UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Migration and Asylum Seekers

  • Tony Blair – 2004 Speech on Migration at the CBI

    Tony Blair – 2004 Speech on Migration at the CBI

    The speech made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, on 26 April 2004.

    Immigration and politics do not make easy bedfellows. They never have. We need few reminders of what can happen when the politics of immigration gets out of hand.

    Let us also be very clear. Those who warned of disaster back in the 1960s and 1970s if migration was not stopped, who said Britain would never accept a multi-racial society, have been proved comprehensively wrong.

    On the other hand, there is no doubt that on the doorstep, in local communities, immigration has suddenly become very high on the agenda. Why?

    It is not, incidentally, an exclusively British issue.

    This is a worldwide phenomenon. Immigration has dominated elections in countries like Denmark, Austria and Netherlands in recent years. Le Pen rose to prominence in France. In Australia and New Zealand, it has been a central question, sharply dividing the main parties.

    Migration flows across the world, with increased opportunities to travel and globalisation, drives the issue.

    And beneath the surface, we all know as politicians, certainly on the centre left, what we fear: that concern slips into prejudice, and becomes racism. But we cannot simply dismiss any concern about immigration as racism.

    In part, what has put immigration back up the agenda – with public concern at its highest since the 1970s – is that there are real, not imagined abuses of the system that lead to a sense of genuine unfairness.

    There were real problems with asylum; some immigration procedures have clearly been at fault; some rules, introduced for entirely legitimate reasons, have been subject to systematic and often criminal fraud. Many of these systems simply need bringing up to date.

    Then there are high profile examples of the absurd – not many in number but very damaging in terms of impact – like radical clerics coming here to preach religious hate; people staying here to peddle support for terrorism.

    The combination of all these things – with the reporting of them not exactly calculated to douse the flames of concern – lead to a crunch point. That is where we are now.

    The vast bulk of the British people are not racist. It is in their nature to be moderate. But they expect Government to respond to their worries. They can accept migration that is controlled and selective. They accept and welcome migrants who play by the rules. But they will not accept abuse or absurdity and why should they?

    So now is the time to make the argument for controlled migration simultaneous with tackling the abuses we can identify; and then, longer term, put in place a system that gives us the best guarantee of future integrity in our migration policy.

    That is why we have begun a top to bottom analysis of the immigration system, how it operates, how it can be improved, how it can agree migration where it is in our country’s interests and prevent it where it isn’t. One thing already is clear: the overwhelming majority migrate in and often out of Britain fairly and in accordance with the rules. But there are areas of abuse and we can and should deal with them.

    We are putting in place a strategy – globally, nationally and locally – to ensure migration works for Britain today and in the future.

    We will neither be Fortress Britain, nor will we be an open house. Where necessary, we will tighten the immigration system. Where there are abuses we will deal with them, so that public support for the controlled migration that benefits Britain is maintained.

    Our strategy has a number of interlocking elements:

    (1) A recognition of the benefits that controlled migration brings not just to the economy but to delivering the public and private services on which we rely.

    (2) Being clear that all those who come here to work and study must be able to support themselves. There can be no access to state support or housing for the economically inactive.

    (3) We will continue to tackle abuses in the asylum system, including through the legislation currently before Parliament which will establish a single tier of appeal and clamp down on asylum seekers who deliberately destroy their documents and lie about their identity.

    (4) Action on illegal immigration through the introduction of ID cards and millions invested in strengthening our border controls in ports and airports across the world: and heightened enforcement in the UK too.

    (5) Celebrating the major achievements of migrants in this country and the success of our uniquely British model of diversity. But alongside that an explicit expectation that rights must be balanced by responsibilities. That there are clear obligations that go alongside British residency and ultimately citizenship – to reject extremism and intolerance and make a positive contribution to UK society.

    (6) An acknowledgement that there is no longer a neat separation between the domestic and the international. In a world of global interdependence our policies on migration cannot be isolated from our policies on international development or EU enlargement.

    Facts

    But I want to start today with some facts – for too often the debate about immigration is characterised by a vacuum of reliable information which can all too easily be filled by myth. To give just one example a recent MORI poll found that people estimated the proportion of ethnic minorities in Britain as 23% when the real figure is a third of that at 8%.

    So fact one; the movement of people and labour into and out of the UK is, and always has been, absolutely essential to our economy.

    Visitors from outside the European Union spent £6.8bn in the UK in 2002 and those from within the European Union billions more. Overseas students spend over £3bn on fees and goods and services a year on top of that.

    Indeed according to the Treasury, our economic growth rate would be almost 0.5% lower for the next two years if net migration ceased. Lower growth means less individual and family prosperity, and less revenue to spend on public services.

    And the economic contribution of visitors and migrants is nothing new. At crucial points over the past century and beyond we have relied on migrants to supply essential capital to our economy and plug the labour gaps when no others could be found.

    When the Bank of England was founded, for example, in 1694 – 10 per cent of its initial capital was put up by 123 French Huguenot merchants who had already transformed Britain’s textile and paper industries.

    In the mid 19th century, more than 900,000 Irish immigrants settled in England – and became a mainstay of our armed forces – 30% by 1830.

    157,000 Poles came to Britain immediately after the second world war, soon followed by the Italians – all filling essential gaps in a labour market – in our mines and steel mills and brick works.

    And they were followed in the 1950s and 1960s by workers from the West Indies and South Asia who found jobs in electrical engineering, food and drink plants, car manufacturing, paper and rubber mills and plastic works, fuelling the post-war economic boom that backed up MacMillan’s claim that “we’d never had it so good”.

    And then since the late eighties and nineties it is IT and finance professionals from the U.S., India, the EU and elsewhere who have driven London’s growth as the financial centre of the world in a highly competitive global market for financial services.

    As CBI Director Digby Jones says in today’s FT “using controlled migration to help reduce skill gaps and stimulate economic growth in geographical areas that might otherwise have problems is nothing more than common sense”.

    And never forget those migrants from the Commonwealth and Eastern Europe who gave more than just their labour.

    138,000 Indian soldiers served the British Army on the Western Front in the first world war. Thousands of Polish airmen flew alongside the RAF during World War Two. And it was Polish mathematicians who helped break the enigma code.

    So each decade brings its own particular needs, its own skills gap and our immigration system too must keep respond to these gaps in a targeted and controlled way.

    Which brings me to my second fact. This country is already highly selective about who is allowed in to the UK to work, study or settle. Almost 220,000 people were refused entry clearance by our posts abroad in 2002 – more than treble the number in 1992. Thousands more were turned back at airports by airlines working with IND’s network of liaison officers.

    Those wishing to work or study in the UK or to marry a UK national must show that they are able to support themselves without access to state funds. And they must satisfy our overseas embassies that they will leave the UK at the end of their stay.

    Employers wishing to employ a worker from outside the EU must demonstrate that they have advertised that position in the UK and failed to attract a suitably qualified British applicant before they are given a work permit.

    The number of low-skilled workers that are allowed into the country from outside the EU remains small compared to other countries and is controlled by strict quotas – all of which we will now cut significantly following the expansion of the EU.

    My third fact is that in international terms the UK is not a particularly high migration country. Even today. We have lower levels of foreign-born nationals as a proportion of our total population than France, Germany or the US.

    And the same applies to our work force. Only 8% of our work force is foreign born compared to 15% in the US and almost 25% in Australia.

    Indeed, trends in net migration to the UK over the past two or three years have been in line with those of our European neighbours like Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands and significantly less than for Spain, Ireland, Australia or the US – where migration increased by 50% in the 1990s.

    So those who say migration is out of control or that the UK is taking more people than other countries are simply wrong. As are those who suggest that we exert no control over who comes here.

    Those who do come here make a huge contribution, particularly to our public services. So, fact four: far from always or even mainly being a burden on our health or education systems – migrant workers are often the very people delivering those services.

    Take the nursing staff from the West Indies recruited by then health minister, Enoch Powell in the 1960s. By 1968, there were almost 19,000 trainee nurses and midwives born overseas – 35% of whom were from the West Indies and 15% from Ireland. Now, a quarter of all health professionals are overseas born.

    Or consider the 11,000 overseas teachers now working in schools in England. Or the 23% of staff in our HE institutions are non-UK nationals – that’s 33,530 out of 143,150.

    Our public services would be close to collapse without their contribution.

    And there is an important fifth fact. Migration is not all one way. Britain is a nation of outward migration as well as inward migration. Over the past two centuries millions of Britons have left the UK to seek work in America, Canada, Australia and further afield.

    There are for example 200,000 UK passport holders living in New Zealand alone and UK applicants account for almost a quarter of employment visas issued each year by the New Zealand government. The UK remains the largest source country for skilled migrants to Australia.

    UK nationals form the third most important group of immigrant workers to Canada – behind only the USA and Mexico in 2002 and hundreds of thousands of people from the UK live and work in mainland Europe.

    Many of these workers will return to the UK. Others will stay on and marry local residents. Between them they will send back millions of pounds in remittances – contributing not just to the economic prosperity of their host country – but to the UK too.

    So these are the facts. Population mobility and migration has been crucial to our economic success, migration levels in the UK are in line with comparable countries, we are already selective about who comes into Britain and many that do are essential to our public services.

    But precisely because stopping migration altogether would be disastrous for our country and economy, it is all the more vital to ensure the system is not abused. There are real concerns; they are not figments of racist imagination; and they have to be tackled precisely in order to sustain a balanced and sensible argument about migration.

    Asylum

    Nowhere has that challenge been greater than in relation to asylum.

    We have a long heritage of welcoming those who are genuinely in need of our protection and this must continue.

    In 2002, I was proud to recommend for a Knighthood the remarkable Nicholas Winton, who saved nearly 700 Jewish children from Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia. We offered these children refuge in the UK. There are now around 5000 ‘Winton children’ – descendents of the original refugees – living in the UK.

    The East African Asians who fled Uganda in the 1970s have contributed immeasurably to British society and in just 30 years have become one of the most economically successful migrant groups this country has ever seen.

    In both these cases, the evidence of persecution was all too clear, the case for asylum overwhelming.

    But since the early 1990s, the nature and volume of asylum claims to the UK has changed radically.

    It became increasingly apparent that our asylum system was being widely abused. The UN Convention on Refugees, first introduced in 1951, at a time when the cold war and lack of cheap air travel made long-range migration far more difficult than it has become today, has started to show its age.

    Significant numbers of economic migrants have been arriving in the UK, destroying their documentation and then trying to claim asylum – often by pretending to be from a different country to that from which they have actually come.

    Some have invented stories of persecution, bought ready made off so-called immigration advisers.

    By doing so they were undermining the integrity of our asylum system and making life far harder for the genuine refugees who really needed our help. So while application numbers increased, the numbers actually granted asylum remained a relatively small proportion – just 6% in 2003.

    Difficult though it has been with some of our supporters, we had to tackle this abuse.

    So, we have changed asylum procedures and laws so that, for example, those trying to claim asylum from countries which are manifestly safe, like Slovakia, Bulgaria or Jamaica, can now only appeal against a refusal once they have left the UK. We have introduced stricter border controls, operating in France, soon to be extended along the coast of Europe.

    We have tightened the rules on benefits so that they only go to those who claim asylum as soon as possible after arriving in the UK, and introduced much tougher controls on legal aid so that it is restricted to legitimate advisers – to weed out the cowboys who were preying on vulnerable migrants.

    Already these measures have had a massive effect.

    Over the last 18 months, asylum applications have fallen by more than a half, from almost 9,000 in October 2002 to 3500 in December 2003 – the lowest since 1998. Asylum intake in 2003 fell four times as fast in the UK as in the rest of Europe.

    The backlog of asylum cases awaiting initial decision is at its lowest level for a decade – half what it was in 1997. Eighty per cent of asylum applicants now get an initial decision within 2 months – compared to an average of 20 months at the beginning of 1997.

    Our new legislation on asylum will tighten up further still, overhauling the appeals system which allowed unfounded applicants to play the system for months on end, and clamping down on those who destroy their documents and create an new and fraudulent identity in order to claim asylum. And we have asked the NAO to audit the figures in order to confirm that the fall in asylum is genuine.

    Immigration abuse

    But once we sort out the asylum system, we must also continue to root out abuse of our broader immigration system.

    Though it remains the exception rather than the rule, there are very real examples of abuse in particular countries or with particular schemes, which the public, quite rightly expects us to deal with.

    So our strategy against illegal immigration aims to strengthen our borders and prevent abuse by those who enter the UK legitimately but then attempt to stay on illegally

    Our borders are now more secure than they have ever been.

    100% of freight is now searched for clandestines as it passes through Calais. And a new agreement with the French allows us to screen passengers before they leave France – resulting in 9,827 people being turned back at Calais last year.

    We have established a new network of airline liaison officers, who work with airlines to turn back inadequately documented or suspect passengers – in 2003 33, 551 people were prevented from travelling to the UK.

    We’ve stepped up enforcement to tackle illegal working – and doubled frontline enforcement staff in the past 2 years.

    And we are changing our internal laws and safeguards too.

    We are putting in place tighter rules to restrict migrants’ access to benefits and social housing. Migrants will not be able to access social housing unless they are here legally and are working.

    No-one will be able to come to the UK from anywhere in the enlarged EU simply to claim benefits or housing. There will be no support for the economically inactive.

    And let me be clear: the same goes for migrants from elsewhere in the world. Whether they come to work in our hospitals or in our banks, they must be self-sufficient.

    In particular, they will not be able to access local authority housing unless they are here legally and working.

    And we are tightening up certain migration channels which we suspect may have been abused in the past. So by the end of the year students from overseas will only be given permission to come here to study if they choose institutions on an accredited list. And we are consulting on a requirement for colleges to notify the Home Office if any student fails to attend the course they have come to the UK to study.

    To prevent bogus marriages, we will create a new requirement that third country nationals have to apply to certain, designated registry offices before they can marry in the UK. And we are looking at whether Registrars need greater powers to refuse to marry those people they believe are trying to use false marriages to abuse the migration system.

    All of this will be kept under close review through the stocktakes I am holding, which are looking at a number of other areas as well: abuse of temporary employment routes; how we can improve enforcement and removal of illegals; the rules in relation to immigration appeal rights and settlement in the UK; the collection of good and up to date data; and the ability to switch between immigration categories.

    But perhaps the most important significant new measure on the horizon is the ID card.

    Yesterday, David Blunkett published the detailed draft legislation which will pave the way for the phased introduction, from 2008 of a national identity card – first on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports and driving licenses, then once key conditions have been met, and after Parliamentary approval, on a compulsory basis.

    For the first time, employers and those regulating access to public services will have a secure, fraud-proof way of testing whether a potential worker or service user is legally in the UK and eligible to work or access services.

    As population flows into and out of the UK and across the EU grow the case for such a card grows ever more irresistible. As the barriers to the free movement of people and goods go down across Europe – bringing huge benefits for individuals and business – it becomes more important than ever that each of us is able, unambiguously to prove that we are who we say we are.

    Accession / Eastern Europe

    The move from a Europe of 15 countries to a Europe of 25 with a population bigger than that of the North American Free Trade Area is to be warmly welcomed not feared. Already, 100,000 British jobs are linked, directly and indirectly, to the export of goods and services to the new member states.

    As the world around us changes, so too must our immigration strategies and framework.

    When Spain joined the EU there were scare stories about economic migrants. Now, because of the way Spain has thrived in the EU, 300,000 UK citizens live there.

    As we approach 1 May, there are similar scare stories about the movement of workers from Eastern Europe.

    As ever, it is essential that we get behind the myths and misinformation and really look at the facts.

    From 1 May, people from the ten accession countries will be able to travel freely and to take up self-employment opportunities in every member country of the EU – not just the UK. No country will be able to turn back residents of Poland or Lithuania or any other accession country at their border. In this we are no different from any of our European neighbours.

    In practice, thousands of workers from Eastern Europe – around 100,000 of them – are already living, working and studying perfectly legally in Britain.

    The UK unemployment rate is half that of France and Germany and is dramatically different than at the time of the Iberian enlargement in 1986 when unemployment was 2 million higher than it is today.

    There are half a million vacancies in our job market and our strong and growing economy needs migration to fill these vacancies.

    Some of these jobs are highly skilled, some are unskilled jobs which people living here are not prepared to do. Some are permanent posts, others seasonal work.

    Given the facts we faced a clear choice: use the opportunities of accession to help fill those gaps with legal migrants able to pay taxes and pay their way, or deny ourselves that chance, hold our economy back and in all likelihood see a significant increase in illegal working and the black economy as Eastern European visitors attempt to get round arbitrary restrictions.

    We chose the former.

    To take account of the new shape of the EU we will significantly reduce the quotas of non EU low-skilled migrants coming in to fill labour shortages in the agriculture, hospitality and food-processing industries – to take into account the impact of EU free movement of workers from May 1.

    A diverse Britain

    Those coming to the UK from the new member states will find a nation much more diverse than the societies they have left behind.

    London, for example, where over a quarter of the population is foreign born has become perhaps the most diverse city in the world, with over 300 languages spoken.

    Another example is Oldham – where David Blunkett and Trevor Philips are this afternoon talking to local groups about the opportunities and challenges of today’s diverse communities.

    Britain as a whole is immeasurably richer – and not just economically – for the contribution that migrants have made to our society.

    Our literature, our music, our national sporting teams – all bear the indelible impact of centuries of migration.

    British race relations has in general been a quiet success story. We’ve avoided ghettos and Jim Crow laws or anguished debates about religious dress codes.

    Successful migrant populations have moved onwards and outwards over the generations. From the East End to Golders Green; from Southall out to leafy Hertfordshire. Harrow and Croydon are now as racially mixed as Lambeth or Southwark.

    But there is still some way to go and progress is patchy.

    Whilst the workforce of our immigration and probation services for example matches the ethnic breakdown of the population as a whole, that’s still a long way from being true for the police service or our judiciary.

    And whilst children from Indian or Chinese backgrounds out perform their white peers at school- those from Pakistani homes still lag behind.

    In tackling under achievement and exclusion we need an approach which understands the specific challenges facing particular communities and which works with those communities to develop solutions – with the voluntary sector playing an invaluable role.

    Rights and responsibilities

    So: the UK will continue to welcome migrants who come and contribute the skills we need to for a successful economy.

    But migration is a two-way deal: there are responsibilities as well as rights.

    British residency and eventually citizenship carries with it obligations as well as opportunities.

    The obligation to respect our laws, for example, and to reject extremism and intolerance. There can be no place for those who incite hatred against the very values this country stands for. And we will take firm action against those who abuse the privilege of British citizenship to do so.

    The obligation to pay taxes and pay your way. To look after your children and other dependents.

    The obligation to learn something about the country and culture and language that you are now part of – whilst recognising that there never was and never can be a single homogeneous definition of what it means to be British.

    There are responsibilities too on government. To protect you from exploitation and harassment, for example. To stamp out prejudice and discrimination. To provide healthcare and other essential services when you are legally here and paying your way.

    Getting the balance between rights and responsibilities isn’t always easy – for individuals or for government.

    This government has had to take difficult choices:

    The first new race relations legislation in 25 years – but some tough new laws to prevent abuse or our asylum and immigration systems too.

    Interdependent world

    I have commented many times before of the increasing links between domestic and international policy, and this is no exception. We can and should take all the measures necessary to control immigration in the UK. But we need to examine the linkages with our international policy which has a crucial role to play.

    First on peace and security. Wars and internal instability still ravage too many nations and place huge burdens on neighbouring countries, dwarfing asylum applications to the UK. There are, for example, 450,000 refugees in Tanzania alone.

    The UK is supporting the efforts of African countries, and particularly South Africa and the Africa Union in bringing peace to the region, from Burundi to the DRC.

    And we are fully engaged with the UNHCR in its work with refugee populations, including through the new resettlement gateways where we take small numbers of refugees direct to the UK from conflict zones.

    Secondly, we should recognise the increasingly important role of remittances. More than £50 billion globally flows every year from migrant workers in developed countries back to their families and friends in developing countries.

    In terms of international financial flows, this is second only to foreign direct investment, and about double the value of official aid flows. Millions of families worldwide are dependent on these transfers for everyday needs such as food or their children’s education.

    Remittances are however, no substitute for official aid and for developing the partnerships with developing country governments that will enable them to deliver services to the poor. The UK has increased aid to the poorest countries dramatically, with aid to Africa reaching £1 billion in 2005.

    Lastly it is important that all countries take account of their migration policies on the poorest countries. Many countries have real problems staffing their public services, especially in Southern Africa where death from HIV/AIDS can be the most significant cause of attrition. The UK has already adopted an International Recruitment Code of Practice to ensure that when our hospitals recruit for nurses we do not deplete the health services of other countries.

    Conclusion

    So over the coming months, we will do two things at once: make the argument for controlled migration as good and beneficial for Britain; act to root out the abuses that disfigure the debate and bring the system into disrepute.

    This should not become a party-political issue. That would do real damage to national cohesion. It is above all an issue to deal with, not exploit. But all people of good sense and moderation can agree the way forward. These are challenging and fast moving times, but there is no reason to abandon our values or lose our confidence. We all have responsibilities: Government to put in place the policies and rules that make migration work for Britain; migrant communities to recognise the obligations that come with the privilege of living and working in Britain; the media in giving as much attention to the benefits of migration and successes of diversity as to the dangers and fears; local authorities and community groups in working for integration and cohesion on the ground. And ordinary decent British people – including generations of migrants themselves – to keep faith in our traditions of tolerance and our historic record of becoming stronger and richer as a result of migration and diversity.

  • Kemi Badenoch – 2025 Speech on the Government’s Asylum Policy

    Kemi Badenoch – 2025 Speech on the Government’s Asylum Policy

    The speech made by Kemi Badenoch, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 17 November 2025.

    I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement, most of which I read in The Sunday Telegraph. I am pleased that she is bringing forward measures to crack down on illegal immigration. It is not enough but it is a start, and a change from her previous position in opposition of a general amnesty for illegal migrants.

    I praise the new Home Secretary. She is bringing fresh energy and a clearer focus to this problem, and she has got more done in 70 days in the job than her predecessor did in a year. She seems to get what many on the Labour Benches refuse to accept, and she is right to say that if we fail to deal with the crisis, we will draw more people to a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred. We will also allow our English channel to operate as an open route into this country for anyone who is prepared to risk their life and pay criminal gangs. That is not fair on British citizens, it is not fair on those who come here legally, and it is not fair on those in genuine need who are pushed to the back of the queue because the system is overwhelmed.

    Anyone who cannot see by now that simply tinkering with the current system will not fix this problem is either living in la-la land or being wilfully obstructive. It is a shame that it has taken Labour a year in office to realise there is a borders crisis—[Interruption.] I don’t know why Labour Members are chuntering. What was their first act in government? The first act of the Home Secretary’s predecessor was to scrap the Rwanda plan, which was already—[Interruption.] Yes, they are cheering. It was already starting to act as a deterrent before it even got off the ground, and before it started, Labour Members threw away all our hard work and taxpayers’ money—they are the ones who have wasted that money, not us.

    The statement is an admission that the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill of the Home Secretary’s predecessor will not work, but I am glad to see Labour Members now changing course. The powers they are using in the Bill are ones they all voted down when we were in government, and they would not be able to do that if we had not got those measures through. None of them know the work that was done; they are just cheering nonsensically, but we know what has happened since Labour came to office. The Home Secretary will know that 10,000 people have crossed the channel in the 70 days she has been in office, and we have seen record levels of asylum claims in the last year. The problem has got worse since Labour came into office, and it is getting worse by the day.

    I am afraid that what the Home Secretary is announcing will not work on its own, and some of these measures will take us backwards. I say that to her with no ill will, and I hope she believes me when I say that I genuinely want her to succeed. Conservative Members are speaking from experience: we know how difficult this is— [Interruption.] We do, and we will not take any lectures from the people who voted down every single measure to control immigration. Some of the measures that the Home Secretary is announcing today are undoubtedly positive steps—baby steps, but positive none the less. We welcome making refugee status temporary, and we welcome removing the last Labour Government’s legislation that created a duty to support asylum seekers—she is right to do that. However, some of what she is announcing simply does not go far enough.

    Conservative Members believe that anyone who arrives illegally, especially from safe countries, should be deported and banned from claiming asylum. Does the Home Secretary agree that anyone who comes to this country illegally should be deported? I would like to know, and I think the country would like to know, because this announcement means that some people who arrive will be allowed to stay—they just need to wait 20 years before getting permanent settlement. That does not remove the pull factor. The main problem is that for as long as the UK is in the European convention on human rights, illegal immigrants and those exploiting our system will use human rights laws to block anything she does to solve this. I know that because I saw it happen again and again over the last four years, and I know she has seen it too. We even saw it this year with the Prime Minister’s one in, one out scheme, which has seen people return to France and come back on small boats yet again.

    I guarantee that the Home Secretary’s plan to reinterpret article 8 will not work. We tried that already, and Strasbourg and UK case law will prevail. I agree with her that the definition of “degrading treatment” is over-interpreted, but renegotiating article 3 internationally will take years—years we do not have if it were even possible, but the fact is that it is not. We know that because a small group of EU countries tried that earlier, and they were dismissed by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Her Government did nothing to support them, so I am not convinced it is the Prime Minister’s negotiating skills that will sort out that problem.

    We have looked at this issue from every possible direction, and any plan that does not include leaving the ECHR as a necessary step is wasting time we do not have. Just like the Government’s plan to “smash the gangs”, or the one in, one out policy, it is timewasting, and it is doomed to fail because of lawfare. We have seen this all before. The tough measures will be challenged in the courts and blocked, the new legal routes that the Home Secretary is talking about will be exploited, and the numbers arriving on our shores and disappearing into the black economy will keep on rising. If the Home Secretary is serious about reducing these numbers—I do believe that she is—she must be bolder. She must take steps to deter illegal immigrants from coming to Britain, and deport them as soon as they arrive. Our borders plan does just that, and I know that she has studied it in detail. I have seen the looks, and I know that she knows that we would leave the ECHR and the European convention on action against trafficking to stop the Strasbourg courts from frustrating deportations, and establish a new removals force to ensure that all illegal arrivals are deported. We would end the use of immigration tribunals, judicial review and legal aid in immigration cases, as those are the things that are slowing us down, and we would sign returns agreements that are backed by visa sanctions to ensure that we send illegal arrivals back to their place of origin. I welcome what she says about Angola and Namibia, but we all know that those countries are not the ones that are creating the biggest problems.

    We need to be bold, serious and unafraid to do what the British people demand: secure our borders. That is what is in our borders plan, so I urge the Home Secretary to take me up on my offer to work together, not just because we have some ideas that she might find useful, but because judging by the reaction of her own Back Benchers today, she may find our votes come in handy. Earlier this year, we saw what happened when the Government tried to make changes through the welfare Bill: the Prime Minister was defeated by his own Back Benchers and ended up passing legislation guaranteeing that more money would be spent on welfare. It does not appear that his grip on the party has improved since then, so we can be sure that Labour Back Benchers are already plotting to block any serious changes that she tries to make, so we can help her with that—[Interruption.] Why are Labour Members shaking their heads? We have seen them do that time and again.

    Our offer to work together is a genuine one and in the national interest. We will not play the same game that Labour Members did by voting things down for no reason. However, the Home Secretary must be clear with the House on these questions: how many people will be able to take advantage of the new work and study visa routes? What will be the level of the cap? Will it be 10,000 people or 100,000 people?

    The Government have separately confirmed that they will allow Gazan students to bring dependants. We oppose that, but can she clarify how the Government will ensure that people brought to the UK from a territory under Hamas control are not a risk to our security? If she finds that the Human Rights Act 1998 and the ECHR prevent her from enacting those proposals, will she use primary legislation to resolve that? Has Lord Hermer agreed? By her own admission three weeks ago, the Home Office is not yet fit for purpose, so why are we creating a new legal route for the Home Office to run?

    Will she take me up on my serious, genuine offer to meet and to discuss how we can work together to resolve the asylum crisis—yes or no? I urge her to put party politics aside, meet me and my shadow Home Secretary, so that we can find a way to work together—

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)

    Order. I was very generous with the time I allowed the Leader of the Opposition. I call the Home Secretary.

    Shabana Mahmood

    I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her response to the statement. I see that the shadow Home Secretary has been subbed out after his performance at Home Office oral questions, but whether it is the shadow Home Secretary or the Leader of the Opposition herself, I am very happy to take on the Conservative party any day of the week.

    Let me start by saying that we will not take any lessons from the Opposition on how to run an effective migration or asylum system. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, when the Conservatives were in Government, they gave up on governing altogether. They gave up on making asylum decisions, creating the huge backlog that this Government were left to start to deal with. In our first 18 months in office, removals are up 23% compared with the last 18 months that the Conservatives were in office, so I will take no lessons from anyone on the Conservative Benches on anything to do with our asylum system. They simply gave up and went for an expensive gimmick that cost £700 million to return four volunteers and was doomed to failure from the start.

    The Leader of the Opposition had a lot to say about the European convention on human rights, but I do not recall the Conservatives ever bringing forward any legislation to deal with the application of article 8, the qualified right to a private life. A Bill that sought to clarify the way that article 8 should apply in our domestic legislation or in our immigration rules was never introduced, so I am not going to take any lessons from the people who never bothered to do that in the first place. This Government are rolling up our sleeves, dealing with the detailed, substantive issues that we face, and thinking of proper, workable solutions to those matters.

    The position on article 3 has changed across Europe. In my previous role as Lord Chancellor, I was at the Council of Europe just before the summer recess earlier this year, and I was struck by the sheer range of European partners who want to have this conversation. It is important that the British Government lean into that conversation and seek to work in collaboration with our European partners. The one thing that will not work is simply saying that we are going to come out of the European convention altogether. That is not and will never be the policy of this Government because we believe that reform can be pursued and that this is an important convention, not least because it underpins some of our own returns agreements, including the one with France. The right hon. Lady talked about how many years it would take for us to think about reform of the convention, but as she well knows, it would take just as many years to start renegotiating lots of international agreements that would be affected by us coming out of the convention, so I am afraid that, once again, her solution will not work.

    I am always up for working in the national interest because nothing matters more to me than holding our country together and uniting it, but if the Conservatives really wanted to work together in the national interest, they could have started by voting for the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, currently going through the House, that they have voted against at every opportunity. Forgive me if I do not take this newfound conversion to working together in the national interest with much seriousness, but the Conservative party’s track record suggests that it should not be taken seriously.

    To not be taken seriously sums up the position of the Conservatives: these are the people that left this Government an abject mess to clear up. They gave up on governing, they gave up on running an effective asylum system, and now they turn up without so much as an apology to the British public, thinking that they have got anything to say that anyone wants to hear.

  • Chris Philp – 2025 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    Chris Philp – 2025 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    The speech made by Chris Philp, the Shadow Home Secretary, in Manchester on 5 October 2025.

    Like Kemi, let me start by condemning the appalling terrorist attack in this city last Thursday.

    Our thoughts and prayers are with the families whose lives, on that holy Yom Kippur morning, were so wickedly torn apart. But we will also stay strong in the face of terror. We will never change our way of life, because we are stronger than them. And I know everyone in this hall and beyond will renew their resolve to fight the ancient evil of antisemitism wherever it is found.

    It has no place in any civilised country. Not in our United Kingdom. Not ever.

    And if a foreign citizen expresses racial hatred, including antisemitism or supports extremism or terrorism, I’ll tell you this as Home Secretary I’ll deport them.

    And I would like to thank the police and security services who responded so fast last week. They take risks up and down the country every single day to protect us, and we owe them a debt of gratitude. Thank you.

    Conference, this is a historic moment. As the Leader just announced, we have concluded it is right for our country to leave the ECHR.

    This is not a decision taken lightly. We have thought long and hard. And unlike others, we did not leap without first carefully considering all the implications. I thank Lord Wolfson for his detailed and masterful legal analysis. There he is, thank you David.

    We are, of course, deeply aware of why the Convention was originally written, in the aftermath of the horrors that ravaged Europe in the 1930s and 1940s. And we remain as committed as ever to protecting rights and to the rule of law.

    But the way the courts now interpret the ECHR makes it unrecognisable from the system which Winston Churchill first helped shape.

    And we are clear about this: the ability to control our country’s borders is non-negotiable.

    We will not, and we cannot, compromise on the ability of our democratically elected parliament to set the laws that govern who comes here, and who stays

    Because if we can’t control our borders then we are no country at all. With no border control we would lose our identify and we would lose our security. And this party will always protect our identify and will always protect our security.

    Now, the small boat crisis has brought this issue into sharp focus. The government said they would smash the gangs. Well, that is now laughable. Because so far all they have smashed are records for illegal arrivals. This year has been the worst in history. This Labour government has lost control of our borders. They are weak and they have let Britain down.

    The Prime Minister’s latest gimmick is his one-in-one-out deal with France. Since that deal was announced, 11,000 illegal immigrants have come in, and about seven have gone out.  Even Rachel Reeves with her dubious CV can tell that doesn’t add up.

    And every single channel migrant is coming here illegally and is a paying customer of people smugglers. They are departing from France, a safe country. These journeys are unnecessary.

    And we have seen some terrible crimes committed by migrants who came on small boats and were accommodated in hotels at our expense.

    Let me tell you about Abdelrahmen Abouelela. He is a 42-year-old Egyptian illegal immigrant who came here by small boat. He was accommodated in a Hilton Hotel in Ealing – at our expense. He then proceeded to brutally rape a young woman, who was walking home at night in Hyde Park. She was alone and she was vulnerable. It now turns out that Abdelrahmen is also has convictions in Egypt as an Islamist terrorist. In another case, a fourteen-year-old girl was sexually assaulted by a channel immigrant – who later said in his culture that was acceptable behaviour.

    This is sick. We must do whatever it takes to end this madness.

    It is now clear to this new leadership that our international obligations have been stopping us from acting effectively. We experienced this in government and the decision to leave the ECHR was reached partly as a result of that.

    And now Lord Wolfson has clearly advised, and I quote, that “ECHR membership places significant practical limits on the UK’s ability to maintain control of its borders.” And that is why must come out.  Because this party is determined to control our borders.

    And to those who say this will make us an international pariah where rights are casually disregarded, look at Australia or Canada.  They aren’t in the ECHR. And the UK is the land of the original Bill of Rights, the body common law, the writ Habeus Corpus and protections in law that Parliament has passed. Our rights in this country long predate the ECHR.

    And to those who say we must stay in the ECHR to set an example to others, I ask this: does our membership of the ECHR really make the slightest difference to way that Russia or China behaves? No, of course, not

    The ECHR started as a noble endeavour. But it has become twisted by Judges expanding the meaning of well-intentioned but vaguely worded clauses. Shocking examples of this abound.

    Like a paedophile not returned to Zimbabwe in case he faces hostility there – without a single thought for the rights of children here to be protected.

    Or a drug dealer not returned to Iraq because he’s too westernised.

    Or a violent murderer not returned to Uganda because mental health services there are apparently not as good as here. All ECHR cases.

    These criminals are all still in the UK. They’re still all posing a risk to our citizens. All thanks to the ECHR.

    So, this madness must end.

    But as Lord Wolfson very wisely said, leaving the ECHR alone is not enough. We need a full plan, a complete plan to fix Labours’ borders crisis – which leaving the ECHR enables.

    And let me be clear about this. The Reform Party has not bothered to develop such a plan. They trumpet slogans dreamt up in a pub and written on the back of a fag packet. But they have not done the detailed work needed to make real change happen.

    Well, this party has done the work. It’s called the BORDERS Plan, and we published today.

    Enabled by ECHR exit, we will ban all asylum and other claims by illegal immigrants. And this will mean all those arriving illegally – including by small boat – will be immediately deported back to their country of origin if possible or to a third country like Rwanda if not within a week of arrival.

    And the deterrent effect of that will mean people will rapidly stop bothering to attempt the crossing in the first place. Why would you attempt the crossing in the first place? Why would you attempt the crossing if you are going to be immediately removed?

    It worked in Australia 12 years ago.  It is working in the United States of America this year. And it will work here too.

    And we will also deport all foreign criminals. Not some, all. There are currently about 20,000 serious foreign criminals roaming our streets who should have been deported already.  They have gone on to commit between them a further 10,000 offences, including murder and rape.

    It still shocks me that Keir Starmer and Shabana Mahmood signed a letter opposing deporting dangerous foreign criminals to Jamaica – one of whom later went on to commit murder here after he should have been deported.

    Well, we won’t be signing letters like that. Instead, we will deport all those who pose a danger to the public. And that means every single foreign criminal.

    And we will also end the legal quagmire. With endless appeals and judicial reviews. Made up and contradictory claims being heard.

    Lawyers running up huge legal aid bills. I hope there are none of them here.

    One man claimed asylum, you won’t believe this, one man claimed asylum saying he was Iraqi. When that claim was rejected, he said, he suddenly remembered that in fact he was Iranian, and the whole process started again.

    And there was the notorious case of Yacub Ahmed, a Somali man who gang raped a 16-year-old girl.

    After his sentence in prison had finished, it took eight years, eight years to deport Ahmed, because he made repeated asylum, human rights, and modern slavery claims.

    Many migrants make claims on the eve of deportation to stay here, usually very shortly after they meet a taxpayer-funded lawyer who tells them what they need to say.  

    Judges accept all kinds of nonsensical arguments. Just last week, eight Afghans who can’t speak a word of English were allowed into the UK from Turkey – a safe country – on tenuous human rights grounds. Some Immigration Tribunal Judges even used to be open borders campaigners.

    You literally couldn’t make this up.

    So, we will abolish the Immigration Tribunal entirely, with decisions will be taken inside the Home Office.

    There won’t be any immigration judicial review, except on the narrow grounds of statutory power.

    And we will completely end the immigration legal aid gravy train by abolishing it.

    People don’t need lawyers to make their claims, they just need to tell the truth, and their claim will be fairly decided.

    We will compel countries to take back their own nationals. If a country won’t take back their own citizens where they commit a crime or have no right to be here, we will simply stop issuing entry visas to nationals of those countries to come here. We will use visa sanctions and withdraw overseas aid to countries who don’t take back their own nationals. We always take back ours and they should do the same.

    We will also create a new Removals Force in the Home Office – doubling the current budget of the current enforcement team to £1.6 billion.

    And by stripping away the legal obstacles, that I have described, and doubling that budget means we can remove 150,000 people a year that no legal right to be here. That is three-quarters of a million over the course of the next Parliament. This illegal immigration scandal will end.

    So, Conference, we have a plan. Leave the ECHR. Deport all illegal immigrants immediately upon arrival and all foreign criminals.  A new Force to remove 150,000 people year with no right to be here. Abolish the Immigration Tribunal. End Judicial Review and legal aid in immigration cases. And make sure countries take back their own citizens just as we do.

    Now, we have thought deeply about this. Our plan is radical, yes, not because we are ideologues but because this plan has to be radical in order to work. The old ways have been tried, and they have failed. That’s why a new approach is needed.

    Now, we have taken our time over this, and some people have criticised us for that.  But we are now the only party, the only party to have a plan which is not only radical but will actually work in practice.

    So, now, the Conservative party is back.

    Back with the resolve to do what is needed to protect our country’s borders.

    Back with determination to ensure the laws passed by our parliament are actually implemented

    And back with a plan to end illegal immigration.

  • Kemi Badenoch – 2025 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    Kemi Badenoch – 2025 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    The speech made by Kemi Badenoch, the Leader of the Conservative Party, in Manchester on 5 October 2025.

    Thank you.

    Conservatives love Manchester. It is a great city of free trade and free thinking.

    240 years ago, in the 1780s, this was still a small market town.

    But something was stirring.

    A spirit of enterprise that would turn Manchester into a global economic powerhouse.

    And it was back in the 1780s that the very first Jewish community was established in this city.

    A small group of families, worshipping in a rented room in a back alley, just a short walk from where I am standing.

    And right from the very start, Jewish people have been part of the fabric of Manchester.

    Adding their distinct, unique contribution to this fantastic city, while at the same time embracing Britain as their home.

    The horrific and despicable attack at Heaton Park Synagogue on Thursday has shocked us all.

    But for many in the Jewish community, it did not come as a surprise.

    Many have been living with a sense of rising dread that an attack like this was becoming inevitable.

    Yesterday, I met members of the congregation and visited the site of the attack.

    The strength of Manchester’s Jewish community is humbling.

    Targeting the centre of community life on the holiest day of the year, was not just an attack on British Jews, it was an attack on all of us.

    It was an attack on our humanity and our values of freedom, compassion, and respect.

    It was an attack on the idea that Britain is a safe place for Jews.

    On Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, Jews take time for introspection. To ask themselves – where have we gone wrong in the past, and what do we need to do, to be better in the future?

    These are questions we urgently need to ask ourselves as a nation.

    Extremism has gone unchecked.

    We see it manifest in the shameful behaviour on the streets of our cities. Protests which are in fact carnivals of hatred directed at the Jewish homeland.

    You hear it in the asinine slogans.

    You hear it in ‘From the river to the sea’ – as if the homes, the lives, of millions of Jewish people should be erased.

    You hear it in ‘Globalise the intifada’ – which means nothing at all, if it doesn’t mean, targeting Jewish people for violence.

    We have tolerated this in our country for too long.

    And we have tolerated the radical Islamist ideology that seeks to threaten not only Jews, but all of us, of all faiths and none, who want to live in peace.

    So, the message from this conference, from this party, from every decent and right-thinking person in this country must be that we will not stand for it, anymore.

    We cannot import and tolerate, values hostile to our own.

    We must now draw a line and say that in Britain you can think what you like, and within the bounds of the law, you can say what you like but you have no right to turn our streets into theatres of intimidation. And we will not let you do so anymore.

    To our Jewish friends, we stand with you shoulder to shoulder.

    You are part of the fabric of Britain, and you always will be.

    We pray for the recovery of the victims still in hospital.

    And we mourn with you the loss of Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz.

    May their memories be a blessing.

    But we must never let terrorism defeat our democratic process. We must demonstrate that it is through political argument, not violence, that we reach our decisions and improve our country.

    We all know the scale of the challenge we face, the mountain we have to climb.

    Last year, the public sent us a clear message.

    One we could not mistake and which we will never forget.

    They want serious change.

    For politics to be done differently so our country can get back on track.

    That’s what I promised you when I stood for the leadership of our party.

    A reset. Politics done differently. Politics done properly.

    A Conservative Party under new leadership ready to earn the trust of the British people again.

    In the last 12 months we’ve started doing politics in a new way.

    No more making the announcement first and working out the policy detail second.

    No more thinking we can leave quangos and bureaucrats to their own devices and then wonder why we don’t see results.

    No more accepting that our laws can be used as a tool to subvert democratic decisions and basic common sense.

    An end, once and for all, to the drift of our institutions away from truth, honesty and decency. And a return to the values that define our country at its best.

    That’s what this week is all about.

    But I didn’t say it would be easy, and I didn’t say it would be quick.

    Nothing really worth doing is.

    Anyone who tells you there are easy answers to the big questions our country faces is either lying to you or lying to themselves.

    We are taking a new approach.

    Credible plans rooted in Conservative values.

    Hard though the task is, we have plenty of reasons to be cheerful.

    Because as one of my great predecessors, Margaret Thatcher put it ‘the facts of life are Conservative.’

    The facts of life are Conservative, Conference. The fact that countries, like families, have to live within their means.

    The fact that individuals know better than governments how best to spend their own money.

    The fact that freedom depends on order and only works under the rule of law.

    There is a gap for the responsible, optimistic, competent Conservative approach.

    An approach rooted in values.

    Values like personal responsibility – as my dad often said to me: “only 20% of what happens to you is down to others. 80% is down to your actions and your choices”.

    Like citizenship – a commitment to a country and the people in it.

    Family – different shapes and sizes, the bedrock of social stability and the foundation of our society.

    Freedom – freedom to think, to speak and to live as each of us chooses.

    These are the values of British people.

    They are crying out for a politics rooted in those values which puts their needs first.

    Conference they are crying out for a Stronger Economy – where hard work is rewarded and everyone has a chance to get on.

    For Stronger Borders – where we control who comes here and can remove those with no right to stay.

    This is our political DNA as Conservatives.

    Our job is to prove to the country that we are the only party that can deliver it.

    Conference, post-war, Conservatives spread prosperity and built millions of new homes – the bedrock of the property-owning democracy.

    In the 1980s, Mrs Thatcher broke the cycle of high inflation, low growth, and trade union strife, giving Britain back her national pride and economic strength.

    Labour accuse us of achieving nothing in the 14 years since 2010.

    I’ll tell you what we did.

    Remember what we inherited from them back then.

    They spent all the money, sold the gold, piled up debt.

    Like every Labour government in history, they left unemployment higher than they found it.

    We were elected to fix it and Conservatives got to work.

    We slashed the deficit every year so that when the pandemic hit, we had the means to weather the storm.

    We reformed our schools to put rigour back into the curriculum.

    And today, a whole generation of young people will enter the world with better maths and literacy skills than any generation before them.

    We reformed welfare.

    We got people into work.

    Four million new jobs were created.

    Over a million new businesses

    We gave the British people a choice on our membership of the EU, and we implemented that decision.

    And what followed?

    The fastest vaccine roll-out in the west.

    Billions of pounds worth of trade deals.

    No other party would have done these things.

    But they were right for our country, and we can all be proud of them.

    And Conference, we mustn’t forget that in each election from 2010 to 2019, our vote share went up.

    That’s unprecedented in modern history.

    And the British people don’t get it wrong.

    But if we take pride in what we got right, we also have to face up to what we got wrong.

    People won’t listen to us again until we show them, we have learnt from our mistakes and changed.

    We’ve got to do this and do it properly.

    What have we learned?

    That you can’t have a budget that has £150 billion of spending giveaways and billions more in tax cuts without saying where the money is coming from.

    We have to show that we have learnt from the policy mistake of letting bureaucrats decide the immigration system.

    We failed to bring numbers down and stop the boats. Let’s be honest.

    And that happened on our watch.

    Yes, we tried but put simply, we didn’t achieve enough.

    After years of responsible and effective government our mistakes on the economy and on immigration lost us the trust and confidence of the public.

    So, we start this week saying we have learnt, and we will never repeat the financial irresponsibility of spending commitments without saying where the money is coming from.

    Never again, Conference.

    This week we will set out how we have changed, how we will be different – and, most importantly, how we will make a difference.

    Economic responsibility is the hallmark of the Conservative approach and today it is right back at the heart of everything we stand for.

    We may be in Manchester, but the theme of economic responsibility will run through this conference like the words in a stick of Blackpool rock.

    You’ll be hearing a lot more about that this week

    But there are two parts to our message at this conference: Stronger Economy, Stronger Borders.

    And it’s stronger borders that I want to talk to you about today.

    I was elected leader because I promised to renew this party and our policies,

    So, we can win the next election and then rewire the state to make it work for people again.

    We are not interested in superficial fixes.

    Instead, we are taking a systemic approach.

    Asking the difficult questions that others avoid.

    We have the courage to follow through with credible plans to answer them.

    It’s the rigorous, practical, Conservative way.

    And on so many of those questions, the answers come back to the same thing.

    Why is it that every time we try to build anything in this country, we have to spend millions of pounds on paperwork, and still get bogged down in litigation?

    Why are protesters allowed to block roads and disrupt lives, time and time again?

    Why are our veterans, relentlessly chased through the courts by activist lawyers?

    Why couldn’t we deport those foreign nationals, who raped girls in communities across the UK?

    Why do we still allow them to remain in the very same towns where their victims live? Why?

    It is fundamental, why can’t we control our borders and remove those who need to go?

    All these questions boil down to who should make the laws that govern the United Kingdom?

    Conservatives, believe it should be our sovereign Parliament, accountable to the British people.

    The reality today, is that this is simply not the case.

    I saw it again and again in government.

    So often, we had the right instincts and the right policies, but our hands were tied by a system that frustrated democratic control.

    This use of litigation as a political weapon is what I call lawfare.

    Well-meaning treaties and statutes – like the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention on Action against Trafficking drafted with the best of intentions in generations gone by, and more recent additions like the Modern Slavery Act, are now being used in ways never intended by their original authors.

    What should be shields to protect the vulnerable, have instead become swords to attack democratic decisions and frustrate common sense.

    Conference, this isn’t just damaging our security, it’s also damaging our prosperity.

    It is that whole system which we need to reform.

    And the place to start is the European Convention on Human Rights.

    None of us has a problem with the rights in the original charter.

    It was drafted in 1950 by British lawyers – Conservative lawyers – and it drew on British traditions.

    The problems stem from how it has been enforced and how its meaning has been twisted and changed.

    Today, it is used as a block on deportations, a weapon against veterans, and a barrier to sentencing and public order.

    Labour pretend it can be fixed, but when a group of nine European countries, led by Italy, recently pushed for reforms at the court, the Labour government didn’t support them.

    They wouldn’t even try.

    Our human rights lawyer Prime Minister, and his good friend the Attorney General. An Attorney General who likened those of us questioning ECHR membership to Nazis will never fix this problem.

    Instead, Conference they have gone in the opposite direction.

    Paying to surrender British territory in the Chagos Islands,

    And plotting to force everyone in this country to carry Starmer’s digital ID. Conference, we will fight them every step of the way.

    Reform just shout that we should “leave” the ECHR without any plan to do so or understanding any of the consequences.

    They are practicing that old, failed politics I talked about.

    That politics of announcements without a plan.

    That’s the way to chaos and failure.

    It is only the Conservatives who are taking the honest, responsible approach, prepared with a plan to deliver.

    To make sure we can strike at the root of the problem, we need to understand the full extent of the problem.

    That’s why I identified five essential policies that the Government must be able to implement, if we are to secure our border and restore order to our society.

    Five tests that a country has to pass to be truly sovereign.

    First, can we deport foreign criminals and those who are here illegally?

    Second, can we stop our veterans being harassed through the courts?

    Third, can we put British citizens first for social housing and public services?

    Fourth, can we make sure protests do not intimidate people or stop them living their lives?

    And fifth, can we stop endless red tape and legal challenges choking off economic growth?

    Any self-respecting sovereign nation should be able to answer all five of those questions with a clear, yes.

    Anything that is stopping us from doing so is a barrier we have to remove.

    So, I asked the Shadow Attorney General, the distinguished King’s Counsel Lord Wolfson, to lead an in-depth analysis.

    The question I posed was whether these five tests can be lawfully met, as a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, bound by the court in Strasbourg.

    I want to thank Lord Wolfson for his immense and detailed work. So forensic, so thorough.

    In nearly 200 pages of legal advice, he has provided his answer.

    This is what he said.

    ‘When it comes to control of our sovereign borders, preventing our military veterans from being pursued indefinitely, ensuring prison sentences are applied rigorously for serious crimes, stopping disruptive protests, or placing blanket restrictions on foreign nationals in terms of social housing and benefits, the only way such positions are feasible would be to leave the ECHR.’

    And so to me and the shadow cabinet, the resulting policy decision is also clear.

    We must leave the ECHR and repeal the Human Rights Act.

    Conference, I want you to know that the next Conservative manifesto will contain our commitment to leave.

    Leaving the Convention is a necessary step, but not enough on its own to achieve our goals.

    If there are other treaties and laws, we need to revise or revisit then we will do so. And we will do so in the same calm and responsible way, working out the detail before we rush to announce.

    The rights we enjoy did not come from the ECHR.

    They were there for hundreds of years in our common law.

    Parliament has legislated over centuries to reflect and protect our freedoms.

    Human Rights in the United Kingdom did not start in 1998 with the Human Rights Act, and will not end with it.

    As we work through our detailed plan, we are clear that leaving the ECHR and repealing the Human Rights Act will not mean that we lose any of the rights we cherish.

    But this is the only way to end spurious legal claims from immigrants with dubious stories and excuses.

    This is the only way to allow a British Government, the next Conservative Government, to deliver a British BORDERS plan in full.

    Conference, the Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Philp, has done a brilliant job pulling together this BORDERS plan. The Conservatives are a strong team. And he will be saying more about this shortly, including our plans to remove 150,000 illegal immigrants a year.

    Lord Wolfson has also advised that leaving the ECHR is fully compatible with the Belfast Agreement – the Good Friday Agreement.

    But I know that there will be particular challenges in Northern Ireland.

    The difficulties are not a reason to avoid action, they are a reason to work harder to get it right.

    So, to ensure that this is an orderly and respectful process across the whole United Kingdom. I am asking Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary Alex Burghart to lead a review into Union-wide implementation.

    So, at the next election, we will present the people of the United Kingdom with a clear, thorough and robust plan.

    Not the vague mush that we see day in, day out from Labour

    Nor the vacuous posturing that we see day in day out from Reform.

    Conference, you would have seen last week, both Labour and Reform shouting at one another, trading insults instead of solutions.

    One flings around the word racist and will not be realistic about what is going wrong.

    The other whips up outrage, offering simplistic answers that fall apart on first contact with reality.

    That is not serious politics.

    Conference, neither offers the leadership Britain deserves.

    The truth is that Labour and Reform are two sides of the same coin.

    Both deal in grievance.

    Both divide our country into tribes and labels.

    Both practice identity politics which will destroy our country.

    I am saying no: no to division and no to identity politics.

    Conference, what Britain needs is national unity.

    I am black.

    I am a woman.

    I am a Conservative.

    And I know that identity politics is a trap.

    It reduces people to categories and then pits them against each other.

    But I am more than black, female, and even Conservative.

    I am British.

    Conference, I am British, as we all are.

    My children are British.

    And I will not allow anyone on the Left to tell them they belong in a different category or anyone on the Right to tell them they do not belong in their own country.

    Yes, Britain is a multiracial country.

    That is part of our modern story.

    But it must never become a multicultural country where shared values dissolve, loyalty fragments and we foment the home-grown terrorism we saw on the streets of Manchester this week.

    Nations cannot survive on diversity alone.

    We need a strong, common culture, rooted in our history, our language, our institutions, and our belief in liberty under the law.

    That is what holds us together.

    And that is why borders matter.

    Why numbers matter.

    But most of all why culture matters.

    Who comes here, why they come, and how they contribute that is how we protect the inheritance that generations before us fought for and died for.

    Conference, Britain needs deep change.

    But I reject the politics that everything must go. Everything must be torn down. That everything is broken.

    But if we leave it to Labour or Reform, Britain will be divided.

    Only the Conservatives can bring this country back together.

    This is a battle we must win.

    By combining secure borders, with a shared culture, strong values, and the confidence of a great nation, we can win the debate, and win the next election.

    Conference, this is a party under new leadership and with a renewed purpose.

    We have listened, we have learned, and we have changed.

    Only Conservatives will tell you the truth.

    Take the difficult decisions.

    Do the hard work.

    Only Conservatives have the courage, the honesty, and the plan to strengthen our borders, restore our sovereignty, and rebuild our prosperity.

    So, I say to you all, as we start our conference.

    Yes, we have a mountain to climb but we have a song in our hearts.

    And we are up for the fight.

  • Priti Patel – 2025 Speech on the Middle East

    Priti Patel – 2025 Speech on the Middle East

    The speech made by Priti Patel, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 1 September 2025.

    I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Let me also express my sympathy for the people of Afghanistan who are suffering as a result of last night’s major earthquake.

    Since the House last met, the awful conflict in the middle east has continued to see lives lost, with intolerable suffering. Hamas continues to refuse the release of all remaining hostages, despite the best efforts of those trying to broker peace. The hostages are now approaching 700 days in captivity, and the whole House will have been sickened by the harrowing clip of the emaciated hostage Evyatar David, which was released by Hamas over the summer. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire, and we are all familiar with the reports that we have seen daily on news channels. The inhumane suffering, the recent airstrikes and the inability to provide food for civilians simply cannot go on. We all want an urgent and sustainable end to this conflict. We want to see the release of the hostages from terrorist captivity, and to see aid for the people of Gaza.

    There are key questions for the British Government to answer. The British Government are in a position to help influence those outcomes, but are they actually fully leveraging their ability to do so? The Government’s frequent statements have so far not moved the dial closer to a sustainable end to the conflict, and, as the Foreign Secretary himself has said, we are not in a position to see any alleviation of this horrendous situation. Diplomacy is about putting in the hard yards to find solutions, not just about giving statements, and I therefore want to ask the Foreign Secretary three specific questions.

    First, are the Government taking any new specific action to tighten the screws on Hamas and pile more pressure on them to release the hostages? Should we expect more measures to further degrade Hamas’s ability to finance their campaign of terror? Why are the Government not leading international efforts to produce a credible plan to do exactly that, with an agreement from all the key regional partners and players with an interest in peace to see Hamas leave Gaza? Secondly, can the Foreign Secretary update the House on precisely where we stand and what Britain is contributing to the efforts of the United Nations and our regional allies to broker the release of hostages, and to an end of the conflict? Are we intimately involved, and are we sending in the UK expertise to help, given that we have great expertise when it comes to brokering negotiations of this kind? Thirdly, while we note the Foreign Secretary’s announcement yesterday about support for women and girls, the Government have yet to make essential breakthroughs on aid.

    Ministers must obviously work around the clock with everyone—with all our partners, including the Israelis and multinational institutions—to unblock the situation by coming up with practical solutions, even new solutions, on which all sides can focus when it comes to getting medical and food aid into Gaza. That must provide a significant increase in food and medical supplies reaching civilians while also addressing Israeli concerns about aid diversion, because those concerns are constant. Is the UK working with the multilateral bodies to try to mediate in the divisions and breakdowns of trust that have emerged with the Government of Israel? Is the Foreign Secretary considering schemes similar to those implemented by the Conservative Government, such as the floating piers that, working with the United States and Cyprus, we put in place off the coast of Gaza to get aid in? We need pragmatic and practical solutions to get food and medical supplies to innocent civilians in Gaza.

    Let me now turn to Labour’s decision to recognise a Palestinian state. The Government announced that huge shift in British policy just days after the House went into recess. We all support a two-state solution that guarantees security for both Israelis and Palestinians, but the Foreign Secretary must know that recognising a Palestinian state in September will not secure the lasting peace that we all want to see. Recognition is meaningful only if it is part of a formal peace process, and it should not happen while the hostages are still being held in terrorist captivity and while Hamas’s reign of terror continues. Can the Foreign Secretary explain his plan to go ahead with recognition while hostages are still being held, and while Hamas, who have predictably welcomed and been emboldened by this move, continue to hold on to power in Gaza? What practical measures are we proposing to remove Hamas from Gaza?

    The Foreign Secretary must realise that recognition will not secure the release of the hostages or get aid into Gaza immediately. We must always consider what tools of leverage we have in respect of future peace processes and negotiations that could actually help to establish a two-state solution and peace in the middle east. How will this unilateral action help to advance the best shot that we have at achieving a two-state solution, which is the expansion of the Abraham accords and Saudi normalisation, through which we could also calibrate our actions?

    As for the question of the middle east more broadly, the appalling behaviour of the Iranian regime has gone on for too long, and the regime has brought the initiation of the snapback process on itself. The Iranian people deserve much better. Tehran must never obtain a nuclear weapon, and Conservatives remain clear about the fact that the recent US strikes were necessary. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether he believes that Iran has the capability and the intention of recommencing its nuclear programme, and whether his assumption is that the snapback process will be seen through to completion? Can he tell us whether or not he welcomes Israel’s actions regarding the Houthi leadership in Yemen, and can he update the House on how the UK will use this moment to further degrade the Houthis’ ability to carry out the attacks and strikes that we have seen recently?

    Mr Lammy

    I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for the tone of her remarks. I am pleased that she agrees with me and, indeed, shares the sentiment of the entire House on the dire—as she described it— humanitarian situation in Gaza and the inhumanity that she also described. She will recognise that even before we came to power, the last Government were calling for the ceasefire that we all want to see.

    The right hon. Lady asked what the Government were doing in relation to Hamas. In New York, with our Arab partners, the French and others, we were doing just that—supporting the Prime Minister’s framework for peace, and working with colleagues to establish the circumstances of the day after. We have been crystal clear: there can be no role for Hamas. We need the demilitarisation of Gaza, and we are working with partners to try to set up the trusteeship, the new governance arrangement with Gaza. No Government are doing more than we are. We signed a memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority, and we are working with it on reform in a deliberate, day-to-day action, because there must be a role for it subsequently.

    The right hon. Lady asked what new solutions on aid might be found. That is where I depart with her sentiments, because I am not sure that we need new solutions. We need the old ones: the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and the World Food Programme. They exist, so let us support them. It was this party that restored funding to UNRWA when it was opposed by the Opposition. Let me say gently to the right hon. Lady that that is not what feeds women and girls. The mechanisms are there, and they work all over the globe. This worked the last time we had a ceasefire, when as many as 600 trucks a day went in, and we can do it once more. That is the position of the UK Government.

    I spoke to Tom Fletcher at the United Nations this morning to get the latest. The moderately good news is that the number of truck movements in August was higher than it was when I last updated the House in July, as the House was going into recess, but he reminded me that 60 or 70 trucks a day was nowhere near the number needed. I found the extra resources today because we know that the medical situation is dire, and the work that we can do with UK-Med is so important and so valued even when we are up against this horrific situation.

    Let me be crystal clear: Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Our demands are unconditional and have not changed. The hostages must be released without delay, and there can be no role for Hamas. But equally, the right hon. Lady will have seen the situation in the west bank. She did not comment on the E1 development running a coach and horses through the idea of two states, which has been the united position of every single party in this Chamber. That is why we set out the plans for recognition. Unless we get the breakthrough that we need on the ceasefire and a full process, we will move to recognition when UNGA meets in New York.

    I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s support on Iran and the snapback. My assessment is that no country needs the percentages of enriched uranium that we see in Iran. We do not have them in our country. We do not have them at sites like Sellafield and others, including the Urenco site. There is absolutely no need for them. We need a baseline, and that is why we need the inspectors back in. We need to know where the highly enriched uranium has gone, and that is why we have been very clear with the Iranians on the need to trigger snapback. We will see the sanctions come back unless we can reach a diplomatic solution in the next 30 days.

  • Neil Hudson – 2025 Comments on Asylum Seekers, Borders and Migration

    Neil Hudson – 2025 Comments on Asylum Seekers, Borders and Migration

    The comments made by Neil Hudson, the Conservative MP for Epping Forest, in the House of Commons on 1 September 2025.

    Home Secretary, please: we have a tinder-box situation in Epping. We have the Bell hotel, with alleged sexual and physical assaults, and now twice-weekly major protests, some of which became violent, with injuries to police officers. Appallingly, last week the Government successfully appealed against the injunction on the hotel, prioritising the rights of illegal migrants over the rights and, indeed, safety of the people of Epping. Our community is in distress. The situation is untenable. This week the schools are back. The hotel is in the wrong place, right near a school, and many concerned parents have contacted me. When will the Home Secretary and the Government listen to us, address this issue and do the right and safe thing: close the Bell hotel immediately?

    Yvette Cooper

    I agree that all asylum hotels need to be closed as swiftly as possible, including the Bell hotel. That needs to be done in an orderly and sustainable manner so that they are closed for good. The hon. Gentleman is not right in the characterisation of the Government’s case, because we are clear that all asylum hotels need to close. We need to ensure that that is done in an ordered way that does not simply make the problem worse in other neighbouring areas or cause the kind of disordered chaos that led to the opening of so many hotels in the first place. We also need to strengthen the security and the co-operation with policing, and we want to strengthen the law on asylum seekers who commit offences and can be banned from the system. That will be part of our Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill as well.

  • Lisa Smart – 2025 Speech on Asylum Seekers, Borders and Migration

    Lisa Smart – 2025 Speech on Asylum Seekers, Borders and Migration

    The speech made by Lisa Smart, the Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesperson, in the House of Commons on 1 September 2025.

    I am grateful to the Home Secretary, as always, for advance sight of her statement.

    Anyone with any sense knows that the Conservatives trashed our asylum system and left the backlog spiralling out of control, with applications for asylum routinely taking years to process. Some of the Home Secretary’s remarks are welcome, but I worry that this Government risk repeating some of the same mistakes.

    The Liberal Democrats will closely scrutinise the plan that the Home Secretary has talked about today, but given that the Home Office itself says that one of the reasons that those human beings seeking asylum make dangerous small-boat crossings is the lack of safe, alternative family reunion routes, cutting those back further seems counterproductive, especially when more than half of those granted family reunion visas in the year ending June 2025 were children under 18.

    It is right that the Government have increased the rate of decisions made—those with no right to be here should be sent back swiftly, and those who have a valid claim should be able to settle, work, integrate and contribute to our communities. The backlog is still too large, however, and initial application decisions still take too long. As the Home Secretary stated, a significant share of the backlog comes from appeals. According to the Government’s own figures, in 2024 almost half of rejected asylum applications were overturned on appeal. For applicants from high-grant countries, that proportion was even higher. I would welcome clarity from the Home Secretary on how long it is currently taking to process the average asylum application, and on what concrete steps are being taken to ensure not only that cases are processed more swiftly, but that decisions are right the first time, so that applicants are not left in limbo, the courts are not overburdened and taxpayers are not footing the bill for avoidable delays.

    I welcome the Home Secretary’s encouraging comments about the reciprocal agreement with France. Can she confirm whether the Government plan for that to be scaled up and, if so, when? Given that one of the main drivers of dangerous channel crossings is the absence of safe, legal family reunion routes, does the Home Secretary agree that cutting family reunion rules risks making the small-boat crisis worse, not better?

    The Home Secretary rightly also mentioned the impact on local authorities. When individuals leave hotels, many present as homeless, creating an unsustainable burden on councils, including my own. Will the Home Secretary explain how she is working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to support councils and ensure that this crisis is not simply shifted from one overstretched system to another?

    In recent weeks, constituents have been in touch with me as they are concerned about the number of flags that have gone up on lampposts around our area. They worry that the flags have been put up by those who seek to divide our community, not bring it together. Patriotism is a good thing. We should be proud of our country. We should be proud that our country welcomed people such as my nan in the 1930s, when she was fleeing the Nazis. We should be proud of our record of doing our bit. We should be proud of the British values I see in action across my community every day.

    I am proud of those police officers who kept everyone safe during the protests at two hotels in my constituency over the summer; proud of those teachers and pupils who welcome new classmates when they have been placed in one of the hotels; and really proud of those who volunteer their time to support new arrivals, whether through local churches or other voluntary groups and charities—because that is what patriotism looks like.

    Yvette Cooper

    I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks and questions. At the heart of the France pilot that we have developed is the principle that those who arrive on dangerous and illegal small boats should be returned, but alongside that we should also have a legal route for those who apply and who go through proper security checks. As part of that, we will seek to prioritise people who have a connection to the UK, such as family groups —people who have family connections to the UK. Families will continue to need to be an underpinning part of the approach. The House will recall that the Ukraine family scheme was an important part of the response to the situation in Ukraine, for which Labour called in opposition.

    The family reunion arrangements are being used differently from how they were used five years ago. The number of people applying for family reunion immediately —before they have a job, a house or any way of being able to support their families—is increasing the homelessness pressures on local authorities at a time when we need them not just to do their bit to help to clear hotels, but, crucially, to provide homelessness support in the local community. It is important to ensure that arrangements for the families of refugees do not put additional pressure on the homelessness support system, so we will set out reforms and ensure that, in the interim, refugees are included in the existing arrangements that apply to all sponsors in the UK for family reunion.

    We need to speed up appeals. The average appeal time is now 54 weeks, which is far too long. Some appeals go on for way longer, meaning people with repeat appeals are in asylum accommodation for years, preventing the closure of asylum hotels that needs to take place, which is why we need the reforms.

    Finally, the hon. Lady raised the issue of flags. I strongly support the flying of flags across the country—we fly the St George’s flag in Pontefract castle each year. As she will know, the Union flag is on the Labour party membership card—[Interruption.] I can show her a copy if she has not seen one. Flags should be an embodiment of bringing our country together—that will be the same in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and a way to bring our country together through symbolism.

  • Chris Philp – 2025 Speech on Asylum Seekers, Borders and Migration

    Chris Philp – 2025 Speech on Asylum Seekers, Borders and Migration

    The speech made by Chris Philip, the Conservative MP for Croydon South, in the House of Commons on 1 September 2025.

    I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. The Government have now been in office for well over a year, and I think it is fair to say that not even their kindest friends would say they think it has gone well, but listening to her statement, it sounds like she thinks everything is fine and that if there are any problems, it is somehow somebody else’s fault. Is she living in a parallel universe? After over a year in office, she must now take responsibility for what is happening under this Government.

    It was interesting to note that, during her statement, she did not mention her favourite phrase from a year or so ago—namely, that she was going to “smash the gangs.” I wonder why she was so silent on her previously favourite catchphrase. The answer is that it is not going very well. She mentioned National Crime Agency disruptions. Let me gently point out that 84% of those National Crime Agency disruptions that she cited a few minutes ago are classified as not being high impact, and National Crime Agency arrests for organised immigration crime actually went down by 16% in the last financial year. That is hardly smashing the gangs. In fact, the NCA’s arrests for organised immigration crime in that financial year were only 26—a drop in the ocean compared with the tens of thousands crossing the channel.

    It was also rather conspicuous that the Home Secretary did not mention even a word about the numbers illegally crossing the English channel. I wonder why that was. I wonder why she forgot to say a single word about that. The reason, I am afraid, is pretty clear. Far from smashing the gangs, so far this year, 29,000—to be precise, 29,003—illegal immigrants have crossed the English channel. That is the worst year in history, and it is up by 38% compared with last year. That is not success; it is failure. Things are not getting any better; they are getting worse. This Government are failing and everyone can see it. That is why there are protests up and down the country, and where those protests are peaceful, I support them. That is why 75% of the public think the Government are handling immigration and asylum badly. That is a shocking figure; let it sink in.

    Let me turn to hotels. In the nine months before the last general election, 200 hotels were closed down, including the Bell hotel in Epping, but since the election the numbers in asylum hotels have actually gone up by 8%. Had that previous trend of closures continued, there would be no asylum hotels open at all today. I ask the Home Secretary to confirm that she will not reduce hotel usage simply by shunting asylum seekers from hotels into flats and houses in multiple occupation, which are desperately needed by young people. Will she give the House that categoric assurance?

    Last week the Home Secretary’s lawyers said that the rights of illegal immigrants were more important than the rights of local people in places such as Epping. When this was expressly put in those terms to the Education Secretary yesterday on “Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips”, she shamefully agreed. Those statements are a disgrace. Does the Home Secretary realise how angry that makes people feel? It speaks of a Government not on the side of the people in this country. It means the Government appear to care more about the rights of illegal immigrants than our own citizens. Will she apologise for what her lawyers and the Education Secretary said, and will she undertake to ensure that Ministers and their lawyers will never say that again?

    The Home Secretary talks about her returns deal with France. It has been reported that the deal will return only about 50 people a week, amounting to 6% of arrivals. Does she accept that allowing 94% of illegal arrivals to stay will act as no deterrent at all? If she does not accept that figure of 50 a week, will she tell the House exactly how many immigrants crossing the channel will in fact be returned under her deal? She may recall that back in July we were told by the Government that the first returns would happen “within weeks”. Will she confirm to the House that the number that has actually been returned so far is precisely zero?

    The Home Secretary said to the House a couple of minutes ago that there would be security checks on those people reciprocally taken from France into the UK, but will she confirm that her agreement with France says expressly that the French Government will not provide the UK Government with any information at all—any personal data about those migrants—so if there are criminal convictions or suspicions about extremism or terrorism, the French Government will not provide information to us? If that is true, as her agreement says, how can she possibly conduct security checks?

    The Home Secretary talked about tweaks to family visa rules. Let me be clear about the Opposition’s position on this. If someone enters this country illegally, they should not be allowed to bring in any family members. In fact, everybody entering this country illegally should be immediately removed, to their country of origin if possible, and if that is not possible, to a safe third country such as Rwanda—a scheme which she cancelled just days before it was due to start. The public expect that approach—an approach which she cancelled—because the numbers crossing the channel so far this year have been the worst ever; the worst in history.

    It is not just that the numbers are high. Hundreds of migrants, having crossed the channel and living in those hotels, have been charged with criminal offences, including sexual assaults on girls as young as eight years old and multiple rapes. This is not just a border security crisis; it is a public safety crisis as well, and people up and down this country are furious. That is why they are protesting, and that is why 75% of the public think this Government are failing on asylum and immigration.

    If this Government were serious about fixing this problem, they would know that little tweaks here and there are not enough. Tweaks to article 8 are not going to be enough. Tweaking the family reunion rules is not enough. Returning maybe 50 people a week, if we are lucky, to France is not going to be enough. Intercepting maybe a few boats—worthy though that is—is not going to be enough. The only way these crossings will stop—the only way we are going to get back control of our borders—is if everybody crossing the channel knows that they will be returned. We tabled a Bill in Parliament a few weeks ago to do that. We had a plan to do that: the Rwanda Bill. We need to go further by disapplying to immigration matters the entire Human Rights Act 1998, not just tinkering with article 8. If the Government were serious, that is what they would do.

    If the Home Secretary really wants to control our borders, and if she really wants to get down the record numbers that have been crossing on her watch, she would back our plan, disapply the Human Rights Act in its entirety to immigration matters, and ensure that every single person crossing the channel is immediately removed.

    Yvette Cooper

    I worry about the shadow Home Secretary’s amnesia. In the 14 years that the Conservatives were in government, they never managed to do any of the fantasy things that he claims they did. Let us come back to reality from his fantasy rhetoric.

    The shadow Home Secretary talked about the approach that his Government were taking before the election. It is worth reminding the House of what that approach was. Asylum decisions dropped by 70%. The Conservatives effectively had a freeze on taking asylum decisions, and they were returning those asylum seekers nowhere—not to France, not to the safe countries that people had passed through, and not to Rwanda, despite running that scheme for over two years with only four volunteers going at a cost of £700 million. Their approach left us with a soaring backlog. Had we continued with that totally failed approach—not taking asylum decisions, not returning people anywhere—there would have been tens of thousands more people in asylum accommodation and hotels across the country right now. That is the kind of chaos that his policies were heading towards. It is the kind of chaos that he is promising again now.

    The House will remember the shadow Home Secretary’s personal record. Small boat arrivals went up tenfold on his watch as immigration Minister. Fewer than 1,000 asylum seekers were in hotels by the time he became immigration Minister, but there were more than 20,000 by the time he left his post. On his new concern for local councils, he was the immigration Minister who wrote to local authorities to tell them that he was stopping the requirement on them to agree to accommodation and that he had

    “instead, authorised Providers to identify any suitable properties that they consider appropriate.”

    We agree with communities across the country that asylum hotels must all close, and I understand why individual councils want to take action in their areas, but I say to the shadow Home Secretary that a party that wants to be in government should have a proper plan for the whole country, and not just promote a chaotic approach that ends up making things worse in lots of areas. That is the Conservatives’ record. We have asylum hotels in the first place because the Conservatives did no planning and let the Manston chaos get out of control. As immigration Ministers, both the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and the shadow Home Secretary rushed around the country opening hotels instead of taking a practical, steady approach to get to the heart of the problem, reduce the asylum system, strengthen our border security and tackle and reform the appeals that are causing huge delays.

    Let me make a final point. The Government strongly believe that sex offenders should be banned from the asylum system altogether. That is why we have put those details into the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which the shadow Home Secretary’s party has voted against time and again and is still resisting in the House of Lords. If Opposition parties supported and worked with us, that law could be on the statute book and we could have stronger powers against sex offenders, stronger counter-terrorism powers to go after criminal gangs, and stronger powers to tackle the offences being committed in the channel and across the country.

    The trouble is that what the Conservatives are doing in opposition is an even worse version of what they did in government: ramping up the rhetoric with policies that would make the chaos worse. This Government will fix the chaos that we inherited and strengthen our border security for the sake of the whole country.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2025 Statement on Asylum Seekers, Borders and Migration

    Yvette Cooper – 2025 Statement on Asylum Seekers, Borders and Migration

    The statement made by Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 1 September 2025.

    With permission, I will update the House on the actions we are taking with France to strengthen our border security and the next steps in our reforms to the asylum system.

    The House will be aware that when we came into government, we found an asylum and immigration system in chaos: for seven years, small boat gangs had been allowed to embed their criminal trade along the French coast; the asylum backlog was soaring; and illegal working was being ignored. The previous Government had lost control of the system and, as a result, opened many hundreds of asylum hotels across the country, while returns were a third lower than in 2010. Before leaving office, they deliberately cut asylum decision making by 70%, leaving behind a steeply rising backlog. It is little wonder that people across the country lost confidence in the system and demanded to know why they were paying the price of a system that was so out of control.

    However, that does not mean that people rejected the long and proud history of Britain doing our bit to help those fleeing persecution or conflict—including, in the past decade, families from Ukraine, Syria and Hong Kong. It is the British way to do our bit alongside other countries to help those who need sanctuary. However, the system has to be controlled and managed, based on fair and properly enforced rules, not chaos and exploitation driven by criminal smuggler gangs. It is exactly because of our important tradition that substantial reforms are needed now.

    In our first year in government, we have taken immediate action, laying the foundations for more fundamental reform. We restored asylum decision making and then rapidly increased the rate of decisions. Had we continued with the previous Government’s freeze on asylum decisions, thousands more people would have been in hotels and asylum accommodation by now. Instead, we removed 35,000 people with no right to be here, which included a 28% increase in returns of failed asylum seekers and a 14% increase in removals of foreign criminals. We have increased raids and arrests on illegal working by 50%, and we cut the annual hotel bill by almost a billion pounds in the last financial year. We are rolling out digital ID and biometric kits so that immigration enforcement can check on the spot whether someone has a right to work or a right to be in the UK. On channel crossings and organised immigration crime, we are putting in place new powers, new structures and new international agreements to help to dismantle the criminal industry behind the boats.

    I want to update the House on the further steps we are now taking. In August, I signed the new treaty with France allowing us, for the first time, to directly return those who arrive on small boats. The first detentions—of people immediately on arrival in Dover—took place the next day, and we expect the first returns to begin later this month. Applications have been opened for the reciprocal legal route, with the first cases under consideration, subject to strict security checks. We have made it clear that this is a pilot scheme, but the more that we prove the concept at the outset, the better we will be able to develop and grow it.

    The principles the treaty embodies are crucial. No one should be making these dangerous or illegal journeys on small boats; if they do, we want to see them swiftly returned. In return, we believe in doing our bit alongside other countries to help those who have fled persecution through managed and controlled legal programmes.

    This summer we have taken further action to strengthen enforcement against smuggling gangs. France has reviewed its maritime approach to allow for the interception of taxi boats in French waters, and we will continue to work with France to implement the change as soon as possible. In the past year, the National Crime Agency has led 347 disruptions of immigration crime networks—its highest level on record, and a 40% increase in a year.

    Over the summer, we announced a £100 million uplift in funding for border security and up to 300 more personnel in the National Crime Agency focusing on targeting the smuggler gangs. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill will give them stronger powers: counter-terrorism powers against smuggler gangs, powers to seize and download the mobile phones of small boat arrivals, and the power to ban sex offenders from the asylum system altogether. If Opposition parties work with us to speed the passage of the Bill through the other place, instead of opposing it, those powers could be in place within months, making our country safer and more secure.

    Let me turn to the major reforms that are needed to fix the broken asylum system that we inherited. Although we have increased decision making and returns, the overall system remains sclerotic, outdated and unfair. As we committed to in the immigration White Paper, we will shortly set out more radical reforms to modernise the asylum system and boost our border security. We will be tackling the pull factors, strengthening enforcement, making sure that people are treated fairly and reforming the way that the European convention on human rights is interpreted here at home. We will be speeding up the system, cutting numbers and ending the use of hotels, and developing controlled and managed routes for genuine refugees.

    At the heart of the reforms will be a complete overhaul of the appeals system—the biggest obstacle to reducing the size of the asylum system and ending hotel use. Tens of thousands of people in asylum accommodation are currently waiting for appeals, and under the current system that figure is to grow, with an average wait time already of 54 weeks. We have already funded thousands of additional sitting days this year, and the border security Bill will introduce a statutory timeframe of 24 weeks.

    However, we need to go further. We will introduce a new independent body to deal with immigration and asylum appeals. It will be fully independent of Government and staffed by professionally trained adjudicators, with safeguards to ensure high standards. It will be able to surge capacity as needed and to accelerate and prioritise cases, alongside new procedures to tackle repeat applications and unnecessary delays. We are also increasing detention and returns capacity, including a 1,000-bed expansion at Campsfield and Haslar, with the first tranche of additional beds coming online within months to support many thousands more enforced removals each year.

    Our reforms will also address the overly complex system for family migration, including changes to the way that article 8 of the ECHR is interpreted. We should be clear that international law is important. It is because other countries know that we abide by international law that we have been able to make new agreements with France, to return people who arrive on small boats, and with Germany, to stop the warehousing of small boats by criminal gangs, and it is why we have been able to explore return hubs partnerships with other European countries. However, we need the interpretation of international law to keep up with the realities and challenges of today’s world.

    There is one area where we need to make more immediate changes. The current rules for family reunion for refugees were designed many years ago to help families separated by war, conflict and persecution, but the way they are used has now changed. Even just before the pandemic, refugees who applied to bring family to the UK did so on average more than one or two years after they had been granted protection, which was long enough for them to get jobs, find housing and be able to provide their family with some support. In Denmark and Switzerland, those who are granted humanitarian protection are currently not able to apply to bring family for at least two years after protection has been granted.

    However, in the UK those family applications now come in, on average, around a month after protection has been granted, often even before a newly granted refugee has left asylum accommodation. As a consequence, refugee families who arrive are far more likely to seek homelessness assistance. Some councils are finding that more than a quarter of their family homelessness applications are linked to refugee family reunion. That is not sustainable. Currently, there are also no conditions on family reunion for refugee sponsors, unlike those in place if the sponsor is a British citizen or long-term UK resident. That is not fair.

    The proportion of migrants who have arrived on small boats and then applied to bring family has also increased sharply in recent years, with signs that smuggler gangs are now able to use the promise of family reunion to promote dangerous journeys to the UK. We continue to believe that families staying together is important, which is why we will seek to prioritise family groups among the applicants to come to Britain under our new deal with France, but reforms are needed. So in our asylum policy statement later this year, we will set out a new system for family migration, including looking at contribution requirements, longer periods before newly granted refugees can apply, and dedicated controlled arrangements for unaccompanied children and those fleeing persecution who have family in the UK.

    We aim to have some of those changes in place for the spring, but in the meantime we do need to address the immediate pressures on local authorities and the risks from criminal gangs using family reunion as a pull factor to encourage more people on to dangerous boats. Therefore, this week we are bringing forward new immigration rules to temporarily suspend new applications under the existing dedicated refugee family reunion route. Until the new framework is introduced, refugees will be covered by the same family migration rules and conditions as everyone else.

    Let me turn next to the action we are taking to ensure that every asylum hotel will be closed for good under this Government, not just by shifting individuals from hotels to other sites but by driving down the numbers in supported accommodation overall, and not in a chaotic way through piecemeal court judgments, but through a controlled, managed and orderly programme: driving down inflow into the asylum system, clearing the appeals backlog, which is crucial, and continuing to increase returns. Within the asylum estate, we are reconfiguring sites, increasing room sharing, tightening the test for accommodation and working at pace to identify alternative, cheaper and more appropriate accommodation with other Departments and with local authorities. We are increasing standards and security and joint public safety co-operation between the police, accommodation providers and the Home Office to ensure that laws and rules are enforced.

    I understand and agree with local councils and communities who want the asylum hotels in their communities closed, because we need to close all asylum hotels—we need to do so for good—but that must be done in a controlled and orderly manner, not through a return to the previous Government’s chaos that led to the opening of hotels in the first place.

    Finally, let me update the House on the continued legal and controlled support that we will provide for those facing conflict and persecution. We will continue to do our bit to support Ukraine, extending the Ukraine permission extension scheme by a further 24 months, with further details to be set out in due course. We are also taking immediate action to rescue children who have been seriously injured in the horrendous onslaught on civilians in Gaza so that they can get the health treatment they need. The Foreign Secretary will update the House shortly on the progress to get those children out.

    I confirm that the Home Office has put in place systems to issue expedited visas with biometric checks conducted prior to arrival for children and their immediate accompanying family members. We have done the same for all the Chevening scholars and are now in the process of doing so for the next group of students from Gaza who have been awarded fully funded scholarships and places at UK universities so that they can start their studies in autumn this year. Later this year, we will set out plans to establish a permanent framework for refugee students to come and study in the UK so that we can help more talented young people fleeing war and persecution to find a better future, alongside capped and managed ways for refugees to work here in the UK.

    The Government are determined to fix every aspect of the broken system we inherited and to restore the confidence of the British people, solving problems, not exploiting them, with a serious and comprehensive plan, not fantasy claims based on sums that do not add up or gimmicks that failed in the past. What we will never do is seek to stir up chaos, division or hate, because that is not who we are as a country, and that is not what Britain stands for.

    This is a practical plan to strengthen our border security, to fix the asylum chaos and to rebuild confidence in an asylum and immigration system that serves our national interests, protects our national security and reflects our national values. When we wave the Union flag, when we wave the St George’s flag, when we sing “God Save the King” and when we celebrate everything that is great about Britain and about our country, we do so with pride because of the values that our flags, our King and our country represent: togetherness, fairness and decency, respect for each other and respect for the rule of law. That is what our country stands for. That is the British way to fix the problems we face. I commend this statement to the House.