Immigration

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendment (b) in the name of the Prime Minister.

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

No. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. The Minister will be heard.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I am talking about 20-week periods, which feature in the Opposition’s motion. I am talking about what happened in a 20-week period, when—just to go back over it—the shadow Home Secretary went from tech Minister to not having a job, to being Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Paymaster General, and then police Minister. The Conservatives brought the same chaos to government as they did to their immigration policy, over which they had control for 14 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The history lesson of who was which Minister in which Government when is obviously all available on the internet, if people want to look. How does it relate to the matter we are discussing today, which is what the current Government are doing to tackle migration?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, and I look forward to hearing her views in the debate later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

When we came into office, we ended the Rwanda scheme. The scheme was about deporting people, processing their asylum in another country and never letting them back here. [Interruption.] But it did not work—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I want to hear what the Minister has to say, as do my constituents and, I am sure, all Members’ constituents.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The Conservatives—who conveniently called an early election so that the Rwanda scheme would never start, after spending years saying that even perpetrating the idea of a Rwanda scheme would stop the boats—know as well as I do that over 84,000 people crossed the channel in small boats in the years from the Rwanda scheme being put into law to its being abolished. They can sit there and say that—

National Security Act 2023: Charges

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right, because the complex national security threats that we face now take different forms and are increasingly intertwined. Cyber-threats and the use of technology are increasingly a part of those threats. Work on that will form a central part of the new national security strategy that the Prime Minister has announced, which is being developed at the moment, so that we recognise the interplay between these different threats.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

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

The Liberal Democrats remain extremely grateful to all the extraordinary people from our police, intelligence and security services who continue to put themselves at risk to keep our country safe. We support the action taken by the Government so far, and stand ready to support further robust sanctions and other actions against cowardly regimes that seek to destabilise our and other western democracies.

We last discussed the threat posed by the Iranian regime in this Chamber a couple of weeks ago. In response to questions about the proscribing of the IRGC, the Minister for Security, the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), referred to the work undertaken by Jonathan Hall KC to review the legislation we have in place, and it is good to hear that that review has been published today.

The Home Secretary mentions planned changes that will be made and additional powers that will be introduced to respond to the legal difficulties in using powers designed to deal with terrorist groups for state and state-backed organisations such as the IRGC. Could she confirm that these new planned powers will finally enable us to proscribe the IRGC? I would be grateful if she could update the House on the timetable she foresees for bringing forward those changes and, given the difficulties with previous counter-terror laws, if she could tell the House whether any of those changes will be subject to the appropriate pre-legislative scrutiny.

Our democracy has faced and continues to face systematic threats from hostile foreign states—not just from Iran, but from China and Russia. Now that our police and security services have had a chance to use the provisions in the National Security Act, could the Home Secretary update the House on any further gaps they have found during their work?

We live in a perilous world with war on our continent, and we Liberal Democrats welcome the increase in defence spending. However, the decision to take that money from the official development assistance budget will leave a vacuum in some of the most vulnerable places. We know that China and Russia are seeking to fill that void, and Iran will undoubtedly try to do the same. What assessment have the Government made of malign actors using their soft power to influence events overseas and the resulting threats to our national security?

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 6—Timeframe for determination of appeal brought by appellant receiving accommodation support.

Government new clause 7—Timeframe for determination of certain appeals brought by non-detained appellants liable to deportation.

Government new clause 8—Refugee Convention: particularly serious crime.

New clause 1—Duty to report and publish data on deaths in the asylum system and small boat crossings—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, on a quarterly basis, publish and lay before Parliament a report that includes the number of deaths that have occurred in relation to the UK asylum system in the three months preceding the date specified in that report.

(2) The specified date under subsection (1) must be no more than six months prior to the date of publication.

(3) A report under subsection (1) must include―

(a) The total number of deaths occurring, during the specified period, of persons who were, at the time of death―

(i) in receipt of accommodation under sections 4, 95 or 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; or

(ii) awaiting the outcome of a claim for asylum while residing in other forms of accommodation or at no fixed abode; or

(iii) undertaking an unauthorised crossing of the English Channel;

(b) the cause of death for each person reported, if known; and

(c) the locations in which each death occurred, if known.

(4) The first report under this section must be made published no later than one year after the passing of this Act.

(5) For the purposes of this section―

(a) A “claim for asylum” is defined in accordance with section 167 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; and

(b) an “unauthorised crossing” is a sea crossing made by an individual without leave to enter the United Kingdom, made from dry land in France, Belgium or the Netherlands for the purpose of reaching dry land in the United Kingdom.”

This new clause would require the Home Office to publish quarterly statistics and information on deaths in the asylum system and in small boat channel crossings.

New clause 2—Reports on restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment—

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report explaining what progress has been made towards providing asylum applicants with the right to take up employment whilst their application is being determined.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must be published—

(a) by 31 December 2025, or

(b) within three months of the passing of this Act, whichever is earliest

(3) The Secretary of State must make a further report under subsection (1) at least every twelve calendar month after the publication of the first report, until the restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment are removed.

(4) Any report under subsection (1) must include a review of—

(a) the current 12 month waiting period attached to the permission to work, and

(b) the restriction of roles to the Immigration Salary List.

(5) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for—

(a) a copy of any report published under subsection (1) to be laid before both Houses of Parliament before the end of the day on which it is published, or the next sitting day if it is published on a non-sitting day;

(b) the House of Commons to debate a motion, made by a Minister of the Crown, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the report; and

(c) the House of Lords to debate a motion, made by a Minister of the Crown, to the effect that the House of Lords has considered the report.

(6) The debates required under subsections (5)(b) and (c) must take place within 25 sitting days of the day on which the report is laid before Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report back to Parliament annually on the Government's working rights policies for people in the asylum system, and for both Houses of Parliament to debate a motion on the report.

New clause 3—Duty to publish a strategy on safe and managed routes—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a strategy on the Government’s efforts to establish additional safe and legal routes for persons to seek asylum in the United Kingdom.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a strategy on the development of safe and managed routes for people to seek asylum in the UK.

New clause 4—Repeal of certain provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022—

“The following provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 are repealed—

(a) sections 58 to 65, and

(b) sections 68 and 69.”

This new clause would repeal specified provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, relating to modern slavery victims.

New clause 9—Humanitarian Assistance—

“A person (“P”) does not commit an offence under section 13 (supplying articles for use in immigration crime), section 14 (handling articles for use in immigration crime), or section 16 (collecting information for use in immigration crime) if P’s action was for the purposes of providing humanitarian assistance.”

This new clause would ensure that individuals who provide humanitarian assistance would not be considered as having committed the new criminal offences created by clauses 13, 14 and 16 of this Bill.

New clause 10—Functions of the Commander in relation to sea crossings to United Kingdom—

“(1) In exercising the Commander’s functions in relation to sea crossings to the United Kingdom, the Commander must have regard to the objectives of—

(a) preventing the boarding of vessels, with the aim of entering the United Kingdom, by persons who require leave to enter the United Kingdom but are seeking to enter the United Kingdom—

(i) without leave to enter, or

(ii) with leave to enter that was obtained by means which included deception by any person;

(b) ensuring that a decision is taken on a claim by a person under subsection (1)(a) within six months of the person’s arrival in the United Kingdom; and

(c) making arrangements with a safe third country for the removal of a person who enters the United Kingdom without leave, or with leave that was obtained by deception.

(2) The Commander must include, in the strategic priority document issued under section 3(2), an assessment of—

(a) the most effective methods for deterring illegal entry into the United Kingdom;

(b) the most effective methods for reducing the number of sea crossings made by individuals without leave to enter the United Kingdom; and

(c) the most effective methods for arranging the removal, to the person’s own country or a safe third country, of a person who enters the United Kingdom illegally.

(3) For the purposes of this section—

(a) “sea crossings” are journeys from dry land in France, Belgium or the Netherlands for the purpose of reaching dry land in the United Kingdom; and

(b) illegal entry to the United Kingdom is defined in accordance with section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 (illegal entry and similar offences).”

This new clause sets out objectives and strategic priorities for the Border Security Commander in relation to sea crossings and arrangements with a safe third country for the removal of people who enter the UK illegally.

New clause 11—Qualification period for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom—

“(1) The minimum qualification period for applications for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom is a period of ten years.

(2) The qualification period in subsection (1) applies to a person who has—

(a) a tier 2, T2, International Sportsperson or Skilled Worker visa,

(b) a Scale-up Worker visa,

(c) a Global Talent, Tier 1 Entrepreneur or Investor visa,

(d) an Innovator Founder visa,

(e) a UK Ancestry visa, or

(f) a partner holding UK citizenship.

(3) A person who has lived in the United Kingdom for ten years or more but does not meet the criteria in subsection (2) cannot apply for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.”

This new clause would extend the qualification period for applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK to ten years and abolish the long-stay route, through which a person can apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain based on having lived in the UK for ten years or more.

New clause 12—Age assessments: use of scientific methods—

“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament—

(a) a statutory instrument containing regulations under section 52 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 specifying scientific methods that may be used for the purposes of age assessments, and

(b) a statutory instrument containing regulations under section 58 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 making provision about refusal to consent to scientific methods for age assessments.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to specify scientific methods for assessing a person’s age and to disapply the requirement for consent for scientific methods to be used.

New clause 13—Revocation of indefinite leave to remain in certain circumstances—

“(1) Indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom is revoked with respect to a person (“P”) if any of the following conditions apply.

(2) Condition 1 is that P is defined as a “foreign criminal” under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007.

(3) Condition 2 is that P was granted indefinite leave to remain after the coming into force of this Act, but would not be eligible for indefinite leave under the requirements of section [Qualification period for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom].

(4) Condition 3 is that P, or any dependents of P, have been in receipt of any form of “social protection” (including housing) from HM Government or a local authority, where “social protection” is defined according to the Treasury’s Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses, subject to any further definition by immigration rules.

(5) Condition 4 is that P’s annual income has fallen below £38,700 for six months or more in aggregate during the relevant qualification period, or subsequent to receiving indefinite leave to remain.

(6) A person who has entered the United Kingdom—

(a) under the Ukraine visa schemes;

(b) under the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme;

(c) under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy; or

(d) on a British National Overseas visa,

is exempt from the requirements of Condition 2, Condition 3, and Condition 4.

(7) For the purposes of subsection (5)—

(a) the condition applies only to earnings that have been lawfully reported to, or subject to withholding tax by, HM Revenue and Customs; and

(b) the relevant sum of annual income must be adjusted annually by the Secretary of State through immigration rules to reflect inflation.

(8) The Secretary of State may by immigration rules vary the conditions set out in this section.”

This new clause would revoke indefinite leave where a person is a foreign criminal, has been in receipt of benefits, earns below the national median income, or (for those granted indefinite leave after the coming into force of this Act) would not meet the requirements sought to be imposed by NC11.

New clause 14—Borders legislation: Human Rights Act—

“(1) This section applies to any provision made by or by virtue of this Act, the Illegal Migration Act 2023, the Immigration Acts, and any legislation relating to immigration, deportation, or asylum, including the Immigration Rules within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971.

(2) The legislation identified in subsection (1), including in relation to the enforcement of immigration policy, deportation, the granting, removal, revocation or alteration of immigration status, or asylum, or other entitlements, must be read and given effect to disregarding the Human Rights Act 1998.

(3) In the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, omit section 2.

(4) In the Immigration Act 1971—

(a) in section 8AA—

(i) in subsection (2), omit “Subject to subsections (3) to (5)”; and

(ii) omit subsections (2)(a)(ii) and subsections (3) to (6);

(b) in section 8B, omit subsection (5A).

(5) In section 84 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002—

(a) in subsection (1), after “must” insert “not”;

(b) in subsection (2), after “must” insert “not”;

(c) in subsection (2), for “section 6” substitute “any section”; and

(d) in subsection (3) after “must” insert “not”.

(6) Where the European Court of Human Rights indicates an interim measure relating to the exercise of any function under the legislation identified in subsection (1)—

(a) it is only for a Minister of the Crown to decide whether the United Kingdom will comply with the interim measure under this section; and

(b) an immigration officer or court or tribunal must not have regard to the interim measure.”

This new clause would disapply the Human Rights Act and interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to this Bill and to other legislation about borders, asylum and immigration.

New clause 15—Offences and deportation—

“(1) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 32—

(a) in subsection (1)(a), at the end insert “and”;

(b) in subsection (1)(b) leave out "and” and insert “or”; and

(c) leave out subsection (1)(c) and substitute—

“(c) who has been charged with or convicted of an offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971”

(d) leave out subsections (2) and (3).

(3) In section 33, leave out subsections (1), (2), (3) and (6A).

(4) The Illegal Migration Act 2023 is amended as follows.

(5) Leave out subsection (5) of section 1 and insert—

“(5) The Human Rights Act does not apply to provision made by or by virtue of this Act or to—

(a) the Immigration Act 1971,

(b) the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999,

(c) the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002,

(d) the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, or

(e) the Immigration Act 2016.”

(6) In section 6 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, leave out subsections (4) and (5).

(7) In section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, leave out all instances of “knowingly”.”

This new clause would prevent a foreign national who is convicted of any offence from remaining in the UK, as well as anyone who has been charged with or convicted with an immigration offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971.

New clause 16—Restrictions on visas for spouses and civil partners—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations specifying the maximum number of persons who may enter the United Kingdom annually as a spouse or civil partner of another (the sponsor).

(2) Before making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) in England and Wales and Scotland, such representatives of local authorities as the Secretary of State considers appropriate;

(b) the Executive Office in Northern Ireland; and

(c) any such other persons or bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(3) But the duty to consult under subsection (2) does not apply where the Secretary of State considers that the maximum number under subsection (1) needs to be changed as a matter of urgency.

(4) The Secretary of State must commence the consultation under subsection (2) in relation to the first regulations to be made under this section before the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(5) The regulations must specify that the number of persons from any one country who enter as a spouse or civil partner of a sponsor cannot exceed 7% of the maximum number specified in the regulations under subsection (1).

(6) If, in any year, the number of persons who enter the United Kingdom as a spouse or civil partner of a sponsor exceeds the number specified in regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must lay a statement before Parliament—

(a) setting out the number of persons who have, in that year, entered the United Kingdom as a spouse or civil partner of a sponsor; and

(b) explaining why the number exceeds that specified in the regulations.

(7) The statement under subsection (6) must be laid before Parliament before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the last day of the year to which the statement relates.

(8) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by immigration rules make the changes set out in subsections (9) to (11).

(9) The requirements to be met by a person seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom with a view to settlement as the spouse or civil partner of a person present and settled in the United Kingdom or who is on the same occasion being admitted for settlement includes that—

(a) the applicant is married to, or the civil partner of, a person who has a right of abode in the United Kingdom or indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom and is, on the same occasion, seeking admission to the United Kingdom for the purposes of settlement;

(b) the applicant provides evidence that the parties under subsection (9)(a) were married or formed a civil partnership at least two years prior to the application;

(c) each of the parties intends to live permanently with the other as spouses or civil partners and the marriage or civil partnership is subsisting;

(d) the salary of the person who has a right to abode in the United Kingdom or indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom equals or exceeds £38,700 per year; and

(e) the applicant and the person who has a right of abode in the United Kingdom are both at least 23 years old.

(10) Leave to enter the United Kingdom as a spouse or civil partner under subsection (9) is to be refused if the parties concerned are first cousins.

(11) For the purposes of this section, “local authority” means—

(a) in England and Wales, a county council, a county borough council, a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly, and

(b) in Scotland, a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to specify a cap on the number of spouses or civil partners who may enter the UK, and on the number that may enter from any one country. It would also amend the immigration rules to set a salary threshold.

New clause 17—Restrictions on visas and grants of indefinite leave to remain—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by immigration rules provide for all visa grants, including spousal visas, to be conditional on the following—

(a) the requirement that the applicant or their dependents will not apply for any form of “social protection” (including housing) from the UK Government or a local authority, where “social protection” is defined according to the Treasury’s Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses, subject to any further definition by immigration rules; and

(b) the requirement that the applicant’s annual income must not fall below £38,700 for six months or more in aggregate during the relevant qualification period.

(2) Immigration Rules made under subsection (1) must ensure that any breach of the conditions set out in that subsection will render void any visa previously granted.

(3) The Secretary of State is not permitted to grant leave outside the immigration rules or immigration acts.

(4) A person is not eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom if any of the following conditions apply.

(5) Condition 1 is that a person is a “foreign criminal” under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007.

(6) Condition 2 is that a person, or any of their dependents, has been in receipt of any form of “social protection” (including housing) from the UK Government or a local authority, where “social protection” is defined according to the Treasury’s Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses, subject to any further definition by immigration rules.

(7) Condition 3 is that a person’s annual income has fallen below £38,700 for six months or more in aggregate during the relevant qualification period.

(8) A person who has entered the United Kingdom—

(a) under the Ukraine visa schemes;

(b) under the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme;

(c) under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy; or

(d) on a British National Overseas visa,

is exempt from the requirements of Condition 2 and Condition 3.

(9) For the purposes of subsections (1)(b) and (7)—

(a) the condition applies only to earnings that have been lawfully reported to, or subject to withholding tax by, HM Revenue and Customs; and

(b) the relevant sum of annual income must be adjusted annually by the Secretary of State through immigration rules to reflect inflation.

(10) The Secretary of State may by immigration rules make further provision varying these conditions, including by way of transitional provisions.”

This new clause would place certain restrictions on the granting of visas or indefinite leave to remain. It would require migrants to be self-sufficient and not to require state benefits, and would deny indefinite leave to remain to foreign criminals.

New clause 18—Cap on the number of entrants—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations specifying the total maximum number of persons who may enter the United Kingdom annually across all non-visitor visa routes, with such regulations subject to approval by both Houses.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations also specify a maximum number of entrants for individual visa routes, subject to the overall total.

(3) No visas may be issued in excess of the total maximum number specified in subsection (1).

(4) Any visas issued in excess of the number specified in subsection (1) must be revoked.”

This new clause would provide a mechanism for a binding annual cap on the number of non-visitor visas issued by the UK.

New clause 19—Removals from the United Kingdom: visa penalties for uncooperative countries—

“(1) The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 70, omit subsections (4) and (5).

(3) In section 72—

(a) subsection (1), after “A country”, for “may” substitute “must”.

(b) In subsection (1)(a) omit “and” and insert “or, (ab) is not cooperating in relation to the verification of identity or status of individuals who are likely to be nationals or citizens of the country, and”

(c) in subsection (1)(b), after “citizens of the country” insert “or individuals who are likely to be nationals or citizens of the country”,

(d) omit subsections (2) and (3), and

(e) in subsection (4), omit from “70” to after “subsection (1)(a)”.

(4) Omit section 74.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to use a visa penalty provision if a country is not cooperating in the removal of any of its nationals or citizens from the UK, or in relation to the verification of their identity or status.

New clause 20—Exemptions from the UK GDPR: illegal migration and foreign criminals—

“(1) The Data Protection Act 2018 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2)(b) of section 15 (Exemptions etc), at end insert “, and makes provision about the exemption from all GDPR provisions of persons who entered the United Kingdom illegally and foreign criminals;

(3) In paragraph (2) of Schedule 2, after sub-paragraph (1) insert—

“(1A) GDPR provisions do not apply if the data subject entered the United Kingdom illegally or is a foreign criminal.

(1B) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1A)—

(a) a person “entered the United Kingdom illegally” if they entered the United Kingdom—

(i) without leave to enter, or

(ii) with leave to enter that was obtained by means which included deception by any person; and

(b) “foreign criminal” is defined in accordance with section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007.””

This new clause would disapply data protection laws from data on people who have entered the UK illegally or are Foreign National Offenders.

New clause 21—Removal of restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment—

“The Secretary of State must, within three months of the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the “immigration rules”) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) to make provision for asylum applicants to take up employment whilst their application is being determined, if it has been over three months since the application was made, with no decision made.”

This new clause would remove the restriction on working for asylum seekers, if it has been over three months since they applied.

New clause 22—Additional safe and legal routes—

“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, make regulations specifying safe and legal routes through which refugees and other individuals requiring international protection can enter the UK lawfully.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying additional safe and legal routes, under which refugees and others in need of international protection can come to the UK lawfully from abroad.

New clause 23—Duty to meet the director of Europol—

“The Border Commander must meet the director of Europol, or their delegate, no less than once every three months.”

This new clause would require the Border Commander to meet with the Executive Director of Europol every three months.

New clause 24—Duty to establish a joint taskforce with Europol—

“(1) The Secretary of State must seek to establish a joint taskforce with Europol for the purposes of cooperation on the matters set out under subsection (3).

(2) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, make a report to Parliament on progress made to date on establishing a joint taskforce under subsection (1).

(3) Any joint taskforce established pursuant to the Secretary of State’s activities under subsection (1) has a duty to promote cooperation on—

(a) the disruption of trafficking operations;

(b) the enhancement of law enforcement capabilities;

(c) the provision of specialised training for officials involved in border security and immigration enforcement; and

(d) any other matters which the Secretary of State or Director of Europol deem appropriate.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to seek a joint taskforce with Europol for the purposes of disrupting trafficking operations, enhancing law enforcement capabilities, and providing specialised training to officials involved in border security and immigration enforcement.

New clause 25—Participation in Europol’s anti-trafficking operations—

“(1) The Secretary of State must provide adequate resources to law enforcement agencies for the purpose of enhancing their participation in Europol’s anti-trafficking operations.

(2) The resources provided under subsection (1) must include technology for conducting improved surveillance on, and detection of, smuggling networks.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), “law enforcement agencies” include—

(a) the National Crime Agency

(b) police forces in England and Wales; and

(c) the British Transport Police.”

This new clause would require the Government to allocate adequate resources to law enforcement agencies to enhance their participation in Europol’s anti-trafficking operations, including through technological tools for better surveillance and detection of smuggling networks.

New clause 26—Requirement to produce an annual report on cooperation with Europol—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passage of this Act, lay before Parliament an annual report on cooperation between UK law enforcement agencies and Europol.

(2) A further report must be published and laid before Parliament at least once per year.

(3) An annual report under this section must include—

(a) actions taken during the previous year to cooperate with Europol;

(b) progress in reducing people smuggling and human trafficking; and

(c) planned activities for improving future cooperation with Europol.”

This new clause would require the Government to provide an annual report to Parliament detailing the UK’s efforts to cooperate with Europol, its progress in reducing levels of people smuggling and human trafficking, and its plans to improve future cooperation.

New clause 27—Reuniting unaccompanied child refugees with family members—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by immigration rules make the changes set out in subsections (2) to (6).

(2) The requirements to be met by a person seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom as a child relative of a person or persons given limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, as a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection, are that the applicant—

(a) is the child, grandchild, sister, brother, nephew or niece of a person or persons granted limited leave to enter or remain as a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection granted as such under the immigration rules; and

(b) is under the age of 18; and

(c) can, and will, be accommodated adequately by the person or persons the child is seeking to join without recourse to public funds in accommodation which the person or persons the child is seeking to join, own or occupy exclusively; and

(d) can, and will, be maintained adequately by the person or persons the child is seeking to join, without recourse to public funds; and

(e) if seeking leave to enter, holds a valid United Kingdom entry clearance for entry in this capacity.

(3) The requirements to be met by a person seeking leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom as the close relative of a child with limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom as a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection are that the applicant is—

(a) a parent, grandparent, sister, brother, aunt or uncle of a child with limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom as a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection; and

(b) joining a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection with limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom who is under the age of 18 and not living with a parent or grandparent; and

(c) can, and will, be accommodated adequately, together with any dependants, without recourse to public funds.

(4) Limited leave to enter the United Kingdom as an applicant under subsection (2) or (3) may be granted for five years provided that, on arrival, a valid passport or other identity document is produced to the Immigration Officer and the applicant has entry clearance for entry in this capacity. Limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom as an applicant under subsections (2) or (3) may be granted provided the Secretary of State is satisfied that each of the requirements of subsections (2) or (3) is met.

(5) Limited leave to enter the United Kingdom as an applicant under subsection (2) or (3) is to be refused if, on arrival, a valid passport or other identity document is not produced to the Immigration Officer and the applicant does not have entry clearance for entry in this capacity. Limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom as an applicant under subsection (2) or (3) is to be refused if the Secretary of State is not satisfied that each of the requirements of subsections (2) or (3) is met.

(6) Civil legal services are to be provided to an applicant under subsections (2) or (3) in relation to rights to enter, and to remain in, the United Kingdom pursuant to schedule 1, subsection 30(1) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.”

This new clause would require changes to the immigration rules to extend the family members that could apply to join an unaccompanied child refugee in the UK, to include parents, grandparents, sisters, brothers, uncles and aunts, and to allow unaccompanied child refugees to sponsor close adult family members to join them in the UK. It also provides for legal aid to be available in such cases.

New clause 28—Good character requirement: illegal entry—

“The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, ensure that illegal entry to the UK is disregarded as a factor for the purposes of assessing whether a person applying for British citizenship meets the good character requirement.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to change current Home Office guidance stating that individuals who enters the UK illegally, regardless of how long ago, will "normally be refused" citizenship (if they applied after 10 February 2025).

New clause 29—Report on impact of carers’ minimum wage on net migration—

“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passage of this Act, lay before Parliament a report on the impact of introducing a minimum wage for carers on levels of net migration.”

This new clause would require the Government to publish a report on how implementing a carers’ minimum wage would impact on levels of net migration.

New clause 30—A three-month service standard for asylum casework—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, implement a three month service standard for asylum casework.

(2) The service standard must specify that 98% of initial decisions on all asylum claims should be made before the end of three months after the date of claim.”

This new clause would require UK Visas and Immigration to reintroduce a three month service standard for decisions on asylum cases.

New clause 31—Exemption of NHS workers from immigration skills charge—

“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, implement an exemption for National Health Service workers from the immigration skills charge for sponsoring a Skilled Worker or a Senior or Specialist worker.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to apply an exception to the NHS as an employer from having to pay the immigration skills charge when sponsoring skilled employees.

New clause 32—Repeal of certain provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (No. 2)—

“(1) The following provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 are repealed—

(a) sections 12 to 65; and

(b) sections 68 and 69.”

This new clause would repeal specified provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.

New clause 33—Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings—

“The Secretary of State must—

(a) within six months of the passing of this Act, introduce legislation to ensure the United Kingdom’s full compliance with the 2009 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings; and

(b) within 18 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report on how the Government is ensuring full compliance with the Convention under this section.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce legislation which incorporates the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings into UK law and report on compliance with the Convention.

New clause 34—Victims of slavery or human trafficking: protection from immigration offences—

“(1) The Modern Slavery Act 2015 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 52 (Duty to notify Secretary of State about suspected victims of slavery or human trafficking), after subsection (2), insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State must make such arrangements as the Secretary of State considers reasonable to ensure that notification under this section does not include the supply of information to relevant persons or authorities that might indicate that—

(a) the victim has committed an offence under sections 24 to 26 of the Immigration Act 1971, or

(b) the victim might otherwise meet the requirements for removal from the United Kingdom or for investigation pending removal.

(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), “relevant persons or authorities” include—

(a) a Minister of the Crown or a government department;

(b) an immigration officer;

(c) a customs official;

(d) a law enforcement officer;

(e) the Director of Border Revenue;

(f) the Border Security Commander;

(g) a UK authorised person; and

(h) the government of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.””

This new clause would prevent a public authority, when determining whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking, from sharing information with immigration authorities and other public authorities that might result in deportation or prosecution for an immigration offence.

New clause 35—Humanitarian travel permit—

“(1) On an application by a person (“P”) to the appropriate decision-maker for entry clearance, the appropriate decision-maker must grant P entry clearance if satisfied that P is a relevant person.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), P is a relevant person if—

(a) P intends to make a protection claim in the United Kingdom;

(b) P’s protection claim, if made in the United Kingdom, would have a realistic prospect of success; and

(c) there are serious and compelling reasons why P’s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(c), in deciding whether there are such reasons why P’s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom, the appropriate decision-maker must take into account—

(a) the extent of the risk that P will suffer persecution or serious harm if entry clearance is not granted;

(b) the strength of P’s family and other ties to the United Kingdom;

(c) P’s mental and physical health and any particular vulnerabilities that P has; and

(d) any other matter that the decision-maker thinks relevant.

(4) For the purposes of an application under subsection (1), the appropriate decision-maker must waive any of the requirements in subsection (5) if satisfied that P cannot reasonably be expected to comply with them.

(5) The requirements are—

(a) any requirement prescribed (whether by immigration rules or otherwise) under section 50 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006; and

(b) any requirement prescribed by regulations made under section 5, 6, 7 or 8 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (biometric registration).

(6) No fee may be charged for the making of an application under subsection (1).

(7) An entry clearance granted pursuant to subsection (1) has effect as leave to enter for such period, being not less than six months, and on such conditions as the Secretary of State may prescribe by order.

(8) Upon a person entering the United Kingdom (within the meaning of section 11 of the Immigration Act 1971) pursuant to leave to enter given under subsection (7), that person is deemed to have made a protection claim in the United Kingdom.

(9) For the purposes of this section—

(a) “appropriate decision-maker” means a person authorised by the Secretary of State by rules made under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 to grant an entry clearance under paragraph(1);

(b) “entry clearance” has the same meaning as in section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971;

(c) “protection claim”, in relation to a person, means a claim that to remove them from or require them to leave the United Kingdom would be inconsistent with the United Kingdom’s obligations—

(i) under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and the Protocol to that Convention (“the Refugee Convention”);

(ii) in relation to persons entitled to a grant of humanitarian protection; or

(iii) under Article 2 or 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950 (“the European Convention on Human Rights”);

(d) “persecution” is defined in accordance with the Refugee Convention; and

(e) “serious harm” means treatment that, if it occurred within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under Article 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (irrespective of where it will actually occur).”

This new clause would create a new “humanitarian travel permit”.

New clause 36—Refugee family reunion—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the “immigration rules”) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) to make provision for refugee family reunion, in accordance with this section, to come into effect after 21 days.

(2) Before a statement of changes is laid under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult with persons as the Secretary of State deems appropriate.

(3) The statement laid under subsection (1) must set out rules providing for leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for family members of a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection.

(4) In this section, “refugee status” and “humanitarian protection” have the same meaning as in the immigration rules.

(5) In this section, “family members” include—

(a) a person's parent, including adoptive parent;

(b) a person's spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner;

(c) a person's child, including adopted child, who is either—

(i) under the age of 18, or

(ii) under the age of 25 but was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum;

(d) a person's sibling, including adoptive sibling, who is either—

(i) under the age of 18, or

(ii) under the age of 25, but was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum; and

(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to—

(i) the importance of maintaining family unity,

(ii) the best interests of a child,

(iii) the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and another person,

(iv) any risk to the physical, emotional or psychological well being of a person who was granted refugee status or humanitarian protection, including from the circumstances in which the person is living in the United Kingdom, or

(v) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(6) For the purpose of subsection (5)—

(a) “adopted” and “adoptive” refer to a relationship resulting from adoption, including de facto adoption, as set out in the immigration rules, and

(b) “best interests” of a child must be read in accordance with Article 3 of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.”

This new clause would make provision for leave to enter or remain in the UK to be granted to the family members of refugees and of people granted humanitarian protection.

New clause 37—Children born in the UK: British citizenship—

“(1) The British Nationality Act 1981 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 1(3A) insert—

“(3B) A person (“P”) born in the United Kingdom on or after the relevant day who is not a British citizen by virtue of subsection (1), (1A) or (2) or section 10A shall be entitled to be registered as a British citizen if, when P was born, P’s father or mother—

(a) had previously entered the UK whilst holding leave to enter the UK; and

(b) was subsequently, and at the time of P’s birth, subject to UK immigration control.”

(3) The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 are amended as follows.

(4) In Schedule 1, Table 20A, insert—

“No fee is payable in respect of an application for registration as a British citizen under the 1981 Act where the application is made under section 1(3B) of that Act.””

This new clause would ensure citizenship for children born in the UK whose parents had leave to enter the UK but were not British citizens or had settled status at the time of their child's birth, and for fees for that registration to be waived.

New clause 38—Repeal of certain provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (No. 3)—

“(1) The following provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 are repealed—

(a) section 12,

(b) section 16,

(c) sections 30 to 38, and

(d) section 40.”

This new clause would repeal provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 concerning: the creation of two separate groups of refugees, subject to differential treatment; the inadmissibility of asylum claims by persons with a connection to a safe third State; the interpretation of the Refugee Convention; and the creation of offences relating and similar to illegal entry to the UK.

New clause 39—Duty to deport in accordance with the Refugee Convention—

“(1) The Secretary of State must seek to remove anyone who, based on Article 1F and Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention, does not have the benefit of the non-refoulement provisions of the Refugee Convention.

(2) This duty does not apply in relation to persons who would face a real risk of capital punishment or extra-judicial killing or whose removal would contravene the United Kingdom’s obligation under Article 3 of the United Nations Convention against Torture.

(3) If a domestic court or tribunal has ruled that a person’s removal would not contravene subsection (1) and (2), the court or tribunal may—

(a) Consider whether removal would be contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998,

(b) But if it considers that removal would be contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998, the Secretary of State may seek the removal of that person, notwithstanding the Act.

(4) The Secretary of State may delay the removal of an individual where subsection (3)(b) applies, until the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has ruled on the compatibility of that removal.

(5) The Secretary of State must argue before the European Court of Human Rights that the European Convention on Human Rights cannot be interpreted as preventing the removal of an individual if such removal is compatible with the Refugee Convention and the United Nations Convention against Torture.

(6) If the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights rules that the European Convention on Human Rights takes precedence over the Refugee Convention and United Nations Convention against Torture, the Secretary of State may decide to comply with that Grand Chamber decision.

(7) If the Secretary of State decides to comply with a ruling of the Grand Chamber, they must publish a quarterly report setting out the anonymised details of those individuals who could be deported subject to subsections (1) and (2) but have not been deported because of a decision by the Secretary of State to comply with a decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court on Human Rights.”

New clause 40—Detention of illegal migrants—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, set out plans to detain illegal migrants in secure accommodation.

(2) Detention under subsection (1)—

(a) must occur immediately upon a person’s arrival into the UK without leave to enter the UK;

(b) must be in accommodation with requisite security, not including hotels or residential accommodation; and

(c) must be for no more than 24 hours, during which any asylum claim must be assessed and decided.

(3) Any person whose asylum claim under this section is refused must be deported within 24 hours of refusal.

(4) A plan under subsection (1) must be—

(a) laid before Parliament, and

(b) implemented within twelve months of the passing of this Act.”

This new clause would require the Government to set up secure accommodation to detain illegal migrants as soon as they arrive in the UK, assess any asylum claim with 24 hours of detention, and deport any failed applicants.

New clause 41—Impact of European Convention on Human Rights on border security—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish an assessment of the impact of the UK’s commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights on the UK’s border security.

(2) An assessment under this section must be laid before Parliament and must include—

(a) the number of additional persons likely to be deported from the United Kingdom annually if the UK were to depart from the European Convention on Human Rights, and

(b) of those, the number of foreign criminals likely to be deported annually.”

This new clause would require the Government to assess the impact of the ECHR on the UK’s border security.

New clause 42—Transparency in age dispute decision-making—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, and on a quarterly basis thereafter—

(a) prepare and publish a report on age assessments conducted for the purposes of immigration control, and

(b) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.

(2) The report must include—

(a) the total number of age disputes raised during the reporting period,

(b) the number of individuals who were initially treated as adults but were subsequently assessed to be under the age of 18,

(c) the number of individuals who were initially treated as children but were subsequently assessed to be 18 or over,

(d) the number and percentage of individuals referred for a formal Merton-compliant age assessment,

(e) the number of safeguarding referrals made as a result of age misclassification, and

(f) the number of legal challenges brought in relation to age assessments, and the outcome of those challenges.

(3) The report must also include an assessment of the impact of age dispute procedures on unaccompanied children, with particular regard to—

(a) the duration of time spent in adult accommodation, detention, or prison,

(b) any effect on access to education, healthcare, and social care services,

(c) any risks to mental and physical health arising from misclassification, and

(d) any referrals to or findings made by safeguarding professionals or regulatory bodies in relation to such cases.

(4) In this section—

“child” means a person who is under the age of 18,

“Merton-compliant” means compliant with the principles established in R (B) v Merton LBC [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin),

“age dispute” means any case in which the claimed age of an individual for immigration purposes is challenged or reassessed by the Home Office or a relevant authority.”

This new clause would require the Home Office to publish a detailed analysis which includes the outcomes on age assessments. It aims to increase transparency in the current process and to support policy reform that better safeguards children at risk of being misclassified as adults. Its aim is to ensure a more transparent, and accountable approach to age disputes.

New clause 43—Management of immigration removal centres and asylum accommodation—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, make by regulations a register of prohibited providers of immigration removal centres and other forms of asylum accommodation.

(2) The register under subsection (1) must include all companies or persons—

(a) found guilty of or fined for—

(i) gross misconduct,

(ii) abuse,

(iii) overcharging, or

(iv) fraud

in relation to their operation of immigration removal centres and other forms of asylum accommodation, or

(b) who have not, following inspection by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI), met the recommendations of the subsequent report within 6 months.

(3) The Secretary of State or department must not enter into further contracts or renewal of contracts with any prohibited provider.”

This new clause would require the Home Office to make a register of prohibited providers of immigration removal centres and other forms of asylum accommodation who have been convicted of gross misconduct, abuse, overcharging or fraud, or have not met the recommendations of an inspection report. The Home Office cannot renew or enter into further contracts with prohibited providers on the register.

New clause 44—National Referral Mechanism: duty to create a new visa scheme—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, by immigration rules, create a new visa scheme for persons who—

(a) are regarded by a first responder organisation as eligible for referral into the National Referral Mechanism for modern slavery; and

(b) are in receipt of an Overseas Domestic Worker visa under the terms of the Immigration Rules Appendix Overseas Domestic Worker; or

(c) have been in receipt of such a visa within the six months prior to a referral under paragraph (a).

(2) Immigration rules under subsection (1)—

(a) must be laid before Parliament within six months of the passing of this Act; and

(b) must be commenced within six months of being laid before Parliament.

(3) Immigration rules under subsection (1) must—

(a) enable an eligible person to remain in the UK until the later of—

(i) the date on which a conclusive grounds decision is made; or

(ii) the date on which any reconsideration or judicial review of a conclusive grounds decision has concluded; or

(iii) for persons recognised as a victim of modern slavery through a positive conclusive grounds decision, the date on which the person is granted either Discretionary Leave under the Immigration Act 1971 or Temporary Permission to Stay under section 65 of the Nationality and Borders and 2022; and

(b) enable the eligible person to work as a domestic worker for any eligible employer during the period specified by this subsection.

(4) For the purposes of this section—

“first responder organisation” is to be defined by immigration rules under this section;

“National Referral Mechanism” means the national framework for identifying and referring potential victims of modern slavery and ensuring they receive appropriate support;

“conclusive grounds decision” means a decision by a competent authority as to whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce a new visa scheme for victims of modern slavery who have been granted an Overseas Domestic Worker visa, to avoid visa concerns acting as a deterrent against referral for support under the National Referral Mechanism.

New clause 45—Good character requirement—

“(1) The British Nationality Act 1981 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 41A, (Registration: requirement to be of good character), after subsection (4), insert—

“(4A) The good character requirement under this section must not be applied in a manner contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under any international agreement to which the United Kingdom is a party.

(4B) The Secretary of State must ensure any guidance issued regarding the good character requirement reflects the following—

(a) any assessment of good character may only take into account the illegal entry, arrival or presence of a person (P) in the United Kingdom if at the time of P's entry to or arrival in the UK—

(i) P was aged 18 years or over,

(ii) P would have been given leave to enter under the immigration rules, if P had sought it, and

(iii) the assessment of P's good character is made on the basis of guidance, which was published.

(b) It is for the Secretary of State to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that—

(i) P would have been given leave to enter under the immigration rules, if P had sought it; and

(ii) it would have been reasonable to expect P to have sought and obtained such leave to enter.

(4C) In this section—

“the good character requirement” refers to the provision regarding a person being of good character in section 41A (Registration: requirement to be of good character), section 4L (Acquisition by registration: special circumstances), and paragraphs 1 and 5 of Schedule 1 to the British Nationality Act 1981.

“immigration rules” means rules under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971.’

This new clause would ensure the good character requirement is not applied contrary to the UK’s international legal obligations. It also ensures that guidance would only take into account a person’s illegal entry, arrival or presence, if they arrived as an adult, when there was a safe route under the Immigration Rules available to them, and it would have been reasonable to expect them to have used that route.

Amendment 1, clause 3, page 2, line 28, after “such threats”, insert—

“including the threats posed to UK biosecurity by illegal meat imports,”.

This amendment requires the Border Security Commander (“the Commander”), to have regard to the threats posed to UK biosecurity by illegal meat imports.

Amendment 31, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

“(2A) The strategic priority document issued under subsection (2) must support the Home Office’s UK Border Strategy.”

This amendment would require that the Border Security Commander’s strategic priority document supports the UK Border Strategy.

Amendment 2, page 3, line 2, after “borders”, insert “, including biosecurity”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1, and clarifies that UK biosecurity is an element of border security.

Amendment 4, page 7, line 12, at end insert—

“(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), P cannot commit an offence if P is—

(a) an individual forced or coerced into criminal activities,

(b) a parent, family member or guardian accompanying minors,

(c) a victim of human trafficking or modern slavery,

(d) a survivor of torture, gender-based violence or severe trauma,

(e) an unaccompanied child,

(f) a person at risk of persecution,

(g) a pregnant woman, or

(h) a person holding refugee status.”

This amendment would specify that the offence created by clause 13 (supplying articles for use in immigration crime) cannot be applied to certain categories of individual.

Amendment 36, in clause 14, page 8, line 21, at end insert—

“or,

(c) their action was—

(i) solely as part of their own journey, and

(ii) they did not gain financially from the action.”

This amendment seeks to ensure that the new criminal offence is targeted at people smugglers rather than those seeking asylum by amending the statutory defence.

Amendment 30, page 8, line 26, at end insert—

“(6) For the purposes of subsection (1), P cannot commit an offence if P is—

(a) an individual forced or coerced into criminal activities,

(b) a parent, family member or guardian accompanying minors,

(c) a victim of human trafficking or modern slavery,

(d) a survivor of torture, gender-based violence or severe trauma,

(e) an unaccompanied child,

(f) a person at risk of persecution,

(g) a pregnant woman, or

(h) a person holding refugee status.”

This amendment would specify that the offence created by clause 14 (Handling articles for use in immigration crime) cannot be applied to certain categories of individual.

Amendment 37, in clause 15, page 9, line 2, at end insert—

“(i) a telephonic device

(j) means for charging a telephonic device”

This amendment adds to the list of articles that aren’t included as relevant articles for the purposes of the new criminal offences of supplying or handling items to be used by people making a dangerous journey.

Amendment 38, in clause 16, page 9, line 38, leave out from “journey” to end of line 39 and insert—

“that they would not benefit from financially.”

This amendment seeks to ensure that the new criminal offence is targeted at people smugglers rather than those seeking asylum by amending the statutory defence.

Amendment 5, in clause 18, page 11, line 36, at end insert—

“(E1C) For the purposes of subsections (E1A) and (E1B) a person cannot commit an offence if the person is—

(a) an individual forced or coerced into criminal activities,

(b) a parent, family member or guardian accompanying minors,

(c) a victim of human trafficking or modern slavery,

(d) a survivor of torture, gender-based violence or severe trauma,

(e) an unaccompanied child,

(f) a person at risk of persecution,

(g) a pregnant woman, or

(h) a person holding refugee status.”

This amendment would specify that the offence created by clause 18 (Endangering another during sea crossing to United Kingdom) cannot be applied to certain categories of individual.

Government amendments 6 to 12.

Amendment 32, page 30, line 29, leave out clause 37.

This amendment would remove the clause relating to the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024.

Amendment 33, page 30, line 31, leave out clause 38.

This amendment would remove the clause relating to the repeal of immigration legislation.

Amendment 35, in clause 38, page 30, line 34, leave out “11” and insert “12”.

This amendment would add section 12, concerning the Secretary of State’s powers to detain people under the Immigration Act 1972, to the list of sections of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 to be repealed.

Amendment 34, page 31, line 1, leave out “28” and insert “29”.

This amendment would repeal Section 29 of the Illegal Immigration Act 2024, which requires the Secretary of State to remove people who have sought to use modern slavery protections in “bad faith”.

Amendment 3, page 31, line 5, at end insert—

“(i) sections 29 and 59.”

This amendment would add sections 29 and 59 to the list of sections of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 to be repealed.

Government amendments 13 to 29.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his condescending tone after his deluded rant. I must say to him that he is misleading the House: 400 crossed in 2018, and more than 150,000 have crossed since. The majority of those were on the Conservative Government’s watch, so how they can claim that that happened on Labour’s watch is beyond me. As the new expert—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has had long enough for his very brief intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member is clearly concerned about child protection. Did he read the testimony of the Children’s Commissioner about the children who made their way to our country and went missing in the system? They were victims of rape, sexual abuse and exploitation—some of the most horrendous things that can happen. Does he regret the role of his Government in facilitating such abuse?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am sure the shadow Home Secretary is aware that time is running on.

[Chris Philp]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I will follow your injunction to wind up. Of course, we need to pay attention to the rights and protection of children, but having people smuggled across the English channel on boats does not in any way help with that.

If the Government are serious about getting back control of the immigration system and stopping illegal immigration, they will support our measures that would put a cap on migration and repeal the Human Rights Act in relation to immigration matters.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We will start with an immediate four-minute time limit, with the exception of Front-Bench speeches and any maiden speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Creasy]

Absolutely. Let me be clear: I recognise that my suggestion will not address all the issues with overseas domestic workers, but a worker’s justice visa could be the start of ensuring that our immigration system is more functional.

I also draw the Minister’s attention to new clause 45, which is about the “good character requirement”. It makes no sense to those of us concerned about integration to say to somebody that they may stay in this country—that they have a well-founded fear of persecution—but that they will never be able to make a life here, that they will always end up paying more for their mortgage because they will not be able to get a proper income, and that they will never be able to get jobs as easily as others, so they might be more dependent on benefits. That is what happens when we start denying citizenship to people who have the right to be here.

The Refugee Council recognises that the requirement will affect 71,000 people because it is retrospective. It is little wonder that a court case is now in train. Bad policymaking in the face of social media tropes does nobody any favours, and I urge Ministers to look again at the provision. New clause 45 is simple: it is about us upholding our international obligations. It is about saying that if there was a safe route, absolutely it would be bad character not to use it, but I would love some Opposition Members, who are no longer in their place, to tell me what the safe route from Iran is, when many people on the boats are from Iran.

We have to get immigration policy right. I stand here as somebody who does not want open borders. I want a fair and just immigration service. I learned in my first year in this place from the former Home Secretary Jack Straw, who told me there were two divides: left and right, and those people who had to deal with the UK Border Agency and those who did not. The legislation before us does many welcome things, but it also does things that I fear we will come to regret in future—just as we will come to regret pandering to those who wish to divide us, rather than getting on and sorting out why we still have a cost of living crisis.

The Government will have my support if they want to do more to bring people together, not just by sorting out bin collections—that perennial challenge—but by investing in everybody, whether they were born here or have come here to make a contribution. After all, those of us with refugee heritage—whether we were Huguenots, Farages or Creasys—deserve and need better.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

We will now start a three-minute time limit.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

My constituency has a proud and long history of supporting those fleeing persecution. It was home to the Ockenden Venture, a trailblazing charity founded in the 1950s to help resettle refugees from post-war Europe, Vietnam and beyond. Humfrey Malins, the former Conservative MP for Woking even set up a national immigration service. That legacy reminds us of the best of British values. It is important, especially today, that we reflect on that and on what makes Britain great. However, this Bill falls far short of those values—it is not very great at all. I sat on the Public Bill Committee, where I tabled 15 amendments. Although I support the parts of the Bill that seek to tackle the cruel trade of people smuggling, I am deeply concerned that once again this Government are prioritising punitive-sounding headlines over practical solutions.

The Bill completely fails to lift the ban on asylum seekers working while they await a decision. That is why I support new clause 21. People spend years in limbo waiting for their application to be processed, with no right to contribute, no right to earn and no hope of building their lives. We heard in Committee that, as a result of the Conservative Government’s mishandling of the situation, 19 people have waited 10 years or more for their claim to be settled. They are capable adults who should have been contributing to the economy. Letting people work is the right thing to do. That is why Australia lets people work straightaway, why Canada allows refugees to apply for a work permit while their applications are being processed, and why the United States allows people seeking asylum to work after six months. Human beings are amazing creatures, capable of so much. It is waste for people essentially to be kept away from society. We want to support them; that is what new clause 21 would do, by giving people the right to work after three months. I urge colleagues to support it.

I will briefly address safe and legal routes. Ukraine has shown us that providing safe and legal routes takes away the people smuggling and illegal immigration. That is why I support Liberal Democrat new clauses 22 and 36, and SNP new clause 3. Those vital measures would tackle the root causes of dangerous crossings, and I hope that Members will support them.

Critically, we talked in Committee about Interpol. We are turning our backs; we are not asking Europe to help us with this problem—the Government refuse to do so. Instead of isolating ourselves, we should be leading the efforts to tackle people-smuggling gangs. We cannot solve the global crisis without resolving those main issues, but we can do better. Britain has a proud history, and this Bill should be a lot better.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests about the help that I receive from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project. I am also the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration. I welcome the Government’s action in the Bill to repeal parts of the previous Government’s repeated gimmicks and nonsense legislation in the last Parliament. I will speak to new clauses 1, 2 and 37, all of which I have sponsored.

New clause 1 was tabled by my right hon. Friend—apologies, I should have said my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome); she is not right honourable, but she should be. The new clause would require the Home Office to publish quarterly statistics and information on deaths in the asylum system and small boat channel crossings. Under the last Government, a horrifying number of refugees and people seeking asylum died trying to cross the channel and in Home Office accommodation. In 2024, that number reached a record high. Despite daily and weekly reports on the number of people stopped or deported, we still do not have regular, clear and transparent reporting on those who have lost their lives in the system. That is incredibly important, not just morally but in order to address the evidence gap, so that we get policy right.

New clause 2 would require reports on the right to work. I heard what the Minister said about this being a discussion about time, but mental health and working rights are not separate issues. The majority of asylum seekers in the UK are unable to work and use their skills to support themselves and their families or even to save enough to rent a home. Instead, they are trapped, isolated, inactive and dependent on state support. There are countless compelling reasons why asylum seekers should be allowed to work like the rest of the population. Given the huge amount of support that idea has from the public and businesses, we should at least have the opportunity to scrutinise why the ban remains and the impact that it is having. If we want integration, why not let people work in their communities and build English language skills?

Finally, new clause 37, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), seeks to ensure that children born in the UK who have grown up here and know no other home are not priced out of citizenship simply because of their parents’ immigration status at the time of their birth. Such young people are part of our communities, schools and the fabric of our future. They should not be denied their rights or go on to face barriers in education, housing, healthcare and across society. They are not “strangers”; they are our friends and neighbours.

Some have stoked racist divisions against migrants—a drum that the far right have continually banged since—and the whole House must oppose that rhetoric. Amid rising anti-refugee sentiment, including last year’s shocking riots, it could not be more urgent or valuable to enable people to feel secure and contribute to their communities. I am aghast at some of the amendments tabled by Opposition parties, particularly new clause 41. I wonder how many ruined lives those Members will consider too many. It is shameful to see the victimisation of people who have come here to find safety.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Sarah Pochin to make her maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

The Government’s repeal of the vile and illegal Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and large parts of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 are welcome, but they must do more to repeal the underlying legal framework, which continues to undermine the UK’s ability to uphold the rule of law and human rights. The Illegal Migration Act simply does not belong on the statute book, and my preference would be to scrap the lot of it. My amendment 35 at least seeks to restore judicial oversight of decisions about detention. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association points out that without my amendment 35, a software engineer who overstayed her visa could be detained for longer than a suspected terrorist, and with far less judicial oversight.

Turning to my new clause 38, I am disappointed that the Government have not used the Bill to repeal the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, when Labour rightly opposed that legislation in its entirety on its Second Reading. That Act marked the UK’s move away from upholding the 1951 refugee convention and instead denies the right to territorial asylum, yet this Labour Government have chosen to leave the Act on the statute book, untouched by this Bill. My new clause 38 focuses on undoing the provisions that penalise and criminalise people who make unsafe journeys to the UK to seek sanctuary. It scraps the parts that create an unfair two-tier asylum system with differential treatment for different groups of people—a proposal so unworkable that the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) had to pause it when in government. Crucially, it scraps the law that criminalises people arriving in the UK without permission or the right paperwork with a penalty of up to four years in prison. This law is clearly contrary to article 31.1 of the 1951 refugee convention, which provides immunity from penalties in recognition of the fact that refugees are often compelled to arrive without appropriate documents in order to access their human rights under that convention. Lastly, my new clause 38 would scrap sections 30 to 38 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which sought to—I will put it charitably—poorly reinterpret the refugee convention.

I wish to highlight the fact that the Government are leaving on the statute book measures that unjustly penalise and criminalise refugees for arriving irregularly when there are no safe and managed routes to travel here to claim asylum for the vast majority of people who might need and be eligible to do so. In the words of Warsan Shire:

“no one puts their children in a boat

unless the water is safer than the land”.

This Government are clearly focused on appearing tough on immigration, and to do so they have brought in some of the previous Government’s cruel policies and introduced some of their own—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call Bell Ribeiro-Addy.

Licences and Licensing

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Licensing Act 2003 (Victory in Europe Day Licensing Hours) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 23 April, be approved.

Next week marks the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day, which was of course a hugely significant and consequential moment in our country’s history. After more than five long years, during the first of which we stood alone, on 8 May 1945 Prime Minister Churchill proclaimed to cheering crowds in Whitehall, just a few hundred yards from this Chamber:

“This is your victory. It is the victory of the cause of freedom in every land.”

As the 75th anniversary commemorations involving public gatherings were, sadly, cancelled in 2020 due to the covid outbreak, the upcoming milestone is a precious chance to pay tribute to that greatest generation and hear the stories of those who lived through the war. At this point, I want to refer to my father, Eric Johnson, who served in the Royal Navy in the second world war, and my mother, Ruth Johnson, who worked in munitions factories.

Many people will want to come together with friends and family to mark the occasion, and to raise a glass to those who fought for our freedoms—the soldiers, sailors and airmen from the United Kingdom and across the Commonwealth, as well as our allies in Europe, and also those who contributed to the war effort at home, including civilians working in the emergency services, transport, the home guard, the wardens and those working in factories and on the land. Twenty three Members of this House and 20 Members of the other place gave their lives in world war two, and I know that Mr Speaker is working to mark that. We should celebrate the role of this place and our wartime coalition in saving democracy beyond our shores from what Winston Churchill called

“the abyss of a new dark age”.—[Official Report, 18 June 1940; Vol. 362, c. 60.]

Commemorative events will be held in many locations during the anniversary week, including: a military procession from Whitehall to Buckingham Palace; street parties across the country on the bank holiday; evensong at Manchester cathedral, followed by a celebratory ringing of bells; a celebratory picnic at Cardiff castle; a living history event at Sterling castle in Scotland; a series of commemoration events at Belfast city hall; and a service at Westminster Abbey, which will serve as both an act of shared remembrance and a celebration of the end of the war.

VE Day falls within the annual Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s War Graves Week, and the commission is marking the 80th anniversary of VE Day with the “For Evermore” tour, a mobile exhibition travelling the UK sharing stories of those who died in world war two. The commission is also holding a special VE Day concert on 2 May at the historic Coventry cathedral, which was rebuilt after being destroyed by bombing in 1940. A concert will also take place at Horse Guards Parade to mark the end of commemorations on 8 May.

As a Member of Parliament who represents Kingston upon Hull, a city that was routinely referred to anonymously in the second world war as a “north-east coastal town” despite bombing comparable to the east end of London, Hull’s celebrations for VE Day will be accompanied by a desire to see greater national recognition of the effects of the blitz on my city than we have had over the course of the past 80 years. Hull will have a memorial service at Hull cenotaph; the Hull History Centre will show free screenings of archive footage from VE Day in 1945 of the celebrations that took place in Hull; and in Cottingham there will be a 1940s music singalong at Cottingham civic hall.

It promises to be a special atmosphere in many communities and the order will allow people to celebrate for longer, should they so wish. Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 allows the Secretary of State to make a licensing hours order to allow licensed premises to open for specified, extended hours on occasions of exceptional international, national or local significance. By way of background, past occasions where the then Home Secretary has exercised this power to extend licensing hours have included: the King’s coronation; Her late Majesty the Queen’s platinum and diamond jubilee celebrations; the royal weddings in 2011 and 2018; and, most recently, the semi-final and final of the men’s UEFA European championship last year. The Government consider the 80th anniversary of VE Day to be an occasion of national significance and, as such, worthy of the proposed extension before the House today.

Turning to the practical details, the order makes provision to relax licensing arrangements in England and Wales, and allow licensed premises to extend their opening hours on Thursday the 8 May for a further two hours, from 11pm until 1am the following morning. A truncated consultation was conducted with key stakeholders who were supportive of the extension, and we take the view that the order will not bring about any significant crime and disorder due to the nature of the events. However, we recognise that there may be implications for police resourcing, and we will continue to work with stakeholders to mitigate any concerns around the impact.

As well as enabling celebrations, the extension has the added potential benefit of providing a welcome boost to the hospitality sector. I hope that Members across the House will agree that this order represents an appropriate use of the powers conferred on the Home Secretary by the Licensing Act 2003.

To conclude, this extension reflects our commitment to remembering what was a truly momentous event—our finest hour—and to celebrating those who defended our country, liberated Europe and secured peace. With that, I commend this order to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

I hope it will be apparent that all Members of the House strongly support this motion. Certainly those of us on the Opposition Benches welcome the opportunity for pubs and other licensed venues across the country to stay open late to commemorate VE day without incurring any cost to extend their licences.

As time passes and those with direct memories of this momentous day grow older, it is critical that we continue to commemorate and remember the experiences of those who sacrificed so much and who in so many cases gave everything for our nation and for others’ freedom. We must celebrate the fact that their sacrifice was not in vain, but led to a great achievement, and recognise the efforts and endurance that overcame immense struggle. I hope I speak for all Members when I say that we are incredibly honoured to represent those who served in world war two and their family, friends and loved ones who survive to this day.

VE day is rightly a day for us all to share in celebration. As Churchill said on 8 May 1945,

“My dear friends, this is your hour. This is not a victory of a party or of any class. It’s a victory for the great British nation as a whole.”

It is only appropriate that we continue to reflect the evergreen truth and celebrate VE day as we should: unified as a country, proud of our history of determination and of sacrifice.

The motion to extend licensing hours appears exceptionally appropriate. Not only was a national holiday declared in Britain on 8 May 1945, but it is said that on that morning, Churchill—with his focus very much on the real priorities—gained assurances from the Ministry of Food that there would be sufficient beer available in the capital. Meanwhile, the Board of Trade announced that people could purchase red, white and blue bunting without using ration coupons. We share that same spirit today by approving this motion, which I hope will allow people to fully and memorably commemorate this truly historic day.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Tackling Child Sexual Abuse

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

I have enjoyed working with my hon. Friend, and other people in Rochdale, over the years on these issues. I hope that places like Rochdale, where there have already been independent inquiries, will be able to access some of the flexible funds to do victim-led follow-up work on where we are now. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend in the future and yes, I too am pleased that grooming will be an aggravating factor. It was a recommendation from Jay—in fact, it was recommended even before the final IICSA recommendation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat party.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement and for the progress update to Parliament, as promised. We welcome the progress that is being made by the Government on this issue, which tragically continues to blight our society.

As the Minister said, children across this country are still victims of these abhorrent crimes, and survivors await justice from previous abuse and exploitation The Liberal Democrats believe, as Members from across the House would echo, that no child should ever be subjected to sexual abuse or exploitation, and it is clear that real action is needed to prevent such sickening acts from occurring. We have made it clear that steps must be taken at all levels of Government to better protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation in the future, and to fully deliver justice for survivors and victims. In particular, we welcome the Government’s announcement of a new child protection authority and extra funding for national services that support adult survivors of sexual abuse. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) tabled an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to establish a child protection authority, and I know she is delighted to see that coming forward today.

The Lib Dems are committed to working proactively and constructively with the Government and the whole House to support and protect vulnerable children at risk of exploitation and abuse, unlike the Conservatives, sadly, who are still shamefully using the victims of grooming gangs scandal as a political football—[Interruption.] The Liberal Democrats continue to commend the work of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse by Professor Alexis Jay. We continue to call on the Government to urgently implement all 20 of her recommendations that, as the Minister has mentioned, the Conservatives failed to act on in government.

The Minister has spoken about some of the recommendations today, namely national leadership, learning on child protection and safeguarding, and a mandatory duty to report, but can she commit today to implementing all the report’s recommendations? In so doing, can she confirm that the new child protection authority will act as a national oversight mechanism to monitor the implementation of the Jay review’s recommendations across all relevant agencies and Departments? If not, will such a mechanism be brought forward? The Lib Dems support anything that will deliver justice for victims and help to prevent these sickening crimes from happening in future.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 to 13.

[Dan Jarvis]

The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill—Martyn’s law—has returned to this House in good shape. Only a small number of amendments were made in the other place, with all but one made by the Government, all of which we shall consider this evening.

The Government have been particularly grateful for the collaborative approach to scrutinising the Bill across both Houses, and I hope that this will continue this evening, as we take the final steps to passing this important piece of legislation.

I shall begin by speaking to Lords amendments 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 and 13. These amendments, brought by the Government in the other place, make minor and technical changes to further clarify the conditions for qualifying premises and qualifying events. Specifically, these amendments clarify the intention that premises and events are not in scope where attendance is in a personal or private capacity—for example, a wedding attended by relations and friends, or an office party attended by employees and customers. These are private events, not publicly accessible, and the amendments make it even clearer that they should be out of scope. These amendments do not alter the intended policy or the scope of the Bill. They are technical changes to provide further clarity on who will be within scope of this legislation.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 5, which was tabled by Baroness Suttie on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. This amendment places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult as appropriate before publication of the guidance under clause 27. As my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint made clear in the other place, the Government are happy to accept this amendment. We are acutely aware of the importance of the guidance that will accompany this Bill and it is vital that those responsible for qualifying premises and events have both the time and the information needed to ensure that they can plan, prepare for, and, ultimately, implement the requirements. It is also essential that the guidance is informed by proper consideration and engagement. This had always been the Government’s intention and we are content to enshrine the principle of appropriate consultation in statute by virtue of this amendment.

I turn finally to Lords amendments 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9, which were brought by the Government in light of the clear cross-party support to further strengthen the safeguards on the use of certain Henry VIII powers in the Bill

Amendments 3, 4, 6 and 9 consolidate into clause 32 the powers previously found in clauses 5 and 6, which allow the Secretary of State to add, omit or amend the description of public protection procedures or measures.

Amendments 7 and 8 place conditions on these powers that the Secretary of State must satisfy. These conditions are also added to the powers in clause 32 that enable the Secretary of State to alter the qualifying thresholds for standard duty premises, enhanced duty premises and qualifying events. These conditions limit the use of the powers to lower the thresholds—or to add new procedures or measures—to where the Secretary of State considers it necessary to do so for public protection.

Conversely, the thresholds can be raised—or procedures or measures omitted or amended—only if the Secretary of State considers that their retention is not necessary for public protection. Additionally, Lords amendment 8 will require the Secretary of State to consult such persons as they consider appropriate before exercising any of the powers specified in clause 32, including those I have just described.

The Government consider that this approach provides an extra level of assurance if future Secretaries of State are considering using these powers. It strikes the right balance between ensuring the Bill can be kept up to date, while providing in the Bill an important set of further safeguards to ensure that these powers, if used, are used appropriately and with proper consideration.

I am grateful to those in the other place for their considered scrutiny of these measures and for continuing the collaborative approach that has flowed through the passage of the Bill. I particularly want to thank Lord Anderson of Ipswich for his constructive challenge, and I am pleased that he felt able to add his name to the Government amendments. I am sure this House agrees that the amendments provide further safeguards and ensure that if and when the powers are used, they are used appropriately and with sufficient consultation.

Before I conclude, I will take this opportunity to recognise the extraordinary campaigning efforts by Figen Murray, without which we would not be here today, and I will have more to say about Figen later. She has always been very clear that the Martyn’s law campaign was a team effort, so I want to take the opportunity this evening to recognise the contribution of the whole campaign team, including Brendan, Nick, Nathan and Stuart. With that, I very much hope that right hon. and hon. Members will support all of the amendments before us today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

On 22 May 2017, Islamist extremist Salman Abedi carried out a sickening attack on the Manchester arena following a concert. This barbaric act of terrorism killed 22 people and injured more than 1,000 others, many of them children. It was the deadliest act of terrorism in this country since the 7/7 bombings in 2005. What was taken from the victims and those who love them can never be given back. That of course includes Figen Murray, whose determination and fortitude we honour this afternoon and whose son Martyn Hett we remember, along with all the others who were killed or injured on that horrible day.

This Bill, inherited from the previous Government, is an attempt to address an insufficiency in our anti-terror framework by ensuring that our public spaces and public events are better prepared for any future attacks. This is a noble goal and one that colleagues on both sides of the House undoubtedly support. When the Bill was last in this place, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), spoke of the concern we all share to get the balance right. Our safeguards against potential future terror attacks must be robust but also proportionate and pragmatic. He spoke of the spirit of support, co-operation and openness in which we suggested small amendments to the Bill, and I believe amendments were tabled in the other place in that same spirit.

We particularly welcome the change from invitations to tickets and the clarity that provides on private events being out of scope of this legislation. We are sorry not to see more of those amendments in this place for debate. I urge the Minister, who I know is very conscious of the different pressures and the need for balance, to keep the thresholds under review, which clause 32 provides for, and to continue to assess the impact of this legislation on community institutions. We continue to have concerns that in its current form the legislation risks adding to the already enormous burden of regulation and paperwork that small hospitality and community venues such as pubs, churches and village halls must navigate on a daily basis, so we welcome amendment 8 on consultation.

It is right that people of this country should be able to go about their daily lives and go to events in the knowledge that they are safe. It is also right that we take action to ensure that horrific attacks like the one carried out in Manchester in May 2017 do not happen again. As we pursue this noble goal, we should remain aware of and sensitive to the potential negative impacts of our good intentions. Small venues across the country are already struggling, and we must be cautious about adding to that burden, but we are happy to support the Lords amendments today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First of all, I thank the hon. and gallant Minister. We all look to him for his guidance and support, which is much appreciated by us as individuals on behalf of our constituents. Let me put on record my thanks to all the police forces across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, particularly the Police Service of Northern Ireland for its work to keep us safe. Without them we could not operate here, nor could we have protection for our constituents, who we are duty bound to represent in this House. I will not delay the House too long, but I wish to ask two questions in relation to the Bill, which are both relate specifically to Northern Ireland. I hope that the House will bear with me for a couple of minutes as I illustrate them.

I have spoken on the Bill several times, and I have always sought to ensure parity of conditions throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Lords amendments to clauses 32 to 35 in particular seek to remove the UK-wide imposition of polygraph licence conditions for terrorist offenders. Will the Minister confirm that their removal will not leave the PSNI in Northern Ireland without the means to watch and assess terrorists as closely as can be done on the mainland and that existing legislation referred to in the amendments is capable of securing protection?

Secondly, it is imperative that police forces have access to transfer of prisoners. Lords amendment 76 has been designed to ensure that provisions could continue to apply to restricted transfers between Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland for the purposes of determining release. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are convinced that there can be seamless transfers between all nations in this great United Kingdom when necessary? If the Minister does not have access to those answers immediately, I am happy for him to come back to me on that, if that is helpful. I would appreciate the answers.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Those questions may not fall within the scope of the debate. With the leave of the House, I call the Minister.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), for the constructive way in which she has approached the debate. I assure her that the Government completely understand that we need to strike a balance, and I hope that she will acknowledge that we have been at pains to consult extensively and work across the House. I am happy to discuss these matters with her further.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) not just for his contribution this evening but for his support of his very special constituent. I am also grateful to the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), and join her in thanking Baroness Suttie for the important contribution she made in the other place.

I am always grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his contributions in terms of both quantity and quality. In fact, I was thinking about him just the other day because I had the privilege of visiting his part of the world, which is a part of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that I hold in the highest regard. I hold him in that high regard as well. He raised some important points, and I am grateful to him for saying that he would be happy for me to write to him about them. To ensure that we address them properly, I will do so. I guarantee that he will get a very good response.

The Bill was a manifesto commitment, and I am proud to say that the Government have delivered it, and done so early in the Session. The public rightly deserve to feel safe when visiting public premises and attending events, and the cross-party approach to passing the Bill and getting it right will demonstrate to the public that nothing matters more than security; it is the foundation on which everything else rests. I very much hope that this will continue and that the House will support the amendments.

I take the opportunity again to thank all of those who have aided in the passage of the Bill. I also take the opportunity to thank Lord Hanson of Flint, my colleague in the other place, whose long experience and sound judgment have been much appreciated. I also thank the excellent team at the Home Office. I am grateful for all their hard work, support and dedication. They have been particularly impressive throughout the Bill’s passage—they have always gone above and beyond—and I am grateful for their service.

I want to restate the Government’s thanks to the intelligence agencies and all those who serve in law enforcement who work tirelessly around the clock to keep us safe. This is the most vital work, which they do every day, and we as a country owe them a debt of gratitude.

Finally, there is someone, above all, who we must pay tribute to and that is Figen Murray. Her campaign has been nothing short of extraordinary. To have lost her son, Martyn Hett, in the Manchester Arena attack in May 2017 and to have yet still found the strength to drive the campaign forward is both inspiring and phenomenal. I know that all Members right across the House will join me in paying tribute to Figen. She previously said,

“It’s time to get this done.”

I am very proud to say that this Government have done just that.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 13 agreed to.

Deferred divisions

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),

That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Secretary Jonathan Reynolds relating to Terms and Conditions of Employment. —(Gen Kitchen.)

Question agreed to.

Knife Crime: Children and Young People

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for securing this important debate, and for his thoughtful speech. I join him in paying tribute to Ciaran Thapar, whose work took place in my constituency. It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster), who made a moving statement on behalf of his constituents. I grew up near Parbold Hill and Southport, and it grieves me deeply to hear about the appalling violence in both those communities.

I rise to speak in this debate on knife crime with great sadness, because today, just after 5 am, a young man lost his life on Coldharbour Lane in my constituency after being stabbed. I visited the scene this morning and stood at the police line as the forensic officers undertook their work. I spoke with community members who were confronted with the shocking aftermath of this violence as they went about their day. I thought about the family, whose day would begin with a knock on the door from police officers, and the utterly devastating news that their loved one would not be coming home ever again. It is hard to feel anything but despair in these circumstances.

I know that hon. Members across the House will wish to join me in expressing our sincere condolences to the family and friends of the young man who lost his life. We do not yet know his identity, but we know that there will be people who loved him, and who are suffering the most visceral pain and loss today. I also pay tribute to the emergency services who attended the scene this morning.

When this young man’s name is released, it will join the names of others who have lost their life to serious violence and knife and gun crime in my constituency since I was first elected to this place in 2015. They are Jude Gayle, Kyall Parnell, John Ogunjobi, Donnell Rhule, Glendon Spence, Dennis Anderson, Beatrice Stoica, Filipe Oliveira, Chino Johnson, Ronaldo Scott and Keelen Wong. Each one was loved by their family and friends, and each one leaves a community traumatised by their loss and the circumstances of it.

When a knife or gun crime is reported in the media, we see the names in the headlines for a few short hours, and maybe again if the case comes to trial. We never hear about the ongoing trauma left behind in the local community, and the sense of loss felt not only by the immediate family but everyone who watched that person grow up and saw them out and about daily, those whose children went to school with them, and those who recognised and knew them. There is a sense of fear among parents that next time, their child might be the victim, and there are the mental health consequences of living with loss, fear and anxiety.

The causes of knife crime are complex. We need to take a public health approach to it, as though it were a disease. We should understand its pathology and take steps to prevent it taking hold, stop its spread, and treat the causes and the symptoms. I introduced a private Member’s Bill in the last Parliament to stop the availability of the most horrific weapons on our streets. I have met the lead consultants in the emergency department at King’s College hospital, who described the horrific injuries that are inflicted by machetes and zombie knives—weapons that can cut through bone, and serrated blades that inflict the most complex injuries on internal organs. They spoke about the survivability of many such injuries, compared with wounds inflicted with domestic knives, and described machetes and zombie knives as

“weapons of war on our streets”.

No one in our communities needs a machete or a zombie knife for any legitimate purpose, but they have been readily available for purchase online for as little as £10. I therefore welcome the Government’s action since July to further restrict their sale. I want further action on domestic knives. In particular, we should look at whether further restrictions can be introduced regarding age verification of those purchasing knives with pointed blades. I also want action further up the chain, to tackle those who exploit and groom our young people into serious violence—the county lines exploiters, the drug dealers and the serious organised criminals who are not spoken about enough in these debates.

In my constituency, in part because of the tragedies that we have experienced, we have seen inspiring responses from community organisations working with public services. The embedding of youth workers in hospital emergency departments was pioneered by Redthread at King’s College hospital. They provide options for young people who have been injured, or have seen their friends injured, allowing them to access support to keep themselves safe. I welcome the Government rolling out that intervention in other parts of the country.

I am also grateful to the Mayor of London’s violence reduction unit for funding Ecosystem Coldharbour through the My Ends programme. Ecosystem Coldharbour is a coalition of grassroots organisations working with young people and families in the Brixton part of my constituency. It has been working for the last three years and has delivered some really impressive results. It has built up the trust and confidence of young people and families, so that they can access help and support. It provides mentoring and training opportunities, and leads the community response when tragedies occur. It delivers trauma support to families and communities. Our communities feel empowered by that work. It is particularly inspirational to see a group of mothers who have all lost a child to serious violence working together, under the banner “Circle of Life Ignite”, to support each other and prevent further deaths.

I am inspired by the way that young leaders have been equipped through that work. I pay tribute to the work of Abdoul Lelo, an extraordinarily impressive young man who has been working with McDonald’s in Brixton to embed a youth service in the restaurant. It takes support and positive opportunities to young people where they are. There are also benefits for the staff, who have often felt unsafe and overwhelmed in their workplace. I also pay tribute to the work of Sergeant Nigel Pearce from central south basic command unit, who has pioneered a different approach to community policing, based on trusting and listening to the community, and responding respectfully and supportively to their needs and experiences. If we had more officers working in this way across the Metropolitan Police, trust and confidence in policing would be much higher.

The partnership in my constituency is called Ecosystem because of the belief of the organisations in it that all the solutions to serious violence are in the community—but the community needs help and resources to find them. That is what we have had through the violence reduction unit. My plea to the Minister is that funding for such vital work be put on a long-term footing, so that we can keep on delivering and working to tackle the scourge of serious violence. In fact, as the Minister thinks about the design of the Government’s Young Futures project, I invite her to visit Ecosystem, because we have much good practice to offer for the development of that national programme.

The debate today is about young people and knife crime, but to tackle the scourge of knife crime, we must properly understand the nature of the problem and who is affected. Of the victims who have been murdered in my constituency since 2015, only two were under the age of 18. The majority were young men in their 20s, a cohort who grew up at a time when funding for youth services was being stripped away, who may find themselves unable to access employment often due to minor criminal convictions, who often have very poor mental health, who are accessing deeply damaging online content and for whom society can seem like it has very little to offer. There is currently no protocol or good practice for tackling serious violence in that cohort. The only part of the system obliged to try to help is the criminal justice system, if the person in question has committed a crime. Social services have no formal role or responsibility and mental health services are not designed with this cohort in mind, despite the fact that they are so often traumatised by the experiences, what they have witnessed in their communities and what they have seen their friends go through.

If we want to end the cycle of violence in our communities, we must turn our attention to that group. They are siblings, cousins and parents to the next generation. The key to prevention must therefore lie in helping them to turn their lives around, making support services more visible in our communities, making it easier to ask for help through services that are designed with their needs in mind and properly resourcing effective rehabilitation.

I welcome the Government’s focus on halving knife crime. My communities have suffered far too much from its devastating effects and we continue to suffer today. I urge the Minister to work with us to devise services and interventions based on the experience in our communities, because we utterly reject this violence and we just want to see it stop.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Before I call the next speaker, I want to try and get everybody in, so please can people stick to around four minutes?

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on knife crime among children and young people, an issue that continues to devastate communities across the country. I thank the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for securing the debate.

Very few people can say that they are not deeply concerned about the rising levels of knife crime, particularly among children and young people. As has been heard from my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), in the early hours of this morning a young man was stabbed and killed in Brixton, a town centre that we share along with my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). Our thoughts go to the young man and his family at this time. It is a tragedy, but even more sadly, it is a tragedy that we hear far too often.

The latest figures show that there were more than 50,000 knife-related offences in England and Wales last year. Alarmingly, around one in five knife possessions involved young people under the age of 18. In 2023-24, there were 53 records of homicides using a sharp instrument where the victim was aged between 13 and 19 years. Though those statistics are alarming, we have to remember that they are not just numbers but young lives that are being lost, and with each one comes a family that will be left grieving and a community that is scarred.

I know that many hon. Members will point to the need for more policing, increased stop and search and harsher sentencing, and restrictions on who can buy a knife as solutions. Indeed, successive Governments, including this one, have introduced measures along those lines to tackle the surge in knife crime. I certainly will not stand here and argue that we do not need to review how we police the issue, although I believe that increased policing measures such as stop and search need to be thoroughly thought-through and must be intelligence-led. Increased policing and sentencing are not the only solution and cannot work on their own. Youth and knife crime are a wider societal issue that require a holistic approach. If tougher sentencing and more stop and search powers were all it took, we would have solved this crisis a long time ago. We cannot take reactive steps alone; we have to take preventive ones.

I know Conservative Members do not particularly enjoy our pointing out their record in government, but we cannot let this debate go by without mentioning the impact of the past 14 years. This is not a political point but a factual one, because over that time we saw the systematic dismantling of the support systems that helped keep young people away from crime. Research from the YMCA showed that youth services have been cut by 73% since 2010, with over 750 youth centres closed and the number of youth workers falling by a third to 1,662 full-time equivalent roles. The result has been fewer spaces, mentors and positive role models for young people.

A recent Unison report revealed that in England 1,036 council-run youth centres were closed between 2010 and 2023, and only 480 remained open in April 2023. Funding for Sure Start children’s centres, which provided early intervention and family support, has been decimated. Funding for police community support officers, who play a vital role in building trust between police and young people, has been drastically reduced. School budget cuts have squeezed pastoral support, mental health provision and behavioural interventions, increasing exclusions overall. The link between school exclusions and serious violence is well known. Excluded children often fall through the cracks. Many enter pupil referral units where gangs recruit vulnerable young people. Others disengage entirely, making them more susceptible to criminal activity. Those cuts have consequences, and when young people lack support, opportunity or hope, they become vulnerable to criminal exploitation. Gangs step in where the state has stepped back. It is no coincidence that as these services have disappeared, knife crime has risen.

Conservative Members cannot ignore the direct correlation between austerity and serious youth violence, but equally Labour Members cannot either. If we maintain the cuts or extend them even further, that is the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. As a starting point for tackling youth violence and knife crime, I strongly urge the Government to look at reversing the cuts and investing in youth services.

I also urge the Government to look at how local councils tackle the issue. I point to my council in the borough of Lambeth. Lambeth Made Safer was launched in 2021 by Councillor Jacqui Dyer. It takes a public health approach to violence reduction, focusing on prevention, early intervention and community-led solutions. It prioritises targeted outreach, family support and investment in community initiatives. It is obviously woefully under-resourced, but it is the sort of initiative and community-driven approach that should be rolled out nationwide. There is no single solution to this crisis, but we can begin to address it by ensuring that young people have the wraparound services that we know prevent them from being involved in, or the victim of, crime.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

We will now start with a formal four-minute time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

This is a timely debate, as Members considered the knife crime provisions of the Crime and Policing Bill only last week. I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on granting time for it, and thank the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for his compelling speech. We have heard some emotional speeches, which show the empathy that Members on both sides of the House have for victims of knife crime and their families.

Over the years, I have met constituents who have had their lives irrevocably changed by knife crime, whether it resulted in the murder or a loved one or a serious injury. I have spoken with mothers who have lost their children, and adult children who have lost their elderly parents after they were stabbed to death. Knife crime can affect anyone, and the pain that the surviving family members live with after such horrific events is palpable.

The Minister will know that I want to talk about harm reduction; I have spoken about this in this House, and with her, on several occasions. Two thirds of knives that have been identified as having been used to kill people are kitchen knives. That is in deaths where we know what the weapon is. That statistic should not be surprising; many murders are unplanned and committed on the spur of the moment with little thought, and kitchen knives are the weapons most readily to hand.

There has been much in the media this week about the new Netflix drama series “Adolescence”, which is a commentary on the many problems faced by young people growing up, not just knife crime, but it highlights how an easily accessible weapon can be used to cause devastation and change the course of many people’s lives forever. For years, bereaved families, support groups, youth groups and schools have called for the Government of the day to do something tangible to stop this, and to allow children to have a childhood. Their calls are now joined by prominent voices such as those of Idris Elba and Stephen Graham, the latter describing a “pandemic of knife crime” in our country.

I know that this Government are listening and want to make a change, but we need to do it quickly and thoroughly. The previous Government’s measures did not go far enough. The new measures in the Crime and Policing Bill go further, but more can still be done. There is a growing campaign to phase out kitchen knives with pointed tips as an everyday household item, and replace them with kitchen knives with rounded tips, as the hon. Member for Huntingdon mentioned. It is well documented that pointed knives are more likely to pierce vital organs and sever arteries—injuries that are far more likely to be fatal. Rounded knives are much less likely to cause lethal injuries, and most of us rarely use the pointed end of a kitchen knife when cooking.

The Crime and Policing Bill limits the purchase of new knives, but there are already millions of pointed kitchen knives in drawers around the country. The safer knives group, of which I am a member, has suggested a pilot scheme to convert pointed kitchen knives into safer, rounded-tip knives. We need to encourage manufacturers to replace pointed knives with rounded knives, and to discourage the sale of pointed knives by creating a price differential.

As I have said, making knives safer is only one step in reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries. Education, intervention and support, following the methods of the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit, would produce long-term solutions. It is also vital that we collect more data on the types of knives used in any knife-related crime. Information, policy changes, legislation and expert advice are all important, but it all has to lead to a change of behaviour, so that communities stop killing each other with knives, and that must be a national priority. I know the Minister agrees with me on that, but we must see action, and we all have to work on that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor]

I completely agree. I will come on to that later in my speech. I have spoken to the organisers and leaders of the Chris Donovan Trust in my constituency. They spoke about the challenge of getting into some schools to talk about knife crime, because of the perception that talking about it was a problem in itself. That was so frustrating to hear.

We need to have honest, open conversations with young people in schools. Teachers must be equipped with materials to educate the next generation, so that we break the cycle of violence. Even if a child is not at risk of committing a knife-related offence, educational programmes serve a critical role. They can teach children about the consequences of knife crime long before they consider carrying a weapon. That is vital. We need to reach young people and win the war for their hearts and minds before the prevailing climate of fear and the harbingers of toxic mindsets start their offensive. I urge the Government to consider introducing mandatory personal, social, health and economic lessons on the consequences of weapons possession, and to put the principles of restorative practice on the curriculum, in recognition of the great work of groups such as the Chris Donovan Trust in my constituency. We teach children from an early age about the dangers of diseases caused by smoking or alcohol; why, then, are we not having open discussions with them about the health risks associated with carrying a knife? Creating safe spaces for discussion, and building relationships with young people, can ensure intervention before thoughts of crimes arise, and deaths can be prevented.

To fully realise the nourishing, community-focused element of a public health approach, though, we must invest in youth services and community programmes that engage young people. Winning the war for hearts and minds means providing young people with opportunities to build skills, pursue education, and find alternatives to gang culture and criminal activity. However, as was mentioned in many speeches, we have seen a dramatic decline in youth services funding over recent years, with cuts totalling £1.1 billion since 2010. This has left too many young people without the support they need.

Investing in youth services is not just about providing safe spaces; it is about providing young people with alternatives to violence, so that we break the cycle of crime, shift the culture of violence, and empower communities to work together to prevent crime before it escalates. The targeted early help and integrated support team at Sutton borough council in my constituency does exactly this kind of work, offering opportunities to young people who are not often afforded the luxury of such attention elsewhere in their lives. However, these programmes rely heavily on grants from the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, the Ministry of Justice, and violence reduction services. Those grants are subject to constant uncertainty, often approved at the last minute and often only allocated for 18-month to two-year periods, preventing proper forward planning. We must do better than that. We need to consistently get serious funding to these initiatives in a timely manner. I echo the calls from the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) about funding for these community schemes.

Lib Dem Members will continue to push the Government to make youth diversion a statutory duty, so that every part of the country has a pre-charge diversion scheme for young people up to the age of 25. That will ensure better outcomes for young people and less strain on police resources, but let us be honest with ourselves: police resources are already strained beyond breaking point in too many places, and education and early intervention alone are not enough to properly implement a public health approach. Visible community policing starts with actual police numbers in our London boroughs. To tackle knife crime, it is important for young people to see bobbies on the beat in London. Their active and engaged presence creates a sense of safety and security. We have to get back to meaningful community policing, returning the police to their proper duty as a positive, engaging arm of the state in people’s lives.

Building trust between young people and the police is also crucial. This trust communicates that there is no need to carry knives for protection, as young people know that the police are there to keep them safe. As I have said before, when 17-year-old Ilyas Habibi was stabbed to death outside Sutton station in my constituency in December 2023, he was just minutes away from a police station. If we cannot expect visible policing in town centres and the areas closest to police stations, how little have we come to expect of community policing? To be clear, that is not a criticism of the police, but a criticism of successive Governments and mayors, who have consistently failed to get the police the resources they need to do their job. In London, far too many police are abstracted away from the communities they are supposed to serve to help plug gaps.

I was deeply concerned to learn of Sadiq Khan’s budgeting decisions, which have led to dedicated police officers in schools in London being removed. Under the “A New Met for London” plan, officers will no longer be stationed in schools as part of the safer schools officers programme. While the plan claims that officers will still work closely with schools, the change reduces the consistent direct contact between officers and young people. That contact is crucial in building relationships with young people to foster trust. There should be plenty of positive interactions and experiences with the police throughout young people’s formative years. That can be achieved through school assemblies or classroom workshops. Young people need to understand that the police are there to keep them safe on the streets and are not the enemy, but when sparse police resources are focused on only the most extreme forms of deterrence, such as live facial recognition and stop and search, and when there is no community focus, it is unsurprising that they do not.

The hallmark of a meaningful public health approach that invests not just money, but serious political capital, is that it brings together all groups in our communities. It creates a coalition of care, breaks down the silos between projects, and builds a team across society committed to doing what it takes to rescue young people. On behalf of countless experts, professionals and parents, and on behalf of young people, I implore the Government to build that team, to create that coalition of care and to finally implement a meaningful public health approach to knife crime.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for telling the House about the excellent work in her constituency, in particular the role of the PCSOs.

Time is short and a lot of questions were raised with me. If I do not have the chance to answer all of them, I will write to hon. Members specifically. The House will know that, under the safer streets mission led by the Home Secretary, we are driving a whole-of-Government approach to halving violence against women and girls, halving knife crime, and restoring confidence in the policing and justice system. As a part of that, the plan for change sets out our key reforms to strengthen neighbourhood policing, tackle antisocial behaviour and improve public confidence in law enforcement.

On offensive weapons, any effective response must include action to get dangerous knives and weapons out of circulation and off our streets. We have already demonstrated our commitment to putting in place stronger controls in the months since the general election. We implemented the ban on zombie-style knives and zombie-style machetes on 24 September. It is now illegal to sell or own those weapons. Furthermore, we committed in our manifesto to banning ninja swords. We have consulted on the legal description and are progressing our plans to bring forward an effective ban later this year.

A number of hon. Members referred to online sales. We are clear that we need stronger checks in place to prevent under-18s from being able to purchase knives online, which is why, last October, the Home Secretary commissioned Commander Stephen Clayman, as the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for knife crime, to carry out a comprehensive review into the online sale and delivery of knives, which was published on 19 February. We are taking immediate action on a number of key recommendations from the report.

We have also announced Ronan’s law, named after Ronan Kanda, who was fatally stabbed in June 2023, following dedicated campaigning by his mum, Pooja Kanda. Ronan’s law will comprise a range of measures including requiring online retailers to report any bulk or suspicious-looking purchase of knives to the police, and the introduction of a new offence of possessing an offensive weapon with intent for violence.

The Home Secretary has also announced that the Government intend to strengthen age verification controls and checks for all online sellers of knives at the point of purchase and on delivery. As raised by the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, we will be bringing forward amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill to enact our manifesto commitment to introduce personal liability measures for executives of online companies that fail to take action against illegal knife and offensive weapons content.

The coalition to tackle knife crime, announced by the Prime Minister in September 2024, brings together campaign groups, families of those who have tragically lost their lives to knife crime, young people who have been impacted and community leaders, united in their mission to save lives. It is important that we have the lived experience of young people in that coalition, and we are working with our member organisations to ensure they have a platform to hear those young voices share their views, ideas and solutions for making Britain a safer place for the next generation.

Many of my hon. Friends have referred to Young Futures hubs and prevention partnerships, including my hon. Friends the Members for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) and for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal). We know that too many children and young people today are facing poorer life outcomes, including becoming involved in knife crime, because they are not effectively identified and supported early on. This can be caused by limited life opportunities or because they are particularly vulnerable. To address these issues, we have committed to the creation of the Young Futures programme, which will establish a network of Young Futures hubs and prevention partnerships to intervene early on, to ensure that this cohort is identified and offered support in a more systematic way.

The Young Futures hubs will bring together the support services that tackle the underlying needs of vulnerable children and young people, making them more accessible to those who need them. The hubs will promote children and young people’s development, improve their mental health and wellbeing, and prevent them from being drawn into crime. The Young Futures prevention partnerships will identify children and young people who are vulnerable to being drawn into crime and violence, including knife crime, antisocial behaviour and violence against women and girls, and divert them by offering them effective and evidence-based support in a more systematic way.

I will refer briefly to county lines and child criminal exploitation, which was referred to by a number of hon. Members. County lines is the most violent model of drug supply and is a harmful form of child criminal exploitation. Through the county lines programme, we are and will continue to target exploitative drug dealing gangs and break the organised criminal groups behind the trade. We know that knives play a huge part in that. [Interruption.] I can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you want me to conclude.

There is so much more to say on this, but, in conclusion, I again want to congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon on securing this debate. We have to get a grip of what is, as we said in our manifesto, a national crisis. The public want change and we are determined to deliver it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Ben Obese-Jecty to wind up quickly.

Crime and Policing Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. We have a very oversubscribed debate, so it is unlikely that everybody will get to speak. I am bringing in a four-minute time limit with immediate effect, just to try to get more people in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

There is much in the Bill with which my party agrees. In fact, many of its provisions were written by my party in government, so it was strange to hear the more partisan remarks from the Home Secretary earlier in the debate. After decades in which crime was falling, that happy trend has sadly begun to reverse. The Home Secretary noted that overall crime increased by 12% in the last year, but she did not admit that it is still far lower than when Labour was last in office. However, there is obviously much to be done.

The sentencing guidelines published last week explicitly instruct judges that a pre-sentence report will normally be considered necessary if the perpetrator of a crime is from an ethnic minority, cultural minority, faith minority community or is female, transgender, a drug addict or a victim of modern slavery, trafficking, or exploitation. The guidelines are clear that minorities should receive lesser punishments than white people, especially white men. The provisions about slavery, trafficking and exploitation are an invitation for lawyers to help illegal immigrants to escape the reach of the law.

That is not the first official direction to tell judges to put identity politics before the once sacred principle of equality before the law. Last July, the Judicial College’s “Equal Treatment Bench Book” said that

“in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.”

Putting that principle into practice, the bench book warns, for example, that the

“family impact of custodial sentences was particularly acute for black mothers, as far more black…families…are headed by a lone parent”.

Similar attitudes exist in policing. The “Police Race Action Plan”, published by the College of Policing, promised to stop the over-policing of black communities and complained that such communities are over-policed, but under-protected. The action plan noted that black people are more likely than white people to be murdered and to be victims of knife crime, but it failed to add that black people are more likely to commit these crimes, too.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about the Second Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill and its contents.

[Nick Timothy]

Indeed. I find it baffling that we are debating the future of the criminal justice system and not talking about the erosion of the principle of equality before the law. Disparities in policing and criminal justice do exist—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman again that, in order to speak in this debate, he needs to stay in scope of the content of the Bill in front of us.

[Nick Timothy]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was going to turn to some specific measures in relation to police reform and the Bill. According to the Government’s impact assessment, the Bill will

“provide an additional 13 to 55 prison places”,

yet the Government expect to see 5,000 additional crimes recorded by the police annually, resulting in 400 prosecutions and 300 convictions per year. Those numbers do not add up, unless the Government intend to continue their policy of releasing prisoners early.

Passing legislation is not a substitute for genuine and sophisticated police and criminal justice reform, and I will make some suggestions to the Government. First, we should abolish the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which represents centralised unaccountable power, and transfer its functions to more accountable entities. The College of Policing should be directed by the Home Secretary to ensure that forces focus more clearly on crime fighting. We need to reduce the size of the Met in London, with its national responsibilities transferred to the National Crime Agency. The Government need to give police chiefs the ability to clear out failing officers and recruit talent from all walks of life.

In the Met, there should be fewer deputy assistant commissioners and fewer commanders. Training needs to be professionalised and better recorded, and workforce planning needs to be improved. There should be better use of productivity-improving technology and streamlined processes from arrest to prosecution. We need to reform the police grant to make sure that forces focus on strategic threats. New technologies mean that fraud, identity theft and cyber-crimes will present a huge challenge. We can no longer expect police forces to recruit generalist officers, hoping that they can all offer the perfect blend of leadership, empathy, strength and investigatory skill. Instead, we need greater specialisation.

As I said, it seems crazy that we are debating this Bill without debating whether we remain equal before the law. There is much to be welcomed in the Bill, but I hope we will see far greater energy in the undeniably tough job of police reform.

International Women�s Day

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose�]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. We start with an immediate four-minute time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose�]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I am imposing an immediate three-minute time limit. I call Seamus Logan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for securing this important debate and all hon. Members for their powerful contributions. My constituency has a proud history of electing only women since the seat was reintroduced in 1997, and I am honoured to continue that tradition today as the 680th female MP. Representation matters.

Stourbridge is home to many incredible women who provide much for our constituency, but I worry that, in a society that can move so fast at times, we may forget to take the time to make our appreciation truly known to one another as often as we should. In my role, I am fortunate to interact with many amazing women in my constituency, and this year I launched the Sisters of Stourbridge Awards as a chance to shine a light on some of the incredible women making a difference every single day. I would like to tell the House about them.

Chloe Cox is an English teacher at Ridgewood high school who bravely returned to the classroom after surviving a life-threatening brain tumour. Pupils and colleagues alike are so happy to see her back and her resilience is inspiring.

Mandy Hobbis campaigns tirelessly for road safety laws to protect cats, ensuring they are treated with the same respect as dogs. As a champion for animals and the owner of three cats myself, I believe the work that Mandy is doing is important in helping to raise awareness and deliver parity for our pets.

Kate Cooke overcame a stroke to become a human resources manager at one of our great local businesses in Brierley Hill, Emmiera, and has introduced programmes that support children and college students with opportunities for work experience and apprenticeships.

Judith Moreland is a leader in the arts, keeping her In Sound Company community choir alive since 2012, performing at prestigious events such as Community Spirit at Birmingham Symphony Hall and at the Commonwealth games. Her dedication has fostered growth, inclusivity and perseverance, and did so especially during lockdown.

I will also be celebrating Rosemary Taylor, who is in her 80s but still goes out every day, in all weathers, with her little trolley, litter picking all around the area. Heather Cruickshanks turns 80 this year, but she still runs a Rainbow unit and helps the Guides and Trefoil Guild. She was described as an amazing woman by constituents, who are so grateful for her.

Let me not forget Elsie Gayle, who is a driving force behind the all-party parliamentary group on Black maternal health and is fighting to improve maternal care in the UK. Another nominee, Emma Kilbride, is raising funds for Mary Stevens hospice through her Stourbridge jigsaw library. In just 15 months, she has raised more than �26,500.

Anji Burford works at Atlantic House supporting local people in recovery from drugs and alcohol. Last but not least is Samantha Billingham, who I have mentioned in the Chamber before. She is a fierce campaigner for domestic abuse survivors�

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call Jerome Mayhew.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

As other speakers have said, International Women�s Day was born out of struggles waged by past generations of women whose efforts and sacrifices will by and large not be recorded in the history books, but whose actions have enabled other women to walk an easier path through life than they perhaps did.

Unfortunately, the continuation of that struggle seems more pertinent now than at any other time in my adult life, as there is a concerted attempt to roll back the hard-won gains of the women�s movement. We see that in the toxic influence of a resurgent, reactionary politics, amplified via two loosely regulated social media platforms enabling misogyny literally to reach into the bedrooms of young teenage boys. I am referring to not just the Andrew Tates of the world, but the Donald Trumps of this world, who ridicule the very notion of there being an unequal playing field that hinders the lives of women�indeed, Trump and his supporters state the exact opposite. In their world, it is men, and white men in particular, who are the real victims of moves to tackle inequality.

Two things about that narrative worry me. First, it is getting traction in this country. A study conducted by the Global Institute for Women�s Leadership at King�s College London found that nearly one in two Britons�47%�say that when it comes to giving women equal rights with men, things have gone far enough in Great Britain. That is a notable increase on the 38% who said the same last year, and a stark increase on the proportion who felt that way as recently as 2019. That means that for the first time, Britons are now more likely than Americans to agree that women�s equality has gone far enough.

Secondly, those views normalise misogyny and encourage violence against women and girls. They literally put women�s lives in danger. It is therefore critical for MPs to reassert the reality of institutionalised misogyny and sexism, which more often than not is denied, whether in the House of Commons, the police force or the military, where instances of misogyny are put down to some bad apples and the institutions involved are let off the hook. We have to demonstrate more forcefully a zero-tolerance approach to hate and abuse against women. We also need more practical measures right now to make it safer for women to live their lives free of harassment and to go about their everyday lives without fear of attack. Two years after the murder of Sarah Everard, it should be the least that we can do in her memory, and in the memory of approximately 450 women murdered by�

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose�]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I inform the House that we will begin the Front-Bench speeches at 3.15 pm. We have six people left who are hoping to speak.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Much like my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), I am the fifth woman in a row to represent Falmouth, which is part of my constituency. The first woman to represent Falmouth, in 1997, was selected through an all-woman shortlist.

It is more than 50 years since Barbara Castle introduced the Equal Pay Act 1970 to the House of Commons. She was obviously a pioneering woman�the first female Secretary of State for Employment. She supported the Ford factory workers� strike in Dagenham, which paved the way for equal pay legislation. However, it was not until 1984 that female workers at the Ford factory received full skills recognition in line with the men. Just last year, the Fawcett Society reported that the mean gender pay gap for full-time workers is still 11.3%.

Decades after the first equal pay legislation, we still have a long way to go. It is hard to get equally paid work before having children, and it is even harder afterwards, so I am pleased that this Labour Government are bringing in measures that will help us get there, such as flexible working and better childcare provision. Our expansion of free childcare and universal breakfast clubs for primary school children will relieve some of the pressure on working parents�let us be honest, we mean mothers, who still often carry far more of the mental load.

When my son was small and I became a single mum, my income dropped exponentially. I had left a job in a city to move to Cornwall and start a family. I found a job that fit in with school hours, but despite such jobs being vital, they are often low paid and less secure, so improving childcare in this country and making it more important is crucial to eliminating the gender pay gap.

The Employment Rights Bill, which was introduced in the House in October, has many provisions that will help. Flexible working will become the default where practical, and it will be harder for employers to refuse flexible working requests. This will allow women with caring responsibilities to balance them more easily with work. It will also benefit women suffering from health conditions such as endometriosis, who will be able to manage their symptoms and appointments. I have met a number of constituents with endometriosis who have shared stories of their chronic pain and multiple surgeries making it difficult for them to work. They also struggle to feel heard and supported by the medical profession, feeling that they have to fight for treatment and sometimes having to wait years for diagnosis, as has been pointed out.

Companies with more than 250 employees will be required to create action plans addressing gender inequality, including menopause. I know from bitter experience that migraines, sleeplessness and hot flushes can be debilitating, as can basic words dropping out of my head. Having arrangements and an understanding in place will enable more women to keep working.

Skilled social care workers are chronically underpaid for what they do. The job I found as a single mum and retrained for was as a teaching assistant, and working in a school in a supporting role is another sector where the pay is very low. I am very pleased that the Bill gives respect and recognition to social care workers and support staff in the school support staff negotiating body and�

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

There have been many powerful contributions by hon. Members across the House this afternoon. My contribution will not focus on abuse, violence, intimidation or even health issues. Instead, I would like to speak a little about domestic equality and fairness.

It is an incontrovertible fact that women have been discriminated against by men for centuries. The historical struggle for equality and fairness that women have had and continue to have is incredible. The fact that it took until 1928 for women to receive equal voting rights with men is astounding, and it is wrong that it took until the Equal Pay Act 1970 to make equal pay compulsory between male and female employees.

On the issue of pay, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for securing both this debate today and a Westminster Hall debate on pay gaps just a few weeks ago. In a Scottish context, pay gaps are a very current issue: the Scottish Trades Union Congress has shown that women in Scotland can expect to see themselves earn an incredible �3,000 a year less than men, and the gender pay gap in Scotland has risen from 6.4% in 2023 to 8.3% in 2024. This is unfairness in action and shows that the fight is very much ongoing, as workplace gender inequality is still tolerated in modern society.

Now we are in government, Labour would do well to heed the political power of women, especially those born in the 1950s, because their discontent at pension inequality has become a national movement�the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. Now that we have the power that could correct the injustice suffered by the WASPI women, we really should deliver on what is right and deserved.

Credit to the WASPI women: they continue to fight against the injustice of which they are victims. They are not going away. Theirs is a movement based on the values of fighting against discrimination and inequality, a struggle women know so well. We on the Labour Benches, as socialists, and especially my female comrades, know that power concedes nothing without demand. It never has, and it never will.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the final speaker from the Back Benches�with just a very short speech, Naushabah Khan.

[Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this International Women�s Day debate as the first female MP for Gillingham and Rainham. I am surrounded by so many hard-working and driven women from across the House. Regardless of the party we represent, politics has always been a vehicle for smashing gender stereotypes, pulling down barriers to entry and forging trailblazers.

However, despite the progress made in our politics, there is still work to do, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) so eloquently outlined, and the under-representation of women in certain industries unfortunately extends beyond Westminster, with real implications for our society and our economic prosperity as a nation.

Let us take construction as an example. The ONS reported that, as of 2023, only 15% of the construction workforce were female. When I visit MidKent college, which serves my constituents, I am inspired by the young women who are passionate about entering the industry, but the reality is that they will be entering a sector with low female representation across the board and systemic barriers to career progress.

Our armed forces and the defence sector are vital components of the Government�s strategy to deliver economic growth and national security. It is therefore critical that women can look to the military feeling confident about their own careers, yet we still hear stories of those in the military facing misogyny, harassment and bullying. One woman who faced sexual harassment took her own life.

The need to recruit women and ensure that they stay in our forces is a challenge for our society and, indeed, our Government. Looking back at our history, we see lessons that we can learn from the important efforts of female service personnel who were pivotal in the British war efforts in world war one, world war two and many subsequent conflicts. Indeed, one of Medway�s key cultural assets is a reminder of such triumphs. HMS Cavalier was built solely by women in only nine months in 1944 �I do not what that says about nine months!

Our investment in our national security needs to ensure that we have accessible pathways for women to join our armed forces, but also, importantly, to stay there, fulfil their potential and keep Britain safe, as they always have done.

I recognise that, across all these sectors, significant work has been undertaken to address inequality, but there is a battle to fight on outdated gender stereotypes, which are imposed from a young age and go on to have lasting consequences. Britain has always been at its best when women are given the opportunity to excel in their chosen pursuits. On International Women�s Day, with its theme of accelerated action, I remind this House of its obligations to enable women across the UK to pursue the occupations they are passionate about and create new pathways so that they can realise their ambitions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

Ahead of International Women�s Day this Saturday, I want to celebrate women�s achievements. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on securing this important debate today, on being a trailblazer for this Parliament�s diversity, and on speaking so passionately.

We have made the most amazing progress since the inaugural International Women�s Day following workers� rights protests in the early 20th century. Women in this country can now vote, start a business or undergo surgery on their own body without consulting a man. The absence of those rights might feel faintly ridiculous now, but they were hard won in our relatively recent past, and we must remember that they do not apply universally across the world. We must also recognise that, while so much progress has been made, given the current global political environment, this progress has never felt so precarious.

This year marks 250 years since Jane Austen�s birth, in our beautiful Hampshire countryside. Austen�s novels, despite high praise and popularity, were published anonymously, and it was her brother who often dealt with her publishing negotiations. One of her first books was simply written under the authorship: �By a Lady�. As we celebrate World Book Day today as well, it is a perfect opportunity to reflect on the enduring impact of authors such as Austen, who not only shaped our literary world but challenged the societal norms in their time.

Thankfully, women�s literature in the UK is no longer published anonymously, but we still live in a world where 122 million girls are out of school, 496 million adult women worldwide cannot read or write and women make up two thirds of the global illiterate population. Issues of education and illiteracy will be worsened by the recently announced cuts to international aid. That policy, as highlighted by the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), will disproportionately harm women.

We need foreign policy with gender equality at its heart not just because it is the right thing to do, but because countries that educate girls do better economically for everyone. We must also increase international development funding initiatives that aim to eradicate sexual violence and abuse in areas of conflict. The UN confirmed a 50% rise in conflict-related sexual violence between 2022 and 2023. Women and girls made up 95% of the victims. It is not just sexual violence: 61% of preventable maternal mortality�that amounts to about 500 deaths a day�occurred in 35 crisis-affected countries, and the average incidence of child marriage was 14.4% higher in conflict-affected countries than in non-conflict settings.

Women continue to be abused across the world. Murder is still the leading cause of premature death in women, and as we have heard, every 10 minutes a woman or girl is murdered by her intimate partner or a family member. We heard powerful testimony from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) on rape and sexual assault. We must develop our support mechanisms by embedding domestic abuse specialists in every police force, increasing protections for refugees and expanding our rape crisis centres to tackle these crises.

I am proud to be the first female Member of Parliament for North East Hampshire�the 658th female MP on the list�and a Member of the Women and Equalities Committee. I support the powerful personal and professional testimony of our Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who spoke on health inequalities, as did the hon. Members for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball).

Strides are being made in the House to improve the lives of women and achieve equality. The Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019, which was originally introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), criminalised upskirting.

It has been heartening to hear such powerful speeches across the House on a wide range of topics, but women must also be protected financially. Right now in the UK, women continue to be economically disadvantaged in the workplace. Median hourly pay for women is 7.7% less than for men, and in Hampshire that gap almost doubles. The gender pay gap also worsens with age: among full-time employees aged 40 and over, the gap widens considerably due to the motherhood penalty. That is not a fact that we should accept. Women deserve better from their workplaces and from the societal structures that enable that to continue. Policies such as increased paternity leave will help women to have a fair share of wages. Improving policy for women also improves it for men. As the hon. Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) said, equality benefits everyone.

Today, I speak proudly as a progressive, internationalist, cosmopolitan woman inspired by the strength of women leaders. Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand impressed the world with her management of crises from terrorism to the pandemic while being the second-ever elected world leader to give birth in office. Kamala Harris was the first female, the first black and the first Asian-American Vice President of the USA. Sanna Marin, who became the world�s youngest Prime Minister in 2019, guided Finland to become the 31st member of NATO. In the face of sexism in political life, who can forget Julia Gillard�s 2012 speech on misogyny in which she powerfully addressed the sexism to which she had been subjected? It is that persistence, resilience and fortitude that women and girls must continue to have in political, public, professional and private spaces across the globe so that we continue moving in the right direction towards equality for all women. We are not there yet, but our progress must be celebrated.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Prevent: Learning Review

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the publication of the Prevent learning review into the perpetrator of the attack that tragically killed Sir David Amess on 15 October 2021.

Sir David Amess was a beloved Member of this House. A hugely respected parliamentarian, his popularity extended right across the political divide. To win and keep the respect of those outside one’s own party is, as we all know, a rare accomplishment. Over nearly 40 years of service in this place, Sir David fought every day for his constituents. He advanced numerous causes with compassion, persistence and skill, and Members on all sides of the House knew him as a warm, respectful and always fair parliamentarian. His legacy lives on, not least in Southend, which now has the city status he campaigned so determinedly for. He will never be forgotten, and as the motto on Sir David’s memorial shield behind me states, “His Light Remains”. While this House lost a hugely valued Member on that terrible day, Sir David’s wife and children lost a loving husband and a devoted father. They are in our thoughts and prayers today and always.

Together with the Home Secretary, who spoke with Sir David’s family recently, I recognise the courage and persistence they have shown in seeking the answers that they deserve. As the House will know, it was a heinous act of violence on 15 October 2021 that took Sir David away from those who knew and loved him. The killer, Ali Harbi Ali—and I will not say his name again—was convicted of murder in April 2022 and received a whole-life sentence. The judge said that this

“was a murder that struck at the heart of our democracy”,

and he had “no doubt whatsoever” that the nature of this case meant that the perpetrator

“must be kept in prison for the rest of his life.”

The perpetrator had previously been referred to the Prevent programme and subsequently to the specialist Channel programme between 2014 and 2016, or between five and seven years before the attack took place. Immediately after the attack, a Prevent learning review was jointly commissioned by the Home Office and counter-terrorism policing to examine what happened in the case and see whether lessons needed to be rapidly learned. It was completed in February 2022.

Last week, I made a statement to the House on the Government’s publication of the Prevent learning review concerning the perpetrator of the abhorrent attack in Southport. Today, we are taking a further step to enable public scrutiny of Prevent, and in recognition of the seriousness of the terrible attack on Sir David, by publishing the Prevent learning review conducted in this case, too.

The perpetrator of the attack on Sir David became known to Prevent in October 2014, when he was referred by his school after teachers identified a change in his behaviour. The case was adopted by the Channel multi-agency early intervention programme in November 2014. An intervention provider who specialised in tackling Islamist extremism was assigned to work with him. The perpetrator was exited from Channel in April 2015 after his terrorism risk was assessed as low. A 12-month post-exit police review in 2016 also found no terrorism concerns. The case was closed to Prevent at that point. There were no further Prevent referrals in the five years between the case being closed and the attack.

The Prevent learning review examined how Prevent dealt with the perpetrator’s risk, and how far the improvements made to Prevent since he was referred seven years prior would have impacted on his management. The review considered both the handling of the case at the time and the changes that had been made to Prevent since the referral in 2014. It examined how far those changes addressed any problems identified, and then made a series of recommendations.

The reviewer found that

“from the material reviewed, the assessment in terms of”

the perpetrator’s

“vulnerabilities was problematic and this ultimately led to questionable decision making and sub-optimal handling of the case during the time he was engaged with Prevent and Channel.”

It identified that the vulnerability assessment framework was not followed, with the perpetrator’s symptoms being prioritised over addressing the underlying causes of his vulnerabilities. The reviewer ultimately found that, while Prevent policy and guidance at the time were mostly followed, the case was exited from Prevent too quickly.

The reviewer identified six issues: the support given did not tackle all of the vulnerabilities identified; record keeping was problematic and the rationale for certain decisions was not explicit; responsibilities between police and the local authority were blurred; the tool used for identifying an individual’s vulnerability to radicalisation was outdated; the school that made the referral to Prevent should have been involved in discussions to help determine risk and appropriate support; and the tasking of the intervention provider was problematic, with a miscommunication leading to only one session being provided instead of two.

The reviewer then examined how far changes in the Prevent programme since 2016 had addressed these issues. The reviewer recognised the significant changes that had been made to Prevent since the perpetrator was managed, in particular the introduction of the statutory Prevent and Channel duties under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. The reviewer concluded that over the intervening period there have been considerable changes to policy and guidance for both the police and the wider Prevent arena, including Channel.

While a number of the issues in the perpetrator’s case would most likely not be repeated today, there were still a number of areas that could be considered as requiring further work to mitigate future failures. The reviewer made four recommendations for actions to further strengthen Prevent. These were to improve the referral process, strengthen the initial intelligence assessment process, update the tool used to identify vulnerability to being drawn into terrorism, and to not reduce data retention periods.

Since the report, the Home Office and counter-terrorism policing have fully implemented all four recommendations. First, a single national referral form was launched to encourage a consistent approach to referrals, building this into new training packages and mandating its use via statutory guidance. Secondly, training has been delivered to police staff to strengthen the initial intelligence check stage, ensuring their understanding of Prevent is robust. Thirdly, a new Prevent assessment framework was rolled out in September 2024, which replaces the tools previously used to assess all referrals and cases in the Prevent system. Fourthly, data retention periods were fully reviewed in 2023, and a joint decision was taken by the Home Office and counter-terrorism policing to maintain retention review periods at six years, or six years after the 12-month review for Channel cases.

In addition to the publication of the Prevent learning review, we recognise the significant concerns that remain over the way in which Prevent dealt with the perpetrator, as well as the need to ensure that the recommendations it suggested for improving the scheme have been properly implemented. Last week, I set out to the House a series of new reforms instituted by the Government to strengthen the Prevent programme, recognising the vital work done by officers across the country to keep people safe. That included the creation of a new independent Prevent commissioner. I can today inform the House that the Home Secretary has asked the Prevent commissioner to review the Prevent programme’s interactions with the perpetrator in this case, and ensure the implementation of all relevant recommendations. We will ensure that the Amess family have the support they need to engage with the Prevent commissioner in this work, so that they can have confidence that it will get to the truth about any failings in the scheme.

Two further important issues have been raised that are relevant to this case—local policing and Members’ security. On local policing, concerns have been raised by the Amess family about the way in which Essex police handled this case. A complaint has been made, and referred back to the local force by the Independent Office for Police Conduct for consideration. That process must be allowed to follow its course. However, I can inform the House that the Home Secretary has written to the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner of Essex police asking them to set out how the investigation will be conducted, and to be kept updated as the investigation progresses.

Members’ security is something the Home Secretary and I care deeply about, and I know it is a matter to which Mr Speaker attaches the utmost importance, as will all Members across the House. A review of security measures for MPs commissioned under the previous Government has concluded, and all the recommendations have been implemented. We must ensure that the learnings from this case have been properly implemented.

I take this opportunity to thank Mr Speaker for his continued leadership on these matters. The Speaker’s Conference is specifically considering what reforms are necessary further to improve MPs’ security and safety, which is another important step. The Leader of the House, the Home Secretary and I look forward to working closely with Mr Speaker and all Members to ensure that the facts of the appalling murder of Sir David are properly considered as part of the Speaker’s Conference’s work, and that the Parliamentary Security Department implements the recommendations it made following the review it conducted in the aftermath of Sir David’s death.

I am also grateful to previous Home Secretaries and Security Ministers for their efforts in this area. Our democracy is precious, and this Government will defend it against any and all threats, not least through the defending democracy taskforce, where we are mounting a whole-of-government response to combat these threats, including ensuring that elected representatives can perform their duties safely and without fear.

To conclude, I pay tribute once more to Sir David. He was a giant of this House and we miss him dearly. In all that he did, Sir David epitomised public service at its best. It is beyond a tragedy that we can no longer seek his advice or rely on his wisdom. We can, though, follow his example and devote ourselves every day to the task of building a better, safer Britain. That is our shared challenge, and under this Government, nothing will matter more. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I very grateful to my hon. Friend, not least because this is an issue of the most profound importance to his constituents. He is completely right that we must hold Sir David’s family in our thoughts and in our hearts today. He is also completely right that we should strive to ensure— and I know that we will—that we never forget Sir David.

My hon. Friend is in his place close to where I remember Sir David used to stand. Sir David was, among many other things, a complete master of the pre-recess Adjournment debate. I can see him now standing there confidently, expertly and authoritatively reeling off a very long list of requests that he completely expected the Government to get on with and deliver for his constituents. He was truly inspirational. We will never forget him.

I absolutely give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks that we will continue to work closely with the family and with all hon. Members to ensure that, through the work of the independent Prevent commissioner and the work I referenced earlier with regard to the Home Secretary writing to Essex police, the family get the answers that they rightly deserve.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am grateful as always to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. What happened to Sir David Amess was a terrible tragedy. Though I am new to this House, I have heard many stories of his kindness and his compassion, and I know that he is sorely missed across these Benches. We owe it to Sir David’s grieving family and to the people of Southend to ensure that a tragedy like that can never happen again. That means ensuring that our counter-terrorism strategy is fit for purpose and able to work with communities to tackle the modern challenges that our world is facing.

The Liberal Democrats have long raised questions about whether Prevent is best placed to deliver that. As we have learned over recent weeks, these failures are not happening in isolation, so it is right that the Government have asked the Prevent commissioner to look at this case. I would welcome further assurances that the commissioner will have a wide-ranging remit to take a comprehensive look at Prevent. I urge the Minister again to put the role on a statutory footing. The remit must include looking at how Prevent communicates with other agencies such as local authorities and different police forces.

Local communities need to be at the centre of our counter-terrorism strategy, whether that means keeping them safe or ensuring they are effectively engaged. Will the Minister outline how communities will be consulted on any upcoming counter-extremism strategies?

As the Minister mentioned, this tragic case has also brought to light questions about MPs’ safety. Will he please provide some more details on how the defending democracy taskforce is progressing with its work, particularly on helping to keep Members and their families safe? It is my hope that we can continue to work across the House to deliver the effective counter-terrorism strategy that our country deserves. We owe it to the Amess family to make that a reality.