MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

Debate between Chris Philp and Jo White

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jo White]

No, I will not give way.

Winston Churchill proposed the establishment of the European convention on human rights at the 1948 Congress of Europe, and the UK was the first country to ratify it in 1951. It came from Churchill’s experience of dealing with the Nazis before and during the second world war. Some 13 million people were murdered, unprotected. The European convention on human rights defines what we mean by never again. How those rights are interpreted and applied is important, and that is why the Home Secretary committed last year to oversee reforms to bring the ECHR into the modern age.

The ECHR includes freedom of assembly, freedom to a fair trial, the prohibition of torture, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the right to life, including the right not to be murdered in your own state. That is what the Nazis did and that is where the ECHR comes from. These principles remain essential. Which two countries have chosen to stay out? Russia and Belarus. Perhaps we should ask opposition leaders in Russia and Belarus about that. They have been falsely imprisoned, tortured and murdered by the state. That is what we are talking about. By leaving the ECHR, we would throw away protections against show trials and political persecution. We will not hand over our freedoms to the whims of tyrants and dictators.

[Chris Philp]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jo White]

No, I will not. Sit down.

Instead, we stand with Churchill. We will build a fair, controlled immigration system that is free from abuse. We will focus on matters abut which people are rightly concerned.

The issue is not the existence of the convention, but the way in which it has been applied over time. We do not fix a fault by walking away; we sort it out by restoring the right balance and ensuring that the system works as intended. That is why all 46 members of the ECHR adopted the Chiinău political declaration in May, creating solid foundations for reform. The Government are now translating that into practical change, and we will see reform of the domestic application of article 8, restoring the proper balance between maintaining individual rights and protecting the public interest. This is a binary choice: reform the ECHR and have greater control over our borders, or leave and lose our ability to return illegal migrants or foreign criminals. I choose the powers that the ECHR gives us, which protects all our individual rights and freedoms. It also provides us with responsibilities, and when people have been subjected to torture or the risk of torture, we have rightly provided them with a place of security and safety.

I now come to some of the points made by hon. Members. [Interruption.] I respond appropriately to Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) wanted a timeline for the closing down of hotels in places such as Falkirk which were approved by the Tories when they were in power. The ambition is to end hotel use by the end of this parliamentary term. The number has fallen from 400 when we came into power to fewer than 160, and I will celebrate with my hon. Friend when we are in a position to close down the remaining hotel in his constituency.

In response to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), the introduction of electronic travel authorisations at the borders and ports and the use of visa penalties have given us much greater control over our borders. Disincentivising crossings through the introduction of new, strong control methods, including those employed by Border Security Command, cracking down on illegal working and introducing safe and legal routes for genuine asylum cases from some of the most dangerous countries in the world has also given us more power over our borders. The change in the way in which the ECHR is applied is critical to bringing back order and control.

This Government share the concern on women’s safety, and I acknowledge the concerns of the women who are here today. No woman should live a smaller life, and this Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls within this decade. Ours is a cross-Government response, and we will work as hard as we can to achieve that aim. Home Office representatives have met the chief executive and the leader of Cherwell district council to discuss cohesion challenges linked to people’s concerns about the site, and they are listening to the concerns raised by women.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Debate between Chris Philp and Jo White

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I missed being in Committee as well, and I missed the prospect of spending hours and hours in the hon. Lady’s company. Perhaps on some other occasion an opportunity will present itself.

The hon. Lady invites me to comment on a Third Reading matter, but since she asked the question, when we vote on a Bill at Third Reading—a yes or no vote—we are voting on it in its totality. While the counter-terror measures may have a very marginal benefit—it will be no more than marginal, as she should know—the Bill will also do some extremely damaging things that will make it a lot harder to control our borders. For example, clause 38 repeals pretty much the entirety of the Illegal Migration Act 2023.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Chris Philp]

I will answer the question first.

Among other things, the Illegal Migration Act requires the Government to remove people who arrive here illegally, and it says there is no path to citizenship for somebody who comes to this country illegally, which is a very sensible measure. This Bill repeals almost all of that. The Bill also removes from the statute book the legislative basis to implement a removals deterrent. One of the first things the Government did on coming into office was cancel the Rwanda scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

No, I will answer the question first.

The Government cancelled the Rwanda scheme before it even started. The first flight had been due to take off on 24 July. Everybody, including the National Crime Agency, has warned that without a removals deterrent we are not going to stop the boats. Law enforcement alone—important though it is—is not enough, and a border security commander with no powers is certainly not enough.

Experience from around the world shows that we need a removals deterrent. If people enter the UK illegally from France and are rapidly removed to somewhere else, be it Rwanda or elsewhere, others will not attempt the crossing because they know that removal will follow. Australia tried something very similar about 10 years ago—it was called Operation Sovereign Borders. Australia had a bigger problem than we did—at that time there were 50,000 people a year crossing—and within the space of only a few months, the removals deterrent it used stopped the illegal maritime arrivals, as Australia called them, entirely. The number went to zero, and it saved lives in the process. Australia used an island called Nauru rather than Rwanda, but the principle is the same.

Home Office Ministers must by now be regretting their hastiness, because in the absence of any removals deterrent, the numbers have gone through the roof. As I said already, this year so far has been the worst in history. Without a removals deterrent, there is no hope of stopping the crossings.

Clause 37 of the Bill repeals the entirety of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, and amendment 32 seeks to remove clause 37. There will probably come a time—if not today, then in six months; and if not in six months, then in 12 months—when Labour Ministers will realise that their plans are not working, that the numbers are getting worse, and that without a removals deterrent they are not going to stop the boats. That is why this Bill and their policy is so misguided, and it is why the numbers this year have been the worst in history.

[Jo White]

I wonder whether the shadow Home Secretary could comment on the views of his colleague the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), who said during the Public Bill Committee that

“immigration is too high. Previous Governments have failed to solve it.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 18 March 2025; c. 347.]

I wonder whether he could also comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), who said in Committee:

“The system is broken. It has been broken for many decades, and that is now plain to see.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 18 March 2025; c. 335.]

[Chris Philp]

I agree with both my colleagues, and that is why we have tabled amendments and new clauses to address this issue. I will come on to those in a moment.

It was a Labour Government that chose to cancel the removals deterrent before it started, and that is why the numbers are higher than they have ever been in history. It is a result of their choices.