We Need an Immigration Referendum

y maiden speech in the House of Commons focussed on illegal immigration and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), two red hot topics for a huge section of voters which I believe could haunt the Labour government until they confront them properly. It’s worth setting out in greater detail why I chose to discuss these matters in the chamber.

Three weeks on from the general election, it is clear that this parliament is unrepresentative of public opinion. I would estimate that the overwhelming majority of MPs – perhaps 85 or 90 per cent – are Remainers and, I would say, about half of them are Rejoiners. So the vast bulk of them would rather Brexit had never happened despite 17.4 million people having opted to leave the EU. Almost all MPs are completely out of tune with the citizens of this country.

With this in mind, it will perhaps come as no surprise that any mention of another thorny concern – immigration – is met by lots of MPs with a look to the sky, as if to say “Please don’t spoil the dinner party.”

Both Labour and the Conservatives claim to want to stop the boats. They have repeatedly acknowledged that their voters are angry about the mind-blowing sums of taxpayers’ money being spent every day on feeding and housing tens of thousands of people who chose to leave the safety of France to try their luck in Britain. Sir Keir Starmer even copied me during the general election campaign by referring to the crisis as a question of national security.

Yet in reality, it is clear that Labour’s plan is to bury the issue. For proof of this, look no further than the Home Office – now run by Yvette Cooper – branding illegal immigration “irregular migration”.  They cannot even bring themselves to use the word “illegal” despite any foreign national entering Britain without permission being a criminal offence!

Or consider the way the Bibby Stockholm barge – which the Tories introduced in order to save money – is to be decommissioned. Of course, these examples pale into insignificance when you realise that Cooper plans to change the law so that 100,000 illegal immigrants – and maybe more – can have their asylum claims processed. This would be nothing more than a back-door amnesty. Did anybody vote for this?

This leads me on to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). During a parliamentary debate on Monday, Sir Keir Starmer spoke warmly about this 74-year-old institution, telling MPs “Let me be clear: there is no need to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights…we will not withdraw – not now, not ever.”  Rishi Sunak, who remains Tory leader for now, did not demur, despite knowing that it was the ECHR which ensured the ill-fated Rwanda scheme which he inherited from Boris Johnson did not get off the ground.

Logically, to support the outdated ECHR is nonsensical. It will only hinder Britain’s ability to deal with the ballooning problem of illegal immigration. Yet many MPs don’t seem to care.

During my maiden speech, I mentioned another Labour Home Secretary, David Blunkett, noting that during his period in office between 2001 and 2004, Britain used to deport illegal immigrants – something it no longer seems to do on the same scale. Under Blair’s government, tens of thousands were deported every single year. This was not always an easy task for Blunkett, however.

In February 2003, the High Court heard a test case brought on behalf of five asylum seekers who challenged the Labour government’s policy of denying refugees food and shelter if they did not make an asylum claim on arrival in Britain. Fearing that Britain had become a soft touch, Blunkett had introduced this measure in the interests of protecting the public purse, but Mr Justice Collins ruled that the government’s position was illegal. And the name of the barrister who represented the asylum seekers? Keir Starmer.

At the time, Starmer gave an interview in which he said “First, there is the development of the notion of dignity and humanity in our law. It doesn’t matter whether the foundation of that notion is the European Convention on Human Rights or the common law, it is simply unacceptable in a civilised society to prevent a vulnerable group of individuals from working, to exclude them from the welfare benefits system and then to deprive them of a roof over their heads and of food.”

Well, given all this, I think it’s time we had a referendum on Britain’s membership of the ECHR. Does the prime minister have the courage to find out what the electorate really thinks about this burning issue – or is scared that a plebiscite would reveal the gaping chasm between MPs and the people?