Rayner defends Labour unity on migration as Philp calls for asylum overhaul

Angela Rayner has defended Labour's migration plans and insisted the party is united after questions over the Home Secretary's proposals. The housing secretary said Shabana had held a consultation on transitional arrangements and had been clear about the need for a fair system. She said the system should be fair for people who contribute today and for those who come to the country to contribute. Rayner said she had contributed to the consultation and was on the record. She added that illegal migration figures were coming down and that she had absolute support for Shabana.

Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, used a separate interview to call for a radical overhaul of the asylum system. He was challenged over a Sunday Times report that a former bodyguard to the leader of Hamas had secured asylum and citizenship in the UK under a Conservative government before plotting a terror attack. Philp called the case disgraceful and said the man should not be in the country and should be kicked out.

He said the man had been granted asylum because the legal system enabled it, arguing that judges and courts give people like that asylum and that governments can do nothing about it. He called for the entire legal system to be dismantled. His proposals included leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, banning illegal immigrants and foreign criminals from claiming asylum, abolishing the immigration tribunal, and ending immigration legal aid. He said the last government struggled and the current government is struggling, and claimed only the Conservative Party has a plan to fix this by abolishing the legal apparatus. He described the approach as extremely radical but said it was needed because a terrorist threat could not be kicked out.

The exchanges came during a Sunday politics programme, where both figures were questioned on their parties' immigration positions. Rayner rejected the idea of a split in Labour, while Philp argued the case showed why sweeping legal change was necessary.