Police Reform White Paper

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is right to say that too many of our police forces are distracted from being able to police their local communities because they are dealing with national level issues, including national issues relating to public order. All those functions will ultimately sit within the new National Police Service, but in the interim I will appoint a special command to deal with public order policing in particular, to ensure consistency of approach across the country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

After a busy weekend policing Labour leadership rows, the Home Secretary is today in the House to announce reforms to policing. I think we all agree that we hope she is more successful with the latter than she was with the former.

This Government came to power with a pledge to increase police numbers, but instead of 13,000 more neighbourhood police, the latest stats tell us that we have 4,000 fewer frontline police. Numbers are down, and so is public trust. The police are stretched, and too many crimes are going unchecked. After years of Conservative chaos, people are crying out for a visible police presence in their communities. That is why we welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to focus on restoring proper community policing; we hope that is more than simple words. As well as getting more police on our streets, the Home Secretary must also address the horrifying decline in police counters and stations, which began under the Conservative but sadly continues under Labour in London today. Will she commit to ensuring a police counter in every community that needs one?

Policing must be fit for the modern era. It must be able to tackle organised crime, which too often presents itself in our communities through mobile phone theft, drug dealing, car crime and bike theft. Can the Home Secretary reassure the House that the new national force will be properly resourced and integrated with local forces, so that counter-terrorism and intelligence work are not undermined? As local forces are abolished and merged, we must not see vital links lost to local communities. For example, Gloucestershire police is one of the smallest forces, with urban and rural policing teams. If its leadership is placed under the control of a Bristol-based force, how will people in Cheltenham, Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds be reassured of that local focus?

Is placing the power to hire and fire chief constables in the hands of the Home Secretary the right approach? Does it not further politicise policing, particularly with the prospect of the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) as a future Home Secretary in a Farage-led coalition of chaos between the Tories and Reform?

Rural communities have long been neglected. Will the Home Secretary commit to placing dedicated rural crime teams in every force?

Finally, the Home Secretary mentioned facial recognition. Will she ensure that proper safeguards are put in place to ensure that the technology is not biased, and that those from ethnic minorities can be reassured that they will not be wrongfully criminalised?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Before I call the Home Secretary, I remind Members that a lot of people are on their feet to ask a question, and I want to finish this statement at around 5.30 pm. Will you answer one of those questions, Home Secretary?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I think that is me being told to go faster. Let me assure the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) that we are consulting on the safeguards for the use of AI in technology and live facial recognition. I assure him that I will always make sure that robust safeguards are in place, and I am sure that we will debate these issues in the House many times over the months to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s views, but it is precisely because I understand the difference, which he raises, between areas such as those he represents and those I represent that I am bringing in this new model for policing. I believe this is the right model to ensure that it does not much matter where people are in the country—whether Shropshire or inner-city Birmingham —because they will always have excellent, high-quality neighbourhood policing, with a local force entirely committed to policing their local area day in, day out, and dealing with all the crimes that we know are tearing at the fabric of our communities; a regional force, which can do the specialist investigations at scale, so that they do not get a different standard of service depending on which part of the country they are in; and a National Police Service that I believe will bring in the NCA and counter-terrorism policing in a way that will make sure we are all kept safe. We are the only major country that does not have those two functionalities together, and I think it is the right change to make.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

To ask a nice short question, with a nice short answer, I call Mohammad Yasin.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the Government’s reform agenda in support of our mission for safer streets. In Bedfordshire, Operations Boson and Costello—tackling guns, gangs and organised drugs crime—have driven major arrests and a 15% fall in antisocial behaviour in Bedford town centre, backed by £7.3 million in special grants. Will the Home Secretary commit to maintaining these grants or to integrating them into core police funding to ensure that effective, evidence-based, local crime reduction programmes continue to protect our communities?

West Midlands Police

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, I will make a statement on the decision to ban the travelling fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv from attending a game at Villa Park in November last year. The decision was taken by Birmingham city council, following the advice of the safety advisory group, which acted on a recommendation by West Midlands police.

The House will be familiar with much of the detail, not least as the Home Affairs Committee has applied itself to the matter with its customary forensic focus, but it is important to begin this statement by laying out the facts. On 8 October, at a meeting with a number of chief constables from across the country, I was informed that West Midlands police force was considering its options to ensure the game could be conducted safely. As the minutes of the meeting show, a ban on fans was one of the options under consideration.

Such policing decisions are subject to operational independence. Politicians cannot dictate how the police choose to manage risk, so although my Department sought information thereafter on what decision was to be taken, I did not seek to influence it. I did not because I could not while a range of options were still under consideration. All options remained on the table until a decision was eventually taken by the safety advisory group on 16 October. The decision taken that day to ban the travelling fans was clearly of considerable national and even international importance. Maccabi Tel Aviv fans who sought to travel to this country to enjoy a football match were told that they could not, because the game’s safety could not be guaranteed. This came, lest we ever forget, just two weeks after the most horrific antisemitic terrorist attack this country has ever known. On 16 October, the day the decision was taken, the Prime Minister and I both voiced our considerable concern, setting out our belief that the game should go ahead with all fans present.

The Government sought further information from West Midlands police and offered the resources required to ensure that the game could go ahead. A subsequent meeting of the safety advisory group was then arranged, on 24 October. At that moment, its chair requested

“a wholly fresh consideration of the issue”,

at which point the intelligence provided by West Midlands police hardened, and the recommendation to ban fans was upheld.

In the days that followed, it was clear to me that an external review of the decision was required, as well as a review of wider questions around safety advisory groups. On 31 October, I commissioned a rapid review by His Majesty’s inspector of constabulary and fire and rescue services, Sir Andy Cooke, and on 27 November, as the intelligence that the force provided was called into doubt, I asked him to look specifically at that issue.

Today, I have received Sir Andy’s interim report, and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Sir Andy’s findings are damning—there is no other way to describe them. The force, we now discover, conducted little engagement with the Jewish community, and none with the Jewish community in Birmingham, before a decision was taken. As Sir Andy says, it is no excuse to claim, as the force now does, that high holy days during the relevant time prevented engagement.

Most concerningly, Sir Andy describes, in the approach taken by West Midlands police, what he characterises as “confirmation bias”. This means that rather than following the evidence, the force sought only evidence to support their desired position, which was to ban the fans. This saw West Midlands police speaking to Dutch police following a game in which there had been fan violence, while failing to speak to police in other countries—Greece, Ukraine and Denmark—where Maccabi Tel Aviv had played more recently, and where things had gone more peacefully.

The West Midlands police engagement with the Dutch police is one of the most disquieting elements of Sir Andy’s report. The summary provided as evidence to the safety advisory group ahead of its crucial meeting on 24 October was inaccurate. Claims including those about the number of police officers deployed, the links between fans and the Israel Defence Forces, the targeting of Muslim communities, the mass tearing down of Palestinian flags, and attacks on police officers and taxi drivers were all either exaggerated or simply untrue.

In his report, Sir Andy is clear that the force’s validation of intelligence was a cause for “significant concern”, and that record keeping within the force was “poor”. He was “especially concerned” about the handling of sensitive information that should never have been shared without redaction. Sir Andy also points to a series of public statements from West Midlands police that we now know to have been misleading. He shows that the police overstated the threat posed by the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, while understating the risk posed to Israeli fans if they travelled to the area. The term “misleading communications” also extends to the words of the chief constable himself at his appearance in front of the Home Affairs Committee; he claimed that artificial intelligence tools were not used to prepare intelligence reports—a claim since refuted by one of his own officers, who blames incorrect evidence on “an AI hallucination”.

I know better than most that West Midlands police officers do their duty bravely, day in and day out. Sir Andy’s report does not argue that the entire force is failing, but it is clear from the report that on an issue of huge significance to the Jewish community in this country, and to us all, we have witnessed a failure of leadership that has harmed the reputation of and eroded public confidence in West Midlands police, and policing more broadly.

Faced with a game of such importance, the chief constable of the force, Craig Guildford, should have ensured that more professional and thorough work was done. As Sir Andy says, the shortcomings detailed in his report are

“symptomatic of a force not applying the necessary strategic oversight and not paying enough attention to important matters of detail, including at the most senior levels.”

The ultimate responsibility for the force’s failure to discharge its duties on a matter of such national importance rests with the chief constable. It is for that reason that I must declare today that the chief constable of West Midlands police no longer has my confidence. It has been, as I understand it, over 20 years since a Home Secretary last made such a statement, but on the evidence provided by Sir Andy Cooke, the chief inspector of policing, that is now the case.

Until 2011, the Home Secretary had the authority to dismiss a chief constable, but the power was removed by the previous Conservative Government. Today, only police and crime commissioners hold that power, so the chief constable’s future rests with the local police and crime commissioner, and not with me. I am sure that Simon Foster will now follow all due process as he considers the question for himself. However, I believe that this case illustrates that Home Secretaries should, in future, have that power restored to them. When a chief constable is responsible for a damaging failure of leadership, the public rightly expect the Home Secretary to act, and I intend to restore their ability to do so. I can announce today that the Government will soon reintroduce the Home Secretary’s power to dismiss chief constables in the light of significant or persistent failings, and that this will be part of the Government’s upcoming White Paper on wider police reform, with legislation to follow. I do not expect the power to be used often, but it must be available at those rare moments when it is warranted.

Sir Andy Cooke’s report is devastating. It catalogues failures that did not just affect the travelling fans but let down our entire Jewish community in the west midlands and across the country. I speak today not just as Home Secretary, but as a Member of Parliament for a Birmingham constituency. In his report, Sir Andy says that he believes that the police acted in an attempt to avoid long-term damage to local community relations; if that is the case, what a grossly misguided effort it was.

Peaceful, harmonious communities rely on a police service that, above all else, pursues the truth. We live in a world where misinformation flows freely and dangerously; in this case, the police added further misinformation to the public debate, when they could and should have provided the truth, which could have allayed fears. In doing what it did, West Midlands police force did not support community relations; instead, it inadvertently made things worse. This must serve as a lesson to police forces throughout the country—a reminder that they are called to their profession to serve truth and the law, and to police our streets without fear or favour, and that community trust and cohesion depend on them doing that above all else. With that, I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

Ultimately, the final decision on the West Midlands police’s recommendation to the safety advisory group was from the chief constable.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

The recommendation by West Midlands police to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans was clearly an incredibly serious mistake. That has been shown in evidence by Sir Andy Cooke’s damning report. Not just the decision but how it was made and the fact that misleading statements were covered up is damning. The latest examples of how artificial intelligence was used in coming to the decision, after multiple denials, beggar belief and risk seriously undermining public trust in the police, and not only in the west midlands but across the whole country.

The chief constable of West Midlands police does not have the Home Secretary’s confidence. He does not have mine, and I assume that he does not have that of most of the House. He needs to consider his position and go now. I am pleased that the Home Secretary went to quite unprecedented levels to say that he should go, and I am pleased that she has spoken to the House first. Will she meet the police and crime commissioner later today to call for the chief constable to go?

We need the Independent Office for Police Conduct to investigate what has gone on in West Midlands police. Will the Home Secretary ensure that takes place? We have already seen delays to the Hillsborough law and its duty of candour, including just this week. Does the Home Secretary agree that this incident shows the need to put the Hillsborough law on to the statute book as soon as possible? Finally, we need urgent transparency and clarity on the use of AI by police forces. Does the Home Secretary agree, and what plans does she have to ensure that guidance is given to police forces?

--- Later in debate ---

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

This is truly a sad day for British politics. Despite all the rhetoric in this House, Brummies know the truth: this is nothing but a witch hunt and the chief constable is being thrown under the bus. The Home Secretary knows all too well that West Midlands police have a reputation for working with all communities; it has never caved in to community pressure. We all know this because we regularly have far right protests and marches in our city. The police could have done a better job in terms of procedure, yes, but their reason for banning Maccabi fans was the same from day one. We all know about the unashamed racism and violence, and that is the reason they were banned, because that would have been brought to the streets of Birmingham—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is getting to his question.

[Ayoub Khan]

The police did their job and now they are being punished for it, so I ask the Home Secretary: is it worth throwing our chief constable under the bus just to show that the words of the right-wing media and Dutch officials, under pressure from Amsterdam city hall, matter more than our British police?

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Any procedural failings by our police force or any public authority must be investigated, corrected and prevented. The letter from Sir Andy Cooke mentions that certain risks were overstated and understated, and that should be weighed, but statements in this House that incidents in Amsterdam were “completely fabricated” are also fabricated statements. Sir Andy acknowledges:

“There is evidence that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans targeted Muslims and pro-Palestinians”

in Amsterdam. A report by Kick It Out Israel identified 118 incidents of racist chanting by Maccabi Tel Aviv fans during 2024 and 2025, which is the highest for any club in the Israeli premier league. UEFA fined Maccabi Tel Aviv €20,000 and imposed a suspended away fan ban for their match against—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I ask the hon. Member to sit down while I am standing. There needs to be a question to the Home Secretary.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It is open season on Islamophobia in this Chamber. I am completely against any kind of racism, and antisemitism must be quashed, but so too should Islamophobia. Will the Home Secretary confirm that there is no reference to antisemitic decision making by the police in Sir Andy Cooke’s report and that there is no mention of any Islamist influence in his report? I have the report in front of me—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I call the Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on whether it is appropriate for Members of this House to call into question the intentions of Members when asking questions of the Home Secretary on this issue and to accuse us all of peddling Islamophobia.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I remind all Members to be careful and moderate in their language and to treat this Chamber and Members within it with respect. If we do so, we cannot go far wrong. Although that is not a point of order, it is a matter for the Chair and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising it. That concludes the statement.

I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025—[Interruption.] Order. The Ayes were 301 and the Noes were 110, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Violence against Women and Girls Strategy

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Merry Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker. With permission, I will make a statement on the publication of the Government’s strategy to tackle violence against women and girls.

Let us start with the facts. Last year, one in every eight women was a victim of domestic abuse, stalking or sexual assault. Every day, 200 rapes are reported to the police, and many go unreported. Behind every one of those figures is a woman or girl whose life has been shattered. Behind every crime lies a perpetrator who all too often gets away scot-free.

For too long, we have accepted these statistics as simply a fact of life. Today this Government say: no more. We are calling violence against women and girls the national emergency that it is. We are committing to halve these horrific crimes within a decade, and today we publish the strategy that sets us on that journey. The strategy does something that none before it ever has. Until now, responsibility for tackling violence against women and girls has been left to only the crime-fighting departments, which work so often in isolated ways. They provide support that is vital, but it often comes too late to truly change the story.

This strategy is different. It deploys the full power of the state, across national Government and local government. It draws on the experiences of victims and the power of the third sector to transform our approach to these crimes—in our schools, in our police forces, from housing to healthcare, on our streets and behind closed doors, online and offline. The strategy is designed to deliver three goals: first, preventing boys and men from ever becoming abusers in the first place; secondly, bearing down on perpetrators so that those who have offended do not do so again; and, finally, supporting victims so that they get justice when they seek it and the closure that they deserve.

I will start with how we stop the violence before it starts. Because of the proliferation of content that has the potential to poison young minds, the need to address this issue has never been greater. Our strategy tackles radicalisation and confronts behaviour long before it spirals into abuse or violence. Education is undoubtedly the key. We must empower teachers to challenge harmful attitudes and act before they escalate. To do so, we will invest £20 million to tackle harmful attitudes in young people.

Our universal pledge is to change fundamentally how relationships, consent and attitudes can be embedded through education. That means changing the curriculum and developing training for teachers and external providers on healthy relationships and consent. We will also develop targeted programmes for those starting to exhibit harmful behaviours, and we will pilot interventions in schools, focusing in on and managing risk where abusive behaviours are starting to show. We will provide parents and frontline professionals with the support and training that they need to spot the warning signs of misogyny and act on them.

We will make the UK one of the hardest places for children to access harmful content and misogynistic influences online. We must help our parents to protect their children from harmful, poisonous content. We will ban “nudification” tools, which currently enable users to strip clothes and produce intimate images without the consent of those depicted. We will work with technology companies to make it impossible for children in the UK to take, share or view nude images through nudity detection filters.

First and foremost, our goal must be to stop these crimes from ever happening. That means stopping anyone from ever becoming a perpetrator. It also means bearing down on those who commit these awful crimes. In this strategy, we set out significant new powers and tools to pursue these dangerous individuals. Today, police performance varies from force to force, with more than two thirds of rape cases seeing the victims withdraw support in some police force areas. For that reason, by 2029 every police force in England and Wales will have a specialist rape and sexual offences team, mirroring the approach taken by the Metropolitan police.

We will ensure that police forces use the same data-driven approach to tacking offenders that we apply to terrorists and serious organised criminals. New forensic technology will be used to track down rapists and sex offenders, allowing us to reopen cold cases and bring offenders to justice many years after they thought they had got away with it.

We will ramp up our efforts to take perpetrators off our streets, and we will pursue them online too. Following the approach long applied to disrupting child sex abusers, and acknowledging that violence against women and girls is increasingly happening online, we will deploy covert officers online to disrupt offending and bring criminals to justice.

We must also do more to break the cycle of offending. Through the Drive project, we are investing £53 million in ensuring that high-risk, high-harm domestic abusers are subject to intensive case management arrangements. We will also roll out domestic abuse protection orders across England and Wales. Crucially, they can be applied for by a police officer or a court—criminal or family—and, unlike other orders, they do not rely on the victim to act. In the pilot locations alone, 1,000 victims have already been protected in this way. Now, many more will be.

Where crimes are committed, it is essential that we help those who have suffered to get the justice they deserve and as much closure as is ever possible. I have spent most of my life working with the victims of these crimes, and their voices have informed every decision that we have taken. We will be backing this strategy with over £1 billion in victims funding. That includes over half a billion pounds for victims’ services and another half a billion pounds for providing safe housing for victims of abuse as they escape their abusers. As part of this investment, we will support vital victims’ helplines, set up a new service to connect victims with specialist help through their GP and provide up to £50 million for therapeutic support for child victims of sexual abuse.

In the short time I have today, I have touched on only a fraction of the measures in the strategy—one that signals, in its entirety, a transformation in the Government’s response and a Government who are rising to the challenge of the national emergency that we face. Before I finish, I would like to take the opportunity to thank all those who have helped us get to this point. I am particularly grateful to my counterpart at the Ministry of Justice, the Victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), for her integral role in developing the strategy, as well as to the Home Secretary; her predecessor, who is now the Foreign Secretary; the Deputy Prime Minister; and, last but by no means least, the Prime Minister and the team at No. 10—they have stepped up to the plate with leadership and ambition, and I thank them all. I would also like to thank all those across different Government Departments who I may have been slightly annoying to at times but who have stepped up admirably, from the national health service to police forces, and all my colleagues sat beside me on the Front Bench today. They have worked incredibly hard. I am also grateful for the incredible dedication of the third sector, which has, rightly, long called for the Government to do more.

Most importantly of all, I would like to thank the victims of these awful crimes—those I have met and worked with for many years, whose bravery and determination have inspired me and always will, and kept me going through what seems like a very long career when it too often felt like change was impossible. Without their support, this strategy would have been impossible. It is, above all else, for them.

I end by imploring those here and far beyond these walls to recognise that this strategy is more than a document; it is a call from a Government who recognise this as a national emergency and are willing to back up their words with action. Ending violence against women and girls is the work of us all—those who might spot a young boy at risk of turning down a darker path; those who might see troubling signs in the behaviour of their friends or perhaps even themselves. It will take all of society to step up and end the epidemic of abuse and violence that shames our country. The challenge is great, but I have never felt more confident that we can rise to it than I do today, because change is coming. We can make women and girls safe, at last. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right when she characterises the kind of violent pornography that young people are exposed to. Among other things, part of the strategy is to ban strangulation in porn. Indeed, I am sure that everybody will go away and read the strategy and some of the guidance that comes from the review on pornography and exactly what we have to do. I am very pleased to say that since the introduction of age verification in July, Pornhub has seen a reduction of 77% in its traffic—my heart bleeds for them. We are seeing the green shoots, but my hon. Friend is right that the strategy tackles head-on how we have to work with tech companies, whether through regulation and/or collectivism, to ensure that the kind of vile crimes that we see happening to children in our country cannot happen any more.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. I warmly welcome the Government coming before the House with this much-anticipated violence against women and girls strategy. It is essential that we tackle this issue head-on, and to do that it is vital that we do not just talk about dealing with the horrific consequences of violence—as the Minister has said, that alone is not good enough. We must not accept a system that tells women and girls to expect violence and abuse, but which promises support after their lives have been irrevocably harmed.

Training for teachers is a welcome measure, but unless it is also accompanied by steps to properly moderate online content, there is no doubt in my mind that it will fail. As long as violent misogynistic content reaches children and adults online, this crisis will persist. I have no doubt that the Minister knows that. Will she go further and faster in tackling the devastatingly harmful effect of online content right now? Children are being harmed right now; we need tougher action right now.

We were told that the Online Safety Act 2023 would make a difference—it has not. Now Ofcom has released guidance that we are assured goes further, but it is voluntary and any strengthening will come in only in 2027, which is too late. Without clear legal enforcement, social media companies will continue to put their profits first. Will the Minister commit to holding social media companies properly to account? Will she ensure that Ofcom’s guidance on violence against women and girls becomes mandatory, with enforceable duties and real consequences for failure—now, not in 2027?

Finally, in order for this strategy to succeed where multiple others have failed, it must also include ringfenced funding for specialist services, including for older victims. It must work comprehensively across Government Departments, recognise that minority women may experience violence differently and have clear accountability if progress stalls. Will the Minister set out how the strategy will deliver on each of those points?

Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Before I call the Home Secretary to make the statement, I remind hon. Members that they should not refer to any specific cases currently before the courts, and that they should exercise caution with respect to any specific cases that might subsequently come before the courts, in order not to prejudice those proceedings.

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

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the independent inquiry into grooming gangs, the appointment of its chair and panel, and the inquiry’s terms of reference.

I know that, for many, this day is long overdue. For years, the victims of these awful crimes were ignored. First abused by vile predators, they then found themselves belittled and even blamed, when it was justice they were owed.

In January, my predecessor asked Baroness Casey of Blackstock, who is here with us today, to conduct a national audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse. With devastating clarity, Baroness Casey revealed the horror that lies behind that jargonistic term. It is vital that we, too, call these crimes what they were: multiple sexual assaults, committed by multiple men, on multiple occasions.

Children were submitted to beatings and gang rapes. Many contracted sexually transmitted infections. Some were forced to have abortions. Others had their children taken from them. But it was not just these awful crimes that now shame us. There was also an abject failure by the state, in its many forms, to fulfil its most basic duty: protecting the young and vulnerable.

Worse still, some in positions of power turned a blind eye to the horror, or even covered it up. Despite a shameful lack of national data, Baroness Casey was clear that in some local areas where data was available

“disproportionate numbers of men from Asian ethnic backgrounds”

were “amongst the suspects”. Like every member of my community who I know, I am horrified by these acts. We must root out this evil, once and for all. The sickening acts of a minority of evil men, as well as those in positions of authority who looked the other way, must not be allowed to marginalise or demonise entire communities of law-abiding citizens.

What is required now is a moment of reckoning. We must cast fresh light on this darkness. In her audit, Baroness Casey called for a national inquiry. In June, the Government accepted that recommendation. Today, I can announce the chair and panel that will form the leadership of the inquiry, and a draft of the inquiry’s terms of reference.

The inquiry will be chaired by Baroness Anne Longfield. As many in this place will know, Baroness Longfield was the Children’s Commissioner from 2015 to 2021. She has devoted her life to children’s rights, including running a charity supporting and protecting young people, and working for Prime Ministers of different political parties. In recognition of her service, Baroness Longfield was elevated to the Lords earlier this year. At that point, she took the Labour Whip, which she will now resign on taking up this appointment.

Alongside her, I can also announce her two fellow panellists. The first is Zoë Billingham CBE. Zoë is a former inspector at His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, and currently serves as chair of Norfolk and Suffolk NHS foundation trust. She brings deep expertise in safeguarding and policing, specifically in holding forces to account. The second panellist is Eleanor Kelly CBE. Eleanor is the former chief executive of Southwark council. In 2017, she supported the survivors of the London Bridge terrorist attacks, and the victims of the Grenfell Tower fire of the same year. Together, the chair and panel bring deep experience of championing children’s rights, knowledge of policing and local government, and, crucially, a proven track record of holding powerful institutions to account. Each individual was recommended by Baroness Casey, and her recommendation follows recent engagement with victims. The first thing the chair and panel will do, alongside Baroness Casey, is meet victims later this week.

Today, we also publish the draft terms of reference, which I will place in the House of Commons Library. Baroness Casey was clear this inquiry must be time-limited to ensure justice is swift for those who have already waited too long. For that reason, it will be completed within three years, supported by a £65 million budget. The inquiry will be a series of local investigations, overseen by a national panel with full statutory powers. Baroness Longfield has confirmed that Oldham will have a local investigation. The chair and panel will determine the other locations in due course. No area will be able to resist a local investigation.

These terms of reference are clear on a number of vital issues. The inquiry is focused, specifically, on child sexual abuse committed by grooming gangs. It will consider, explicitly, the background of offenders, including their ethnicity and religion, and whether the authorities failed to properly investigate what happened out of a misplaced desire to protect community cohesion.

The inquiry will act without fear or favour, identifying individual, institutional and systemic failure, inadequate organisational responses, and failures of leadership. It will also work hand in hand with the police where new criminality comes to light, be that by the perpetrators or those who covered up their crimes. The inquiry will pass evidence to law enforcement, so they can take forward any further prosecutions and put more of these evil men behind bars.

The inquiry must, and will, place victims and survivors at the forefront, with a charter setting out how they will participate and how their views, experiences and testimony will shape the inquiry’s work. As I have said already, the terms are in draft form. The chair will now consult on them with victims and other stakeholders. They will be confirmed no later than March, when the inquiry can begin its work in earnest.

Alongside launching this inquiry, Baroness Casey's audit contained a number of other recommendations, which the Government accepted in full. As the inquiry begins its work, we continue righting these wrongs. I can announce today that I have commissioned new research from UK Research and Innovation to rectify the unacceptable gaps in our understanding of perpetrators’ backgrounds and motivations, including their ethnicity and religion. My predecessor wrote to all police forces calling on them to improve the collection of ethnicity data, and while the Home Secretary does not currently have the power to mandate that it is collected, I will rectify that by legislating at the earliest possible opportunity.

The Department for Education is currently interrogating gaps in “children in need” data identified in the audit, which seem to under-report the scale of this crisis. The Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), will soon publish the findings of an urgent review of that data conducted by her Department. Across Government, the audit identified that poor data sharing continues to put children at risk. As a result, we are introducing a legal duty for information sharing between safeguarding partners. We are creating a unique identifier for every child, linking all data across Government, and we are upgrading police technology to ensure data can be shared across agencies.

The audit also identified an absurdity in our legal system, which saw some child rapists convicted of lesser crimes. As a result, we are now changing the law to make clear that children cannot consent when they have been raped by an adult, so perpetrators are charged for the hideous crime they have, in fact, committed.

While the law has protected abusers from the consequences of their crimes, it has too often punished victims. Some survivors were convicted for crimes they had been coerced into, continuing their trauma to this day. We are already legislating in the Crime and Policing Bill to disregard offences related to prostitution, and the Ministry of Justice is now working with the Criminal Cases Review Commission to ensure that it is resourced to review applications from individuals who believe they were wrongly criminalised.

The national audit identified further weaknesses in relation to taxi licensing. Abusers were applying for licences in areas where controls were lax to circumvent protections put in place by local councils to tackle abuse. My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will soon be legislating to close that dangerous loophole in the regulation of taxis.

The audit was clear that justice has not been done. Baroness Casey requested a new national police investigation to bring offenders to justice. Last month, the National Crime Agency launched Operation Beaconport to review previously closed cases of child sexual exploitation. It has already flagged more than 1,200 cases for potential reinvestigation, more than 200 of which are high-priority cases of rape. The evil men who committed those crimes, and thought that they got away with them, will find they have nowhere to hide.

Finally, the audit called on the Government to fund the delivery of its recommendations. Alongside investment in the inquiry itself, I can announce today that a further £3.65 million will be committed this year to the policing operation, survivor support and research into grooming gangs.

That work is essential, but there can be no justice without truth. Today, I have announced the chair and panel of an inquiry that will shine a bright light on this dark moment in our history. They will do so alongside the victims of these awful crimes, who have waited too long to see justice done. This inquiry is theirs, not ours, so I call on all those present to put politics aside for a moment and to support the chair and her panel in the pursuit of truth and justice. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her long work exposing many of the issues herself in her area, which will now be the subject of the national inquiry. She is right: it is utterly shocking and defies comprehension that people whose only job was to look after vulnerable children failed in their duty to those children. The inquiry will ensure that those people face ultimate accountability for their failures.

I hear my hon. Friend’s point about the inquiry covering every single area, and there is no doubt that child abuse occurs in every part of the country. One of Baroness Casey’s recommendations was that the inquiry be time-limited, because so many of the victims and survivors have waited so long for a proper measure of justice in their cases. She recognised that there is a necessary trade-off between the inquiry being time-limited and it being able to go to every single area. I am sure, though, that the inquiry, the chair and the panel will engage constructively with Members across this House to ensure that they get to the right areas and can draw the lessons that will then lead to national recommendations. Even if the lessons come from a smaller cohort of areas, all the recommendations will apply absolutely everywhere.

The Government have invested billions in child protection measures already in this Parliament, but I recognise the call that my hon. Friend has made. I am sure that when the recommendations are made, the Government will respond on money in due course.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The despicable, sickening crimes that we have heard about today were first reported in the press more than 20 years ago, and the victims have already waited far too long for justice, so we welcome today’s announcement. We also welcome other details in the statement, including reforms to ensure that children cannot be considered to have consented to sexual activity with adults—the fact that that was the case is a shame on our nation—and moves to close loopholes in taxi licensing, as well as the points about data collection.

Some questions remain about the process. How will the Government ensure that the inquiry remains fully independent and free from political influence and pressures regardless of the strong pressures it will face, including from in this House, and that it runs to timetable? Are Ministers still in touch with the women who recently resigned from the previous panel to offer them the chance to rejoin the process now that it is gaining some pace? What steps will the inquiry take to maintain the trust of the victims and their families? Will the Home Secretary commit to implementing all the previous recommendations from the previous Casey and Jay reviews?

The national audit highlighted the incompleteness of data, but it was suggestive of concerning trends related to the modes of organisation and how they relate to ethnicity, particularly in the areas where police were recording appropriate data. The Home Secretary rightly mentioned cohesion in her statement. How will this inquiry avoid stigmatising entire communities and undermining efforts to improve cohesion in this subject and in others adjacent while thoroughly investigating the matter and ensuring that victims get the justice they deserve?

Angiolini Inquiry

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Angiolini inquiry.

I cannot begin anywhere else than with acknowledging the abhorrent crime that led to the establishment of this important inquiry in the first place. Sarah Everard’s murder by a serving police officer was a betrayal of trust so wretched that it defies belief. None of us will ever forget the collective sense of sorrow, outrage and revulsion that swept across the country in the aftermath. There were far-reaching implications for policing and the public’s confidence in those who are meant to serve and protect our communities. Let us always remember that this began with a young woman losing her life: a beloved daughter, sister and friend gone because of an act of pure evil. Today, I am thinking of Sarah, of the years denied to her and of her loved ones. They are all in our hearts, as are the other victims of violence against women and girls who have lost their lives. As the Justice Secretary said, I have been with some of them this morning and we hold them—I am sure I speak for the whole House—very closely in our hearts.

Part 1 of the Angiolini inquiry focused on the career and conduct of Sarah’s killer, while part 2 was commissioned to examine broader issues in relation to policing and the safety of women. The first of two reports that will make up part 2 of the inquiry has been laid before the House and published today. It examines what more can be done to prevent sexually motivated crimes against women in public spaces. The report starkly highlights that many women do not feel safe due to the actions and behaviours of predatory men, and that they are assuming the burden of their own protection themselves through avoidance measures such as not going out at night, avoiding dark streets and modifying their use of public transport. This is, as we all know, utterly unacceptable. As the inquiry chair, Lady Elish Angiolini, puts it so clearly in the report:

“Somehow, we have simply come to accept that many women do not feel safe walking in their streets.”

This is a substantial and significant report, and I urge all Members to read it in full. It acknowledges that there is a range of ongoing work which seeks to prevent these terrible crimes and disrupt predators, but it also highlights that there is no quick fix and demands a more consistent approach across the whole of society to address and prevent this violence.

At this point, I would like to place on record my heartfelt thanks to Lady Elish and her team for their work. They have approached, and continue to approach, their task with skill, sensitivity and determination. Today’s publication underlines why it is so vital that every agency and every sector does more to protect women from harm. This Government are resolute: the fact that women do not feel safe going about their everyday lives is a national emergency. The House will also be aware of our landmark commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, which will require us to address the root causes of abuse and violence to prevent offending and relentlessly pursue those who perpetrate these appalling crimes.

Since the general election, we have played a more active role to ensure that women and girls receive more consistent protection from policing. We have provided £13.1 million to deliver a more co-ordinated approach and national leadership to drive up investigative and operational standards through the National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection. The new centre is ensuring that expertise, including from programmes such as Operation Soteria and Project Vigilant, is put into practice in forces across the country. They were both highlighted in Lady Angiolini’s report. We are also clear that those who commit these heinous crimes have absolutely no place in policing. To address that, and to help fulfil recommendations from part 1 of the inquiry, we are putting police vetting standards on a statutory footing, which will enable forces to exclude those with a caution or conviction for VAWG offences from policing. We are also strengthening requirements on forces to suspend officers under investigation for these crimes.

I know there is a great deal of interest in our upcoming VAWG strategy. I was in No. 10 with the Prime Minister and stakeholders working on it today. It will deliver a bold step change in how we, as a Government and a society, address VAWG over the next decade. As the inquiry’s report highlights, we cannot address entrenched issues in isolation. We must draw on all of society and I place emphasis on this being a truly cross-Government strategy. Prevention is fundamental to our approach, alongside strengthening our response to target perpetrators and stop them causing harm. Having lived and breathed its development over several months, I am as eager as everyone else to get it out there. It will undoubtedly answer some of the issues raised in this important report. It is on its way very soon and I am confident that it will live up to expectations.

As Lady Elish highlights, too little has been done to deliver consistent protections for women and girls, and progress has fallen short. We find ourselves at a moment of reckoning. As someone who has spent their working life trying to secure real lasting change, I know it will not be easy, but in honour of the victims and their families, and for the sake of women and girls across England and Wales, we must succeed. This Government will not stop until we have. I commend the statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his tone and his genuinely constructive questioning. The first thing to say is that, absolutely, Operation Soteria started under the previous Government—I worked on it alongside Ministers, as well as police forces, at the time—and in that spirit, I always welcome such cross-party working. It seems that Operation Soteria has been a game changer, as Lady Elish’s review certainly highlights. The review also states that it needs to be on a consistent footing, so we very much hope that putting it in the new centre will provide consistent footing to the very good work started under the previous Government, which I absolutely give them credit for.

On the issue of data, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. What data we measure and how data needs to be improved will absolutely be part of the strategy. The Government have said that they are going to halve violence against women and girls within a decade—the first time that any Government have tried to put any numbers on it—and we cannot have numbers unless we have a lot of data, so looking at data will be very important.

The hon. Gentleman highlights the issue, which Lady Elish herself talks about, that progress has not been fast enough. The recommendations for the Government in the previous report are being undertaken, but a clear issue throughout the report is the nature of the 43 police forces, as everybody will see when they read it. One of the reasons for having the new national centre for violence against women and girls is to try and do something about that. We also need fundamental reform with regard to policing and standards, so that we do not end up with a postcode lottery across our country. The Home Secretary has already announced some reforms around police and crime commissioners, but broader policing reforms will be coming in the new year, for the exact reason that Lady Elish outlines, which is the postcode lottery across police forces. How confident am I? I am always confident that we will undertake as much as possible. That will never be as fast as I or anyone would like it to be, because this is hard work, and we cannot just change things for good announcements. We have to change the culture, and that is going to take a lot.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

I echo the statements made by both the Minister and the shadow Minister with regard to Sarah Everard’s loved ones; our thoughts are with them today. For any victim to come forward, especially those who have experienced gender-based violence or sexual violence, the public must trust the police—and more than they do currently. The Angiolini inquiry found that a quarter of police forces lack even basic policies for investigating sexual offences. As trust and transparency hopefully improve and increase, so will the number of reports to the police. Will that impact how the Government measure the halving of violence against women and girls? Will the Minister also share progress on vetting to remove police officers who pose a threat to the public?

[Jess Phillips]

Obviously, it was a manifesto commitment of this Government to ensure that there were specialist RASSO—rape and serious sexual offences—teams in every police force, for the exact reason that my hon. Friend has outlined. It is not in the gift of Ministers standing here to ensure that something exists in every police force, because—quite rightly—of operational independence. However, there is a need for standardisation. For example, we would not allow the same lack of standardisation in response to terrorism—a point that Lady Elish makes in her review—and yet we allow it with regard to crimes against women. That is fundamental. Of course, I want to see an increase in police charging and police reporting, but that is not how we will measure whether we are decreasing incidents. Only 10% of victims of violence against women and girls ever talk to the police, so that in and of itself would never be a good measure. Of course, I want to see rates increasing, but that does not mean that the crime is always going up; it might just mean we are getting better at detecting it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

All our thoughts today will be with the family of Sarah Everard. More than four years on from her horrific murder, too many women are still suffering life-changing crimes on our streets. The inquiry makes it painfully clear that women continue to feel unsafe. They change their daily routines just to avoid very real threats. That is unacceptable in Britain today.

Part one of the inquiry showed that Wayne Couzens should never have been allowed to become a police officer. Multiple opportunities to stop a dangerous sexual predator were missed or ignored. As Lady Elish Angiolini warned, without radical action,

“there is nothing to stop another Couzens operating in plain sight.”

Today’s report underlines just how radical that action must be. The lack of basic data on sexually motivated crimes against women and the fact that over a quarter of forces still lack fundamental policies for investigating sexual offences are nothing short of horrifying. The inquiry finds that sexually motivated crimes against women in public are not prioritised to the same extent as other serious offences. We are told that prevention “remains just words” while perpetrators slip through the cracks. Those are shocking findings that shame our nation.

Will the Minister commit to implementing all 13 of Lady Angiolini’s recommendations, and will she set out a timeline for their implementation? This Government pledged to halve violence against women and girls within a decade, yet the strategy has still not been published. Will the Minister reassure us that this manifesto promise will be met, as she has said? Will she tell us today when it will be published? She says it will be soon; I think people will be reassured by a date.

Migration: Settlement Pathway

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend brings a huge amount of personal experience to this discussion, having been a Minister herself, and she has a very august track record as a Select Committee Chair, so I will always take seriously any suggestions that she makes. I will discuss with my ministerial team the detail of what she suggests. Our principled position is that it is right that people pay fees for visa extensions, and that we move from a five-year to a 10-year qualifying period for settlement. We are not consulting on whether we move from five years to 10 years, which is already decided policy. What is set out in the consultation are some of the other questions that sit underneath that. I will happily discuss that with her, because I know she has much experience in the area of Home Office capacity and how we build a system that can work effectively, not only in being delivered by the state but in providing certainty for the people who ultimately want to make their lives in this country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before I begin, I beg your forgiveness for taking a few extra seconds to reflect on the exchanges in this Chamber on Monday. I would like to use this opportunity to put on the record my utter contempt for those who abuse the Home Secretary and anybody else who is abused based on the colour of their skin or their religion. That is not what Britain stands for.

The Home Secretary will, of course, choose the language that she wants to use in this debate, and I will choose my language too. The constructive and moderate tone of voice that I and the Liberal Democrats will use in discussions about immigration will remain, as will our attempts to help offer feedback as and when the Government bring forward proposals. The number of Liberal Democrats present today shows that we are not ignoring this issue; indeed, we have as many in the Chamber as there are Reform Members—and none of them is here.

Like others, we are aware of the issues facing communities up and down the country, and immigrants who live here too. We agree with the Home Secretary that faith must be restored in the immigration and asylum system, as I stated on Monday, and we agree that that requires changes to policy. Of course, most of what we are discussing today is distinct from some of the discussions we had on Monday about desperate refugees and asylum seekers.

We also believe that it must be acknowledged that prior to Brexit and the removal of nearly all safe and legal routes, this country had a more rational and controlled approach to immigration and asylum. The Conservative party is responsible. We think it is regrettable that the Government have not made quicker progress towards building stronger links with Europe in their work on getting control of our immigration policy, and we believe that discussions about regaining control must also come with a proper discussion about the opportunities that that provides and the potential risks.

Changes to pathways to settlement must be done with regard to the economy and public services, and with fairness to individuals. We are concerned about the chilling effect that some changes could have on the economy. The UK is fast becoming a less competitive place for science and innovation, not least because of Brexit. The cost of a five-year global talent visa to Britain is £6,000 per person—around 20 times more expensive than comparable visas in our competitor countries, where similar schemes typically cost a few hundred pounds. It is no surprise that so few researchers come to Britain on these visas every year. Cancer Research UK alone spends £900,000 annually—money that could be better spent on setting up research labs instead.

The Government must also be careful about the effect that their rhetoric and policy will have on our public services. The NHS is heavily reliant on nurses and staff who are not British nationals. Has the Home Secretary made an assessment of the risk that some will leave, and what steps are this Government taking to develop domestic talent in the health and care sector?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Members will notice that we have two debates after this business. I am going to finish this statement in around 10 minutes, so I ask remaining Members please to keep their questions short and the Minister to keep her answers short.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I ask, as someone who was not born in this country, whether the Home Secretary agrees that we should not stop talking about the benefits of immigration while managing migration. As she has already acknowledged, will she confirm that we will always offer sanctuary to those truly fleeing peril? Does she accept that for those people, we should be making settlement and integration into British society quicker and easier, not more difficult?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

It is immoral if we stand by and watch people make dangerous crossings, pay thousands of pounds to criminals, and put their lives and those of others at risk, while we do nothing. That would be a total dereliction of duty. It would also be a dereliction of duty for a Labour Government to continue to preside over a broken system, or to not have the mettle to go ahead and reform that system, and then watch as we lose public consent for having an asylum system at all. I think it is existential for us to have public consent for the asylum system, which is why all the changes are so necessary.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Bobby Dean, with a very short question.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her confirmation about the five-year pathway for Hongkongers—that is a promise kept to them. The statement was otherwise a series of push measures. I am always fascinated by how much more difficult it gets, when it comes to the individual decisions made within the system. To push the Home Secretary on the Boriswave, which she has criticised, the vast majority of those figures were made up of Hongkongers arriving here under the BNO scheme, Ukrainian refugees, and deferred student visas after the covid pandemic. Which of those measures does she think was a mistake?

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 19th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Ballinger]

Yes, of course. We are a compassionate country, and a place of refuge for many people who are fleeing persecution or face other issues. Everything that the Government have announced this week, and the measures in the Bill, allow us to be compassionate; but we can also be also tough on the smuggling gangs, who are in no way compassionate, and who are bringing people into this country on very dangerous journeys.

As I said, people are fleeing conflict and poverty, and I have mentioned in other debates the importance of the Foreign Office investing in conflict resolution and prevention in order to mitigate the challenges from which people are fleeing. However, that does not excuse the smuggling gangs that are operating for profit, or the organisations that market these dangerous journeys, often on Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp or Telegram. They are selling the service of smuggling people across continents on dangerous journeys. I am pleased that Lords amendment 8 cracks down on online gangs’ marketing and advertising, and that we have some tough new criminal measures to use against them. I understand the need not to place the liability on the platform providers, but how will we work with those platforms, if we see smuggling gangs advertising routes or selling illegal work opportunities on them? How will we ensure that the legislation is effective?

Lords amendments 12 and 13 are about cracking down on such advertising, even if it is not in the UK. People advertising smuggling opportunities are likely to be based in Europe or the middle east, so it is important that our legislation is extended to allow us to go after the gangs operating outside the UK, where possible, and I welcome that change.

In summary, this is an excellent Bill and I support the amendments. It is important that we use all the powers that we have to go after the smuggling gangs. The legislation is an important step, and I am pleased that we are building on it with what the Home Secretary announced earlier this week.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats and I want to stop dangerous small boat crossings. We want to stop the smuggling gangs and bring them to justice. The former Conservative Government failed to do either. My constituents in Woking and people across the country need this Government to deliver a compassionate, effective and fair immigration and asylum system. If this Government thought that this Bill and the amendments were enough to do that, the Home Secretary would not have come to the House on Monday to announce another raft of immigration measures.

Asylum Policy

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

I welcome the rhetoric in the Home Secretary’s announcement. In fact, I recognise her rhetoric. We have our plan for restoring justice, and she has announced a plan to restore order and control. However, before she puts in her application to join Reform UK—and I would very much welcome her doing so—may I just draw out the difference between our parties?

Unlike the Government, we do not propose to give illegal immigrants the right to stay here for two and a half years after arriving; we do not propose to give them the right to study and work here; we do not propose to allow them to bring their families here; and, crucially, we are not going to contort our law to comply with and fit into the European convention on human rights. The derogations announced by the Home Secretary will not work to stop the lawfare, just as the derogations announced in the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 would not have stopped the lawfare, which is why I opposed that Bill as well. She talks about—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I do not think there was a question in there, Madam Deputy Speaker. As for the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to join his party—hardly any of whose Members appear to be present—let me say to him, “Over my dead body.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Before I call the next Member, can I just make a plea that we keep questions and answers concise?

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly welcome the measures which I believe will tackle a failure by the previous Government to maintain one of the most basic fundamental functions of government: control of our borders. My constituents are worried and angry about the proliferation of houses in multiple occupation to house asylum seekers in towns and villages that already have significant social and economic problems. Will the measures lead to lower demand from the Home Office for that type of housing for asylum seekers and the return of HMOs over time to use as family homes for local people who need affordable housing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I urge my hon. Friend to look at the proposals on protection work and study and on safe and legal routes. It is right that we try to pivot to a more humane system that privileges those who come not via paying people smugglers a lot of money. On family reunification, British citizens at the moment have to meet thresholds and various qualifying tests before they can apply for family reunion. I think it is right that we bring the position in relation to refugees through the protection work and study route to the same level.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Members will have seen how many Members are on their feet. I will need to finish this statement by 8 pm, so please bear that in mind, because I want to get everybody in.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I welcome a sizeable amount of what the Home Secretary has said and is trying to do. Earlier this year the immigration and asylum chamber of the upper tribunal in the case of IX reiterated the established administrative law requirements that Government decision making in asylum cases be proportionate and reasonable and not expose individuals to prolonged or indefinite uncertainty—something that the Home Office used to criticise, under the Tories in fact, as a lengthy limbo period. Can the Home Secretary clarify how her proposal to require a 20-year period before someone granted asylum may obtain a permanent right to remain complies with these fundamental principles?

--- Later in debate ---

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)]

Sivanandan warned:

“What Enoch Powell says today, the Conservative Party says tomorrow, and the Labour Party legislates on the day after.”

Seizing valuables belonging to asylum seekers, making refugees wait 20 years before they can apply to settle permanently, and deporting entire families, including children who have built new lives here, because their country of origin is deemed safe—these measures are straight out of the fascist playbook. The Home Secretary has described herself as a child of immigrants, so I ask her: is she proud to introduce measures that punish and persecute desperate and vulnerable people seeking sanctuary? How does it feel to kick away the ladder and be praised by fascist Tommy Robinson? I must add—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. [Interruption.] Order!

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will clarify a point of fact. The hon. Member said that I describe myself as a child of immigrants. It is not a description; it is just a statement of fact. Everything else she said is beneath contempt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Denyer]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State accused one of my Green colleagues of hypocrisy when in fact she had been objecting to the warehousing of asylum seekers in military barracks, which is a position in line with Greens in the Chamber and, in fact, all major refugee rights organisations. I wonder whether the Secretary of State would like to withdraw her grossly misleading remarks and baseless accusation of hypocrisy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Adnan Hussain, who I understand also has a point of order that relates to remarks made by the Home Secretary.

[Mr Adnan Hussain]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. After my earlier intervention, the Home Secretary stated that she “should not be surprised to see the hon. Gentleman indulging in misinformation” in here. I take my responsibilities in this House extremely seriously. I am confident that every point I have raised was made in good faith, based on publicly available information, and was neither misleading nor inaccurate. May I therefore seek your guidance on how a Member may respond, or have the record clarified, when a Minister makes such characterisation without providing any evidence, clarification or correction, in particular where it risks implying dishonesty on the part of a Member who had no opportunity to respond further at that moment?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that it was not misleading; it was just wrong, so I can clarify that for the record.

I say to the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) that I think it is a fair point of debate to point out that the Green party often indulges in hypocrisy. I shall look carefully at what her colleague has said in relation to the large military sites, but I say to her that the Green party never seems to offer any solution, only commentary that does not work.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank both Members for their points of order. Their comments are now on the record.

Asylum Seekers: MOD Housing

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for those questions, and recognise the anger that the hon. Gentleman has conveyed. I am sorry that he heard in the way he did, and of course I will have that meeting with him. It can be difficult to sequence these things correctly; as all colleagues know, we live in an age of misinformation and disinformation, and trying to sequence who hears what and when can be sticky. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman should not have heard in the way he did. The same is true for the hon. Member for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani), whose duties as Deputy Speaker preclude her from taking part in these proceedings. I recognise the strength of feeling that she has conveyed to me in no uncertain terms about her views and the views of her constituents, and their opposition to these plans. I will continue to engage with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady, and I encourage her local authority also to do so. Again, I recognise the strength of feeling.

Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s other questions, of course the location of the site has been considered. We are looking at all sites in that way; whether it is a hotel or dispersed accommodation, the local context is always considered. I would gently say that both sites have been used recently for the Afghan resettlement scheme, so there is a clear understanding across Government of the capabilities of those sites and their locations.

However, I want to be very clear about what is at stake here. The hon. Gentleman talked about the closure of hotels, and we know that hotels are an exceptionally challenging issue in this country. Too many people come to this country having been sold the dream that they will be housed in a hotel and will be able to work illegally in our economy. Today, we have announced that we have had our best ever year for illegal work raids, with 1,000 people deported as a result, but we have to break the model that says, “You’ll get to live in a hotel and work illegally.” Closing the hotels is a really important part of that work.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Since this Government entered office, the illegal immigration crisis has gotten seriously worse on every front. The number of people arriving in this country illegally is up, and not just by a little bit; arrivals are up by more than 50% compared with the same period before the election. Before the election, the number of migrants staying in hotels had fallen by 47%. It has now gone up, and fewer of the people breaking into this country illegally on a small boat are being removed.

We are now in a position where the Government are putting forward a proposal that, in opposition, they described as “an admission of failure”. The Defence Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), is unable to say whether the plan will save us money or cost us more. We also hear that this proposal will involve accommodation on a site that is directly next to homes provided to the families of our brave armed forces personnel. Have the Government consulted those families about this plan?

All this demonstrates that we need much stronger proposals than the weak efforts the Government are presiding over. That is why we have put forward the borders plan, which goes beyond tinkering with the system. If we want to stop the use of this accommodation, we need to change completely how we approach this problem and ensure that all illegal immigrants are removed within a week. It is a comprehensive plan based on our proposals to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, reform how our asylum system operates, and remove the blockages that have prevented the removal of illegal entrants. It is a proposal that is not only practical, but fair, as those who come to the UK illegally should not be housed at the taxpayer’s expense in ever greater numbers. People need to know that if they break into this country, they will be detained and deported. That is how we will solve this crisis.

I will finish by asking the question we are all wondering: when will the asylum hotels close? Will the Government commit to closing all asylum hotels within a year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

I have studied that report closely. There have been more than a thousand lessons learned from the previous Government’s attempts to solve this issue. We are taking those in hand to make sure we do it right. My hon. Friend talks about the cost. I am pleased that in our time in office we have reduced the cost to the taxpayer of the asylum system by £1 billion, including £500 million across the hotel estate, but it is clear, including from his Committee’s reports, that we have to go further, and that is what we are doing. We are, within the parameters of the contracts we inherited, sweating things. Where there is money to be recouped, we will recoup that for the taxpayer, but it comes back to the fundamental question that if we want to spend less money on this type of activity, we have to have fewer people in the estate. That starts with breaking the attraction that they have to come to this country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

We share the Minister’s concern about the approach of the official Opposition. Clearly, they left us with this mess and now they feign outrage. It appears that this Government’s proposal, sadly, is to decant asylum seekers from one kind of unsuitable and costly accommodation to another. Instead, they should be tackling the real issue: speeding up asylum decisions so that those with no right to stay are returned and those with a valid claim can work, pay tax and integrate.

I will pick up the Minister’s point about the difficulty of sequencing communications. As a Member of Parliament who had an asylum hotel opened in his constituency, I was informed several weeks in advance. I offered a much better alternative form of accommodation somewhere else nearby. As I found out, the Home Office was determined to open a hotel, because that alternative was not taken up. The alternative accommodation would have been more appropriate, and my constituency feels let down.

The Government have promised to end the use of hotels by 2029, yet they have put forward no credible plan to achieve that. The Lib Dems have set out a plan for ending hotel use in just six months by declaring a national emergency and setting up Nightingale processing centres to bring down the backlog. Will the Home Secretary match the Lib Dem plan by declaring that national emergency today? Will the Minister confirm whether the plan that he has put forward means speeding up decisions and returning those with no right to stay, or does it simply mean shifting large numbers of asylum seekers from one form of accommodation to another? Will he share what assessment has been made of the relative merits of Army barracks that are in or next to urban areas, as opposed to those in rural areas? Finally, will he concede that cutting overseas development spending will drive more people away from conflict zones to seek safety in Europe and onward unsafely on to boats in the English channel?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have just been debating the important matter of asylum seekers in MOD accommodation. Could you confirm, as I hope Hansard will, that in the nearly 37 minutes that we have spent debating this important matter, no Member of Reform has been in the Chamber or, indeed, made any contribution whatsoever?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. However, he will know that it is not a matter for the Chair.

Borders and Asylum

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

We are seeking accelerated legislation to bring in the new independent appeals commission. The hon. Gentleman will know that once that legislation begins its passage through the House, it will be possible to start implementation and make sure we can invest in getting the trained adjudicators in place. We will provide an update before the end of this year, both on the timetable and on the further details of how that appeals system will work. Obviously, it has to be fully independent of the Home Office and of the Government, but it needs to be able to surge and respond swiftly in order to prevent the growth of huge backlogs. I really hope that the hon. Gentleman and his party will be able to support that legislation, because if they do so, we will be able to move it through much more quickly and implement the new body much more quickly.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Dr Scott Arthur.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I had forgotten how much I enjoyed bobbing.

We all want to be proud of the UK’s asylum system, but because of the mess we inherited from the previous Government, none of us are there right now; that is just a fact. I thank the Home Secretary for the methodical work that she is doing to get a grip of the situation and get the system back on track. It really pains me, though, that some of the people who are behind this mess are now sitting on the Opposition Benches and seeking to weaponise it, rather than apologising to the country. Does the Home Secretary share my hope that extending the Ukrainian visa scheme and the refugee student scheme, bringing Gaza students here and supporting injured Gazan children will provide a chance to show the UK immigration system at its best?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman is right that people have long supported those coming to work in our NHS through legal routes. Those routes have to be controlled and managed, however, and migration quadrupling under the previous Government was a serious problem. That is why we are bringing legal migration down; that is why we put that in the immigration White Paper. The hon. Gentleman is also right that some of the most serious concerns are about dangerous and illegal boat crossings that are underpinned and facilitated by criminal gangs. He raises a separate issue about Ireland and Northern Ireland, but he will know that the common travel area is a long-standing part of our history and arrangements. We have close security co-operation with the Irish Government and Irish law enforcement for exactly that reason, and it is an important part of the arrangements and the close relationship between our countries.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

That concludes the statement. I thank the Home Secretary and Members for their time. The Home Secretary has been on her feet for around two and a half hours and we have had over 80 Back-Bench contributions. I will now give the House a few moments to settle and for the Front-Bench teams to swap over.