But let's pick up on that story with
Chris Phelp, the shadow home section and
Conservative MP for South Cudon. Thank
you for coming on the program, Mr.
Phelp. Um, is the use of hotels to house
asylum seekers wrong, sir?
>> Well, I think overall, um, it is wrong
because it's costing a lot of money and,
uh, it's, you know, taking these hotels
out of action. Let's remind ourselves
why they're being used in the first
place. It's because, uh, illegal
immigrants are crossing the channel then
claiming asylum. So the way to fix this
really is to stop the problem at source
and stop the crossings. Uh which in my
my view means deporting everybody who uh
arrives illegally immediately that they
get here either to their country of
origin if possible or a safe third
country if not and then pretty soon
people will stop bothering to attempt
the crossings in the first place. If
it's if it's wrong to use hotels to
house asylum seekers, why did you as a
home office minister sanction the use of
the Bell Hotel in Eping as one of the
hotels to be used?
>> Yeah, you're going back uh five or so
years now and it was used as an
emergency measure, but we then in
government, the Conservatives rightly
decided to stop using that hotel for the
reasons I've just
>> You approved the use of the Parkin Hotel
in Glasgow. 400 asylum seekers moved
into that hotel. Was that the wrong
thing? Well, well, to be to be clear, I
didn't personally approve those. Um,
hotels that decision,
>> but hotel hotels were used previously.
Um, last but well, the last government,
yeah, the government uh, last government
decided that it was wrong to use hotels
and that is why it instituted a policy
of reducing them. Now, that started a
couple of year or two or three years
ago. Um, hotel numbers were steadily
reducing under the last government. In
fact, about 200 hotels were closed down
by the last government in the run-up to
the last in the sort of uh year or so
before the last election. And had that
rate of closure continued, by now there
would be no hotels at all. But
unfortunately, the Labor government
after the election did not continue with
that program of hotel closures. And in
fact, in the nine months after the
election, the number of illegal
immigrants uh claiming asylum in these
hotels actually went up by about 3,000
uh because the Labor government did not
continue the the policy of
>> the last government decided it was
wrong. Previous Tory governments didn't
decide that uh because hotel
accommodation increased abs it exploded.
There were 56,000 people in 2023, late
2023, still housed in hotels. Um so
presumably you would say that former
Tory governments in which you served got
that wrong.
>> Yeah, they should there should not have
been 56,000 people in hotels and that is
why uh subsequent to that uh very robust
action was taken to reduce those numbers
which worked uh the numbers h haveved
subsequent to that and had and had that
and had that continued
>> decide it was wrong Mr. Why did it take
so many years to decide that this was
the wrong thing to do? Well, you'd have
to ask the people that were um in charge
at the time. That was after my time as
immigration minister. Um but a decision
was taken to reduce the numbers. That
worked and the numbers were harved. But
unfortunately, since Labour came to
office, uh that trend has not continued.
And in fact, the numbers in hotels in
the nine months after they came to
office actually went up. But let's
remind ourselves why it's happening.
It's happening because illegal
immigrants are crossing the channel in
record ever numbers. Since the election,
the numbers have surged. This year so
far has been the worst ever, the worst
in history for illegal immigrants
crossing the channel.
>> So far,
>> so far, this year so far. That's right.
And indeed, the period since the
election has also been the worst such
period in history. And one of the
reasons for that is that Labour uh
cancelled the Rwanda deterrent before it
even started with no replacement.
Instead, they said, "Oh, we're going to
smash the gangs." Well, that's now
descended into sort of laughable farce.
Now they're saying they're going to send
50 people a week to France. Well, I
mean, that's not going to make any
difference at all. The way you stop the
boats coming in the first place, which
really will fix the problem at source,
is to say anyone that arrives illegally
across the channel will get immediately
removed either back to their country of
origin if possible or uh to a safe third
country if not. And then if if you're in
France and you know if you cross the
channel, you're going to wind up being
immediately removed. I mean, common
sense tells you people are going to not
>> likely to do that generally.
the deal that the the Labor government
is trying to institute with France
because France were impeccably opposed
to a returns agreement particularly
under the Conservative government when
you reduced hotel accommodation which is
true when you reduced those
>> halved it where did those people go?
>> Well some of those uh you have to sort
of track through the data but some of
those people uh would have been uh
granted uh asylum uh some of those
people would have been denied asylum and
then removed from the country. Um but
just so hardly any got removed from the
country, Mr. Phil. Very very few people
got removed. You you substituted hotels
with houses of multiple occupancy. Just
put them in flats.
>> Well, as I say, if someone's asylum
claim is denied and we tightened up the
rules actually to make it harder to get
asylum, right,
>> stop processing claims. The Rwanda plan
meant that there were no claims
processed after a particular date. You
stop bothering.
>> Well, so there were there was work being
done to prepare for the Rwanda uh plan.
That is that is exactly right. now and I
think it was a catastrophic mistake by
the Labor government to cancel that
Rwanda plan um just a few days before it
was due to start
the absolute height of hypocrisy to say
oh well they're not closing down the
hotels for when you put people into
hotels the conservative government over
many years put thousands of people into
hotels you stopped processing claims
moved people out of hotels and stuck
them in HMOs
>> now I've already explained that people
whose asylum claims were denied would
have been removed from the country and
I've also I'll say it again I'll you
know repeat the point um in In the last
nine months of the last Conservative
government, the numbers in asylum hotels
um hved. They went down by 200 hotels.
And had the Labor government continued
that after the election, there wouldn't
be any hotels at all. Now, but look, I'm
going to repeat the fundamental point,
which is that we need to stop these
illegal crossings completely. The Rwanda
deterrent would have done that.
Something very similar worked in
Australia about 12 years ago. Actually,
the Americans in the last 6 months have
done something quite similar on their
southern border. It was a huge mistake
of Labour to cancel that deterrent
before it started uh just before it
started without any replacement. That is
why numbers this year are the worst so
far this year are the worst in history.
And that is why we've got a border
crisis under Labor.
>> When Kimmy Bono, your leader, um tells
her counselors, conservative counselors
to take legal action against the
government for those hotels in order to
quote protect your community. Who from?
Well, I think there are concerns which
Eping Council articulated in their legal
action um that putting hundreds of young
men into the middle of a small community
um can have quite significant impacts.
We've also seen reporting uh by various
newspapers who have uh looked through
court records showing that um hundreds
and hundreds of people living in these
asylum hotels, who are almost entirely
young men, by the way, um have been
charged with various criminal offenses.
And that is of that is of concern. uh to
local councils and it's of concern to
the public as well. But you know to get
to the heart of this to really stop this
problem happening you've got to stop the
crossings and that is why um Labour have
made such a big mistake by allowing
these crossings to reach record ever
levels this year. They have a border
crisis which is turning into a public
security or public safety crisis as
well. The the protect your community
line though might appear to some as uh
to cast aspersions on absolutely
everybody who crosses and claims asylum
that they are all somehow a threat.
Well, I don't think that is the
insinuation although of course everybody
who's crossed the channel has done so
illegally because it is illegal to enter
the UK in that way because they're
leaving from a safe country, France,
right? There's not a will have their
asylum claim processed first in order to
determine whether or not they're here
illegally. And that's not true.
Actually, entering the country without
leave is a criminal offense contrary to
section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971.
There is a protection if you're coming
directly from a place of danger. But I
think you would agree France is not a
place of danger. There's no war going
on.
>> There's no legal requirement though for
to claim asylum in the first safe
country they come to.
>> No, but you you are you are allowed to
uh impose penalties, including criminal
penalties, on people who enter a country
um illegally if they're not coming
directly from a place of danger. So I am
it is right to describe everyone
crossing the channel as having entered
illegally. That's quite an important
point.
>> So what did the tries do about that?
>> Well, we first of all got the numbers
down by a third in 2023
and we had the Rwanda plan ready to go.
>> They were all here illegally anyway
before Rwanda plan. Why why didn't you
arrest them? Why didn't you put them in
prison? point the point the point I'm
making is that uh the point I'm making
is that the Randa plan or something
similar to it where everybody who
arrives gets immediately removed will
act as a deterrent which was the case
they were coming in illegally. You
didn't do anything about it until you
dreamt up the Roman plan which was only
pretty recently towards the back end of
of a conservative government.
>> Well, we I mean we did we did get we did
get the numbers down by a third in 2023.
>> You say they're here illegally. Well,
I've just said we got the numbers down
by a third and I think hundreds of
people were prosecuted um for
facilitating uh illegal immigration.
They were prosecuted. The National Crime
Agency um I think had some of their uh
top operations directed against people
smuggling uh organizations which which
is which is illegal as well. That's
illegal as well. Um but the main point
is we need to stop this happening in the
first place by preventing the illegal
crossings. The only way to do that is by
making sure that the crossings are
pointless. I've said it already, I'll
say it again. by making sure everybody
who arrives gets immediately removed and
then nobody will bother attempting the
crossing. You mentioned the government's
deal with France which is their latest
gimmick just like the smash the gangs
gimmick a year ago which you don't hear
them talk about anymore. Now sending 50
people a week to France which amounts to
about 6% of arrivals is obviously no
deterrent because by implication 94% of
people can stay and the difference with
you know the Randanda scheme by contrast
or something like it would have seen
100% or very close to 100% of people
being removed. We tabled a plan again
like that in parliament a few weeks ago.
Um but Labour voted against it and their
weakness on this is why they've lost
control of the borders and why this year
so far has been the worst year in
history for illegal crossings. Labor is
presiding over a borders crisis.