Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill

Gareth Snell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Of all the duties of Government, none matters more than keeping our country safe. It is an awesome task, and one to which we attach the utmost significance, as this House and the public would expect. For people to flourish, they must have confidence that they are safe as they go about their lives. For a society to excel, its values must be protected from harm and its laws upheld. For a nation to thrive, its leaders must be unrelenting in the pursuit of these critical aims. That is why the Prime Minister has made national security a foundation of the plan for change, and it is why we work around the clock with our partners in policing and the security services to keep the United Kingdom and its people safe.

In the face of a complex and evolving threat picture, it is essential that we keep the powers, tools and measures available to us under constant review. Where steps are needed to maintain the safety and security of our country, this Government will not hesitate to act. It is with that intention that we have brought forward this Bill, which, although narrow in its scope and intent, is vital to our ongoing efforts to protect the United Kingdom.

Before I come to the detail of the Bill, I will provide a little bit of background. The British Nationality Act 1981 provides for the removal of an individual’s British citizenship. This is also known as a deprivation of citizenship. Deprivation is an important and effective tool to maintain public safety and preserve national security. It is used in two different situations: where citizenship has been obtained by fraud, or where deprivation is conducive to the public good, which means that it is in the public interest to deprive a person of British citizenship because of their conduct and/or the threat that they pose to the United Kingdom.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I accept the Minister’s point that this is a very narrow Bill, but is he able to tell the House how many individuals who currently have an appeal that has not yet been heard, and to whom this Bill will ultimately apply, have been deprived of their citizenship?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am happy to do that. If my hon. Friend bears with me for just a couple of moments, I will provide him with the information that he has requested.

In the latter category especially—where deprivation is conducive to the public good—deprivation is used against some of the most dangerous individuals, including terrorists, extremists, and serious and organised criminals. Someone in the UK who has been deprived of their British citizenship no longer has any immigration status, steps may be taken to remove them from the UK, and they may be held in an immigration detention in the interim. If they are overseas, they cannot re-enter the UK using a British passport. In both circumstances, this is clearly an effective way to disrupt the threat posed by dangerous individuals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I am going to make a little bit of progress, if I may. I will give way in a moment, but I want to address the point that has been raised.

There are very good reasons why the Government may wish to stop citizenship being regained until all appeals are determined, withdrawn or abandoned. These include to prevent someone who is outside the UK and who poses a risk to our national security from returning when a further appeal may be upheld pending the Home Secretary’s decision, or to prevent a person from renouncing their other nationality and putting themselves in a position where, if further appeals are successful, a further deprivation order would not be possible as it would unlawfully render them stateless.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the Minister for that explanation, but hypothetically there exists a circumstance in which the Home Secretary could deprive an individual of their citizenship, that individual could go for an appeal and have it reinstated, and this law would prevent them from retaining that citizenship and the Department could simply choose not to appeal further. How does the Department ensure that the individual is then allowed to access future appeals to try to regularise their citizenship status?

[Dan Jarvis]

For reasons that I do not understand, my hon. Friend is progressing a hypothetical scenario; I do not know whether it is based on a particular case that he has in mind. I have not personally dealt with such a set of circumstances, but I am happy to look at the matter he has raised.

Child Sexual Exploitation: Casey Report

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member will know that many of the issues around social services provisions are matters for the Welsh Government, but issues around policing are covered by the Home Office. We have already been working with police forces across the country to strengthen the work of the child sexual exploitation taskforce to be able to look at different cases that have been closed, as well as to strengthen their work with local partners to be able to pursue these terrible crimes. As part of the policing operation that will be led by the National Crime Agency and draw on expertise from across the country, we will ensure that that connects with the work being done by the Welsh Government. The Safeguarding Minister is following up with devolved Administrations.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to the quite pertinent comment from the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), this country’s broken social care system for children is potentially creating future victims today, and while a review at local level will look at what happened in the past, we need to do our best to make sure that these crimes by appalling people do not continue. What more will the Home Secretary be doing with the Department for Education to ensure that young people who are being groomed online and groomed in public can spot the signs so that they know when and how to ask for help? Otherwise, unfortunately, we could see this cycle continuing for decades to come.

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my hon. Friend that we need action across social services, and that is why the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that the Education Secretary is taking forward is so important. The issues around online grooming and exploitation are immensely important. This is both about the abuse that stays online, often forcing children to get involved in the most appalling abuse and acts through online blackmail, pressure and coercion, and about the way in which this is used to provoke offline activity leading to offline physical abuse and contact abuse. We are working with the National Crime Agency on new technology to address this and with the Education Department on how we build children’s resilience in dealing with these crimes.

Immigration

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Nobody ever voted for mass immigration. The country has repeatedly said that it wants border security, very little immigration and deportations for those who break the law, yet successive Governments have imposed mass immigration on our country. Human rights laws that render border security and immigration control almost impossible are treated like untouchable and unchangeable holy scripture.

The justifications for mass immigration have changed over the years. First, people were told that the numbers were small and that nothing much would change. Next, people were told that immigrants would integrate and that there was nothing for them to worry about. People were then told that multiculturalism was a gift and that things such as foreign foods made it all worthwhile. More recently, as the numbers became unimaginable and communal intimidation, violence and sectarian politics, and even terrorism, became, in the words of Labour’s London Mayor,

“part and parcel of living in a big city”,

people have been told to keep their views to themselves and parrot the official line instead.

However, diversity is not our strength: it is a very serious and difficult challenge that we have to manage, thanks to policies imposed on the public by politicians who chose—arrogantly and callously—to ignore what the people of their country wanted. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) wants to intervene, he can do so. Britain’s true strengths are our long stability, our legal inheritance, our institutions, our language, our shared identity forged through the triumphs and tragedies of history, the places we have in common, our literature, our culture and even our food. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is entitled to intervene, but he has continued to abuse from a sedentary position—as, indeed, have various Members on the Government Benches. This is supposed to be a debate.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman served as the chief of staff to Baroness May, who was the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister at different points. Is he honestly saying that he does not bear a single piece of responsibility for the situation that we find ourselves in today, given that he was at the heart of policymaking when this all went terribly?

[Nick Timothy]

When I worked in the Home Office, for the first couple of years net migration fell—after that, it rose. The Conservatives, like the Labour party, have failed the public on immigration. I am happy to accept that, but Members on the Government Benches show no sign of any contrition or of learning anything from experience.

While politicians have talked vague nonsense for years about British values, sometimes values that could equally be said to be French or Dutch or whatever, and sometimes values not even shared by many British people, the constituent pieces that add up to our shared identity and culture are precious. Without our shared identity, there is less social trust, little solidarity and less willingness to compromise and make sacrifices for one another. It is undeniable that mass immigration and the radical diversity it has brought have undermined that shared national identity.

What of the justifications for this massive social change? We have been told for years that it is vital for our economy, but mass immigration has displaced British workers from their jobs and undercut wages. The zealots who still support mass immigration will no doubt scoff that I am guilty of the lump of labour fallacy. If I am, so is the Migration Advisory Committee and various immigration experts. The only fallacy is believing that importing millions of fiscally negative immigrants will make us richer.

Crime and Policing Bill

Gareth Snell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Neil Coyle]

rose—

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Chris Philp]

I am going to make some progress, but then I will give way.

I am rather anxious to make sure that those record ever numbers are maintained. The funding settlement for the police, announced by the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister a few weeks ago, increased by £1.089 billion, and they made a big play of that figure. However, when we go through the funding pressures that police forces across England and Wales face and add them all up, including the £230 million extra that police forces will have to pay in national insurance, the funding pressures add up not to £1.089 billion, but to £1.205 billion. The funding pressures in the coming financial year, which starts in just a few weeks’ time, are about £116 million more than the funding increase. There is a gap, and the consequence is that the 43 police forces across England and Wales may have to cut 1,800 officers to make up that funding shortfall.

Antisocial Behaviour and Illegal Bikes

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Antonia Bance]

My hon. Friend is correct. I so look forward to the Crime and Policing Bill coming forward in the next couple of weeks. It will give police the powers to seize those antisocial bikes.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this timely debate. The stories she has told about her community match those I heard when I was out with Councillor Laura Carter in Sneyd Green on Repington Road only two weeks ago. We discussed with residents that this is about not just the noise and pollution, but the associated criminality that goes with those bikes—the drug running and the movement of stolen goods. Stoke and Staffordshire have the wonderful Operation Transom, which I urge all Members of this House to look at. It brings together partners to use drones and aeroplanes to chase bikes down and seize them. Although I am sure that this debate will focus on the menace, everyone should look at the solutions that we are trying to deploy in Stoke.

[Antonia Bance]

My hon. Friend is correct. By working together—the police, councils and local communities—we can stop this happening.

I heard more stories, including from Terri-Ann in Hateley Heath, who told me that she is just waiting for someone to get hurt because they go so fast down Jowetts Lane and Lynton Avenue. Paul contacted me one Saturday when there were seven illegal scrambler motorbikes at the top of Brunswick Park, pulling wheelies, ripping up the grass and destroying the football pitch. They were right up close to 15 kids who were trying to play football. As he said to me, it does not bear thinking about what would have happened if one of them had crashed into a kid. This is a problem across Sandwell and in Dudley, but we have particular hotspots in Friar Park in Wednesbury and in and around Tipton Green.

I want to be clear that our local police, the council and our police and crime commissioner Simon Foster all know that this is a problem. Together, we are taking action on off-road bikes. In Friar Park, our No. 1 hotspot, the council leafleted every house so that people know that their tenancy is at risk if they or their kids ride illegal bikes, and it closed off the entrances to our parks and towpaths.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Gareth Snell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the deterrent never even started. The first flight—[Interruption.] The first flight was due to take off on 24 July, but his Government cancelled the deterrent before it had even started. That was their mistake, and as a result illegal crossings have gone up by 28%. This is not a border security Bill, given the measures that I have mentioned; it is a border surrender Bill. It is a weak bill from a weak Government.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I was in opposition when we had ferocious debates about Brexit, and Conservative Members used words like “surrender”, “traitors” and “weak”. The shadow Home Secretary is now doing the same in opposition. Does he honestly believe that such language is conducive to getting to a solution? Does he think that it makes any person in this House feel better about themselves? Does he think that it gives him the moral high ground? I think it exposes his inability to conduct an argument in a way that is vaguely civil.

[Chris Philp]

I think a Bill that creates a path to citizenship for illegal migrants and cancels the obligation on the Government to remove people who arrive illegally is a shocking piece of legislation. That is why we tabled a reasoned amendment.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the shadow Home Secretary give way?

[Chris Philp]

I have given way a lot. Let me make some progress.

The Home Secretary asked about the Opposition’s position on various topics. Our reasoned amendment makes it clear that we support measures to increase criminal penalties and to legislate against articles for use in serious and organised crime—measures that we introduced as part of the Criminal Justice Bill last year—but we do not support a path to citizenship for people who arrive illegally, and we do not support cancelling the Government’s obligation to remove them. That is why I moved the reasoned amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I think that everybody across the House wants to see small boat crossings diminish and hopefully conclude entirely. Likewise, I think that most people across the House feel that we need to have a fair, robust and effective way to deal with illegal immigration.

This, as I have said previously in the House, is a moral issue. We do not want to see any more women, children or men dying in the channel. When I raised that with the Home Secretary on 22 July, she seemed to agree with me, but thus far agreement does not seem to have matured into action. Indeed, when the Minister of State responded to me on a similar point on 6 November, she was much more equivocal about how the Government were going to deal with this really serious issue.

That is no surprise when we come to the Bill, which has ripped the heart out of the previous Government’s Illegal Migration Act. All the deterrence put into that Act has been pulled out. That is important for two reasons. First, this Bill will clearly not stop the small boat crossings. Secondly, it sends a message to those traffickers who want to exploit people and bring them across the channel that the Government are not serious about stopping the problem. We can see that from the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) mentioned, the X-raying and medical checks of migrants have been ripped out. That is something that EU countries do on a routine basis.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. These points are obviously going to come from Conservative Members. Have they read the comments of the noble Lord Winston in the other place on 27 November 2023, when he outlined that while scientific equipment may be used, the analysis that comes from bone density checks or X-rays is entirely flawed? The results depend on the calcium deposits and the food that was eaten by the person being X-rayed, as well as other health reasons. Has the hon. Gentleman read those comments? If not, could he read them? If he has read them, does he disagree with what Lord Winston said and think he knows better?

[Gregory Stafford]

Far be it from me to criticise a Member of the other place, especially one with such a distinguished medical career. All I would say gently to the hon. Member is that this is not novel or unique to this country; it is being used in countries across the EU. Likewise, on the Rwanda scheme, which the Government scrapped, we can have a debate about whether it was right or wrong, but EU countries are looking at similar schemes. If the Government do not like Rwanda, why are they not looking at other sites?

It is not just me who is saying this. The National Crime Agency has said clearly that no country has ever stopped people trafficking upstream in foreign countries. While the Australians have done it, that was with a deportation scheme, but that is not being introduced by the Government. Likewise, the former chief immigration officer Kevin Saunders said that the United Kingdom needs a “big deterrent” and that everyone has told the Prime Minister that. We need a big deterrent to stop migrants. Forget about the gangs: if we stop the migrants from wanting to come to the UK, the gangs will not exist.

I come at this from a moral point of caring about ensuring that people do not die in the channel. We need a deterrent, which is sorely missing from the Bill. It should not surprise us that the Government are not robust on this, because Labour voted against every tough measure that the previous Government introduced in the Illegal Migration Act. Labour Members voted against measures to tackle illegal immigration 134 times. They voted to block, delay or weaken our plans to stop the boats 126 times in the last Parliament. It is therefore absolutely no surprise that their Bill does nothing to stop that and will lead to more dying in the channel.

We need a fair migration system. We need to support those who genuinely need our help or whom we genuinely need to fill gaps in our labour market, but we must not be taken for fools by the trafficking gangs, nor must we be taken for fools by this Labour Government.

I accept some of the analysis of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), who said that we have a problem with our birth rates. However, the way to solve that is not through unlimited mass migration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove said, we cannot build an economy reliant on mass migration. We must build home-grown resilience. Again, this is a moral issue. If we denude developing countries of their most highly talented people, those countries will never be able to rebuild themselves and become successful, and the problem that we are dealing with will just carry on.

I have no confidence in the Government to sort this problem out. That is because, as we have already seen this evening, the Government have no answer on how many of the people who came over on small boats they have deported. Perhaps more tellingly, they have no ambitious target about when any of the measures they are proposing will start to solve the problem.

As I said, we need a fair, robust and effective immigration system, and not this insipid Bill, which will not secure our borders or deter the people traffickers, and, I am afraid, will lead to further deaths in the channel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Today’s remarks from Conservative Members have been clear—we understand the public’s frustration that more has not been done to reduce these numbers. They are too high, and they must be lowered. During the election campaign, Labour said that it wanted to smash the gangs, but since it took power, small boat crossings have risen by 28%. Before the election, we were closing hotels, yet now 6,000 more people are in hotels, and the number of people arriving in small boats and being removed is down. Conservative Members remain deeply concerned that this Bill and the Government’s approach would represent a backwards step. Rather than utilising every power available, they are focused on tweaking existing laws and stripping away powers that were previously put in place. That is not the approach that the UK needs; rather, we need legislation and a strategy that establishes powers to stop illegal migration for good.

I can already hear Labour Members criticising the last Government. We do not deny that numbers were far too high—quite the opposite—but it was the last Government who introduced a deterrent, one that was scrapped by the Labour party immediately upon taking office before it could even begin. The Leader of the Opposition has been abundantly clear that despite efforts made by the last Government, far more needed to be done to solve the problem.

The problem for the Government is that, despite their complaints about their predecessors, this legislation is unlikely to provide anything like a real solution. The immigration crisis is undoubtedly one of the biggest challenges we face as a country, and it requires bold action. If people believe that they can arrive here illegally and stay, they will continue to come in ever-increasing numbers. The cancelling of the deterrent was an act of national self-harm. The increase in small boat arrivals since the Labour party took office makes that clear for the whole House to see.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Matt Vickers]

I will give way to people who have been here throughout and have contributed to the debate.

Some of the changes in the Bill weaken rather than strengthen our ability to deal with the issue. Creating a route to British citizenship for those arriving here illegally—enticing more people to come—cannot be part of the solution. Weakening our ability to scientifically verify the age of those arriving, creating huge safeguarding risks in our education and care system, is also not part of the solution.

The National Crime Agency, and examples from Governments around the world, show that a deterrent must be in place, but this Bill does the opposite by removing the deterrent that is currently in law. It seems to stem from the misguided belief that arresting a small number of these heinous criminals will be enough to stop the crossings. Even though we would all like that to be the case, it is a vast oversimplification.

On deterrence to stop criminals, we all agree on the need to arrest the people behind these crimes, which is why, in 2023, there were 246 arrests of people smugglers and 86 arrests of small boat pilots—and I am still stunned that the Labour party opposed life sentences for people smugglers. We need measures that stop people boarding those boats in the first place, however, because failing to do so not only harms our country but fails those who endanger their lives by making that perilous journey.

Where legislation increases enforcement powers, enables further interventions and enhances data availability, we will welcome it. The experience of the enforcement authorities must be heard to ensure that they have the necessary powers. These sensible measures should not, however, be bundled into a Bill that simultaneously weakens the Secretary of State’s authority. The Home Secretary’s remarks failed to acknowledge the impact of the repeals. [Interruption.] She could have commenced them with the stroke of a pen. We must ask why this Bill repeals sensible provisions. It is stunning that the Government would prefer to weaken their powers rather than strengthen them.

Turning specifically to the repeals of previously passed legislation, I ask the Government what is wrong with the principle that if someone enters the UK illegally, they should never have a path to British citizenship. Why remove that provision? British citizenship is a special privilege, not something to be granted lightly. Those who enter our country illegally—breaking our laws—should not be offered a pathway to citizenship. Regularly granting citizenship to such individuals undermines the deterrent and sends the damaging message that breaking the law can lead to benefits. That harms the UK and endangers those who risk their lives to come here.

Additionally, the legislation repeals the Secretary of State’s ability to regulate consent for scientific age assessments where there are no reasonable grounds to withhold consent. That was a sensible step to prevent the abuse of the system. Some may argue that the provision is unnecessary, but between 2016 and September 2022, around 8,000 asylum cases involved age disputes. In about half, the individuals were assessed to be adults. Removing that power again weakens our legal infrastructure. We have also suggested significant but appropriate changes to indefinite leave to remain and citizenship. Why should the right to stay not be dependent on someone’s willingness to contribute and obey the law?

Last week, the Brussels correspondent for The Times reported that the European Union is drafting plans to overhaul the post-war refugee convention in what may be one of the most significant shifts in migration policy for decades. That is a clear signal of a growing consensus across the western world that the legal structures and institutions that restrict the Government from doing what is best for our country, and that have been obstructive, are no longer fit for purpose in tackling this significant issue.

While EU countries look to put together a deterrent scheme similar to the one cancelled by the Government, we must ask what the Government are trying to achieve with this legislation. Rather than implementing the significant changes being seriously discussed in Europe, or those that have been effective in Australia, they are opting for limited interventions. They are focused on tweaks to the system while simultaneously reducing their own powers in other aspects of the legal framework. That is not the decisive leadership that we need from the Government of the United Kingdom; it is a weak approach stemming from weak leadership, and for that reason I urge the House to vote for the reasoned amendment. It would be far better for the Government to go away, return swiftly with the necessary legal changes, and adopt an approach that genuinely deters people from coming to this country illegally.

I remind Members that despite pledges to smash the gangs, as of yesterday crossings were up by nearly 28%. That demonstrates that, as we warned the Government, their plan is not working, and the reality is that there are no easy fixes to this problem. There are significant challenges in addressing the issues arising from channel crossings, but we do not believe that the appropriate response is to dismantle legislation that provides the Government with powers they could use for the benefit of the country. That would be capitulation, and a charter for illegal immigration. I say to the Government: bring forward a Bill that enhances the ability of enforcement agencies, rather than one that strips them of their powers. We need a solution that takes the transformative steps to reduce illegal migration significantly, and action that secures our country’s borders and stops these life-threatening crossings. It is wrong to tell the world that if someone comes here illegally they can become a British citizen. I urge Members to back the reasoned amendment.

Police Grant Report

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Before engaging in the substance of the debate, I thank the brave, hard-working police officers, PCSOs, police staff and volunteers who work tirelessly to protect the public. They work day and night to make our communities safer, and run towards danger while others run away. We recognise the huge sacrifices that they make, giving their time, their health, and in the most tragic cases, their life.

I know that MPs across the House recognise our responsibility to support the police in their work. I am therefore pleased that Members have expressed their concerns to the Minister about this settlement. The reality is that the funding settlement put forward by the Government is inadequate. Everyone in this Chamber who has spoken with their local police force knows that the settlement will not provide the necessary resources, particularly given the inflationary pressures.

Last week, when questioned by Nick Ferrari about the absurd tax raid on our police forces and the fact that her settlement will cut the number of police on our streets, the Minister said that she was

“not pretending that it isn’t…challenging for police forces”.

Today, however, she and her colleagues are attempting to present a different picture, understating the settlement’s impact on reducing police numbers, and the financial challenge that it poses to our police forces. Last week, she stated that PCCs and chief constables must make local decisions about the composition of their forces. Will she now acknowledge that her Government’s decisions have created that impossible position for police leaders? At first glance, the settlement may appear generous in cash terms; however, there is a sleight of hand. The cash increase is not enough to cover new financial pressures, the biggest of which have been created by the Government. The funding will not be sufficient to sustain police forces. Without further action, it will ultimately lead to reductions in officer numbers.

Since the funding settlement was announced, numerous PCCs, chief constables and representative bodies have warned the Government about the challenges that it will create. Why are police forces so concerned? The impact of this year’s funding must be assessed in the context of two key factors. The first is the Government’s increase in national insurance contributions. Some £230 million of this apparently generous settlement will go straight back to the Treasury to pay the Government’s own tax raid on our own police forces. The Government are literally taxing the police off our streets. Economic data has already shown the harm that the national insurance raid has inflicted on businesses and jobs, but it has also reduced the financial benefit that the police will receive from the settlement.

Since the Government chose to impose this tax nationwide, it is only right that the Home Office should fully cover the cost of the tax increase for police forces, but the Government now claim that the £230 million that covers their own tax hike somehow counts as a funding increase. It is not a funding increase; it just covers an extra cost that the Government have imposed on our hard-working police forces. Would that money not have been better spent on more police officers, investments in technology to improve efficiency—something that the Government claim to prioritise—or targeted interventions?

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The shadow Minister, like so many Conservative Members, was supportive of the health and social care levy, which was a larger and more wide-ranging increase in national insurance than anything proposed by this Government. I have just checked Hansard for the entire time that he has been a Member of this place, and not once did he speak out against that tax hike and not once has he referenced police funding, until today. What is it about being in opposition that makes him think he now has the moral high ground?

[Matt Vickers]

That is a false statement, actually—it is misleading. I have definitely mentioned police funding in the House before.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Gareth Snell]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The shadow Minister suggested that I had misled the House, by suggesting that what I said was not true. I would like to be absolutely clear that the shadow Minister mentioned police funding on three occasions prior to the election, and each of them was an obsequious pleasantry about how wonderful the last Government were. That is not what I suggested he could have said.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

That is a point of debate, not a point of order.

Before we move on to the first Back-Bench contribution, I remind Members, including Front Benchers, not to use the word “you.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

It is a bit galling when people who have not sat through the debate come in and want to speak. There was no one on the Conservative Benches for the vast majority of the debate. Members who have taken part in the debate deserve a bit more respect.

This Government back the police 100%. We are grateful for the tireless work that police officers, PCSOs and staff do every single day. We have heard today about some of the crimes that they suffer. This investment is a significant step towards meeting our shared ambition to boost neighbourhood policing and to restore confidence in the police that has been so badly lost, as was mentioned by many Members. This Government have prioritised investment in policing in a time of fiscal constraint, but we know that there is more to do. We will work in partnership with the police to deliver our shared ambition to boost visible neighbourhood policing, tackle knife crime and violence against women and girls and reform the police, and to deliver efficiencies to make their jobs easier. This Government will always give the police the resources, powers, tools and support that they need to get the job done.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2025–26 (HC 621), which was laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.

[Gareth Snell]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In today’s Prime Minister’s questions, the Leader of the Opposition alleged that a donor to my party was funding a court case challenging the consent to develop the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields. That is entirely untrue. She went on to suggest that the Government’s decision to accept the court ruling was swayed somehow by a previous relationship with Dr Rausing. This is a very serious allegation for which no evidence has been provided. I seek your advice and guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the recourse available to me and other Members to ask the Leader of the Opposition to come back to this House and present the evidence, and if she cannot, to apologise, withdraw the comment and correct the record.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order, which perhaps went further than I had expected. In this House we need to be very careful with language. I am sure that he was not accusing the Leader of the Opposition of deliberately saying something that was untrue.

[Gareth Snell]

Not deliberately.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for clarifying that. He will be aware that comments made in this House are not the responsibility of the Chair, but he has put his point on the record, and I am sure that the official Opposition Front-Bench team will have heard it.

Asylum Seekers: Hotel Accommodation

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We certainly want those who gain status to be usefully employed, and my part of the system is ensuring that we get those asylum decisions up and running as fast as possible. Unfortunately, we have inherited a difficult situation, which we are working hard to resolve. Once someone has gained status in this country, of course they are able to work, so we have to get the system working faster.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

In my constituency, two hotels were opened under the previous Conservative Government, and they are still there, so I find the new concern from Conservative Members slightly disconcerting. Although I accept what the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) says about this now being the Labour Government’s problem, I am certain that Conservative Members do not want to publicly defend their appalling legacy, wo need a little less from them. The question I put to the Minister—[Interruption.] That is how it works here: we ask a question and wait for the answer. [Interruption.] The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), can keep quiet.

Schools in my constituency say that accessing children in those hotels for educational welfare visits or safeguarding checks is proving more and more difficult because the providers do not understand their responsibilities. I encourage the Minister to speak to her counterparts in the Department for Education and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that those necessary checks to keep children safe can be done unimpeded.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Since we came into government, we have done much more to co-operate across Departments, and I will certainly take that issue up with my opposite numbers in the Department for Education and MHCLG.

Immigration and Home Affairs

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this debate and for affording me the honour of making my first speech in this House on behalf of the people of Gateshead Central and Whickham—in fact, the first speech on behalf of the new constituency of Gateshead Central and Whickham. To represent a community you care about deeply, including friends and family, is of course a source of great pride, but to speak in this place as their voice is a great responsibility.

My friend Ian Mearns, the former Member for Gateshead, served the people of our community for 41 years—27 as a councillor, and 14 in this place. He has always been and will remain someone I seek guidance from, even when we disagree, which we will. I will aim to carry forward his passion for education in this place, as education, alongside my family and the Labour party, has given me every opportunity I have had in my life. Ian served as a member of the Education Committee, and was knowledgeable and rigorous in that role. He also served as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, and I know that many Members will have been grateful to him for making sure that they had the time to raise their issues in this Chamber and Westminster Hall.

I am fortunate, too, to have another immediate predecessor sitting behind me: my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist). We are both proud trade unionists, and she has done inspirational work on self-harm and suicide prevention, which I know is deeply personal to her. I am indebted to her for her guidance and support, and will be for as long as I am lucky enough to work alongside her.

In Gateshead, we are proud of our manufacturing history. Our own Sir Joseph Swan invented the first incandescent light bulb, and his home in Low Fell was the first in the world to be wired for domestic electric lighting. Manufacturing in Gateshead is part of my history, too—my father worked at the old Clarke Chapman factory—yet we are equally excited about our manufacturing present and future. Situated on both the east coast main line and the A1, we are ideally suited for the jobs of the future, and I say to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and those in the relevant Departments that I will be collaring them about this if I haven’t already. Work is key to the people of Gateshead and Whickham. We are working people, never shy of hard work and proud of what we do for work, but all too often in search of skilled work and better pay and too often forced to live in poverty. That is why, among all the excellent Bills brought forward in this King’s Speech, one stands out above all others: the employment rights Bill.

I must now declare an interest, and it is one I am proud to declare. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden) stated yesterday, I too am proud of the amount of work that I and others within Labour’s affiliated trade unions, working with Labour Members on these Benches, have put into developing a package known as the new deal for working people, now the employment rights Bill. In places like my community where people work hard but all too often their pay is not what it should be, this will change lives. In every corner of our country, in every constituency represented in this place where there are those working without dignity on exploitative zero-hours contracts, being subjected to the brutality of fire and rehire, being paid wages they cannot live on, or toiling as care workers or school support staff on insufficient wages, this Bill will change lives in their communities too, and I urge Members to give it their full support when the time comes. Right now, for far too many, work does not pay and you only need to visit Gateshead food bank or a food bank in your constituency to see that.

Decent work and better pay are at the heart of why I came into politics, because dignity in work is the key that unlocks everything else, but it is not all that matters. What matters too is what makes the heart sing—what we do with our families and friends that makes memories and elevates us above the everyday. The cultural power of my local area is too often overlooked. We are the home of institutions such as the Baltic centre for contemporary art and the Glasshouse on Gateshead quays, but also of smaller, older and no less important venues such as Shipley art gallery and the Little theatre—the only theatre built in Britain during world war two. This cultural tradition has endured for centuries, with the work of the engraver Thomas Bewick, the writings of Daniel Defoe, who lived on the south bank of the Tyne, the 18th-century comic operas of William Shield of Swalwell, the satirical songs of Low Fell’s Alex Glasgow and the rock anthems of AC/DC’s Brian Johnson, born in Dunston. But don’t worry, I am not going to sing.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Oh, go on!

[Mark Ferguson]

You haven’t heard my voice.

We are a place of learning, too, with Gateshead college and Cardinal Hume school—recently judged outstanding by Ofsted—two of the fantastic educational establishments I have been proud to visit already. I look forward to working with others, including Whickham school, Gibside and Kingsmeadow. In our thriving Jewish community, who I am proud to represent, stands Gateshead’s Talmudical college, the oldest yeshiva in the country, founded in 1929. I am told that it is the foundation upon which Gateshead gained its reputation as the Oxbridge of the Jewish world.

Sport, too, is important to Gateshead. Sir Brendan Foster has a long and proud relationship with our town, and of course the great north run runs through Gateshead. The image of people running into Gateshead over the Tyne bridge is burned on the collective consciousness of our country. The famous oarsman Harry Clasper was raised in Dunston, as was Paul Gascoigne. And we love our football, including Gateshead FC—the 2024 FA Trophy winners, by the way—even though the Boundary Commission has given the honour of being the football club’s MP to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne). The fact that my grandfather played for the club in the 1940s is a source of great pride. While most of my constituents support the black and white of Newcastle, some of us support the red and white of Sunderland and many of us are united in our support for Gateshead too. To those Opposition Members who may be coming to terms with the feeling of being in the minority, let me say what my father said to me as a young man growing up a Sunderland fan in Gateshead, “It will be character building.”

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this debate. This is a time of great importance for our country, one where trust in this place has fallen on hard times and where we must, on all sides, work to rebuild it. I will do all that I can to be a voice for the people of Gateshead Central and Whickham. I will work my hardest for them, and I will try to represent them to the best of my ability.