Uncontrolled illegal immigration is not only undermining public trust and community cohesion, but also impacting our ability, as a country, to offer much-needed sanctuary via legal routes. Since 2015, Britain has offered a refuge to nearly 500,000 people from countries including Hong Kong, Ukraine, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan through safe and legal routes. In my view, it is incorrect to say there is no safe and legal way to come to our country when you need sanctuary and I find it wrong when this is constantly spouted on the media as I worked as a DWP Minister in my time in Government helping particularly on the Ukrainian, Afghan and Syrian processes.
A great many constituents have written to me sharing their frustration and concern about illegal immigration and the impact they see it having on their local public services and across communities in Britain. I have taken time to consider everyone’s thoughts and appreciate people in the constituency, and across the country, are feeling the situation is unfair, unsustainable and, increasingly, a matter of public safety. Please be assured, my Conservative colleagues and I continue to urgently press the Labour government for action on this issue. We have been clear we made mistakes when in Government and I will go on to discuss how we will rectify these later in this statement.
We know this is a peaceful, tolerant country which has a proud record of helping the most vulnerable in times of need and, I want, like others, to protect that. However, it is clear this ability to help those in need in times of crisis, to the level we would like and are able to, will only be possible by controlling illegal immigration and balancing legal migration. It is then we can provide support to those most in need when the time arises. Currently, our country’s finite capacity is being overrun by people coming into the UK from a place of safety in France, who have travelled through safe countries to get there, paying to skip the queue and often being exploited when making these dangerous journeys. It is deeply unfair both on those who come here legally and on the British people who play by the rules and expect others to do the same; that is why we have seen another summer of discontent.
I believe the last Government were right to say that seeking asylum should not involve people "asylum shopping" from country to country or risking their lives by lining the pockets of criminal gangs to cross the Channel. They should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. European Union member states, including France, have fully functioning asylum systems. Given this, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that individuals arriving in the UK in such a manner may be primarily motivated by economic factors and the Government must ensure that asylum is only granted to those truly in need. It is also extremely concerning to see the numbers of young men arriving by small boat and data from 2024 shows that nearly 78 per cent of small boat arrivals were men aged 18 to 39.
I have been seeking urgent answers around the costs to our local councils, information about single adult male migrant numbers and how long a large site at a hotel in my constituency will continue to be used in this capacity, amongst other questions that have been raised by my constituents. I have also been raising constituents’ concerns with the Police, the Police Commissioner and local authorities – as the Shadow Minister for Women, I am very worried about potential risks to women and girls that may arise, and that have already arisen in other parts of the country.
Please click on this link if you would like to read my statement on the Copthorne Hotel:
The Copthorne Hotel September 25
I have asked the Home Office about reports the Felbridge Hotel may be redesignated as an asylum hotel and made it extremely clear this would be unacceptable to the local community. As I wrote to Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, on the 6th August,
Public services are already stretched to the breaking point and there has been a noticeable impact on locals' ability to access key provisions which, rightly or wrongly, is being linked to the on-going, growing presence and associated costs of large numbers of single adult men in this semi-rural location. Illegal working is clearly happening here as elsewhere, and the safety of young women and girls is to the forefront of many people’s minds. I absolutely do not think this area can sustain any more migrant hotels and wish to officially raise my serious objections to the Felbridge Hotel or any others nearby being considered for this purpose.
To that end, can you please confirm the Felbridge Hotel has not and will not be allocated to house illegal immigrants or asylum seekers but will remain a valued hospitality resource for the community. My constituents would also like to be told how long this situation in Copthorne will go on for and how the issues being raised by the community are being dealt with.’
I am still waiting for a response.
I understand the Labour Government is planning to move to a ‘Full Dispersal mode’ which will simply push the problem onto the private rental sector, accommodation providers and local authorities, adding to local housing pressures and I fear this just seeks to hide the problem rather than solve it.
As you may know, I have been asking questions about, and pushing for concrete action on a proper, statutory, national inquiry into the multiple rape gangs that have been operating in Britain for many years, however, I am now also very concerned about reports from the Casey Review 2025 that recently arrived asylum seekers are involved in these horrible crimes. You may be aware the Government has already committed to publishing criminal data relating to nationality, following calls from the Official Opposition. I hope to see this extended to a range of crimes to ensure clarity regarding the criminal activity of those who come to the UK. Furthermore, in relation to crimes against women and girls, members of the Opposition have called on the Government to regularly publish ethnicity data, which the previous Conservative Government began collecting. Ultimately, the only way to gain a better understanding is through increased transparency. Therefore, I know my colleagues will continue to press the Government to release as much wide-ranging data as possible, alongside a zero-tolerance approach to crimes committed by Foreign National Offenders.
The UK government does have a responsibility to adhere to the Human Rights Act and the European Court of Human Rights, as well as other international agreements including the UN's 1951 Refugee Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the UN Convention Against Torture. UK law and international conventions acknowledge all individuals are entitled to certain protections that ensure a basic level of safety and dignity, regardless of immigration standing or how they arrived in the UK. This includes accommodation, health care, education and access to legal aid for asylum claims.
However, I think we must acknowledge a number of law makers and international bodies have greatly broadened their original remits over the years. For example, we still refer to the 1951 Refugee Convention but in fact, the 1967 Protocol removed the geographical and time limits that were an integral part of the original convention. The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the ECHR into UK Law and I believe we are seeing judgements being interpreted very generously. In 2012, the ECHR ruled that pushing back asylum seeker boats was a violation of international human rights in the Hirsi and Others case. We are now seeing many, often quite bizarre, rulings based on the ECHR exposed in the press.
There is a huge network of international institutions, treaties and laws, NGOs, charity sector organisations, Leftist political parties (although we are seeing calls for stronger immigration control from Labour MPs now), a substantial part of the civil service and national press which cleave to this internationalist, progressive belief system in which human rights law supersedes national interests and applies to everyone regardless of their conduct or status in our country. The real-life impacts of these, often well-intentioned, beliefs and actions are now unavoidable in local communities all around the UK.
When the previous Conservative government developed what was among the most comprehensive and robust plans to tackle illegal migration in Europe, which led to small-boat crossings decreasing by 36 per cent in 2023, the threat of legal challenges from charities, refugee organisations and international bodies amongst others demonstrated how difficult it is to affect change with the power of the judiciary to review, challenge and even block government decisions having increased in recent years.
I agree with those who say we did not succeed in doing the job in the face of such adversity when we were in Government but the situation now is significantly different – the Overton window has shifted, discussions are happening around the country, the public are increasingly aware of what needs to be done and what has been stopping it happening. In a democracy, a widely shared public consensus is both vital and necessary –it needs time to emerge from a collective experience and understanding; I believe we now have it on this issue. Indeed, we have even seen a significant change of heart from the PM and his Home Secretary compared to their approach in Opposition; the marked shift from being a group who appeared to want open borders with no regard for the impact, and who discredited and scrapped the Rwanda deterrent scheme at the first opportunity, is a sight to behold.
With thousands more small boat crossings since the Labour Government took office, it is clear it must reconsider its approach to tackling this problem as there are simply no effective deterrents in place to stop the crossings and we are very concerned their Immigration white paper does not address the issue of the out-of-control illegal immigration we are seeing. Furthermore, I believe the Bill the Labour Government has put forward, which it claims will stop these crossings, is weak and will not be sufficient. Regarding the EDM (Early Day Motion)1142: tabled on 24 April 2025, as a rule, traditionally Shadow Ministers do not sign them. I do, and my party do, however, acknowledge the public frustration and anger behind such a motion. We are, as a party, also using methods like this more often due to the significant majority the Labour Government enjoys so that the official opposition is properly heard.
Turning to the Government's Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, this legislation demonstrates the Labour Government intends to repeal significant parts of a previous law, including the Illegal Migration Act, which was only passed by Parliament in 2023 under the Conservative Government. That Act included a provision stating that almost anyone who entered the country illegally would be ineligible for settled status and, ultimately, citizenship. It also contained a clause allowing asylum seekers to be treated as over 18 if they refused to undergo a scientific age assessment. Furthermore, the Labour Bill removes the one third-country deterrent currently in place, which the Government could otherwise utilise. The repeal of measures designed to remove individuals represents a clear capitulation by the Labour Government and underscores its weakness on this issue.
It is clearly in the national interest to retain these measures and removing them is a serious mistake. Therefore, I voted against the Bill in Parliament and will continue to scrutinise the Government's efforts to address illegal migration. The Opposition has consistently taken steps throughout the process to improve and where necessary oppose this Bill in Parliament. This has included proposing new measures that would have strengthened the legislation. It is deeply disappointing that the Government rejected multiple amendments to the Bill, amendments which would have taken meaningful steps to reduce legal migration and ensure that those who enter the country illegally can be removed.
In an effort to effect further change, the Shadow Home Secretary proposed a Deportation Bill—which sets out practical measures to create a fairer migration system. This includes automatic deportation for anyone who arrives in the country illegally, as well as for any convicted foreign national offenders. The Deportation Bill also set out new powers to revoke Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), double the residency requirement for ILR, tighten visa rules for partners and civil partners, apply visa sanctions for uncooperative countries and remove GDPR protections from foreign criminals and illegal immigrants. I understand there is already a challenge to the Home Office around breaking data laws regarding deportation and monitoring of migrants by the charity Privacy International which could delay or block deportations (reported in the Telegraph 20.08.25)
I firmly believe the immigration system should be decided by Parliament and elected ministers. Additionally, illegal migrants should not be able to bring spurious human rights claims in our domestic courts to prevent their deportation or overturn decisions not to grant them asylum. Increasingly, there are calls from all sides of the House to re-examine the UK’s relationship with the ECHR and its use in immigration cases, particularly with reference to illegal and criminal actions – I know this is a key cause of concern for many in the UK which my colleague, the Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, Robert Jenrick MP, in particular, has strongly advocated for and the Official Opposition has put forward proposals to disapply the Human Rights Act in cases relating to immigration and deportation. Under these plans, those seeking to appeal deportation or other immigration decisions would not be able to make human rights claims under the Human Rights Act in British courts. We tabled this amendment to the Government’s Border Security Bill and we believe these are fair policies aimed at ensuring that support in the UK is directed towards those who abide by the law. Unfortunately, the Labour Government rejected a number of these proposals.
Under Kemi Badenoch, our leader, we have commissioned a report from Lord Wolfson, which we expect to hear from imminently, which will state our case on the EHCR and what we as a party and a country need to sign up to in order to make the changes required to keep our borders and communities safe, and immigration numbers sustainable and acceptable to the general public. The liberal open borders attitude which has been so pervasive over recent decades and is deeply entrenched in the Labour, Lib Dems and the Green parties cannot continue in the face of strong public feeling, the reality of government and community attitudes in these febrile geo-political times where, in the main, they believe, we must be able to offer asylum at all costs.
It is extremely disappointing the Labour Government is not taking the tough decisions needed to create the long-term change our country needs by taking action that reduces these crossings and put a system in place that is fair for the British people. Ultimately, as the Government of the day, voted in by the British people and with a big majority in parliament, it is in the Labour’s Government’s hands to restore the integrity of our borders and prevent abuse of the asylum system and I was glad to see the Home Secretary acknowledge, in her statement to the House on the 1st September, that
‘we need the interpretation of international law to keep up with the realities and challenges of today’s world.’
However, as my colleague, the Rt Hon Chris Philp MP, the Shadow Home Secretary, stated in his response, that is not nearly enough:
‘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.’
I do think we have a very long way to go to resolve this situation and I hope this Labour Government is listening to the people of this country who have had enough of the status quo. I will continue to represent the views of my constituents and amplify their voices to the Government – and urge them to take action. And I write an update to this lengthy missive, it has been reported Germany’s top judge, according to the Times, believes radical revision of the ECHR mut be contended with. We truly live in truly fast-moving times.
Please be assured, I am monitoring the situation very closely and my colleagues in Opposition and I are focused on holding the Labour Government to account on this issue which is increasingly and understandably causing alarm, disquiet and frankly, outrage, to many people.
Here is the link to the full Hansard transcript of the debate quoted from above:
