Oral Answers to Questions
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Before I answer the question, may I briefly say what is on the minds of many in this House and pay tribute to Ann Widdecombe? She was a true public servant, and I will shortly make a statement about Ann and the ongoing police investigation.
This Government committed to end the use of asylum hotels in this Parliament, and we are on track to deliver just that. We have brought the number of hotels down from 213 in July 2024 to fewer than 170 today, meaning that one in five hotels open at the election are now closed. We continue to move people into more basic accommodation, speed up caseworking and remove record numbers of people from this country.
Dr Ahmed
I commend my right hon. Friend for how she has gone about reducing the use of asylum hotels in this country, after the shocking legacy left behind by 14 years of the last Government. She will know that these hotels have unfortunately become a source of right-wing intimidation and violence, affecting community cohesion and creating tension. Can she reassure me that as families are moved out of these hotels, particularly in Scotland, they are put in accommodation that is appropriate not only for them, but for the communities in which they are housed?
Shabana Mahmood
I reassure my hon. Friend that we work closely with local authorities, accommodation providers and safeguarding partners to ensure that families and vulnerable individuals receive the support they need throughout any move, and that is true across the whole UK. We understand that hotels can impact community tensions, and although people have a right to protest peacefully, nobody has the right to intimidate communities or vulnerable families.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Building on the last question, RAF Linton-on-Ouse, where up to 1,500 asylum seekers may be put, will have open gates, in a village of 600 adults. Close to the site is a primary school. In the light of the comments about community cohesion, will she now rule out RAF Linton-on-Ouse as an inappropriate site, because of the proximity to the primary school?
Shabana Mahmood
No decision has been taken, and all these factors, including other community assets, such as schools and community facilities, are taken into account as part of the decision making.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I inherited three asylum hotels in Bournemouth, and I know that the Home Secretary is working through a complicated process to close those hotels. I have asked on 5 January, 9 February, 9 March and 8 June whether the Government have positive news about the closure of any of the asylum hotels in Bournemouth. I ask again today. Can she give an update, please?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for the tremendous campaigning he has done in this House on behalf of his constituents. There may be further good news to come, but this Government have a commitment to end the use of all asylum hotels by the end of the Parliament, and we are on track to do that.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for what she said about Ann, whom I first met more than 50 years ago. She was as formidable as an undergraduate as she became in later life as a mature politician.
I believe that nobody on the Labour Benches other than the present Home Secretary could do more to tackle the asylum problem than she is doing. Having said that, this strategy of moving people out of hotels and into camps, or dispersing them, can only ever work if other people are not coming in constantly to replace them, so what plans does she have for truly deterring people, so that they know that if they embark on a small boat, they will physically not be allowed to melt into British society in the future?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman is correct: if we are to deal with this problem effectively, we must also reduce the inflow of people coming across the channel. As he will know, later today we will debate a Bill that includes measures designed to do just that, and since I have been Home Secretary I have announced wider policy changes designed to alter the calculations of those who are in the north of France seeking to get on to a boat to come to this country. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is signalling the Conservative party’s previous policy, the Rwanda scheme. As he will know, we disagree with that as a deterrent, but we are working on every other measure to deter those people from making the journeys in the first place.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Last year the National Audit Office reported that the cost of asylum accommodation contracts had more than tripled, from under £5 billion to more than £15 billion. Clearly they are bad value for money, bad for communities and bad for the asylum seekers themselves. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has stated his ambition to activate the break clause in these contracts. Given that he is set to become Prime Minister next week, is the Home Secretary planning to rip up the agreements?
Shabana Mahmood
Those are contracts that we inherited, and they will be retendered under this Government to ensure that we drive value for money across them. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the cost of asylum accommodation and support has come down by more than £1 billion since this Government came to office, and we will continue to make progress in that regard.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
We have made the landmark commitment to halve the levels of violence against women and girls in a decade, and already we are taking action. We will prevent children from taking, sharing and viewing nude imagery on their smartphones and tablets. We have invested £53 million to tackle the highest harm perpetrators. And we have protected more than 1,000 victims through domestic abuse and protection orders. Our ambition is clear, and there is much more work to be done.
James MacCleary
Sussex is in the grip of a crisis of violence against women and girls. In the county, only 3% of reported rape cases ever make it to trial, and of the few who ever get their day in court after distressing delays, just 53% see a conviction. That is 10% below the national average. It is therefore no surprise that so many women in the county have so little faith that their abusers will ever face justice.
Operation Soteria was launched in 2021 to overhaul the way in which rape and other serious sexual offences are investigated and prosecuted, but there appears to be little progress in Sussex. Can the Minister update the House on the progress of Operation Soteria, and set out what action she is taking to improve the investigation and prosecution of rape cases in Sussex?
Shabana Mahmood
I recognise that rape and other sexual offences can have a devastating impact on victims, as can the process leading up to an investigation and, hopefully, a charge—and those rates are far too low. I am happy to arrange a meeting for the hon. Gentleman with the Minister for Policing and Crime, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), to discuss the specific issues in Sussex, but all forces are implementing Operation Soteria, which is designed to help officers and prosecutors to build the strongest case possible through tools, training and guidance. I have, of course, also asked all the forces across the country to establish specialist rape and sexual offences teams by the end of this Parliament.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
In a number of cases in my constituency, male perpetrators of domestic abuse have used their partners’ immigration status as a tool to control and abuse them. Those women feel unable to report crimes of any kind because they are worried about their own immigration status. What is the Home Office doing to protect women from that form of abuse?
Shabana Mahmood
No woman should be afraid of coming forward to report domestic abuse, regardless of their immigration status or, indeed, any other status here. Let me make it very clear that they should do so, unafraid of the impact that might have on their immigration status. We will support all victims of violence against women and girls, regardless of their status in this country.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
May I associate myself with your comments, Mr Speaker, and those of the Home Secretary about Ann Widdecombe? She was a formidable human being, and someone about whom we are all thinking very much at this time.
This week, in the light of that news, the safety of politicians is something that we should all consider. The Home Secretary may be aware of the situation of a district councillor in Staffordshire Moorlands, Councillor Jill Salt, who has been the victim of sexualised artificial intelligence images. I do not agree with Councillor Salt on many matters, but on this I stand with her in total solidarity. Will the Home Secretary join me in condemning the comments of a Reform councillor, Dave Poole, who said that Councillor Salt needed to grow bigger balls in order to do the job?
Shabana Mahmood
Those comments are a disgrace, and I hope that all Members across the House, regardless of their party political persuasion, will take a unified stance on all instances of violence against women and girls, threats, abuse, the creation of explicit sexual images and, indeed, those who break the law. Let me say that message clearly from the Dispatch Box, and I hope it is shared across the House.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
A report by the National Audit Office in January 2025 said that there was a lack of buy-in from other Departments when it came to the previous violence against women and girls strategy. We know that if we are going to tackle violence against women in my constituency of Harlow and across the UK, we need to ensure that this is cross-party work and that Departments do not work in silos. What is the Home Secretary doing to ensure that that is the case?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me assure my hon. Friend that this is a cross-Government strategy and commitment. It has been led directly by the Prime Minister himself, who has got Government Departments together, knocked heads together and made sure that everybody is equally committed. I am sure that will not change, regardless of what may happen in the very near future. Let me assure my hon. Friend that this remains a cross-Government strategy, and I hope that it has support across parties as well.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to echo your tribute to a predecessor of mine, Ann Widdecombe. She was an exceptionally effective Member of Parliament, has been a really tough act to follow, and is very fondly remembered in the Weald. On behalf of my constituents, whom she served for decades—a role that she fulfilled with outstanding dedication—I would just like to say thank you. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Last week I met a group of victims and survivors of the most appalling sexual violence, like Angela. It is not her real name, but Angela was first raped by her stepfather at the age of eight. He then sold her to men for sex to pay off his gambling debts. He was sentenced to just 10 years in prison and, having served only six, is now being let out early by the Government. My question to the Home Secretary is one that those women were asking: why did they endure the years of pain and danger that it took to have their abusers put in prison, only for this Government to let them out again after such a short time?
Shabana Mahmood
I recognise the strength of feeling and the experiences of all these victims and survivors of the most appalling abuse. I am pleased that justice was sought through the criminal justice system in this case, because too often victims do not come forward at all. The hon. Lady will know that the Ministry of Justice is focused on ensuring that we do not run out of prison places in this country. Over the 14 years of the Conservative Government, only 500 places were added to the whole of the prison estate. It is a crisis that I directly inherited when I came into government, and I know how precarious the number of prison places in this country has been. I hope she will agree that, for all victims and survivors, the most important thing is to make sure that we never run out of prison places in this country again.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Last year saw over 3,000 illegitimate premises raided and nearly 1,000 arrests, and I have provided £30 million of additional funding over the next three years to go even further. As a result, thousands more businesses will be raided, hundreds of people will be arrested and millions in cash will be seized as part of a permanent national crackdown.
James Asser
High street crime and shoplifting remain key concerns for my constituents, who have seen some pretty awful examples. My local police have had some successes, and they are running local initiatives on high streets that are starting to deliver results. Given that there will be other such examples around the country, will the Home Secretary make sure that, as well as the national initiatives, we are gathering together localised initiatives and local successes, and sharing good practice, to make sure that we are bringing it all together as part of an attempt to clean up our high streets?
Shabana Mahmood
I pay tribute to the work that is happening in my hon. Friend’s local area. I reassure him that we in the Home Office are working very closely with our colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as part of the Government’s wider strategy for high streets. This is a criminality-focused crackdown to deal with some of those businesses that we know are front organisations for other criminal behaviour, but we will work closely with our colleagues, and I will ensure that all the good examples are used as a spur for others to take action too.
Patrick Hurley
The criminals on the high street move quickly, but the Government response has tended to be too slow over many years. When will the current pilots finish, how will success be judged, and when will all towns in Britain be able to say that they benefit from what works?
Shabana Mahmood
First, let me say to my hon. Friend that this is not a pilot; it is the real thing. I have made funding available to every force area in the country to take part in this national crackdown. In addition, I have provided enhanced funding to three hotspot areas where the need is greatest. I would say that success means more shops closed, more criminals arrested and more cash seized.
Matt Turmaine
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. Residents in my constituency of Watford are concerned about crime on the high street, whether that is theft, antisocial drinking and drug use, or violence and hate crime. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is only thanks to this Labour Government that we are finally getting a grip and dealing with it?
Shabana Mahmood
We are certainly starting on that long road to making all our communities safe. We have made good progress so far in this Parliament, with knife crime and knife homicides down very significantly. There are of course 3,000 additional police officers and police community support officers in neighbourhood policing as well. We will make more progress as the Government roll out the measures in our Crime and Policing Act 2026, as well as the wider high streets strategy, which includes the crackdown I have announced, but is part of wider work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Gerald Jones
Many of my constituents want tougher action against the criminals who hide behind businesses such as rogue barber shops, vape shops and mini-marts, which are a blight on many high streets in my constituency. Can the Home Secretary update the House on what the Government are doing to tackle this type of offending, and get these dodgy shops closed once and for all?
Shabana Mahmood
That is precisely what this new national crackdown is designed to do. The additional money will put more officers on the street to raid dodgy shops and other premises. We are also providing funding for trading standards and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, because we know that this multi-layered problem requires assistance from other professionals. Immigration enforcement will also receive additional funding as part of this crackdown. We are determined to make sure that our high streets are safe places for communities to use.
Gill German
Many seaside towns, like Rhyl and Colwyn Bay in my Clwyd North constituency, are working really hard to regenerate their high streets and attract investment. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the high streets organised crime unit will ensure that coastal towns facing issues with organised criminal activity receive the same support as larger urban centres?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me very clearly offer my hon. Friend that reassurance. The nationwide crackdown, which is led by the National Crime Agency, will involve enforcement activity across the country, including in coastal areas like hers. Enhanced funding is currently available for all police forces to bid for, via the National Crime Agency, and I would encourage her to make sure that her force is involved.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
Why was the effectiveness of the high streets organised crime unit completely lacking when, two weeks ago, BBC journalist Sue Mitchell and her excellent team exposed the case of Mr Twana Jamal working in such a high street business right next door to my constituency office? Why has neither the Home Secretary nor any of her Ministers had the courtesy to respond to my correspondence asking for an urgent meeting on this nationally significant case involving a convicted human trafficker?
Shabana Mahmood
I am not aware of the hon. Gentleman’s correspondence, but I will chase that up when I get back to the Department later this afternoon and ensure he receives an appropriate response. He will of course know that there is a live investigation at the moment, so I cannot comment on any of its details, and certainly not on the operational details, but I will make sure he is updated in an appropriate way, given that he is the local Member of Parliament.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
High streets are already under pressure, as I have seen with our local fight to keep the Thatcham and Hungerford post offices open, and retail crime and antisocial behaviour make that pressure worse. Can the Secretary of State expand on how the high streets organised crime unit remit will extend to smaller market towns such as Hungerford, Thatcham and Newbury and villages such as Lambourn?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that this is a national crackdown led by the National Crime Agency. I have provided funding for all forces, regardless of the type of area they represent, and they can bid for the enhanced activity funding in their areas. I would encourage him to talk to his force about what it is doing to make sure that it gets its share of that money.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Bridgwater high street has many excellent independent businesses, such as Styles Menswear, Soda & Rye, and Alise and Louie, but there are also too many dodgy Turkish barbers and criminal enterprises selling illegal cigarettes. Will the Home Secretary outline what additional funding she will give Avon and Somerset constabulary to get rid of this menace on our high streets?
Shabana Mahmood
I recognise the strength of feeling across the House and I feel it myself as a constituency Member of Parliament. When such premises open up, everyone in the local community knows that they are dodgy, that they are involved in all sorts of other criminality and that they are front businesses. That is why I have announced this crackdown, which will apply across the country. The NCA will take the lead, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman’s force to think about how it might benefit from the funding that has been made available.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The high street organised crime unit is a welcome step to take illegal vapes off our high street, but organised crime gangs are then moving with impunity online, where enforcement is a lot less rigid. What is the Home Office doing to stop making it so easy to move from illegal trading on our high street to illegal trading online?
Shabana Mahmood
First, the hon. Lady raises an important point about online illegality. The Home Office has an interest in that, as do other Departments. We will continue to work with partners across Government to ensure we are doing everything we can to clamp down on the platforms that enable illegality. She will recognise that the physical presence of these many thousands of businesses across our country on our high streets has had a very damaging impact on local communities. In that context, it is right that this Home Office and this Government are focused very specifically on the physical locations of those businesses to make sure we are driving out the criminality and the antisocial behaviour that has left too many of our high streets no-go areas for local communities.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Dodgy vape shops are a scourge on our high streets, but even more horrifying are some of the people who run them. Twana Jamal, convicted in France and described as the godfather of people trafficking, has reportedly been found running two vape shops in Leicestershire. Does the Home Secretary agree that that demonstrates the need for stronger powers to tackle rogue vape shops and organised crime? If so, why have the Government cut funding to regional organised crime units, and opposed stronger closure powers for the police and local councils.
Shabana Mahmood
The Government have not opposed stronger closure powers. In fact, the Government are currently consulting on a planned increase in closure orders, from six months to 12 months. We will be bringing forward legislative measures very shortly and are also looking at the separate regime in relation to closure notices, none of which was acted on when the hon. Gentleman and his party were in government.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
This weekend an event in Suffolk was due to be attended by over 10,000 Muslims. Instead, it ended early, because the police became aware of a credible threat to the lives of those present. They acted with speed and skill, and I thank Suffolk police, Counter Terrorism Policing and the organisers for their swift and effective response. Thanks to their actions, those attending the UK Ijtima in Barham were kept safe.
Twelve individuals have now been arrested as part of an investigation led by Counter Terrorism Policing, which described the incident as “extreme right-wing terrorism related”. This investigation is at an early stage, and we are giving them space to pursue their lines of inquiry. I know that the police will provide further updates.
We must all stand united against hatred. The actions of a minority do not represent who we are as a country, and we should never be defined by those who plot violence against their fellow countrymen and women.
Jerome Mayhew
Given the reports in the press of yet another U-turn being forced on the Government by revolting Back Benchers, does the Home Secretary still believe that the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain should be increased from five years to 10 years?
Shabana Mahmood
It has been settled Government policy—since last summer, in fact—that the qualifying period will rise from five years to 10 years. The Government are consulting on what transitional arrangements may be needed, and we will come forward with settled policy later this year.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Mr Speaker, I join you in paying tribute to Ann Widdecombe. She was a formidable campaigner who served with huge integrity. She will be missed. I know that the whole House supports the police in delivering justice for Ann.
Reports today suggest that the Home Secretary and the new Prime Minister plan to capitulate to some of their open-border MPs on the Government’s own indefinite leave to remain plans. Previously, the Home Secretary was clear that the changes will apply to those in the country already. Will she now repeat that pledge, or is the new Prime Minister doing his first U-turn before he has even entered Downing Street?
Shabana Mahmood
That is rather desperate from the shadow Home Secretary. He knows that the position is exactly as was set out in the consultation, which was published by the Government. We consulted on transitional arrangements for those who are already in country, and it is settled policy that the qualifying period will rise from five to 10 years. The implementation of that is being consulted on, and we will have settled policy on that later this year.
Chris Philp
The Home Secretary was not as quite as clear as she was previously.
Vile rapist Shabir Ahmed must be deported back to Pakistan along with all eligible rape gang perpetrators. Separately, survivors like Fiona Goddard have said that they are terrified at the prospect of rape gang perpetrators being released early from prison in the coming weeks. First, will the Home Secretary bring forward emergency legislation to ensure that Ahmed can be deported? Secondly, will she urgently make the changes needed to ensure that no rapists will ever be eligible for the Government’s expanded early release scheme?
Shabana Mahmood
First, the shadow Home Secretary knows that the issues in relation to Shabir Ahmed and his deportation from this country are exactly the same as those his Government faced when they were in power. There is both a legal challenge and a practical one. I will be dealing with the legal issues later today when we debate the Immigration and Asylum Bill. The Government’s work on the practical hurdles to deportation continue between me and the Foreign Secretary and others in government.
On releases from prisons, it was the shadow Home Secretary’s Government who allowed the situation in our prisons to get to a dangerous level. We all but ran out of prison places under his Government; under this Government, we will never run out of prison places again.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. The Government have passed new legislation to allow for the designation of the organisations that the Minister for Security referenced earlier, and that includes the IRGC. The designation tool means that it is now brought within the context of the National Security Act 2023, and I do expect that when our laws are broken, prosecutions will follow. He knows that we have had some success with National Security Act investigations; I expect that to continue.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
The scampi catching sector in Northern Ireland is currently reliant on foreign seasonal workers. To stay afloat, the sector needs about 66 visas to be valid for just seven months of the year. Will the Minister consider extending the seasonal worker visa route to the nephrops industry to give the catching sector the certainty it needs and protect processing jobs at Whitby Seafoods in my constituency?
Death of Ann Widdecombe
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the death of Ann Widdecombe. It is with great sadness that I say those words. My thoughts today are with her family, her friends and all those who loved her.
Ann Widdecombe dedicated her life to politics and public service. She was a fixture of our political life for nearly 40 years. She brought conviction to our politics, grounded in her profound Catholic faith. She was forthright in her opinions and argued courageously for the things she believed in. But, perhaps most of all, she brought an inimitable style to politics. She was forthright and fearless. As Lord Howard of Lympne can attest, she had a memorable turn of phrase. And she was joyful: she thought seriously about ideas but did not take herself too seriously, and that allowed her to reach beyond this place and charm the country at large. She was one of those rare politicians who was bigger than politics.
There have been so many moving tributes in the past few days, reflecting Ann’s impact both within this place and beyond politics. But I think her outlook on life is best summed up by Ann herself. Sitting on Graham Norton’s sofa, she said:
“We get one go this side of eternity—one go. Life is not a dress rehearsal. You take opportunities that you like, and you go for it.”
Ann took her opportunities. She was the proud MP for Maidstone for 23 years—a champion of her constituents. She served the country in government, as Minister for employment and then Minister for prisons. She took politics out of these ancient walls and became a bona fide TV star. Her contribution to our politics and national life will never be forgotten.
On Wednesday, Ann Widdecombe was murdered in her home. The circumstances of her death are extremely distressing. Counter Terrorism Policing has now taken the lead in the investigation. As Laurence Taylor, the head of national Counter Terrorism Policing has said:
“We now have new information and evidence that means Counter Terrorism Policing is leading the investigation... We are pursuing multiple lines of inquiry to establish the motivation for this attack.”
The police now have a suspect in custody: a 28-year-old white British man. I can confirm to the House that this man was not known to Prevent. The police have cautioned against speculating about the case. That is the right thing to do for Ann’s family and friends. It is also vital that the police are given the space they need to carry out their work.
For now, what matters most is supporting the investigation, so that we can see justice delivered for Ann and all who loved her. I urge anyone, with any information at all, to come forward immediately.
I know this raises questions about the security of those in public life. I will not be the only one in the Chamber also thinking of two other beloved Members of this House:
Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. Politics is a calling for those of us here, but it should not be a dangerous one. It is incumbent on the House and the Government to work together to protect those who choose to serve. The Home Office and the police work closely with the Parliamentary Security Department to provide practical advice and support directly to MPs. But we must always be vigilant and respond to changing threats.
Security measures are kept under constant review to ensure that MPs can carry out their duties safely. The police intend to issue guidance to MPs soon, and they will be contacting parliamentarians in their constituencies to offer support. I also recently commissioned the former Lord Chancellor, Sir Robert Buckland, to review the lessons from Sir David Amess’s murder, including into required improvements to security for MPs working in their constituencies.
I recognise the particular concern that the Reform UK party will feel today, and of course Nigel Farage, the party’s leader. I am happy to offer a meeting for Mr Farage with the chair of RAVEC—the Royal and VIP Executive Committee—the independent body within the Home Office that manages the security of those in public life. I will also be looking at what security guidance can be provided to former Members of Parliament, which I hope to work with you on, Mr Speaker, as well as to those who serve a party outside of this place.
Today is a dark day in our political life, but we must also use it as an opportunity to celebrate Ann Widdecombe’s memory. She was a unique figure in our politics: a distinctive and devoted public servant, the likes of whom we will rarely, if ever, see again. Ann had a profound faith. Her journey in this life has ended too soon, but may she now rest in eternal peace. I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I start by offering my deepest condolences to Ann’s family and friends. She will be terribly missed.
Ann sat as the Conservative MP for Maidstone for nearly a quarter of a century, and in the European Parliament for the Brexit party. She served in government and in opposition, including as shadow Home Secretary. She always fearlessly spoke her mind. She did not worry about whether her opinion would be popular or fashionable; she always said exactly what she believed and exactly what she thought. Her integrity and her fortitude were unmatched.
I first met Ann 29 years ago at a university debate, where we were speaking on opposite sides. I was a callow 21-year-old student; she had just left government and was at the height of her powers. I remember starting my speech by asking her to treat me more gently than she had recently treated Michael Howard. Needless to say, I was put very firmly in my place.
Ann was also a much-loved celebrity, with memorable appearances on “Celebrity Big Brother” and “Strictly Come Dancing”, where she was whirled around by Anton Du Beke. We will all remember Ann fondly as a public figure who was always formidable, always charming and always entertaining.
As we discuss this appalling murder, we should heed the words of Devon and Cornwall Assistant Chief Constable Matt Longman, who said over the weekend:
“We are aware of online and public speculation, particularly with regards to motive… I urge people not to share or engage with that speculation. It’s unhelpful”
and distressing to Ann’s friends and family, and is particularly harmful to the police’s investigation. Criminal barrister Dennis Kavanagh has also pointed out that speculation makes the police’s job harder and, in some cases, could even prejudice a trial. I urge everyone debating this issue to keep that in mind.
It has just been confirmed by the Home Secretary that counter-terrorism police are now leading the murder investigation. In order to help to avoid that speculation, can the Home Secretary properly share any further information about this matter without prejudicing the investigation? I thank the police for releasing the information they have so far, including about the identity of the suspect. It is always important to release as much information as possible in the interests of transparency and to avoid misinformation filling the void, as Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has said previously.
I will turn now to threats against those in public life. Any threats against MPs, who have been democratically elected to represent their constituents, or against others in public life, should be taken extremely seriously. In the past 10 years, two MPs—Jo Cox and Sir David Amess—have been murdered, and now a former MP has been murdered, too. The threat is clearly real. I remember when, in 2017, terrorist Khalid Masood drove a car into pedestrians along Westminster bridge, injuring more than 50 people, four of them fatally, and then ran into New Palace Yard—just yards from where we sit in this Chamber—where he fatally stabbed PC Keith Palmer. That was also an attack on democracy itself.
Mr Speaker, I would like to thank you personally for all the work you are doing to protect MPs and those in public life. As the Speaker of the House of Commons, I know that you have made the safety and protection of those in public life your highest priority, and I would like to thank you for that. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
We must redouble our efforts to ensure that public political figures—both those who are MPs and those, like Ann, who are not—always receive the proportionate protection that they need. I would be grateful if the Home Secretary could confirm that she will review all the arrangements with that objective in mind.
I believe that, in this country, we should be able to debate each other robustly on important issues, but that we should also speak to each other in a way that is civil and respectful. Of course, nothing excuses violent attacks on public figures, but we should all also set an example of civility and calm, and not inflame matters.
We need people to step up and become MPs and to speak in the public square. Debate and disagreement are what make our country great. Ann Widdecombe exemplified that every minute of her life, and I pay tribute to her. I know that we will all remember Ann forever.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks and memories of Ann Widdecombe and for his questions. He asked about the new information that has come to light and the progress on the Counter Terrorism Policing investigation. A statement has been put out by Counter Terrorism Policing. I believe it has been published online, but I will make sure that it is placed in the Library of the House as well. The main points to draw out from it are, as I said in my statement, the fact that new information and evidence means that Counter Terrorism Policing is now leading the investigation and pursuing multiple lines of inquiry in order to establish the motivation behind the attack. As soon as more information is available that can be shared without compromising any future trial, it will be shared.
We take very seriously, as does Counter Terrorism Policing, the learnings from the summer of 2024. We definitely want to heed the call of Jonathan Hall KC and others about the timely release of information without compromising the ability to bring someone to justice, which is the main aim when such a horror of an attack happens.
I would like to echo the shadow Home Secretary’s remarks to you, Mr Speaker, and thank you personally for all your efforts to maintain the safety and security of parliamentarians. I know that it is something that you personally worry about and take a deep interest in.
Given the fast-moving nature of this investigation, I do not want to say anything here that will prejudice the direction of travel. However, this murder raises a question about the security arrangements for not only sitting Members of Parliament but those who have left this place but nevertheless retain a public profile as a result of their political party membership or their political activities. Also, given the range of new political parties that are contesting the political and democratic space, there are questions about those who are not represented at all here in the House of Commons. To reassure you, Mr Speaker, I will look at those arrangements very closely and seek to work with you directly. My officials will engage with parties across the House and those outside of it to make sure that whatever changes are made are done so in a manner that covers the multiple range of threats that we see.
There has been a step change in the security of parliamentarians over the last few years, but I think that that is a reflection of the multi-layered threats that our democracy faces and that active individuals in that democracy face. This is not something that we can ever take for granted or believe to be settled; it is something that we have to review continually, which we do. New questions have been raised, and I will make it my personal business to answer them. I will update the House in due course.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)
The Home Secretary will be aware of how important it is to make sure that Members of this House get the protection and defence that they need. At one point, I got as much abuse and as many threats of violence as all the other women MPs put together, so it is important that we take this issue seriously. We should recognise—I can speak to this, because of my years in the House—that the situation has gotten much, much worse with the rise of online activity. We need to find a way to make online companies more accountable for the abuse and threats of violence that they allow on their platforms. We need to make them aware of the importance of protecting Members of Parliament.
Shabana Mahmood
Given the sheer range of threats that have been made to the Mother of the House personally, it is a testament to her personal bravery that she has continued to be an active parliamentarian, but it should not take such levels of bravery just to be able to represent the people of your constituency. She is right that we must always ensure that our security arrangements can keep pace with the changing nature of threats. Let me assure the Mother of the House that the Government will do that. We work closely with the Parliamentary Security Department to ensure that that is the case so that all Members can make their contributions just as effectively and for just as long as she has.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The news about Ann Widdecombe is shocking and deeply distressing. My thoughts are with her family, including her nephew, the Rev. Roger Widdecombe—my constituent—and his wife Hannah, who lead the congregation at St Paul’s church in Cheltenham. Her death is all the more tragic given what we now know about the upsetting and disturbing circumstances.
Ann Widdecombe was a conviction politician, and also an entertainer. Many did not agree with her views—including me, particularly when she was briefly my Member of the European Parliament—but the style in which she put those views was compelling and captured the attention of the nation, just as her dance moves did. They were deeply held beliefs. She was a passionate public servant who was never afraid to challenge those in power—might I briefly speculate, a strong liberal inclination to challenge power from a strong Conservative politician?
I pay tribute to the police for their rapid response in this case. I also pay tribute to you, Mr Speaker, for the way in which your office gives security support to MPs. It is important that we can do our jobs without fear, intimidation or worse. It is horrifying that three politicians have been murdered in this country in the past decade. Clearly, there is more work to be done.
Might the Government support some amendments to the upcoming Representation of the People Bill to impose a duty on the Electoral Commission to provide more guidance on safety for politicians? Will the Home Office consider supporting measures so that politicians’ safety can be improved?
Finally, some alarming allegations were made on the weekend by the Reform home affairs spokesperson Zia Yusuf. If they are true, they are extremely concerning— but, given his record, many of us have doubts. I am certain that the Government and the House authorities, including you, Mr Speaker, are taking seriously the duty of care to Members from all parties in the House. For the sake of the record, perhaps the Home Secretary can confirm that that remains the case.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. He raised three specific issues. I am happy to discuss amendments to the Representation of the People Bill with him. He knows that the Home Office is not the lead Department on that Bill, but I am happy to have a discussion about any additional legislative measures that might be needed. Of course, the Electoral Commission has its own work to do, and it might be better for duties to be placed elsewhere, but, as I said, I will happily discuss that with him.
Equally, on whether any further obligations or changes of policy in respect of the Home Office, or indeed the Parliamentary Security Department, are necessary, I am happy to engage with the hon. Member and other Members across the House.
I do not wish to speak for you, Mr Speaker, but I think that all of us who are Members can attest to the fact that we are treated equally in this place by the Speaker and for the purposes of the Parliamentary Security Department when it comes to our safety on the estate and in our constituencies. That position is shared by the Government.
There is equal treatment for all in work that we do on security for Members of Parliament. Specific work is undertaken by RAVEC—the executive committee for the protection of royalty and public figures—which is the independent body in the Home Office that looks at security arrangements for some of those in public life. That work is also fiercely independent. It has been the subject of legal proceedings previously, and I have always maintained the independence of that process, which is based on risk assessment and risk management.
Several hon. Members rose—
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I join the Home Secretary in paying my respects and condolences to the family of Ann Widdecombe. We might not have agreed politically, but I always greatly admired and respected her outspokenness, her fearlessness and her ability not to take herself too seriously. She was one of a kind, of the like that, frankly, we do not make any more. I think we can all agree on that. I hope that, at moments like this, we can come together across the House to talk about these issues with one voice. May I also place on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for your leadership, in all that you have done over many years, in making sure we are all kept safe and secure?
Does the Home Secretary agree, though, that this is about not just our security and our safety but reducing the level of threat? Debate in this country is now highly politicised, highly polarised and highly personalised, which is bringing more and more threats on to all of us. Does she agree that we must do more to tackle, with urgency, the online algorithms and business models that heighten polarisation and hate towards those in public life?
Shabana Mahmood
My right hon. Friend is right to say that the climate in which we are operating in our national politics is unlike any that most of us have seen. Those of us who have been around for a while can see the big change that has occurred over the last decade or so. We must do more, as a Government and as a society, to know exactly what the boundaries are between passionate, contested, fierce debate of the kind that Ann Widdecombe herself engaged in, and behaviour that spills into threats and harassment of the kind that is designed to drive people out of public life. Getting that balance right is absolutely crucial. It is clear that there is more work for the Government to do, and there is more work to do across society, which includes social media platforms taking greater responsibility for the kinds of behaviours that are promoted on their platforms. I assure my right hon. Friend that I will be discussing with colleagues across Government how to ensure we are responding to all those challenges.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Like many on this side of the House, I have very fond memories of Ann. She made the effort to travel to Staffordshire Moorlands—not many people do; we are quite isolated—[Interruption.] Yes, they come to Alton Towers—the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) is quite right. But Ann came to Consall Hall Gardens, as it was then, to do a fundraising dinner for me, and she delivered a tour de force, which I suspect the then Prime Minister, now the noble Lord Cameron, might not have entirely approved of. My association was totally enraptured, however, and thought it was the most wonderful event. It is still fondly remembered in the association, not least because Ann told me I had to take off my heels because it would not be appropriate to stand too tall next to her in the photographs.
May I also thank Staffordshire police for contacting me this weekend and making a visit to my home to review my security arrangements? I know that police forces across the country will be doing that and I am grateful to them for taking that time. May I ask the Home Secretary to comment on what might happen in the longer term around the Prevent duty? She will know that the Home Affairs Committee produced a report on new forms of radicalisation and extremism, with some recommendations that, we hope, might help law enforcement and others to find those who have a tendency towards violence. Will the Home Secretary consider that in the longer term?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Lady makes an important point on the consequences for the Prevent duty of the changing nature of the threat. It is essential that we retain a deradicalisation programme that is focused on ideology, but as she and those who are experts in these matters know, the range of threats and the links between ideology, mixed ideology, occasional ideology, mental health and other issues ask a bigger question about how the Prevent strategy will work in the future and how we deal with the threats that fall outside of that through wider and other societal programmes. I will look at the recommendations, which I will discuss with her Committee when I appear before it, I hope, very soon.
Mr Speaker
I call John Slinger, a member of the Speaker’s Conference on the security of candidates, MPs and elections.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I send my deepest sympathies and condolences to the friends and family of Ann Widdecombe, and I extend that to her former colleagues from the Conservative party and Reform UK, for whom I know this must be a very difficult and sad time. Mr Speaker, you chose the security of MPs, candidates and elections to be the subject of the Speaker’s Conference this Parliament. We have done good work in the Speaker’s Conference, but there is much more to be done, as I am sure we can all agree. Will the Home Secretary confirm that she will work closely with you, Mr Speaker, the parliamentary security department and all others who care about protecting our democracy from the threats that sadly are growing?
Shabana Mahmood
I absolutely give that assurance to my hon. Friend. I will pick up discussions with Mr Speaker and others on how we think about security for those who are no longer Members of this place, and the specific new circumstances that are raised by Ann Widdecombe’s murder. I am happy to work across parties, across this House and with the Speaker’s Conference.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
We are all reeling with shock, sadness and anguish at the loss of our Ann, and also the manner in which she has been taken from us. She was a colossus in public and political life—a legend, adored and loved by millions and millions of people, including my own late mother, who spoke very warmly of Ann.
Ann was a remarkable lady. She had an incredible work ethic: she would think nothing of going the length and breadth of the country to speak at rallies. She was an incredible orator, who always spoke without notes—absolutely remarkable. The Home Secretary touched on Ann’s philosophy of life: she viewed life as not being a dress rehearsal—you grasp every opportunity and you go for it, as far as possible.
In relation to her political career in this House, I checked earlier and in 23 years Ann made over 8,000 contributions in this place, including some remarkably witty interventions. When an hon. Member said that she should disappear with her broomstick, she immediately replied that she had her broomstick and she would cast a spell over him. That was her nature. Likewise, her media career was also remarkable: she was an agony aunt on two programmes, a most deserving semi-finalist in “Strictly Come Dancing” and appeared on “Celebrity Big Brother”. She was an incredible panto performer, who was adored by so many.
Ann’s conviction, her passion and her advocacy for free speech were to be commended. I had the honour of working with her for the past seven years. Despite being a foot taller than her, I somehow always found myself looking up to her. When she phoned, I always stood up on my toes: incoming—beware! That was Ann. We will miss her dearly. Also, the Scottish whisky industry has lost a very discerning customer. Maybe there could be a limited edition of Widders whisky, where the tasting notes may reflect unique, unforgettable flavours, a fiery, spicy series of tones, but a blend to be treasured to eternity? May she rest in peace.
Will the Home Secretary ensure that the counter-terrorism unit keeps us updated as regularly as possible? We all want our police forces to do brilliantly, but when considering motivation when giving us early updates, would it be wise to keep things open ended, as opposed to ruling out motives too quickly that may then end up being ruled back in?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman has made a very moving and affecting tribute to Ann Widdecombe. On Widders whisky, as a teetotal Muslim, I would never be able to partake of such a drink, but if there were a non-alcoholic version available I would happily imbibe.
We will ensure that, as and when it is possible to share more information about the circumstances of the murder and the motivation, that is done in the appropriate way. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that at no point has anything been taken off the table in terms of the investigation. It is a live investigation and it is not unusual that in a fast-paced investigation, more information comes to light that changes the nature or the character of what the police are dealing with. I am reassured that Devon and Cornwall police have been working closely with Counter Terrorism Policing, and as soon as the additional information was made available, Counter Terrorism Policing took over, as is appropriate and the right thing to do.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I share the sentiments that have already been expressed and send my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Ann Widdecombe. Of course, security is a huge issue to all of us in this Chamber, and I am sure that I was not the only one this weekend who went about my business in the constituency looking over my shoulder more than I normally would. It is terrible that this is the third Member of Parliament or ex-Member of Parliament to have been murdered—it should not be like this. While I thank Mr Speaker for everything he is doing, and I have already heard from my Operation Bridger contact this morning, who I was delighted to have heard from, about my security and if everything is okay, it does seem that security fobs and security in our houses are not enough. What more can the Home Secretary do to work with the Parliamentary Security Department and with Mr Speaker to ensure that our security is not undermined?
Shabana Mahmood
We would not, of course, ever comment on the specific nature of the arrangements made for the security of Members of Parliament, either here on the estate or in their homes or constituencies. However, let me assure my hon. Friend that a number of measures are taken. For local policing, as well as working with the Parliamentary Security Department, there is an offer for all Members of Parliament, and there are specific risk assessments when there is something of concern relating to a particular individual. Let me reassure her that I think those arrangements are comprehensive; however, we should always ask ourselves whether they are enough and whether they are responding to the changing nature of threats or the spike in threat activity that we sometimes see. I assure her that I will of course be working closely with the Parliamentary Security Department and policing more broadly to ensure that these arrangements are as tight, robust and comprehensive as they need to be.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House that the fact that I have to chair a meeting in a few minutes’ time prevents me from staying, as I would wish to do, to the end of the statement?
When I went up as an undergraduate to Oxford in late 1970 and joined the university Conservative association, there were two outstanding figures a year ahead of me in that august body: one was Ann Widdecombe and the other was Nicolas Turner. A few years later, in February 1980, Ann Widdecombe and I shared a taxi to the funeral of Nicolas Turner, who had heroically sacrificed his life in an attempt to rescue his young daughter Alice—it was a double funeral—who had been swept into the sea by a freak wave. Ann was always there when her friends needed support and, on a lighter note, she was always there ready to bring her friends back down to earth.
When Ann was elected in 1987 for the first time, and I happened to be moving flats, I gifted her a relatively new washing machine that was now surplus to my requirements. For several years after she became an MP, she used to invite me once a year, almost like clockwork, to have lunch with her in this place. I naturally assumed that it was that she wished to imbibe the wisdom of my political advice. It was only by accident when I suggested that to her and how flattered I was that she revealed the truth, saying, “Oh no, Julian—this is rent for the washing machine!”
Mr Speaker will certainly remember that in 2008 to 2009, this House spent a lot of time taking steps to ensure that MPs’ home addresses did not, in future, have to be revealed either in answer to freedom of information requests or on ballot papers and notices of nomination. It therefore comes as a bit of a shock to me to read in one of the reports today that Ann had—it may turn out to be complete coincidence—featured in her home on a programme on television extensively only six days before she died. The report said that the name of the home had been obscured, but software is available so that if someone puts up a picture of a place, particularly if they know the general area, it will identify the address. Let me please appeal to Members and ex-Members from whatever political party: do not throw away the gains we made, and whatever else you do, keep your home addresses as private as you possibly can.
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman makes wise points about the safety of MPs’ home addresses, and in my work alongside Mr Speaker on lessons to be learned from the circumstances of Ann’s murder, I will ensure that we consider the privacy and security of home addresses.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I join the many heartfelt tributes paid to Ann Widdecombe by Members across the House. I did not know her personally, but before I came to this place there were many names I always came across, and hers was definitely one of them. May her gentle soul rest in peace.
Earlier this afternoon, I spoke to a group of students who were completing work experience and shadowing. One young girl asked me, “What are the downsides, and what do you not like about this role?” To be honest, it pained me to be honest and to say, “The death threats, and the abuse you get just because you are doing something you love and enjoy,” and we must be honest about the real-life threats faced by parliamentarians across the House, just for doing the job they enjoy.
Will the Home Secretary confirm that it is good that counter-terrorism police are leading the investigation, and that they have all the necessary resources they need to carry out a full and thorough investigation? They will be dealing with many competing demands in our ever unstable world. Will she also look at the area mentioned by the Mother of House, namely misinformation that is spread online? I will declare an interest as I sit on the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission and we have looked at that area.
I add my tributes and thanks to Mr Speaker for his work on that Committee and the Speaker’s Conference. Whenever I have raised issues, the parliamentary liaison and investigation team have taken them seriously, which I thank them for, and it is important that we do not deter people from standing for public office.
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right that we must ensure that people are not either driven out of politics or put off entering political life at all. It is incumbent on us all to work together to ensure that whenever we are asked about the downsides of public life, we are able to give a positive view, because that is the truth, rather than where we are today.
I assure my hon. Friend that Counter Terrorism Policing has the resources it needs. I had an extensive discussion and briefing from the head of national Counter Terrorism Policing, and I will be kept updated on its progress. If it needs any more from us at the Home Office, we stand ready to offer greater assistance, but I am assured that at the moment it has everything it needs.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Friday was a funny day. I heard the news very early in the morning that Ann had died, and I was utterly surprised about that because she had seemed perfectly fit the last time I saw her, so I gave my condolences and spoke about it on the radio. Sadly, later that day, just after lunch, I discovered that it was not just sad but a tragedy—a tragedy that a phenomenal woman, and a former Member of this House, should have been murdered in her own home for reasons we know not what.
The news allowed me to think back to this woman who was a force of nature. She was impossible to argue with, because she never accepted that she was losing the argument, until finally she was able to turn it 180 degrees and make you feel guilty that you had even dared to argue with her. A particular memory is that during the Maastricht debates, when, I have to confess, I and one or two others here were deeply rebellious, Ann lectured me from the Dispatch Box—she was in government—about how I should support the Maastricht treaty and the European Union, which rather worried me. It is rather ironic that she went over to Reform. I thought to myself, “Now there’s somebody who takes collective responsibility more seriously than she even had to.” It was rather remarkable.
Ann was a remarkable woman in many, many ways. I got to know her during shadow Cabinet, when we would debate and argue. She argued as robustly in shadow Cabinet as she did across the Dispatch Box. Whether you were Labour or Conservative, if you disagreed with her, you were the enemy—you got used to it. It was phenomenal, because she was so certain about the way that she was.
Ann embodied something else: the passion that is necessary for us in this Chamber to make our arguments without the fear of any other person doing something to us. Another thing she embodied, and completely demonstrated, was our unique responsibility to our constituents and the nature of the personal contact we make with them, which I do not think is replicated almost anywhere else. We go into their homes. I do not ask for security when I go into someone’s home. We go to see them if they are too ill to come and see us. We all do that, and we do not want to lose it. We do not want the epitaph of her terrible murder to be that we withdrew from the nature of who we are and what makes this place so great.
We need to reiterate, and the Government and the Home Secretary need to specify, to all the social media companies that they must do something to close down the visceral, violent language that some people use in attacking others personally, as they did over Ann’s murder, which shocked me. We must get on top of that, because it is the root of violence and death. It is not only Ann who was murdered. It is not only Jo Cox and my good friend David Amess who were murdered. As the rack of shields in the Chamber shows, terrorists have murdered many in our party. If we want to stop that, we have to be bold and we have to be clear. We will not accept being shut down, stopped from performing our duties or silenced in any way, because that is what Ann would have approved of.
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman makes some powerful points. He is absolutely right: it is not just sad; now that we know more about the circumstances of this murder, it is a tragedy. More will obviously come to light in the fullness of time.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, as a society and as a Government, we all have to do much more to hold social media companies to account for what is said and done through their platforms. Some progress has been made, but it feels like it takes a long time to get legislation through, and it is many years before any of it can be implemented. This is a fast-moving environment. We need to get the balance right: there is fierce and contested debate, and then there is behaviour that turns into threats, visceral abuse and harassment. It is incumbent on all of us to work together across the House to achieve the necessary balance and the necessary regulation of social media.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
I join the Home Secretary and other Members in sending condolences to the family of Ann Widdecombe. May she rest in peace.
I have concerns not just about Members of this place, but about our party members, councillors and council candidates. Every week, volunteers go knocking on doors in my constituency; most of the responses we get are absolutely fine, but there is an increasing trend towards violence and aggression on the doorstep. These people are giving up their time to engage in the political process, and they should not be met with violence and intimidation. We need to do far more to tackle the causes of this division and aggression.
I absolutely agree with what Members have said about social media companies and the algorithms that peddle hate, but we also need to look at what we can do. I have tabled some amendments to the Representation of the People Bill to deal with misleading information online and to provide for a statutory code of conduct to prevent abuse and intimidation in campaigns. I am concerned that intimidation on the doorstep is putting off the next generation of Members of this place. We need a wholesale review and real action to protect everyone who does their bit in democratic life.
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes some really important points. Just as joke candidates are a feature of British democracy, so is knocking on doors at election time and talking to people up and down the country. All of us have a responsibility and a duty to ensure that the unique features of British democracy are protected at all times. That has been the work of the defending democracy taskforce, which was led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), the former Security Minister and now the Defence Secretary, and has been taken over by the new Security Minister. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) that we will do everything we can to protect the norms by which our democracy is felt across the country and to ensure that the ways in which we all take part in it are protected.
My hon. Friend mentioned potential amendments to the Representation of the People Bill, as have other Members. The Home Office is not the lead Department for the Bill, but I undertake to discuss this issue with colleagues in Government and ensure that we respond on specific amendments, or at least on a body of work, to ensure that any additional amendments made to the Bill are capable of reflecting the nature of the challenge we face.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The news about Ann Widdecombe is truly shocking, and it is compounded by the way in which she met her death. The thoughts of the Scottish National party are with her friends and family today. As has been said, Ann was a larger-than-life political figure, liked by people right across this House for her wicked sense of humour and her straight talking. I remember when I inadvertently strayed into a private Conservative event, only to be met by Ann sending me packing. For somebody of her stature, she was a very effective bouncer.
There is great interest in this tragic death beyond those with an obvious interest in politics, and there will be temptation to speculate about her death, including among those with more malevolent intent on social media. Will the Home Secretary do everything she can to ensure that the information passed on about this particular case is correct? Will she do everything possible to counter bad bits of misinformation?
Shabana Mahmood
It is incredibly important that nobody indulges in speculation of any kind, and we should collectively call out those who do. People should exercise caution before they comment on this case—that is the right way to behave for those who wish to see justice done. We should all want the proper functioning of our criminal justice system, which requires careful handling of information. Wherever possible, we will step in to correct misinformation, as the police have done, but occasionally in these sorts of cases the police are constrained in what they can put out into the public domain, because they wish to protect proceedings that may follow. We all have to be vigilant and careful, and send out the right message from this House about our expectations.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
I join Members across the House in giving my deepest condolences to the friends and family of Ann Widdecombe. I never had the privilege of meeting her, but I certainly remember growing up and seeing her on the TV and thinking what an outspoken, strong woman she was and how she would not take no for an answer. I pay tribute to her.
I do not want to speculate on the case or on what happened, but I place on record my concern about the fact that we see very frequently the media either photograph or broadcast identifiable details of Members’ or former Members’ homes. That is happening repeatedly to Members across this House, including members of the Cabinet, members of the shadow Cabinet and former Members. We have heard today about the risks that come with that. The former Member for Surrey Heath mentioned in a podcast fairly recently that the man who killed Sir David Amess had visited his home, using details that he had identified from the media. That is how serious this issue is.
I know that the Speaker’s Conference has looked at this issue. Given the risks that exist and the new tools such as reverse image searching, which makes it easier to look at a media image and find out where a house is on Google Maps, will the Home Secretary urgently look at this issue with her colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the media regulators Ofcom and the Independent Press Standards Organisation?
Shabana Mahmood
I assure my hon. Friend that that is one of the issues I will pick up, as I said in answer to a question from an Opposition Member a little earlier in this statement. I shall discuss this matter with colleagues on a cross-party basis, and I will speak with Mr Speaker and the House authorities about what more we can do in respect of specific details relating to the homes of Members and former Members of Parliament.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and her tribute to Ann—it was extremely moving, if I may say so. Can I also point out the unfortunate statistical fact that a Member of Parliament is more likely to meet a violent death than a member of His Majesty’s armed forces or a member of the British police forces? I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to assure Mr Speaker that none of us doubts his personal commitment to our security, but this remains a very relevant problem. None of us wants our homes to be turned into fortresses, but maybe more people need to be encouraged to, for example, put security gates on the front of their houses, and to have security cameras recording what is going on, rather than just relying on the Ring bell that happens to be on their front door.
Can I also pay my own tribute to Ann? Much has already been said. I shared 18 years of her parliamentary life, alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). There were disagreements about Maastricht, and about women candidates—my goodness, she loathed me trying to promote women candidates in the Conservative party. I maintain that she was wrong about that, but she was right about many things. Her maiden speech, about the Trident nuclear deterrent, was made at a time when the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats were a bit wobbly on that subject. What an emblem of her patriotism, and her fervour for strength and clarity of purpose!
I served in the shadow Cabinet with Ann when the Government were introducing the Human Rights Act 1998 and pressing for close adherence to the European convention on human rights. She was the one member of the shadow Cabinet who said, “We should oppose this”; members of our shadow Cabinet were saying that we should relish joining the ECHR. Her prescience has often invited derision from others, but she was right on that score. We in the Conservative party are learning the lessons that she left behind during her life; maybe other parties will learn them, too.
Shabana Mahmood
That was also a very moving tribute to someone of whom the hon. Gentleman was clearly very fond, and with whom he worked closely. He has dared to say that she was wrong; perhaps if we listen carefully, we can hear her saying something quite forceful in response.
I take the security of all Members of Parliament very seriously, as I know Mr Speaker does. Considering what has happened to Ann Widdecombe, we must now live up to our responsibilities to former Members of Parliament as well, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will take my duties in that regard very seriously. I do not want it to be the case that people are more likely to die a violent death if they are Members of this great House. This great House has great public servants in it from all over the country and from every party, and the public service of all Members of this House is something without which our country cannot do. It is incumbent on us all to protect that, for this generation and for generations to come.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
My thoughts and condolences are with the family and friends of Ann Widdecombe, and with colleagues on the Conservative Benches who worked closely with her. It is hard not to see the murder of an ex-MP as an attempted attack on this place and our way of life, but we must not let it have a chilling effect on those who want to stand for public office.
I thank Mr Speaker for the time he took with new-intake MPs in 2024, giving us his hints and tips, and really focusing on security. I also thank the Home Secretary for looking at the safety of ex-MPs and the risks that they face. I am in almost daily contact with one of my predecessors, and I am sure that will come up in our next phone call. I can tell the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) that I have a call with representatives of the Scotch Whisky Association scheduled for this afternoon; I think they want to talk about the free trade agreement, but I will happily talk about Widders’ whisky. Does the Home Secretary agree that we must do all we can to ensure that people are not put off standing for public office, particularly by online hate and the increasing violence that we see on the doorstep and in our society?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we must all do more. I assure him that the Government will work closely with Mr Speaker and the Parliamentary Security Department to make sure that we are doing everything we can, but as I have said in answer to other questions, I think we as a society have to take a stronger position on the right boundary between contested debate and unacceptable behaviour and abuse online. We have more work to do in that space.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
On behalf of the Green party, I would like to say how shocked, saddened and horrified I am by Ann Widdecombe’s horrific death—her brutal murder—and my sincere condolences go to her friends and family and all who knew her and loved her, including colleagues in this House. I welcome the points that the Home Secretary has made about reviewing security arrangements for those in public life, including former MPs and those outside this House. I very much agree with her about the responsibility that we all have, across this House and beyond, to avoid speculation, so that the police can hold their vital investigation and bring the culprit to justice. She has recognised the calls that have been made from across this House today for further action to tackle the proliferation of polarisation and hatred online. May I press her to set a timescale for taking that further action, to protect not only the safety and security of all those in public life, but the fundamentals of our democracy?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution and question, and assure her that I will be picking up a discussion with my colleagues across Government about how we do more on social media platforms and the behaviours that are promoted there, which we know are having a damaging impact on our democracy, as well as the safety and security of people involved in politics in different ways, including activists and elected representatives. Specifically, I will be discussing this matter with colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, as well as others. I will ensure that the House is updated soon after the summer recess.
Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)
I echo the thoughtful and meaningful comments that Members from across the House have made today. I did not know Ann Widdecombe, but I definitely knew what she stood for: public service. She was a unique character and an amazing public servant, with many years of sacrifice. How have we ended up in a position where individuals who put so much time and effort into public service are at risk? One of the reasons is that when we were young, we would walk into a library, and the librarian was apolitical; she or he would allow us to read whatever we wanted, within a set boundary. Now, that librarian is no longer apolitical; it is an algorithm, and that algorithm is bought by anyone from American tech bros to Russia and China. This is not four or five different threats; it is one consistent threat, which is swaying the minds of large chunks of populations across the globe. Can the Home Secretary give me some detail on how we are clamping down on some of that adversarial, nefarious activity and making online activity much safer?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. He will know that colleagues in DSIT are working carefully on the Online Safety Act 2023 and its further implementation, learning lessons from how it is being applied and thinking carefully about what might need to be done. It is clear that we need a much stronger and better policed boundary between what is acceptable in a democracy and behaviour that is challenging the very foundations of our democracy. I have undertaken to have that discussion with colleagues across government, and I will make sure that the House is updated on the programme of work that the Government intend to take forward. We must make sure that all our arrangements are as robust as possible, and that it is we, the people of this country, who decide the inheritance that we wish to leave for our children, not algorithms operated by a very small number of men who live abroad.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I thank both Front-Bench spokespeople for their touching tributes to Ann. For the benefit of those outside this House, I place on record that we all know the absolute personal commitment of Mr Speaker and all the Deputy Speakers to the security of all Members and their families. Can we thank him and the rest of the team for that? We must not comment on the investigation, but can we at least wish the police Godspeed in bringing whoever was responsible for this utterly heinous act fully to book?
We now have another fallen comrade; there was Jo Cox, Sir David Amess, and now Ann. Years ago, we lost others to republican terrorism, too. This is a challenge for all of us, and for our loved ones. As I said after Sir David was murdered, I believe that the social media companies also have a responsibility in this regard. We always needed a thick skin to come into politics; now we need the hide of a rhino. The social media companies could do something to calm down the level of hate to which hon. Members and their families are exposed online, and I look to the Home Secretary in the hope that something positive can be done.
Ann Widdecombe was unmissable. She was a one-woman nuclear deterrent, whether she was debating in the House of Commons or arriving on “Strictly” by zipwire. I saw her only about three weeks ago at a breakfast meeting, and she was in fine fettle that morning. I knew her through Sir David. They were great friends; they arrived here in a similar era, in the 1980s, and they had a strong bond via the Catholic faith. They got on extremely well. I appeared in a number of photographs with both Sir David and Ann down the years, but for some reason, I was never asked to remove my shoes.
I have one brief anecdote. In 2010, having obviously upset someone in authority, I was made the Government accommodation Whip, and it was my responsibility to hand out offices. Anyone who has ever done that job will tell you that it is not easy. Ann, who had retired from the House, had a very attractive office overlooking Parliament Square, which was on my list as one that I knew would be in high demand. When I went along to check it out, I found Sir David already neatly ensconced in the office, and when I asked him how this had come about, he told me that he was claiming squatter’s rights, and that, moreover, he had been bequeathed the office by Ann as a personal gift. When I sought to remonstrate, he told me that if I did not like that decision, I could take it up with her personally—at which point I decided that discretion was the better part of valour, and withdrew.
Ann was remarkable. You could not argue with her; well, you could try, but you never got very far. She was the type of character whom people deeply respected, because she was absolutely consistent in her view, whether you agreed with her or not. We have lost a distinguished and incredibly remarkable colleague in the most awful of circumstances, but Ann Widdecombe would tell us to keep calm and carry on, and I believe that that is exactly what we should do.
Shabana Mahmood
That was a very moving and funny set of memories from the right hon. Gentleman—very affecting. “Keep calm and carry on” are definitely words to live by, and we could all do with taking that lesson on board. Let me also echo the right hon. Gentleman’s best wishes for the police as they continue this investigation: Godspeed.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
Ann’s tragic murder has shocked the nation. Dear Ann was the personification of political courage, patriotic tradition and the importance of faith. I got to know her when I was Home Secretary, through her immense support for the Amess family when we unveiled his plaque—a poignant reminder of the threat facing our democracy today. The nation has lost an exemplary public servant and a force of nature in Ann.
People are free to disagree with Ann’s views, but some of the online comment that we have seen in the aftermath has been frankly disgusting. It has come from so-called reputable journalists, including those working at Sky News and The Mail on Sunday, and we have read some conspiracy theories in The Times; and today we have heard a Labour Member of Parliament apologise for her intemperate comments. Does the Home Secretary agree that that kind of language only serves to worsen the problem with which we are dealing, rather than being part of the solution? Will she join me in urging calm in the media, and among those on the left? They should afford Ann some dignity in death, and show some respect to their opponents, instead of whipping up hatred.
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.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I speak on behalf of my party, Plaid Cymru. I think all of us will remember where we were when we heard the news that once again somebody—in this case, a former Member of Parliament—who lives the same lives as ourselves had died in such a hideous, shocking way with the murder. Of course, the work of the police and the justice system that must now come first and foremost.
I was with North Wales police in training many of their officers on Operation Bridger only on Friday afternoon, just before this happened. I do commend the police, but also I think we really need to know how difficult it is for them, because Operation Bridger has to go down to the frontline and those on the frontline need to be alert to that. I must also mention the importance of Operation Ford for Senedd Members in Wales and other national Parliaments elsewhere, and also for councillors.
The ability of elected representatives—all of us—to do our job by being available to meet constituents and speak directly to them is precious, and we need to be alert to keeping that. The trust that goes with being able to meet people is precious, so does the Home Secretary agree that we are not just talking about protection for ourselves for this year or for a few years to come, but that what we are endeavouring to do here is safeguard the values of democratic debate over violence?
Shabana Mahmood
I think the right hon. Lady is absolutely right. When I was first elected in 2010, I used to run an open, first-come-first-served advice surgery, but that is no longer possible, and I have had to change that in the last few years. I still offer advice surgeries, but on terms that are very different from when I first became a Member of Parliament. That is a huge change, and it is entirely as a result of what happened to Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. It is a tragedy because it does change the way we relate to our constituents.
It is a very precious thing, and we must protect that connection between Members of Parliament and those they represent, and between councillors and those they represent as well. That is the work that the Government and the Parliamentary Security Department, Mr Speaker and all his team here in the House are determined to see through to make sure that, even if there are some changes in the way we relate to our constituents, we are still able to do so on terms that we would all recognise as good old British democracy at its best.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
There are no words to express the sadness we feel about the passing of Ann Widdecombe, but the sadness, unfortunately, is turning to anger—anger at not just the social media companies, but all of us in this place and the politicians, and some of the language that we use in this place. Reform UK MPs have been labelled as racists, Nazis and bigots by people serving in this place, and that undoubtedly increases the risk of attacks on politicians on this side of the House. Is the Home Secretary aware of any increased risk to Reform UK MPs?
Shabana Mahmood
It is important that all Members of the House are careful and calm in the way we describe other Members of this House and the work done by other Members in this House. We have to imagine how we would feel if we were on the receiving end of that, and try to treat others the way we wish to be treated ourselves.
I certainly want to make sure that I say from this Dispatch Box, for myself and for the Government, that any abuse or harassment by Members of Parliament of other Members of Parliament is unacceptable. We should all moderate our language. We have to get the right balance in this place between fierce and contested political debate, which happens on both the right and the left of the spectrum, and also make sure we do not slip into behaviours that increase threat to any of our colleagues. It is sometimes a difficult balance to strike in the heat of the moment or in the heat of a very polarised debate, but we still have a responsibility to show our best selves at work, as it were. I would always caution all Members, “Before you say anything quickly, just take a minute to reflect, and then think about what you’re about to say.”
On specific threats, let me say to the hon. Gentleman that no, I am not aware of any. He knows that I would not ever comment on threats, or the arrangements in place for any Member or others in public life, only because to comment starts to affect the integrity of the overall system, but I will make sure that the leader of Reform UK is offered a meeting with the independent chair of RAVEC to discuss specific issues relating to risk assessment. If there are any other matters in relation to risk assessment, the police are monitoring that very carefully and will discuss, with all political parties in this House, any additional changes that they might wish to make.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
I join colleagues across the House in paying tribute to Ann, a woman who was brave, principled, kind and generous. I, like many others, will miss her enormously—even though on my first morning as a Member of Parliament, when I was the youngest MP, I met her in Westminster Hall and she asked me whether I was here on work experience. [Laughter.] I think I have eventually shed my MP nappies.
The Home Secretary is the ultimate arbiter of what happens in the Home Office. She is not powerless and no one would pretend so. Would she agree that it was unwise of the Government to heavily reduce the security offered to the former Member for Clacton, given all we know about the particular danger that is posed to him and his family? Does she agree that, frankly, it should not have taken the murder of Ann for him to be offered a meeting with the committee, and that many will conclude—perhaps unfairly, but none the less—that it is only because of the political views of the former Member for Clacton that he is placed in this position? Will she use her power as Home Secretary to make sure the security that he and his family need is put in place immediately?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
The right hon. Gentleman will know that it is an independent process within the Home Office that deals with the risk assessment and risk management of those in public life. I am not going to compromise the integrity of those arrangements by commenting in any detail on specific instances. Let me simply observe that, in the 10 months I have been in the Home Office, I have seen media reports in relation to various suggested risk assessments and risk mitigations. I have never commented to say whether something is true or false, simply because I believe that the principle of not commenting should not be breached, so as to protect the integrity of the system. The meeting has been offered.
Let me assure him that RAVEC is and will always be fiercely independent. It must be, because the protection offered to people, and the level of protection and the tactics of protection that are offered, must never be based on a political assessment of who needs it, but on an independent operational assessment of what risk is and how it is best managed. That operational independence is incredibly important. I will always maintain it and protect it, and I know the Government as a whole will do so as well.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
The death of Ann Widdecombe is shocking. I did not know her as an MP, but it has been wonderful listening to colleagues from across the House share some of their memories. She was clearly a formidable political leader. Of course, we will also remember her as an entertainer. My thoughts are with her family and friends at this incredibly difficult time.
Her death is a devastating reminder of the problem that all of us elected Members and councillors face on a day-to-day basis while we try to serve the communities we love and have been elected to serve. It has come across very clearly in the Chamber that we all want and need to do more to protect each other and our democracy. I speak a lot to my councillors in Guildford and, as the Liberal Democrat local government spokesperson, to councillors across the country. The stories I hear are horrendous, whether it is parish council leaders or council leaders telling me about death threats. This is a democracy and elected representatives should not be experiencing that.
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for what she has already set out, but could she also set out what actions the Government are taking to protect elected officials at all levels, in particular councillors and those who are served by Operation Ford? Can she confirm that more resources will be made available to Operation Ford, so that a consistent level of support can be provided across the country? I know that police officers and forces across the country want to do that, but I hear about varying levels of support.
Shabana Mahmood
I join the hon. Lady in saying that it has been a very moving afternoon, hearing tributes to Ann Widdecombe from across the House, particularly from her former colleagues in the Conservative party and her colleagues in Reform UK, who are obviously personally affected. Once again, I offer my condolences to all of them on the loss of their friend and colleague.
I take very seriously the wider risks to our democracy, including for local councillors. The hon. Lady has already referenced some of the steps that the Government have taken through our defending democracy taskforce and Operation Ford. I am sure that there will be further developments in this space. We are learning lessons from the taskforce’s work in relation to the most recent local elections, and the developing nature of the threats must be reflected in new arrangements as we move forward.
We are very alive to the risks to those of us in this place, given what has happened to Jo Cox, to Sir David Amess and now to Ann Widdecombe. The security of parliamentarians gets a lot of attention, and this is perhaps the most high-profile Chamber—we are often referred to as “the mother of Parliaments”, so that is understandable—but this country also cannot do without the work of its local councillors, parish councillors and all the people who put in the hours to make their local area better, and this Government will stand by them too.
Southport Inquiry Phase 1: Government Response
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
On 13 April 2026, the chair of the Southport inquiry, Sir Adrian Fulford published his phase 1 report. Sir Adrian sets out five fundamental failings, and makes 67 recommendations for central Government, and a range of national and local partners to consider. He concludes that the attack was foreseeable and avoidable.
I am grateful to Sir Adrian and his team for their diligent work in producing this comprehensive report. When I addressed Parliament on 13 April, I committed to publish our response by summer. Today that response has been published. The response has been laid before Parliament as a Command Paper (CP 1623) and copies are available in the Vote Office and on gov.uk.
In the response, we recognise the five fundamental failings. We accept all the recommendations that are for central Government to deliver and set out how we are working at pace to implement these in full. There are recommendations that Government have already made progress against, or in some cases, completed. The pace of this work demonstrates the urgency with which Government are working towards meeting the outcomes set by the inquiry. I have committed to formally report to Sir Adrian again in a year’s time.
I am clear that Government expects other organisations to implement their recommendations. We have written to all organisations to highlight the findings of the inquiry and will facilitate and support on delivery as far as possible.
The Government have already acted across a number of areas.
We have published our halving knife crime plan with the ambition to halve the level of knife crime across 10 years. We have also taken the Crime and Policing Act 2026 through Parliament to significantly tighten the law on knives and other bladed articles. We have also recently held a public consultation about introducing licensing for sellers of knives and importers.
We published a youth justice White Paper setting out a comprehensive programme of reform to modernise the youth justice system, establishing a clear direction toward earlier intervention and taking action to encourage and strengthen the use of parenting orders.
The Government are introducing legislation this session to criminalise lone individuals planning an attack without an ideological motive, closing a gap and strengthening our ability to disrupt the most serious threats from violence-fixated individuals.
We have announced that we will ban social media companies from offering their services to under-16s, in addition to new action to restricting their access to livestreaming and communication with strangers on services including gaming. We will also introduce legislation to tackle extreme violence content, to create a safer online environment, particularly for children and young people.
Alongside delivering the recommendations in phase 1, we will work with the inquiry throughout phase 2 to strengthen our understanding of the evolving threat from extreme violence and the effectiveness of different interventions.
In the immediate aftermath of the attack, my predecessor appointed Lord Anderson as the interim independent Prevent commissioner and asked him to review the Southport attack along with the tragic murder of Sir David Amess. Today I am also publishing a letter accepting all the recommendations Lord Anderson made and setting out how we have delivered against them.
Today my thoughts remain with Alice da Silva Aguiar, Bebe King and Elsie Dot Stancombe, their families and friends, and the survivors. We owe it to them to act on the findings of these reports.
[HCWS178]
National Security (State Threats) Bill
Shabana Mahmood ExcerptsWednesday 17th June 2026
(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 View all National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 17 June 2026 - (17 Jun 2026)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The first responsibility of a state is to protect its citizens. The security of our nation is the basis upon which our democracy, our prosperity and our way of life depend. If a state cannot guarantee the safety of its people, every other promise it makes rings hollow. Today we debate a relatively short Bill, but its brevity should not be mistaken for unimportance; it is essential to meeting the sacred responsibility of protecting this country and our fellow citizens.
This Bill comes at a time when the need is great. We live in an increasingly dangerous world—one in which many of our old assumptions no longer hold. The boundaries between war and peace have blurred; the tactics employed by hostile actors have become more sophisticated, more deniable and more insidious; and the threat has grown in scale. The director general of MI5 recently revealed that the number of individuals under investigation for state threat activity had grown by more than a third in the space of a year. After many years in which the Security Service was focused overwhelmingly on counter-terror work, it must now also respond to threats from foreign powers that are greater in number than at any time in a generation.
The nature of the threats posed by foreign powers will be known by many in this House. We have seen physical threats against individuals and property; we have witnessed attempts to interfere in and influence our democracy; and we have experienced cyber-attacks targeting both the state and the private sector that disrupt critical infrastructure and compromise sensitive data. The source of these state threats has come predominantly, although not exclusively, from three countries: Russia, China and Iran. I should emphasise that the threats from each present differently, both in scope and nature, and I will take each in turn.
The Russian state, as we know all too well, is responsible for deaths on British soil. What began with the murder of Alexander Litvinenko was repeated in Salisbury with the attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal. The Russian state’s wanton disregard for human life was evident in the risks it was happy to pose to British citizens, which led, tragically, to the death of Dawn Sturgess—an innocent British woman killed by the Russian state.
Putin’s Russia has also sought to influence our politics, as demonstrated by the guilty plea by Nathan Gill, Reform UK’s former leader in Wales, who accepted bribes for peddling pro-Kremlin narratives. Russia is also a prolific and malevolent force in cyber-space. A recent targeting of politicians, journalists, universities and civil society organisations was disrupted by our security services in December 2025, resulting in the sanctioning of eight Russian cyber-intelligence officers.
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, our approach to China is nuanced: we will co-operate where we can and challenge where we must. There are areas on which we will engage with China, including the economy, the environment and, indeed, on certain shared security challenges. Choosing not to engage with China is no choice at all. However, national security is the first duty of Government, and China does pose real national security threats to the United Kingdom. We have seen cyber-attacks, foreign interference, and espionage targeted at our institutions. Just days ago, MI5 and fellow Five Eyes members issued an alert warning of the threat posed by China’s military intelligence services. The Hong Kong police force has also encouraged transnational repression on our soil against a community to whom we are proud to have given sanctuary.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the Minister for bringing forward this legislation. I am concerned on behalf of my constituents of Chinese descent who still have families living in Hong Kong and China and who are still subject to persecution and human rights issues. The pursuit of my constituents by Chinese officials in Belfast and elsewhere in Northern Ireland has to be stopped. What can the Minister do through this legislation to stop the pursuit by Chinese officials—clandestinely, or in whatever way it may be—of my constituents, who are law-abiding citizens, just because they happen to be Chinese and just because happen to have relatives in Hong Kong?
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.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
On oversight, will the Secretary of State confirm that proposed new section 33G of the National Security Act 2023, which would be added by clause 3, is not intended to limit access to justice, or prevent challenges through the courts to future decisions made under human rights principles? That seems to me to be a measure that her Government would not want to bequeath to future Governments, who might misuse the legislation.
Shabana Mahmood
I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s construction of
proposed new section 33G, but I am sure that we can pick up that point in Committee, when we do line-by-line scrutiny. The Bill is intended to be read alongside all our other pieces of international and human rights legislation, and the Bill is compliant with our domestic and international human rights obligations.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)
The Bill gives considerably more powers to the Home Secretary and the Government, so it results in greater Executive power. Further to earlier interventions, is she not concerned that the Executive, and this branch of the Executive, are to have much greater power, but there is no commensurate increase in bodies’ accountability to Parliament for deciding what organisations and which individuals are to be sanctioned, and what the system will be for making those decisions? We have been through this process many times, going right back to the Prevention of Terrorism Acts in the 1970s. Does she not feel that there is a danger of our moving too far away from parliamentary and public accountability for the very important decision to deny liberty to various individuals, who will have difficulty challenging that legally?
Shabana Mahmood
I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman almost entirely. The Executive have a responsibility to protect and maintain this country’s national security, and we have to move when we see that hostile actors are employing new methods to put our people and interests at risk. We have seen an increase in hostile activity from those who are not directly related to foreign powers, but have a relationship with them. That is why we are bringing forward the designated body condition in the Bill. It rather sounds as if he questions the basis for us having counter-terror legislation, or this legislation, at all. I disagree with him on that. I think we have a suitable legal framework, under both the Terrorism Act 2000 and this new Bill, to deal with all the threats that this country faces, including those that are emerging as new ways for people to put our citizens at risk.
Let me turn to the threat posed by Iran. We are debating this Bill in the shadow of a recent surge in hostile activity by the Iranian state. In just a single year, MI5 has tracked and disrupted over 20 potentially lethal Iranian plots. These have targeted dissidents, media organisations and critics of the Iranian regime, and they pose a real and enduring threat to our Jewish community here at home.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
The right hon. Lady has already spoken powerfully about attacks on politicians, and the Prime Minister’s home was recently attacked. One point she has not raised, but hopefully will come to, is the nature of the media engagement that follows attacks. Lies and distortions have been used to suggest all number of different abuses by the Prime Minister—all of them false—when this was simply a Russian-paid attack on his home. Does she agree that it is not just Russia that is doing this? PressTV and anybody who has taken money from it have been active participants in the hate-filled propaganda that we see spreading, online and offline, in our country, encouraging murder and attacks on Jewish people, and attacks on our entire democracy.
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman is right. It is incumbent on all parliamentarians to reflect on the platforms we appear on, and what those platforms are seeking to do. There will always be a balance to be struck with freedom of speech and other matters, but where activities lead people to fall foul of the law, they will be pursued with the full force of the law—whether that is this Bill, the National Security Act 2023, or any other part of our criminal legislation framework.
On the attacks on the Prime Minister’s home, let me just say, factually, what happened in the criminal justice system. It was not part of the prosecution’s case that there was any additional direction of that activity. That was not part of the evidence. I would not want to let that stand without making that clear about the prosecution.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Home Secretary will know that I am an admirer of hers, and we tend to agree about much. We certainly agree about the threat posed by Iran. She will be familiar with the report produced by the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I am pleased to be a member—indeed, I am basking in the glory of the compliments that the ISC has already received—which said:
“Iran poses a wide-ranging, persistent and unpredictable threat to the UK, UK nationals, and UK interests. Iran has a high appetite for risk when conducting offensive activity and”—
this is the critical point—
“its intelligence services are ferociously well-resourced with significant areas of asymmetric strength.”
Iran is a particular threat, and the Home Secretary will well understand that the way it uses its intelligence services is entirely different from the way that we see our intelligence services in this country. I have no doubt that she is mindful of that fact in relation to the Bill. I see this Bill as quite closely associated with how we deal with Iran. Will the Home Secretary comment on that?
On a point raised by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), one way of dealing with oversight would be for the ISC to be pre-briefed by a Minister when proscription was considered, rather than it having to play catch up afterwards.
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.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The Bill’s offences are broad enough to inadvertently criminalise routine humanitarian operations, which could pose a significant problem for non-governmental organisations operating in countries where state institutions or public bodies could become designated bodies. Although safeguards for humanitarian operations are in the explanatory notes, they are not in the Bill. Will the Secretary of State think about putting those into the Bill?
Shabana Mahmood
I do not think that the activities that the hon. Lady mentioned are caught by the Bill. We have been clear in the explanatory notes to the Bill—I refer her to paragraphs 37 and 43—that diplomatic activity, and indeed humanitarian activity, will not be caught by any of the Bill’s measures. We do not want to create a regime with lots of exemptions as that would enable hostile states to try to play games with our legal framework by dressing up front organisations. I reassure her that the measures in the Bill will not apply to any humanitarian organisation going about its business as a humanitarian organisation.
If there is any doubt, I refer hon. Members to subsection (6)(d) of proposed new section 17B, which makes it clear that anything that has essentially been approved by the UK, or is part of an agreement to which the UK is a party, will not be caught. If humanitarian organisations are concerned, I urge them to talk to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office—as the hon. Lady well knows, that happens regularly in the humanitarian sector. The combination of all those provisions will ensure that the activity that she wants to see continue, as I do, will not be caught by the Bill’s measures.
I understand that there is some consternation from the Opposition about what I might be intending to say in the rest of my speech. If that is so, let me say first that we might not have needed an unnecessary vote on the programme motion, but I will make quick progress as I explain the thinking behind the measures.
Clause 1 also introduces a new designated body condition. Under the National Security Act, it can be difficult to secure a prosecution, as a link must be proved that runs all the way from the individual to a foreign power, but through the designated body condition more organisations will be brought to justice.
On the so-called support offence, clause 2 sets out new offences related to those new designated bodies. Again, it amends the National Security Act, adding new sections 17A to 17C. The first offence is supporting a designated body, which covers inviting or expressing support and arranging, managing or addressing a meeting in support of a designated body. The offence will be triggered when the reason for the supportive act is to prejudice the safety and interests of the United Kingdom in what is known as a prohibited purpose test, echoing the National Security Act.
Let me say again that it should be noted that there will be occasions when individuals and organisations have to engage with some designated state actors. The new designation regime will ensure that diplomats can work on behalf of this country and that humanitarian organisations can continue their lifesaving work.
The second offence is to assist a designated body. It will become an offence to materially assist a designated organisation. That includes both directly assisting such an organisation and assisting a proxy organisation acting on its behalf.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
To build on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), if a humanitarian organisation were forced to make payment to a designated organisation to do its humanitarian work, would that lead it to fall foul of the Bill, or is the Home Secretary confirming that it would not be liable to prosecution?
Shabana Mahmood
That conduct would not be caught. Again, I point the hon. Member to proposed new section 17B, where the combination of subsection (6)(b) and subsection (4) ensures that the work of NGOs is not caught by the tests set out. We have had specific advice on that point from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, I have discussed it at length with the Attorney General’s Office, and Law Officers have had a look at it. We believe that the way in which the Bill is constructed does not catch humanitarian activities. It is not intended to do so, and we have made it clear in the explanatory notes that it will not do so. Our reading of how the Bill is constructed means that it will not do so.
Let me move on to the third offence in clause 2, which is of obtaining a material benefit from a designated body. An individual is outlawed from receiving a payment or a gift from a designated body either on their own behalf or on behalf of someone else. The very act of making the agreement would also constitute a crime even if no money were exchanged and no service were provided. That would cover a hacker hired to carry out a cyber-attack, a criminal gang commissioned to conduct arson attacks on British soil and a gang recruiting thugs to do their state-directed dirty work. Those two offences—assisting and benefiting from a designated body—would carry prison terms of up to 14 years alongside the sentences they may receive for any other illegal activity conducted, with sabotage and espionage offences carrying life sentences.
To trigger the offences of assisting a designated body and of obtaining benefit from a designated body, an individual must know that they are aiding a body that has been designated or, crucially, ought reasonably to know that they are doing so. Ignorance is therefore not a defence. If a reasonable person should have been able to surmise who would benefit from such an attack, the individual will be prosecuted despite their professed ignorance. The new powers are significant—
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I was going to ask the Home Secretary later but, as she has raised the matter, perhaps I can ask her this now. On proposed new section 17C of the National Security Act and, indeed, in respect of other parts of the Bill, the knowledge of the person who may be committing an offence becomes important. Can the Home Secretary clarify—because the language in the Bill is potentially ambiguous—that the knowledge required of the person in question is that the body they are supporting or being remunerated by is a designated body? The language could be read simply to mean that the individual needs to know that the body they are supporting is a particular body, not necessarily that they know that that body has been designated. Can the Home Secretary be clear that the language refers to knowledge of designation, not simply knowledge of the particular institution or body that the individual is supporting or being remunerated by?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before the Home Secretary responds, I remind the House that many people wish to contribute and it is just a four-hour debate.
Shabana Mahmood
Let me be very clear: it is the former of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s points. On the construction of knowing or “ought reasonably to know”, obviously the “ought reasonably to know” is both a subjective test of what was known and then an objective test as to what it is reasonable to surmise based on that knowledge. We think that captures exactly the kind of activity that I hope all of us in the House can agree should meet the test for criminal sanction.
Let me make progress quicker than perhaps others might have wanted. As I have noted already, the genesis for the Bill comes from the excellent work of Jonathan Hall KC, whom I thank for the work he has completed. In May 2025, he made further recommendations regarding gaps in our state-threats legislation. The Government have accepted all his recommendations in full, and we will legislate for them all in due course, but, in the interests of the pace at which we are required to bring this vital legislation forward, that will not happen in this Bill. As was set out in the King’s Speech, there will be further national security legislation in this Session.
Every day, our intelligence agencies and their law enforcement colleagues make this country safer for their presence. They do so, however, facing a rising challenge. The threat from terrorism is growing and, at the same time, we face foreign powers acting with greater hostility than we have seen at any time since the cold war. In the face of the growing threat, it is essential that we equip those we expect to protect us with the tools they need to do the job at the moment that they need them the most. The need for the Bill is therefore great. It gives us a new and powerful tool to tackle hostile states and those who act on their behalf.
I end with a request to the House. We do not just require this Bill; we require it as quickly as possible. For that reason, the Government have promised to fast-track the legislation through both Houses. While we must debate it fully and rigorously, and I know that we will, I hope we can work together in the pursuit of a shared ideal, and one that is greater than our political differences: our solemn duty to protect our country. I hope that, today, the whole House can unite around the first and most sacred responsibility of us all. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.
National Security (State Threats) Bill (Allocation of Time)
Shabana Mahmood ExcerptsWednesday 17th June 2026
(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 View all National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 17 June 2026 - (17 Jun 2026)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
I will be brief in my remarks. I regret the approach taken by the official Opposition. They know full well that this is a very tightly constructed Bill that takes forward a specific set of recommendations made by the independent reviewer of terrorism and state threats legislation. It will be fully scrutinised by this House and the other place. The reason for moving quickly, as the hon. Lady well knows, is because we need the wider power to designate bodies, which we will debate in due course, so that we can move quickly, given the threats the country faces. The need for speed, I believe, is made by recent events, and I think the Government are doing the right thing. I ask her to think again. Of course, if we must divide then so be it, but I would have expected better from someone with her experience.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Do any other Members wish to contribute? I call Sir Jeremy Wright.
Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Today marks one year since the publication of Baroness Casey’s national audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse, and one year since this Government accepted all 12 recommendations.
This was a landmark report, exposing more than a decade of inaction in the face of these appalling crimes, and it is right that these findings continue to command the highest level of attention.
Time after time, victims and survivors were let down by the very institutions responsible for keeping them safe, despite repeated warnings and long-standing recommendations for action. This Government have been clear that we will not lose any more time in pursuing truth and justice for victims and survivors, who deserve so much better. I remain determined that we confront these failings directly and decisively. We must be clear-eyed about what went wrong, ensure full accountability, and drive the lasting change that is so urgently needed.
I want to take this opportunity to update the House on the Government’s progress in delivering all 12 of Baroness Casey’s recommendations, and driving the change that victims and survivors deserve.
In response to recommendation 1, we have legislated in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 to create new offences in England and Wales covering rape and other penetrative sexual activity with a child under 16 by an adult regardless of apparent consent, where that adult did not reasonably believe that the child was aged 16 or over, as long as they are at least 13. We will conduct a post-implementation review of the new offences to test what impact they are having, including looking at how the element of “reasonable belief in age” works in practice. We will also launch a public consultation on how to treat close-in-age relationships.
In response to recommendation 2, we have established a national police operation into group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse, Operation Beaconport, overseen by the National Crime Agency and delivered in partnership with policing, backed by £37.7 million this year. This is a tenfold increase from last year—financial year 2025-26—and is part of a £100 million funding package to drive a crackdown on child sexual abuse. This investment will support the collaborative work of Operation Beaconport to reset the way in which policing responds to group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse including by reviewing closed cases, building capability, embedding trauma-informed practice and approaching child sexual exploitation like serious and organised crime. We have also established the statutory independent inquiry into grooming gangs, backed by a £65 million commitment, with a chair and panel who are committed to getting the answers that victims and survivors have so long fought for.
In response to recommendation 3, we have legislated through the Crime and Policing Act 2026 to disregard convictions and cautions for loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution—contrary to section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959—where the offender was under 18 at the time of the offence. The section 1 offence was amended by the Serious Crime Act 2015 so that it no longer applied to persons under 18. Section 68 of the 2015 Act removed from the Sexual Offences Act 2003 anachronistic references to “child prostitution”, instead recognising such children as victims of child sexual exploitation.
For cases not covered by the disregard scheme, the appropriate route is to apply to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Last month, the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred its first conviction of a grooming gang victim to the courts since Baroness Casey’s audit.
In response to recommendation 4, we continue to work with police forces to improve collection of ethnicity data for suspects of these crimes, and we have committed—through the police reform White Paper—to legislate through the police reform Bill to ensure we have the necessary powers to mandate the collection of this and other forms of data. In the meantime, we will hold police forces to account for improving performance in the collection of this data as a priority.
In response to recommendation 5, we have secured the new information-sharing duty through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, to ensure it is unequivocally clear that information must be shared where it is necessary to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
Parliamentary progress to pass this vital piece of legislation was slower than the Government would have liked. However, since Royal Assent, the Department for Education has worked swiftly to develop draft statutory guidance that is now out for consultation. This pace will enable the information-sharing duty to be commenced in September 2026. In parallel, the Government response to the consultation on the child protection authority will be published this summer. Updates to children’s services inspections and the regulations for the relevant workforces will reflect these changes in legislation.
In response to recommendation 6, the passing of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 means that there is legislative provision for a single unique identifier that will improve information sharing. In April 2025, the Department initiated a series of test and learn pilots, starting with Wigan local authority, to establish how a single unique identifier can be implemented effectively. Initial pilots explored access to the NHS number for local authorities and matching rates between school census data, data held by children’s social care, and the NHS personal demographics system, which holds all NHS numbers. Building on this learning, work is now progressing in close partnership with the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England to design and deliver the next phase of implementation.
We have been explicit in our ambition to move at pace, with a clear intention to bring forward regulations at the earliest opportunity and by the end of this Parliament.
In response to recommendation 7, the Department for Education and the Home Office have undertaken a deep dive, looking at policing systems to help inform the work done in recommendation 6 and to establish how an identifier for children would work in policing systems. Work is also under way to improve national data integration and data sharing by developing and establishing a national data integration and exploitation service, which will link key policing datasets and improve data sharing.
The Home Office has also invested record amounts in the tackling organised exploitation programme, including £10.8 million this year, which brings high-end technological capabilities, including AI, to bear in order to enable policing to better exploit large datasets to identify potential victims and suspects.
In response to recommendation 8, we have made it a core requirement of Operation Beaconport to ensure an enduring legacy across policing, so that forces approach child sexual exploitation investigations like serious and organised crime, and we are investing in the capabilities to enable this at all levels.
In response to recommendation 9, in December 2025 the Department for Education completed this action and published “Children in need: A focus on sexual abuse and exploitation”, followed in March 2026 by the publication of qualitative research. We are disseminating this widely and harnessing opportunities to improve identification, practice and data.
Tackling child sexual exploitation and abuse is a top priority for the Department for Education. This includes improving its identification by children’s services, as well as work under way to improve the quality of serious incident notifications. This activity is being personally driven by the Secretary of State for Education.
We are looking to change the data we collect on children in the children’s social care system to better understand the abuse they suffer. We have strengthened the statutory guidance, “Working together to safeguard children”, in order to ensure that child sexual exploitation and abuse is strongly reflected throughout. The 2026 update included changes to areas of the guidance about submitting serious incident notifications.
We are rolling out child sexual exploitation and abuse training to child protection practitioners, and embedding child sexual exploitation and abuse in new standards for lead child protection practitioners.
Joint targeted area inspections are currently assessing how effectively local areas identify and respond to child sexual abuse. Findings from these inspections, alongside new practice guides, will strengthen the evidence around what works to improve the identification and response to child sexual exploitation and abuse.
In response to recommendation 10, the Home Office has commissioned UK Research and Innovation to deliver independent research into the drivers of group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse, including cultural factors, group dynamics and the role of online technologies. This will strengthen the national evidence base, enabling a more detailed understanding of the factors at play, and will support the development of more targeted and effective interventions. Calls for applications will launch soon.
In response to recommendation 11, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 includes provisions to set national standards for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing in order to ensure that high safeguarding standards are applied across the country. The Department for Transport will consult on these standards later this year. Through the Act, the Government also have powers to allow all licensing authorities to take immediate action where there is an urgent risk to public safety, wherever a taxi or private hire vehicle is licensed or operating. The King’s Speech announced the development of a proposed draft taxis and private hire vehicles Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny during this parliamentary session, which will go further still. This will include reforming regulation of taxis and private hire vehicles, stronger enforcement powers for regulators, mandating a national database of all licensees, and taking action so that operators and drivers are licensed where they intend to work.
Finally, in response to recommendation 12, the Government are fully committed to the implementation of these recommendations, and the Home Office continues to track progress across them.
We have made good progress against the mandate for change set out by Baroness Casey, but our job is far from complete. Among other things, we have committed to a post-implementation review to assess how the changes to the criminal law are operating in practice, and the new independent inquiry will shortly announce which local areas will face specific local investigations. We need to do—and are doing—more to improve the collection of suspect ethnicity data in the short term. We need to ensure that the changes to information-sharing policy and practice work effectively so that the safety of children is prioritised. As set out in the police reform White Paper, we need to do more to ensure that policing data that is siloed in local systems can be effectively shared, which is why we have announced a new national data integration and exploitation service.
The Government response to Baroness Casey’s recommendations is just one part of a comprehensive approach to tackling all forms of child sexual exploitation and abuse—backed up by investment of over £100 million to help tackle offending, protect children, and support victims and survivors of these heinous crimes wherever they occur, including within the family home, institutions, in the community or online.
Following recommendations from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, we have taken action, including by recently introducing measures in the Crime and Policing Act on the new mandatory reporting duty, reforms to Disclosure and Barring, and the removal of the civil limitation period. The Home Office is working with the Department of Health and Social Care to roll out the Child House model of support for child victims, and with the Department for Education to establish a child protection authority to strengthen national oversight and improve child protection.
We are also acting on our commitment in the violence against women and girls strategy to make it impossible for children to take, share or view nude images. This measure supports and goes beyond IICSA’s recommendations on protecting children online, and reflects Baroness Casey’s finding that grooming is now as likely to begin online.
One year ago, Baroness Casey set out in stark terms the repeated inaction and failures faced by the victims and survivors of these horrific crimes, and she called for action. We are acting: to rectify the failures of the past, to bring perpetrators to justice, to ensure victims and survivors can count on us to support them, and to do everything possible to prevent these offences from ever happening in the first place.
I recognise the long-standing and deeply held interest of parliamentarians in this issue, and I am grateful for their continued scrutiny and engagement. I also pay tribute to Baroness Casey for her formidable work, and to the victims and survivors whose courage in coming forward has been instrumental in driving forward this agenda. They will remain at the heart of our response.
[HCWS115]
Oral Answers to Questions
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Under the previous Government, net migration hit record highs after they lowered entry requirements and opened our borders. My definition of what is best for the UK economy is one where migration is controlled and where there is investment in skills and training for our home-grown workforce, not an overreliance on overseas recruitment.
Dr Chambers
I thank the Home Secretary for her response. We have 104 different nationalities working in Winchester hospital, throughout Hampshire over one third of the workers in the social care sector are born outside the EU, and we know statistically that we are more likely to be cared for or treated by an immigrant than we are to be waiting behind one for a GP appointment. Does the Home Secretary recognise that the current visa rules for healthcare workers are driving away many of the people who are keeping our NHS and social care services running?
Shabana Mahmood
No one disputes the tremendous contribution that international workers make to our NHS. The picture the hon. Gentleman describes is replicated in constituencies across the country, and we will always welcome that contribution. Overseas recruitment in the NHS is falling primarily because the NHS is leading by example and doing what we want all employers to do: look first at domestic recruitment to ensure that the skills and expertise of the health service are home-grown. I believe that those two systems can go hand in hand, but we have to make changes at the same time.
Christine Jardine
Hospitality, social care and the tech sector are all vital sources of employment and economic stability in my constituency. The companies in those sectors are telling me that, despite their efforts to recruit domestically first, the Home Secretary’s changes to indefinite leave to remain are making it very difficult for them to attract the skilled workforce from abroad that they need to keep the sector going. Will the Home Secretary reconsider the changes in the light of that impact and lighten the regulations to make it possible for these companies to survive?
Shabana Mahmood
We have to remember that currently in our country we have more than 1 million young people who are not in employment, education or training, and the hon. Lady and all Members should want us to turn that around and make sure that there are employment opportunities and a positive economic future in their own country for those young people in many of the sectors that she describes. We are the Government who have formalised that link between migration and skills reforms to make sure that companies are investing in the domestic workforce first and foremost before recruiting from abroad.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
It is a fact to be proud of that four of the world’s 10 greatest universities in the global rankings are in the UK, including Imperial College London’s White City campus in my constituency. We punch way above our population weight and our universities are genuine engines of growth. However, evidence shows that the withdrawal of the post-study work visa coupled with the rumours about changes in indefinite leave to remain are driving some of those brightest brains who have produced such statistics to competitor countries. Will my right hon. Friend meet me, education Ministers and my two vice-chancellors to thrash out a solution? There are real problems, but we do not want to scare off genuine innovators and wealth creators.
Shabana Mahmood
This Government have increased routes at the very top end of the skills spectrum, such as through our global talent visa, to make sure that we are attracting talent from all over the world. We have a good track record in doing so and will continue that. There is work to do with our university sector to make sure that students recruited to this country are on good courses and making a contribution, and obviously we want to make sure that we use the best of that global talent in the future. The changes we are making are not about students—students do not come to attain indefinite leave to remain in our country—but for other parts of the migration system. I will make sure, however, that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the migration Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) to discuss these matters in more detail.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
In Hartlepool we are reversing 30 years of globalisation and taking advantage of the unprecedented falls in immigration, thanks to this Home Secretary, and training our own, whether through our Health and Social Care Academy, our civil engineering academy, our centre of excellence for welding or our nuclear trades academy. Does the Secretary of State agree that rather than seeing it as an economic threat, falling immigration is an economic opportunity to train our own?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At a point when we have over a million young people not in employment, education or training, it is imperative that we make progress in this area. We would be letting our young people down if we did not take this opportunity to ensure that we are investing in our domestic skills workforce. That is a cross-Department priority and the Home Office is playing its full part.
Shabana Mahmood
The employment statistics that the hon. Lady has just used run from January 2020 to December 2025, so I congratulate her on exposing the track record of the Tory Government.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Dodgy shops are blighting our high streets—we all see them in our constituencies—so this Government have announced a new high street organised crime taskforce, investing £30 million in law enforcement action. That will fund more officers and a nationwide unit based in the National Crime Agency, and will strengthen powers to tackle these criminals.
Jo Platt
We welcome the creation of the Government’s high street organised crime unit, and in particular its focus on strengthened partnership working between enforcement agencies. In Leigh and Atherton, communities can see that commitment, but they are asking when they will see action on dodgy shops operating in plain sight. Given the national campaign I have launched with colleagues, will the Minister set out when enforcement will begin locally, how partnerships will be delivered and how we will ensure that these criminal enterprises are shut down without delay?
Shabana Mahmood
First, I welcome my hon. Friend’s important work in this area. Greater Manchester is one of three hotspot areas selected for an enhanced operational crackdown in addition to the nationwide campaign. I cannot comment on specific dates due to operational sensitivities, but the public can expect to see the start of a major offensive against dodgy shops beginning this year.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The Home Secretary will be aware of the inquiry that the Committee is conducting on the role that organised criminality plays in the crime we see on our high streets. We heard compelling evidence recently about counterfeit goods, the role they play, and the role that forced labour plays throughout that supply chain. Can the Home Secretary explain what she is doing to combat forced labour? I look forward to putting more questions to her when she appears before my Committee before the summer recess.
Shabana Mahmood
It is always a pleasure to appear before the Home Affairs Committee, and I thank the right hon. Member and her Committee for their work on this important area. She will know that the money we announced recently will fund work by trading standards, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and immigration enforcement. If we pick up cases of forced labour, that will engage our modern slavery obligations. That money is part of a full-spectrum response to a complex issue. I saw some of the counterfeit goods when I joined the police on a raid at the end of last week. It is a real problem, and the Government are ensuring that we fund every aspect of how we fix it.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
We have made the landmark commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. The Government have already begun to implement domestic abuse protection orders, which have protected more than 1,000 victims, Raneem’s law, placing domestic abuse experts in 999 control rooms, and the provision of specialist rape and sexual offence teams in all police forces in England and Wales. Our ambition is clear, but there is much more work to be done.
Jas Athwal
Harshita Barela was just 24 years old when she was murdered and her body was dumped in a car boot in Ilford. Nearly two years on, her husband and alleged killer has still not been arrested, and is believed to be hiding in India. A few weeks ago I was humbled to meet Harshita’s parents, who had made the journey to trace her last steps. They deserve justice and closure. Does the Home Secretary share my horror at this vile murder, and will she meet me to discuss what further steps can be taken by those in this country, working with the Indian authorities, to bring her alleged killer to justice?
Shabana Mahmood
My deepest sympathies are with Harshita’s family for their unimaginable loss. No one should have to go through what she and her loved ones have endured. As the investigation is live, I cannot comment further. I hope my hon. Friend will understand that doing so could prejudice the investigation and the path to justice for Harshita and her family.
Mary Kelly Foy
At my recent market stall at Durham Pride, local Labour members and I spoke to many people about the Government’s VAWG strategy. The message we received was clear: it is strongly welcomed but long overdue. The clock is ticking, and there is still no published timetable. When will the Government action the plan and the necessary grassroots consultation? How will progress be publicly reported so that women and girls in Durham and beyond feel reassured that this Government take seriously the effort to stamp out violence against women and girls?
Shabana Mahmood
First and foremost, this Government’s commitment is evidenced by our landmark commitment to halve the levels of violence against women and girls over a decade. We have a deliberate 10-year vision to do that, because it is a wider societal change that we are seeking to enact. We are delivering that transformational change to keep more victims safe. Work has begun, but there is much more to be done. As my hon. Friend will know, these matters are discussed regularly in the House, and I will keep Members updated.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Home Secretary for her responses. In the last two to three weeks in Northern Ireland, we have had two horrific murders of women and their unborn children; in both cases, heavy sentences have been handed out. Given her responses to the hon. Members for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), it is important that we have similar rules in Northern Ireland for those who carry out vile, horrific killings of their partners and their unborn children. There must be a sentence that equals that.
Shabana Mahmood
Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that criminal law applies across the whole of the UK. Those are things that we track as a Government, and I will look at the substance to see if we need to change the law. We work very closely with our colleagues in Northern Ireland, and I will ensure that the ministerial team discuss these matters with their counterparts in Northern Ireland.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
May I put on the record my sympathy for the family and colleagues of Sir Alex Younger? He was a true patriot.
Two years ago, this Government pledged to halve violence against women and girls within a decade, but the Minister responsible for delivering that promise has now resigned. In her resignation letter, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) laid a damning charge: that Government progress came from the fear of embarrassment from
“threats made by me in light of catastrophic mistakes”,
and that it was only when the Prime Minister’s shameful decision to appoint paedophile apologist Lord Mandelson “bubbled up” that No. 10 would “kick into gear” and finally do anything about women and girls.
Two years in, we still do not know how this Government are going to measure violence against women and girls and whether it has halved, so my ask is simple and is something that the Government can do today: extradite Andrew and Tristan Tate to the UK to answer Crown Prosecution Service charges that were laid in 2024. It is a political decision. A year since I asked for them to be extradited, the Government should do what is right. If they are in Dubai or Hong Kong, they can be extradited. Why will the Government not extradite them?
Shabana Mahmood
The shadow Minister will know that we never comment on matters relating to extradition, or on any specific cases. I would never want to say anything at the Dispatch Box that prejudices any future action—she knows that well enough. She has made her point in relation to those two men, and I am sure that point has been heard.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
I believe that we in this House have a duty to protect the children of this nation, but there can be little doubt that collectively we have failed to keep pace with the changing threats they face. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the horror of online sexual exploitation and abuse, but we have begun to change the story.
Today, we laid down the gauntlet to tech firms. We have told them that they must block nudity on children’s phones. We know the tech is there; we know there is a way. The question is: do they have the will? The tech firms now have three months. The clock is ticking. If they do not introduce these controls, we will legislate and force them to do so. This is a landmark moment in the protection of children in this country, so if I may, I will end by paying tribute to the woman who has pushed for this harder than anyone else, my hon. Friend and former colleague in the Home Office, the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). The children of this country will be safer as a result of her work.
Dr Chambers
I too pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley for her immense campaigning and work in this area. Can the Secretary of State be more specific on what actions will be taken to prevent women and girls becoming victims of AI-generated sexual content, because it really can ruin lives?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is right that it can ruin lives. The Government have already held different platforms to account, and the hon. Gentleman will know about our row with Grok and the action we forced as a result. We are alive to the online environment and what that means for deepfake images and nudification apps—areas where we have already taken action. The action today on device-level controls to block nudity for children is a game-changing moment because it will prevent children from becoming sex offenders before they even know what sex is, and from being victims of sextortion. It is the right way forward.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
The “Police Anti-Racism Commitment”, a copy of which I have here, published in March 2025 by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, asks police to reverse engineer the same arrest rates for different ethnic groups, even though offending rates are different. It expressly calls for different racial groups to be treated differently, saying that people should not treat “everyone ‘the same’” or be “colour blind”. This is a formal policy requirement for two-tier policing. I have been raising this issue for over a year, and I have never had an answer, including from the Home Secretary last Tuesday. Let me try again: does she agree that this racist and dangerous policy document should be immediately withdrawn—yes or no?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the NPCC, which is independent of Government, is rightly reviewing the wording of the “Police Anti-Racism Commitment” to ensure that there is no ambiguity or suggestion of differential treatment. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman speaks from a sedentary position, but I say to him that I have taken more action on preventing differential treatment in the criminal justice system than he or his party ever did.
Chris Philp
The Home Secretary still gives no clear answer. We have repeatedly raised serious concerns with the Government’s Islamophobia definition. South Wales police has now instructed staff to record anything that goes beyond “legitimate discussion of Islam”, even if there is no crime. That could then be disclosed on someone’s Disclosure and Barring Service check. Police officers in south Wales will now have to decide what is or is not legitimate discussion of Islam. No other religion is treated that way in south Wales. That is completely wrong. Parliament has rightly repealed blasphemy laws, and criticising religion is part of free speech, so does the Home Secretary agree that the guidance is wrong and should be scrapped immediately? Let’s try a simple yes or no.
Shabana Mahmood
Given that the right hon. Gentleman represents a party and former Government that did not take any action on dealing with hate crime, anti-Muslim hatred, or other forms of hatred, I am not going to take any lessons from him. Let me make clear from the Dispatch Box that the police, wherever they are—south Wales or anywhere else—must always police without fear or favour, and we all must always be equal before the law.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Last week we discussed the murder of Henry Nowak, which continues to shock the country. As we said last week, his father, Mark, asked politicians not to use the tragedy to stoke division and hatred. With that request in mind, and considering the need to maintain trust in policing, would the Home Secretary like to take this opportunity to urge Vice-President J. D. Vance and the US Department of Justice to butt out of our politics, leave British law enforcement to Britain and, just as importantly, show respect for British victims of crime?
Shabana Mahmood
I urge all commentators, would-be commentators and wannabes of every description to leave our criminal justice system to us. We have been going for a very long time, and we will carry on in that vein.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Jess Phillips (Birmingham Yardley) (Lab)
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute back to the Home Secretary, who has worked incredibly hard on the issues on which the Government made their announcement today. The BBC carries the headline that we will stop children sending and receiving images; can she say for the House that the change will also stop children ever taking naked images of themselves, and give us an assurance that her Department is working on robust legislation and a legislative vehicle to make sure that can happen?
Shabana Mahmood
I very much thank my hon. Friend for her question, and she is absolutely right. Let me clarify for the House that this involves the taking of those images. We will also follow through on the threat to legislate, and the Department is working at pace on the content of the legislation and the appropriate vehicle in the second Session.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
Murder of Henry Nowak
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the murder of Henry Nowak.
Last December, Henry, aged just 18, was a first-year university student with his life ahead of him. He was kind, hard-working and loved by his family and friends. His murder, at the hands of Vickrum Digwa, was a horrifying act. Digwa murdered Henry and then lied about him as he lay dying, falsely accusing him of racism. It was an evil act.
I know that the thoughts of the whole House will now be with Henry’s family and friends, just as mine are. What they have been through is heartbreaking and, for most of us, unimaginable. I know that nothing can take their pain and loss away, but yesterday we saw some measure of justice. Digwa was sentenced to life imprisonment. He will serve a minimum term of 21 years. His mother, Kiran Kaur, has been convicted of assisting an offender. She is due to be sentenced on 17 July. The Crown Prosecution Service has today authorised further charges against other members of the attacker’s family.
With further sentencing and possible charges pending, we must be cautious still in what we say about this case so that we do not place any proceedings at risk. However, I can and must pay tribute today to the dignified and powerful words of the Nowak family in the statement they gave after yesterday’s sentencing. They deserve answers, in particular about what happened on that awful night and the actions of the police officers who arrived on the scene.
I expect many in this House, and many more across this country, have now seen the police officer’s bodycam footage, which was released last night. It is, without question, a disturbing and tragic thing to see. People are rightly asking questions about how the situation was handled. They are shocked and disquieted to hear Henry’s words, “I can’t breathe.”
I know that it is difficult to wait any longer for answers, but there is a proper process for assessing whether there have been incidents of police misconduct, led by the Independent Office for Police Conduct. It will determine what could and should have been done differently, and it will determine what action may need to be taken against individual officers. The family yesterday called on me
“to ensure the IOPC has the resources, authority and independence it needs to conduct a full, fearless and transparent investigation.”
I can confirm today that I will do so. The IOPC will be equipped and encouraged to act; to find the truth; and to ensure, if necessary, that there are consequences.
There have been accusations, I know, of two-tier policing, and that one community has been prioritised over another. It will be for the IOPC to determine the facts in this case—I cannot and will not comment on them—but let me say this on the question of preferential treatment more widely: the police in this country have a sacred duty to police without fear or favour. Everyone in this country is equal before the law; it is the promise upon which our whole justice system rests. The equality of every citizen is the foundation on which the openness, tolerance and generosity of this country rests.
Let me also be clear about one other thing—a dangerous undercurrent that I have seen in the reaction to this awful crime. Threats against police officers are utterly unacceptable. There can be no justification for intimidation, abuse or attempts to take the law into one’s own hands. A police officer unrelated to this case has been misidentified online and subjected to death threats. He has been forced to relocate, to protect himself and his family. Misinformation and inflammatory commentary is making a dreadful situation even worse. We must all, together, condemn it. We must also allow the facts to be established through the appropriate investigations and the courts, and we must do so calmly and responsibly.
The Nowak family, and Henry’s memory, deserve answers. The family have also called on us all to take action to address the daily tragedy of knife crime in this country. This Government are committed to halving knife crime in this decade. Since the start of this Parliament, we have made progress. Knife crime has fallen by 10%. Knife homicides are down 27%, and are at their lowest level in a decade, but clearly we must do more while there are still tragedies like this one. For that reason, we have recently published our halving knife crime plan. It sets out how we will go further to drive sustained reductions in violence. It brings together action across Government and society to stop people turning to knife crime, and to ensure that perpetrators are caught and brought to justice. It includes a range of measures. It will see schools and families supported to address the root causes of knife crime through the establishment of 50 young futures hubs; police using new crime mapping tools to target enforcement more precisely, and making better use of stop and search; and cruel and exploitative drug gangs stopped from criminally exploiting children, which will prevent the knife violence that is driven by the county lines trade.
On knife controls, there have been calls to limit the right of Sikhs to carry their ceremonial knife, the kirpan, one of the five holy items in their faith. The Offensive Weapons Act 2019, passed under the previous Government, clarified and strengthened existing legal protections in relation to long kirpans. This included extending defences, so that kirpans can be lawfully possessed for religious reasons and used in religious and ceremonial contexts, but let me be clear: carrying the knife for the purpose of religious observance is one thing, but using it, as so tragically occurred in this case, is quite another. It is a vile act, a crime of the utmost severity, and it will be met with the severest punishment.
Yesterday, the Nowak family ended their statement with a powerful call to us all: they did not want Henry’s death
“to be used to create further division, hatred or tension.”
They quoted the words of the prosecuting lawyer:
“This is not a case about Sikhism. This is not a case about racism. This is a case about murder. ”
I echo those words. We cannot allow this murder to turn communities against one another. We must condemn those who seek personal political profit from tragedy. Instead, we must show who we really are in this country. This was a murder—a vile and violent crime. The punishment must be reserved for those who are responsible for the act. We do not believe in collective punishment in this country. Instead, we stand together against an act of pure evil. We condemn those who committed this heinous crime, not all those who share their faith or ethnicity.
Yesterday, a sentence was handed down in court. I know it will never be enough. The loss felt by Henry Nowak’s family and friends will last forever. A wonderful young man will never enjoy the promise of the life that stretched out before him. The evil acts of his murderer and accomplice will never be undone, but we can choose to use this moment to pursue positive change. We are still limited in what we can say—there is a sentence to be handed down, further charges may follow, and an IOPC investigation is ongoing—but I call on everyone here to be responsible in this moment, and to allow justice to run its full course. While we must be limited in what we can say, we must not be limited in how we act.
I will end with the words of the Nowak family, once more. Last night, they wrote that
“no other family should experience the heartbreak and horror of losing a child to knife crime.”
Let that be the challenge to us all, across this House, across Government and across society. It is the very least we can do to honour the memory of Henry Nowak. I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary, and you, Mr Speaker, for ensuring that the Government came to the House today.
The murder of Henry Nowak is devastating for his family. He was an innocent young man on the way home when he was brutally killed. Henry’s family have suffered an unimaginable loss, and I know the thoughts of the whole House will be with them all. The evil murderer Vickrum Digwa lied from start to finish, including in a false allegation of racism. On arriving at the scene, the police appeared more concerned with the accusation of racism, and even the possibility that Digwa was injured, than with helping Henry. Henry told the police that he could not breathe nine times. He told them that he had been stabbed four times. The response from the officer, which we have all heard, was, “I don’t think you have, mate.”
Henry was handcuffed and dragged across the ground as he lay dying. Can you imagine what he must have felt as he cried out for help and was ignored—as the officers who should have worked to save him instead handcuffed him and inquired after the welfare of his killer, standing just inches away? Henry’s dad Mark said:
“Henry did not die with dignity. He did not die with the care he deserved. He lost consciousness before anyone believed him.”
We need the IOPC to urgently and transparently report on how it was that the police attending were more concerned with the accusation of racism than with helping a dying man.
We cannot tolerate a situation in which false allegations of racism by criminals are believed. We cannot allow the colour of someone’s skin to be a consideration in how the police or other public services treat people, yet that has happened. Just recently, we learned that Valdo Calocane, who murdered three people in Nottingham, was not sectioned by mental health professionals because they thought there was
“an over-representation of young black males in mental health detention”.
The consequent failure to section Valdo Calocane, in part because he was black, led directly to the murder of three innocent people. The headteacher of Axel Rudakubana was accused of racist stereotyping when she described Rudakubana as a threat to safety, and the risk assessment was watered down. Rudakubana, of course, went on to stab and murder three young girls at a Southport dance class.
This has not happened by accident; it is enshrined in the police’s own policy documents. The police anti-racism commitment, published in March 2025 by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing, urges police forces to reverse-engineer arrest rates for ethnic groups so that those rates are the same, even though the offending rates are different, by treating different ethnic groups differently. Let that sink in for a moment: an official police document actually says that people should be treated differently based on the colour of their skin. I have said before at this Dispatch Box—at least twice—that that document should be withdrawn. The dangerous ideology of so-called anti-racism, which allows people to be treated differently based on race, must end. Extreme activists have hijacked the policymaking process, and this is where that has led. It has no place in policing; it has no place anywhere. Does the Home Secretary agree that the so-called police anti-racism commitment must urgently be withdrawn? It is morally wrong and dangerous. Police forces must focus on catching criminals and keeping the public safe. They must simply treat everyone exactly the same.
I will finish with the words yesterday of Mark Nowak, Henry’s father. He said:
“Henry was 18. He was kind, ambitious, loved and full of promise. He had his whole life ahead of him. That future was stolen from him, and no verdict or sentence will ever give it back.”
It is true that nothing can bring Henry back, but let us ensure that no one ever again experiences what Henry did in his last tragic moments.
Shabana Mahmood
Let me thank the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks, and the tone in which he has reflected on this horrific murder and the words of the family, which he knows that I share.
I would normally let the right hon. Gentleman’s initial point slide, but there is far too much misinformation floating around on social media for me to just leave it unchallenged. On the point about the Government coming to the House, he will know that the proceedings and sentencing concluded at 4 o’clock yesterday. We said that we would come to the House immediately thereafter, and we have presented ourselves here today. We have responded in an appropriate way, and had all the facts and all the judge’s remarks at our disposal for our review before coming to this House. It is important that we respond in these moments in a measured way, and that is what the Government have sought to do.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to evidence in the Valdo Calocane inquiry. He will know that the inquiry into the Nottingham attacks is well under way. I do not think it would be appropriate for me, at this Dispatch Box, to pre-empt any findings that the inquiry might make, but all the actions taken, and assumptions made, by professionals from the public services, including the police and the health service, are subject to scrutiny in that inquiry. I am sure that we will return to those matters when the inquiry reports.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to phase 1 of the Southport inquiry on the horrific murders, and the findings relating to how the public service systems centred on the danger that Axel Rudakubana might have posed to himself, given his mental health diagnosis, and did not take into account the danger he potentially posed to others. The right hon. Gentleman will know that recommendations for change have been made in this area, which the Government will respond to fully in due course. Let me be very clear to him and to all Members in the House that in all such matters, when it comes to how we engage with our public services and how they assess risk, the only important factor is the risk that an individual poses—not their race, religion or anything else. We will not tolerate a situation in which other, irrelevant factors are taken into account. I repeat that all are equal before the law, and every public service needs to bear that in mind.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the police anti-racism commitment. He will obviously remember that the race action plan for the police began life under the previous Conservative Government—in fact, I am old enough to remember when Theresa May called out the disproportionate use of stop and search in black communities in particular. He will know that the way policing works in this country is by consent. It is important that the police retain the confidence of all the communities they police, and I think he will acknowledge that there is a history and a context here relating to racism and the police. Whatever changes are made, it is important that nobody over-corrects or course-corrects in such a way that all of us citizens are no longer equal before the law.
This Government will always ensure that the police, in fulfilling their sacred duties to keep our communities safe, always act without fear or favour, and always ensure that every citizen is treated equally. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not want to do down or ignore the historical and legitimate concerns from some communities about institutional racism as well as differential treatment. I condemn every and all types of differential treatment; I do not stand for it. My own track record as a Government Minister shows that I will always act when there is evidence of differential treatment, and it is absolutely vital that that message is heard loud and clear across the whole of our country.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Henry was a popular and much-loved student at the University of Southampton, and his murder has horrified our city. Both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur) commend everyone at the university for their response and their support for the university community following this tragedy. Like many, I have watched the bodycam footage, and it is both heartbreaking and infuriating. It makes it plain for all to see how Henry posed no threat that would warrant being handcuffed, yet he was treated as a criminal based on the lies of his murderer. No one in their right mind thinks that one Sikh represents all Sikhs or that one or two police officers represent the entire police force; as Henry’s father has said, this is about murder, our response to it and our prevention of it. As such, I have two questions for my right hon. Friend.
We have a knife problem in this country. That is why we have taken early steps to ban zombie knives and crack down on knife sellers, but it is obvious that that is not enough and we have to go further. Will the Secretary of State commit to clarifying a set of tough and consistent knife laws with the resources to enforce them, so that we can actually move on? Secondly, I echo the words of Henry’s dad, as the Secretary of State did, and ask her to guarantee that the IOPC will have
“the resources, authority and independence it needs to conduct a full, fearless and transparent investigation.”
Will she guarantee that? The catastrophic errors that were made when police officers got to Henry must never happen again.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution and his questions. I give him that guarantee: the IOPC will, and does, have the resources it needs to conduct its investigation, and I know that it will do so with the full independence that our system affords it. I understand that the IOPC intends to report finally within the next three months, and I believe that a meeting is now taking place with the family—some contact had been made before, but the IOPC was waiting for the end of the criminal trial. Of course, it will do its job; it is getting on with doing its job, and I expect it to report as quickly as possible, but I can give my hon. Friend the guarantee he seeks.
My hon. Friend is right that we have a knife crime problem in this country, which is why the Government have a landmark commitment to halving knife crime over a decade. It is why we have launched the knife crime action plan, and I reassure him that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its historic mission.
Max Wilkinson
I am, Mr Speaker, and I apologise.
As Mark Nowak has said, the outcome here should not be further division. In that spirit and in Henry’s memory, we must work together to ensure that this kind of tragedy is not allowed to happen again.
Shabana Mahmood
I welcome the contribution from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, and associate myself with his words about the family and their reaction to what has happened. I am not sure there was a specific question in there for me, but if there are other things that the hon. Member wishes to pick up with me, I would be very happy to engage with him on other points of detail that he maybe was not able to come on to.
For the benefit of the whole House, I reiterate that anyone who uses this tragedy—this horrific, vile act of murder—to stoke further division in our country should be rejected by everyone across this House. Political grandstanding and further division are not what is needed; clear-eyed action and a commitment to ensuring that all of our citizens are equal before the law of our collective land is what is needed.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
This is a terrible incident, and my heart goes out to Henry’s family. Is my right hon. Friend concerned, as I am, that some have said that the Macpherson inquiry has caused the police to hold back when dealing with people who perpetrate crimes and who may be from an ethnic minority? Does she agree that nothing in the Macpherson inquiry suggests that the police should behave in that way or excuses the extraordinary behaviour of the police at the scene of this crime, and does she think that what needs to be reviewed is the way in which police are trained to deal with incidents of this sort? It seems to me that what happened at the scene of this crime falls way below what we expect of the police.
Shabana Mahmood
Police officers must apply the law fairly, without fear or favour, to every single person they serve. They work incredibly hard and get it right the vast majority of the time, and where mistakes are made, it is right that they are properly investigated and examined. The whole House should remember that our police officers run towards danger every day in order to keep our communities safe. As my hon. Friend will know, because of the ongoing independent IOPC investigation, I do not think it is appropriate to comment further on the specifics of this case.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with everything the Home Secretary says. I agree that we should not weaponise this issue, but neither should we tiptoe around it. The truth is that many white people in this country feel that the police are so terrified of being called racist that they either underreact, as in the case of the appalling grooming scandal, or they overreact, as in this case, so there is a role for the Home Secretary now. She needs to summon in top police officers and say, “Things have got to change. We are all equal. Don’t be terrified of what people think about you—just carry out the law as you’re supposed to do as police officers.”
Shabana Mahmood
I have made it very clear from this Dispatch Box and over the course of my tenure as Home Secretary that all are equal before the law, and the police must always act without fear and without favour towards any one group. I do not think it is helpful for us to start pitting either majority or different minority communities against one another; that is not what this moment requires.
The right hon. Gentleman is right that there is always a balance to be struck—there must not be underreaction or, indeed, overreaction. I believe that in the vast majority of cases, the police get that balance right, and as I say, our police officers run towards danger every single day to keep us safe. I will always scrutinise all these actions to make sure that our police service is functioning as it should, so that every single citizen in our country, regardless of the colour of their skin or the faith that they have or may not have, can be absolutely certain that they will always be treated equally, and that whatever complaint they have will always be investigated in the way we would all expect.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I am deeply saddened by the murder of Henry Nowak, and my heartfelt condolences go out to his family, whose pain was made all the worse by the police wrongly handcuffing Henry, believing the lies of the violent murderer. That stripped Henry of his dignity in his agonising final moments, and is something that should never happen again. It is very galling that the likes of Reform, Restore and the far right decided to politicise people’s pain, attacking the Sikh community for wearing the kirpan and wanting it banned, even though the kirpan was not used in this violent attack. [Interruption.] They have decided to scapegoat and throw under the bus an entire community based on the actions of one violent murderer. [Interruption.] Let me also give them a history—
Mr Dhesi
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Hundreds of thousands of Sikh soldiers bravely fought alongside British soldiers in both world wars. Tens of thousands made the ultimate sacrifice, proudly wearing their turban and their kirpan. What reassurances can my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary give to the Sikh community, who are horrified and ashamed by this brutal murder and fearful about their right to freely and peacefully practise their faith?
Shabana Mahmood
I reiterate for my hon. Friend that religious freedom is an important principle that this Government respect. It has been respected by different Governments of different party political persuasions, and I am sure that that will continue to be the case. As I said in my statement, we are not a country that collectively punishes an entire group of people for the actions of individuals. The responsibility for this murder rests with the murderer, and he has now faced justice and been sentenced. That is the right way for these matters to proceed.
I will also say something about the tone of this debate. It is right for the whole House to remember that Henry Nowak’s family and friends are watching. The way that we conduct ourselves in this place can be passionate, but it must not result in name calling and in just shouting different political views. I do not think we should stand for the politicisation of this murder. There are lessons to be learned and further issues to be drawn out from what has happened, once the IOPC has concluded its investigation. I am sure that we will debate that here in the future. The way that we conduct the debate matters just as much as what is said.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
This is an appalling and sickening tragedy. Words cannot express my heartbreak for Henry’s family and my fury at the system that has led to this. We have all seen the body-worn video footage. In a previous role, part of my job was to review that footage and give an independent judgment. In this case, it is clear to everyone that the police did not act appropriately and proportionately. There are many good police officers who work hard to keep us safe, but on that night, these police officers displayed no concern for Henry. Immediate action should have been taken to try to save his life, but instead Henry was put in handcuffs and mocked as he lay dying. Those police officers have serious questions to answer. Can the Home Secretary explain what action the Government will take to ensure that every officer involved is held accountable for the decisions they have made, so that the public can have confidence that we will all be treated equally under the law?
Shabana Mahmood
I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the IOPC is investigating this matter. It will be free to conclude that investigation using all the powers it has and all of its evidence-gathering abilities. He will know, having reviewed such footage in the past, that what is publicly available is three minutes of a much longer incident, but the IOPC will be able to review every bit of bodycam footage in its totality, as well as other evidence that sheds light on the context of the incident, what the police officers saw and how they reacted to it. The IOPC is free to make recommendations not just on specific conduct, but on wider lessons that should be learned. I reassure him that once the IOPC has reported and made its findings, I will make sure that I personally update the House.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my constituent, Henry Nowak, a bright young man at the start of a life that held so much promise. The turnout at his funeral and the outpouring of community support show that he had an impact well beyond his young years. I pay tribute to his family, and in particular to Mark Nowak, his father. Many here have quoted his words calling for Henry’s death not to lead to more division and hatred. Henry’s sister, Olivia, made space in the early days of her own grief to support his friends. That speaks to the family and their courage, bravery and dignity in dealing with one of the most tragic and devastating things that any of us could ever imagine going through.
Like many in this House, I have watched the body-worn camera footage that was released last night, and I watched it with horror. I cannot imagine what Henry’s family felt seeing that, knowing that it was their son’s last moments. They expected help from the police, but when Henry lay dying, what he got was accusation and he was disbelieved. This can never happen again. What will the Home Secretary do to meet Henry’s family’s calls to tackle the national emergency that is knife crime? Like many families who have suffered a loss from this appalling crime, Henry’s family have called for his death not to be in vain and for lessons to be learned, so that they can go forward to see that his legacy is that no one else has to suffer that grief.
I would welcome the Home Secretary’s assurances that the IOPC investigation will be thorough and fully resourced and that no stone will be left unturned, so that the family can have the answers they need and deserve, and can know why their son was treated as a criminal while the criminal was treated with much more dignity than their son. Will she ensure that the family’s needs, wishes and voices are heard throughout this inquiry?
Shabana Mahmood
First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her powerful contribution as Henry’s Member of Parliament, and I give her the assurance that she seeks in relation to the IOPC investigation. That investigation is continuing at pace, and I know that the family are being engaged with. If there are any concerns about the process, I invite her to let me know immediately. I will personally ensure that any concerns are dealt with, so that the family can have confidence in the IOPC process. This Government have acknowledged the epidemic of knife crime in our country and our imperative to act on it. That is why we have our landmark commitment to halve knife crime over a decade and have launched the knife crime action plan, which is a resourced package of measures designed to deal with the scourge of knife crime.
I give my hon. Friend reassurance, exactly as I said in my statement, that we will leave no stone unturned in dealing with knife crime. We do so in the name of all victims of knife crime, including Henry. Their loss must not be in vain, and we must learn the lessons that will prevent these tragedies from occurring in the future.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
When Henry lay on the floor, he warned that he had been stabbed four times and he said that he could not breathe nine times, yet the officer chose to cuff him, rather than treat him. That officer should be in court, being prosecuted for a total dereliction of duty, but the bigger question is this: why do officers behave in this way? Is it because they have been taught repeatedly to elevate perceptions of ethnic minority communities over the safety of white British people? That sickness contributed to the killings by Rudakubana, by Calocane in Nottingham, and now by Digwa. It is a sickness rooted in the anti-racism agenda. Will the Home Secretary root it out? Will she return to equality before the law for all? Will she say that when it comes to public safety, white lives matter just as much as anyone else’s?
Shabana Mahmood
I do not think this is a moment to pit white Britons against non-white Britons; this is a moment to reflect on a horrific tragedy. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the IOPC is investigating the conduct of those police officers. It would be wholly inappropriate for a Member of this House to seek to pre-empt an independent investigation into the potential misconduct of police officers. That IOPC investigation will look at individual conduct, but also at the wider lessons that can be learned from this case. I will personally ensure that all lessons are learned and acted upon.
It is a fundamental principle—not just of the British criminal justice system, but of who and what we are as a country—that we are all equal before the law of our land. That applies regardless of the colour of one’s skin, and regardless of whether someone is a non-white Brit whose family arrived here 50 years ago or 10 years ago, or whether they are a white Brit whose family have been here for 300 years or more. We are all equal before the law of our land, and we should all support that principle but not use it to pit our citizens against one another. That is not what this moment demands.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the Chamber this afternoon. As many hon. and right hon. Members have said, no one can fail to be moved by watching the footage and seeing a young life being wasted like that. The inhumane and degrading treatment that Henry had to go through in his last few moments is something that will stay with the family when the news coverage has moved on and those police officers have been prosecuted, because when someone is killed by a murderer who is intent on killing— regardless of race—it is the families and communities that have to deal with the long-term impact.
Many of us in this Chamber have had to comfort constituents who have lost a family member through knife crime. This epidemic across the UK has to stop. How is it possible that the killer was allowed to roam the streets with a 21 cm knife, freely stab someone and then lie? It is really important that we make sure that this Government get to grips with that. As soon as the IOPC concludes the findings of its investigation, will the Home Secretary come back to the House and make sure that the Government adequately respond, so that we are not back here again and do not have to console another family whose life has been taken by knife crime?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me give my hon. Friend that reassurance. While the investigation is taking place, it is right that we give the IOPC the space it needs to do its important work. It would be wholly wrong for Ministers to pre-empt what findings might be made in the future, but as soon as those findings are made, I will ensure that the Government respond.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. We in this House need to be careful about our response to what is a sad loss of life of a young man who was going to a vibrant university in a fantastic and welcoming city, with the rest of his life supposedly ahead of him. Notwithstanding what the Home Secretary has said—I am grateful to her for saying that the IOPC will receive full resourcing—has she done any thinking about what other investigations her Department might need to do into the conduct of Hampshire constabulary? Can she confirm whether the officers in question have been suspended, pending the investigation? Could she also outline whether she is currently looking at whether she needs to make changes to the exemptions to carrying knives for religious or cultural purposes?
Shabana Mahmood
The question of suspensions is a matter for the IOPC because of the way it makes its initial findings and then reacts to the evidence as it all becomes available. Of course, now that the criminal proceedings have concluded, the IOPC will be able to ramp up and go faster in that process. Again, it would not be appropriate for Ministers to be sighted on that or to seek to direct it in any way, but I know that staff at the IOPC are watching. If clarifications are needed or questions need answering, I am sure that they will respond, but they are wholly independent of Government.
The exemption for the carrying of knives for religious and ceremonial purposes has been a long-standing arrangement, as a way of balancing public safety and religious freedom. It has been supported by successive Governments, including this one, and we are not seeking to move away from our respect for religious freedom. The wider context is an important question that is always worth serious consideration, but my approach would be to engage directly with representatives of the Sikh community and knife crime campaigners, rather than pitting those two groups against one another, because these are issues of a common cause. I will repeat the point I made in my statement: there is a world of difference between a person acting out of religious observance and carrying something as an act of faith, and somebody unsheathing that weapon and using it to kill somebody. That individual has met the full force of the law.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
As you know, Mr Speaker, there is no bigger champion of policing in this House than me, but the body-worn footage of Henry Nowak’s death is gut-wrenching and the police response, on the basis of what we know so far, is unfathomable. It is right that the IOPC is investigating, but as everyone around policing knows, such investigations have often taken far too long—sometimes many years—which is not good for anybody involved. Can the Home Secretary assure me that she will press the IOPC to report as quickly as possible—most of all, for Henry’s family?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend speaks powerfully from deep personal and professional experience, and I pay tribute to him. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I have had many concerns about the length of time it sometimes takes the IOPC to report—concerns that I have raised with the IOPC directly since I have been Home Secretary. However, given that the investigation started in December, the criminal investigation and case in relation to the murderer have only just concluded, and the IOPC has said that it expects to report within three months, I believe that this investigation is proceeding at the pace that the House would expect. I am sure that the IOPC is reflecting on the tenor of today’s debate, and will understand the need for urgency and to make sure that the family have answers as quickly as is humanly possible.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
My thoughts are with Henry Nowak’s family, friends and the local community. The prosecution said that the perpetrator had a “weapons obsession”. It should not have been so easy for somebody with a weapons obsession to amass an arsenal of knives. What is the Minister doing to reduce the availability of dangerous knives on our streets?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Lady makes a really important point. She will know that we have legislated through the Crime and Policing Act 2026, which became law just a few short weeks ago. The measures within the Act will be implemented at pace by this Government; they relate to the possession of weapons and the buying of weapons—whether online or elsewhere—and there are new duties on sellers of knives to report larger sales or bulk sales. The Government have introduced a broad range of measures to deal with the scourge of knife crime, and those measures have just become law. We will ensure that the law is implemented as quickly as possible, so that we can get on top of this issue.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
The death of Henry Nowak is a horrifying tragedy, and my thoughts are with his family, friends and community. We must honour the words of his father by not using this tragedy to create further hatred, division or tension, and the House should not go against those wishes. Henry’s family want action so that no other family goes through what they are going through right now. Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that she will go further and faster to tackle knife crime, so that no one fears walking the streets of the UK?
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Can the Home Secretary please make sure that the findings of the IOPC report are shared with Police Scotland and all police forces across these islands in order to ensure that any recommended structural or procedural changes are made, and that lessons can be learned by all forces and then implemented?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. Although some of these responsibilities are devolved, I hope that other legislatures in our country will show an interest. My Ministers and I certainly engage with our partners in the devolved Administrations. We will continue to do so, and we will discuss this matter as well.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I, too, thank the Home Secretary for her statement. As a Nanaksari Sikh, I wear the five Ks every day as part of my religious observance, including the kirpan, and as a Sikh, I really struggle to express the feelings of sheer horror that this case has generated within me, my family and my friends. It absolutely has been a horror.
The senseless murder of Henry Nowak should be condemned in its entirety by everybody. A young man’s life has been taken in his prime, and I wish to express my and my constituency’s full sympathy with and condolences for the family of Henry Nowak, who have shown incredible dignity in their grief. I totally condemn the action of Vickrum Digwa, the mindless, senseless murder and the lies. There is simply no religious justification for his actions. I am relieved that our criminal justice system and the courts came to the same conclusion, and that sentiment is shared universally across the Sikh community.
This case has raised many aspects of concern for my constituents—Sikh and non-Sikh—including issues of safety and knife crime, and the freedom to practise one’s faith. Will the Secretary of State meet me and colleagues to discuss these issues further?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. Let me again emphasise the dignity and the grace shown by Henry’s family. Their response has been something I do not believe I would have been capable of, if I had been in their shoes, and it is an example to us all.
On the broader issues, and there will be many issues in relation to this case, once the IOPC investigation has concluded we will be able to draw further conclusions on the facts, the police response and the wider problems. I am always happy to discuss with my hon. Friend the different issues raised in this case, and in particular how we get the right balance between the religious freedoms he and I both enjoy as members of faith minorities in our country and the need to make sure that public protection is never compromised.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Henry Nowak’s tragic murder is, sadly, stark proof that we have become a country where we no longer treat everyone as equal under the law. Does the Home Secretary agree it is time to put a stop to the political correctness that has overpowered common-sense policing, and will she commit to ending the nonsense of police cultural competency training being put ahead of protecting every citizen regardless of race?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me reiterate my belief and expectation that the police must always act without fear or favour and treat all citizens equally before the law. I hope the hon. Member will recognise that the vast majority of our police officers run towards danger every day to keep us all safe, and in the vast majority of cases they get the balance right between how they respond in a specific case and, more broadly, how they keep communities safe. Where there are issues, lessons must be learned; I am sure that, once the IOPC investigation has concluded, we will do that.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I think that for all of us as MPs, the time we spend with families who lose a family member in horrific circumstances stays with us throughout our career. I know that in my community there will be many parents who, sadly, have lost children to knife crime, who will have seen Mark Nowak’s statement and felt every single word, and who will want to send their condolences to the family. They will also be acutely aware of how difficult a watch that body camera footage was, and of his words about not seeing the tragedy used to “inflame division”.
Given that, and given how some people are interpreting this matter and the misinformation that is circulating, what thought has the Home Secretary given to ensuring trusted sources of information on this issue? There is an important need for scrutiny and transparency about what has happened—and in a context where there is so much misinformation, we need sources of light, not heat. What more could the Home Office do on that matter?
Shabana Mahmood
We in the Home Office have a responsibility, which we seek always to fulfil, to make sure that we act calmly and responsibly, with the full facts at our disposal; if we do not have the full facts at our disposal, we wait until we do before we comment, in order not to put out misleading or false information.
My hon. Friend is right that the wider environment is very challenging. Of course the Government are taking action through other Departments, such as through the Online Safety Act 2023, in relation to digital platforms. I am sure we will return to those conversations, because there is no doubt that, on social media in particular, the environment makes it very challenging to establish the truth, rather than misinformation and straight-up lies. We collectively have a responsibility in this House to make sure that we shine light rather than heat on these matters, so that we can hold our country together and make sure that all our citizens are treated fairly.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Our sympathies go out to the family, who must have been horrified by what they saw on the police footage. How have we reached a stage in this country where, when the police go to an incident, they arrest a dying man because they are afraid of being accused of racism by his murderer? This is affecting the police right across the United Kingdom. Only this week, in a park on the edge of my constituency, the police were called because a gathering of Muslim men were seen to be carrying weapons. No arrests were made, excuses were made for carrying the weapons, and the anger of the community is palpable.
Would the Secretary of State make it clear to the police that policing should not be based on fear of racism, or direction by chief constables, or on the colour of people’s skin? The police should carry out their duty impartially; two-tier policing only diminishes the police and undermines their credibility and their standing in the community, which is bad for everybody.
Shabana Mahmood
There can, of course, be no suggestion of two-tier policing; we would never—no one would ever—stand for that. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the police respond to danger every single day and have to make quick decisions, usually in very difficult circumstances. In the vast majority of cases they do get things right, and it is important that we acknowledge that broader picture of policing. Of course, when things go wrong or the balance is not struck correctly, that should be investigated and scrutinised, and lessons must always be learned.
I would not want us to be in a position where we just accept that there are big problems with how our police, generally speaking, approach their job. I do agree that any instances where it looks as though something has gone wrong cost public confidence in policing, but that is why we have the independent arrangements with the IOPC to investigate fully and make findings of fact, on which the Government and others can take action.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
Henry Nowak’s murder was a senseless, evil act, a criminal act, which Vickrum Digwa bears responsibility for. It is horrific that he made false claims to evade that responsibility. The actions of a perpetrator do not represent the whole community, and I know the Sikh community in the UK wholly condemn them. Many of us are deeply distressed about the circumstances of Henry’s death and his treatment in his final moments. How will the Secretary of State ensure that those lessons are learned, and that Henry’s family are put first and fully considered? On knife crime, how will we ensure that the root causes are dealt with and that resources are provided to agencies and to communities?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me assure my hon. Friend that the knife crime action plan is funded, and we have put significant money behind violence reduction units and other measures that we know are imperative to deal with knife crime in our country. Let me assure her again that, as soon as the IOPC investigation has concluded, I will make sure that the House is updated.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Is it normal police practice to handcuff a person who is lying helpless on the ground and clearly offering no resistance? Given the Home Secretary’s admirable and utter rejection of differential treatment of people according to their race, will she undertake to examine and withdraw the policing policy document identified by the shadow Home Secretary as embodying precisely such differential treatment?
Shabana Mahmood
On policing practice and the specifics of this case, that is precisely what the IOPC is looking at, because it takes into account the context and the expectations of police officers given the specific dangers that they face. The IOPC will look into that and, once it has made its findings of fact, I will of course return to the House.
On the issue of differential treatment, the right hon. Member will know, as a long-standing Member of this House, that we have had many debates from the opposite end of the race spectrum, if I might put it that way. Today, we are talking primarily about the white community in this instance, but there have been many debates in this House about differential treatment for minority communities. That is why I do not think it is helpful for us to look at this issue through a community-specific lens; it is much broader than that. I will of course ensure that I always engage with the police on the specifics of their policies, but it is not my view that the police are institutionally or systemically operating a system of differential treatment. We will always make sure that we guard against that, and I will work with the police to make sure it never happens.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s fierce rejection of two-tier policing and of any suggestion that people should be judged differently according to their colour. The footage is one of the most sickening things I have ever seen, and my heart goes out to the Nowak family who had to witness it. The Home Secretary is absolutely right to say that we must wait for the IOPC investigation, but if it does turn out that some kind of misguided application of the culture of policing has led to the victim not being believed while the murderer was believed, what more will she do to ensure that every single police officer hears loud and clear her message that everyone deserves to be policed in exactly the same way, regardless of the colour of their skin?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me give my hon. Friend the assurance that, as soon as the IOPC investigation has concluded and it has made its findings on the specific circumstances of this case, I will make sure that we return to the House so that we have an opportunity to debate collectively what the correct response will be. Let me also reassure him and everybody else that I will never stand for a system where there is any suggestion of differential treatment before the law. We are all equal before the law and every lesson we learn must always live up to that abiding principle.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
Henry Nowak was murdered near my constituency and local people are rightly furious with Hampshire police—not only the officers who attended the scene, but those leading the force. It is important to remember that Henry’s murderer accused him of racism. In honour of Henry’s legacy, it is important that we are all abundantly clear that the judge found absolutely zero evidence to back up that claim.
Does the Home Secretary agree that a false accusation of racism against a white person is just as bad as, if not worse than, a legitimate claim of racism, because of the deceit? Does she also agree that, watching the bodycam footage, it is clear that police officers treated Henry with disdain, contempt and arguably negligence because of the colour of his skin? We are hearing No. 10 say that two-tier policing does not exist. I ask the Home Secretary: where is the leadership today? British people are furious. The leadership is not coming from the Government.
Shabana Mahmood
I disagree entirely with the right hon. and learned Lady. Great leadership has already been shown by the family of Henry Nowak in the tenor of their response and their statement, and in their desire—rightly, in my view—not to see this murder used as a tool for furthering division in our country. We would all do well to take our lead from Henry’s family.
I am in the House today; I am answering questions and I have undertaken to come back once the IOPC investigation has concluded. The right hon. and learned Lady is a former Home Secretary and will know that those independent arrangements exist so that people can have confidence in the findings made in cases such as this and can know that they are made without political interference or for political ends.
On the broader point about false allegations that the right hon. and learned Lady made, lies are lies and they must be called out as such. Where a lie is criminal or leads to criminality, it must face the full force of the law. That is what has happened in this case. There has been a measure of justice, because the criminal case has concluded, the murderer has been found guilty of murder and the judge has made further findings in relation to the circumstances of the case. I urge her and some of her colleagues, when commenting on this case, to stick to the facts as they have been established.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary for the way they introduced this very sensitive issue.
The murder of Henry Nowak was a wicked act of brutality. His family and all those who loved him have been left with unimaginable grief, mourning their brother, their son and their friend, who they will never, ever get back. I know Members across the House share my devastation at this vile murder by this vile individual. However, some Members have been using this horrific incident for political capital, spreading disinformation for their own gain. Does the Home Secretary agree that politicians have a responsibility to act with decorum, and to focus on Henry, who lost his life, and his grieving family, who have lost a son and a brother, rather than fanning the flames of division?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that on this matter we should take our lead from Henry’s family, who have set an example for us all to follow.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
“I’ve been stabbed” versus “He racially abused me.” How are the Government going to rebuild public confidence in our culture and in institutions that have attempted to rank people according to perceived oppression, rather than judging each person on their actions and on reality?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me just repeat to the hon. Gentleman the point I have already made in this debate: there can be no suggestion of two-tier policing in our country. In the vast majority of cases the police apply the law fairly and without fear or favour, and they must always do so. Once the IOPC investigation has concluded, I will make sure that the specific lessons from the circumstances of this case are learned and acted upon.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
This was a vile act and a crime of the upmost severity, and I am pleased that it has been treated as such by our courts. The case is about the murder of a young man, and our thoughts should remain with Henry Nowak’s family. We do not know why the officers acted as they did, but there is nothing in the Macpherson inquiry that can be blamed for the apparent lack of humanity displayed in the body-worn camera footage. Does the Home Secretary agree with me that we should reflect on the words of Henry’s father, Mark Nowak, who asked that his son’s death should
“not…be used to create further division, hatred or tension.”?
Does she agree that this is entirely what the interventions of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and others seek to do?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I agree with him; he is right to refer to the words of Henry’s father. Many Members have rightly referred to those words today and we should all bear them in mind. Let me reiterate that I will ensure that all the lessons that must be learned from this case are learned and acted upon properly, but this case must turn on its own facts and its own circumstances. It is not to be used, in my view, to unwind other changes that were made to rebuild public confidence in policing.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
This cowardly murder is not a reflection on the Sikh community, which has integrated itself into the UK with honour and modesty. I understand that the weapon wielded was not that traditionally carried by Sikhs. However, I believe this murder may give reasonable grounds to review existing exemptions to knife legislation on the grounds of religious reasons and national dress. I know that the Home Secretary wants to halve knife crime within the next 10 years. What message do the exemptions give? Is she honestly going to rule out even a review?
Shabana Mahmood
As I said earlier, our religious freedoms and the arrangements we have are of long standing and have been designed to strike the right balance between religious freedom and public protection. I said earlier that the wider question is worthy of serious consideration, which is what I will give to it, but I would want to start that process by discussing the matter with the Sikh community themselves, knife crime campaigners and the police. I think that is the right way to proceed, rather than launching a formal review. As the judge found in this case, this was not an act of religious observance. The minute the knife was unsheathed to be used, it became a murder weapon and the murderer has now faced the full force of the law.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
My thoughts are with the family and friends of Henry Nowak. It was absolutely gut-wrenching to see the video footage from the body-worn camera. In Hampshire, the murder has left people deeply shocked not only by the violence of the act, but by the circumstances as he lay dying. I am pleased to hear that the IOPC will have the resources it needs to fully investigate. I am also glad to hear that the Hampshire police and crime commissioner has said that she will ensure the recommendations are fully implemented. Mistakes have clearly been made, but will the Home Secretary ensure that Hampshire and Isle of Wight constabulary receives any support needed to implement the IOPC findings in full, and that lessons on victim recognition, officer judgment and impartiality are acted on swiftly?
Shabana Mahmood
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. In fact, the Minister for Policing met the police and crime commissioner earlier today.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Henry’s heartbroken father has said that Henry’s family do not want his murder to
“be used to create further division, hatred or tension.”
I pray that we all heed those words in this House. This heinous crime is made worse by the shocking police response, and lessons must be learnt. What will the Home Secretary do differently to crack down on the epidemic of knife crime, such as creating a dedicated knife crime Minister? What steps will she take to ensure that our Sikh community, who are overwhelmingly peaceful and integrated, are not held collectively responsible by those who wish to divide us?
Shabana Mahmood
The Government have a landmark commitment to halve the levels of knife crime in this country over the next decade. We have our landmark knife crime action plan, which is a funded action plan. The Prime Minister has taken a personal interest in that commitment. This Government will strain every sinew to deliver on that.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
In the ’80s and ’90s in this country, many police officers carried out their duties in a prejudicial and racist way. I am proud of having worked alongside many others to eliminate that racism as much as we could. However, we are now left with what is perhaps a more difficult problem to deal with, because many police officers and other public servants are now frightened that they will be accused of racism in carrying out those duties. What actions can the Home Secretary and the Cabinet take to reassure people who are accused of racism that proper process will be followed and that they will not just be left out of a job forever?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the historical context of policing in this country and the question of racism itself. Many minority communities have been on the receiving end of that treatment in the past. It is right that the system as a whole has sought to learn those lessons and to deliver a policing service in which we can all be confident so that we know we will all be treated fairly under the law. I will ensure that continues to be the case going forward.
On his question, when accusations are made—whether in a legal and policing context or throughout other parts of the public sector—they are just that: accusations. We should remember the principles of our broader justice system when it comes to innocence, findings of guilt and the fairness of procedures to give people a chance to explain themselves without findings of fact being made against them before that has happened. I expect to see that happen throughout the criminal justice system, but also throughout wider society.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
When the race card was played by his murderer, was Henry Nowak treated differently because of the colour of his skin, causing the innocent victim to be handcuffed and the murderer to be pandered to?
Shabana Mahmood
The reaction of the police officers attending the scene to the circumstances they faced there is what the IOPC is investigating. Once that investigation is complete and findings of fact are made, I will be happy to discuss the further lessons with the hon. Gentleman and others in the House.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I join colleagues across the House in offering my thoughts and prayers to Henry’s family over his vile and disgusting murder. Unfortunately, far-right groups in Blackpool and across the country are weaponising Henry’s death to create more hatred. Will the Home Secretary join me in condemning those in Blackpool and across the country and ensure that we honour the powerful call from Henry’s family, who do not want his death to be used to create further division, hatred or tension in this country?
Shabana Mahmood
I join my hon. Friend and Members across the House in condemning the actions of the far right utterly. They are completely unacceptable. We should all take a stand against the far right weaponising this horrifying murder—this terrible tragedy for the Nowak family—to spread further division, which is not what this moment requires. I hope that that stand has broad support across the House.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
My thoughts are with Henry’s family. As I listened to his dad yesterday, I could not help but cry at the loss that his family have suffered, and at the fact that the video footage will be etched on their minds forever.
It appears that we have an undercurrent of anti-white racism brewing in the UK. We see white people jailed for allegedly inciting racial hatred on social media, while members of other communities are not even prosecuted for viciously attacking police officers. Henry Nowak deserved better—he did not deserve to be attacked; he did not deserve to spend his final moments pleading for help and saying that he could not breathe; he did not deserve not to be believed; and, above all, he did not deserve to die. Why did it take this Government until yesterday to speak out on this matter, while they run to virtue signal on many other cases? Is the UK no longer a safe place for people like Henry Nowak?
Shabana Mahmood
The reason the Government did not comment until yesterday is because a criminal case was going through our courts. Members of this House, and certainly members of the Government, are not commentators for the purposes of social media. Ministers of the Crown must respect the independence of our criminal justice system and the ability of our courts and independent legal processes to function so that, when findings of fact are made, a conviction happens and a sentence is passed; it commands public confidence across the whole country, because everyone knows it was not interfered with politically; and that it was, in fact, an independent assessment of the facts of a case. I remind the hon. Lady and all Members that that is the responsibility we all have. I urge her to reflect on that.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. I offer my condolences to Henry Nowak’s family, who have been through an appalling ordeal. What assurances can my right hon. Friend provide that Henry’s family’s concerns about the initial police response are being fully considered by the relevant authorities and that lessons will be learned from this terrible incident, so that no other family has to see their loved one doubted in their final moments by those who should be helping them?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me give that assurance to my hon. Friend and, through him, to Henry’s family, as I did earlier in my statement. The family asked me a specific question when they responded yesterday. I have met that challenge and will ensure that we continue to meet that challenge, and that they get the answers they need and deserve.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
For the final question, I call Tristan Osborne.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the House today, and I extend the sympathies of my constituents to Henry Nowak’s family over this heinous and horrific crime. There is speculation online about the identities of these police officers, which is putting at risk other officers across the country due to the irresponsible actions of extreme-right groups and others, fanning the flames of tension. Will the Home Secretary confirm what we are doing to protect our officers on a daily basis under these circumstances, and will she comment on the irresponsible speculation that is happening online?
Shabana Mahmood
Speculation online is not just irresponsible, but wholly unacceptable. As I said earlier, we should all take a stand against that. First, it is putting at risk people who are not connected with this case. Secondly, with regard to the officers who have been connected with this case, there is a proper process that must be allowed to take its course to investigate their conduct and make the appropriate findings in the proper way. Everyone in this House should stand up for the independence of that process and give it space to conclude so that once it has concluded, we can thoroughly debate the lessons that must be learned.
Terrorism Legislation Review
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has prepared a report on the operation of the Terrorism Acts in 2024.
In accordance with section 36(5) of the Terrorism Act 2006, the report is today being laid before Parliament and copies will be available in the Vote Office. It will also be published on gov.uk.
I am grateful to Mr Hall KC for his report. I will carefully consider its contents and the recommendations he makes and will respond formally in due course.
[HCWS1549]
Southport Inquiry: Phase 1 Report and Phase 2 Terms of Reference
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
On 7 April 2025, the then Secretary of State for the Home Department announced the establishment of an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, to be chaired by the right hon. Sir Adrian Fulford. This inquiry was to examine the appalling events that took place at a children’s dance class in Southport on 29 July 2024.
Three young girls were tragically murdered on that day, Elsie Dot Stancombe, Alice da Silva Aguiar and Bebe King, and many more were seriously harmed. Our thoughts remain with the families who have suffered such devastating loss, as well as those who survived the attack but live with the lasting physical and psychological impact.
The chair has today published his findings from the first phase of this inquiry, which provides a detailed account of the events leading up to the attack, and the attack itself. The inquiry examined the perpetrator’s history and interactions with a range of state systems including policing and criminal justice, education, health and social care, as well as considering the account of all those who were impacted by the attack.
The findings point to missed opportunities which could have stopped this attack from occurring. They indicate systematic failures, structural gaps, and a lack of ownership of the risk from the many agencies involved. The inquiry also highlights how agencies failed to adequately share information and take all the facts about the risk the perpetrator posed to the community into consideration, which ultimately meant that his risk was not managed effectively.
Sir Adrian has examined these issues thoroughly, and I welcome his recommendations. The Government are determined to learn the lessons identified by the inquiry and to take the necessary action to reduce the risk of such an attack happening again. I must thank the chair, his team, and all those that took part in the inquiry, for the speed, rigour and professionalism with which they have conducted their work.
The Government will consider the report and its recommendations and will respond in full later this summer. Alongside this, the Government will respond to the recommendations made by the Prevent commissioner, Lord Anderson KC, in his “Lessons for Prevent” report, which examined Prevent’s role in the Southport attack and the murder of Sir David Amess.
While the first phase of the inquiry has looked specifically at the failings in this case, it has identified wider gaps in how to address the risk from individuals who hold a fascination with extreme violence. Following consultation with the chair and those most affected by this attack, I am today publishing the terms of reference for the second phase of the Southport inquiry.
I have asked the chair in phase 2 to examine the adequacy of arrangements for identifying and managing the risk posed by individuals who are fixated with extreme violence. The inquiry will consider the role of multi-agency management, the interventions needed to reduce risk to the public, the effectiveness of laws around knives and weapons, and the extent to which the internet and social media are influencing and enabling people to carry out violent attacks.
This next phase of the inquiry will begin immediately and is expected to report in spring 2027. A copy of the terms of reference for phase 2 of the Southport inquiry will be placed in the Library of each House.
The Government will provide the inquiry with the resources it needs to complete this next phase and will fully support the chair in the discharge of his duties. We will continue to engage with those affected by the events in Southport, to ensure that their questions are answered, and their views are heard, as this next stage commences.
[HCWS1497]