Immigration and Asylum Bill

Julian Lewis Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend for what he said. He is absolutely right: we need to reduce the pressure in local communities as much as possible. He knows that dispersal accommodation has been part of the asylum accommodation estate for many years, including under the previous Government. Of course, the best way to reduce the need for asylum accommodation—the use of large sites, dispersal accommodation and other sites—is to reduce the inflow of people coming to the country on small boats in the channel. Once we get to grips with those numbers, we will see the biggest decrease in asylum accommodation, no matter what form it takes, and that is the work that this Government are taking forward.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I congratulate the Home Secretary on not resiling at all from the tough stance that she is trying to take. Has she received any indication that after 20 July, a Labour Home Secretary—hopefully she herself—will be able to continue to develop this important work?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Oh, the right hon. Gentleman tempts me with some attractive bait, but I will resist the temptation! I am sure that once the events of 20 July have taken place, all these matters shall become clearer still.

This Government have taken some considerable steps forward, but we must do more: around 94,000 people remain in asylum accommodation at a total cost of £3.7 billion per year; while asylum claims fell by 12% last year, they remain close to historic highs; and with the criminal gangs still at work, people continue to die in the channel, with over 100 deaths since the start of 2024, including women and young children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows nothing about Facebook clips, but let me be honest: mistakes were made in the past, and the policies that we have now developed, under new leadership, will fix those issues. In fact, this indefinite leave to remain policy was first proposed by us about a year ago, and then, very wisely, the Home Secretary adopted it.

Let me come to the commitment that the Home Secretary made on Shabir Ahmed, the vile gang rapist who should be deported back to Pakistan. We support the amendment to section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971, although section 33 of the UK Borders Act 2007—I think it is subsection (1)(b)—might need some attention as well. I would only ask the Home Secretary not to do that by amending this Bill, which will probably take a year or so to reach the statute book. I hope that she will consider doing it instead through emergency legislation in September, which could be completed in a couple of weeks; we took the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020 through Parliament in, I believe, 15 days in February of that year. There is not a moment to lose, and this can be fixed quite quickly.

As for the substance of the Bill, I agree with some of the Home Secretary’s analyses of where the problems lie. She is right to say that the immigration appeal system, modern slavery laws and human rights laws are being abused on an industrial scale by foreign criminals, and also by people with no legal right to be here, including people who came here illegally in small boats. These illegal immigrants and foreign criminals do make repeated claims, time after time.

The Home Secretary gave the example of a foreign criminal whom it took four years to deport. I was aware of the case of a Somali man who entered the country illegally and participated in the violent gang rape of a 16-year-old girl. On his release from prison, it took eight years to deport that man back to Somalia, because he made two or three different claims on sometimes contradictory grounds. I think that he made two modern slavery claims, and a number of human rights claims as well. There have been other cases in which foreign criminals have avoided being deported. For example, an armed robber avoided being deported back to Nigeria on the grounds that his mental health needs would not be taken care of perfectly there. Another man, a drug dealer, was not sent back to Iraq on ECHR grounds because, apparently, he had become too westernised. There was not a single thought for the safety of British children and the need for them to be protected from paedophiles. A Zimbabwean paedophile was not deported to Zimbabwe because he might get treated with hostility there. The judge gave no thought to protecting British children, and no thought to protecting our citizens from criminals.

In another case, a man was taken off a charter flight to Jamaica, again on human rights grounds—I think it was article 8—and about six months after being removed from that flight, he murdered someone on the streets of south London. That happened because of the supposed human rights of a criminal who went on to commit murder. I agree with the analysis that our immigration legal system, our modern slavery system and the human rights system are being abused on an industrial scale, and that has to end.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that part of the problem is that practitioners of the legal system seem to believe that there are such things as absolute human rights, whereas most human rights are relative, and can be trumped by other people’s human rights, and in fact, can be abrogated? When you infringe other people’s human rights, you surely cannot expect your own to have priority over theirs, in a sensible system.

[Chris Philp]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. When it comes to foreign criminals, and people who enter this country illegally, having exited a safe place, namely France, I do not think that they should be given all the protections that we have been discussing this afternoon.

Let me turn to some of the specifics that the Home Secretary has put in the Bill. The changes to the immigration tribunal system, and the measures dealing with modern slavery and trying to better define article 8 constitute small steps in the right direction, but on their own, they are not going to work. Past Governments have attempted to make such measures work, but they have essentially failed, and I think that they will fail again. For example, better defining article 8 in domestic law was attempted in—I think, from memory—section 19 of the Immigration Act 2014, which I believe created section 117 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. That was an attempt to do, broadly speaking, what the Home Secretary is trying to do now, and it did not work, because judges—not just those in Strasbourg, but our domestic judges, empowered by the Human Rights Act—simply continued interpreting family rights very expansively and allowing foreign criminals to stay. I admire the Home Secretary’s effort to do this, but it has been tried before and it did not work.

Excluding modern slavery claims by foreign criminals has also been attempted before. The Bill essentially seeks to amend section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which was an attempt by a previous Government to fix this problem four or five years ago, and it has been repeatedly struck down by the courts. Because of the ECHR and the way in which it is incorporated by the Human Rights Act, it does not matter how we legislate. As with section 63 a few years ago, following the Home Secretary’s most recent attempt today judges will use the European convention on human rights, empowered by the HRA, to circumvent laws passed by this Parliament. The Home Secretary experienced that herself just last week, when her “one in, one out” scheme was upset by vexatious modern slavery claims. She tried valiantly to fix the loophole in guidance, and last week a court struck it down. The conclusion that I have reached—having suffered in the Home Office in the past as she is suffering now, trying to fix these issues within the construct of the ECHR and modern slavery legislation, and the examples that the Home Secretary gave only support this—is that the only way to fix this issue is to come out of these institutions entirely. We cannot do it by tinkering, which is what the Bill seeks to do. The previous Government tried it, I have tried it personally, the Home Secretary’s predecessor tried it, and she is now trying it again. The truth is—

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I was quite taken aback by the passion that the shadow Home Secretary showed for wiping out many decades of hard-won human rights that we all enjoy. Human rights are not just for asylum seekers and people from other countries; in the first instance, human rights are for all of us. To put the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) slightly correct, some rights are absolute, and others are qualified and limited.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Max Wilkinson]

I will make progress. [Interruption.] I will give way.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

To put the hon. Gentleman right, it is customary when a Member names another Member, particularly in a critical way, to give way to them freely, not to have to be forced into it.

The fact of the matter is that I would love the hon. Gentleman to list all these absolute human rights. Even in a democracy, there is not an absolute right for people not to put themselves in danger when they get conscripted in a wartime situation. Does he or does he not accept the basic moral fact that, if someone infringes the human rights of other people, they cannot expect their own rights to be fully respected, because they abrogate those rights? If there has to be a clash between an innocent person’s rights being infringed and the perpetrator’s rights being infringed, I—and, I would like to think, most sensible people—would say it is the perpetrator who should lose out.

[Max Wilkinson]

These things are actually defined in law. I saw a human rights barrister on the other side of the Chamber, the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), furrowing his brow at the same time. The shadow Home Secretary mentioned the report by Lord Wolfson, who is in fact a commercial barrister. When he goes into a hospital with a urology complaint, I assume, therefore, that he demands a cardiologist. Maybe he does not, but who knows? Does he seek experts from the right field? Perhaps he does not.

According to the Oxford Migration Observatory, asylum seekers in Calais regularly tell researchers that they know the UK’s absence from agreements with the EU is a weakness in our asylum system. They even use the word “Dublin” in reference to the agreement that we left. If asylum seekers have worked it out, why have Ministers not done so? One commentator has even described how Brexit has turned the UK into the final court of appeal for any asylum seeker in the EU.

It will come as no surprise that the Liberal Democrats will not be supporting this Bill. It is not because we deny the problems in the UK’s asylum system, which impact not only local people in our constituencies but asylum seekers themselves. It is quite the opposite: the backlog is too large, accommodation costs have spiralled and dangerous small boat crossings must be brought to an end for the good of everyone.

However, this Bill does not solve those problems. It piles more bureaucracy on to the Home Office, it risks greater costs to the taxpayer, it undermines integration and it still fails to address the fundamental causes of irregular migration. The Government’s stated rationale for this Bill is:

“Claiming asylum in Britain today is more attractive than elsewhere in Europe”.

However, data from the Home Secretary’s own Department shows this not to be true. Britain was fifth in the number of asylum applications made to European countries in 2025, behind Germany, France, Spain and Italy.

The truth is that many migrants who have had their asylum claims rejected in EU nations are trying their luck in Britain. This is the legacy of the Brexit given to us by Farage and the Conservatives, including the shadow Home Secretary. Our damaged relationship with Europe has created Brexit pull factors, yet nowhere does this Bill attempt to restore an orderly relationship on asylum with our European neighbours to end small boat crossings once and for all. It is an uncomfortable truth for the Conservatives, but it is a problem they created.

There is the issue of the asylum backlog. Accommodation costs have risen sharply, with more and more people stuck in hotels at considerable cost. Poor Home Office decision making is a key cause of this backlog, with two thirds of the concluded appeals finding that the Home Office’s initial decision was flawed, yet the Bill does not address the quality of first instance decisions. Instead, it proposes the wholesale reform of the appeals process, creating the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority, which will not be operational until late next year. Even the Home Office has described the value of this measure as uncertain. If the Government want to solve the problem, they should focus their resources on clearing the backlog by expanding processing capacity and ensuring decisions are right first time.

Those asylum seekers fortunate enough to be successful in their claims will apparently face a later penalty of £10,000. We Liberal Democrats are in favour of asylum seekers and all migrants contributing to our economy and paying taxes. That is the fair thing to do. It is just one way that we believe migration can make our country a stronger place, but only if integration is successful. However, this measure is punitive, and pushes refugees further towards destitution and state support. Refugees with a job after eight years of being here had a median income of just £23,000 per year. It has been suggested that repayments will start when refugees are earning far less than that, which seems unfair. If the Home Secretary was serious about getting refugees to pay their way, she would take the opportunity to allow asylum seekers to work. This would immediately relieve the burden on the taxpayer and bring down costs.

Instead, these proposals create a bigger burden on the state, often falling on already overstretched local councils, which will be forced to look after those who would otherwise become destitute. That is un-British. Sadly, this measure, coupled with potential decades-long waits for leave to remain, will actively undermine the integration that everyone in this House should be aiming for. Costs to the taxpayer are likely to go up and not down. The reviews of refugee status alone are set to cost up to £725 million extra in the first 10 years.

On the unintended yet entirely foreseeable consequences, there are serious concerns that this Bill could inadvertently criminalise victims of modern slavery. It is simply unrealistic to assume that people trafficked here by criminal gangs will be able or willing to raise a claim on arrival. The Home Office’s own statistics suggest that there is not widespread abuse of the current system, so it seems this particular measure is unnecessary and could work against the Government’s aims.

On the point about the ECHR, the Government know that the interpretation of the law remains in the gift of the UK courts—the judges whom the shadow Home Secretary dislikes so much, but who perform such a valuable role in our justice system—and that will be the case regardless of what happens with this Bill. The reality is that this Bill is all show and no substance.

When this House discussed the Home Secretary’s statement last November, something weird happened. An unholy alliance emerged between Labour and the Conservatives, and even the Reform party welcomed the Home Secretary’s approach. The thrust of our response to that statement last November was that there were issues to resolve in the asylum system, which had been devastated by the Conservative Government, but recognition was also needed that immigration has a role to play in our economy and in delivering public services.

I also urged the Government to drop divisive rhetoric on this subject, but that suggestion did not quite find favour with the Home Secretary and others. Indeed, after my plea for moderate language, I was in receipt of some direct and forthright feedback from the Home Secretary, which the Minister for Border Security and Asylum will remember. Lord Gove used his “Quite right!” Spectator podcast to call me “oleaginous”, a word that I later learned means oily, the “king of smuggery” and an offensive term, but I will spare Members’ blushes by simply saying that it starts with d and rhymes with “mick”. That is from a Member of the House of Lords in this Parliament. I continue to wear that as a badge of honour.

In a different recent podcast, the Home Secretary told an audience member who disagreed with her stance on migration and asylum to eff off, and later she joked that she would taser and deport four of her political opponents. I am clear it was a joke, but I am not absolutely certain that those are the actions a Government Minister should be taking. It is clear that the tone of this debate has not improved much since November. Unfortunately, policy heavy and rhetoric—

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Get it right!

[Max Wilkinson]

Unfortunately, this is policy heavy on rhetoric and light on substance, and it risks playing into the hands of Nigel Farage. I thank the right hon. Member for his heckle. He says, “Get it right!” I suggest he gets his knowledge of human rights right.

Accommodation costs will remain sky high, small boats will keep coming, with all the danger that that causes to people being trafficked, and the British people will rightly feel that the system is neither fair nor functional. Until Ministers recognise, as asylum seekers seem to, that not having a proper agreement with the EU is at the heart of the small boats crisis, there will be no resolution. Labour MPs claim that the new Prime Minister will present a reset for the country, and we all hope it does, but if the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) sticks with these plans, it will be more of the same—bad value for money for the taxpayer, failures on integration and no comprehensive plan to stop dangerous small boat crossings. That is why the Liberal Democrats will not support this Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend for the tremendous campaigning he has done in this House on behalf of his constituents. There may be further good news to come, but this Government have a commitment to end the use of all asylum hotels by the end of the Parliament, and we are on track to do that.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for what she said about Ann, whom I first met more than 50 years ago. She was as formidable as an undergraduate as she became in later life as a mature politician.

I believe that nobody on the Labour Benches other than the present Home Secretary could do more to tackle the asylum problem than she is doing. Having said that, this strategy of moving people out of hotels and into camps, or dispersing them, can only ever work if other people are not coming in constantly to replace them, so what plans does she have for truly deterring people, so that they know that if they embark on a small boat, they will physically not be allowed to melt into British society in the future?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct: if we are to deal with this problem effectively, we must also reduce the inflow of people coming across the channel. As he will know, later today we will debate a Bill that includes measures designed to do just that, and since I have been Home Secretary I have announced wider policy changes designed to alter the calculations of those who are in the north of France seeking to get on to a boat to come to this country. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is signalling the Conservative party’s previous policy, the Rwanda scheme. As he will know, we disagree with that as a deterrent, but we are working on every other measure to deter those people from making the journeys in the first place.

Death of Ann Widdecombe

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

We would not, of course, ever comment on the specific nature of the arrangements made for the security of Members of Parliament, either here on the estate or in their homes or constituencies. However, let me assure my hon. Friend that a number of measures are taken. For local policing, as well as working with the Parliamentary Security Department, there is an offer for all Members of Parliament, and there are specific risk assessments when there is something of concern relating to a particular individual. Let me reassure her that I think those arrangements are comprehensive; however, we should always ask ourselves whether they are enough and whether they are responding to the changing nature of threats or the spike in threat activity that we sometimes see. I assure her that I will of course be working closely with the Parliamentary Security Department and policing more broadly to ensure that these arrangements are as tight, robust and comprehensive as they need to be.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

May I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House that the fact that I have to chair a meeting in a few minutes’ time prevents me from staying, as I would wish to do, to the end of the statement?

When I went up as an undergraduate to Oxford in late 1970 and joined the university Conservative association, there were two outstanding figures a year ahead of me in that august body: one was Ann Widdecombe and the other was Nicolas Turner. A few years later, in February 1980, Ann Widdecombe and I shared a taxi to the funeral of Nicolas Turner, who had heroically sacrificed his life in an attempt to rescue his young daughter Alice—it was a double funeral—who had been swept into the sea by a freak wave. Ann was always there when her friends needed support and, on a lighter note, she was always there ready to bring her friends back down to earth.

When Ann was elected in 1987 for the first time, and I happened to be moving flats, I gifted her a relatively new washing machine that was now surplus to my requirements. For several years after she became an MP, she used to invite me once a year, almost like clockwork, to have lunch with her in this place. I naturally assumed that it was that she wished to imbibe the wisdom of my political advice. It was only by accident when I suggested that to her and how flattered I was that she revealed the truth, saying, “Oh no, Julian—this is rent for the washing machine!”

Mr Speaker will certainly remember that in 2008 to 2009, this House spent a lot of time taking steps to ensure that MPs’ home addresses did not, in future, have to be revealed either in answer to freedom of information requests or on ballot papers and notices of nomination. It therefore comes as a bit of a shock to me to read in one of the reports today that Ann had—it may turn out to be complete coincidence—featured in her home on a programme on television extensively only six days before she died. The report said that the name of the home had been obscured, but software is available so that if someone puts up a picture of a place, particularly if they know the general area, it will identify the address. Let me please appeal to Members and ex-Members from whatever political party: do not throw away the gains we made, and whatever else you do, keep your home addresses as private as you possibly can.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The right hon. Gentleman makes wise points about the safety of MPs’ home addresses, and in my work alongside Mr Speaker on lessons to be learned from the circumstances of Ann’s murder, I will ensure that we consider the privacy and security of home addresses.

Rochdale Grooming Gang: Offender Deportation

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for that contribution from my hon. Friend. He has raised this issue since his first day in this place, with myself, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and many others. He makes an important point about possible legislative vehicles. We are looking at all those options, as I have said to him. Similarly, he raises the important issue of how we work with countries that we remove individuals to. Again, I give him my total assurance that we work with returning countries day in, day out to ensure that they take back their foreign offenders.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Is it true that the diplomats in the Foreign Office who deal with Pakistan are part of the obstacle to getting rid of this loathsome individual? Does the Minister agree that it is long overdue that the moral courage—indeed, heroism—of former Labour MP Ann Cryer, who first exposed this horrendous abuse, is properly and officially recognised?

[Alex Norris]

I would not normally comment on the specific details of conversations across Government, but I must simply say that that is not true; the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of diplomats in the Foreign Office is not my experience to any degree. The point about recognition is, of course, for others with more exalted office than myself, but I think he makes a very good suggestion.

Murder of Henry Nowak

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me assure my hon. Friend that the knife crime action plan is funded, and we have put significant money behind violence reduction units and other measures that we know are imperative to deal with knife crime in our country. Let me assure her again that, as soon as the IOPC investigation has concluded, I will make sure that the House is updated.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Is it normal police practice to handcuff a person who is lying helpless on the ground and clearly offering no resistance? Given the Home Secretary’s admirable and utter rejection of differential treatment of people according to their race, will she undertake to examine and withdraw the policing policy document identified by the shadow Home Secretary as embodying precisely such differential treatment?

[Shabana Mahmood]

On policing practice and the specifics of this case, that is precisely what the IOPC is looking at, because it takes into account the context and the expectations of police officers given the specific dangers that they face. The IOPC will look into that and, once it has made its findings of fact, I will of course return to the House.

On the issue of differential treatment, the right hon. Member will know, as a long-standing Member of this House, that we have had many debates from the opposite end of the race spectrum, if I might put it that way. Today, we are talking primarily about the white community in this instance, but there have been many debates in this House about differential treatment for minority communities. That is why I do not think it is helpful for us to look at this issue through a community-specific lens; it is much broader than that. I will of course ensure that I always engage with the police on the specifics of their policies, but it is not my view that the police are institutionally or systemically operating a system of differential treatment. We will always make sure that we guard against that, and I will work with the police to make sure it never happens.

Knife Crime

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I applaud the work that my hon. Friend has been doing with others, including Leanne Lucas, who was sadly at the horrendous event in Southport, and who has been campaigning on the issue since then. I have had the honour of meeting her several times to talk about this. My hon. Friend is right that ordinary kitchen knives are used extensively in domestic and impulsive violence. When it comes to the streets, there are a whole range of horrific knives that we are looking to reduce in number, ban and control through legislation, but the basic impulsive act of picking up a kitchen knife is also a significant crime. There is evidence that a knife attack would have less impact if the end of the knife was rounded, and we have worked with manufacturers and others who are introducing that kind of knife.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Where psychopaths are concerned, deterrence is unlikely to work, but I was interested to hear an expert from the Internet Watch Foundation, who was interviewed on Times Radio this morning, say that people who commune on the internet with those who supply them with knives could instantly bring together red flags and warn people, if they wanted to. Is it part of the Minister’s strategy to try to arrange for that? As for others, am I right in thinking that a very high proportion of people who commit knife crimes are detected? If so, surely a campaign saying, “If you commit knife crime, you will almost certainly be caught” could act as a real deterrent to those capable of being deterred.

Immigration Policy

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for that question. On fairness, the applicable rules have always been those in force at the point of application, rather than at the point of entry, so I do not accept that that in itself represents a lack of fairness. Nevertheless, I have heard the point that my hon. Friend and other colleagues have made, which is why we carried out the consultation in the way we did.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

There have often been occasions on which somebody has leaked in advance the contents of a statement that they are going to make to the House of Commons, or part of its contents, but this is the first time I have seen a total revelation in the press of something that the Government had no intention of making a statement about to the House of Commons. Why is that, and what will these measures do to deter people from breaking into this country illegally, with it then being impossible to deport them?

[Alex Norris]

On the deterrence point, as I have said, we are receiving applications at an unprecedented level, and at a time when our European Union counterparts are seeing fewer applications. There is an attractiveness to this country, which is why we are changing the protection package and carrying out record levels of enforcement against illegal working. Those are the changes we are making to break those pull factors to this country.

Turning to announcements, we would of course mean no discourtesy to the House, and the right hon. Gentleman will have heard the apology I made at the outset. However, we stated our policy in November, and what we are now doing is building it out.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend is right to raise his concerns in the way that he does. I can inform him and the House that on 13 January the Foreign Secretary set out the action that the Government are taking in co-ordination with allies, in response to the consistent threat that the Iranian regime poses to stability, security and freedom, and that last week the Foreign Secretary announced a further sanctions package targeting 10 individuals and one organisation involved in human rights abuses in Iran. We are continuing to monitor the situation very closely, and we urge Iran to protect fundamental freedoms, including access to information and communications.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does the Minister accept that the IRGC is responsible for many acts of terrorism? While we appreciate the difficulty that arises from its being a state organisation and the reluctance to proscribe a state organisation, is it not a fact that Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has come up with a formula to allow that to happen? If so, why do the Government not bring it forward with the maximum speed?

Police Reform White Paper

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Learning the lessons of what happened in 2024 is why we have already decided to bring in a national command role specifically for public order policing. He raises other issues, particularly on funding. All these reforms are fully funded to the end of the Parliament, but the specific funding streams are a matter for future funding settlements. He will know that we are publishing the funding settlement for the coming financial year on Wednesday.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I congratulate the Home Secretary on having attracted dozens of her Back Benchers to support her, when the Foreign Affairs Minister responding to the urgent question just before could not find a single one to support him on the dreadful Chagos deal.

Can the Home Secretary tell us a bit more about how the new structure will be governed? I understand the idea about the national police commissioner at the very top, but what sort of executive key people will there be lower down to ensure that relevance is maintained in rural areas, as opposed to the different needs of urban areas?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The White Paper envisages a whole change to the accountability mechanisms for policing at every level, whether that is for the National Police Service or right down to regional forces and local police areas. The right hon. Gentleman will know that I am bringing back powers to the Home Secretary. We have also published a performance framework today that will bring transparency to how police forces are functioning. A new national commissioner will be in charge of the NPS and all the other structures will sit underneath that. I assure him that at every level there will be a high expectation of high performance and of accountability, both to local policing and crime boards and to the Home Secretary directly.

West Midlands Police

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I have set out in my statement what I think. Others will need to reflect on their positions and what further steps they might take. I agree with my hon. Friend, however, that the findings of Sir Andy Cooke’s report are damning and devastating, and once the bond of trust between a community and the police breaks for one community, it breaks for every community, which is why these findings are so serious and why I have had to say today what I have said about confidence in the chief constable.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

If I understand correctly the presentation of Sir Andy’s independent report by the Home Secretary, it says that the police knew that the visiting fans were not likely to attack the home community. Does it make clear whether they thought that the home community were likely to attack the visiting fans, because if they thought that and then inverted reality to blame the visiting fans, that would surely put the chief constable in an absolutely impossible position.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The findings in Sir Andy Cooke’s report are about an overstating of the risk posed by the travelling fans and an understatement of the risk posed to those fans by others in the local community, so it is not a case of one thing being presented as fact and the other not. There has been an overstatement and an understatement, and the effect has been a risk assessment that was imbalanced, wholly skewed in one direction and did not adequately deal with all of the risks posed. I believe that one of the reasons suggested for a possible attack from home local individuals against the travelling fans was community relations. It is why I stand by what I said in my statement: community relations in this country are not served by overstatements and understatements and by hiding the full picture in order to keep things calm; the truth is what helps us all to stay safe, and that is what the police should have held to in this case.