Violence against Women and Girls Strategy
Judith Cummins Excerpts(5 days, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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?
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?
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.
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 ExcerptsWednesday 19th November 2025
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 19 November 2025 - large print - (19 Nov 2025)
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(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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—
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.”
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?
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?
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—
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.
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(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
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?
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.
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?
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(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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?
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.
Orgreave Inquiry
Judith Cummins Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement regarding this Government’s commitment to establishing the truth about events at Orgreave in 1984.
The clashes at Orgreave coking plant in 1984 are etched indelibly into our nation’s memory. The clash marked a pivotal moment in the nationwide miners’ strike that was ongoing during that period. Some 95 picketers were arrested and charged with riot and violent disorder, but all charges were later dropped after evidence was discredited. As a result of the violence, there were serious implications for the relationship between policing and coalfield communities at that time, and the passage of time has not diminished the impact on those present and their families.
On Thursday last week, the Home Secretary visited the site of the former Orgreave coking plant, along with campaigners from the National Union of Mineworkers and the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, as well as a number of Members of this House and the Mayor of South Yorkshire. I know that the Home Secretary was very grateful to all those who took the time to attend and that she was moved by the experience they shared and by walking part of the route that picketers walked on that day 41 years ago. It is this Labour Government’s commitment to get truth and justice for those coalfield communities.
It is important to note that there have been significant changes in the oversight of policing since 1984 and the way in which public order is policed. Nevertheless, questions about the specific events at Orgreave have remained unanswered for far too long. More than four decades may have passed, but those questions must still be answered. That is why we committed in Labour’s manifesto to ensure, through an investigation or inquiry, that the truth about events at Orgreave comes to light. Yesterday we made good on that promise, as the Home Secretary announced the establishment of an inquiry into events surrounding the clashes at the Orgreave coking plant in 1984.
The Rt Rev Dr Pete Wilcox, the Bishop of Sheffield, has agreed to chair the inquiry. The bishop is a very well-respected member of the local and wider regional community in South Yorkshire, and his credibility and impartiality will stand him in very good stead to deliver this inquiry. He will be supported by a small panel of independent experts who will be appointed in due course, in a similar vein to the Hillsborough panel chaired by the Bishop of Liverpool in 2010.
The purpose of the inquiry will be to aid public understanding of how the violent clashes and injuries caused at Orgreave on 18 June 1984, and the events immediately afterwards, came to pass. It will be a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, with the appropriate powers to compel the provision of information where necessary. The direction of the inquiry’s investigation will be a matter for the chair. As the sponsoring Department, the Home Office will provide support and ensure that the inquiry has the resources needed to fulfil its terms of reference, but it will have no other say in the conduct of the inquiry or the conclusions that it may reach until it is time for us to respond to them.
It will be key for the inquiry to have access to all information that it deems relevant. For that reason, the Home Secretary has recently written to all police forces, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing and all Government Departments to ask that all material they hold relating to the events at Orgreave be retained, in order that it can be provided in a timely manner to the inquiry if requested. Recognising the need to deliver swiftly while avoiding any undue impact on individuals’ wellbeing, I hope the inquiry will look to previous examples of good practice, such as the Hillsborough independent panel, to inform its method of delivery.
The Home Secretary is in the process of consulting the inquiry chair on proposed terms of reference. She has asked him to engage with key stakeholders, including the National Union of Mineworkers and the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, as part of that process. We will place a final copy of the terms of reference in the Libraries of both Houses at the earliest opportunity thereafter. It is our expectation that the inquiry will launch in the autumn.
For the police to perform their critical functions effectively, it is essential that they can secure and maintain the confidence of the people they serve. That is why this Labour Government have made rebuilding trust in policing an integral part of our plan for change. Of course, much of that effort is concerned with strengthening forces for the challenges of now and the future, but where historical events cast a long shadow that stretches into the present day in our coalfield communities, we must shine a light on what happened and ensure that any and all lessons are learned.
Questions about events at Orgreave have gone unanswered for too long. This Government committed to putting that right, and the upcoming inquiry will work independently, fairly and without fear or favour to establish the truth about what happened. I commend this statement to the House.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question; I know that he has a great deal of experience and knowledge in this area. As I said in my statement, the terms of reference are currently being discussed with the chair, but it is very clear that the inquiry should look at the evidence, and should hear testimony if that is what it wishes to do. It will do so without fear or favour, wherever the evidence leads it to look.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I came into the Chamber for this statement to hear and speak about the Orgreave inquiry, so it was pretty shocking to hear the shadow Minister use it as an opportunity to yet again play politics with child sexual abuse and exploitation. As a survivor myself, I find that particularly appalling.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the announcement of a statutory inquiry into the events that took place between police and miners at Orgreave on 18 June 1984. For years, those caught up in the harrowing events of that day have had to carry the painful trauma of that unresolved injustice—not just the injuries sustained, but the police charges that were subsequently dropped. Over 40 years on, we must come together to ensure that this inquiry reaches its full potential and uncovers the answers that those impacted deeply deserve. That must include proper consultation, which will be key to rebuilding public trust. I would therefore welcome more details from the Minister about how local communities, campaigners, and impacted miners and their families will be involved throughout the inquiry.
Inquiries can be a powerful tool for uncovering the truth about injustice, but they will only reach their full potential when there is a duty of candour that requires public officials and authorities to co-operate fully. As such, although the Government have committed to bringing such a duty of candour into force, will the Minister take this opportunity to provide a clear timeline for introducing a Hillsborough law to Parliament?
Phone Theft
Judith Cummins Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I plan to start the wind-ups at around 4.30 pm.
Uma Kumaran
I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend; he makes an important point, and I am sure the Minister will respond to it.
I want to mention a few other constituents’ experiences. Jade contacted me to share her shock at witnessing a mother have her phone snatched while she was trying to buy shoes for her son. Matthew told me his partner was left feeling unsafe walking their dog at night after being accosted by thieves on his way home. Those are not isolated incidents. They are part of a wider and troubling trend—we in this Chamber know that it is happening across our constituencies—and it is one that leaves people feeling fearful in their own neighbourhoods, as they go about their daily lives.
Make no mistake: Conservative Members, who are not here in great numbers today, should look seriously at their record. In the final year of the previous Government, street crime rose by over 40%, and mobile phone thefts soared. It does not have to be this way. With properly funded and resourced police and community services, we can fight back. I mentioned the footfall at Stratford station. I have seen at first hand what is being done to tackle this issue there: a police taskforce launching targeted operations, with officers disrupting thefts and arresting phone snatchers. British Transport police recently had a similar operation.
This Labour Government are taking action, cracking down on the thieves and thugs and taking back control of our high streets, town centres and shopping centres. We are backing up police with stronger powers to tackle mobile phone theft in the Crime and Policing Bill, and we are calling on tech companies to design out the ability of thieves to re-sell stolen phones. Crucially, we are strengthening neighbourhood policing to restore public confidence that if a person reports their phone as stolen, someone will actually do something about it. In London, we are working with Mayor Sadiq Khan, who I know is personally committed to driving down these figures.
Phone theft is not a petty crime, and it is not a victimless crime. It can happen in seconds, but the impact is long-lasting. It can rob people of cherished memories stored on their phones. It can drain bank accounts in seconds. As my constituent Matthew put it:
“What way is that to live, afraid to walk your dog in your own neighbourhood?”
We owe it to him and everyone affected to make our streets safer. I will join Members here today in doing all we can to root it out, but we must also compel phone manufacturers to remove the incentive, because we cannot arrest our way out of this problem. Every layer of this chain must take it seriously.