Death of Ann Widdecombe

Debate between Mark Pritchard and Shabana Mahmood

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I have not seen all the comments that the right hon. and learned Lady refers to, but I have seen some of them, and they were deplorable and completely unacceptable. I know that an apology has been made in relation to comments that were made, I believe, on Sky News. I know that others have reacted with horror and anger at comments that were designed to denigrate Ann’s political views, and to deny her dignity in death. I share the right hon. and learned Lady’s absolute revulsion at such behaviour towards an elderly woman who has lost her life in very distressing and deeply tragic circumstances. It has no place in our politics or our national life, and I know that all Members of the House will agree with that. I urge everyone, wherever they may sit on the political spectrum, to exercise calm and careful judgment before hitting the send button on social media messages. A little time for reflection is often the best thing in these circumstances.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I thank Mr Speaker in his absence, and indeed all the Deputy Speakers, for everything that the Speaker’s Office and the Parliamentary Security Department do to keep all Members, of all political parties, safe. I thank the Home Secretary and the deputy leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), for their warm tributes. As a west midlands MP, I also put on the record my thanks to the fantastic people at Counter Terrorism Policing West Midlands and in West Mercia police’s special branch, who do a fantastic job. I have been in the House for 21 years, but it has only been in the last two or three years that I have had to take serious and substantive security advice. That is an unwelcome development, and we all need to work together to tackle it.

Reference has been made to technology companies. Should we expect technology companies to act, given that some of their owners do not even believe in democracy? They want to undo democracy in order that they have ultimate power. That is not a conspiracy theory; it is on the record, because some of them have stated that. In defence of the mainstream media—particularly the so-called deadwood press, with whom I have had disagreements over the years—they have to regulate, with very limited resources, the comments that people put under stories. Why will tech companies not do so as well? For too long the mainstream media in this country have taken most of the blame, but the tech companies, which have more resources, should be doing more.

On a lighter note, I want to give a couple of stories from Ann’s life. We spent five years together as Members of Parliament, but I knew her before entering the House. I have two stories. First, I remember when there was a move to stop the first ever appointment of a Catholic as the British ambassador to the Holy See. Ann, David Amess, myself and others worked to overturn that. To paraphrase a Times diarist, I was the only Anglican in the village, and a middle-wicket Anglican at that—a very poor one. I wasn’t literally poor—well, actually, it was both. [Laughter.] As the only Anglican in the village, I felt that it was completely wrong that there was discrimination against Catholics being appointed to the Vatican. Thankfully, the decision was overturned, and Tony Blair and others allowed the appointment to happen. Francis Campbell was appointed the first Catholic ambassador to the Holy See and did a fantastic job.

I have a second story. Having seen David Austin—the founder of David Austin Roses, who has now passed—at the 2009 Chelsea flower show with the former Deputy Speaker Nigel Evans, we were coming back in a taxi when we heard that Michael Martin had resigned as Speaker. We both thought that Ann would be a great Deputy Speaker, but there was a problem: in 2007, she had announced that she was going to step down at the following election. We met with her and said, “Ann, we think you’d be a great Speaker. Would you do it?” She said, “Yes. What have I got to do?” We said, “Well, you’ve got to go and speak to all the different parties in Committee Room 14. Everybody’s stuffed in there, as usual, and you’ve got to do a pitch.” I said to her, “But whatever you do, don’t say you’re running for Speaker and then say you’re standing down in 2010.” As we all know, Ann was very wise. She completely dismissed that advice, stood up and said, “I’m running for Speaker, but I will stand down in one or two years’ time.” Of course, she did not have any success.

I will conclude by saying that Ann was a lady of conviction, clarity, compassion, integrity and authenticity —a lexicon of virtue. Of course, she was recognised by His Holiness the Pope with a papal damehood—a DSG—but unfortunately she was, I think unfairly, never recognised in this country in the same way. I hope that is something that, in her honour and memory, could be considered.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The right hon. Gentleman has shared with the House some lovely memories of his dear friend. As he was making his contribution, I thought I would follow what he said about Counter Terrorism Policing, and place on the record my gratitude for our counter-terrorism police across the country. We have a world-leading counter-terror policing operation in this country. We are very lucky to have them, and they do a great job keeping all of us safe. I know I speak on behalf of the whole House when I place those remarks on the record.

The right hon. Gentleman is right, and many Members have made the point today about the unaccountability of social media platforms for their algorithms and for the type of content they host on their platforms. The Government have already done some work in this area, but I am sure we will have to go further. As I have committed before, I will make sure the House is updated in due course.

National Security (State Threats) Bill

Debate between Mark Pritchard and Shabana Mahmood

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Both the National Security Act 2023 and the measures we are debating today will ensure that we have the strongest suite of measures available to us to take action against those who come after people on our soil, including dissidents from other regimes and people to whom we have given sanctuary. Transnational repression will be caught by the measures in this Bill.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

As the Home Secretary will know, this is the fifth or sixth national security-related Bill in the past few years—the most Bills on national security issues that we have seen in any Parliament. She will also know that the UK intelligence community has more powers as a result of these Bills, as well as bigger budgets and more responsibilities than ever before. I commend all those serving in our agencies for their distinguished service. However, I am concerned that there are parts of Government that are currently not covered by aspects of the oversight of our intelligence community by the Intelligence and Security Committee. I commend the excellent members of that Committee; I am a former member, so I can commend them in the House today.

It is absolutely vital that the intelligence services have independent oversight. Unfortunately, the legislation that oversees the ISC is 30 years old and 10 years old. We are having all these national security Bills, but we do not have commensurate Bills to improve oversight and accountability of our intelligence agencies. It needs to change, because we cannot have an echo chamber in the UK intelligence community. There needs to be parliamentary oversight with the power of sanction—summons and sanction. At the moment there is no power.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me first associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman’s tribute to the excellent work and service of all those in our United Kingdom intelligence community, wherever they serve, and indeed all those who serve and put their lives at risk in order to keep the rest of us safe. I also pay tribute to the tremendous work done by the Intelligence and Security Committee—one of Parliament’s most august Committees—to provide vital scrutiny of our legal frameworks in this important area.

I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that, personally, as someone who signs warrants every day that are subject to both Secretary of State decision and judicial decision, I think that we have a legal framework that is sufficiently robust to provide oversight, without getting into the operational choices that must be made. Of course, these matters are always kept under review, and I take that review process seriously. If there are proposals that he wishes to make, I would be happy to discuss them with him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. The Bill seeks to create the legal framework by which designations will be made in future. The Bill will hopefully be approved quickly by Parliament, and I will seek to move forward with designations as quickly as possible, to deal with the threats that I am discussing in the House today.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the fact that I have spent some time considering the different nature of the threat posed by these three states in particular shows that we are very alive to the ways in which they use their unique positions to pose a threat to us in the United Kingdom. He is right about the way in which Iran operates; it is different from how Russia and China operate. The Government have to be alive to the different type of risks posed by these three countries in particular. At the moment, those countries account for a large proportion of the hostile activities that are monitored by our security services, but those activities are not exclusive to those three countries.

On matters of oversight, I will repeat my starting position. I do think that our current framework is robust and has stood the test of time. Of course, things change, and we would review the framework all the time anyway. I repeat my general offer—I suspect that I am making it to the whole of the ISC, given how well represented it is in this debate—of a conversation to pick up any concerns that its members have. The Minister for Security and I will make sure that we consider any additional proposals fully, but I am mindful that we do not want a position in which the Government cannot act quickly, or to over-regulate what is necessarily an Executive function, as speed is often of the essence. With that understood, a sensible conversation is always welcome.

In relation to Iran, Members will be aware that two men await trial under the National Security Act for the surveillance of Jewish sites. While investigations remain ongoing, the police are exploring potential links between Iran and the spate of arson attacks directed at our Jewish community in London. Faced with this intolerable hostility, our nation has bolstered its defences. The National Security Act, brought forward by the previous Government and supported by Labour, rightly commanded support from both sides of the House. It has given our authorities new tools and provided the legal underpinning for a series of complex and sensitive investigations, and it has secured important convictions, including of two men for gathering information and conducting surveillance to assist the Chinese state.

In addition, the foreign influence registration scheme has been in force for close to a year. Russia and Iran are placed on its enhanced tier. Anyone now conducting activity on behalf of those states faces a clear choice: identify themselves and register their activity, or face the prospect of prison.

Sanctions remain a vital tool in our action against hostile states. The UK now has more than 550 sanctions against Iranian-linked individuals and organisations, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety. Through measures like these, we have made this country a harder target. However, as we improve our defences, our adversaries respond and change their behaviour to pose new threats to our country. That has been particularly evident in the rising use of proxy groups—criminal gangs, professional enablers and front companies that do the bidding of a foreign power, against the interests of this country, in exchange for money.

There has long been a desire to ban state-linked organisations from operating in this country, and to target those who facilitate them. That is why the Government made a manifesto commitment to deal with state-backed domestic security threats in the same way that we tackle terrorism. The question was how to create the right legal power to do so. My predecessor, now the Foreign Secretary, tasked Jonathan Hall KC, the Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism and state threats legislation, with answering that question.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way again; she has been generous. Does she believe that the Bill sufficiently covers the areas of non-state actors and non-kinetic activity, which are being used more and more?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The combination of what we already have on the statute book in the National Security Act and this Bill means that all aspects of that activity will be covered. It obviously depends on how the activity presents. The Bill closes the loophole where a designated body is responsible. Where proxy groups are responsible, they will be caught by the measures in the Bill, and that activity will be liable to both prosecution and conviction.

Jonathan Hall KC examined whether tools available in our current terrorism legislation might be emulated or adapted to address state threats. He determined that we could not use the existing terror legislation to proscribe a state entity. He memorably described that as

“shopping in the wrong department.”

He said:

“For the Secretary of State to have or purport to have power to prohibit the existence of foreign State entities would be well beyond what Parliament could have intended”

when it passed the Terrorism Act. He went on to conclude that applying the power to a state entity would

“appear to overstep the boundaries of the principle of non-intervention at international law.”

Instead, he proposed a new regime: a power equivalent to proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000, but specifically designed to tackle state and state-linked organisations. Through this legislation, we seek to bring that new power into law.

I will now take the House through the Bill in some detail. Clause 1 introduces a power for the Home Secretary to designate a body. It will insert new section 33A into the National Security Act 2023. Such a designation will be possible if the Home Secretary believes that a body is, or has been, involved in foreign power threat activity and that designation is necessary to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.

The definition of a body is purposefully wide; it cannot be targeted at individuals, but it can be targeted at a wide range of organisations, including foreign intelligence services, mercenary groups, front companies and criminal networks. The power to designate is of critical importance.

Police Reform White Paper

Debate between Mark Pritchard and Shabana Mahmood

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The absolute bedrock of these reforms is local policing through the local police areas, which will be part of our proposed regional forces, with neighbourhood policing embedded within them. My hon. Friend will know that legislative changes are coming in to deal with some of the issues she raised about quad bikes specifically. The intention of all these reforms is to ensure that whether people live in a rural area or an urban city, as I do, they get an exceptional standard of service at both the neighbourhood level and the regional level, with national policing through the new National Police Service that will keep us all safe.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

We all want to see more effective and efficient policing, but I am not quite sure whether this White Paper will deliver it. Clearly, the devil will be in the detail. The Home Secretary will know that West Mercia police, covering Shropshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire, is a high-performing police force. Can she reassure my constituents that she understands the difference between, for example, West Midlands urban policing—she obviously oversees it, but she also lives in that jurisdiction—and the rural and semi-rural policing of forces such as West Mercia police? In my experience, regional counter-terrorism policing works very well in the West Midlands, which oversees that for West Mercia police as well, and so does the National Crime Agency under its excellent leadership.

Finally on the reforms, can I ask the Home Secretary to review the effectiveness and efficiency of the 101 service, and as the Official Secrets Act covers some police officers, but not all, is this not an opportunity to ensure that all police officers are covered by a duty of confidentiality and secrecy?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s views, but it is precisely because I understand the difference, which he raises, between areas such as those he represents and those I represent that I am bringing in this new model for policing. I believe this is the right model to ensure that it does not much matter where people are in the country—whether Shropshire or inner-city Birmingham —because they will always have excellent, high-quality neighbourhood policing, with a local force entirely committed to policing their local area day in, day out, and dealing with all the crimes that we know are tearing at the fabric of our communities; a regional force, which can do the specialist investigations at scale, so that they do not get a different standard of service depending on which part of the country they are in; and a National Police Service that I believe will bring in the NCA and counter-terrorism policing in a way that will make sure we are all kept safe. We are the only major country that does not have those two functionalities together, and I think it is the right change to make.

West Midlands Police

Debate between Mark Pritchard and Shabana Mahmood

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my fellow Birmingham Member of Parliament for his comments and questions. There is no broader finding of systemic failure in Sir Andy’s report. The failures that have been highlighted in the approach to evidence and the way in which the risk assessment was carried out relate to this specific event. He gave us no cause for concern about broader West Midlands police practice. However, I am sure that the police and crime commissioner and others, myself included, and all Birmingham MPs will want to assure themselves of the robustness of the procedures that the West Midlands police have in place. I am sure that we will return to these matters as this case develops further.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I commend the Home Secretary for her robust statement and the leadership she has shown this afternoon. On community relations, can she assure me and other Members that lessons will be learned from this report and that other chief officers of other forces will look upon it as a reminder that they should be acting on behalf of the whole community that they seek to serve? She said that she was not able to direct the west midlands PCC to dismiss the chief constable, but is she confident that there will be no conflict of interest and that the PCC will not feel conflicted in removing the chief constable? Of course, I am sure that the chief constable still has honour, and therefore might choose to resign.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The right hon. Gentleman is right about community relations. Many people acting in bad faith and with malign intent across our country want to set Britain’s Muslims against Britain’s Jews. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that we do not allow those efforts to succeed. On the police and the approach to community relations, I am clear that all of us, whoever we are and wherever we are in the country, must be able to rely on the police when they tell us that the foundation of their risk assessment is robust and secure. If we cannot trust the police on that, we have lost much more than just good and effective policing.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that I do not want to comment from the Dispatch Box on what the police and crime commissioner might wish to do; that is a matter entirely for him. He will make that choice independently. I am sure that he will have to ask questions about that. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no conflict of interest simply because I have set out a view. It is important that I set out my view in the House, having commissioned a report from the independent inspector, but the police and crime commissioner is unfettered in how he approaches things. That is a matter for him, as I have made clear to him and as I am sure all his legal advice will tell him.

Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

Debate between Mark Pritchard and Shabana Mahmood

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Matters pertaining to local authorities and police forces are, of course, devolved, so a large part of the inquiry is necessarily only on devolved territory, but it will make national recommendations. I note the work happening in Scotland in relation to grooming gangs. I am sure that the chair and the panel, while respecting the boundaries of devolution, will ensure discussion where there is best practice to be shared. Of course, this criminality does not respect borders, and I am sure that will be very much taken into account.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, and associate myself with her reply to the Father of the House. No community, whether ethnic or religious, should be stigmatised as a whole. She mentioned “British Asian” in her statement. May I say that some members of my British Asian Hindu and British Asian Sikh communities are rather fed up with remarks and statements made about generic “British Asians”, both in the media and in this place? I hope that the inquiry will be more definitive and descriptive; she mentioned religion in her statement.

As the Home Secretary will know, Telford and Wrekin had its own local inquiry, led by Tom Crowther. Her predecessor, to paraphrase, said that there were still gaps to be filled, after that inquiry. Will she support me in calling for the national inquiry to come back to Telford and Wrekin, to ensure that everything that needs to be done is done? Finally, the Home Secretary mentioned a three-year timetable, taking us to March 2029. Will she give victims, the House and all our constituents a commitment that if there is an election in May 2029 and Prorogation in March 2029—she may be the Labour leader by then—the inquiry will still report?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the right hon. Member for his questions. I have heard much the same complaint from Asian men in my constituency who are not Muslim or of Pakistani heritage but are of Asian heritage—that the descriptions confuse and stigmatise a wider group of people. I think we should all agree that we should not stigmatise innocent, law-abiding citizens in our country, no matter who they are, because that is wrong in every way. We should go after the criminals who have committed these atrocious crimes.

In the end, the best way to resolve these matters is to collect accurate ethnicity data. That was the gap that Baroness Casey found in her national audit. It is a gap that has existed for many years, and I intend to put that right. As I said in my statement, the Home Secretary does not have the power to mandate the collection of good-quality ethnicity data. I will legislate to change that, and will ensure that every Home Secretary in future has that power. It is my view that we should collect ethnicity data for all offences, because the best way to deal with suggestions of a conspiracy—people thinking that some communities are allowed to get away with certain types of behaviour, or that the state does not wish to know the full facts of any case—is to have transparency, and accurate data that put all those claims and counterclaims to bed. That is how the Government will seek to proceed.

On Telford, I heard the right hon. Member’s case. I will resist the temptation to tell the chair and the panel where they should go; where they go for their local investigations is a matter for them. They will set out the criteria for making those decisions, in accordance with the draft terms of reference. However, he made his case powerfully, and I am sure that will have been heard by the chair and the panel members.

On the three-year timetable, we have closely followed Baroness Casey’s recommendation. She said that three years was the right amount of time to do a good job, get the work done and make recommendations, and nothing—not even a general election—should get in the way of that.

Huntingdon Train Attack

Debate between Mark Pritchard and Shabana Mahmood

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Thankfully, incidents like the one on Saturday are very rare, and our train system is generally very safe—millions of people use it every day without incident—so we have a strong base to build on. Of course, given what has happened—the horrifying nature of the attack, and the indiscriminate way in which victims were stabbed—the British Transport police’s decision to increase the police presence across the railway network is important. How extensive that increase is, and how long it goes on, is an operational decision for British Transport police, but we have a good working relationship with it, and I have been impressed with its response to this attack. We have been working closely with it over the weekend, and I pay tribute to it and all its officers. I will be led by British Transport police on the operational decisions that it is making. On the wider policy questions raised by my hon. Friend, as more of the network is nationalised, I will of course pick up those conversations with the Transport Secretary.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

More generally on knife crime and on magistrates, is there a disconnect between the fact that under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, someone can be given a custodial sentence of 51 weeks, and the presumption under the Sentencing Bill that a 12-month custodial sentence will not be required? What might the Home Secretary do to get around that and ensure that magistrates have more sentencing powers? Possession of a knife is not use of a knife, but sadly one so often leads to the other. There is clearly a legislative disconnect, and I hope the Home Secretary will look at that.

[Shabana Mahmood]

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the average sentence for threatening with a knife is more than a year—it is around 15 months—and it would not be caught by the presumption in the Sentencing Bill. Also, the Bill creates a presumption against, not a blanket ban on, sentences of under 12 months; there is still discretion for judges in all cases. The Bill sets out the circumstances in which that presumption can be overridden, and that will always be a matter for the independent judiciary, based on the facts of the case in front of them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mark Pritchard and Shabana Mahmood

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that international co-operation is the key to us securing our borders here at home and assisting our international partners to do the same with theirs. I am already in touch with my French counterparts. That was a landmark agreement, which the Conservatives tried to achieve for many years, but they were all words and no action. It is this Government who struck that landmark deal, and we are working with our partners in France to get the first flights off the ground as soon as possible.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her appointment and I wish her every success. It is in the national interest and the national security interest that this issue is tackled, but her Front-Bench colleagues and the Prime Minister are absolutely wrong to get rid of a deterrent. Notwithstanding all the new policies, all the new Bills, and all the new relabelling and rebadging of organisations, unless there is a deterrent the illegal migrants will continue to cross the channel, as they have done since this Government came to power. When is a deterrent going to be put in place, and what will it look like?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I welcome the tone of the first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question. It is in our collective national interest that we secure our borders, and I look forward to working with Members from across the House as we get on with that important task. It is important not just to prevent criminality, but to hold our own country together, which is why I have always said I will do whatever it takes.

The Rwanda agreement, which is what the right hon. Gentleman referred to as a deterrent, was nothing of the sort. From the day that agreement was signed to the day it was cancelled, 84,000 people crossed into this country. That shows it was not a deterrent that was ever going to work. I am clear that I will do whatever it takes. I am already considering other measures that will deter people from making that crossing in the first place, and I will update the House in due course.

Independent Sentencing Review

Debate between Mark Pritchard and Shabana Mahmood

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is a day of shame for the Conservative party. I am sorry to see that the attitude of Conservative Members today is shameless. He makes a very important point on policing. I have had a good conversation with police leaders. I am determined to use the national Criminal Justice Board to ensure that every part of the criminal justice system is aligned and that we take into account all the interactions—based on this review, and on the upcoming criminal courts review—and think about the impact they have not just on the bit of the justice system I am directly responsible for, but on the wider criminal justice system, including policing as a whole.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May I first say to the Lord Chancellor that I have huge personal respect for her? I may disagree with some—some, by the way, not all—of what she has announced today, but I would like to put that on the record. She mentions female offending. She will know that there are six mother and baby units in female prisons in England. There were 90 applications for the last period we know about, up to March 2024, with 64 places for mothers and 70 places for babies, allowing for twins. Clearly, there are not enough places. Has she considered as part of this review, when there is not serious and violent offending by female prisoners, getting more of those mothers and babies into the community, rather than having them in prison?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks of personal respect, which are shared across this House. I thank him for that and for the important issue he raises. I hope to move to a position where the combined impact of the changes in the review and the work we are doing with the Women’s Justice Board mean that we see a huge drop in the number of female prisoners. I am particularly keen to ensure that pregnant women and mothers of young children are not anywhere near our female prison estate in future. Of course, for serious offenders we will always need to make sure that prison is an option, but the vast majority of women go to prison on short sentences for much less serious offences and we need to turn that around.