Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Jonathan Brash Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th September 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Foster]

Q I am just asking for your view on some of the evidence the Committee heard this morning. This is not Paul Foster’s view; it is the view of our witnesses.

Professor Singer: I have not come across that myself.

Jacqui McKenzie: I do not think that is right.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Q You have focused a great deal on Home Office decision making as the primary reason why the process takes a long time and there are a number of appeals, but is the reality not that appeal is the default? Virtually all refusals are appealed; it is nothing to do with the decision making, and as long as that is going to be the case, we have to find a way to speed up the system.

Jacqui McKenzie: What I am referring to are those decisions that are badly made that end up in the appellant system. Those are the ones that I see and that go on, after two or three years, to be allowed, and the person gets to remain in the UK.

Those are not the initiatives where people coming from particular countries have been granted asylum, and there has been a whole discussion on whether that is due process or not. Generally speaking, of the appeals that we see in my practice—my practice is limited; I am not sitting here trying to extrapolate across the jurisdiction—the vast majority, if not nearly all of them, could have had a different decision in the first instance, and did not need to go into the system. Of course, if people’s lives are dependent on them fleeing persecution or maintaining their family ties in the UK and they get a negative decision, they are going to appeal. That is just the way things are.

[Mr Brash]

Q I think my point was that, if appealing is the default and virtually all refusals are appealed, your argument that if there was better decision making at the Home Office, that would speed things up—

Jacqui McKenzie: Then there would not be appeals. If there was better decision making, there would be far fewer appeals. What I am saying to you is that from my practice, most of what I deal with as appeals should not be appeals.

Professor Singer: In the asylum system at the moment, 66% of cases are either accepted on appeal or they are withdrawn—the implication being that the Home Office had withdrawn that case. That is 66% of asylum appeals that could be effectively wiped out if the initial decision was better made.

The fact that initial decisions by the Home Office are bad is a fact—you can look at the National Audit Office review of Home Office decision making or the Home Office’s own assessment of the quality of its decisions. That is a fact. If you have a better standard of initial decision making and, in effect, fewer refusals where there should not have been refusals, those cases will not go on to appeal, so there will be fewer appeals.

There are going to be appeals anyway; there are always going to be appeals, so we want to have the most efficient and effective system that we can, while making sure that it is fair and follows due process standards that have to be applied when you are making very serious decisions, such as potentially removing people to somewhere where they will be at risk of very serious harm or their life will be threatened. You need to have due process in that place, so what is the best way we can do that?

Is it by establishing an entirely new body that is going to need to be staffed and resourced and will need to work out what its rules of procedure are—we do not know what they are; we have no idea how it is going to be—using decision makers who are not legally qualified to decide decisions on some of the most complex areas of domestic law that we have? Do we really think that that is going to speed up decision making?

[The Chair]

This will have to be a very brief last question, because we are just about out of time for this panel.

[Mr Brash]

Q The point you made there is that your solution to the process is for the Home Office to grant more applications in the first instance. Do you think that will have the impact of getting confidence back into the system with the public?

Professor Singer: No, my solution is that the Home Office not reject cases that should not be rejected, plus better resourcing the Home Office in order to do that, and better resourcing and making adjustments in our initial tribunal system, rather than handing the whole process to a Home Secretary-governed independent body that is not independent of the Home Office, despite its name.

Could I finish on one final note that I wanted to make sure that I got across to the Committee? As I mentioned, there are provisions in the Bill relating to a new core protection status and also around asylum support. I do not feel the Committee can scrutinise that without having the regulations that the Secretary of State plans to adopt before it. My recommendation is that the Secretary of State should be forced to publish those regulations before the Committee can make its determination on those areas.

[The Chair]

Thank you. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.

Examination of Witness

Dr Martin Buttle gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson]

Q Just stepping back for a moment, do you expect the result of the Bill will be that the numbers arriving on small boats will decrease and the numbers removed from the UK will increase?

Anna Turley: As I said at the beginning, it is an important part of our armoury for reducing the numbers in small boats. We have evidence clearly showing that people who come to the country think we have, essentially, a more liberal system than many other countries in Europe. Of course, there are other reasons why people want to come to the UK, but people generally think that we have a looser interpretation of some of our responsibilities than other countries. It is important to us that we are clear, through the Bill, that we will fulfil our obligations, but also that we will ensure people cannot exploit the system or find loopholes, and that we will have a system that is fair, efficient and effective. This is one part of our armoury that, alongside all the other measures we are putting in place, will see our trajectory of reducing small boats continue.

I am convinced that the Bill will certainly speed up the time it takes to undertake removals and deal with some of the last-minute claims. You have heard from my colleague about people finding yet another opportunity to thwart the system when they are literally on their way to the planes.

Bas Javid: I would add that the very act of removal, when it is done properly and legitimately, acts as a deterrent in itself. For people who are looking to come to the UK or to remain illegally after a legal arrival, the very act of removal, done in the right way, is a deterrent.

[Mr Brash]

Q Minister, you are a neighbouring MP of mine, so you understand only too well the anger about illegal migrants in your constituency and my Hartlepool constituency, particularly given that the previous Government’s decision to outsource asylum accommodation led to our communities being unfairly targeted. The test for many of my constituents will come down to whether the Bill will result in a reduction in the number of illegal migrants in our communities. What modelling has been carried out to look at the effect of the Bill on reducing the number of illegal immigrants?

Anna Turley: As I said, it is part of our armoury. I recognise very deeply, as you do, the sense of fairness that people feel in communities such as ours, which are struggling on all kinds of levels, whether access to public services, employment opportunities, levels of poverty or the broader social fabric and community cohesion challenges that we face in this country—those are important issues. As a Labour Government, we always want fairness to be at the heart of everything we do.

Although it is part of a broader armoury, the priority for the Bill is to move to a system in which British people do not feel that their sanctuary is being exploited or that others have the opportunity to access what they might not be able to access. Where we do extend a hand and help people to find a life of safety and sanctuary in this country, and they are able to integrate and become part of our communities, they will be responsible for repaying that support. Fairness, responsibility and contribution are at the heart of everything we should do in this country, as we uphold our international obligations, of which we are rightly proud.

[Siân Berry]

Q I have a couple of questions that seek more information, so I will fire through those two to begin with. Madeleine Sumption and the Refugee Council told us that there is not full data on which human rights claims grounds are currently accepted, refused, appealed and then accepted, or refused on appeal. Is there any way the Department could get more of that information to us before our line-by-line consideration of the Bill?

The Refugee Council said there was no information on the proportion of people claiming asylum support as opposed to living off their own means while they are here, or not living off any means and being exploited. That is important information to know about in the context of the repayments clauses. Could you try to get that information for us before our line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill? The Government need a baseline for the outcome that they are seeking.

Anna Turley: I appreciate that. We may have that information, but I do not have it to hand today—apologies. I am more than happy to have a look internally, have discussions and see if we can get that information to the Committee, if we have access to it.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

Jonathan Brash Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Kohler]

Q Do you think that is because the gangs have been smashed? Do you think that is why the reduction has happened?

Helen Rance: There is a combination of factors. The law enforcement approach to reducing small boat equipment, to working closely with international partners and to using our international intelligence reach has certainly contributed to that. We would not claim that the work is complete or that we have fixed this, but our efforts have certainly contributed to the reduction in crossings.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Q You are right to say that boat crossings are down 43% this year. Do you feel that the NCA has the resources it needs to continue that trend and go further by implementing the proposals in the Bill?

Helen Rance: Yes. We have very much moved our operational capacity towards immigration crime. Of course, like all agencies, we have a finite budget, but we are focusing it on the disruption of the highest-harm organised immigration crime, individuals and networks. I do not think we would ever say that we have enough money, because more money could always be spent on increased intelligence capability and unique capabilities that we utilise, but we have certainly done a major pivot over the last 18 months towards organised immigration crime, and we have had some excellent results with that pivot.

[Blake Stephenson]

Q In answer to Matt Vickers’s question, you said that, as a result of the Bill, exploiting our borders will be less attractive for organised criminals. What specific measures in the Bill does your organisation think contributes to that assessment?

Helen Rance: The strongest deterrence effect will come from sustained law enforcement activity. If we can continue to disrupt facilitators, seize boats and engines, and target criminal finances, it will have an effect on the operation of organised immigration individuals and networks. The Bill makes it harder and less attractive for those networks to operate within the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brash]

Q Given the explosion in the number of people claiming asylum since 2021, it is fair to say that it is a widely held public view that a huge number of those are not genuine. This Bill aims to make it less attractive to people who do not qualify for protection. Does it, in your view? Which provisions specifically do you think make it less attractive to people who do not qualify for asylum?

Professor Ekins: I am not sure whether the Bill really does make it less attractive for people who fail to qualify. As I have said already, it rightly makes it more difficult for some unlawful migrants, who claimed asylum but whose claim has failed, to stay in the UK by relying on their claimed family connection. There are other grounds on which they may resist removal. The Bill expressly preserves the capacity for foreign criminals to resist deportation on family grounds, for example. The Bill, if enacted and well received, will make it marginally—I do not mean that dismissively—easier to remove some of those people. Major obstacles will remain, though.

The provisions you have in mind are perhaps those that concern the recovery of contributions for asylum support. I apologise if I have misread this, but I thought that that would hold regardless of whether one was a genuine refugee. The point is that the Home Secretary would have a power to recover funds from people who have received asylum support. There are limitations there, clearly: they have to have funds to make a contribution, and they cannot be left destitute as a consequence.

That may have a modest deterrent effect, but that will hold for failed asylum seekers, including fraudulent asylum seekers—not every failed asylum seeker is fraudulent, of course—and genuine refugees too. But then it is the policy of the Government, rightly so, to deter genuine refugees from attempting to enter the country , certainly by contracting with people smugglers and entering unlawfully across the channel. That provision goes to your question, but I am not sure that it will have much difference in practice. Personally, I do not think that it is objectionable in principle that, if people have funds to make a contribution to the public funds that they have received, they should make it, but I doubt that many people will be in a position to deliver.

There is the other aspect though, which we have touched on: the changes that clause 22 will make in relation to the understanding of article 33 of the convention. Those provisions concern people who are genuine refugees; it just means that those genuine refugees can none the less be expelled, even to a country where their persecutors are waiting, if they are a danger to the community or a threat to national security. With respect, I find that provision quite oddly drafted; I am not sure why it is framed in the way that it is. It seems back to front, in a sense. At least the Government, and Parliament if it supports the Bill, will be addressing that provision. It is an important protection that we will not really be able to rely on, because any attempt to remove a person who is a threat to national security or a danger to the community will be predictably blocked by the ordinary operation of human rights law, which the Bill otherwise does not tame.

Dr Casey: I agree with Professor Ekins. I do not see the logical connection between the part 2 changes to the application of article 8 and deterring unlawful crossings. As I mentioned, I could see it having a modest to moderate impact, if interpreted according to the spirit of the Bill, on deterring things like overstaying on a visa or breaching a condition of your permission. One of the features of the Bill is that tribunals are directed that a family life formed when your immigration status is precarious or when you are unlawfully present should have little or no weight, respectively. If the courts took that very seriously and that became common knowledge, that might make you think, “Okay, it will be harder to leverage article 8 to stay.” That could have a deterrent effect, but not on unlawful crossings.

[Blake Stephenson]

Q Can we briefly return to clause 1(8), which I think you described, Professor Ekins, as a poor attempt at an ouster provision. Would you be able to describe why you think that? If it was better drafted, what would the constitutional and practical benefits be from that clause?

Professor Ekins: We have a long tradition in our country, and in the common law world more broadly, of interpreting ouster clauses—clauses in legislation that would limit the jurisdiction of the court on judicial review—narrowly. The courts take for granted that Parliament is probably not going be excluding their supervisory capacity; if a provision is going to genuinely exclude that capacity, the courts expect it to be spelled out categorically, in black and white. There is a long history of their looking at a clause that you might have thought, especially if you had not really been attending to these clauses and their tradition and reception, did say that, and interpreting it to have a much more limited effect or no effect at all in practice, whereas the point was perhaps to exclude review.

Looking at that clause and knowing what I do about the history of the reception of those clauses, I just do not think it will be understood to mean, “There can be no judicial review of a decision of the adjudicative body that, for example, is procedurally unfair, or that is so unreasonable that no adjudicative body would have reached it.” Now what it might do, and I think this is how it would be read, would be, “No judicial review challenges to that adjudicative decision on grounds of error of law, because, if you think there is an error of law, you appeal to the upper tribunal.” Fine: it would have some limited effect there. But if the point was to categorically exclude judicial review of adjudicative decisions of this body—and I do not know whether that was the policy of the Government or quite what the drafters had in mind—it certainly will not achieve that. I say “certainly”, I think it is probably the case, but I think it is very unlikely.

If you drafted a different ouster clause, then one might have more hope that it would be effective; in a sense, you could specify and categorically exclude the particular grounds of judicial review that you as Parliament do not want this decision of the body to be subject to. Then, in a sense, you are taking full responsibility for what judicial review should look like in relation to this body after the legislation comes into effect.

Parliament has in recent years enacted some more thoroughgoing and careful, if you like, precise, ouster clauses along those lines. These are sometimes called partial ouster clauses, because they do not categorically exclude judicial review, but they very severely limit it. There is one such ouster clause in the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, which protects some decisions of the upper tribunal from judicial review. That model could be applied here.

I should add there are some drawbacks to so doing, because this new adjudicative body, as our previous discussion may suggest and I think the structure of the Bill shows, is not a court. It will be an adjudicative body with some independence, but it will not be like the upper tribunal, which, frankly, is just like the High Court in a different mode. The constitutional case against doing it is certainly stronger than was the case with the upper tribunal; but, if Parliament takes the view that there should be no judicial review here or it should be only on these specified grounds, then there are other models available for drafting an ouster clause. If I were in your shoes, I would not rest content with clause 1(8) as it stands.

Policing in Cleveland

Jonathan Brash Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman is a local Member, and he is taking the opportunity to ask a question from the Back Benches to reflect his local interest; I pay tribute to him for his response to this incident and the wider pressures in his local area. I assure him that, when we begin the work on reforming the funding formula, we will start with a first-principles approach to what we are seeking to achieve. That will include broader issues of demand for policing and will reflect the reality of what policing different areas looks like.

The new police force structure—a new regional force model that is big enough to surge capacity to local areas when required—will give the flexibility to ensure that forces are not condemned to permanently relying on mutual aid. It is to the credit of the policing system that people step up and do what is required to keep their areas safe, but nobody could argue that that is the right way to run policing in our country in the 21st century. It desperately needs reform. Most of the policing system leaders recognise that the structure needs reform. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that funding reform will flow as a result of that. The first phase of consulting on funding reform will relate to the first principles of what the funding is for and how to reflect the needs of different areas.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I join the Home Secretary and the whole House in paying tribute to PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough, and in sending our heartfelt condolences to their families and loved ones. Matthew was a coach at my son’s football club, FC Hartlepool, and at Seaton Carew FC. The teams played each other last Saturday, when I was proud to join so many other Poolies in paying tribute to a remarkable man who was so loved by everyone who knew him. I also pay tribute to our police and all emergency services personnel, who are getting up every single day grief-stricken at the loss of their two colleagues, but are still doing their jobs to an amazing extent.

These tragic events did not materialise out of the blue. The lawlessness that we are seeing in certain parts of our communities did not happen overnight. It is the consequence of systemic underfunding of our police and our fire service. I welcome the £2 million announced by the Home Secretary today, but does she agree—I join my colleagues in saying this—that we need a long-term solution to fix the funding formula, for both our police and our fire service, if we are to protect all of our communities? I hope that she is sincere about ensuring that that happens.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in providing reassurance to his local community. It is particularly difficult when you have a personal connection to somebody who has lost their lives in these circumstances, so I pay tribute to him for the work he is doing in what are very difficult circumstances for local representatives and all members of our emergency services in the area. I reassure him that the work that we will do on police funding is a very real part of the wider police reform programme. I hope that when we discuss these matters, as we will when I meet local Members of Parliament for the area, we can see how this fits in with the wider programme of police reform.

This incident shows, in a very horrifying way, why we need to reform policing structures so that we have the right level of policing in each of our areas, such that we can respond to shop theft and antisocial behaviour on our high streets, ensure that we can deal with local organised and serious crime, and ensure that specialist investigation and public order are not left to be looked after by mutual aid arrangements. The case for reform is made out; as a necessary part of that reform, we will of course look at the funding formula. I look forward to discussing that with my hon. Friend very soon.

Illegal Immigrants: Offshore Detention and Deportation

Jonathan Brash Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and I am grateful to the 1,744 people in Hartlepool who signed the petition. That is a significant number of my constituents, and their concerns deserve to be heard and taken seriously.

Let me begin by saying something very clearly. The people of Hartlepool are entitled to be angry about immigration. They are entitled to expect secure borders. They are entitled to expect that those with no right to be in this country are removed. They are entitled to expect fairness in the asylum system and fairness for the communities that feel they have carried more than their fair share, and I share in those expectations. I have supported the Home Secretary’s measures to reduce illegal immigration, strengthen border security and increase returns, and I will continue to support this Home Secretary, including on the measures that will be laid before the House later today, which I hope this House will pass in full.

The truth is that progress is being made. Net migration has fallen dramatically from the peak under the previous Government’s Boris wave: it is down 82%, delivering the reduction that was promised for years but never achieved. Indeed, the figures are now entering the tens of thousands that Conservative Administrations promised for so long. Small boat crossings are down 41% this year, while deportations of those arriving by small boat are up 16%. In Hartlepool, the number of asylum seekers living in dispersed accommodation has fallen by 14% since the general election.

The new immigration and asylum legislation will further strengthen the powers available to remove those with no right to be here and deter those attempting to enter illegally. That is the serious work of Government. It requires law enforcement, international co-operation, proper returns agreements, faster decisions and a system that can distinguish between genuine asylum claimants and those who have no right to remain.

I fully understand why people sign a petition like this. They see boat crossings in the channel. They see asylum accommodation in their communities. They see the pressure on housing, schools, public services and community cohesion. They feel that for far too long the broken system —broken by the Conservative party—has not worked, and they want action. They are right to expect it, but we also have a responsibility in this place to be honest. Offshore detention is something that I support in principle, but it is not a magic answer. It is expensive, it is legally complex and it does not remove the need for returns agreements, effective administration and tackling the criminal gangs who profit from human misery—but I reiterate that if we can make it work, in principle I support it.

More importantly, the language we use matters. It affects how people view their neighbours, it affects how communities feel and it affects people’s lives. That brings me to a point that I want to make very clearly.

A constituent, Jasvir Singh, came to see me a couple of weeks ago after experiencing repeated racial abuse in the community where he has lived and served for almost 30 years. He owns a local business and has paid his taxes; he has contributed to Hartlepool and built a life there. He has done exactly what we say we value, yet he came to see me because the rhetoric around immigration has made his life harder. Jasvir is not an illegal immigrant, and he is not a criminal; he has every right to be here and he is part of our community, yet a small minority accuse him of being an illegal immigrant, of having arrived on a small boat and of having no right to be here, and they do so for one reason alone: the colour of his skin.

When politicians blur the line between voicing legitimate concern about illegal immigration and using language that encourages suspicion of people because of their background or their skin colour, it is people like Jasvir who pay the price. That is why the rhetoric we use matters. There is a line between wanting secure borders and stirring up hostility; there is a line between removing those with no right to remain and portraying whole communities as a threat; there is a line between legitimate concern and racist dog-whistle politics, and it is my view that that line has been crossed repeatedly by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe).

When that happens, the consequences are not confined to Westminster Hall. They are felt by people like Jasvir. They are felt by families in Hartlepool. They are felt by children who hear abuse on their way to school. Words spoken in this place do not stay here. They travel into communities and workplaces and on to social media. That does not mean that we should avoid the issue—quite the opposite. We must continue to reduce illegal immigration, we must continue to strengthen our borders, we must remove those with no right to remain and we must dismantle criminal gangs and restore public confidence, but we must do so in a way that is serious, lawful and above all decent.

Hartlepool understands the pressure that the issue creates. One of my first actions on being elected as MP for Hartlepool was to meet Mears, the company responsible for asylum accommodation locally, because Hartlepool carries more than its fair share compared with neighbouring areas. I made clear that the system had to be fair, that responsibility could not simply fall on communities already facing significant challenges, and that local people deserved answers. Following those conversations, new asylum accommodation in Hartlepool was halted and numbers fell.

I will continue to raise this issue with Ministers because fairness matters. Hartlepool is a proud and welcoming town that believes in fairness. Fairness means secure borders and removing those who have no right to be here, but it also means standing up for the people who belong here and ensuring they are not made to feel like strangers because of the colour of their skin or the sound of their name. That is the balance we need: strong borders, faster removals, proper enforcement, serious government and politics that does not make innocent people pay the price for failures in the immigration system.

The people who signed this petition deserve answers, and my answer is this: I will continue to support firm action to reduce illegal immigration, I will support strengthening our borders and I will support practical measures that work, but I will not support rhetoric that puts my constituents at risk, I will not support language that turns legitimate concern into racial hostility, and I will not stay silent when people who have lived in, worked in and contributed to Hartlepool for decades are made to feel that they no longer belong.

We can have secure borders without losing that most fundamental of British values: common decency. We can have firm immigration controls without attacking decent people based on their skin colour, and we can tell the truth about illegal immigration without turning on our neighbours. We will not import Trumpian politics into our country. That is not the British way.

Immigration and Asylum Bill

Jonathan Brash Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

Two years ago, when this Government took office, we inherited an asylum system in chaos. The Conservative Government had ceded control of our borders to criminal gangs and, as a result, between January 2021 and June 2024, 110,000 people arrived here by small boat, while a further 175,000 claimed asylum by other routes. As numbers soared, so did the cost to the taxpayer. In just a single year, spending on asylum support was £4.7 billion, including £9 million spent daily on housing people in 400 asylum hotels.

In the last two years, this Government have begun the work of restoring order to our borders. That starts by taking the fight to the criminal gangs. In the last year, arrests of people smugglers were up 55%. Since taking office, we have disrupted organised immigration crime on 3,700 occasions—up by 46%. In partnership with French law enforcement, we have stopped 46,000 attempted channel crossings. We are now taking that partnership further with a new deal signed in April. This will fund increased patrols and intelligence operations, with a 53% increase in personnel on the French coast. The deal is already bearing fruit. In May, nearly two thirds of attempted small boat crossings were thwarted.

Meanwhile, we have rebuilt a shattered asylum system. Decision making ground to a halt under the last Government; now, decisions are at a 24-year high. As a result, removals are now at their highest level in nearly a decade—up 41% on the same period prior to our taking office. We have now deported and removed nearly 10,000 foreign criminals. That is 36% more than the last Government achieved.

We are also beginning to lighten the burden on local communities. This Government committed to ending the use of asylum hotels within this Parliament. Two years in, we have already emptied one in five, reducing the hotel population by 29% and cutting asylum costs by £1 billion.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I can say absolutely wholeheartedly that the Home Secretary retains my complete support for seeing this legislation through in full. Does she not agree that, as we take this action forward, it is important not just that the hotels are reduced, but that the dispersal accommodation that has overburdened communities, like mine in Hartlepool, is also reduced?

Rochdale Grooming Gang: Offender Deportation

Jonathan Brash Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

Fundamentally, when it comes to options that we take forward, it will be for the public to assess whether or not they think we are doing the right thing and for us to demonstrate that we are. On that specific case, as I think the hon. Gentleman would understand, there are important safeguards around the information that we would share, particularly around victims first, but we can, with constituency MP and victim consent, share some of that information. Let me pursue that with the hon. Gentleman outside these proceedings, because I want him to have the fullest information impossible so he can see, as would be my contention to all colleagues, just how vigorously we pursue removals of foreign criminals.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Some crimes are so despicable and some individuals so evil that they forfeit their rights and their protections, and we must change the law to ensure that they are never afforded them. Is not the law change required here to ensure that no individual can ever again be released unless the very next day they are being deported from this country?

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Brash Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

This Government have increased routes at the very top end of the skills spectrum, such as through our global talent visa, to make sure that we are attracting talent from all over the world. We have a good track record in doing so and will continue that. There is work to do with our university sector to make sure that students recruited to this country are on good courses and making a contribution, and obviously we want to make sure that we use the best of that global talent in the future. The changes we are making are not about students—students do not come to attain indefinite leave to remain in our country—but for other parts of the migration system. I will make sure, however, that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the migration Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) to discuss these matters in more detail.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

In Hartlepool we are reversing 30 years of globalisation and taking advantage of the unprecedented falls in immigration, thanks to this Home Secretary, and training our own, whether through our Health and Social Care Academy, our civil engineering academy, our centre of excellence for welding or our nuclear trades academy. Does the Secretary of State agree that rather than seeing it as an economic threat, falling immigration is an economic opportunity to train our own?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At a point when we have over a million young people not in employment, education or training, it is imperative that we make progress in this area. We would be letting our young people down if we did not take this opportunity to ensure that we are investing in our domestic skills workforce. That is a cross-Department priority and the Home Office is playing its full part.

Child Sexual Offender Data

Jonathan Brash Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I want to begin by putting on the record my thanks to the 651 constituents in Hartlepool who signed the petition. They are right to demand greater transparency and accountability from the institutions responsible for protecting children. I also thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for opening the debate in such a measured way.

Let me be absolutely clear: child sexual exploitation is one of the most vile, destructive and unforgivable crimes imaginable. It destroys lives, shatters childhoods and leaves scars that never heal. It is a crime that demands from all of us the strongest possible response. That word “unforgivable” is important. I make no apology for saying this, both as a Member of this place and as a dad: for those convicted of the rape of a child, no punishment is too harsh. They should be chemically castrated, they should be given hard labour, and they should never be allowed to see another free day for the rest of their, I hope, very miserable lives.

There should be no ambiguity and no softness when it comes to protecting our children. I support wholeheartedly the intent of the petition: transparency, accountability and truth. Where facts are missing, speculation—sometimes fostered by malign actors—fills the gap, and when trust in institutions breaks down, it is ordinary people and, most importantly, victims who suffer. As we have heard, sunlight is the great disinfectant. It matters. The public have a right to know the full picture of crime in their communities and how we intend to deal with it.

Of course there are practical challenges. As Baroness Casey has highlighted, some categories, such as religion, depend on self-declaration and, on that basis, may not always be particularly reliable. But those challenges are not a reason for inaction. They are a reason for getting the systems right, not for avoiding the issue altogether.

Let me make a second point very clear: this debate must be about victims, not about political point scoring, and not about narrowing or distorting the problem. Analysis by the police showed that 115,000 children were victims of sexual abuse in 2023. The child sexual exploitation taskforce identified 4,228 group-based offences in that same year, of which 1,125 were cases of family abuse and 717 were sexual exploitation cases, including offences perpetrated by grooming gangs. Even if we accept that not all crimes will be recorded, not all data will be accurate and many crimes will remain hidden, there is simply no doubt what these figures reveal: group-based abuse is real and must be tackled without fear or favour.

The figures also show something broader and far more uncomfortable: this abuse takes many forms and happens in many settings. The most common offenders are not organised networks; tragically, they are family members, trusted adults, friends of the family, neighbours, acquaintances and, in a growing number of cases, peers—children themselves, under the age of 18. These are hard truths, but they are essential truths if we are serious about prevention. That is why we cannot afford a selective focus. Every victim matters, every offender must be pursued, and every form of abuse must be confronted with equal seriousness.

It is true, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), that investigations of grooming gangs have identified instances where offenders come disproportionately from an ethnic minority background. That must be investigated and confronted without fear or favour wherever it occurs. I trust that the independent inquiry, which in my view was set up too slowly, albeit much faster than under previous Administrations, will do that. Anyone found to be complicit in not dealing with these appalling crimes should be brought to justice with the severity of punishment they deserve.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)]

The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. Three years ago, when I was Home Secretary, I set up the grooming gangs taskforce. In its first year, it led to 500 arrests and safeguarded over 4,000 girls. I am proud of that, but it was not nearly enough. Just for daring to tell the truth that, in places like Rotherham, these were racialised crimes perpetrated largely by Pakistani Muslim men against white girls, I was attacked by—it has to be said—my own Conservative party colleagues for being Islamophobic and for amplifying a far-right narrative. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that ethnicity reporting is essential if we are to combat the institutional fear that has taken over the police, social workers, schools, parts of our media and political parties, and if we are to get justice for victims?

[Mr Brash]

I would say very clearly that nobody should be castigated for highlighting a truth that is self-evident. I think the most important thing here is that once the essence of the petition is taken up by the Government—and I hope that it is—it will reveal a truth that there is an issue with grooming gangs, and that sometimes they come from particular ethnic minority backgrounds, but it will also reveal another truth: that the vast majority of perpetrators are not from grooming gangs or ethnic minority backgrounds. That is a truth that we have to get out into the open if we are to deal with it properly. I go back to the point that if we are insistent on a narrative that tries to sow division in our country and to be selective in its focus, the only people who will lose are victims of this appalling crime.

It is of genuine concern to me that we do not narrow the focus of this debate. Why would we want less transparency rather than more, unless the goal was something other than protecting children? Narrowing the focus of the debate to only some crimes is not about protecting children, but a tactic to weaponise the issue with the goal of promoting division, driving social media clicks and furthering the individual political ambitions of certain Members of this place. It is of genuine concern to me that today’s debate has been promoted, including by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), as a debate on grooming gangs. That is not what this debate is about. It is about all victims of child sexual abuse. It is about all data on all perpetrators.

I noted this morning that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth said that he was going to name and shame every Member of Parliament who did not attend the debate. There are 650 Members of Parliament, and I believe there are 50 seats around this Chamber. Temperance in our language would serve the victims of this crime far better than the language of the hon. Member. This issue must never be weaponised, and it must never be reduced to slogans or selective outrage. It must be about truth, accountability and, above all, justice for victims. I say wholeheartedly: publish the data, show the truth, and never forget the children we are duty-bound to protect. We owe them nothing less.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely concur with the hon. Member’s point. Youth services are a key indicator. Many of those who work for local authorities engage with victims and survivors, and of course they have a safeguarding responsibility and an ability to spot the signs of abuse. If youth services are one of those mechanisms, and if certain local authorities say that funding is an issue, then yes, of course—if that results in the right outcomes.

My final point is that there is always much focus on the national grooming gangs inquiry, but it seems that there is less focus on the report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which was an excellent piece of work by Professor Alexis Jay. It made 22 recommendations, but here we are, 22 months into this Government, and only six of those recommendations have been acted on. I fully acknowledge that the report came out in 2022 and that the previous Administration did not make enough progress on the recommendations in the 20 months that they had to act on them before the general election, but we are now 22 months into the new Government. My fourth question is: what additional progress are the Government making on implementing all 22 IICSA recommendations? I acknowledge and welcome the progress that has been made.

[Mr Brash]

Some of the Jay report recommendations were implemented by the Government through the Crime and Policing Act 2026, which came before the House recently. How did the hon. Gentleman vote on it?

[Robbie Moore]

The Crime and Policing Act did not go anywhere near far enough to provide the safeguarding mechanisms to protect vulnerable victims and survivors who have experienced heinous crimes of child sexual exploitation. I will not vote for poor, badly thought-through legislation introduced by this Government.

Beyond the six that have been acted on already, what additional progress will be made on the 22 recommendations? I conclude by advocating that the Minister include Bradford and Keighley in the national grooming gangs inquiry.

Knife Crime

Jonathan Brash Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

Cleveland police is one of the forces that we talk to regularly, because, as my hon. Friend says, the current police funding formula is not fit for purpose. It is very old, and it needs reform. We are reforming the whole structure of policing, and as part of that we will review the formula to bring it up to date and make it fit for purpose. Although I have no answer for my hon. Friend now, the question of the formula bears heavily on my mind, and we are doing a great deal of work on it in the Department.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I welcome the 8% reduction in knife crime and the increase in neighbourhood policing, which has seen a named officer in every ward of Hartlepool, but the Minister is right to say—and my constituents would agree—that it is not enough. Frontline officers tell me that they are taken off the street for far too long because they have to travel to Middlesbrough owing to the closure of our custody suite by the Conservative party. Given that the funding formula is broken and unfairly punishes Cleveland, can the Minister commit herself to reviewing it so that we can receive the funding we need to reopen that custody suite for my town?

[Sarah Jones]

I have spoken to forces in areas across the country where the distance that has to be travelled just to get to a custody suite is a disincentive to arrests, which is absolutely not the approach that we want to see. The challenges that we face are great, but we are reviewing the funding formula and will be establishing a fairer formula. The police estate has not received the investment that it should have received for a very long time. Our priority is to get police out into our communities, but we need to look at the estate as well.

Police Grant Report

Jonathan Brash Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald]

The penny has not dropped for the shadow Secretary of State, who cannot for one minute understand how that translated in our communities. That is the issue, because he simply does not take into consideration that loss of expertise. We cannot replace those police with recruits overnight. It was the stupidest thing a Government could do.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes my point for me, which is that the devastating thing was ripping the experience out of our police force and then dressing up new recruits as somehow a replacement. That led to higher crime in my constituency and, I know, in his.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. Those were the lived experiences of our constituents, and those were the consequences they had to live with. Opposition Members may say that was because of the financial situation they were left with, but austerity was of course a political choice. The Conservatives deliberately ploughed this furrow with disastrous consequences, and they should have the humility to get up and acknowledge the error they made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s first question, yes, of course that will be factored in. Did he say 2001? I really enjoyed the conflab in the debate about who was to blame for what—it went back to things being blamed on the last Labour Government. I would like to remind hon. Members that we have to be careful about the way we are seen, because I was not old enough to vote when the last Labour Government came to power. Perhaps we should update some of the references. The idea that the figures we use will date from 2001 seems completely and utterly ridiculous, but the review that will be undertaken will look at that. All I can say is that it will be as recent as one would expect and as recent as is possible with data. [Interruption.] I can see that people are keen for me to be quiet.

[Mr Brash]

My hon. Friend talks about a new funding formula needing to be based on need and the challenges that the precept creates. We are never going to get fairness if the council tax system is the method of doing this. Is she ruling out getting rid of the police precept as a method of raising funding?

[Jess Phillips]

Far be it from me to have the authority to do that right now—I have to be honest. My colleagues who are responsible for local government and policing, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), are sat on the Front Bench, and they will have heard the concern about that interplay. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) is absolutely right: this is about need and trying to ensure that we look at the different things that different areas face.

We are committed to giving the police the resources that they need, and that is exactly what this settlement does. We want to see robust neighbourhood policing that engages with the public to build trust and confidence. We are grateful for all the work that the incredible men and women of our police service do, and we are therefore determined to provide them with the capability and flexibility that they have asked for through the funding, in order that they have the tools they require. The removal of arbitrary targets for officer numbers means that local chiefs have more flexibility to shape their workforce, meet the demands of modern policing and do the vital work behind the scenes.

This settlement is only the first step. The 2026-27 settlement provides the police with the immediate resources needed to continue their invaluable work, alongside the opportunity to invest in the future, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2026–27 (HC 1638), which was laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.