement, which I thank him for, and mentioned PC Geoff Newham, who was involved in a crash and was injured. After his injury, his trying to solve complex issues, such as county lines, demonstrates the dedication to service that so many in our police forces and emergency services have.”
“Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) talked about Andrew Barr, who served with the Met police for 16 years, as well as with search and rescue. Service is often in the blood of those who serve with the police force, and that is why they often volunteer in other ways. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) talked about air crash injuries and Councillor Coles, who rightly praises the fire brigade. As with the police, every day while we are in this place, the fire brigade officers literally run towards danger, and I thank them. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) made a really good point about high-profile cases that the press pick up on, when we all send out to the country our thanks to the police, but we must remember that the unnamed do not get that from the media.”
“My apologies. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) mentioned Sue Mitchell, who in November 1984 was also subject to ramming by car. She actually managed to commit an arrest, which shows immense bravery on the ground. The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) talked about Robert Gifford, who served with the British Transport police and witnessed the Ladbroke Grove train crash, which must have been harrowing in many ways. The hon. Member mentioned another constituent, who was beaten by thugs. That demonstrates the challenges our officers experience every day out there on the ground. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) spoke about Ian, who served for 30 years in Thames Valley police, and I thank him for his service. The hon.”
“I cannot give a timescale right here and now, but I will meet the Policing Minister in the next week and we will come back to you with an answer on that.”
“That is why the British model for such recognition is highly respected across the globe. My reason for mentioning that is not to offer a commentary on the merits of the proposal we are debating today, but to set the discussion in its proper context. I wholeheartedly agree with the general notion that acts of extraordinary courage, sacrifice or selflessness should be recognised and celebrated. Having worked in law enforcement and served in the military, I am behind that notion. That is why in policing, for example, we have worked closely with forces and staff associations to increase the number of officers and staff receiving formal gallantry awards.”
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the spirit of his question. I reassure the House and those in the Gallery that the Policing Minister is a Minister who has authority. We saw that in the past week with the scrapping of police and crime commissioners—something that is well overdue. That came well and truly from the Minister, but of course she will have heard these words today. If Members will indulge me for a second, I will set out some general points about medallic recognition that are relevant to the debate and my response. In this country, all medals are a gift from Government on behalf of the monarch. They are instituted by royal warrant and sit firmly under royal prerogative powers. The advantage of this is that we keep our medal system above the political fray, and no amount of political patronage can affect the criteria.”
“I thank all Members for their contributions and of course all those in the Gallery. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Cheadle for securing this debate and for advancing this cause with such care and enthusiasm. I hope he will understand that I am not in a position to make a commitment on the proposal he has put forward. However, I have heard what has been said across the House and will ensure that my ministerial colleagues with responsibility for this area are fully aware of it. As I said, I will have a meeting next week. For the risks that our officers face and the sacrifices that they make, they are the epitome of public service. They are, to put it simply, all heroes. On behalf of the Government and our country, I finish by thanking them for everything that they do.”
“They have their own meaning and impact, and I think it is important that that point is made. However, recognition is not just about payments or medals; it is about how we treat people during and after their service. Through the police covenant, we are ensuring that officers and staff who are injured physically or psychologically receive the support they need both during service and after they leave. To turn briefly to the Elizabeth Emblem, which was raised during the debate, I have been informed that extending it to cover those injured on duty is simply not viable. Aside from potentially disrupting the Elizabeth Emblem, for which some recipients have waited 80 years, extending it would fundamentally alter the nature of the award. It is not normal practice for medal cohorts to be expanded. Normally, a new medal would be created.”
“I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We are having the debate in this House today, but the point stands that the decision is not a political one. We know that for a great many emergency service personnel, their work is more than a job. It is a vocation, which they do because they feel passionate about serving our country and helping others. For those who have to leave the job they love due to injury, that is an immensely painful experience. Every effort must be made to support them in adjusting to their new circumstances. On the financial impact, to use the example of policing, depending on the injury and its severity, a gratuity and a pension may be payable through existing provisions. Financial awards are not a substitute for medals, but they are not nothing.”
“UK Visas and Immigration makes millions of decisions every year about who has permission to visit or stay in the UK, protecting our borders and delivering excellent customer service across the globe. Where customers require refunds, UKVI officials ensure that they are made as swiftly as possible.”
“I am aware of those three specific issues, and I reassure my hon. Friend that we are looking at them. I am happy to talk to him in more detail offline.”
“An arbitrary limit on legal migration would serve no one. As we have seen in the past, attempts to implement such caps have been unsuccessful. I remind the hon. Member of the 1 million in one year under the previous Government, undercutting British workers. Instead, this Government have set out a plan to reduce net migration by restoring control to the immigration system, reducing our reliance on overseas labour, and investing in domestic skills.”
“It is always amusing to be lectured about immigration by the Conservative party. There are more sophisticated ways to address high net migration, and this Government are doing that by tackling the underlying causes of over-reliance on migrant labour by employers, alongside raising the bar for who can come to the UK, and targeted visa restrictions.”
“The Government remain steadfast in their support for Hongkongers in the UK, and remain fully committed to the British national overseas route. We will consult on the earned settlement scheme shortly, and everyone will be welcome to participate.”
“Absolutely. Across the board we recognise the contribution from migrant communities, and specifically the Hong Kong community. We are listening to their views about the route to settlement, and will continue to do so.”
“We take extremely this seriously in the Home Office, but it is out of control after the previous Government left us with a broken system. That is why in just over a year and a half we have increased arrests by 50% and visits by 64%—the highest in British history—and we will continue on that route.”
“The draft regulations support the Government’s ambitions to reduce overall levels of net migration and to aid our resident workforce in finding high-quality jobs through skills training. I commend them to the Committee.”
“The draft regulations make a minor update to the list of exempt occupations to reflect the latest occupational codes from the Office for National Statistics. They do not add or remove any occupations that are currently exempt, but in some cases reflect where occupations have been separated from groups. The immigration White Paper set out a comprehensive plan to restore order to our broken immigration system. We must ensure that the immigration system strikes the right balance between bringing in workers who can fill skills gaps and investing in our domestic workforce. The immigration skills charge is designed to ensure that employers contribute to our continued investment in developing the skills that the country needs, sending the clear message that immigration should not be relied on as an easy alternative.”
“The money raised will continue to support skills programmes and give those already in the UK the opportunity to fill high-quality jobs needed for the future growth of the country. Upskilling workers already here in the UK will also help us to fill future jobs from within our country. That will reduce the need for businesses and organisations to rely on recruiting international workers, in turn helping to bring down overall levels of net migration. The Government have been clear that the levels of net migration have been too high and must continue to come down. As is the case now, there will continue to be exemptions from the charge, such as employers seeking to recruit people into PhD-level occupations or to recruit a person who is switching from the student route, or where the person is being recruited for less than six months.”
“As education and skills are devolved, the income raised helps to maintain funding levels for each of the devolved nations. It is distributed between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland using the formula devised by Lord Barnett. The draft regulations give effect to the commitment in the Government’s immigration White Paper, published on 12 May, to raise the cost of the immigration skills charge by 32% in line with inflation. From 16 December 2025, therefore, medium-sized and large employers will need to pay £1,320 per person they sponsor per year. There will continue to be a reduced rate for small and charitable organisations of £480 per person per year.”
“Senior and specialist workers also pay the charge, unless they are an EU national coming to work in the UK for less than three years. The increase will not prevent service supply by intra-corporate transferees from continuing, as it does now in line with our international trade commitments. The charge is paid up front when the employer assigns a certificate of sponsorship to a migrant worker and is calculated automatically based on dates provided by the employer as part of the sponsorship process. The charge has raised approximately £2.7 billion since it was introduced. The income provides financial support to help maintain existing skills budgets across the United Kingdom, which is important for a range of reasons, such as ensuring that immigration is not seen as the sole solution to dealing with the skills needs in our economy.”
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2025. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. The immigration skills charge was introduced in April 2017. Its aim is to incentivise UK-based employers, including the UK branches and subsidiaries of overseas businesses, to take a long-term view of investment and training. It is designed to address historical under-investment in training domestic workers by UK employers and to deter some from turning to immigration as a cheaper alternative. The skills charge is paid by employers looking to sponsor skilled workers for visas lasting more than six months. It also applies if they wish to extend the employment for a further limited period.”
“I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions. I am pleased that the hon. Member for West Suffolk agrees with this policy. There is endless amusement for me in being lectured by the Conservatives on the immigration system. I hope that continues, because we need some amusement in this place.”
“The scheme will grow and as it grows, it will form more of a deterrent to those sitting in Calais. We look forward to that. I welcome the questions of the hon. Member for Woking about the NHS. His points are valid. However, we are clear that we need to ensure that the public sector, as well as the private sector, recruits from the British workforce. There are plenty of young people, and elderly people, who would love to—and could—work in the NHS. The measures will encourage that.”
“The crossing rates are very similar to those of 2022. In 2018, 400 crossed; more than 150,000 have crossed since then. There is no doubt that we inherited open borders from the Conservatives, and that is why the amusement continues. We have said that we will do whatever it takes. By that we mean that there is more to come. I am not going to ruin the party with policy announcements in this Committee. Regarding the Gazan refugees, we are a firm but fair Government. Where we need to help people, we will. It is a shame that that view is not shared by the Opposition. I will touch on the pilot scheme with France, which was criticised. It is what it says on the tin: a pilot. The Conservatives were begging for that pilot from the French, but obviously could not strike the deal.”
“When we froze the social care visa route, lots of consultation was conducted to ensure that we fully understood the implications. We fully understand that to go in the right direction for this country we need to incentivise the public sector and the private sector to recruit from the skills that we have here. We are the sixth richest nation on Earth: there is a lot of talent here; we did not get there by accident. We must continue to encourage all companies and the public sector to recruit from within. Question put and agreed to .”
“This Government remain committed to supporting Ukraine following Russia’s vile, illegal invasion. I acknowledge the warmth and generosity shown by so many local communities in supporting Ukrainians in the UK. Since the conflict began, more than 300,000 Ukrainians have been offered temporary sanctuary through the dedicated Ukraine schemes. Ukrainians can still apply to the Homes for Ukraine scheme with a UK sponsor and, once here, extend their stay to a total of 3.5 years, as recently announced.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for her congratulations and her hard work in this area. The UK Government have been clear from the outset that the Ukraine schemes are temporary and do not offer a direct route to settlement. The Ukraine permission extension scheme reflects our strong humanitarian commitment while also—this is important—respecting Ukraine’s wish for its citizens to return, when safe, to support national recovery. The long-term position is under active consideration, and further details will be provided at the earliest opportunity.”
“The Conservatives gave up on law and order. They betrayed our country and let criminals run riot. Now, they desperately post wannabe superhero videos, shamelessly pointing at the problems they created. Last week, they had the chance to put it right, and what did they do? They voted against tough action on knife crime, on antisocial behaviour and on violence against women and girls. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that they should hang their heads in shame for failing to protect our streets?”
“The Iranian regime hangs gay people from cranes. It funds and arms terror groups, and arms Vladimir Putin. A regime such as that must never have nuclear weapons. What will the Foreign Secretary do to prevent it from ever achieving its goals?”
“There is no place in our country for foreign offenders who pose a serious risk to the public. This Government are already returning more foreign national offenders than the Conservatives did when they were in power. Does the Minister agree that the Tories are clearly all talk and no action?”
“National security decisions and debate should be led by facts, not political point scoring, as we have seen today. Does the Secretary of State agree that had the Conservatives performed some sort of miracle and stayed in government at the election, they too would have signed this deal, and we would have supported that in the interests of national security?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. The new Rail Baltica, under construction from Warsaw to Estonia, is a potentially useful project to assist troop movement, if needed in the future. Does the Minister agree that we and our allies need to be agile to respond to the threats emanating from Russia, particularly in support of Baltic states such as Estonia?”
“I thank the Home Secretary for this important statement, and I thank our security services—the finest in the world—for keeping us safe. It is important that we have tools to assess the threat or potential threat posed by those who arrive through irregular means, such as small boats. Can the Home Secretary update the House on progress made to intelligence sharing with our international partners?”
“The Port of Dover has ambitious targets to be the first green shipping corridor. What are the Government’s plans to ensure sufficient power supplies to the port for ships to plug into?”
“T6. I am absolutely delighted to see the Government pushing forward with the new lower Thames crossing. Are there plans to explore widening the carriage in the parts that need it from the crossing to Dover to assist trade transit?”
“The Opposition like to talk about and obsess over caps. Does the Home Secretary agree that it might have been sensible for the previous Government to place a cap on the number of Home Secretaries they had to churn through to deliver their failed open-border project?”
“I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his condescending tone after his deluded rant. I must say to him that he is misleading the House: 400 crossed in 2018, and more than 150,000 have crossed since. The majority of those were on the Conservative Government’s watch, so how they can claim that that happened on Labour’s watch is beyond me. As the new expert—”
“Q5. While the last Government resorted to damaging keyboard diplomacy, this Government are leading, bringing 14 nations together this week to tackle illegal immigration. Like the Prime Minister, I have seen at first hand how counter-terror powers can disrupt threats before lives are lost. That same approach is essential in dismantling the smuggling networks. Does he agree that it is time that the Conservatives and Reform dropped the posturing, put national security first and backed our borders Bill?”
“It is widely accepted across the whole country, including in my constituency, that the Conservatives left us with open borders, with 150,000 people crossing on their watch and the opening of 400 asylum hotels, costing our taxpayers £9 million per day. This Government have already established Border Security Command and have deported 19,000 people; that is record numbers, up 24% from what the Opposition could achieve. We are also bringing in counter-terror powers to take on the smuggling gangs. Does the Minister agree that the Opposition need to get behind our Bill, so that those counter-terror powers can empower the National Crime Agency to take out the smuggling gangs?”
“The hon. Member has a lot to say in Opposition, but the big question is: why did he not do this when the current Opposition were in government?”
“Increased public interest in the hearings could lead to more appeals and challenges, which would cause more delays and inefficiencies in the system. Finally, the new clause is simply unnecessary as courts already have the discretion to allow public access when appropriate. It would remove vital judicial flexibility.”