YouSaid · the spoken record
Chris Philp
Lines from Political Thinking with Nick Robinson have been withdrawn from this page while we check who is speaking. See the correction.
On the record 2015–2026
hansard
This is everything the corpus holds for Chris Philp. It is not everything they have said on the record.
Every line below is reproduced as it was said and credited to the record it came from, and links to that record wherever it can be linked. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections
“When I was Policing Minister about a year ago, I provided some funding to invest in exploring new technology to scan for knives at a distance of perhaps 10 metres—not very far. That would mean that people walking down the street in areas where knife crime is a problem could be scanned and, if they had a knife concealed on their person, it would be identified. About a year ago, that technology was emerging and I put the money behind it to develop it to the point where it could be deployed. I was told by the company doing that, and by Home Office officials, that by about spring 2025, a version of that technology would be available that could be used experimentally on the street.”
House of Commons10 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I encourage the Government to get police forces to use stop and search more, and to amend legislation, including PACE—the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—code A, to make the use of stop and search easier. I spoke to a police officer in Croydon last Sunday, and he said that he felt that the police were worried about misconduct proceedings if they used the power of stop and search. I would like to make it easier for police officers to use those powers to protect the public. I would like to hear the Government’s views on that, but we are minded to table amendments in this area to give the police more confidence to use stop-and-search powers to save the lives of people like Elianne.”
House of Commons10 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In addition to the measures in the Bill, which we will support, I would be grateful if the Policing Minister could confirm that the patrolling of hotspots, started under the last Government, will continue in areas where knife crime is a problem, and that the funding will continue. That could make an important difference. It is also important that stop-and-search powers are used. In my view, taking knives off the street is the most important thing. In London, in the past, stop and search took about 400 knives a month off the streets—knives that could have been used to kill someone like Elianne. I am concerned that stop-and-search numbers are down due to misplaced concerns about community tension.”
House of Commons10 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There are some measures in the Bill that are designed to address knife crime. We will support those measures; I am sure that all hon. Members want to fight the scourge of knife crime, which is responsible for about a third of all homicides. Almost all hon. Members will have encountered a constituency case; I will never forget attending the funeral of 15-year-old Elianne Andam in Croydon. She was murdered at 8.30 am on the morning of 27 September 2023 on Wellesley Road in central Croydon by a 17-year-old perpetrator with a knife. I will never forget seeing the grief that her parents and her little brother Kobi suffered. I am sure that we would all want to fight knife crime for that reason.”
House of Commons10 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am sure that that is not the Government’s intention, but that is what could happen if the change is made. The second adverse consequence is that if lots of shoplifting cases that are currently heard in the magistrates court end up in the Crown court before a jury, valuable and scarce Crown court jury trial time that should be used for serious cases such as rape, murder and grievous bodily harm will be taken up with shoplifting. I understand that the Home Secretary wants to send a signal—I really do—but I ask the Government to reflect carefully on the potential unintended consequences. That is a serious point, and I ask the Government to consider it. The change may end up having the opposite effect from what they intend. The Home Secretary raised one or two other things that I would like to talk about, the first of which is knife crime.”
House of Commons10 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is a serious point, and I genuinely ask the Home Secretary to think about it carefully. When the offence is made either-way, rather than summary only, lots of people who are charged will elect to have a Crown court jury trial instead of a magistrates court trial. A magistrates court trial, for a not guilty plea, is generally heard in six to eight weeks—it is relatively quick—but a Crown court jury trial could take a year and a half to be heard. The first adverse consequence that I would caution about is that, instead— [ Interruption. ] I am making a serious point, so it would be good for hon. Members to think about it. Instead of those cases being heard in the magistrates court in six to eight weeks, there could be a delay of one and a half years.”
House of Commons10 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Home Secretary claims that this alteration will herald some sort of extraordinary change in the way shoplifting is treated, but I would respectfully refer her to page 28 of her economic note 1007, which I am sure Members present have all read—silence. Paragraph 144 says that the central scenario in the Government’s impact assessment assumes that the number of charges, with this change, will remain constant. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, there will be no change in the number of charges as a result of this alteration. The Home Secretary points to this matter as some kind of silver bullet, but I am afraid to say that her own impact assessment says something very different indeed. The measure has potentially adverse consequences too.”
House of Commons10 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am just going to develop a point, and then I will be happy to take interventions—particularly from the Home Secretary. In 2014, it was changed from being an either-way offence to a summary-only offence. Either-way means the offence can be tried in the magistrates court or the Crown court; summary-only means magistrates court only. It was still a criminal offence, and people could still be convicted and sentenced to up to a year in prison for committing it—it certainly was not decriminalised. In fact, the Government’s own impact assessment says that about 90% of the charges for shoplifting involved goods under £200 and were tried in a magistrates court. If it was ineffective, why did 90% of charges relate to goods under £200?”
House of Commons10 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Moreover, those local inquiries do not have the statutory powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 to compel witnesses to give evidence. The chairs of the Manchester local inquiry resigned last year because, even then, public authorities were covering this up. We need a national statutory inquiry, and we intend to amend the Bill to achieve that if the Government will not agree to one. Local councils and councillors, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service were all involved to a greater or lesser extent in ignoring or even covering up these terrible offences. We need to get to the truth.”
House of Commons10 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we are to prosecute these offences, put more potential perpetrators in prison and, critically, protect the public, we need to detect more of the knives that are routinely carried on our cities’ streets. That means more stop and search and the use of knife-scanning technology of the kind I just described to identify those knives before they are used. My right hon. Friend put it very powerfully. The Opposition may also be minded to table amendments on the setting up of a statutory national inquiry into rape gangs. For some reason the Government have only set up local inquiries in five areas. Some local authorities are refusing to hold inquiries, which is scandalous. About 50 towns are affected, so inquiries into just five of them is not good enough.”
House of Commons10 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Lady will know that child grooming falls under the portfolio of the Safeguarding Minister who, during the Conservatives’ time in office, had dozens of meetings on that topic. I had multiple meetings on Operation Soteria, which is designed to combat rape and serious sexual assault. I think that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are keen to move on to Back-Bench speeches, since there is so much interest in this Bill.”
House of Commons10 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I support my hon. Friend’s proposals around first cousin marriage. The health implications are deeply alarming. We could take that forward in the Bill and put it to a vote of the House. Lastly, will the Policing Minister provide an update on the use of technology to combat crime, particularly the use of retrospective and live facial recognition, which enables the police to catch criminals who would otherwise not be caught? She knows that I support that strongly, and I would gladly support her if she wants to continue that work.”
House of Commons10 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have to finish now. I am glad to see so many familiar clauses in the Bill. The Opposition broadly support the intent of the Bill, but what really matters is delivery—making sure that those record police numbers mean that we catch criminals and increase the conviction rate. Those police numbers and the results that they deliver are the yardstick by which the Government will be measured. I look forward to scrutinising the Bill as it passes through the House, and to tabling constructive amendments during its various stages.”
House of Commons10 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The system being used is not biased. It has been tested by the National Physical Laboratory, and the bias problems that existed seven or eight years ago have been resolved. The hon. Lady says that the technology is unregulated; it is not. A Supreme Court case set out the parameters, and they are now enshrined in authorised professional practice, which is national College of Policing guidance.”
House of Commons10 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the bounties placed on Hong Kong democracy activists in the United Kingdom by the Chinese Communist party and other authorities in Hong Kong and China.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does that not make clear that giving the Chinese permission to build a mega-embassy in London is completely inappropriate? It will simply be used as a pan-European base for Chinese spying. Are investigations into the perpetrators under way? Why is China not being placed into the enhanced tier under the foreign influence registration scheme? Surely China should be placed into that tier as a matter of urgency. What is the update on the Chinese police stations operating covertly in the United Kingdom? I was briefed on that as Policing Minister a year or so ago. Where are we with those? Finally, the Security Minister says that we will not tolerate this happening. I am sure the whole House will agree with that, but what concrete and tangible action is being taken to prevent these outrages?”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Chloe Cheung was apparently advised by the police to dial 999 if she felt under threat, which strikes me as an inadequate response. I understand that posters appeared near the home addresses of two of those people, and that letters were posted to their neighbours, offering a reward if they were “delivered to the Chinese embassy”. That is completely unacceptable. That cannot be tolerated and robust action must be taken. I have a couple of questions to put, respectfully, to the Security Minister. First, has the Chinese ambassador been summoned by the Foreign Secretary to the Foreign Office to have it explained to him that this is unacceptable and to ask what is being done to stop it? My understanding is that no such summons has been issued, which is unacceptable.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is an incredibly serious issue. The Chinese Communist party is an authoritarian regime which has been persecuting people in Hong Kong, mainland China and elsewhere for some time. Nearly 100 people—that we know about—have been arrested for political reasons in Hong Kong since July last year. It is completely unacceptable that harassment and intimidation takes place now on British soil. It is a gross infringement of the liberty of the individuals concerned and it is an affront to British sovereignty. Bounties, amounting to approximately £100,000 each, have apparently been placed on three people who are in the United Kingdom: Tony Chung, aged 23; Carmen Lau, aged 30; and Chloe Cheung, aged only 17. All fled Hong Kong owing to persecution.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think we should, and we should certainly be using the levers at the Home Office’s disposal, such as visa sanctions—that is to say, not issuing entry visas to people we suspect of being complicit in these activities, or denying visas to high-ranking or other well-connected Iranian officials to act as a deterrent. The Security Minister talked about the wider context of hostile state threats. He said in the previous urgent question that he would address in this statement the question of whether China should be placed in the enhanced FIRS tier—”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I see that the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention—my successor as Policing Minister—the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), is in her place. Is there more that the police could do to investigate this activity? Are we doing enough to provide protective security to potential victims of this activity? It was, in my view, completely unacceptable that the independent Iranian dissident media group had to move temporarily to New York. We should make sure that no one has to move again as a result of these threats. And are we using sanctions enough? The Security Minister mentioned this in his statement, but should we be using more sanctions against individuals in the Iranian regime and organisations that are part of the Iranian security apparatus?”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Is it the Home Secretary, who in 2023 called for outright proscription? Is it the Home Secretary, who in 2024 called for a change in the law about which nothing appears to have been done until today? Or is it Jonathan Hall, who said also in April 2024 that the National Security Act is sufficient? There is some confusion about the Government’s position, which seems to have moved over time, so clarification on that would be welcome. Why is the Home Secretary not introducing outright proscription, as she said she would do in 2023? More needs to be done to counter the threat posed by Iran on our shores. The Security Minister hinted at this towards the end of his statement. For example, are there more diplomats that we could expel who might be undertaking espionage activities or directing some of the activity on British soil?”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister said they do not comment on proscription, but the Home Secretary did comment on it in January 2023, when in opposition, and in unequivocal terms: “The IRGC is behaving like a terror organisation and must be prescribed as such.” She then said in April 2024 that she would like to make changes to the legal architecture. Yet it is only today that the Security Minister has announced the review by Jonathan Hall. Why has it taken seven months to initiate a review, which the now Home Secretary talked about nearly a year ago? Then we come to the views of Jonathan Hall himself, because he said— coincidentally, also in April 2024—that the National Security Act 2023 is good enough for the purposes of dealing with Iran. My question to the Security Minister is this: who is right?”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) —I see he is in his place—for his work in putting that Act on the statute book. Having welcomed this move, I have some questions, however, which are essentially in this vein: is merely requiring registration a strong enough sanction? I put it to the House that it is not, because under FIRS all that is required is registration, and that alone is not enough. We saw our allies, the United States, in 2019 designate the IRGC as a terror organisation; we saw our Canadian allies do the same just last year. Yet I have heard nothing on proscription.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Iran supplies drone technology to Russia and more recently, according to the Foreign Secretary, has supplied ballistic missiles to Russia, which are being used in furtherance of their illegal and barbaric invasion. There is no question that Iran is a hostile state; it promotes terrorism, undermines freedom and undermines democracy. We have recently seen actions by Iran on British soil and journalists being harassed to the point that one media organisation had to relocate its activities—thankfully, only temporarily—from London to New York. That is completely unacceptable. We of course support the Government in the listing of Iran in the enhanced tier of FIRS, and we will support the relevant statutory instrument when it comes before Parliament. I am glad that the National Security Act 2023 is being used, and I pay tribute to my right hon.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Security Minister, once again, for his courtesy in giving me advance sight of his statement. The House should be in no doubt about how serious the threat posed by Iran is. Iran sponsors terror organisations across the middle east. It is an enthusiastic and significant supporter of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen and it backs Shi’a militias in Iraq and Syria. Those organisations kidnap, murder, rape and commit terrorist atrocities. Without Iran’s support, those terror organisations would not be able to operate in the way that they do. Iran therefore bears a heavy burden of responsibility for enabling those terrorist actors to perpetrate atrocities. Let us not forget that Iran is also an enthusiastic supporter of Putin’s murderous regime and its invasion of Ukraine.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Well, he said he would address it, and eagle-eyed Members will notice that he did not address it, so I will ask him the question directly now and there will be no avoidance because there is no further statement. Will he place China in the enhanced tier of FIRS? Will he please confirm that to the House, because I think all of us would support him if he did?”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Border security is fundamental, but between the July election and yesterday, 25,135 people illegally and dangerously crossed the English channel—a 28% increase on the same period 12 months earlier. Does the Home Secretary now regret ignoring the National Crime Agency’s advice that law enforcement alone is not enough and that a removals deterrent is needed?”
House of Commons24 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Home Secretary talks about the Rwanda scheme. Of course, it never even started, as she well knows. The first flight was due to take off after the election, but she cancelled it. She mentions that returns have gone up. What she fails to mention is that the vast majority of those people did not enter the country by small boat. The number of small boat returns went down after this Government came into office, and it represents only 4% of people crossing the English channel. Does she really think that letting 96% of illegal immigrants stay here is going to deter anybody?”
House of Commons24 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is testimony to him—and a memorial that will last forever—that Southend is now a city, but let us also learn the lessons and take the actions needed to ensure that this does not happen again.”
House of Commons12 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That consideration is relevant, of course, to the Valdo Calocane case, as well as to some of the other cases I have mentioned. The Bill as drafted, for reasons that Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care have set out, makes it harder to detain people under the Mental Health Act. I am concerned that that might inadvertently have adverse implications for public safety, if people who should be detained under the Mental Health Act to protect the public might now not be detained. That is a matter of concern. I know that the Security Minister will want to respond specifically to that issue. This matter started from a terrible tragedy. Sir David was more than just a loved colleague: he was a husband and father who lost his life in the course of doing his duty as a Member of Parliament.”
House of Commons12 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That strongly suggests on the face of it that Prevent is under-engaging those with Islamist ideologies who go on to commit serious offences. I know that the Shawcross review in part addressed that issue, but it is so serious and the disparity so stark that I would appreciate the Security Minister’s views on that. That is a topic that a further inquiry might address. The second area, which the Security Minister and I briefly discussed on Monday evening, concerns the Mental Health Bill currently making its way through the House of Lords. Many of the cases entail extremist terrorist ideology, but many also touch on mental health issues and whether better treatment should be given or, indeed, whether people should be sectioned and detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 to protect the public.”
House of Commons12 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It strikes me that there are systemic issues, both with the failure of Prevent to identify and stop potential perpetrators and, associated with that, with the operation of the mental health system and whether more could be done. Because these are systemic issues, I think a more formal inquiry is merited, and I would welcome the Security Minister’s views on that. On the more systemic issues, there are two things on which I would be interested to hear the Security Minister’s response. I mentioned them to him individually a few days ago. The first is that in the past 26 years, 94 out of 101 murders committed by terrorists in the United Kingdom since 1999 were committed by Islamist terrorists. That is 94%, yet for the most recent figures available, only 13% of the Prevent caseload relates to Islamist extremism.”
House of Commons12 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“While I welcome the fact that the report has been published, and that the new Prevent commissioner will conduct a further review, there are still questions relating to this case and others that perhaps merit a more formal inquiry to ensure that we get to the bottom of it. There are other cases where there are questions around whether perpetrators of violence either encountered Prevent and could have been better identified and interdicted, or encountered mental health services. Those that may merit further inquiry include: the case of Ahmed Hassan, where 50 people were injured on a tube train following the detonation of a device; the case of Usman Khan on London Bridge; the case of Khairi Saadallah, who murdered three men in Reading; and, the Southport case that we have discussed in this House recently.”
House of Commons12 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Turning to the Prevent learning review, which I recently received and which I believe is about to be published, I noticed that it is a redacted version. I would be grateful if the Security Minister confirmed that nothing material has been redacted. I am sure that it has not, but it would help to have that clarified. We heard in the Security Minister’s statement—and I thank him for the thoughtful and considered way in which he made it—that the Prevent learning review identified a number of failings in the way that Prevent handled the murderer of our late colleague, and that there had been opportunities for further intervention.”
House of Commons12 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Every day, I walk into this Chamber and see his shield up there on the wall opposite—I see Jo Cox’s, too—and I remember David and the loss that we, everyone in his constituency and most of all his family have suffered. I spoke earlier today to Sir David’s wife, Julia, and I pay tribute to her and her daughters for the courage and fortitude they have shown over these past few years in campaigning to get the answers they need. I also thank the former Member of Parliament for Southend West, Anna Firth, who has been supporting Julia and her family throughout this difficult time. I thank the Home Secretary, as well, for meeting Lady Julia recently. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for taking the time to do that.”
House of Commons12 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I start by thanking the Security Minister for providing advance sight of his statement and advance sight of the Prevent learning review into Sir David Amess’s tragic murder. I thank him for the courtesy and collegiality with which he has conducted our discussions on this topic in recent days. Let me add my words to those of the Security Minister in remembering our colleague, Sir David Amess. All of those who served with him in this House held him in great affection and the highest regard. He was a colleague who was loved, and is remembered fondly, across the House. His particular form of charm, kindness and good humour is something that everybody who ever met David will remember.”
House of Commons12 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Home Secretary crows about removal numbers, not mentioning of course that three quarters of those removals were voluntary, and only a tiny fraction relate to people who arrived by small boat. In the first three months of this Government, the number of people who were removed having arrived by small boat actually went down. In fact, the removals of small boat arrivals in those first three months—the most recent period for which figures are available—amount to only 4% of small boat arrivals, so how can she tell us that letting 96% of illegal immigrants stay here is some kind of deterrent? It is not.”
House of Commons10 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am afraid it does not make for happy reading. Since the general election on 4 July, 24,793 people have illegally, dangerously and unnecessarily crossed the English channel. That is a 28% increase on the same period 12 months previously. The Home Secretary tells us how good her Government’s record is, yet illegal crossings have gone up by 28% on her watch. She promised that she would end the use of asylum hotels. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) asked her when she would deliver on that manifesto commitment, and she did not answer the question. The truth is that, after the election, there were 6,000 more people in asylum hotels: a failure on her watch.”
House of Commons10 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add: “this House, while welcoming measures to create new immigration criminal offences, declines to give a Second Reading to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, because an effective removals and deterrence arrangement is fundamental to stopping illegal immigration, but the Bill abolishes laws passed under the previous Government to ensure removals, and abolishes laws passed under the previous Government to ensure a deterrent by restoring illegal migrants’ ability to claim indefinite leave to remain and British citizenship; and because the Bill contains no proposals to limit legal migration, nor limit the eligibility criteria for settlement and citizenship, which means that the Bill will lead to increased illegal and legal immigration.” It has been seven months since the Government came to office, so we have had a chance to look at their record.”
House of Commons10 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman knows which Government gave an effective asylum amnesty; it was the previous Labour Government. If he is so interested in the asylum backlog, does he know whether it has gone up or down under the new Government? It has gone up, as has the number of illegal migrants crossing the channel, leaving a safe country—France—from which there is no necessity to depart in order to find safety. France has a fully functioning asylum system, does it not?”
House of Commons10 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman is obviously not aware that in 2023 the numbers were going down. Since his Government came to office on 4 July last year, the number has gone up by 28%.”
House of Commons10 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The asylum grant rate in this country has gone up in recent months, and is high in comparison with some other European countries. That is obviously a potential pull factor for people considering a dangerous and unnecessary crossing of the English channel. Let me say a word about the Bill in general before discussing its specifics. The Bill cancels the obligation on the Government to remove people who have arrived illegally. That is a shocking move. It creates a pathway to citizenship for people who have entered the country illegally, which will only increase the pull factor, and completely cancels any prospect of establishing a removals deterrent, which the National Crime Agency says is necessary.”
House of Commons10 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the deterrent never even started. The first flight— [ Interruption. ] The first flight was due to take off on 24 July, but his Government cancelled the deterrent before it had even started. That was their mistake, and as a result illegal crossings have gone up by 28%. This is not a border security Bill, given the measures that I have mentioned; it is a border surrender Bill. It is a weak bill from a weak Government.”
House of Commons10 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think a Bill that creates a path to citizenship for illegal migrants and cancels the obligation on the Government to remove people who arrive illegally is a shocking piece of legislation. That is why we tabled a reasoned amendment.”
House of Commons10 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have given way a lot. Let me make some progress. The Home Secretary asked about the Opposition’s position on various topics. Our reasoned amendment makes it clear that we support measures to increase criminal penalties and to legislate against articles for use in serious and organised crime—measures that we introduced as part of the Criminal Justice Bill last year—but we do not support a path to citizenship for people who arrive illegally, and we do not support cancelling the Government’s obligation to remove them. That is why I moved the reasoned amendment.”
House of Commons10 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The reasoned amendment makes it very clear that we support those powers, but we do not support the totality of the Bill. In terms of tough action, the Home Secretary has yet to explain to the House why illegal crossings have gone up by 28% on her watch.”
House of Commons10 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will make some progress. Let me turn to the detail of the Bill. The only problem with the Border Security Commander is that he cannot actually command anything. There are no powers at all in the Bill, merely functions. They include, in clause 3, publishing a strategic priority document and, in clause 4, a duty to prepare an annual report. Preparing a strategic priority document and publishing an annual report are unlikely to smash the gangs. The Border Security Commander has no clear powers, merely an ability to publish documents and reports.”
House of Commons10 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Again, it stands to reason that if people know that if they arrive here they will be removed, they will not bother crossing in the first place. But hon. Members should not take my word for it. The National Crime Agency says that we need a deterrent, and even the Government’s own Border Security Commander, Martin Hewitt—who cannot command very much—says that we need a deterrent.”
House of Commons10 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Members: “Hear, hear!”] That appears to command some rather unwise enthusiasm from the Government Benches. As I said, the first flight under the Rwanda scheme was due to leave on 24 July, following extensive legal challenge and legislation in this House. Very unwisely, the Government chose never to start that scheme, which would have had a deterrent effect, because it stands to reason that if people know that if they try to cross illegally into a country such as the UK they will be removed to Rwanda, they will not bother in the first place. We have seen that kind of scheme work elsewhere, with Operation Sovereign Borders in Australia around 10 years ago. We have seen it work here as well, with the 2023 removals agreement with Albania. Crossings by Albanians, who were the most numerous cohort crossing the channel, went down by 93%.”
House of Commons10 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Unlike her offence of endangering life at sea, which carries a five-year maximum sentence, section 25 of the Immigration Act states that facilitating illegal migration carries a maximum sentence of life, recently increased from 14 years. Guess who voted against that increase in the sentence? The Home Secretary. Although we support the thrust of the clauses in the Bill, they are already covered by the tougher existing offence of facilitating illegal immigration. Clauses 19 to 26 contain plans to seize phones, which in principle we support, but that power exists already in section 15 and schedule 2 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. There is an element of duplication. Let me move on to the more objectionable parts of the Bill. Clause 37 repeals the entirety of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. [Hon.”
House of Commons10 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗