Philp says Hamas leader's ex-bodyguard should never have got UK asylum

Fresh scrutiny has fallen on the asylum system after a newspaper report said a former bodyguard to a Hamas leader was granted asylum in the UK. The man, known only as Mr X, was given protection despite his links to the leadership of Hamas, according to the Sunday Times. The case has reignited a political row over who is allowed to stay in Britain and whether the immigration system can remove people linked to terrorism.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said the man should never have been allowed to remain. In a broadcast interview, he said: 'that man who is a terrorist should never have got asylum or ILR or anything else he should have been kicked out of the country.' He said the decision was made about 10 years ago, under a previous government. Pressed on why it happened while the Conservatives were in power, Philp conceded the previous Tory record was 'not good enough'. He said his party had a new leadership and a new approach.

Philp blamed the outcome on what he called the wider immigration legal system. He pointed to human rights legislation, the European Convention on Human Rights, asylum laws, the immigration tribunal and legal aid. He said the only way to prevent similar cases was to 'completely dismantle the entire immigration legal system.' His proposed measures include leaving the ECHR, banning asylum claims by illegal immigrants and foreign criminals, abolishing immigration legal aid and abolishing the immigration tribunal. He also said the courts should be taken out of the process and that all illegal immigrants and foreign criminals, including people who pose a threat, should be deported. He described the plans as radical but necessary to control borders.

He claimed the Conservatives were the only party with a detailed credible plan. He accused Labour of being in hock to open borders MPs and said the Liberal Democrats were even more pro open borders. He said Reform UK could say the right things but lacked a detailed plan. Labour and the other parties have not yet responded in the coverage available.

The case has emerged amid a wider row over small boat arrivals, but the latest exchange focused on the asylum decision and the Conservative response. No details were given about how the decision was reached, what evidence was considered, or whether the Home Office is reviewing the case. The man's identity remains protected.