Migration: Settlement Pathway

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)]

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on a fairer pathway to settlement for migrants.

The story of migration in this country is woven through my own. My father came here in the early ’70s, my mother a little less than a decade later. Both came to seek a better life, and they found one here. In time, while always proud Kashmiris, they became British citizens themselves—Brummies, too—and brought up four children just as proud as them to be a part of this country and that great city. This is not just my story; it is the story of many of my constituents in Birmingham Ladywood, and of many millions more across this country.

Like so many others like me, I am a patriot. Mine is a love of a country that is forever changing, while something essential about us always endures. It is a patriotism that finds room for those who trace their roots back many generations and for those who, like me, do not. However, I worry that for some, that broad patriotism is narrowing, and that a vision of a greater Britain is giving way to that of a littler England, as anger turns to hate. Some will choose to scorn this analysis; they would rather that we simply wished it away, but those who look like me do not have that luxury. Our lives and those of our families are more dangerous in a country that turns inwards, so we have no choice but to ask what the cause of our division is, and how this country might be united.

As I said earlier this week, the pace and scale of migration in this country has been destabilising. I spoke on Monday of the 400,000 people who have claimed asylum since 2021, but that figure pales in comparison with the net migration figure for the same period. In that time, 2.6 million more people moved to Britain than left. To place that in perspective, around one in every 30 people in this country arrived in those four years. This is the result of the extraordinary open-border experiment conducted by the last Conservative Government.

In that period, now sometimes called the Boriswave, immigration controls were drastically lifted. This was most notable in the case of the health and care visa, for which minimum salary requirements were dropped. An attempt to fill between 6,000 and 40,000 jobs led to the arrival of 616,000 individuals between 2022 and 2024. Over half of those individuals were not even filling jobs in the sector—rather, they were dependants of those who were—and as any Member of Parliament could tell us, abuse was rife.

I would have thought that my support for migration did not need to be stated, but after some of the questions I faced on Monday, I think I had better do so. Migrant communities have been woven into the tapestry of British life for generations. While I will never believe in assimilating communities, we have achieved cohesion because different communities have integrated, retaining their distinction within a single, pluralistic whole. This makes demands of those who are already here to remain open to new arrivals, but more than that, it demands something of those arriving. To settle in this country forever is not a right, but a privilege, and it must be earned. Today, that is not the case; settlement, or indefinite leave to remain, comes almost automatically after five years’ residence in this country. At that point, a migrant gains access to many of the rights of a British citizen, including to benefits.

As a result of the unprecedented levels of migration in recent years, 1.6 million people are now forecast to settle between 2026 and 2030, with a peak of 450,000 in 2028—around four times higher than the recent average. That will now change. As this Government announced in their immigration White Paper, the starting point for settlement will move from five years to 10. To ensure that this is earned, new criteria will be added, which will act as a disqualifying bar for those who do not meet them. First, the applicant must have a clean criminal record; secondly, they must speak English to A-level standard; thirdly, they must have made sustained national insurance contributions; and finally, they must have no debt in this country.

While these criteria set the bar that everyone must meet, there are a series of other tests, which today have been published for consultation. These either add to, or subtract from, the 10-year qualifying period. To recognise the particular value to society they play, the Government propose that those who speak English to a degree-level standard could qualify for a nine-year path to settlement; those paying the higher rate of tax could qualify at five years; and those on the top rate could qualify after three, the same as those on global talent visas. Those who work in a public service, including doctors, teachers and nurses, would qualify after five years, while those who volunteer—subject to this consultation—could qualify at between five and seven years. Not subject to consultation, the partners of British citizens will continue to qualify at five years, as is the case today. This is also true of British nationals overseas from Hong Kong, who will qualify at five years in honour of our unique responsibilities to them. All grants under the Windrush and EU settlement schemes will also remain unchanged.

While some people will be able to qualify for settlement earlier than 10 years, others will be forced to wait longer. Once again, these proposals are subject to consultation, but the Government propose that those who have received benefits for less than 12 months would not qualify for settlement until 15 years after arrival. For those who have claimed benefits for more than 12 months, the duration would rise to 20 years, and to encourage the use of legal routes into this country, those who arrive illegally could see settlement take up to 30 years. As has already been set out, refugees on core protection will qualify for settlement after 20 years, although those who move to a work and study visa could earn settlement earlier, and those arriving by a safe and legal route would earn settlement at 10 years. This consultation is open regarding settlement rights for some cohorts of special interest, including children, members of the armed forces and victims of certain crimes.

As well as considering the responsibilities that are expected of those who seek a permanent life in this country, the consultation also raises the question of the rights that will be provided. Specifically, it proposes that benefits might not be available to those who have settled status, reserving them instead for those who have earned British citizenship. Finally, the consultation addresses the question of the so-called Boriswave, specifically the cohort of lower-qualified workers who—along with their dependants—entered the country through the health and care visa, and some of whom are never expected to be net economic contributors. It is right that we apply more stringent controls for this group. For that reason, we propose they should wait 15 years before they can earn settlement. Crucially, for these people and for every other group mentioned, we propose that these changes apply to everyone in the country today who has not yet received indefinite leave to remain, although we are seeking views on whether some transitional arrangements should be available.

May I make one thing absolutely clear, though? We will not change the rules for those with settled status today. These are people who have been in our country for years, or even decades. They have families here— wives, husbands and children. They have worked in our hospitals and taught in our schools, and have been contributing to our society for years. Fairness is the most fundamental of British values. We made a promise when we gave those people settlement, and we do not break our promises.

The Reform party—whose Members, I note, are not in the Chamber today—has said that it will do this most un-British of things. The Tories have said that they will, but then said that they will not; I am left in as much of a muddle about their policy as they are, although perhaps the shadow Home Secretary might enlighten the House today. But I can be clear that this Government will not change the rules for those with settled status.

As this consultation shows, we listen to the British public, and I encourage all those interested to make their voices heard. Today I have set out what we propose and, perhaps more importantly, why. I love this country, which opened its arms to my parents around 50 years ago, but I am concerned by the division I see now, fuelled by a pace and scale of change that is placing immense pressure on local communities. For those who believe that migration is part of modern Britain’s story and should always continue to be, we must prove that it can still work, with those who come here contributing, playing their part and enriching our national life. While each will always retain something of who they were and where they came from, they become a part of the greatest multi-ethnic, multi-faith democracy in the world. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

Asylum Policy

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call the Home Secretary to make her statement, I am sorry that Mr Speaker has once again had to ask me to remind Ministers of the requirement in the Government’s own ministerial code that major new policy announcements should be made in this House in the first instance and not to the media. This afternoon’s statement has already been the subject of very extensive media coverage, both over the weekend and this morning, including a lot of policy detail. Hon. and right hon. Members on the Government Benches were very quick to criticise Ministers in the previous Government for this kind of behaviour, but the Home Office seems to have a particular problem with making media announcements before Ministers come to make statements to the House. I know that the Committee chaired by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) is looking at this matter, and I look forward to reading the Committee’s recommendations. I call the Home Secretary.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about how we restore order and control to our borders. I do so as this Government publish the most significant reform to our migration system in modern times.

This country will always offer sanctuary to those fleeing danger, but we must also acknowledge that the world has changed and our asylum system has not changed with it. Our world is a more volatile and more mobile place. Huge numbers are on the move. While some are refugees, others are economic migrants seeking to use and abuse our asylum system. Even genuine refugees are passing through other safe countries, searching for the most attractive place to seek refuge.

The burden that has fallen on this country has been heavy: 400,000 have sought asylum here in the past four years. Over 100,000 people now live in asylum accommodation, and over half of refugees remain on benefits eight years after they have arrived. To the British public, who foot the bill, the system feels out of control and unfair. It feels that way because it is. The pace and scale of change have destabilised communities. It is making our country a more divided place. There will never be a justification for the violence and racism of a minority, but if we fail to deal with this crisis, we will draw more people down a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred.

I have no doubt about who we really are in this country: we are open, tolerant and generous. But the public rightly expect that we can determine who enters this country and who must leave. To maintain the generosity that allows us to provide sanctuary, we must restore order and control.

Rather than deal substantively with this problem, the last Conservative Government wasted precious years and £700 million on their failed Rwanda plan, with the lamentable result of just four volunteers removed from the country. As a result, they left us with the grotesque chaos of asylum seekers housed in hotels and shuttled around in taxis, with the taxpayer footing the bill.

My predecessor as Home Secretary picked up this dreadful inheritance and rebuilt the foundations of a collapsed asylum system. Decision making has been restored, with a backlog now 18% lower than when we entered office. Removals have increased, reaching nearly 50,000 under this Government. Immigration enforcement has hit record levels, with over 8,000 arrests in the last year. The Border Security Bill is progressing through Parliament, and my predecessor struck an historic agreement with the French so that small boat arrivals can now be sent back to France.

Those are vital steps, but we must go further. Today, we have published “Restoring Order and Control”, a new statement on our asylum policy. Its goals are twofold: first, to reduce illegal arrivals into this country, and secondly, to increase removals of those with no right to be here. It starts by accepting an uncomfortable truth: while asylum claims fall across Europe, they are rising here, and that is because of the comparative generosity of our asylum offer compared with many of our European neighbours. That generosity is a factor that draws people to these shores, on a path that runs through other safe countries. Nearly 40% come on small boats and over perilous channel crossings, but a roughly equal proportion come legally, via visitor, work or study visas, and then go on to claim asylum. They do so because refugee status is the most generous route into this country. An initial grant lasts five years and is then converted, almost automatically, into permanent settled status.

In other European countries, things are done differently. In Denmark, refugee status is temporary, and they provide safety and sanctuary until it is possible for a refugee to return home. In recent years, asylum claims in Denmark have hit a 40-year low, and now countries across Europe are tightening their systems in similar ways. We must act too. We will do so by making refugee status temporary, not permanent. A grant of refugee status will last for two and a half years, not five years. It will be renewed only if it is impossible for a refugee to return home. Permanent settlement will now come at 20 years, not five years.

I know that this country welcomes people who contribute. For those who want to stay, and who are willing and able to, we will create a new work and study visa route solely for refugees, with a quicker path to permanent settlement. To encourage refugees into work, we will also consult on removing benefits for those who are able to work but choose not to. Outside the most exceptional circumstances, family reunion will not be possible, with a refugee able to bring family over only if they have joined a work and study route, and if qualifying tests are met.

Although over 50,000 claimants have been granted refugee status in the past year, more than 100,000 claimants and failed asylum seekers remain in taxpayer-funded accommodation. We know that criminal gangs use the prospect of free bed and board to promote their small boat crossings. We have already announced that we will empty asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament, and we are exploring a number of large military sites as an alternative. We will now also remove the 2005 legislation that created a duty to support asylum seekers, reverting to a legal power to do so instead. We will continue to support those who play by the rules, but those who do not—be that through criminality or antisocial behaviour—can have their support removed.

We will also remove our duty to support those who have a right to work. It is right that those who receive support pay for it if they can, so those with income or assets will have to contribute to the cost of their stay. That will end the absurdity that we currently experience, in which an asylum seeker receiving £800 each month from his family, and who had recently acquired an Audi, was receiving free housing at the taxpayer’s expense, and the courts judged that we could do nothing about it.

The measures are designed to tackle the pull factors that draw people to this country, but reducing the number of arrivals is just half of the story. We must also enforce our rules and remove those who have no right to be here. That will mean restarting removals to countries where they have been paused. In recent months, we have begun the voluntary removal of failed asylum seekers to Syria once again. However, many failed asylum seekers from Syria are still here, most of whom fled a regime that has since been toppled. Other countries are planning to enforce removals, and we will follow suit. Where a failed asylum seeker cannot be returned home, we will also continue to explore the possibility of return hubs, with negotiations ongoing.

We must remove those who have failed asylum claims, regardless of who they are. Today, we are not removing family groups, even when we know that their home country is perfectly safe. There are, for instance, around 700 Albanian families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation having failed their asylum claims—despite an existing returns agreement, and Albania being a signatory to the European convention on human rights. So we will now begin the removal of families. Where possible, we will encourage a voluntary return, but where an enforced return is necessary, that is what we will do.

Where the barrier to a return is not the individual, nor the UK Government, but the receiving country, we will take action. I can announce that we have told Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Namibia that if they do not comply with international rules and norms, we will impose visa penalties on them. I am sending a wider message here: unless other countries heed this lesson, further sanctions will follow.

Much of the delay in our removals, however, comes from the sclerotic nature of our own system. In March of this year, the appeals backlog stood at 51,000 cases. This Government have already increased judicial sitting days, but reform is required, so we will create a new appeals body, staffed by professional independent adjudicators, and we will ensure that early legal representation is available to advise claimants and ensure their issues are properly considered. Cases with a low chance of success will be fast-tracked, and claimants will have just one opportunity to claim and one to appeal, ending the merry-go-round of claims and appeals that frustrate so many removals.

While some barriers to removal are the result of process, others are substantive issues related to the law itself. There is no doubt that the expanded interpretation of parts of the European convention on human rights has contributed. This is particularly true of article 8: the right to a family life. The courts have adopted an ever-expanding interpretation of that right. As a result, many people have been allowed to come to this country when they would otherwise have had no right to, and we have been unable to remove others when the case for doing so seems overwhelming. That includes cases like an arsonist, sentenced to five years in prison, whose deportation was blocked on the grounds that his relationship with his sibling may suffer. More than half of those detained are now delaying or blocking their removal by raising a last-minute rights claim.

Article 8 is a qualified right, which means we are not prevented from removing individuals or refusing an application to move to the UK if it is in the public interest. To narrow article 8 rights, we will therefore make three important changes, in both domestic law and to our immigration rules. First, we will define what, exactly, a family is—narrowing it down to parents and their children. Secondly, we will define the public interest test so that the default becomes a removal or refusal, with article 8 rights only permissible in the most exceptional circumstances. Thirdly, we will tighten where article 8 claims can be heard, ensuring only those who are living in the UK can lodge a claim, rather than their family members overseas, and that all claims are heard first by the Home Office and not in a courtroom.

We will also pursue international reform of a second element of the convention: the application of article 3, and the prohibition on torture and inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment. We will never return anyone to be tortured in their home country, but the definition of “degrading treatment” has expanded into the realm of the ridiculous. Today we have criminals who we seek to deport, but we discover we cannot because the prisons in their home country have cells that are deemed too small, or even mental health provision that is not as good as our own. As article 3 is an absolute right, a public interest test cannot be applied. For that reason, we are seeking reform at the Council of Europe, and we do so alongside international partners who have raised similar concerns.

It is not just international law that binds us. According to data from 2022, over 40% of those detained for removal claimed that they were modern-day slaves. That well-intentioned law is being abused by those who seek to frustrate a legitimate removal, so I will bring forward legislation that tightens the modern slavery system, to ensure that it protects those it was designed for, and not those who seek to abuse it. Taken together, these are significant reforms. They are designed to ensure that our asylum system is fit for the modern world, and that we retain public consent for the very idea of providing refuge.

We will always be a country that offers protection to those fleeing peril, just as we did in recent years when Ukraine was invaded, when Afghanistan was evacuated, and when we repatriated Hongkongers. For that reason, as order and control are restored, we will open new, capped, safe and legal routes into this country. These will make sponsorship the primary means by which we resettle refugees, with voluntary and community organisations given greater involvement to both receive refugees and support them, working within caps set by Government. We will also create a new route for displaced students to study in the UK, and another for skilled refugees to work here. Of course, we will always remain flexible to new crises across the world, as they happen.

I know that the British people do not want to close the doors, but until we restore order and control, those who seek to divide us will grow stronger. It is our job as a Labour Government to unite where there is division, so we must now build an asylum system for the world as it is—one that restores order and control, that opens safe and legal routes to those fleeing danger across the world, and that sustains our commitment to providing refuge for this generation, and those to come. I know the country we are. We are open, tolerant, and generous. We are the greater Britain that those on this side of the House believe in, not the littler England that some wish we would become. These reforms are designed to bring unity where others seek to divide, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch.

[Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement, most of which I read The Sunday Telegraph. I am pleased that she is bringing forward measures to crack down on illegal immigration. It is not enough but it is a start, and a change from her previous position in opposition of a general amnesty for illegal migrants.

I praise the new Home Secretary. She is bringing fresh energy and a clearer focus to this problem, and she has got more done in 70 days in the job than her predecessor did in a year. She seems to get what many on the Labour Benches refuse to accept, and she is right to say that if we fail to deal with the crisis, we will draw more people to a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred. We will also allow our English channel to operate as an open route into this country for anyone who is prepared to risk their life and pay criminal gangs. That is not fair on British citizens, it is not fair on those who come here legally, and it is not fair on those in genuine need who are pushed to the back of the queue because the system is overwhelmed.

Anyone who cannot see by now that simply tinkering with the current system will not fix this problem is either living in la-la land or being wilfully obstructive. It is a shame that it has taken Labour a year in office to realise there is a borders crisis—[Interruption.] I don’t know why Labour Members are chuntering. What was their first act in government? The first act of the Home Secretary’s predecessor was to scrap the Rwanda plan, which was already—[Interruption.] Yes, they are cheering. It was already starting to act as a deterrent before it even got off the ground, and before it started, Labour Members threw away all our hard work and taxpayers’ money—they are the ones who have wasted that money, not us.

The statement is an admission that the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill of the Home Secretary’s predecessor will not work, but I am glad to see Labour Members now changing course. The powers they are using in the Bill are ones they all voted down when we were in government, and they would not be able to do that if we had not got those measures through. None of them know the work that was done; they are just cheering nonsensically, but we know what has happened since Labour came to office. The Home Secretary will know that 10,000 people have crossed the channel in the 70 days she has been in office, and we have seen record levels of asylum claims in the last year. The problem has got worse since Labour came into office, and it is getting worse by the day.

I am afraid that what the Home Secretary is announcing will not work on its own, and some of these measures will take us backwards. I say that to her with no ill will, and I hope she believes me when I say that I genuinely want her to succeed. Conservative Members are speaking from experience: we know how difficult this is— [Interruption.] We do, and we will not take any lectures from the people who voted down every single measure to control immigration. Some of the measures that the Home Secretary is announcing today are undoubtedly positive steps—baby steps, but positive none the less. We welcome making refugee status temporary, and we welcome removing the last Labour Government’s legislation that created a duty to support asylum seekers—she is right to do that. However, some of what she is announcing simply does not go far enough.

Conservative Members believe that anyone who arrives illegally, especially from safe countries, should be deported and banned from claiming asylum. Does the Home Secretary agree that anyone who comes to this country illegally should be deported? I would like to know, and I think the country would like to know, because this announcement means that some people who arrive will be allowed to stay—they just need to wait 20 years before getting permanent settlement. That does not remove the pull factor. The main problem is that for as long as the UK is in the European convention on human rights, illegal immigrants and those exploiting our system will use human rights laws to block anything she does to solve this. I know that because I saw it happen again and again over the last four years, and I know she has seen it too. We even saw it this year with the Prime Minister’s one in, one out scheme, which has seen people return to France and come back on small boats yet again.

I guarantee that the Home Secretary’s plan to reinterpret article 8 will not work. We tried that already, and Strasbourg and UK case law will prevail. I agree with her that the definition of “degrading treatment” is over-interpreted, but renegotiating article 3 internationally will take years—years we do not have if it were even possible, but the fact is that it is not. We know that because a small group of EU countries tried that earlier, and they were dismissed by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Her Government did nothing to support them, so I am not convinced it is the Prime Minister’s negotiating skills that will sort out that problem.

We have looked at this issue from every possible direction, and any plan that does not include leaving the ECHR as a necessary step is wasting time we do not have. Just like the Government’s plan to “smash the gangs”, or the one in, one out policy, it is timewasting, and it is doomed to fail because of lawfare. We have seen this all before. The tough measures will be challenged in the courts and blocked, the new legal routes that the Home Secretary is talking about will be exploited, and the numbers arriving on our shores and disappearing into the black economy will keep on rising. If the Home Secretary is serious about reducing these numbers—I do believe that she is—she must be bolder. She must take steps to deter illegal immigrants from coming to Britain, and deport them as soon as they arrive. Our borders plan does just that, and I know that she has studied it in detail. I have seen the looks, and I know that she knows that we would leave the ECHR and the European convention on action against trafficking to stop the Strasbourg courts from frustrating deportations, and establish a new removals force to ensure that all illegal arrivals are deported. We would end the use of immigration tribunals, judicial review and legal aid in immigration cases, as those are the things that are slowing us down, and we would sign returns agreements that are backed by visa sanctions to ensure that we send illegal arrivals back to their place of origin. I welcome what she says about Angola and Namibia, but we all know that those countries are not the ones that are creating the biggest problems.

We need to be bold, serious and unafraid to do what the British people demand: secure our borders. That is what is in our borders plan, so I urge the Home Secretary to take me up on my offer to work together, not just because we have some ideas that she might find useful, but because judging by the reaction of her own Back Benchers today, she may find our votes come in handy. Earlier this year, we saw what happened when the Government tried to make changes through the welfare Bill: the Prime Minister was defeated by his own Back Benchers and ended up passing legislation guaranteeing that more money would be spent on welfare. It does not appear that his grip on the party has improved since then, so we can be sure that Labour Back Benchers are already plotting to block any serious changes that she tries to make, so we can help her with that—[Interruption.] Why are Labour Members shaking their heads? We have seen them do that time and again.

Our offer to work together is a genuine one and in the national interest. We will not play the same game that Labour Members did by voting things down for no reason. However, the Home Secretary must be clear with the House on these questions: how many people will be able to take advantage of the new work and study visa routes? What will be the level of the cap? Will it be 10,000 people or 100,000 people?

The Government have separately confirmed that they will allow Gazan students to bring dependants. We oppose that, but can she clarify how the Government will ensure that people brought to the UK from a territory under Hamas control are not a risk to our security? If she finds that the Human Rights Act 1998 and the ECHR prevent her from enacting those proposals, will she use primary legislation to resolve that? Has Lord Hermer agreed? By her own admission three weeks ago, the Home Office is not yet fit for purpose, so why are we creating a new legal route for the Home Office to run?

Will she take me up on my serious, genuine offer to meet and to discuss how we can work together to resolve the asylum crisis—yes or no? I urge her to put party politics aside, meet me and my shadow Home Secretary, so that we can find a way to work together—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I was very generous with the time I allowed the Leader of the Opposition. I call the Home Secretary.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her response to the statement. I see that the shadow Home Secretary has been subbed out after his performance at Home Office oral questions, but whether it is the shadow Home Secretary or the Leader of the Opposition herself, I am very happy to take on the Conservative party any day of the week.

Let me start by saying that we will not take any lessons from the Opposition on how to run an effective migration or asylum system. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, when the Conservatives were in Government, they gave up on governing altogether. They gave up on making asylum decisions, creating the huge backlog that this Government were left to start to deal with. In our first 18 months in office, removals are up 23% compared with the last 18 months that the Conservatives were in office, so I will take no lessons from anyone on the Conservative Benches on anything to do with our asylum system. They simply gave up and went for an expensive gimmick that cost £700 million to return four volunteers and was doomed to failure from the start.

The Leader of the Opposition had a lot to say about the European convention on human rights, but I do not recall the Conservatives ever bringing forward any legislation to deal with the application of article 8, the qualified right to a private life. A Bill that sought to clarify the way that article 8 should apply in our domestic legislation or in our immigration rules was never introduced, so I am not going to take any lessons from the people who never bothered to do that in the first place. This Government are rolling up our sleeves, dealing with the detailed, substantive issues that we face, and thinking of proper, workable solutions to those matters.

The position on article 3 has changed across Europe. In my previous role as Lord Chancellor, I was at the Council of Europe just before the summer recess earlier this year, and I was struck by the sheer range of European partners who want to have this conversation. It is important that the British Government lean into that conversation and seek to work in collaboration with our European partners. The one thing that will not work is simply saying that we are going to come out of the European convention altogether. That is not and will never be the policy of this Government because we believe that reform can be pursued and that this is an important convention, not least because it underpins some of our own returns agreements, including the one with France. The right hon. Lady talked about how many years it would take for us to think about reform of the convention, but as she well knows, it would take just as many years to start renegotiating lots of international agreements that would be affected by us coming out of the convention, so I am afraid that, once again, her solution will not work.

I am always up for working in the national interest because nothing matters more to me than holding our country together and uniting it, but if the Conservatives really wanted to work together in the national interest, they could have started by voting for the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, currently going through the House, that they have voted against at every opportunity. Forgive me if I do not take this newfound conversion to working together in the national interest with much seriousness, but the Conservative party’s track record suggests that it should not be taken seriously.

To not be taken seriously sums up the position of the Conservatives: these are the people that left this Government an abject mess to clear up. They gave up on governing, they gave up on running an effective asylum system, and now they turn up without so much as an apology to the British public, thinking that they have got anything to say that anyone wants to hear.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call the first Back-Bench contribution, may I remind Members that in order to expect to be called to speak in response to a statement, they should have been here from the start of the Home Secretary’s statement? There may be Members bobbing quite unnecessarily.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

The reality is that we need an asylum and immigration system based on fairness and consistency. My constituency of Vauxhall and Camberwell Green is a testament to that, as it is a place that has been made richer because of the people who have come there from all over the world. Some of them have fled persecution and have made a home in my constituency over many years. I meet these people every week in the community, including in schools, where I see those children excited about their future. When this Government came into office last year, they were right to say that their priority was to tackle the huge backlog of unprocessed asylum claims left by their predecessor. Clearing that backlog is a big task, but it is right that we identify who has the right to be here, although introducing more assessments of those who have been here for many years and making new judgments about the safety of a country, will take considerable resources. Is the Home Secretary confident that these changes will not have the unintentional consequence of making it harder to achieve her goal?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I assure my hon. Friend that there will be both the administrative system and the resources needed to underpin the asylum changes that we are making. At the end of the five-year leave to remain period, there is already meant to be an assessment about whether the country of origin remains a safe country or not, but in practice there has ended up being an almost automatic pathway to permanent settlement, and that it what we are changing. I would ask her to look carefully at our protection work and study route, because we will be encouraging those who have sought asylum here and been granted refugee status to go into work or to study. That supports their integration and means that they are making a contribution that will retain public support for the system overall.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is right that the Government are looking for ways to bring order to the asylum system, which was left in total disarray by the Conservatives. Sadly, the Government have been too slow to act.

Britain has a long and proud history of responding with compassion to people fleeing unimaginable horrors. That should continue in a way that is fair and sustainable, so we welcome some of what the Home Secretary has said on that score. However, it is not helpful for the Home Secretary to claim that the country is being torn apart by immigration. Acknowledging the challenges facing our nation is one thing, but stoking division by using immoderate language is quite another.

I welcome the news about safe and legal routes. The Liberal Democrats have called for such routes since they were scrapped by the Conservatives, leading to more small boat crossings, but we have some concerns about the far-reaching detail behind the proposals, which seems to be missing.

The Home Secretary is revoking the legal duty to provide asylum seekers with accommodation, and says that asylum seekers should support themselves and contribute to our society, yet she is still banning them from working so that they can support themselves and contribute to our society, which makes no sense. The Home Secretary relies a lot on Denmark as an example. Denmark lets asylum seekers work after six months, so will she? Can she guarantee that the burden to house asylum seekers will not fall on already struggling local councils? Can she also guarantee that we will not see a wholesale transfer of asylum seekers from hotels to the streets?

The Minister for Border Security and Asylum has announced to the media that asylum seekers could have jewellery confiscated. Is the Home Secretary doing that to raise money or to deter people? Either way, does she acknowledge that many British people will see it as unnecessary and cruel? State-sponsored robbery will certainly not fix a system that costs taxpayers £6 million every day in hotel bills.

If the Government plan to keep their promise to end hotel use, they must process the claims of the 90,000 asylum seekers in the backlog. The Liberal Democrats have a plan to do that within six months using Nightingale-style processing centres. Does the Home Secretary seriously believe that an overstretched Home Office that is yet to clear the existing backlog can also undertake reviews of every refugee’s status every two-and-a-half years?

The UK must continue to lead international efforts to manage large migratory flows. Because the flow of people comes from Europe, the Home Secretary will need to work with the EU on a solution. The Oxford Migration Observatory has identified a clear Brexit effect. That means that people refused asylum in the EU make a second attempt here—a consequence of the Brexit delivered by the Conservatives and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). The Minister for Border Security and Asylum refused earlier to answer whether Brexit has harmed our immigration and asylum system, so I will ask the Home Secretary now. Does she think that Brexit has made it easier or more difficult for this country to control its borders and asylum system? Does she think that reductions in overseas development spending will reduce or increase migratory flows?

We have already made it very clear that we think leaving the ECHR will make no difference to securing our borders and will tear hard-won rights away from British people. It is encouraging that the Home Secretary has said that that is not part of the Government’s plan. We urge the Government to tread carefully and act with fairness, efficiency and compassion for local communities in the UK who want this issue resolved, but also for asylum seekers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The Home Secretary should know that language that is not acceptable in this House does not become acceptable if it is attributed to others. She might like to apologise for the language that she used.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not mean any discourtesy; I was merely reflecting the truth of words that are used to me.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I think we all appreciate that, but I urge Members to keep their language acceptable in the House.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

I fully support the Home Secretary and her statement. It is a fundamental duty of Government to protect our borders and to know who is coming into this country—something that we have not known for some time. She has set herself a difficult task. Will she agree to publish targets for all the areas that she outlined in her statement, and particularly for a reduction in the number of undocumented and illegal entrants to the country, so that we can check whether the plan is working? If it is not, she may need to alter some of the policies.

[Shabana Mahmood]

What we will not do is set arbitrary targets or caps. We have learned the lessons from previous Governments, and setting a number in that way actually costs public confidence. The better thing to do is to get on with passing the necessary legislation in this House, to deliver the reforms out there in the country, and to assess them as they go. I have no doubt that there will be much debate and scrutiny in this place and others about the success of these reforms, and I look forward to answering questions over the coming months and years.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I am sure that my Committee will want to look closely at the very significant number of announcements that the Home Secretary has made today. She referred on a number of occasions to asylum seekers contributing when they are given support. Has she given any consideration to setting up a deferred payment scheme, much akin to the student loan scheme, so that when people are granted asylum and are in work, they can start to pay back the generosity that they have received?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

We will bring forward legislation in the next Session on the specific ways that we will deal with the application of article 8 to immigration cases, and on updating our immigration rules. I am happy to discuss with her how that legislation will be developed over the coming weeks, but the intention is to do exactly as I said in my statement. In particular, we will define “family”; set out how the public interest test is to be used, and that it is to be used only in the most exceptional circumstances; and tighten the “who” and “where” of how article 8 claims can be made. Taken together, we believe that those measures will ensure that article 8 is applied exactly as was intended when the European convention on human rights was first agreed to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

We Conservative Members genuinely wish the Home Secretary well, because otherwise, in her own words, the country will start falling apart. It is a good effort—seven out of 10. She clearly has strong conservative instincts, but does she fear that the misery in many of these countries is such that asylum seekers are not really worried about how long they have to wait for their claim to be processed? Does she fear that unless we arrest, detain and deport people very quickly, this problem will just go on and on? The Home Secretary mentioned return hubs; could she say a bit more about those, and will she have an open mind about schemes such as Rwanda?

Police Reform

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

That is of course the aim of this Government: we want to put policing in our communities, where people expect it to be, and make sure that the police are not, as they currently are, spending hours and hours of their day on bureaucratic, very outdated, very unproductive tasks. Indeed, in many cases police officers are actually doing the job of police staff, which is ludicrous. We need to work with our police chiefs to change that, ensuring that our police officers are doing the roles that we need officers to be doing, while the very important crime fighters of our police staff are doing what they need to be doing. That is not currently the case, but we are working hard to make sure that it will be.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. The Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the news that police and crime commissioners are being scrapped. We have been calling for it for years, and I personally called for this in one of my first contributions in this House, after the PCC election turnout in Cornwall was abysmally low, at just 18%. The model was a failed Tory experiment that has cost taxpayers dearly.

The Minister is right to point out the countless flaws in the overly politicised PCC model, which has diverted much-needed funding away from frontline and community policing. PCCs cost the public millions in council tax every year, yet the impact on their local communities has been negligible. However, transferring the role to mayors is not the answer; it would give even more power to single individuals with dubious democratic mandates and little scrutiny or accountability. The Government must learn the lessons of this expensive and failed experiment.

Instead, the Government should see through their plans for these “temporary” local police and crime boards, but give them the powers on a permanent basis. They should ensure that the money saved from PCCs goes where it is needed most: getting more officers out on our streets and repairing the damage done by years of Conservative mismanagement and underfunding. That is particularly urgent in the light of the slow progress the Home Office has made on its promise to deliver 13,000 new neighbourhood officers; only 200 were added last year, while the number of officers in frontline roles went down.

Will the Minister commit to investing the money saved from these unnecessary PCCs straight into frontline policing and towards proper, effective community policing? Could she outline the safeguards that will be put in place to hold mayors to account with their new-found policing responsibilities? Finally, could she elaborate on her estimated £100 million in savings from scrapping PCCs—has that figure been independently verified, and can she confirm that the funds will be not just transferred to mayors’ budgets but spent on frontline policing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I inform Members that I plan to run this statement until no later than 1 o’clock, so we need to have short questions and short answers.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s announcement that she will abolish police and crime commissioners, which is the right move. That said, may I place on the record my thanks to John Tizard, our Bedfordshire PCC? He has always worked constructively with me, and I know he will continue to work constructively until 2028. May I press the Minister on the steps being taken to ensure a smooth transition from PCCs to mayor-led or council-led oversight, particularly in areas such as Luton South and South Bedfordshire, where we do not have elected mayors?

Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call the Minister, I remind hon. Members that they should avoid referring to any active cases that are currently before the courts.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

I would like to update the House on the progress being made to deliver Baroness Casey’s recommendations following her national audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse, which was published before the summer recess.

The sexual exploitation and abuse of children by grooming gangs are the most horrific and despicable crimes. Girls as young as 10 were exploited, abused and brutally raped by gangs of men, and then disgracefully let down again and again by the authorities that were meant to protect them. These despicable crimes have caused the most unimaginable harm to victims and survivors throughout their lives and are a stain on our society.

Baroness Casey’s report chronicled more than a decade of inaction on these appalling crimes by previous Governments, despite repeated warnings and recommendations. But this Government will not lose any more time in pursuing truth and justice for victims and survivors, who deserved so much better. That is why, on 16 June, the Home Secretary made it abundantly clear that this Government will accept all 12 of Baroness Casey’s recommendations, including the establishment of a new statutory national inquiry into group-based child sexual exploitation, and a new national policing operation to get more perpetrators behind bars. Since then, we have made significant strides in laying the foundations for a robust, survivor-centred national inquiry and in establishing a national policing operation, while continuing to drive forward the major workstreams that were already well under way to tackle those abhorrent crimes.

I will first update the House on the progress made to establish a new national policing operation to get perpetrators who exploit, abuse and harm children behind bars, where they belong. Today, I can announce that Operation Beaconport has been established. It will be overseen by the National Crime Agency and delivered in partnership with policing, including the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the CSE taskforce and the tackling organised exploitation programme.

For the very first time, this new national policing operation brings together all the relevant policing partners under one operation, to ensure a swift and specialist law enforcement response to grooming gang offending. This collaborative approach ensures that a long-term investigative capability is built across policing and that best practice is standard, ending an unacceptable postcode lottery for victims and survivors. The new national operation will eliminate inconsistencies on how cases are handled across forces and will ensure that there is no hiding place for perpetrators. Victims and survivors are central to the operation, and trauma-informed practice will be at its core. Over the summer I have been meeting survivors and their support organisations on the issue.

This work is already well under way. In January the Home Secretary asked police forces to identify cases involving grooming and child sexual exploitation that had been closed with no further action, to pursue new lines of inquiry and to reopen investigations where appropriate. As a result of that commission, 1,273 cases have now been identified for formal review, and the new national operation has identified 216 highest priority cases—those that involve an allegation of rape—which are being accelerated as a matter of urgency.

We expect policing to meticulously pore over those cases and work with associated victims to relentlessly pursue perpetrators who should be behind bars. That includes the ongoing investigation relating to South Yorkshire Police’s handling of reports into child sexual abuse and exploitation in Rotherham. Following discussions between the Independent Office for Police Conduct, South Yorkshire Police and the National Crime Agency, I can confirm that it has been formally agreed that the investigation will now be carried out by the NCA, under the direction and control of the IOPC.

Alongside these ongoing reviews, Operation Beaconport will also provide additional support for police forces to conduct complex investigations, and to ensure that specialist best practice is being adopted consistently across the country. I thank the CSE taskforce for the work that it has done in preparing the way forward for these investigations. I can announce to the House today that in the first year that this Government were in office, from July 2024 to July 2025, the taskforce contributed to 827 arrests nationwide, an 11% increase on the previous year.

To bolster this vital work, I can update the House that last month I announced that the Government would be injecting £426,000 of new funding to the tackling organised exploitation programme, in addition to the £8.8 million that we are already investing in the programme this year. The new funding will enable TOEX to extend access to its suite of cutting-edge investigative apps and digital tools, stored within its secure capabilities environment, to all police forces in England and Wales. Following my announcement of a further investment, in addition to the 15 police forces that are already utilising TOEX tools, a further 10 forces are currently onboarding.

The TOEX expansion crucially supports the first phase of Operation Beaconport. Police officers will be able to access the AI-enabled tools to assist with detecting and investigating child sexual abuse and exploitation, including TOEX translate, a tool for bulk translation of foreign language text from seized mobile devices, which has enabled savings of an estimated £25 million so far, and the data analysis and review tool, which analyses large amounts of digital data to identify communications patterns and relationships between suspects. Further announcements on Operation Beaconport will be made by operational partners shortly. A comprehensive update is expected in the coming weeks, setting out the full scope of the operation and the support available to those affected.

We will never shy away from the facts in these cases. Following Baroness Casey’s audit and her conclusions on the disproportionate role of Pakistani-heritage gangs, and building on the work that the Home Secretary had already commissioned to improve ethnicity data in relation to those crimes, we have also committed to making it a requirement to collect ethnicity and nationality data of suspects who commit child sexual exploitation and abuse offences. The Home Secretary has written to chief constables to signal that the current data collection across ethnicity and nationality is unacceptable, and that this data must be improved as a matter of urgency. Work is now under way looking to amend the annual data requirements to support this process, and we are looking at legislative options to drive forward these improvements.

Finally, Baroness Casey recommended the establishment of a new statutory national inquiry that could compel targeted investigations in local areas, to get truth and justice for victims and survivors, and to drive meaningful change in local systems and structures that had failed so many people in the past. I can confirm that the national inquiry into group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse will place victims and survivors firmly at its heart. Crucially, it will ensure trauma-informed, accessible engagement for victims and survivors that reflects diverse lived experiences and minimises the risk of re-traumatisation.

The inquiry will examine how effectively local and national safeguarding systems protected children from group-based sexual exploitation and abuse, and hold institutions accountable for past failures. As the Home Secretary said in June, its purpose must be to challenge what Baroness Casey’s audit described as continued “denial”, “resistance” and “legal wrangling” among local agencies. The inquiry will consider intersections with ethnicity, race and culture, and assess the safeguarding duties of public services, identifying both failures and examples of good practice.

I know that everyone in the House and beyond wants to see the inquiry begin its work at the earliest opportunity. Colleagues will know that that requires the appointment of a chair and the agreement of terms of reference. Following a recruitment process over the summer, Home Office officials, the Home Secretary and I have met with prospective candidates for the chair of the inquiry and we are now in the final stages of the appointment process. Most importantly, the chair must have the credibility and experience to command the confidence of victims and survivors, as well as the wider public. Meaningful engagement with victims and survivors is paramount. To support that, a dedicated panel of victims and survivors has been established to contribute to the chair selection process. This is a critical milestone, and once an appointment is confirmed, the House will be updated at the earliest opportunity.

Members from across the House will understand that this process must be done properly and thoroughly. We must avoid a repeat of what happened with the efforts to appoint a chair of the original independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, when three chairs were appointed and subsequently withdrew, from July 2014 onwards, prior to the eventual appointment of Professor Alexis Jay in 2016, a full two years after the original chair was named. We are determined to ensure that that does not happen again.

In line with the Inquiries Act 2025, the appointed chair will play a central role in shaping the commission’s terms of reference. These will be published and subject to consultation with stakeholders, including victims and survivors. The inquiry is expected to run for two to three years, enabling it to examine a broad range of issues, while honouring Baroness Casey’s recommendation that it must be time-limited to deliver answers swiftly, a key request not just from victims and survivors, but from Members from across this House.

The inquiry will begin by identifying priority areas for review, conducting targeted local investigations and reporting findings at both local and national levels. These reviews will be tailored to the specific context of each area and may involve a wide range of organisations, including children’s and family services, police, the Crown Prosecution Service, health and education providers, youth services, third-sector organisations and central Government Departments, whose actions and decisions have affected what has happened at a local level. Where appropriate, the inquiry will issue recommendations at both local and national levels. We will continue to keep Members of the House, the victims and the public informed of all appointments and the terms of reference.

The Government remain unwavering in their commitment to ensuring that this inquiry is robust, transparent and capable of delivering truth, accountability and meaningful change. As we have said from the outset, we are determined to ensure that every survivor of grooming gangs gets the support and justice they deserve; that every perpetrator is put behind bars; that every case, historic or current, has been properly investigated; and that every person or institution who looked the other way is held accountable, as that is a stain on our society that should be finally removed for good. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Given that the Minister has just taken 12 minutes, I will be extending the time allowance to the shadow Home Secretary to six minutes and to the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats to three minutes. I call the shadow Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

There absolutely are. My hon. Friend is exactly right that there are differences, so it will be for the chair, a panel and a commission to do that work in localities and ensure that victim engagement is really location specific.

With regard to the specific issue in Oldham, we have been engaging very closely with Oldham for some time, including with victims and survivors. As I said, I spoke to some of them last night about wanting them to be part of the terms of reference for the national inquiry. Our offer for a full and local independent inquiry in Oldham remains in place, and we are in discussion with them about how they want to proceed in the context of the national inquiry. We do not want to have victims having to do a repetitive exercise, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are speaking to officials in Oldham very regularly.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am grateful as always to the Minister for advance sight of her statement. In every single conversation about this issue in this House, our first thought must always be with the victims and the survivors. No child should ever suffer the devastating trauma of sexual exploitation or abuse. These crimes are abhorrent and an assault on the very values of our society. We carry a responsibility to act, to secure justice for victims, to ensure that offenders answer for their crimes and to build a future in which such suffering is not repeated.

In 2022, Professor Alexis Jay published her independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. In June, Baroness Casey released her report on group-based exploitation. I am really grateful to the Minister for her update on the progress being made, but when does she expect to have implemented the crucial recommendations from both reports?

Baroness Casey was clear about one of her key recommendations: the Government must end the practice of out-of-area taxis by introducing stronger national standards for taxi licensing and driver regulation. Across Greater Manchester, we know that problem all too well; for years, drivers have exploited the fragmented system by securing the easiest licences to obtain from councils in one area and then operating elsewhere. As a result, many taxis working in Greater Manchester are licensed 100 miles away in Wolverhampton. What work is the Minister doing to address that specific issue? It feels like there is an opportunity to do so this afternoon through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, but that opportunity has not yet been taken. If an amendment to the Bill is the way to achieve that aim, will the Minister work with colleagues across the House to ensure that this important recommendation from Baroness Casey can be delivered?

Finally, I turn to an issue that I and others have raised repeatedly, and on which some progress was hinted at in recent press reports. Could the Minister confirm when Parliament will see legislation for a Hillsborough law, as promised many times by the Government, to guarantee that public officials and authorities co-operate fully with a duty of candour in cases such as this one, including in the upcoming national inquiry?

UK-France Migration: Co-operation

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement to update the House on new joint action between the UK and France to tackle dangerous small boat crossings—crossings that undermine both UK and French border security, put lives at risk in the channel, fuel organised crime, and cause disorder and damage, both here in the UK and in France.

The new agreement reached at the summit last week means stronger partnership working with source and transit countries to prevent illegal migration; stronger law enforcement action against criminal smuggler and trafficking gangs who profit from this trade in human lives; action to strengthen the border itself along the French coast and in the channel; a groundbreaking new returns arrangement so, for the first time, people arriving on small boats can be sent back to France; and stronger action here in the UK to stop illegal working and to tackle the long-term system failures that are exploited by criminal gangs to encourage people to travel to the UK. I hope that the whole House will welcome each of those important steps.

Global instability continues to drive irregular and illegal migration towards Europe and towards the UK, and it is exploited and encouraged by criminal gangs who seek to make maximum profit from human misery and insecurity. France faces challenges too, with over 150,000 people claiming asylum there in 2024. The most serious aspect that we face is the dangerous small boat crossings that undermine our border security and put lives at risk. Before 2018, we barely saw anyone trying to cross by boat, but in the years that followed a major criminal industry was allowed to grow and take deep hold along our border. In the space of just five years, the number of small boat crossings increased by more than a hundredfold, from less than 400 in 2018 to over 40,000 by 2023, weakening border security and badly damaging public trust in the state’s ability to manage border control.

For too long, Britain’s response has been underpowered and ineffective, and so too has the co-operation across Europe, letting criminal gangs get away with it and leaving the asylum system in chaos. The co-ordinated work across Europe has been far too weak for far too long, and so too has the work between the UK and our nearest neighbours. As we have set out before, smuggler and trafficking gangs make their money by operating across borders, so Governments need to co-operate across borders to take them down. That had not happened for years in the system we inherited.

Securing UK borders is a fundamental part of the Prime Minister’s plan for change. That is why we are building the foundations of a new international approach, working with countries across Europe and beyond to strengthen and secure our borders, to prevent dangerous and illegal boat crossings and to stop criminal gangs, who are putting lives at risk. Let me take each of the five areas of co-operation in turn.

The first area is upstream co-operation. Much stronger joint action is needed with source and transit countries to prevent dangerous journeys in the first place. We have strengthened the key partnerships with the G7 and the Calais Group, and have established a new joint upstream working group with France—chaired by the Border Security Commander and the Minister of the Interior’s special representative on migration—to target action with source and transit countries, including on prevention campaigns, law enforcement and returns. For example, we are working jointly with the Government of Iraq and the Kurdish Regional Government to tackle the Iraqi Kurdish smuggler gangs that stretch their operations between Iraq, northern France and the UK.

Secondly, we are extending stronger law enforcement action against the criminal gangs. We have already introduced the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to introduce counter-terrorism-style powers on people smuggling. We have established the Border Security Command to mobilise UK agencies and funded extra specialist National Crime Agency intelligence and investigations officers, including staff stationed across Europe and in Europol. We also brought together representatives from more than 50 countries and international organisations at the border security summit earlier this year.

In comparison with the year before, we have increased disruptions against more high-end, high-harm targets by nearly a quarter; closed twice as many social media accounts—18,000 social media accounts used by smugglers to sell boat crossings are now down; and increased the cost to gangs of boat and engine packages being delivered to northern France, hitting their business model. That is all work done by the National Crime Agency this year. We are now going further, with additional recruitment of NCA officers and, crucially, a new specialist intelligence and judicial police unit in Dunkirk to speed up the arrest and prosecution of smugglers in France.

Thirdly, we are strengthening the border itself. French actions have prevented 496 boat crossings this year, but 385 boats have crossed. Criminal gangs are operating new tactics, increasing the overcrowding of boats so that more people arrive, loading them in shallow waters and exploiting the French rules that mean authorities have not been able to intervene in the water. Those tactics have driven appalling scenes, with people clambering on to crowded boats in shallow waters, disgraceful violence from gang members towards the French police and migrants, and people being crushed to death in the middle of overcrowded boats. We cannot stand for this.

That is why the new action agreed with France includes establishing a new French Compagnie de Marche of specialist enforcement officers, with stronger public order powers to address increases in violence on French beaches and prevent boat launches before they reach the water. It also includes providing training for additional drone pilots to intercept those launches and, crucially, supporting the new maritime review instigated by the French Minister of the Interior so that they can intervene more effectively, pursuing what last week’s declaration describes as

“novel and innovative approaches to intercept boats, and enhanced Maritime co-operation, to ensure we adapt as the criminal gangs change their approach”.

Meanwhile, we are changing our domestic law through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to criminalise those who endanger people’s lives at sea, so that we can more easily prosecute those who crowd on to overcrowded boats and put other people’s lives at risk. Action will be taken in both French and UK waters.

Fourthly, we are taking new, innovative approaches to returns. Since the election, we have already increased international returns for those with no right to be in the UK, but until now we have not been able to return people who have made these dangerous and illegal boat crossings to other safe countries they have travelled through. Previous Governments tried to achieve this—indeed, they even promised it—but they never secured an agreement to do so. Under the groundbreaking agreement announced by the Prime Minister and President Macron last week, for the first time individuals who arrive in the UK by small boat can be readmitted to France. That is the right thing to do, and is also an important step towards undermining the business model of the organised crime groups that are behind these crossings.

We have agreed to establish a safe, reciprocal exchange mechanism for individuals in France who apply with appropriate documentation to be transferred to the UK, subject to clear eligibility criteria and stringent security checks. Transfers to the UK under the new route will match the number readmitted to France on a one-for-one basis. Further details of the scheme will be set out in the immigration rules once final arrangements are in place. This innovative agreement means that people who undertake illegal, dangerous journeys to the UK—putting their own and other people’s lives at risk and paying money to fuel an entire criminal industry—will be returned to France, where the boats set off from. In return, we will take people who apply lawfully and pass security checks, with priority given to those who have a connection with the UK, who are most likely to be refugees, or who are most vulnerable to smuggler gangs.

This is the right thing to do. It establishes the principle that, while the UK will always be ready to play its part alongside other countries in helping those fleeing persecution and conflict, we believe this should be done in a controlled and managed legal way, not through dangerous, illegal, uncontrolled or criminal routes. It is also the first step towards undermining the promises made by criminal gangs when they tell people that if they travel to the UK, they cannot be returned to the continent—now, they can be. We will develop the pilot step by step and will trial different approaches as part of it, varying the numbers and seeking the most effective ways to undermine the gangs, reduce boat crossings and help France to deal with the problems it faces in the Calais region. The Prime Minister and French President have set out their expectation that that pilot will be operationalised in the coming weeks.

Fifthly, we will take stronger action on illegal working and asylum failures here in the UK. For far too long, it has been too easy for people to work illegally in the UK and for employers to exploit them, undercutting responsible businesses. Since the election, we have already increased illegal working raids and arrests by 50%, and have more than tripled the value of employer penalties issued to over £89 million. We have also launched a new surge in enforcement linked to the gig economy, and the borders Bill contains changes to the law to compel companies to conduct proper checks on the right to work. We will also bring forward further reforms to the asylum system to prevent its operation being exploited—either by gangs to encourage travel to the UK, or by people who are here illegally to find unfair ways to stay.

We need to be part of the global response to irregular and illegal migration, not separate from it—working in partnership, not just shouting and pointing at the sea. Everyone knows that there is no single silver bullet to tackle illegal migration and dangerous boat crossings, and that it takes time to unpick the deep roots that gangs have put down and to build the foundations of a new cross-border approach, but that is what we are determined to do. We are committed to stronger borders, to stronger law enforcement in France and in the UK, to increasing returns, and to building the foundations of a new long-term approach where countries co-operate to prevent illegal migration and ensure there is sanctuary for genuine refugees. No one should be making these dangerous boat journeys, which undermine our border security and put lives at risk. That is why this co-operation between the UK and France is so important.

I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I can confirm that the deal that the previous Government did with Rwanda involved paying £150,000 for every single individual, to cover food, accommodation and healthcare for five years. Those bills continue. A concern was raised by the accounting officer, so a direction had to be given, on the basis that Ministers had been advised that it was not value for money but they continued regardless.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement.

We all want to stop these dangerous channel crossings, which first ballooned under the former Conservative Government. Cross-border co-operation will be key to achieving that, and clearly a lot of work is needed after the Conservatives ripped up the returns agreement that allowed us to send irregular migrants back to Europe. I was very interested to hear the shadow Home Secretary quote President Macron, but he was a little selective in doing so—he did not mention the section of President Macron’s remarks that attributed the problem to the Brexit deal that the last Conservative Government cooked up.

This deal is a step in the right direction, and I sincerely hope that it works, but people will understandably be sceptical that such a small scheme will act as an effective deterrent at this stage. Questions still need to be answered about how and when the UK and French Governments will decide to scale up the pilot, so I would welcome more details from the Home Secretary.

Of course, deals like this are only part of the solution. The Home Secretary mentioned placing officers within Europol, but will she commit to negotiating a stronger leadership role for the UK in Europol, to make it easier to crack down on the trafficking gangs behind these crossings? Does she acknowledge that we will not be able to fully take the power out of the hands of the gangs until we provide regulated entry to the UK for genuine refugees?

One of the best deterrents to put people off the idea of coming here in the first place is for all asylum applications to be processed quickly, so that those who are granted refugee status can integrate and contribute to our community, and for those with no right to be here to be sent back swiftly. Can the Home Secretary update the House on the average time it takes to process an asylum application after arrival on British shores, and how has that changed over the past year? Until the Government act on these points, I fear that they risk repeating the Conservatives’ mistakes and failing to get to grips with the problem, which is something we all want them to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

That is what she seems to be arguing.

Look, I think we should be doing everything to prevent these dangerous boat crossings. We will continue, as we have done through the Ukraine scheme and through the support for Hong Kong, to ensure that the UK does its bit to help those fleeing persecution. For example, we made reference in the immigration White Paper to refugee study opportunities at our universities. These dangerous boat crossings are so damaging; they really undermine our border security and the credibility of the whole system, so we must ensure we take action to prevent them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement this afternoon. I shall allow a few moments for the Front Benchers to swap over.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Carla Denyer]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, every single person who just voted no on the statutory instrument wanted to vote yes on the proscription of the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement, but we were prevented from doing so by the cynical way in which the Government lumped together those two clearly terrorist organisations with Palestine Action, which we could not support. Can you please advise me and the other MPs who just voted no if there is any way that, in future, proscription orders for unrelated organisations could be voted on separately, so that each MP can apply their own critical assessment of whether each group has met the tests of proportionality and necessity that are required for a terrorism proscription?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving notice of her point of order. The Chair does not have the power to separate out decisions on the contents of a statutory instrument. In making her point of order, she has put her concerns on the record.

[Zarah Sultana]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the debate on the proscription of Palestine Action, the hon. Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce), whom I have notified of this point of order, spoke without declaring that he is chair of Labour Friends of Israel and has accepted hospitality and overseas trips funded by private Israel lobby organisations. The House was discussing a non-violent direct action group that directly challenges the Israeli state, which is on trial for genocide against the Palestinian people. Can you advise me on what mechanisms are available to make the British public truly aware of what interests are being represented on the Floor of the House?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, and for having given advance notice of it. The procedure for raising a complaint of this sort is by writing to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and it is not a matter for the Chair.

Crime and Policing Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Sadly, that is not the first time I have heard about such appalling behaviour of attacking and injuring animals using catapults. I will certainly be raising that with my counterparts in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to see what more we can do. I am aware that this issue needs to be looked at, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising it.

Amendments 24 to 33 will require operators of collection points for items such as knives and crossbows to carry out the same enhanced age verification checks before handing over knives to the buyer, or in the case of crossbows and crossbow parts, to the buyer or even the hirer of the item. Clause 30 imposes similar requirements on couriers.

Clause 128 introduces costs and expenses protections for law enforcement agencies in civil recovery proceedings, under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, in the High Court or the Court of Session in Scotland. As currently drafted, it is not clear how the cost protection measure applies to pre-existing cases, particularly where cases have started before the provision comes into force but costs are incurred after the provision comes into force. As a result, it may be difficult and costly to determine which costs are covered. Amendment 89 provides that cost protections apply to any case where proceedings start after the measure comes into force.

Schedule 15 to the Bill introduces reforms to the confiscation regime in England and Wales in respect of the proceeds of crime. Among other things, the reforms make provision for the provisional discharge of confiscation orders made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, allowing outstanding confiscation orders to be placed in abeyance when there is no realistic prospect of recovery in the immediate term and all enforcement steps have been exhausted. Amendments to schedule 15 extend the provisional discharge measures to confiscation orders made under legislation predating the 2002 Act.

Chapter 1 of part 14 provides for youth diversion orders, which are a new counter-terrorism risk management tool for young people who, on the balance of probabilities, the court assesses to have committed a terrorism offence or an offence with a terrorism connection, or to have engaged in conduct likely to facilitate a terrorism offence, and where the court considers it necessary to make the order for the purposes of protecting the public from terrorism or serious harm.

The amendments to clause 139 make a change to the scope of YDOs to ensure that applications can be made for individuals up to and including 21-year-olds. Currently, a court may make a YDO in respect of a person aged 10 to 21, but exclusive of 21-year-olds. Following further engagement with operational partners on the types of cases that could benefit from a YDO, we have concluded that this change would increase the operational utility of the YDO and ensure that it can be considered as an intervention in a wider variety of cases involving young people.

Clause 141(2) enables a YDO to include prohibitions or requirements relating to the respondent’s possession or use of electronic devices. The amendments to this clause set out a non-exhaustive list of some of the most common or intrusive requirements that may be imposed to support the police’s ability to monitor compliance with restrictions on electronic devices, providing a clearer statutory footing for imposing such requirements. For example, it would allow the court to impose a requirement on someone subject to a YDO to enable the police to access their device for the purposes of checking compliance with restrictions such as accessing specific websites or applications. It would allow the police to identify harmful online activity at an earlier stage and intervene before it escalates. As with other YDO measures, the court would need to assess that any monitoring requirements are necessary and proportionate for the purposes of protecting the public from a risk of terrorism or serious harm.

Technical amendments are also required to clauses 142 and 150 relating respectively to the definition of “police detention” for Scotland and Northern Ireland and to the appeals process in Northern Ireland. The amendments will adapt the relevant provisions for the purposes of the law in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The amendments to clause 151 provide that, where a person ceases to have a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with notification requirements but continues to fail to comply, they commit an offence.

The other Government amendments in this group, which make necessary refinements to existing provisions in the Bill, were detailed in the letter that I sent last week to the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), a copy of which has been placed in the Library. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will therefore seek to respond to the non-Government amendments in this group when winding up. For now, I commend the Government amendments to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I would like to express my appreciation to all those who have worked on the legislation to develop and shape the policies, whether they be the majority developed under the previous Conservative Government or members of the Bill team, who I am sure have provided helpful assistance to Ministers. As I am sure we will hear today, some of the measures in the Bill are the result of amazing people who have suffered the worst experiences, but who have worked to ensure that others do not have to suffer them in future.

In addition, considering the context of the legislation, it is right to pay tribute to the excellent work of police officers across the country. Week in, week out, those serving in our police forces put themselves in harm’s way to keep our streets safe. Those who serve and place themselves in danger cannot be thanked enough. Many people ask themselves whether they would have the bravery to stand up and intervene. Officers across the country do so on a daily basis. Thanks to the efforts of the previous Conservative Government, the police force numbered over 149,000 officers in 2024, with 149,769 recorded in March 2024. This was the highest number of officers, on both full-time equivalent and headcount basis, since comparable records began in March 2003.

--- Later in debate ---

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak, and I thank the House for listening to my contribution. I very much hope that the Government will continue to look at these issues in more detail so that we can find an acceptable solution.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I rise to speak to amendment 160, which stands in my name, and briefly in favour of amendments 157 and 158, also in my name.

I wish to start by thanking all those who have campaigned over many years for some of the sensible changes to the Bill that we are discussing today. I also want to put on record my thanks to our fantastic police forces, including Greater Manchester Police, and also to my hon. Friends the Members for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) and for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for their assiduous work on the Bill Committee.

Liberal Democrat amendment 160 would ensure that the police cannot use live facial recognition technology when imposing conditions on public assemblies or processions under sections 12 or 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, unless a new and specific code of practice governing its use in public spaces has first been approved by both Houses.

Regulations around the use of live facial recognition have been discussed many times in this House, and support for strengthening the current situation, bringing clarity and certainty to police forces, has gained support from all parts of the House, both in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall. I hope this amendment does the same today.

The Liberal Democrats oppose the police’s use of facial recognition surveillance. It breaches the right to privacy and is far too often biased, particularly given its propensity to wrongly identify people of colour and women. In our manifesto last year, we committed immediately to halting the use of live facial recognition surveillance by the police and private companies.

When data or technology, such as artificial intelligence, are used by the police, they must be regulated to ensure that they are unbiased. They must be used in a way that is transparent and accurate and that respects the privacy of innocent people. Policing should not intrude on this right for people who are not suspected of any crime.

On the question of bias, much of the recent debate has centred around the National Physical Laboratory’s 2023 study into the equitability of facial recognition technology in law enforcement. This report is frequently cited by proponents of facial recognition, including the shadow Home Secretary, both at the Dispatch Box, when the Bill came before the House on Second Reading, and during a well-attended Westminster Hall debate last November as evidence that bias in the technology is on the decline.

However, we should not overlook one of that study’s most critical findings. In live facial recognition—where a real-time camera feed is compared against a predetermined watchlist—the likelihood of false positives is not fixed. Instead, it depends heavily on the specific parameters of how that technology is deployed, particularly on the face-match threshold. That threshold, in turn, is influenced by both the size and composition of the watchlist, as well as the volume and nature of the people moving through the surveillance zone.

The study recommends that, where operationally feasible, the police use a face-match threshold of 0.6 in order to reduce the risk of bias. However—and this is crucial—without clear regulation, police forces are under no obligation to adopt this or any specific standard. In other words, the presence of the technology alone does not ensure fairness. Without oversight, significant room remains for bias to persist in how facial recognition is applied. This leads to increased instances of the wrong people being stopped and searched—an area of policing that already disproportionately impacts black communities.

New technologies in policing may well present good opportunities to improve public safety, and police should take advantage of them to prevent and solve crime. However, given that new technologies can raise significant concerns related to civil liberties and discrimination, we must ensure that any new powers involving them are scrutinised by both Houses.

Liberal Democrat amendment 160 would ensure that the police cannot use live facial recognition technology when imposing conditions on public assemblies or processions under sections 12 or 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, unless a new and specific code of practice governing its use in public spaces has first been approved by both Houses. This will ensure democratic oversight of any changes to further legislation that may impact public privacy and civil liberties. I hope that the amendment will have support from across the House.

I have just a few words to say on amendments 157 and 158, which would enable a review of antisocial behaviour powers. Antisocial behaviour, as Members have already mentioned this afternoon, blights communities, erodes trust, frays the social fabric and disproportionately affects the most vulnerable. Many colleagues have raised issues within their own communities, some of which I see in my constituency. We have off-road bikes in Heaviley, Marple, Offerton and High Lane. They are a persistent blight on my community. They intimidate people, endanger public safety and are just really annoying. But we must respond with laws that are not just tough, but fair and proportionate. That is why I urge all colleagues to support amendments 157 and 158, which would ensure that antisocial behaviour laws are reviewed before being changed, and that any new guidance is created with public input.

I also welcome amendment 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), which aims to ensure that the duty to report suspected child abuse covers faith groups. I encourage the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) to seek her out as he will find a doughty ally in his attempts to improve the Bill as it impacts on faith groups.

As I said on Second Reading, there are measures in the Bill that the Liberal Democrats support. Were our amendments to be accepted, the Bill would go even further towards keeping our communities safe in a way that is proportionate and that balances the civil liberties implications of giving the police more powers. I hope that the House will support our amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I inform the House that I plan to call the Minister at 3.50 pm, which would give the remaining Members bobbing about five minutes each.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I rise to support amendment 19, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson). I hope that the Minister listened to the compelling case that my hon. Friend made, and to the compelling case made by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) on the issue of spiking more generally.

I want to put on record my support for my constituents, Colin and Mandy Mackie, and their organisation, Spike Aware UK. I do not think any of us can fully comprehend their experience: the police knocked on their door to tell them that their 18-year-old son had died at college from a drug overdose, but they subsequently found out that his non-alcoholic drink had been spiked by five ecstasy tablets. As other Members have said, there was no support or help for the family in that situation. The police assumed that he had died of a drug overdose although they did not know that, and they subsequently apologised to the Mackies for their treatment of them.

What I particularly admire about Colin and Mandy is how they have focused their efforts on ensuring that their experience is not shared by anyone else. That is why I very much welcome the inclusion of spiking in the Bill, which is a continuation from the Criminal Justice Bill introduced in the previous Parliament. The point to be made is about certainty, and the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East brings certainty to the situation. I have been in this House with previous Ministers who have been told by officials that spiking was already covered by legislation, and therefore there was no need for specific mention of spiking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

The hon. and learned Member will know that the Abortion Act is not going to be amended. New clause 1 will only take women out of the criminal justice system because they are vulnerable and they need our help. I have said it before, and I will say it again: just what public interest is being served in the cases I have described? This is not justice; it is cruelty, and it has to end. Backed by 180 cross-party MPs and 50 organisations, and building on years of work by Dame Diana Johnson, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind the hon. Member that she should not have referred to the Minister by name.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Every day is a school day.

My amendment, new clause 1, would disapply the criminal law related to abortion for women acting in relation to their own pregnancies. NC1 is a narrow, targeted measure that does not change how abortion services are provided, nor the rules set by the 1967 Abortion Act. The 24-week limit remains; abortions will still require the approval and signatures of two doctors; and women will still have to meet the grounds laid out in the Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I am imposing an immediate four-minute time limit. Members will see that many colleagues wish to get in this evening.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I rise to speak for new clause 106 and against new clauses 1 and 20.

I am grateful for this opportunity to place on the record my grave concerns about this hurried attempt to significantly alter our nation’s abortion laws. It is my view that by doing so we risk creating a series of unintended consequences that could endanger women, rather than protect and empower them. We need more time.

This is not a pro-choice versus pro-life debate. We already have the most inclusive abortion laws in Europe: medical abortion is available up to 24 weeks, which is double the European average, and we have the option of full-term abortion on medical grounds. Instead, today’s debate is about ensuring that legislation as significant as this—seeking to introduce a wholesale change to abortion laws affecting England, Scotland and Wales—is not rushed through without the chance for significant scrutiny. Indeed, 90 minutes of Back-Bench debate does not cut it, in my opinion.

We should, of course, treat women seeking an abortion with compassion and dignity—that goes without saying. As a councillor on Plymouth city council, I chaired the commission on violence against women and girls. Defending the voiceless is my guiding principle in politics, and it is with those women and unborn babies in mind that I make this speech.

As over 1000 medical professionals said in an open letter cited in The Telegraph today,

“If offences that make it illegal for a woman to administer her own abortion at any gestation were repealed, such abortions would, de facto, become possible up to birth for any reason including abortions for sex-selective purposes, as women could, mistakenly, knowingly or under coercion, mislead abortion providers about their gestational age. If either of these amendments were to become law, it would also likely lead to serious risks to women’s health because of the dangers involved with self-administered late abortions.”

They continue,

“Quite aside from the increased number of viable babies’ lives being ended beyond the 24-week time limit, there would likely be a significant increase in such complications if”

new clause 1 or 20

“were to pass, as they would remove any legal deterrent against women administering their own abortions late in pregnancy. The current law permits flexibility and compassion where necessary but, for these reasons, we believe a legal deterrent remains important.”

Many supporters of new clauses 1 and 20 claim that the 24-week time limit for abortions would not change, but that is misleading. Any time limit is meaningless if abortions are legalised all the way up to birth, for any reason, without a legal deterrent. My concern is that, once decriminalisation has taken place, further steps will be taken to expand abortion time limits. Indeed, many of the campaigners mentioned this afternoon are on record saying as much. It is important that we are realistic about that.

Immigration

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

No.

Turning to legal migration, through the plans in our immigration White Paper, we will deliver a system that supports our efforts to reduce net migration and backs British talent. As the Home Secretary set out in the House last week, our approach is founded on five core principles: first, that net migration must come down; secondly, that the migration system should be linked to skills and training domestically, so that no industry or sector can rely solely on overseas recruitment—a major failure of the last Government’s 14 years in office; thirdly, that the system must be fair and effective, with clearer rules in areas such as respect for family life and stronger safeguards against perverse outcomes that undermine public confidence; fourthly, that this country’s laws must be respected and enforced, from cracking down on illegal working to deporting foreign criminals; and fifthly, that the system must support integration and community cohesion.

This is not a task that can be completed overnight. Clearing up the Opposition’s legacy will not be easy because of the chaos that we inherited from the Conservative party. We saw record net migration, record small boat arrivals and record numbers of asylum hotels, criminal smugglers left to run amok for years, and public confidence shaken by past failures, expensive gimmicks and broken promises. It has been left to this Government to clear up the mess and turn the page on the chaos and failures of the past. That work has begun.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call the Lib Dem spokesperson, I wish to make it clear that there will be a five-minute time limit for Back-Bench speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

I have to say that I was amazed to see a Conservative motion on immigration on today’s Order Paper. I think all that most of us in the House require from the Conservatives is a full and sincere apology for the mess and chaos that they left behind, and then for them to go away for a long period of self-ordained silence. They thought that they were reducing immigration, but what they did was quadruple it. They did not even understand their own immigration policy. They were letting hundreds of thousands of people come into this country. So please, do not get to your feet and have the temerity to lecture this House about immigration after the mess that you made.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman did rather incite me to get to my feet, and I am somewhat stunned at his allegation that I have played any part in this.

[Pete Wishart]

That was not like me, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was very lax, and I apologise.

The Conservatives are currently languishing in fourth place in the opinion polls, and it is a well-deserved position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I cannot give way—I have no time.

Ordinary Labour voters have good, liberal values, but just now they have a party that is not representing their views. That is why they are moving on.

In Scotland, we take on Reform. We are one of the few parties across the United Kingdom that has steadied its own position, and we have even improved it slightly. There is a big gap between us and Reform. That is because we take on Reform’s arguments and we do not appease the party or go on to its agenda. I encourage Labour colleagues to think about that.

We now have an immigration policy that is the exact opposite of what we need in Scotland, and it is contrary to our national interest. Scotland is in the early stages of the population and demography crisis, and it will only get worse because of what this Government are going to impose on us. We will soon have too few working-age people available to look after an ever-increasing older population.

For all three parties—Labour, the Conservatives and Reform—immigration is a burden and is out of control. For us in Scotland, it is essential to the health of our workforce and our economy. That is why we will never stop calling for a separate Scottish visa. We need the tools in our country to face up to our crisis. I will leave the Government to get on with their grotesque race to the bottom and to pander to Reform in a vain attempt to get some votes, but Scotland does not need their new “island of strangers” policy. It is contrary to what we want, so please leave us right out of it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

We will now have an immediate four-minute time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brash]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can address the point I made in my speech. Repeatedly, Conservative Members, including him, have said, “If we had only waited a little bit longer, Rwanda would have worked.” Why do you think the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) called the general election—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I don’t.

[Mr Brash]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Why does the hon. Member think the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton called the general election when he did, when he was apparently so close to the Rwanda scheme working?

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)]

The Opposition motion, which I will not be supporting, uses the word “regret” an awful lot, but it omits any regret on their part for their complete failure to properly secure our borders during 14 years in government. The Conservatives ran an experiment in this country, and they will never be forgiven for it—especially for facing both ways on the immigration question for such a long time.

In 2010, the Tories pledged to get immigration down to the tens of thousands, and over the next five years they failed. In 2015, the Tories said they would get net migration down to the tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands, and they failed. In 2017, they said they would get migration to the tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands, and they failed. In 2019, they said the “numbers will come down”—at that point, they had panicked slightly about the whole affair.

At the time the Tories were leaving office, net migration was nearly 1 million. Time after time, over 14 years, they told the British people they would tackle net migration and bring the numbers down, but they did not—and now, after 10 months, they have the bottle to stand in front of this Government and ask, “Why are the numbers not down yet?”. We are taking action to bring the numbers closer to the approximately 200,000 that they were when Labour left office in 2010. There is this rhetoric that immigration has been an issue for 30 or 40 years, but the numbers have been sky high over the past 10—since Brexit, really. And the Tories wonder why people think they are irrelevant.

There is mention in the motion of a cap, but—as always with this Opposition—there is a history lesson here. I am old enough to remember 2013 to 2015, and the cap that was announced by the coalition Government. [Hon. Members: “Surely not!”] I was a very junior councillor. A cap was mentioned by the coalition then—a complete chocolate fireguard. They got the headlines when they announced it, but it failed to do the job, so they ditched it. In the end, it was not worth the press release it was written on. It was game playing of the highest order.

We are seeing the same thing again now; history is repeating itself. In the past four years, net migration quadrupled and our asylum system was completely destroyed. The processing of asylum claims took so long and numbers increased by so much that the previous Government were spending £9 million a day on hotel stays across more than 400 hotels. Hotel stays for my constituents are a treat, and not something to be doled out to people coming off boats in the channel—but unfortunately that is what the Conservatives did for the best part of five years. My constituents do not begrudge genuine asylum seekers, but that system was broken and they have told me that that is just not on.

Boats over the channel were basically invented by the previous Government. Indeed, 13,500 people crossed the channel in small boats in the shadow Home Secretary’s last five months as Minister for Immigration, and 260 boats crossed in his last two. The same number of boats have crossed the channel in the last six months of this Government. I would say that that is progress.

If a person is here in this country illegally—and illegal is illegal—they will be removed. That is not in contention; I do not see how it can be. In contrast to those years of open borders, this Government have secured agreements with France, Germany, Italy, Iraq and more. The arrangements with France and Germany in particular are game-changing, and I want to see French boats in the water stopping those asylum seekers in the months to come. I will finish there, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I am very short on time, but thank you very much for calling me to speak.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Immigration System

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call the Home Secretary to make her statement, Mr Speaker has noted that details of the White Paper have been reported in the media since Sunday morning. As Mr Speaker has said previously, it is important that these policy announcements are made in the first instance in this House, and not in the media. Mr Speaker does not understand why the Government persist in making announcements in this way, when the ministerial code is absolutely clear:

“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament.”

It is clear to Mr Speaker that, for whatever reason, that principle is no longer routinely observed by the Government, and he will be giving further consideration to what might be possible in order to regularise the situation.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)]

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the Government’s White Paper on restoring control over the immigration system.

Five months ago, the figures were published that showed net migration had reached a record high of more than 900,000 under the last Conservative Government —a figure that had quadrupled in the space of just four years. That was the consequence of specific Government choices made from 2020 onwards, including introducing what was effectively a free market experiment on immigration: encouraging employers to recruit from abroad and loosening controls in different areas, but without any requirement to tackle skills and labour shortages here at home. Those choices undermined the immigration system and the economy too.

This Government are making very different choices. We made it clear at that time, just as we set out in our manifesto, that this Government would restore order and control to the immigration system, not only bringing net migration substantially down, but boosting skills and training here at home. The White Paper we are publishing today does exactly that. It is built on five core principles: first, that net migration must come down, so the system is properly managed and controlled; secondly, that the immigration system must be linked to skills and training here in the UK, so that no industry is allowed to rely solely on immigration to fill its skills shortages; thirdly, that the system must be fair and effective, with clearer rules in areas such as respect for family life, to prevent perverse outcomes that undermine public confidence; fourthly, that the rules must be respected and enforced, including tackling illegal and irregular migration and deporting foreign criminals; and finally, that the system must support integration and community cohesion, including new rules on the ability to speak English and the contribution that people can bring to the UK.

Our United Kingdom is an interconnected and outward-looking nation. Our history and our geography mean that for generations, British people have travelled overseas to live and work, and people have come to the UK to study, work, invest or seek refuge. British citizens draw on heritage from all over the world, and that has made us the country we are today. Through many years, our country has been strengthened by those who have come here to contribute, from the doctors in our NHS to the entrepreneurs founding some of our biggest businesses and those who came through generations to work in jobs from coal mining to caring for our loved ones or serving in our armed forces—people often coming to do some of the most difficult jobs of all.

Our trading nation, global leading universities and strong historical international connections mean that migration will always be part of our country’s future as well as our past. But that is exactly why immigration needs to be properly controlled and managed—and it has not been.

Overseas recruitment shot up while training in the UK was cut. Lower skilled migration soared while the proportion of UK residents in work plummeted. In 2019, 10% of skilled work visas went to non-graduate jobs. By 2024, that had risen to 60%. Employers were even given a 20% wage discount if they recruited for shortage jobs from abroad, actively discouraging them from paying the going rate or training here at home. Educational institutions were allowed to substantially expand the number of overseas students without proper compliance checks. Social care providers were encouraged to recruit from abroad with no proper regulation, so we saw a serious increase in exploitation, deeply damaging for those who came to work here in good faith, and for other workers and responsible companies who were being undercut.

The rules and laws that are supposed to underpin the immigration system were too often ignored. By 2024, returns of people with no right to be in the UK were down by more than a third compared with 2010, and of course criminal gangs were allowed to build an entire smuggling industry along our borders, undermining security and creating a crisis in the asylum system. Later this year, we will set out further reforms to asylum and border security, and to tackling illegal and irregular migration, building on the new counter-terrorism powers in the Border Security, Immigration and Asylum Bill that is before the House this evening, because no one should be making these dangerous crossings on small boats.

This White Paper sets out how we restore control to the legal migration system so that it is sustainable and fair, and works for the UK. First, we are overhauling the approach to labour market policy, so that for the first time, we properly link the immigration system to skills and training here in the UK. Where there are skills or labour shortages in the UK, immigration should not always be the answer to which employers turn. The long-term failure to tackle skills shortages, bring in proper workforce planning, get UK residents back into work, or improve pay, terms and conditions here at home is bad for our economy as well as for the immigration system, because it undermines productivity and growth. We will lift the threshold for skilled worker visas back to graduate level and above, removing up to 180 different jobs from the list and increasing salary thresholds. For lower-skilled jobs, access to the points-based system will be limited to jobs that are on a new temporary shortage list, including jobs that are critical to the industrial strategy, but that access will be time-limited; there must be a domestic workforce strategy in place, and employers must act to increase domestic recruitment.

We will also expect workforce strategies to be drawn up more widely in higher-skilled areas where there is overreliance on recruitment from abroad. To support that work, we will establish a new labour market evidence group. It will bring together skills bodies from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; the Department for Work and Pensions; the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council; and the Migration Advisory Committee to gather and share evidence on shortage occupations in different parts of the country, and to highlight the role that skills, training, pay and conditions and other policies can play in improving domestic recruitment, so that increased migration is never again the only answer to the shortages that the economy faces.

This new approach means that we also need to act on social care. The introduction of the social care visa led not only to a huge increase in migration, but to a shameful and deeply damaging increase in abuse and exploitation. When proper checks were finally brought in, 470 care providers had their licence to sponsor international staff suspended, and 39,000 care workers were displaced. Overseas recruitment to care jobs has since dropped, but it must not surge like that again. It is time we addressed the domestic issues, including with a proper fair pay agreement, to show respect to people who do some of the most important jobs in the country. We are therefore ending overseas recruitment of care workers. It will continue to be possible to extend existing visas, and to recruit displaced care workers and people on other visas, with working rights, who are already in the UK.

Alongside the new visa controls and workforce strategies, we will increase by 32% the immigration skills charge paid by employers who recruit from abroad. That money will be invested through the spending review in supporting skills and training here in the UK. We will ensure that Britain continues to attract the brightest and best global talent by enhancing visa routes for very high-skilled individuals, top scientific and design talent, and people with the right experience to support growth in key strategic industries.

International students bring huge benefits to the UK, supporting our world-leading universities and bringing in top talent and investment, but we will strengthen compliance requirements and checks to prevent visa misuse. Too many people on the graduate visa are not doing graduate jobs, so we will reduce the unrestricted period from two years to 18 months. Those who want to stay will need to get a graduate job and a skilled worker visa, so that we ensure that they are contributing to the economy.

Our rules on work visas are based on the contribution we expect people to make when they come to our country, and we will consult later this year on new earned settlement and citizenship rules that apply the same approach. We will extend the principles of the points-based system, doubling the standard qualifying period for settlement to 10 years, but there will be provisions to qualify more swiftly that take account of the contribution people have made. As the ability to speak English is integral to everyone’s ability to contribute and integrate, we will introduce new, higher language requirements across a range of visa routes, for both main applicants and their dependants, so that family, too, can work, integrate and contribute.

The system for family migration has become overly complex. Policies have increasingly developed around case law, following court decisions, rather than being part of a co-ordinated framework set out by Parliament. We will set out a new, clearer framework to be endorsed by Parliament, which will include clarification of how article 8 rules should be interpreted and applied, to prevent confusion or perverse conclusions.

We will review current community sponsorship schemes that support recognised refugees, and we will continue to take action against trafficking and modern slavery. We will shortly appoint a new Windrush commissioner to ensure that the lessons from Windrush continue to be learned, and so that the Home Office ensures that its standards are upheld.

The rules must be respected and enforced across the board. We will bring in stronger controls where there is evidence of visa misuse. We are rolling out e-visas and digital ID. There will be better use of technology to monitor when people are overstaying on their visa, and to support an increase in illegal working raids. Already since the election we have increased returns, and we will go further.

Those who come to our country must abide by our laws, so we will develop new procedures to ensure that the Home Office is informed of all foreign nationals who have been convicted of offences—not just those who go to prison—so that we can revoke visas and remove perpetrators of a wide range of crimes who are abusing our system.

We are already reducing the number of visas granted this year; updated figures will be published before the end of the month. We are increasing returns. Over 24,000 people were returned in our first nine months in government; that is the highest number of returns in a nine-month period for eight years. The impact of the changes regarding skilled worker visas, care worker visas, settlement, students and English language requirements is expected to be a reduction in visas of around 100,000 a year. On top of that, the new workforce strategies, immigration skills charge and family and asylum reforms will bring numbers down, too. As the Prime Minister has said, where we need to go further to restore a sustainable system, we will.

Throughout our history, Britain has been strengthened by people coming here to start new businesses, study at universities, contribute to our cultural and sporting excellence and do some of the toughest jobs in our country. However, to be successful, effective and fair, our immigration must be properly controlled and managed. The White Paper sets out how we will restore control, fairness and order to the system, how we will continue to bring net migration down, and how we will turn the page on the chaos and failure of the past. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to say that there are people working in all kinds of jobs across the country and contributing to our economy and to our communities who have travelled here from all over the world, and that is hugely important. We will set out further details of the earned settlement and citizenship reforms later this year, and we will consult on them. There will be plenty of opportunity for people to comment on and consider the detail, but it is important that we extend the sense of contributions and the points-based system to those reforms as well. We have also said that we will maintain the current five-year route for those who have come on a dependant visa or a family visa, as part of maintaining families.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Immigration is personal to all of us, whether we are immigrants ourselves, the descendants of immigrants, or benefit from the skills, talents and cultural richness that immigrants bring. I am immensely proud that our country took in my nan, aged 18, when she was fleeing the Nazis in 1939. I am also hugely grateful that the senior surgeon who did my dad’s kidney transplant operation brought his skills and talents to our country, having been born elsewhere.

Yes, the Conservative Government made a total mess of our immigration system. Their chaotic and dishonest approach of making and breaking headline-grabbing targets shattered public trust and left the system in tatters. The line I agree with most in the Government White Paper published this morning is that the immigration system must be “fair and effective”. What the Conservatives left behind was nowhere close to either. Change is needed, and that means rebuilding an immigration system that works for our country and our economy, while treating everyone with dignity and respect.

Of course, that must be coupled with a clear plan to make it easier to recruit British workers to fill those vacancies instead, and I would welcome more details from the Home Secretary on how her Government will achieve this to ensure that these changes do not have unintended consequences for our economy and, in particular, for our health and social care systems. Will this include finally implementing the Lib Dem proposals for a higher minimum wage for carers to reflect the skill levels really involved in caring professions?

We also need to move away from the chaotic chopping and changing of immigration rules that we saw under the Conservatives, so will the Home Secretary provide further clarity on when these changes will be brought forward, including a clear timetable for any changes to visa rules, so that employers—and the workers and their families, who we are talking about today—can plan for their future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with the right hon. Member that we must do more upstream to tackle some of the causes of dangerous journeys. We clearly need to act on the criminal smuggler gangs who are exploiting people and undermining our border security—that is why the legislation on counter-terrorism powers that we will debate tonight is so important—but we also need to do much more work with European partners. We have been working with France, for example, to get it to agree to change its rules so that, for the first time, it will start to intervene in French waters to prevent dangerous boat crossings. I agree with him about the importance of the Sahel and working upstream. We have established a new joint unit between the Home Office and the Foreign Office in order to do some of the work to which he refers.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

If I am to get in as many Members as possible, we will need pithy questions and short answers, please. For a masterclass in that, I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I represent a constituency that is enriched and sustained every day by people who have come from overseas to make their home here, especially those who came as members of the Windrush generation. It is important that they hear from this place that they are not only valued and appreciated but part of us. Last week, the Office for Students published another report on the precarious situation facing our universities. This announcement includes a levy on universities in relation to their international students. What engagement has the Home Secretary had with her counterpart at the Department for Education on the impact of her measures on the financial sustainability of universities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

How does the immigration White Paper address the significant number of pull factors currently advertised online? The Government’s own website www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get is there for any aspirational English-speaking asylum seeker to see just why it is worth running the risk of crossing the channel. It states:

“You’ll be given somewhere to live if you need it. This could be in a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast… You’ll usually get £49.18 for each person in your household. This will help you pay for things you need like food, clothing and toiletries… Your allowance will be loaded onto a debit card…each week.”

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Please can we get to the question?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

What are the Government doing to address the online advertising of this incredibly generous package?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I intend to allow this statement to continue until 6.15 pm. I appreciate that many Members might be disappointed.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

My constituency of Broxbourne has a hotel that is used to house illegal asylum seekers. This has placed huge pressure on local GP surgeries and schools, which are already overstretched, and my constituents and I have had enough. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss this issue, and can she tell me when the hotel housing illegal asylum seekers in my constituency of Broxbourne will close?

Irish Republican Alleged Incitement

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the remarks he has made, and not just today but previously. I totally agree; he is absolutely right that words have consequences. All of us, both in and outside this House, should treat others with respect and dignity. I join my hon. Friend in condemning the words that have been used, and I give him and the House my categorical assurance that we will do everything we possibly can to ensure the safety and security of all who serve in elected office.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Our thoughts today are with our dear friends Sir David Amess and Jo Cox. They were brutally murdered on a surgery Friday doing their job on behalf of their constituents. Tragically, they were not the first MPs to be murdered; the crest of Airey Neave is up there above the door, with those of Sir David and Jo behind me. Those who incite the murder of MPs are attacking democracy itself. Will the Minister join me in condemning unreservedly the despicable evil that Kneecap represent in the appalling comments they made?

I would like to ask about the funding. In November 2024, the Department for Business and Trade decided to end its support for the legal challenge—a decision that resulted in the band winning and becoming entitled to the money. Why did the Government make that decision? In the light of what we now know, will they appeal against that decision? Critically, will the Minister give categoric assurance from the Dispatch Box that this band will never, under any circumstances, receive public money again from any source, including the National Lottery and Northern Ireland Screen?

This organisation has also expressed support for Hamas and Hezbollah, which are proscribed terrorist groups. The Minister said that he did not want to comment on the police investigation. However, the Government commented quite extensively on the investigations after Southport, so I would like him to make clear, as the Government did last summer, that they consider it in the public interest that the police investigate and, if there is evidence, prosecute these offences or potential offences. If he is not willing to do that now, he risks the perception of two-tier justice.

Finally, I had a meeting very recently with Sir David’s widow Julia and his daughter Katie, who bear an enormous burden of grief. They want to make sure that the lessons are learned from Sir David’s murder. As the Minister knows, the perpetrator had been in the Prevent programme previously, like the perpetrators in Reading and Southport. Julia and Katie Amess would like Sir David’s murderer and the failings of Prevent to be looked at alongside the Southport case, which is being investigated, and the Reading case. Will the Minister honour his memory by agreeing to that today?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely right about the comments that have been made; we unreservedly condemn them. He makes a point that I want to raise about the importance of the way in which we work co-operatively and collaboratively across the House. I chair the defending democracy taskforce on behalf of the Government, but I also chair it on behalf of all Members of this House and the other House and on behalf of those who serve in local government. My approach has always been, and will always be, to work co-operatively with every political party. I am happy at any point to meet any Member or any political party to discuss these matters. My door is always open.

On the point my hon. Friend made about the profile of the band, he will have heard my words with regard to Glastonbury. That is specifically why I am not naming them—I do not want to give them any further publicity—but I agree with the sentiment of his point.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The remarks by members of the band are completely unacceptable, and it is right that they have apologised to the families of Sir David Amess and Jo Cox, but clearly those comments should never have been made in the first place. Incitement to violence against Members of Parliament cuts to the very heart of our democracy. The reality is that two MPs have been murdered in the last decade. It is absolutely right that the authorities are looking into other comments relating to encouraging support for proscribed terror organisations.

I want to look at what more the Government can do. What criteria does the Home Office apply when assessing whether artists or performers are promoting harmful or extremist rhetoric, particularly where there is a clear attempt to provoke public outrage? What assessment has the Minister made of the impact that comments like these may have on community cohesion?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

Yesterday, I wrote to Glastonbury festival, urging it to remove this music group from its line-up because they have allegedly called for the murder of Conservative colleagues in this House, and because we have seen footage of them appearing to show support for Hezbollah and Hamas, including by waving a flag of a proscribed organisation. Words, as others have said, have tragic consequences. Beloved colleagues Jo Cox and Sir David Amess were tragically murdered, and 16 June 2016 remains one of the worst days of my life. I know many colleagues in this House feel the same. We all have a duty to prevent that from ever happening again.

I welcome the Minister’s comments about Glastonbury. Does he agree that iTunes, Spotify, YouTube and others should strongly consider taking the group’s music off their platforms until the police investigation is over? May I also note the absence of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who is not present and not involved in this discussion? Will the Minister join me in condemning the right hon. Member for Islington North’s appearance in a photograph with the group, and in calling for him to apologise for that?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. May I remind Members that if they make specific references to a colleague, they ought to give them notice in advance?

[Dan Jarvis]

I agree with my hon. Friend about words having consequences; he is absolutely right about that. He is also absolutely right that we all have a duty in this House to do everything that we possibly can to conduct our politics in a responsible and reasonable way, as do others. He mentioned Glastonbury; and I am grateful to him for the care and attention with which he has written to the festival’s organisers. He heard my earlier comments. I heard his remarks about streaming platforms; my sense was that there was a lot of agreement from Members from right across the House. With respect, I am not aware of the other matter he mentions, and I am keen not to annoy Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will not refer to the right hon. Gentleman who is not in his place on this occasion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My understanding, as a new MP, is that there is a long-standing convention by which a Member who intends to refer to another Member during proceedings—particularly in a critical or contentious manner—should inform that Member in advance. That courtesy gives the Member concerned the opportunity to be present and, if necessary, to respond. Earlier, reference was made to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) without prior notice. I seek your guidance on whether that is in keeping with the expected standards of conduct in the Chamber.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for advance notice of his point of order. Had he been in the Chamber at the time, he would have heard me make exactly that point. It is a courtesy of this House that Members referring to others should give advance notice.