partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Chris Philp

   Topical Questions

   The Home Secretary was not as quite as clear as she was previously. Vile rapist Shabir Ahmed must be deported back to Pakistan along with all eligible rape gang perpetrators. Separately, survivors like Fiona Goddard have said that they are terrified at the prospect of rape gang perpetrators being released early from prison in the coming weeks. First, will the Home Secretary bring forward emergency legislation to ensure that Ahmed can be deported? Secondly, will she urgently make the changes needed to ensure that no rapists will ever be eligible for the Government’s expanded early release scheme?

   Hansard source
2. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Chris Philp

   Death of Ann Widdecombe

   I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I start by offering my deepest condolences to Ann’s family and friends. She will be terribly missed. Ann sat as the Conservative MP for Maidstone for nearly a quarter of a century, and in the European Parliament for the Brexit party. She served in government and in opposition, including as shadow Home Secretary. She always fearlessly spoke her mind. She did not worry about whether her opinion would be popular or fashionable; she always said exactly what she believed and exactly what she thought. Her integrity and her fortitude were unmatched. I first met Ann 29 years ago at a university debate, where we were speaking on opposite sides. I was a callow 21-year-old student; she had just left government and was at the height of her powers. I remember starting my speech by asking her to treat me more gently than she had recently treated Michael Howard. Needless to say, I was put very firmly in my place. Ann was also a much-loved celebrity, with memorable appearances on “Celebrity Big Brother” and “Strictly Come Dancing”, where she was whirled around by Anton Du Beke. We will all remember Ann fondly as a public figure who was always formidable, always charming and always entertaining. As we discuss this appalling murder, we should heed the words of Devon and Cornwall Assistant Chief Constable Matt Longman, who said over the weekend: “We are aware of online and public speculation, particularly with regards to motive… I urge people not to share or engage with that speculation. It’s unhelpful” and distressing to Ann’s friends and family, and is particularly harmful to the police’s investigation. Criminal barrister Dennis Kavanagh has also pointed out that speculation makes the police’s job harder and, in some cases, could even prejudice a trial. I urge everyone debating this issue to keep that in mind. It has just been confirmed by the Home Secretary that counter-terrorism police are now leading the murder investigation. In order to help to avoid that speculation, can the Home Secretary properly share any further information about this matter without prejudicing the investigation? I thank the police for releasing the information they have so far, including about the identity of the suspect. It is always important to release as much information as possible in the interests of transparency and to avoid misinformation filling the void, as Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has said previously. I will turn now to threats against those in public life. Any threats against MPs, who have been democratically elected to represent their constituents, or against others in public life, should be taken extremely seriously. In the past 10 years, two MPs—Jo Cox and Sir David Amess—have been murdered, and now a former MP has been murdered, too. The threat is clearly real. I remember when, in 2017, terrorist Khalid Masood drove a car into pedestrians along Westminster bridge, injuring more than 50 people, four of them fatally, and then ran into New Palace Yard—just yards from where we sit in this Chamber—where he fatally stabbed PC Keith Palmer. That was also an attack on democracy itself. Mr Speaker, I would like to thank you personally for all the work you are doing to protect MPs and those in public life. As the Speaker of the House of Commons, I know that you have made the safety and protection of those in public life your highest priority, and I would like to thank you for that. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] We must redouble our efforts to ensure that public political figures—both those who are MPs and those, like Ann, who are not—always receive the proportionate protection that they need. I would be grateful if the Home Secretary could confirm that she will review all the arrangements with that objective in mind. I believe that, in this country, we should be able to debate each other robustly on important issues, but that we should also speak to each other in a way that is civil and respectful. Of course, nothing excuses violent attacks on public figures, but we should all also set an example of civility and calm, and not inflame matters. We need people to step up and become MPs and to speak in the public square. Debate and disagreement are what make our country great. Ann Widdecombe exemplified that every minute of her life, and I pay tribute to her. I know that we will all remember Ann forever.

   Hansard source
3. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Chris Philp

   Immigration and Asylum Bill

   For the benefit of the House and for clarification, does the Home Secretary intend to implement her proposed ILR changes via amendments to the Bill, or via the immigration rules in the autumn?

   Hansard source
4. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Chris Philp

   Immigration and Asylum Bill

   I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add: “this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Immigration and Asylum Bill, while welcoming some of its provisions, because the Bill does not ensure all foreign criminals and illegal immigrants will be deported; does not end asylum for illegal immigrants; does not stop modern slavery claims suspending removal; does not stop illegal immigrants getting citizenship; does not make the changes the Government promised to reduce the numbers of people eligible for Indefinite Leave to Remain; because the Bill will allow sponsor human rights claims, which will enable people outside the UK to enter under human rights grounds; because measures in the Bill such as narrowing the ability to make Article 8 and modern slavery claims will not be effective while the UK remains in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 remains in force; and because the provisions in the Bill are not capable of eliminating illegal immigration.” The reasoned amendment, which stands in the names of the Leader of the Opposition, myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends, is to decline to give a Second Reading to the Bill on the grounds that it does not go far enough to combat illegal immigration or to ensure that all foreign criminals are deported. First, I cannot help but notice the absence of the hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp), the immigration Minister, whom I was expecting to see in his place. Perhaps the Home Secretary has not yet forgiven him for openly defying her a few weeks ago, leading to her rather extraordinary public campaign to get him fired. No wonder she has so much trouble deporting illegal immigrants—she cannot even deport her own junior Minister from Marsham Street. [Interruption.] Does the Home Secretary deny that she tried to get him fired a couple of weeks ago, unsuccessfully? I notice that she makes no such denial. At the beginning of her speech, the Home Secretary made a number of claims about statistics, one or two of which I would like to gently take issue with. She referred to small boat crossings. Since the election, 76,000 people have dangerously and illegally crossed the channel by small boat. That is more than under any other Prime Minister. Let us keep in mind that those crossings were undertaken mainly by young men, all of whom were leaving a safe country, France. Nobody needs to flee danger in France. The Home Secretary also referred to removal numbers. Some 85% of those removals are voluntary, and only a tiny fraction are of people who arrived by small boat. In fact, since the election, removals of people illegally entering by small boat have amounted to only about 5% to 7% of small boat arrivals. Given that someone entering this country by small boat has a 95% chance of staying, and gets put up in taxpayer-funded accommodation, it is no wonder that crossings have occurred in record numbers. The only way of deterring these crossings is if almost everybody arriving gets deported when they arrive. I observe that of the 80,000 people whose asylum claims were rejected at first instance in 2025, only 12,000 left or were removed. It is true that FNO removals are somewhat up, which I welcome, but if we look at the breakdown by nationality, it tells a rather different story. The numbers of foreign criminals deported to countries such as Albania, Romania, Lithuania and Poland are high when we compare them against the offender population. When we look at countries outside of Europe, the numbers are much lower. For example, Jamaica, Iraq, Nigeria and Somalia together have 1,150 offenders in prison—and many more out in the community—yet last year, only 110, or less than 10%, were removed. Yes, the removal of FNOs to countries in eastern Europe is going well, and I commend the Government on that, but when it comes to removing foreign criminals to countries outside Europe, such as Jamaica, Iraq, Nigeria and Somalia, the figures are very low. The reasons for that are some of the ones that the Home Secretary touched on earlier.

   Hansard source
5. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Chris Philp

   Immigration and Asylum Bill

   Our membership of the ECHR has less effect on deportations to Europe, because it is hard to make an ECHR-based claim if the receiving country is in Europe. However, when it comes to deporting foreign criminals to countries outside of Europe, such as those I listed, there are frequent ECHR-based claims, as the Home Secretary said earlier. I will expand on that point later, but there is no question in my mind that ECHR-based claims are one of the reasons why it is difficult to deport foreign criminals to those countries I just listed. Human rights claims, combined with asylum claims and modern slavery claims, mean that dangerous criminals remain in this country. I will give the hon. Gentleman a number. Under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007, the Home Secretary is under a legal duty to deport a foreign national sentenced to more than a year in prison, yet 20,000 people who meet that criterion are at large in the community, and many of them continue to offend. They are still at large in the community because they make claims under the ECHR, modern slavery and asylum routes. Those 20,000 people are a risk to my constituents and to his, and I take exception to some of the Home Secretary’s high-fiving at the beginning of her speech. Let me touch on the proposal for so-called safe and legal routes, or refugee sponsorship. The numbers that we are talking about would be in addition to the number of asylum claims that we are already processing. Last year saw the highest number of asylum claims in history. From memory, it was somewhere in the region of 109,000. This year, the number will only be a little lower. Adding to that when we already have record numbers of asylum claims strikes me as irresponsible. The Home Secretary said that there would be a cap, but she did not specify what it would be; I would be interested to hear that. She also asserted that the people coming in by these routes would not be a burden on the general taxpayer, because their sponsor would look after them. She neglected to mention that that support has to last only for the first year. Thereafter, the taxpayer could have to pick up the tab. I must say that I do not support the creation of these schemes until we have illegal immigration and asylum claims down essentially to zero. The argument that the creation of safe and legal routes will somehow stop small boats is absurd, because unless we give access to this country to everybody who wants to come—to everybody congregating in northern France, waiting to get on a dinghy—the ones who do not come in on that scheme will still try to cross on small boats. The idea that safe and legal routes will stop the boats on their own is absurd.

   Hansard source
6. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Chris Philp

   Immigration and Asylum Bill

   The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. For many nationalities that cross the English channel by small boat—Afghan, Iranian, Iraqi, Eritrean and Sudanese, to name just six or seven—the asylum grant rate is well over 90%. In some cases, it is very close to 100%, which means that crossing by small boat is tantamount to an automatic right to stay here, even though those illegal immigrants—and they are illegal immigrants—are leaving a safe country. They are not fleeing danger; they were in France already. I agree that that creates a massive pull factor.

   Hansard source
7. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Chris Philp

   Immigration and Asylum Bill

   I agree that the situation in countries such as Afghanistan creates large movements of people—that is correct—and fixing problems at source is clearly the best thing to do. However, I do not think transferring potentially tens of millions of people—he gave the number just then of 60 million or 70 million—into the west is the right solution to this problem. Those people who are displaced are probably better helped close to their country of origin. Transporting people en masse into this country is not the solution. When we have illegal migration under control, by which I mean at zero, there is a case for a limited safe and legal route, but until such time as we do that, I do not think such a transfer is reasonable. By the way, the people who are crossing by small boat are not the most vulnerable. They are not typically women and children, or people who are sick and vulnerable. They are mostly young men who are paying people smugglers. If we were going to choose who to help, it would not be them.

   Hansard source
8. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Chris Philp

   Immigration and Asylum Bill

   I will give way again, but I want to make a bit of progress first. There will be plenty of other opportunities later. I will briefly touch on indefinite leave to remain, which is conspicuous by its absence from the Bill. We heard the policy proposal when it was announced last November, but we still do not have any of the details laid out. I agree with the thrust of the Home Secretary’s proposal to increase the period to 10 years, because otherwise a large number of people—about 2 million—who entered in the past four or five years will get a permanent right to stay, including a full right to benefits. That includes people who came in on skilled worker visas sponsored by, among others, kebab shops and fried chicken shops. I am keen to make sure that the Home Secretary sticks to her previous pledge that these rules would apply to people who are in the country already, and does not give in to pressure from her Back Benchers. I remind the House that the Home Secretary said to the Institute for Public Policy Research on 5 March this year that the change to a 10-year qualification period means “applying any rule changes to those who are in the UK today, but have not yet received settled status.” I hope she stands by her commitment. If she does, we Opposition Members will vote for it. She has our support on that. While we are speaking about legal migration, let me urge the Home Secretary to reconsider her plan to introduce remote language tests, which are open to enormous fraud and abuse. Australia and Canada rejected them for that reason, and some domestic professional bodies, including the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, have stopped carrying them out because they are so open to fraud. I know that this testing is more efficient and I know that it will save money, but it is massively open to fraud.

   Hansard source
9. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Chris Philp

   Immigration and Asylum Bill

   I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows nothing about Facebook clips, but let me be honest: mistakes were made in the past, and the policies that we have now developed, under new leadership, will fix those issues. In fact, this indefinite leave to remain policy was first proposed by us about a year ago, and then, very wisely, the Home Secretary adopted it. Let me come to the commitment that the Home Secretary made on Shabir Ahmed, the vile gang rapist who should be deported back to Pakistan. We support the amendment to section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971, although section 33 of the UK Borders Act 2007—I think it is subsection (1)(b)—might need some attention as well. I would only ask the Home Secretary not to do that by amending this Bill, which will probably take a year or so to reach the statute book. I hope that she will consider doing it instead through emergency legislation in September, which could be completed in a couple of weeks; we took the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020 through Parliament in, I believe, 15 days in February of that year. There is not a moment to lose, and this can be fixed quite quickly. As for the substance of the Bill, I agree with some of the Home Secretary’s analyses of where the problems lie. She is right to say that the immigration appeal system, modern slavery laws and human rights laws are being abused on an industrial scale by foreign criminals, and also by people with no legal right to be here, including people who came here illegally in small boats. These illegal immigrants and foreign criminals do make repeated claims, time after time. The Home Secretary gave the example of a foreign criminal whom it took four years to deport. I was aware of the case of a Somali man who entered the country illegally and participated in the violent gang rape of a 16-year-old girl. On his release from prison, it took eight years to deport that man back to Somalia, because he made two or three different claims on sometimes contradictory grounds. I think that he made two modern slavery claims, and a number of human rights claims as well. There have been other cases in which foreign criminals have avoided being deported. For example, an armed robber avoided being deported back to Nigeria on the grounds that his mental health needs would not be taken care of perfectly there. Another man, a drug dealer, was not sent back to Iraq on ECHR grounds because, apparently, he had become too westernised. There was not a single thought for the safety of British children and the need for them to be protected from paedophiles. A Zimbabwean paedophile was not deported to Zimbabwe because he might get treated with hostility there. The judge gave no thought to protecting British children, and no thought to protecting our citizens from criminals. In another case, a man was taken off a charter flight to Jamaica, again on human rights grounds—I think it was article 8—and about six months after being removed from that flight, he murdered someone on the streets of south London. That happened because of the supposed human rights of a criminal who went on to commit murder. I agree with the analysis that our immigration legal system, our modern slavery system and the human rights system are being abused on an industrial scale, and that has to end.

   Hansard source
10. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Chris Philp

    Immigration and Asylum Bill

    I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. When it comes to foreign criminals, and people who enter this country illegally, having exited a safe place, namely France, I do not think that they should be given all the protections that we have been discussing this afternoon. Let me turn to some of the specifics that the Home Secretary has put in the Bill. The changes to the immigration tribunal system, and the measures dealing with modern slavery and trying to better define article 8 constitute small steps in the right direction, but on their own, they are not going to work. Past Governments have attempted to make such measures work, but they have essentially failed, and I think that they will fail again. For example, better defining article 8 in domestic law was attempted in—I think, from memory—section 19 of the Immigration Act 2014, which I believe created section 117 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. That was an attempt to do, broadly speaking, what the Home Secretary is trying to do now, and it did not work, because judges—not just those in Strasbourg, but our domestic judges, empowered by the Human Rights Act—simply continued interpreting family rights very expansively and allowing foreign criminals to stay. I admire the Home Secretary’s effort to do this, but it has been tried before and it did not work. Excluding modern slavery claims by foreign criminals has also been attempted before. The Bill essentially seeks to amend section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which was an attempt by a previous Government to fix this problem four or five years ago, and it has been repeatedly struck down by the courts. Because of the ECHR and the way in which it is incorporated by the Human Rights Act, it does not matter how we legislate. As with section 63 a few years ago, following the Home Secretary’s most recent attempt today judges will use the European convention on human rights, empowered by the HRA, to circumvent laws passed by this Parliament. The Home Secretary experienced that herself just last week, when her “one in, one out” scheme was upset by vexatious modern slavery claims. She tried valiantly to fix the loophole in guidance, and last week a court struck it down. The conclusion that I have reached—having suffered in the Home Office in the past as she is suffering now, trying to fix these issues within the construct of the ECHR and modern slavery legislation, and the examples that the Home Secretary gave only support this—is that the only way to fix this issue is to come out of these institutions entirely. We cannot do it by tinkering, which is what the Bill seeks to do. The previous Government tried it, I have tried it personally, the Home Secretary’s predecessor tried it, and she is now trying it again. The truth is—

    Hansard source
11. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Chris Philp

    Immigration and Asylum Bill

    Let me finish the point. The truth is that tinkering like this does not work when we have very expansive rights-based conventions. The only way of fixing this properly is to exit the ECHR entirely, repeal the Human Rights Act entirely, exit the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings—the modern slavery treaty—and say that people entering the country illegally, particularly from a safe place such as France, simply cannot claim asylum. That would enable us to legislate in this House without courts’ effectively circumventing our legislation, as they do on a near-daily basis. It would enable us to deport not just some foreign criminals but all foreign criminals, and it would enable us to deport, within a week of arrival, anyone entering the country illegally by small boat, either to their country of origin or to a safe third country if we could not deport them to their country of origin. That would be a genuine deterrent to prevent these unnecessary crossings, and would give us back control of our borders. While I share many of the diagnoses in the Home Secretary’s speech, I honestly do not think that these measures, which are incremental and an attempt to work within the existing framework, will work. Only radical solutions will actually work. I see that the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) is twitching with excitement, so I think I had better give way.

    Hansard source
12. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Chris Philp

    Immigration and Asylum Bill

    When the ECHR was first conceived and entered into as a treaty in 1950, it was developed for very good reasons. It was designed to avoid a repetition of the horrors of the second world war, which the hon. Gentleman refers to, but over the years judges in Strasbourg and domestically, using the living instrument doctrine, have expanded and expanded and expanded the definitions of the articles, which are necessarily very vaguely worded. For example, article 3 of the ECHR is on “freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment.” When it was written, that meant “Don’t send people to concentration camps.” On the face of it, the words are very reasonable; if we were to sit down today and come up with a convention, it would have those words in it. But the way it is applied by judges today means that we cannot send foreign criminals back to other countries, like Zimbabwe, in case they face hostility there as foreign criminals. We cannot run our border system because of the way the articles are interpreted. The balance has now shifted so far that it is preventing border control and a number of other things as well, and that is why we have to leave the ECHR. I do not accept the proposition that the only thing standing between us and barbarism is the ECHR or the Human Rights Act. This country has led the world in human rights, not just for decades but for centuries. If there are any gaps in our protection of rights that this Parliament feels are exposed by leaving the ECHR, the proper remedy is for this sovereign, democratically elected Parliament to legislate to fill them. If there is a gap in our domestic statute or our common law, and this House feels that the gap needs to be filled, the right way to do so is not by having judges make up expansive case law; it is by having this democratically elected parliament debate the issue, as we are doing now, and take a vote on it. That is the way in which democracy should function. I think that one of the reasons mainstream politics is coming under pressure, if I can put it euphemistically, is that pledges made at elections, by successive Governments, on issues like immigration do not get delivered. One of the reasons why is that the human rights legal framework prevents them from being delivered. The Home Secretary gave examples of that, and it is essentially a democratic deficit; this Parliament, not judges, should decide how our borders are run. While I welcome these measures as small steps in the right direction, I do not think that they will work. I do not think that the measures in this Bill go far enough, because they do not address the fundamental problem.

    Hansard source
13. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Chris Philp

    Immigration and Asylum Bill

    First of all, I do not think that Winston Churchill would ever have envisaged that the ECHR, which he helped create, would lead us to being unable to control our borders. Secondly, on the Good Friday agreement, I urge the hon. Lady to read the 175-page report by Lord David Wolfson KC, which explains how our Good Friday agreement obligations could be upheld after leaving the ECHR. Thirdly, on her point about protecting rights, the ultimate guarantor and protector of the rights of people in this country should be this democratically elected Parliament, not judges handing down expansive definitions of vaguely-worded clauses that have acted as a charter for illegal immigrants and foreign criminals. I ask the House to support our reasoned amendment. While these are small steps in the right direction—

    Hansard source
14. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Chris Philp

    Immigration and Asylum Bill

    I need to finish. While I agree with the diagnoses that the Home Secretary eloquently set out in her speech, the measures that she proposes simply will not work. I know that because I have tried to introduce such measures in the past, including by amending section 63, and the courts do not let them stand. Until we come out of the ECHR and the ECAT treaty, stop illegal immigrants claiming asylum and end judicial review of most immigration cases, we will not get control of our borders and the public will continue to lose trust in mainstream politics. That is why I moved the Opposition’s reasoned amendment.

    Hansard source
15. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Caroline Nokes

    State of Climate and Nature

    Order. The hon. Lady really does need to get to a question. There is a really important piece of legislation still to come and this statement will finish at 6.40 pm, so many Members are going to be disappointed unless questions are very brief.

    Hansard source
16. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Alicia Kearns

    British National Overseas Visa

    Ann Widdecombe was a force of nature, and my heart goes out to all her friends and loved ones. The BNO route has provided sanctuary for Hongkongers fleeing the autocracy of the Chinese Communist party. However, its effectiveness should not be measured in visas granted, but in whether people are actually safe here. BNOers live under CCP bounties, doxxing and surveillance. A year after the foreign influence registration scheme went live, not one person or company has registered as working or taking money from the Chinese state, and the Government still refuse to put the Chinese Communist party in the enhanced tier. Do the Government really believe that not a single organisation in the UK is engaged in political influence on behalf of the Chinese Communist party, and if not, how many investigations have there been into those failing to disclose? The annual report on FIRS was due to published by the end of June. Are the Government planning on sneaking it out during the summer recess to hide their failure to protect us and Hongkongers from the Chinese Communist party?

    Hansard source
17. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Alicia Kearns

    Local Government Reorganisation

    Nobody asked for this, and the lack of a mandate has been compounded by councils like Rutland county council refusing to engage with any opposition councillors. I want to make it clear that the responses of the Lib Dem-run Rutland county council do not represent the views of Rutlanders or indeed the entire council; that in Leicestershire, we do not want the Leicester city land grab; and that rural Lincolnshire and Stamford do not want to be run by urban Lincoln. Will the Minister consider delaying the process to make sure that all councils have engaged with all councillors? They might be telling her that they are doing so, but they are certainly not.

    Hansard source
18. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Alberto Costa

    High Streets Organised Crime Unit

    Why was the effectiveness of the high streets organised crime unit completely lacking when, two weeks ago, BBC journalist Sue Mitchell and her excellent team exposed the case of Mr Twana Jamal working in such a high street business right next door to my constituency office? Why has neither the Home Secretary nor any of her Ministers had the courtesy to respond to my correspondence asking for an urgent meeting on this nationally significant case involving a convicted human trafficker?

    Hansard source
19. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Alberto Costa

    Immigration and Asylum Bill

    I hope the whole House can agree—surely it can—that public confidence in our immigration system depends on the principle that those who seek to undermine our borders, exploit vulnerable migrants or, worse still, profit from illegal migration are identified, apprehended and removed wherever possible. All our constituents expect robust border security, effective immigration enforcement, and a system that distinguishes between genuine asylum seekers and those who seek to abuse the rules. It is against that backdrop that I wish to raise the deeply troubling case of Twana Jamal, who was recently exposed by journalist Sue Mitchell and her team through a BBC investigation, which was broadcast only a week or so ago. Twana Jamal was exposed as an illegal asylum seeker apparently working in my constituency in Blaby—and worse still, in a mini-mart right next door to my constituency office. According to reporting by Sue Mitchell and the BBC, Mr Jamal is a convicted people smuggler who was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment in France after being identified by French authorities as a major organiser of illegal migration operations. The BBC subsequently traced him to my South Leicestershire constituency, where he was allegedly working while also claiming asylum in the United Kingdom. The allegations reported by the BBC are extremely serious. Sue Mitchell confirmed with me only a few hours ago that the Home Office has not engaged with her or her team, post broadcast, about the evidence that they gathered during their painstaking and thorough investigation. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for confirming earlier today that she will seek to ascertain why civil servants have not responded, or done me the courtesy, as the local MP, of giving me an update on what the Home Office is doing, and I hope that the Minister will ensure that that is taken forward. What we all want to know today, and what I would be grateful to hear from the Minister, is whether the Bill will militate against a case like that of Mr Jamal’s arising again, if it is passed into law. Can the Minister assure all of us that convicted human traffickers will not be allowed into the United Kingdom, let alone allowed to apply for asylum?

    Hansard source
20. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

    NATO Summit

    With permission, I would like to update the House on the NATO summit in Ankara, on the building of a stronger Europe within NATO with major increases in European—including UK—defence investment, on our continued and unwavering support for Ukraine, on our discussions with Gulf partners about the strait of Hormuz and on the opportunity that the Prime Minister and I took to raise with other leaders and Foreign Ministers the issue of Sudan. These are all issues that directly affect our national and economic security in the UK. The NATO summit took place at a time when the world is becoming more dangerous than it has been for decades, and we have a war in Europe that has now been going on for longer than the first world war. Drones and missiles are changing the nature of warfare and there are continuing threats to the security of NATO allies, including cyber-threats, hybrid threats, sabotage, industrial scale misinformation, attempts to interfere with undersea cables and drone incursions. Just this week, we have seen Russia engaging in reckless and dangerous activity around our British aircraft carrier, which is on NATO operations in the north Atlantic. Three weeks ago, I went to see the concrete trenches and anti-tank defences being prepared by Polish troops along the Kaliningrad border, a sign of how seriously they take the importance of deterring Russian threats. NATO has been the cornerstone of Euro-Atlantic security for over 75 years, protecting more than a billion people, but to ensure it remains as strong for the next 75 years, it needs to respond to changing threats. NATO is a defensive alliance, but we maintain our strength and security through deterrence and holding the capabilities to deal with any threat we may face. As the summit made clear, that means building a stronger Europe in a stronger NATO. The United States remains an indispensable and fully committed ally in NATO, but the burdens must be shared. In response to increased threats in Europe, Europe must step up. That is what allies committed to last year in The Hague, and what we are delivering this year in Ankara. European and Canadian allies are spending $140 billion more on defence this year than the year before, a rise of 20%. The UK is the third biggest cash contributor to NATO, including crucial specialist capabilities, such as our nuclear deterrent. Now the defence investment plan involves the biggest sustained increase in UK defence spending since the cold war, spending almost £300 billion over the next four years. As the Defence Secretary has set out, that means new capabilities, a new hybrid Navy, investments in digital and autonomous systems, and enhanced strike and air defence capabilities. In Ankara, we brought together 12 allies to lead a European initiative to step up funding for deep precision strike capabilities, an initiative set to invest more than £37 billion over the next 10 years. We are working jointly with Norway on new frigates, with Italy and Japan on the next generation of fighter jets, and we are strengthening our maritime partnership with the Netherlands, with new amphibious transport ships. We agreed a new security and defence partnership with Turkey, and we discussed the importance of strong collaboration across our defence industries, which support tens of thousands of jobs in the United Kingdom. We are also bolstering UK leadership in NATO by appointing General Nick Perry to head up Joint Force Command Norfolk, which leads the protection of the High North and the US eastern seaboard. NATO met at a critical moment for Ukraine’s resistance against brutal ongoing Russian aggression. Over the last week alone, Russia has launched two of the largest and deadliest missile strikes on Kyiv, killing at least 30 civilians overnight last Wednesday and at least 26 civilians overnight on Monday. Throughout this conflict, Putin has underestimated the strength of Ukraine and the solidarity of Ukraine’s friends. As a result of Ukraine’s resistance, Putin now faces deteriorating conditions within his armed forces, on the battlefield and in his economy, suffering a net loss of territory for the first time since 2023. Some 500,000 Russian soldiers have now been killed since the start of the invasion. Ukraine is stepping up attacks deep inside Russia and occupied Crimea, causing Russia’s worst fuel crisis in decades, with queues at the petrol pump and prices rising. This is underpinned by continued sanctions by the UK and our allies against Russian oil and gas, and through action against the Russian shadow fleet. Despite that pressure, Putin still deludes himself that he can outlast Ukraine, and outlast NATO allies in our support for Ukraine. That is why it is so important that our support for Ukraine is enduring. Since 2022, the UK has provided almost £25 billion in support for Ukraine. Two weeks ago, I announced £500 million in support for Ukraine’s recovery and energy security, alongside our military investment. In Ankara, we and allies have together pledged €70 billion in support to Ukraine in 2026, and at least equivalent levels in 2027, so that Ukraine is in the best possible position to negotiate a just and lasting peace. On Tuesday, NATO Foreign Ministers also met with four of our Gulf partners, under the Istanbul convention initiative, to discuss the situation in the strait of Hormuz and in the region. The House will be aware that on Monday night, despite having made a clear commitment that the strait of Hormuz would be reopened, Iran attacked three commercial ships close to the Omani coast. Those attacks are a breach of the memorandum of understanding, a violation of Omani sovereignty and a contravention of the law of the sea. These are international shipping routes that commercial shipping has a right to pass. The United Kingdom condemns unequivocally the recent Iranian attacks on commercial shipping, including on Saudi and Qatari vessels. No country has the right to hijack international shipping or to hold the global economy hostage, so we also condemn in the strongest terms the Iranian attacks on sites in Bahrain and Kuwait. We stand in solidarity with our partners across the region. Iran must halt these attacks on international shipping, support the reopening of the strait and return to de-escalation and diplomacy. The UK stands ready to support a return to talks, because Iran must never be able to develop a nuclear weapon and we need the full reopening of the strait of Hormuz. That is why, alongside France, the UK has established a multilateral maritime mission to support the de-mining of the strait, verification and reassurance to shipping, and ultimately to support the global economy, and ease the cost of living back home. While in Ankara, I also raised directly with our allies the urgency of sounding the alarm on El Obeid in Sudan. I am deeply fearful that the Sudanese city is at risk of mass bloodshed and civilian casualties, with signs of plans for an assault by advancing Rapid Support Forces that are already encircling the city, as they cut off supply routes and unleash repeated drone attacks on fuel, infrastructure and storage sites. Strikes have already killed civilians and humanitarian workers. An estimated 500,000 civilians are now at risk, many of them women and girls who have already carried an intolerable burden throughout this three-year conflict. Last year, El Fasher became the site of unspeakable violence and suffering, atrocities that the UN’s fact-finding mission concluded bore the hallmarks of genocide. The world must not fail the people of Sudan again. Last week, the UK convened an urgent debate at the United Nations Human Rights Council. A UK-penned resolution condemned atrocities, called for an urgent UN fact finding inquiry and urged the RSF to comply with international law and halt this attack, urging both the RSF and the Sudanese Armed Forces to accept proposals that have been put forward for a truce. We are calling for an end to the external support and arms flows from other countries that are extending this conflict and fuelling this horrendous suffering. The United Nations arms embargo does not cover El Obeid, so it must be extended. We are urging all our allies and countries from across the world, as we discussed in Ankara this week, to maximise the pressure calling on all sides to protect the people of Sudan. Effective foreign policy is domestic policy. Championing freedom of navigation supports UK energy security. Preventing bloodshed in Sudan speaks to our values and our interests. Supporting Ukraine’s security is supporting our own security. Strengthening NATO is how we make our country safer, our economy stronger and our people more secure. I commend this statement to the House.

    Hansard source
21. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

    NATO Summit

    I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her response, particularly her support for the commitments made in Ankara and the continuing condemnation of the Russian strikes. It has been an important part of the cross-party debates in this House and across the whole country that we have stood united behind Ukraine and in solidarity with it, and long must that continue. The right hon. Lady is right that we will need to maintain the pressure on Russia. We see that as being about increasing sanctions; continuing to apply pressure through sanctions and maritime services bans; continuing with our military support for Ukraine, both directly and in partnership with our European allies, including through the loans for Ukraine that we continue to provide; and, crucially, providing energy infrastructure support and resilience—Ukraine needs the resilience to get through the winter, which we know is when Russia most heavily targets the civilian population. We will maintain that support. In fact, it is because of our commitment to the long-term future of Ukraine that we have signed a 100-year partnership between the United Kingdom and Ukraine in the spirit of solidarity. I welcome the right hon. Lady’s condemnation of Iran’s behaviour. It is telling that, despite having signed a memorandum of understanding with the United States, Iran seems to persist in the view that it has the right to control the strait of Hormuz, which is an international shipping route, and to attack commercial ships in Omani waters. That is a violation of Oman’s sovereignty, as well as a violation of the law of the sea. That is why we have been so strong in our condemnation and in seeking to mobilise countries across the world to put pressure on Iran and to get it to recognise the importance of the whole world’s support for freedom of navigation, the law of the sea and getting the global economy moving again. The right hon. Lady raised the issue of defence investment. She will understand that we are increasing investment in defence at a rapid pace—at the steepest pace since the cold war—and have made commitments to go further, but I should point out that it was her party that cut defence spending by 20%.

    Hansard source
22. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

    NATO Summit

    The shadow Foreign Secretary says from a sedentary position that times have changed. She is right: times did change. Times changed when Russia invaded Crimea. That was the evidence that the post-cold war peace dividend had gone, and yet it took her party 10 years to recognise that defence spending needed to increase. [Interruption.] For most of that period—

    Hansard source
23. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

    NATO Summit

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. For most of the period before the election, defence spending was nearer 2% of GDP. That is just too low, which is why we are increasing it; we have already increased it from 2.3% to 2.7%, and we have committed to go further. That has involved some difficult decisions, including on official development assistance and other areas. I hope the whole House will support that increased investment in defence, because ultimately, it underpins the security of our country and the security of our future.

    Hansard source
24. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

    NATO Summit

    My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. There are links between our national security and our economic security; they are closely intertwined. That comes from the fact that if our economic security is jeopardised, including through things such as the closure of the strait of Hormuz, it has an impact on our national security and particularly on supply chains for critical minerals, for example, which may be crucial to our defence. As we increase the demand and procurement for and investment in defence, it is crucial that our supply chains and our defence industry collaboration across allies can keep up. That is why we had a meeting of Foreign Ministers at Ankara specifically about how we can better collaborate and integrate aspects of our defence industry. That is what supports tens of thousands of jobs here in the UK, but we need to do it in collaboration with other countries.

    Hansard source
25. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

    NATO Summit

    The hon. Gentleman mentions a range of issues. In terms of the areas of agreement and disagreement, there will be areas where we continue to disagree with the President of the United States and have said so, including in our continued support for the sovereignty of Greenland and Denmark, which we have always made clear. That is why we worked in NATO and with the support of the United States for a new Arctic Sentry in NATO. The UK carrier strike group is operating as part of that. That is an important way of having a multilateral and shared defence of the High North, which is about protecting Canada, the United States, Norway and the western flank of Europe, including the United Kingdom, as well as the whole of Europe. That is the way in which we approach our Arctic security. That has strong agreement from the United States, which I think is a reflection of the way that we have worked to deal with those issues. On the £37 billion for deep precision strike, we have allocated £3 billion over the first four years from the defence investment plan. That will help to fund some of the work we are doing with Germany and some separate work we are doing with France and Italy as part of a series of programmes all about deep precision strike, which we have brought European allies together on. The hon. Gentleman refers to the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank and the multilateral defence mechanism. He may have seen that the Prime Minister and the Canadian Prime Minister put out a joint statement over the last couple of days to set out how we seek to work together to ensure that those initiatives, which do slightly different things, can combine and collaborate to ensure that we get the best possible impact. On Sudan, we continue to raise the issue of arms flows, and we take that immensely seriously. That is exactly why we want to extend the arms embargo and believe that that needs to continue across the whole of Sudan. That is also why I have raised this issue with the UAE, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, who are members of the Quad, and we will continue to pursue it. The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of proscription. He will know that that is a matter for the Home Office, but we believe that there should be a full arms embargo on Sudan.

    Hansard source
26. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

    NATO Summit

    I welcome my hon. Friend’s points. We need to see an end to Iran’s attacks on commercial shipping in the strait. Crucially, that means Iran must give up its claim that it somehow has the right to control international shipping routes and Omani waters, because it does not. We want to see a return to talks, and we want the ceasefire to be sustained. We have offered to support the technical talks around preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and the reopening of the strait through our multilateral maritime mission.

    Hansard source
27. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

    NATO Summit

    We agree about the nature of the increasingly dangerous world we live in and the importance of us being able to defend ourselves and maintain our security. We have committed to reaching the 3.5% commitment on defence, but that is part of a 5% commitment that was made to cover broader defence and security intelligence. The Father of the House will know that the UK invests substantially in our intelligence capabilities, which are unrivalled. That is why, if we combine that with the broader measure, the assessment is that we are already over 4% and on the trajectory towards the broader NATO figure of 5%. That is important. In addition to continuing to increase our investment in defence, we need to ensure that we are investing in wider intelligence, resilience and defence issues. That is how we will keep our country safe.

    Hansard source
28. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

    NATO Summit

    This is partly about the immediate support that Ukraine needs, both in terms of its military capabilities—we provide support, but we also learn from Ukraine’s phenomenal innovation and strength, and the way in which it is using that investment and support—and its resilience, including civilian and energy infrastructure resilience. Perhaps most importantly, however, the fact that we have made a long-term commitment is also crucial to Ukraine’s defence. It is because Putin thinks he can outlast Ukraine and its friends that he continues with his war and will not come to a peace agreement.

    Hansard source
29. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

    NATO Summit

    I can certainly tell the hon. Member that we support what I think were very positive bilateral discussions between President Trump and President Zelensky, which included the range of support they discussed, as well as the progress that Ukraine is making and the strength it has shown. I do not have further details for the House on the next steps, but we strongly welcomed the commitment that the US President made regarding licences for Patriot missiles.

    Hansard source
30. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

    NATO Summit

    My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We know that no one country can do this alone, especially for some of the most advanced capabilities; we also know that if we want really effective interoperability, joint procurement with our closest allies is hugely beneficial, and it helps our defence industries and jobs as well. One of the best examples of that is our joint procurement of new frigates with Norway—we are effectively procuring the same frigates for Norway and the UK, so we will have full interoperability as well as our combined strength in the procurement process.

    Hansard source
31. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

    NATO Summit

    I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of challenging Russia in every sphere. Not only does it attempt to use different spheres for its narratives and its misinformation, but it has used misinformation on an industrial scale to seek to undermine democracies, which is why we have imposed sanctions in that regard. As the hon. Member knows, we have strongly condemned the IOC’s decision on the Olympics —we strongly disagree and believe it is the wrong thing to do. I will pass on the points that he has raised to the Culture Secretary.

    Hansard source
32. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

    NATO Summit

    I did take the opportunity to discuss the situation in both the west bank and Gaza with some of our allies and partners. I am deeply worried that last year’s 20-point plan for Gaza—which was hugely important and which we supported, as did the whole world—is at risk of running into the ground. The humanitarian crisis there is not yet eased. I am also deeply worried about the expansion of illegal settlements in the west bank, as well as the increase in settler violence that we are seeing, some of which is effectively settler terrorism. That is jeopardising the two-state solution that we strongly believe in. We are looking at what stronger measures we can take in this area, including working with allies; we are looking at restrictions on trade with illegal settlements, but also at the strongest sanctions regimes. We will continue to work on those issues with partners, because we need a two-state solution that supports the security of Palestinians and Israelis alike—it is the only way to ensure that.

    Hansard source
33. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

    NATO Summit

    I agree with the right hon. Member about the importance of preventing another El Fasher. That is exactly why I raised the issue directly with a series of European allies and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and why the Prime Minister raised it with President Trump and President Macron—we have raised the issue across the board. We want concerted diplomacy across our allies, but there also has to be pressure on all those who have the potential to influence the warring parties. Some of those are countries that have influence, while some of them are involved in arms flows—we believe that around 12 countries are involved in arms flows that are supporting the different warring parties. That is why we want the arms embargo to be extended, and it is why I am having intense discussions with a series of nations, all of which have potential influence in Sudan. I will continue to shine a spotlight on what is happening.

    Hansard source
34. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

    NATO Summit

    That work is under way, and has a joint commitment from our Prime Minister and the Canadian Prime Minister, who have been responsible in parallel for beginning those initiatives. The multilateral defence mechanism focuses mostly on the joint procurement side, while the defence, security and resilience bank focuses particularly on support for small and medium-sized businesses. They are effectively complementary initiatives, so we want them to be able to operate together, and to look at how we build a much stronger link between those initiatives and take them forward. That work is under way at the moment, and I am sure we will provide my hon. Friend with regular updates.

    Hansard source
35. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

    NATO Summit

    As I have said, our security since the second world war has very much depended on the NATO alliance, which has always been a defensive alliance that has built its strength through deterrence. Deterrence is immensely important. When we reached the end of the cold war in 1990, there was at that point a substantial peace dividend. Many countries, including our own, saw reductions in investment in defence and more money went into other things in that period. Sadly, since then, what we have seen, including in Europe since Russia’s invasion of Crimea, is the end of that post-cold war peace dividend. When we see growing threats to our security, we have to maintain the defensive alliance that NATO has always been and make sure that NATO has the capabilities to respond to any threat that might come in our direction. That is how we deter those threats, whether that is through our deep precision strike capability that we have been talking about or through other increased capabilities, such as matching the technical capabilities that Ukraine has demonstrated in anti-drone warfare. We have to ensure that we have all those kinds of capability, including air defence capabilities, so that we deter the threats against us and maintain our security. It is troubling that we now live in a more dangerous world, but we have to rise to that threat and ensure that we can keep our people safe.

    Hansard source
36. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

    NATO Summit

    I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that there were extensive discussions at the NATO summit about air defences for Ukraine and the potential to mobilise a wide range of different partners and allies from across the world who may have other capabilities which could provide immediate and short-term support. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not disappointed to see me at the Dispatch Box. I saw the Prime Minister at the NATO summit in a series of meetings, bilaterals and in the main NATO council, too. He was continually raising the importance of our 100% solidarity with Ukraine, our support for NATO and our commitment to these long-term defence partnerships for the future. He was also seeking to raise at the highest of levels the issues around Sudan, which are about our values and our interests. I pay tribute to everything that the Prime Minister has done over the past two years to put the UK back on the world stage.

    Hansard source
37. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

    NATO Summit

    I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for being liberal in his criticism of all Governments—I accept that point. The US assessment of what is happening recognises Ukraine’s strength and resilience and the fact that, despite all the initial expectations that Putin would win the war easily, the opposite has been the case. It is also recognition of some of the links between Russia and Iran and their shared technologies and support, and how those relate to the security threats we face. It recognises the breadth of the Russian threats to NATO allies, but in particular Russia’s failings in Ukraine and the strength of Ukraine’s response and the willingness to support Ukraine in that.

    Hansard source
38. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

    NATO Summit

    Defence and foreign policy are rightly reserved matters, because they relate to the security of the whole United Kingdom. Scotland plays a crucial role as part of that—not just as part of our armed forces, but by having crucial parts of our defence industry. We must continue to support that.

    Hansard source
39. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

    NATO Summit

    I welcome the hon. Member’s question. I can assure him that the commitment to increasing investment in defence—both in each country’s sovereign defence and in our shared defence—was evident right around the NATO council table from every country, and I am sure that that will continue. NATO’s strength has been the commitments from all allies working together, and that commitment will make us strong into the future, too.

    Hansard source
40. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yvette Cooper

    NATO Summit

    I agree that we need to go further. The defence investment plan has set out a plan that takes us from 2.3% up to 2.7%. We have made commitments to go to 3% and then to 3.5% on core defence spending, so we of course need to go further. We need to ensure that as we increase investment, we also increase our capabilities and expand our defence industry. We must do so collectively, and with the most modern technology and capabilities. We must also show leadership, because it is not just about investment. As we work with our partners, those crucial UK capabilities and leadership are what keep our people safe.

    Hansard source