Chris Philp MP is the Shadow Home Secretary.
Our Editor sat down with the shadow Home Secretary at last week’s Party Conference to discuss immigration. Last year the slogan of Conference was “Stronger Economy: Stronger Borders”. At CPC the slogan had become “Stronger Economy: Stronger Country”. Giles Dilnot asked Chris Philp if this meant immigration had been last year’s issue and that now immigration was taking a back seat in party thinking to tackling the cost of living and the search for economic growth given Kemi Badenoch’s words in her speech: “Conference, the fundamental problem we have right now, is that our country is running out of money.Almost every other problem flows from this.”
Does this mean immigration has to be on the Tory back-burner for now?
CP No, it certainly doesn’t. And in fact, the stronger country part of that message includes, obviously, at its heart, border security, controlling immigration and law and order, as well as the obvious points about foreign affairs and defence. So, borders and immigration are still very much at the heart of our message.
GD You and I, in the past, have discussed the ECHR and the problems with it. I guess, in your position, you’re pretty pleased that that’s now been a benchmark for pretty much anybody who comes into the party? They’ve got to sign up to that?
CP Well, anyone running for parliament has to sign up to ECHR exit, and that’s really important because one of the questions I get asked most often is people saying, “Well, how do we know you’re actually going to do it? Will the Parliamentary Party allow the implementation of our plans? So requiring every Conservative candidate to agree to a number of things, including ECHR withdrawal, will give the public confidence we’re going to deliver what we say we will.
I was also at an event at party conference where Luke Tryl, the pollster, presented polling showing that ‘ECHR Exit’ is popular with people considering the Conservatives who might otherwise consider reform, as well as people considering voting Conservative who might otherwise be more centrist. So ECHR Exit, in order to control our borders, has actually quite wide popular appeal that reaches into the centre ground as well as to people who might be considered more on the right.
GD One of the one of the arguments people make who aren’t in favour of ECHR exit, and that might be people in other parties, is that ‘oh well, you know, why would we abandon human rights as a thing?
CP Well, no one’s suggesting we abandon human rights. Obviously, plenty of very civilized countries like Canada and Australia and New Zealand have very good human rights records without being in the ECHR.
And of course, here in the United Kingdom, human rights long predated the 1998 Human Rights Act, and indeed the ECHR being signed in 1950.
There are all kinds of ways that human rights are protected in the laws Parliament passes in our body of common law, and if there are any gaps, once we leave the ECHR, then Parliament can legislate if it chooses to fill those gaps.
But it’ll fill those gaps in in precisely defined terms, not in the vague terms in the ECHR, which judges can then interpret in ways that defy common sense, and critically defy common sense in ways that make border control impossible.
GD In your role, one of the difficulties here is, by the nature of the topic, and what will get thrown at you, as well as all that, is, as you just said, “yes, but will you actually do it?” You said it before, but will you actually do it? It’s also the idea that you know this is very close to Reform, that you’re basically aping Reform’s rhetoric?
Well, look, I think our policies are credible. They’re properly thought out. Unlike Reform, who have empty slogans. So I think we are a very different party to Reform. We have strength in depth. We’ve got a team with a proper plan, not just a charismatic frontman with very little substance behind them…
GD …Can you put the navy in the channel?
CP Well, I mean, the question is, what would they do if they stopped a boat? Because the French would not receive them back. It would be a completely pointless exercise.
What we would do is make sure that anyone that does arrive in the UK gets quickly deported back to their country of origin or to a safe third country, for example, Rwanda. And pretty quickly, when the illegal immigrants in France realize they’re going to get deported, they will not bother to cross. I was on the beaches in northern France just a few weeks ago, witnessing those illegal immigrants launching while the French police did nothing, and it’s pretty clear that if those immigrants knew upon arrival in the UK they would be deported, they wouldn’t be leaving France in the first place.
GD The problem we (GD worked in the Home Office Nov 2023-May 2024) had before was that you know people complained “the French aren’t doing anything. We’re paying them money, and they’re not doing anything” But we knew that though they were doing some things they weren’t doing others but this was always all just ‘goal-line defence. Actually, stopping the problem when we were looking at it in government was also ‘you’ve got to stop it way back from a beach front’. Is that still part of your plan?
CP Well, it’s going to be part of it, but the most important thing is that anyone that gets here gets quickly deported, and the evidence in Australia shows that if illegal immigrants know that, they pretty quickly stop bothering to cross in the first place. That’s the point of a deterrent, and that’s why Shabana Mahmood’s ‘one-in-one-out scheme’ was never going to work because she was only removing a tiny percentage of those crossings. You need to remove most, if not all, people crossing.
Then you have a deterrent.
But of course, in addition to that, we need to try and work with our European allies to stop illegal immigrants getting into Europe in the first place.
So, working with Greece, Italy, and Spain to protect or help protect Europe’s external border, and also work with source countries to try and fix whatever the problems are in those source countries, but ultimately our first responsibility is to protect Britain’s borders here, and that means deporting any illegal immigrant whose foot touches down on British soil …and quickly and almost immediately …within a week.
GD Rwanda – you mentioned it – you are bringing that back, are you?
CP I would like to see something like Rwanda restored. We would bring back Rwanda or an equivalent deal with another country or other countries because of the deterrent effect, that we know works. We saw it work in Australia. We can see it work actually in the United States at the moment, and that’s why we should bring back Rwanda, or its equivalent.
GD Returning people to their country of origin, there was always a difficulty with some countries. How do you return them to Afghanistan? How do you return them to Iran?
CP We can solve that problem. The Germans are already returning some Afghan male prisoners, criminals to Afghanistan, so it can be done.
My priority is protecting our borders. There are some cases where I wouldn’t return. So certainly, sending women to Afghanistan is not something I’d do. Given the recent events in Iran, I’d be a bit cautious about that as well.
That is why you need a safe third country for those people you can’t return, genuinely don’t want to return, or can’t return to their home country. But many, many of these nationalities, I think you can: Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Eritrea. These are all countries I think you can return people to. But at the moment, the current government are returning almost no one to those countries.
GD You must have been quietly vindicated when the ‘one in’…. well, several in… and one out scheme fell apart. I mean, they’re not going to continue with it.
CP Well, the French have completely cancelled it. It’s yet another gimmick by the Labour government, which has fallen apart.
So first of all, they said they were going to smash the gangs, and that’s descended into farce. Then they said the French were going to intervene in the water near French shores. They said that about a year, year and a half ago. That hasn’t happened either, as I saw myself when I was on the French beach a few weeks ago.
Then they had this one-in-one-out deal, which the French have cancelled, but it wasn’t working anyway because I think they only ever returned about one in 30 people who crossed when that scheme operated, and obviously, if you’ve got a 97% chance of staying and only a 3% chance of getting removed, that’s not going to be a deterrent at all.
GD Where do you want to be with the wider question of who’s here and how long they stay, and do you want to be pretty harsh on that, OR do you say, ‘look, you’ve got people on one side shouting, you know, I’d get rid of 1000s and 1000s of people, some of whom have been here for a while anyway, and integrated’. Other people saying ‘we should let everybody in. They’re all vulnerable.’ Where are you pitching? Because you being one or the other doesn’t really help you?
CP Yeah. So, my view is that mass migration has to end.
The numbers have been far too high. We should let in only a small number of people legally who are going to make a significant contribution: technology, scientific research, medicine, that kind of thing. The age of mass migration has to end.
I think it’s economically bad, actually, because people coming here on low incomes consume more in services than they pay in tax. It can be socially quite corrosive as well if people come here and don’t integrate, which unfortunately is what has happened in recent years, so mass migration has to end.
And I would say people who came here recently on a temporary work visa: when that visa expires, if they haven’t made a significant contribution by owning a significant amount of money, then when that visa expires, it should not be renewed.
They should not get ILR.
GD Andy Burnham has said that kind of person should be required to leave. And you just said, ‘recent and temporary’ What about the ones before? Because in the debate, whether it’s us or other parties in the debate, some are also including people who’ve been here for a long time. And where are you on that? Are there clear criteria you’re setting out?
CP I think the particular problem are the large numbers that arrived in recent years, and that is the cohort that I think should leave if they’re not making a significant economic contribution.
GD Do you think immigration has fallen down the priority list for voters? One of the things I notice about it is it’s quite geographic. You can find areas, constituencies, where immigration is not one of their top priorities, possibly because they don’t experience the effects of it, and some of it’s, you know, it’s the number one priority. Where does it really sit with voters?
CP Well, look, I think if you look at the tracking polls, it suggests that you know the cost of living in the economy is a huge issue for everybody, actually, regardless of geography and regardless of background. So, so that is why the economy and reducing the cost of living will always be right at the heart of the Conservative offer, but immigration consistently comes second behind that.
In some surveys, it comes first.
So the public should know, and our supporters should know, we’re always going to take a robust line on immigration, but backed by credible plans, unlike before.
GD And every time you’re putting those arguments out there – and Kemi’s doing it. The party is doing it. We all have that one question… and I’m going to come back to it … ‘why should we believe you?’ is it just ‘because this time I really mean it?’
CP I understand but we are a new leadership team. Kemi is the new leader, and I am the shadow home secretary. We recognise and acknowledge the mistakes of the past. The last government got some things wrong, and we’re not going to hide from that.
We’ve honestly acknowledged it.
Secondly, we’ve got a detailed and credible plan for fixing it. These aren’t vague promises.
When we talk about the borders plan that we published at last year’s conference, it is detailed, it’s credible, and it’s specific. And I don’t think it can be vague. We’ve got a leader who people will readily understand meets what she says, and if she says something’s going to happen, it will absolutely happen. So it’s those three reasons.
GD Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Philp, thanks for talking to ConservativeHome.
Chris Philp MP is the Shadow Home Secretary.
Our Editor sat down with the shadow Home Secretary at last week’s Party Conference to discuss immigration. Last year the slogan of Conference was “Stronger Economy: Stronger Borders”. At CPC the slogan had become “Stronger Economy: Stronger Country”. Giles Dilnot asked Chris Philp if this meant immigration had been last year’s issue and that now immigration was taking a back seat in party thinking to tackling the cost of living and the search for economic growth given Kemi Badenoch’s words in her speech: “Conference, the fundamental problem we have right now, is that our country is running out of money.Almost every other problem flows from this.”
Does this mean immigration has to be on the Tory back-burner for now?
CP No, it certainly doesn’t. And in fact, the stronger country part of that message includes, obviously, at its heart, border security, controlling immigration and law and order, as well as the obvious points about foreign affairs and defence. So, borders and immigration are still very much at the heart of our message.
GD You and I, in the past, have discussed the ECHR and the problems with it. I guess, in your position, you’re pretty pleased that that’s now been a benchmark for pretty much anybody who comes into the party? They’ve got to sign up to that?
CP Well, anyone running for parliament has to sign up to ECHR exit, and that’s really important because one of the questions I get asked most often is people saying, “Well, how do we know you’re actually going to do it? Will the Parliamentary Party allow the implementation of our plans? So requiring every Conservative candidate to agree to a number of things, including ECHR withdrawal, will give the public confidence we’re going to deliver what we say we will.
I was also at an event at party conference where Luke Tryl, the pollster, presented polling showing that ‘ECHR Exit’ is popular with people considering the Conservatives who might otherwise consider reform, as well as people considering voting Conservative who might otherwise be more centrist. So ECHR Exit, in order to control our borders, has actually quite wide popular appeal that reaches into the centre ground as well as to people who might be considered more on the right.
GD One of the one of the arguments people make who aren’t in favour of ECHR exit, and that might be people in other parties, is that ‘oh well, you know, why would we abandon human rights as a thing?
CP Well, no one’s suggesting we abandon human rights. Obviously, plenty of very civilized countries like Canada and Australia and New Zealand have very good human rights records without being in the ECHR.
And of course, here in the United Kingdom, human rights long predated the 1998 Human Rights Act, and indeed the ECHR being signed in 1950.
There are all kinds of ways that human rights are protected in the laws Parliament passes in our body of common law, and if there are any gaps, once we leave the ECHR, then Parliament can legislate if it chooses to fill those gaps.
But it’ll fill those gaps in in precisely defined terms, not in the vague terms in the ECHR, which judges can then interpret in ways that defy common sense, and critically defy common sense in ways that make border control impossible.
GD In your role, one of the difficulties here is, by the nature of the topic, and what will get thrown at you, as well as all that, is, as you just said, “yes, but will you actually do it?” You said it before, but will you actually do it? It’s also the idea that you know this is very close to Reform, that you’re basically aping Reform’s rhetoric?
Well, look, I think our policies are credible. They’re properly thought out. Unlike Reform, who have empty slogans. So I think we are a very different party to Reform. We have strength in depth. We’ve got a team with a proper plan, not just a charismatic frontman with very little substance behind them…
GD …Can you put the navy in the channel?
CP Well, I mean, the question is, what would they do if they stopped a boat? Because the French would not receive them back. It would be a completely pointless exercise.
What we would do is make sure that anyone that does arrive in the UK gets quickly deported back to their country of origin or to a safe third country, for example, Rwanda. And pretty quickly, when the illegal immigrants in France realize they’re going to get deported, they will not bother to cross. I was on the beaches in northern France just a few weeks ago, witnessing those illegal immigrants launching while the French police did nothing, and it’s pretty clear that if those immigrants knew upon arrival in the UK they would be deported, they wouldn’t be leaving France in the first place.
GD The problem we (GD worked in the Home Office Nov 2023-May 2024) had before was that you know people complained “the French aren’t doing anything. We’re paying them money, and they’re not doing anything” But we knew that though they were doing some things they weren’t doing others but this was always all just ‘goal-line defence. Actually, stopping the problem when we were looking at it in government was also ‘you’ve got to stop it way back from a beach front’. Is that still part of your plan?
CP Well, it’s going to be part of it, but the most important thing is that anyone that gets here gets quickly deported, and the evidence in Australia shows that if illegal immigrants know that, they pretty quickly stop bothering to cross in the first place. That’s the point of a deterrent, and that’s why Shabana Mahmood’s ‘one-in-one-out scheme’ was never going to work because she was only removing a tiny percentage of those crossings. You need to remove most, if not all, people crossing.
Then you have a deterrent.
But of course, in addition to that, we need to try and work with our European allies to stop illegal immigrants getting into Europe in the first place.
So, working with Greece, Italy, and Spain to protect or help protect Europe’s external border, and also work with source countries to try and fix whatever the problems are in those source countries, but ultimately our first responsibility is to protect Britain’s borders here, and that means deporting any illegal immigrant whose foot touches down on British soil …and quickly and almost immediately …within a week.
GD Rwanda – you mentioned it – you are bringing that back, are you?
CP I would like to see something like Rwanda restored. We would bring back Rwanda or an equivalent deal with another country or other countries because of the deterrent effect, that we know works. We saw it work in Australia. We can see it work actually in the United States at the moment, and that’s why we should bring back Rwanda, or its equivalent.
GD Returning people to their country of origin, there was always a difficulty with some countries. How do you return them to Afghanistan? How do you return them to Iran?
CP We can solve that problem. The Germans are already returning some Afghan male prisoners, criminals to Afghanistan, so it can be done.
My priority is protecting our borders. There are some cases where I wouldn’t return. So certainly, sending women to Afghanistan is not something I’d do. Given the recent events in Iran, I’d be a bit cautious about that as well.
That is why you need a safe third country for those people you can’t return, genuinely don’t want to return, or can’t return to their home country. But many, many of these nationalities, I think you can: Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Eritrea. These are all countries I think you can return people to. But at the moment, the current government are returning almost no one to those countries.
GD You must have been quietly vindicated when the ‘one in’…. well, several in… and one out scheme fell apart. I mean, they’re not going to continue with it.
CP Well, the French have completely cancelled it. It’s yet another gimmick by the Labour government, which has fallen apart.
So first of all, they said they were going to smash the gangs, and that’s descended into farce. Then they said the French were going to intervene in the water near French shores. They said that about a year, year and a half ago. That hasn’t happened either, as I saw myself when I was on the French beach a few weeks ago.
Then they had this one-in-one-out deal, which the French have cancelled, but it wasn’t working anyway because I think they only ever returned about one in 30 people who crossed when that scheme operated, and obviously, if you’ve got a 97% chance of staying and only a 3% chance of getting removed, that’s not going to be a deterrent at all.
GD Where do you want to be with the wider question of who’s here and how long they stay, and do you want to be pretty harsh on that, OR do you say, ‘look, you’ve got people on one side shouting, you know, I’d get rid of 1000s and 1000s of people, some of whom have been here for a while anyway, and integrated’. Other people saying ‘we should let everybody in. They’re all vulnerable.’ Where are you pitching? Because you being one or the other doesn’t really help you?
CP Yeah. So, my view is that mass migration has to end.
The numbers have been far too high. We should let in only a small number of people legally who are going to make a significant contribution: technology, scientific research, medicine, that kind of thing. The age of mass migration has to end.
I think it’s economically bad, actually, because people coming here on low incomes consume more in services than they pay in tax. It can be socially quite corrosive as well if people come here and don’t integrate, which unfortunately is what has happened in recent years, so mass migration has to end.
And I would say people who came here recently on a temporary work visa: when that visa expires, if they haven’t made a significant contribution by owning a significant amount of money, then when that visa expires, it should not be renewed.
They should not get ILR.
GD Andy Burnham has said that kind of person should be required to leave. And you just said, ‘recent and temporary’ What about the ones before? Because in the debate, whether it’s us or other parties in the debate, some are also including people who’ve been here for a long time. And where are you on that? Are there clear criteria you’re setting out?
CP I think the particular problem are the large numbers that arrived in recent years, and that is the cohort that I think should leave if they’re not making a significant economic contribution.
GD Do you think immigration has fallen down the priority list for voters? One of the things I notice about it is it’s quite geographic. You can find areas, constituencies, where immigration is not one of their top priorities, possibly because they don’t experience the effects of it, and some of it’s, you know, it’s the number one priority. Where does it really sit with voters?
CP Well, look, I think if you look at the tracking polls, it suggests that you know the cost of living in the economy is a huge issue for everybody, actually, regardless of geography and regardless of background. So, so that is why the economy and reducing the cost of living will always be right at the heart of the Conservative offer, but immigration consistently comes second behind that.
In some surveys, it comes first.
So the public should know, and our supporters should know, we’re always going to take a robust line on immigration, but backed by credible plans, unlike before.
GD And every time you’re putting those arguments out there – and Kemi’s doing it. The party is doing it. We all have that one question… and I’m going to come back to it … ‘why should we believe you?’ is it just ‘because this time I really mean it?’
CP I understand but we are a new leadership team. Kemi is the new leader, and I am the shadow home secretary. We recognise and acknowledge the mistakes of the past. The last government got some things wrong, and we’re not going to hide from that.
We’ve honestly acknowledged it.
Secondly, we’ve got a detailed and credible plan for fixing it. These aren’t vague promises.
When we talk about the borders plan that we published at last year’s conference, it is detailed, it’s credible, and it’s specific. And I don’t think it can be vague. We’ve got a leader who people will readily understand meets what she says, and if she says something’s going to happen, it will absolutely happen. So it’s those three reasons.
GD Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Philp, thanks for talking to ConservativeHome.