Nigel Farage MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Jun 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Following the horrendous circumstances of Henry Nowak’s death, I urge the Prime Minister to consider this: it is now clear to growing millions in this country that we are living under two-tier policing. The instructions that are given to police officers from police bosses are clear and written down in ink: “You must treat different ethnic groups in different ways.” Apart from the upset and the anger at the circumstances of Henry’s death, the anger that was seen spilling out in Southampton last night is in danger of getting considerably worse if the public lose trust that they will be treated fairly by the police. Will the Prime Minister take some action, end this divisive practice of two-tier policing, and make sure that all British citizens are treated the same?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  While this debate is very welcome, it is on the broad range of sexual offences against children and the gathering of data about the perpetrators. I suggest, and certainly my constituents in Clacton suggest, that there is something uniquely evil and awful about mass-rape gangs. That is not in any way to diminish sexual abuse committed in the home or elsewhere by trusted people, but there is something uniquely evil about what is going on. I certainly speak for many of my constituents in saying that there is a feeling that for a couple of decades the authorities at all levels have not done the job of genuinely pursuing justice because of racial sensitivities. I was unaware of the problem, its scale and the cover-up until the Rotherham by-election in 2012, when the current hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) was elected. In the intervening years she has spoken out more bravely on the issue than most Members of this House. I was genuinely shocked by the stories I was told by families who came forward, and stunned that the police, social workers and local councillors had received multiple reports of what had happened. When I say mass rape, in some cases we are talking about individual girls being raped by hundreds of men over a period of time. Something genuinely shocking had happened. In the intervening years, we have had the Jay report, the Casey report, attempts by Home Secretaries and current attempts to find out the truth about what has gone on. While a handful of people have been held to account, the truth is that the vast majority have not. I was surprised that during 14 years of Conservative Government, we did not have a proper judicial inquiry with the necessary powers. I have done my best to encourage the current Prime Minister to do the same, but sadly to no avail. There are two things that it strikes me would be helpful. First, we ought to get published, with redacted names, all the reports of police and social services over the past 40 years, across the whole country, as a public record that everybody can read. But the thing that really surprises me is the reluctance of Members of Parliament to realise their own powers. We are in the Palace of Westminster, in this remarkable historic building, and we are all privileged to be here. We have enormous powers. They were last effectively used back in 2011 by the Public Accounts Committee, which in the wake of the global financial collapse of 2008 used the powers of this Palace to turn Committees into courts. That means that they have powers of subpoena; it means that people can be brought into Committee Rooms like this, under oath, and could face charges of perjury if they do not tell the truth. My suggestion is this: rather than waiting for this Home Secretary or the next one, who may come soon—who knows?—to act with full judicial power and the ability to subpoena, why don’t we, as Members of Parliament, forget party affiliation, recognise the upset, concern and fear of our constituents that we are increasingly living in a two-tier justice system in this country, come together and force the Government to have a powerful Committee in this place? Let us call the heads of social services, let us call senior police officers and let us call former or serving councillors, or even former or serving MPs, and get to the truth.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  “Smash the gangs”—that is what the Prime Minister promised us. “Trust me, I will stop the boats from coming.” But 70,000 people later, with 1,000 in the last week and too many young men who pose a threat to national security, is it not time to admit that “smash the gangs” has been a total, abject failure—along with, frankly, most of his other policies? Is it not time he told us, as summer approaches, what is plan B?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q8. Over the course of the last year, our North sea neighbours, Norway, have opened 49 drill sites for gas and oil. On our side of the North sea, the number is zero. Given that our critical reserve of natural gas is down to two days and how vulnerable we are, and with talk of potential energy rationing coming later this year, is it not time that we changed course, got rid of excessive taxation on the exploration companies, opened up the licences and became self-sufficient in natural gas? With that would come thousands of jobs, increased tax revenues and cheaper gas prices. Is it not time we followed Norway?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Power to Cancel Local Elections · Hansard source

  More

  No taxation without representation is quite a powerful political adage, and it has worked well over the years. What people were facing in many parts of the country was paying their council tax, but not being able to have a say and, in certain cases, elected county councillors staying in position for a full seven years. However, it was not just the Minister that did this. It was done with the connivance of the Conservative party, which did everything it could to deny the vote in Norfolk, Suffolk, East and West Sussex, and initially in Surrey—doing its best to stop people voting for two consecutive years. And the Lib Dems got in on the act in Cheltenham, although, granted, in slightly different circumstances. Talking of the Lib Dems, I have been having a very good chat with a prominent Liberal Democrat who I get on rather well with, Sir Bob Russell, who represented Colchester for many years. He made the point that there was last fundamental local government reorganisation in England 50 years ago, but no one suggested that elections should be cancelled, delayed or postponed. In fact, the debate about the shape of local government reorganisation became part of the campaigns and an issue upon which people voted. I am proud of the fact that 153,000 people signed the petition, but I am even prouder that 4.6 million people will get the vote on 7 May because of the judicial review that I took against the Government. I am proud of that, and Reform will go on fighting for proper, open democracy. It is clear that section 87 of the Local Government Act 2000 delegates way too much power to a Minister of any Government, and that elections are completely fundamental to liberty and freedom in our country. We need to change section 87—I ask the Government to support this—to make sure that, in the future, any delays to elections, for whatever reason, must be the subject of primary legislation, open debate and a vote by all Members of Parliament. If we do that, we will never finish up in this awful mess and with this lack of trust in politics again.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask His Majesty’s Government to give us an update on the situation with regard to the Diego Garcia American military base and the British Indian Ocean Territory, especially in light of the recent comments of the American President.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, the situation in America has changed, as you know. The British Government went around America and said a whole load of things, such as that it was legally necessary to give away the Chagos Islands, which of course was not true. “DO NOT GIVE AWAY DIEGO GARCIA!” Capital letters from the American President—he likes capital letters in his posts. All the other arguments have been well rehearsed: the fact that it could cost us up to £50 billion; and the fact that the Chagossians were not just badly treated then, but are being badly treated now. They have resettled Île du Coin and have eviction notices from this Government. But I can tell the House this from my trip to the Maldives at the weekend—something I had not realised, and I do not know whether the Government know it either. It is the Maldives that has the historical links with the Chagos Islands, in terms of trade and archaeology. In fact, all the French did was rename the islands from the Maldivian language. There is no basis—historically or culturally, in any way—for Mauritius to have a claim on the islands. The Maldives is upset for two reasons. There has been great stability in the region for decades. If the treaty goes through, we will finish up with a turf war in the region between India and China. Indeed, that has already started. I wish to inform the Government that, in my opinion, we are just a few days away from the Maldives issuing a counterclaim in the International Court of Justice to say that if anybody has the right to the sovereignty of those islands, it is the Maldives and not Mauritius. I urge the Government to pause all of this.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  Stop the boats!

• 25 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  At the age of 14, Michel Mandarin was forcibly removed from his home, the coral atoll of Île du Coin, dumped on the quayside in Mauritius, and forced to live on food scraps out of bins. He has resettled on those islands, yet he now faces a removal order from yet another Labour Government. Maybe twice in one lifetime, he is going to be asked to leave his homeland. Can I ask the Prime Minister this? This Government are full of human rights lawyers, within and without; why do the opinions and human rights of indigenous Chagossians not matter to him at all?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Local Elections · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 4 Dec 2025 · Local Elections · Hansard source

  More

  I could scarcely believe it last year when the county council elections in Essex and elsewhere were postponed for a year. Clearly there is no reason at all why they cannot go ahead in 2026—although, I know that the local Conservative administration is fiercely opposed to that. The whole local government reorganisation is a dog’s dinner, and the public do not understand what is going on. You are asking people in Clacton to vote in local elections year after year after year. You are telling them that you are going to get rid of a district council that they know, understand and respect, and replace it with a pretty amorphous unitary authority. If that is going to go ahead—I do not like it, but clearly it is—you need a senior elected figure—

• 12 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister— [ Interruption. ] No, I have only got 30 seconds. The Prime Minister has stated very clearly that he wants to close the migrant hotels by the end of this Parliament. Reform-led West Northamptonshire Council—a brilliantly led council—will be issuing foreclosure notices on three migrant hotels within the next few days, in response to grave public concern about the safety of women and girls on the streets of West Northamptonshire. Would the Prime Minister approve of us speeding up the closure of the migrant hotels?

• 29 Oct 2025 · European Convention on Human Rights (Withdrawal) · Hansard source

  More

  I ask the Liberal Democrats and others in this place: what is wrong with you? Do you not believe that this country is good enough to make its own laws? Do you not believe in the country that since Magna Carta has developed the principle of common law—which, with its faults, has been perhaps the best ever developed by civilisation? Do you not believe we are good enough to make these rules? Should we stick with outdated conventions preyed on by human rights lawyers in this country? This Bill would restore democratic trust and faith in this once great nation.

• 29 Oct 2025 · European Convention on Human Rights (Withdrawal) · Hansard source

  More

  It is marvellous to see the intellectual levels of debate in this place—it really is. Is it any wonder— [ Interruption. ] Is it any wonder that out in the country there is growing frustration— [ Interruption .]

• 29 Oct 2025 · European Convention on Human Rights (Withdrawal) · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure you will allow me the opportunity to continue to try to say something despite such constant interventions. The British people voted clearly, by a massive margin, to bring back the sovereignty— [Interruption.] By the way, what makes me laugh about this is that it is not just about the sovereignty of this country; it is about the sovereignty of this very Chamber and the people within it. It is about bringing power back to this very place, and that is what we voted for. One of the biggest reasons why the vote happened was the deep alarm at the huge numbers of people coming into our country and the fact that we effectively had open borders, making us poorer in every way. Of course, our membership of the Council of Europe and the European convention and its writing into British law in 1998 kind of enshrined that, and I think it is what Tony Blair wanted us to do. I believe that Brexit cannot be complete all the while we are subject to a foreign Court and a piece of legislation brought in by the Blair Government on which judges can choose their own political interpretation. We are not sovereign all the while we are part of the European convention on human rights, the Council of Europe and its associated court. It is as simple as that.

• 29 Oct 2025 · European Convention on Human Rights (Withdrawal) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, and to make further provision in connection with the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from that Convention. In many ways, this is unfinished business. On 23 June 2016, in the biggest democratic exercise in the history of these islands, the British people— [ Interruption. ] Despite what they were told by all the businesses and all the trade unions and much of the press and most of this House, the British people managed, despite everything— [ Interruption. ] Children, be quiet.

• 29 Oct 2025 · European Convention on Human Rights (Withdrawal) · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was talking about fear and anger growing in the country—and I sense there is also a bit of that growing in this Chamber. When it comes to controlling our borders and to who should be able legally to live, work and settle in this country, and, indeed, to who should not be allowed to stay in our country, I do not believe it is right that that should be under the remit of judges in Strasbourg—who by the way are jurists, most of them not even legally qualified—and under the political control of judges in this country, who now can make their own interpretation of what we have understood for many, many years to be British common law. This Bill intends to restore the power of this Parliament—the power of all of you as MPs to actually be in control of the things that matter most to all voters, whether they supported you or not. This Bill intends to bring back British common law and some ideas—rather than state-given rights, those of birthrights of liberty and freedom. These are things that over centuries served our country far better than any other nation in the European continent. This is about liberty, it is about freedom, it is about democratic control. Just think, whatever the election result, even if 650 of us wanted to change rules on who can come across the channel and stay, we could be overruled by a convention that we signed up to in 1998— [Interruption.] Members shake their heads, but we could literally be overruled. This is about sovereignty—sovereignty of the country, sovereignty of our Parliament. It is about our voters being able to choose the future course and direction of our own country. That is why this matters. Let us remind ourselves briefly of some of the worst examples of the ECHR taking away our democratic rights. Interestingly, it was the last Conservative Government who decided to put in place the Rwanda legislation. It was, in theory, very good, as it would act as a deterrent— [ Interruption. ] Unless people support the criminal gangs, yes it was a very good idea. The trouble was that it could not happen. Why could it not happen? In the case of the 2022 Rwanda deportation flight, at 10 pm a single judge in Strasbourg, without any legal qualification, decided on the basis of article 3 that the flight could not take off. We have since seen horrendous stories, particularly under article 8 on the right to family life. Well, whose family? The families of British people, or the families of those who have come into Britain, in some cases illegally, and been waved through? Some of it is disgusting beyond belief. A Pakistani child sex offender dodged deportation on the basis that his removal would harm the children he had had in this country. The list goes on and on—Brazilian murderers, rapists and many others who claim the right to a family life under article 8. Well, what about British families? What about their rights and their freedoms? What are the priorities of Members of this place? Of course, we will be told that by leaving this completely outdated, 75-year-old convention— [ Interruption. ] By the way, I fully understand why it was signed up to in the 1940s—the other European countries did not have constitutions or democracies that could prevent them from going into extremism—but we are not Russia and we are not Belarus. Nobody in the Chamber would say that countries like New Zealand, Australia and Canada are barbaric or backward; they defend freedoms. But I do not defend state-given human rights, because they can be taken away by the very states who has given them in the first place. [ Interruption. ] I have never seen so many Liberal Democrats in all my life—it is absolutely marvellous. [ Interruption. ]

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  When the Americans realise that, actually, Mauritius is not a trustworthy nation—it is bankrupt; it needs the money; it will not honour this treaty—we will be in a very different place. I do ask the question about the role of our National Security Adviser, somebody very much in the news in the last few days. He was seemingly very happy that a trial against two alleged Chinese spies, operating at times within this building, had disappeared. Not only is he honouring the Labour manifesto, which is very soft on China, but apparently he is very for this Chagos deal. I put it to Members that this deal is un-British, it is against our national interest, and there is no upside or gain. I can assure them that a future that a future Reform Government will not honour this treaty—end of.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I can assure you that America is not backing this deal. What it is saying is, “What we have is what we hold.” That is the American attitude at the moment, but as I said, when it wakes up to the satellite observation deal done with India already, as reported in The Economic Times of India on 12 September this year, and once you realise—

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Before I speak to amendment 10, which stands in my name on the amendment paper, I have a quick reminder: the International Court of Justice made an “advisory” judgment—it has no force in law. Quite why the previous Government sought to enter 11 rounds of negotiation off the back of it is beyond me, but it is even more extraordinary for a Government that is full to the rafters with human rights lawyers. They believe in human rights so much that somehow they are seeking to follow a court that is part of the United Nations in total contrast, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) pointed out, to one of the most basic principles of the United Nations: namely, national self-determination. We thought it mattered so much 40 years ago that we sent a taskforce 8,000 miles away to defend the rights of the people of the Falkland Islands. I feel great sympathy for the Chagossians. They got a rotten deal 50 years ago, and in many ways they are perhaps getting an even worse deal now. They should be consulted. The fact they are not being consulted is shameful for a Government who go on endlessly about human rights and the international rule of law. That is the human cost of this. As to the economic cost, well, lots of sums have been bandied about, from £3.4 billion from the Prime Minister to £35 billion, but it all depends on the rate of inflation. If the average rate of inflation over the next 100 years is 3%, it will be over £50 billion, but that may be as nothing to the opportunity loss here. This marine park should have been turned decades ago into the greatest marine tourism site in the world.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly will, and I will come to that in short order. The opportunity for marine tourism is massive; it is worth billions of pounds a year, and it would provide a lot of jobs for Chagossians. On top of that—perhaps more controversially—I have little doubt, having spoken to some geologists who work for the world’s biggest mining companies, that within those waters we would find cobalt and many of the minerals needed for the very green revolution that this Government say that they are in favour of, so economically we are not just paying £50 billion or whatever the number is; we are losing out on a huge future opportunity.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My mind is filled with the horrendous images of the assassination yesterday of Charlie Kirk: an American, a conservative, a Christian, a family man—gunned down. He had attracted the following of many millions of young Americans and had a growing online presence in our country, especially after he spoke at the Oxford Union last month. I absolutely believe in free speech, but we all understand that there are limits to free speech: incitement, constant personal vilification, the use of horrendous historical images. This is not a left/right issue. It is not a left/right debate. I think it is incumbent upon all of us—whichever side of the divide we are on, however passionately we feel—to behave with personal responsibility, and I mourn the loss of my friend.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The main reason why that this country wisely voted for Brexit back in 2016, including millions of Labour supporters, is that we wanted to take back control of our borders, so that we alone decide who comes and settles in our country. Does the Prime Minister understand that this demand is even greater today than it was back in 2016, and that we demand—the country demands— [ Interruption. ] Does the Prime Minister understand that the country demands that he says to the French President that we will not accept undocumented males coming across the English channel, and that he is not dictated to by an increasingly arrogant, anti-Brexit French President?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The main reason— [ Interruption. ]