Commons debate: Immigration and Home Affairs

I believe it is customary in a maiden speech for the Member to pay tribute to their predecessor, which I am very happy to do. Giles Watling is a very decent, nice, honourable man. He is a former actor who wears his Garrick club tie. There is nothing even vaguely Conservative about him, but he is a jolly nice chap, and it was a clean-fought campaign.

Earlier, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) made reference to Clacton as being the place for a traditional English seaside holiday, and indeed it is, with its pier, miles of sandy beaches and arcades. Perhaps it is not as popular a holiday destination as it used to be, now that people go to Spain and elsewhere, but it is still there.

Other parts of the constituency are genteel and quite wealthy, but if we go to Jaywick we find the most deprived community in the whole United Kingdom. Those communities have little faith, trust or belief that Government can make their lives better. Indeed, what I found, when knocking on doors, was that people were saying, “We want to work—we want to get on and make money—but as soon as we work 16 hours a week or more, our benefits get taken away, so we’re better off staying on benefits.” I feel immensely sorry for those people, because the benefits system, which is designed to help them, is actually keeping them trapped in levels of relative poverty. I will do my best as the MP for the area to bring business investment—private money—into the constituency, with jobs, training and skills. I cannot promise that I will do it, but I will do my absolute damnedest to make it happen.

It is funny, because I spent nearly 21 years as a Member of the European Parliament, in Brussels and with its monthly journey to Strasbourg. I have to say that this place is very different indeed. It is smaller. There is not a chauffeur-driven Mercedes available for each Member. There are no large lump sums of money that Members do not have to spend on anything or show receipts for. I wonder whether that is why so many in the British political system seem to adore the European Union so much, because it is a rather wonderful place to work.

What I did not expect was to come here and find that I, with my Reform team, am more outnumbered here than we were in the European Parliament, because there are more supporters of Brexit in the European Parliament than I sense there are in this Parliament of 2024. This is very much a remainers’ Parliament. I suspect, in many cases, that it is really a rejoiners’ Parliament.

If we look at the King’s Speech, it is interesting that the word “immigration” is mentioned only twice and “asylum” just once. Perhaps that is not a surprise, as when the now Prime Minister laid out the six big priorities for the Labour party before the general election, he did not mention legal or illegal immigration. That is the other area in which the five of us sitting on the Reform Bench will find ourselves massively outnumbered in the House, because we actually want to talk about these issues.

I believe that the population explosion is having a bigger impact on the quality of life of ordinary folk than any other issue. It all started, of course, when the current Home Secretary became a Member of Parliament back in May 1997. It is worth reminding ourselves that net migration was the same during the late 1940s, the whole of the 1950s, the whole of the 1960s, the whole of the 1970s, the whole of the 1980s and in the 1990s, up until Mr Blair. Net migration ran at 30,000 to 50,000 a year for over half a century. Then Mr Blair got in and decided that we were going to open the doors in a way that had never been done before, to the delight and joy of big companies, especially giant multinationals, who have always wanted as much cheap labour as they can get, and to hell with the consequences for working-class families and people.

Perhaps it was even more of a surprise to see that massive acceleration in our population through immigration then further accelerate, because despite promises in four consecutive manifestos, the Conservative party actually accelerated what had happened under the years of Mr Blair, so we have seen a population increase of 10 million people since the time that Labour won its last landslide. Even the net figure is a migrant a minute.

Even during the course of this debate, many hundreds more people will have come to our country. Nobody is making the argument that there are not some exceptionally wonderful people among them—there are, of course—but the sheer level of population means we have to build a new house every two minutes. Even if the Labour Government are able to fulfil the 1.5 million houses that they want to build during the lifetime of this Parliament, that will make no dent at all in the current shortage of housing. Rents have risen by 25% since 2021. Why? Population increase and pressure. The list goes on, from access to health services to congestion and pressure on infrastructure. The population crisis has the biggest impact on people’s lives, damaging their quality of life, and virtually nobody in this place even wants to talk about it.

It is on illegal immigration that I really want to make a point. Four years ago, I went out into the English channel repeatedly, filming dinghies coming across the channel, with an average of 16 people per boat. I was described as being a sad, lonely, desperate figure, always seeking attention, and I have no doubt there are some who think that is still the case today.

Thank you. But I did it because it was obvious to me what was going to happen. It was obvious that there would be a huge influx of people illegally coming to Britain across the English channel, and it would happen because we had stopped deporting people who came to Britain illegally.

Perhaps the Labour party might want to reflect on the last period of Labour government, when we had Home Secretaries such as David Blunkett, who was far, far to the right of people like the shadow Home Secretary today. If someone came to Britain illegally during the last Labour Government, their feet did not touch the ground—they were gone; they were out. Indeed, in the last year of that Labour Government, from 2009 to 2010, 50,000 people who came here illegally were deported. None of that happens any more. It did not happen under 14 years of the Conservatives and it clearly is not going to happen under this Labour Government, and I wonder why. I think we will find that it is because of the increased role of a court overseas that was set up in the wake of world war two with the very best of intentions, but that has now completely outlived its usefulness. It is, of course, the European Court of Human Rights, and it was a Labour Government who enshrined the convention into British law.

We will not stop the boats, even if we sent a handful to Rwanda. We will not stop the boats by attempting to smash the criminal gangs; we have been doing that to the drugs industry in Britain, year after year, decade after decade, with no success whatsoever. The financial rewards for smuggling people across the English channel can now net a gang €2 million to €3 million a week. Whatever prison sentences or penalties are put upon them, there will always be people volunteering to make millions of euros a week. We will stop this only if we start deporting people who come illegally. Then they will not pay the smugglers. But we will do that only by leaving the ECHR. I have a fun suggestion that would liven up politics, engage the public and see a massively increased turnout. Why do we not have a referendum on whether we continue to be a member of the ECHR?