But in a leaked recording obtained by Sky News, Chris Philp, now shadow home secretary, said Britain’s exit from the EU – and end of UK participation in the Dublin agreement which governs EU-wide asylum claims – meant they realised they “can’t any longer rely on sending people back to the place where they first claimed asylum”.
Mr Philp appeared to suggest the scale of the problem surprised those in the Johnson government.
Image: Chris Philp is the shadow home secretary. Pic: Reuters
“When we did check it out… (we) found that about half the people crossing the Channel had claimed asylum previously elsewhere in Europe.”
In response tonight, the Tories insisted that Mr Philp was not saying the Tories did not have a plan for how to handle asylum seekers post Brexit.
Mr Philp’s comments from last month are a very different tone to 2020 when as immigration minister he seemed to be suggesting EU membership and the Dublin rules hampered asylum removals.
In August that year, he said: “The Dublin regulations do have a number of constraints in them, which makes returning people who should be returned a little bit harder than we would like. Of course, come the 1st of January, we’ll be outside of those Dublin regulations and the United Kingdom can take a fresh approach.”
Mr Philp was also immigration minister in Mr Johnson’s government so would have been following the debate closely.
Image: Philp was previously a close ally of Liz Truss. Pic: PA
In public, members of the Johnson administration were claiming this would not be an issue since asylum claims would be “inadmissible”, but gave no details on how they would actually deal with people physically arriving in the country.
A Home Office source told journalists once the UK is “no longer bound by Dublin after the transition”, then “we will be able to negotiate our own bilateral returns agreement from the end of this year”.
This did not happen immediately.
In the summer of 2020, Mr Johnson’s spokesman criticised the “inflexible and rigid” Dublin regulations, suggesting the exit from this agreement would be a welcome post-Brexit freedom. Mr Philp’s comments suggest a different view in private.
The remarks were made in a Zoom call, part of a regular series with all the shadow cabinet on 28 April, just before the local election.
Mr Philp was asked by a member why countries like France continued to allow migrants to come to the UK.
He replied: “The migrants should claim asylum in the first safe place and that under European Union regulations, which is called the Dublin 3 regulation, the first country where they are playing asylum is the one that should process their application.
“Now, because we’re out of the European Union now, we are out of the Dublin 3 regulations, and so we can’t any longer rely on sending people back to the place where they first claimed asylum. When we did check it out, just before we exited the EU transitional arrangements on December the 31st, 2020, we did run some checks and found that about half the people crossing the channel had claimed asylum previously elsewhere in Europe.
“In Germany, France, Italy, Spain, somewhere like that, and therefore could have been returned. But now we’re out of Dublin, we can’t do that, and that’s why we need to have somewhere like Rwanda that we can send these people to as a deterrent.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:42
Has Brexit saved the UK from tariffs?
Mr Johnson announced the Rwanda plan in April 2022 – which Mr Philp casts as the successor plan – 16 months after Britain left the legal and regulatory regime of the EU, but the plan was blocked by the European Court of Human Rights.
Successive Tory prime ministers failed to get any mandatory removals to Rwanda, and Sir Keir Starmer cancelled the programme on entering Downing Street last year, leaving the issue of asylum seekers from France unresolved.
Speaking on Sky News last weekend, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said there has been a 20% increase in migrant returns since Labour came to power, along with a 40% increase in illegal working raids and a 40% increase in arrests for illegal working.
Britain’s membership of the EU did not stop all asylum arrivals. Under the EU’s Dublin regulation, under which people should be processed for asylum in the country at which they first entered the bloc.
However, many EU countries where people first arrive, such as Italy, do not apply the Dublin rules.
The UK is not going to be able to participate again in the Dublin agreement since that is only open to full members of the EU.
Ministers have confirmed the Labour government is discussing a returns agreement with the French that would involve both countries exchanging people seeking asylum.
Asked on Sky News about how returns might work in future, the transport minister Lilian Greenwood said on Wednesday there were “discussions ongoing with the French government”, but did not say what a future deal could look like.
She told Sky News: “It’s not a short-term issue. This is going to take really hard work to tackle those organised gangs that are preying on people, putting their lives in danger as they try to cross the Channel to the UK.
“Of course, that’s going to involve conversations with our counterparts on the European continent.”
Pressed on the returns agreement, Ms Greenwood said: “I can confirm that there are discussions ongoing with the French government about how we stop this appalling and dangerous trade in people that’s happening across the English Channel.”
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
A Conservative Party spokesman said: “The Conservative Party delivered on the democratic will of this country, and left the European Union.
“The last government did have a plan and no one – including Chris – has ever suggested otherwise.
“We created new deals with France to intercept migrants, signed returns agreements with many countries across Europe, including a landmark agreement with Albania that led to small boat crossings falling by a third in 2023, and developed the Rwanda deterrent – a deterrent that Labour scrapped, leading to 2025 so far being the worst year ever for illegal channel crossings.
“However, Kemi Badenoch and Chris Philp have been clear that the Conservatives must do a lot more to tackle illegal migration.
“It is why, under new leadership, we are developing g new policies that will put an end to this problem – including disapplying the Human Rights Act from immigration matters, establishing a removals deterrent and deporting all foreign criminals.”
The crypto market could soon see some much-needed relief after the US Senate reached an agreement on a three-part budget deal to end the government shutdown, Politico reports.
Pending legislation to fund the US government has more than enough support to pass the 60-vote threshold, Politico reported on Sunday, citing two people familiar with the matter.
It was Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune’s 15th attempt to win Democratic support for a House-approved bill, putting the record 40-day government shutdown within reach of being lifted.
An official vote is still needed to finalize the agreement.
Ongoing uncertainty over when the US government would reopen has been a key factor holding back Bitcoin (BTC) and the broader crypto market from mounting a rebound.
Bitcoin initially rallied to a new high of $126,080 six days into the government shutdown on Oct. 6, but has since fallen over 17% to $104,370, CoinGecko data shows.
Bitcoin’s fall over the past month saw it drop by double-digit percentage points on Oct. 10 after US President Donald Trump’s announcement of 100% tariffs on China sent shockwaves throughout the markets.
Bitcoin’s change in price since Oct. 1. Source: CoinGecko
Bitcoin rallied 266% after last government shutdown lifted
The last US government shutdown occurred between late December 2018 and late January the following year in Trump’s first term.
After it ended on Jan. 25, 2019, Bitcoin rose over 265% from $3,550 to $13,000 over the next five months.
Prediction markets back shutdown to end this week
Bettors on prediction market Polymarket are backing that the government shutdown will be lifted on Thursday, with the market showing a 54% chance it will happen between Tuesday and Friday.
Amid serious concerns over the editorial mistakes made by the BBC, the downfall of its leaders has been greeted with undisguised glee by many on the right of British politics.
Former prime minister Liz Truss was quick off the mark to retweet gloating posts from Donald Trump and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt with clapping emojis.
Ms Truss argued not just for the abolition of the licence fee, but for the end of nationalised broadcasting altogether.
X
This content is provided by X, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable X cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to X cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow X cookies for this session only.
Her former cabinet colleague Suella Braverman has also called for the licence fee to be scrapped.
It’s an idea long advocated by Nadine Dorries during her time as culture secretary. The recent Reform convert is particularly pessimistic about the BBC’s future – telling me she believes its “core bias” has worsened in recent years.
“I’m afraid the resignation of Tim Davie will change nothing,” she said. “Under this Labour government overseeing the new appointment… it will probably get worse.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:17
Why ‘Teflon Tim’ resigned from BBC
All three politicians were close allies of Boris Johnson, who has been instrumental this week in piling the pressure on the BBC.
He dramatically threatened in the Daily Mail to boycott the licence fee until Tim Davie explained what happened with the Trump Panorama documentary – or resigned.
Shadow culture secretary Nigel Huddleston told Sky News “we want them to be successful” – but he and his boss Kemi Badenoch are calling for wide-ranging editorial reforms to end what they describe as “institutional bias”.
Their list calls for changes to BBC Arabic, its coverage of the US and Middle East, and “basic matters of biology”, by which they mean its stories on trans issues.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:47
‘Catastrophic failure’ at BBC
The irony of demanding editorial changes from a supposedly independent organisation dealing with allegations of bias has been lost in the furore.
Similarly, Nigel Farage is calling for the government to appoint a new director-general from the private sector who has “a record of coming in and turning companies and cultures around”.
As part of its editorial independence, the appointment of the BBC’s next editor-in-chief is meant to be entirely down to its own independent board – and out of the hands of ministers.
The government’s own response to the scandal has therefore been relatively muted. In a statement, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy thanked Mr Davie for his long service to public service broadcasting – and paid tribute to the BBC as “one of our most important national institutions”.
Image: Tim Davie and Deborah Turness. Pics: PA
Before the news of the resignations broke, she had been expressing her “complete confidence” in how the BBC’s leadership were dealing with the “serious allegations” described in the leaked memo from Michael Prescott, a former external adviser to the corporation’s editorial standards committee.
The departure of Mr Davie and the CEO of BBC News Deborah Turness just hours later seemed to be something of a shock.
A more detailed government response is sure to come when parliament returns from recess tomorrow.
The Culture Media and Sport Committee of MPs – which has played an active role in the scandal by writing to the BBC chairman and demanding answers – is due to receive its response today, which is expected to include an apology for the Panorama edits.
Its chair Dame Caroline Dinenage described Mr Davie’s resignation as “regrettable” but said that “restoring trust in the corporation must come first”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:29
Ex-Panorama staffer: ‘Worst crime imaginable’
So far, the only British political leader prepared to mount an outspoken defence of the BBC is Sir Ed Davey.
The Liberal Democrat argues that seeing the White House take credit for Mr Davie’s downfall – and attacking the BBC – “should worry us all”.
He’s called on the PM and all British political leaders to stand united in “telling Trump to keep his hands off it”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:13
What did the BBC do to anger Trump?
Given the diplomatic contortions Sir Keir Starmer has gone through to develop close relations with the current president, this seems entirely unlikely.
But for a prime minister already juggling an overflowing in-tray of problems, controversy over the national broadcaster as the government prepares to enter negotiations about renewing its charter for the next decade is another political tripwire in waiting.
Sir Keir Starmer’s been on the other side of the world for most of the week – at the COP30 climate summit in Brazil, his 40th foreign trip in 16 months.
Back home, his government’s credibility has continued its painful unravelling.
Five days on from David Lammy’s disastrous stand-in performance at PMQS, the justice secretary’s ministerial colleagues are still struggling to explain why he repeatedly failed to answer questions on whether another migrant criminal had been released from prison by mistake.
Image: Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer at the Remembrance Sunday service at the Cenotaph in London. Pic: PA
Yes, Conservative MP James Cartlidge got the question wrong, as Brahim Kaddour-Cherif was an illegal migrant, not an asylum seeker.
But Mr Cartlidge argued that because the deputy prime minister failed to divulge the information he did have, he failed to act with full transparency and should be investigated by the PM’s ethics advisor for a possible breach of the ministerial code.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
10:17
Lammy not sharing facts is ‘shocking’
She told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips she doesn’t accept that he was being evasive, insisting Mr Lammy had been carefully weighing his words to ensure that “when we do speak about matters of such significance to the public… we do so with care and make sure the full facts are presented”.
At that time, rather extraordinarily, we’re told the justice secretary did not have the full facts of the case, even though the Metropolitan Police had been informed the day before (six days after Kaddour-Cherif was accidentally freed).
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:14
In full: Moment sex offender arrested
The combination of wrongly-freed prisoners and illegal migrants is a conjunction of two of the most toxic issues in British politics – the overflowing prison system and the dysfunctional asylum system.
Both are vast, chaotic problems the government is struggling to get a grip on, as the Conservatives also found, to their cost.
But ministers’ ongoing failure to bring both issues under control has only been highlighted by Mr Lammy’s sloppy handling of the situation.
Football regulator donations row
Ms Nandy has herself been at the heart of another government controversy this week – over the appointment of the new football regulator, David Kogan.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:20
‘I didn’t want to mislead MPs on prisoner release’
An independent investigation found she “unknowingly” breached the code on public appointments by failing to declare that Mr Kogan had previously donated £2,900 to her Labour leadership campaign – and also criticised her department for not highlighting his status as a Labour donor who had previously given £33,410 to the party.
The culture secretary has apologised and explained she had been unaware of the donations.
She also pointed out that Mr Kogan was a candidate originally put forward by the Conservatives. But again, it’s messy.
It’s yet another story which chips away at the government’s promises to clear up politics and act with full transparency and accountability.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:00
Political fallout analysed
Budget blues?
The ultimate breach of trust looks set to come with the budget on 26 November, however.
In an extraordinary early morning speech this week, Chancellor Rachel Reeves signalled that she’s likely to raise taxes in two and a half weeks – and thus breach the core promise of the Labour Party manifesto.
The rationale for her dire warnings on Tuesday was to start explaining why she will probably have to do so – getting in her excuses early about the languishing state of the economy as a result of Brexit, Donald Trump’s tariffs and her inheritance from the Conservatives.
The Tories claim Ms Reeves could sort out the finances by cutting welfare spending – something ministers dramatically failed to do when their efforts at reform were scuttled by angry backbenchers.
Governments breach their manifesto commitments all the time.
But if the chancellor goes ahead and puts up income tax, as expected (even if that’s offset, for some, by a corresponding cut to national insurance), it will be a shock – and the first such increase in 50 years.
The new deputy leader of the party, Lucy Powell, pointedly warned the government this week about the risks of breaching trust in politics by breaking manifesto promises.
Lisa Nandy didn’t shoot her comments down when Sir Trevor asked for her response, arguing instead that while “we take our promises very, very seriously”, they [Labour] “were also elected on a promise to change this country”, with a particular focus on fixing the NHS.
The impossibility of doing both – protecting taxes while also increasing government spending in such a challenging economic climate – highlights the folly of making such restrictive promises.