Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

A constituent of mine tried to act as a good samaritan by handing in a handbag that they had found in the town centre, but they could not do so because Hemel Hempstead police station’s front desk had been closed under the last Government. They were told that they would have to travel to Hatfield police station, which is half an hour away. Does the Minister—I welcome her to her place—agree that the Hemel Hempstead front desk should be reopened so that the police can be even more accessible to our constituents?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am not sure that the Minister has responsibility for matters such as this.

[Sarah Jones]

I am of course happy to talk to my hon. Friend about the situation in his local community so we can ensure that the police are doing all they can to tackle all the crimes that were not considered a priority under the last Government, from antisocial behaviour to low-level threat. That is extremely important to our communities.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Let me begin by welcoming the new Ministers to their places.

The last Conservative Government recruited a record number of police officers, but earlier this year we discovered that despite Labour’s promise of more police, the headcount had already fallen by 1,316 since it came to office. Both the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner have warned that we will lose even more officers. When will the Minister restore police numbers to the levels they were at under the last Conservative Government?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my opposite number for his welcome. Let me also use this opportunity to thank the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), who did a brilliant job as Policing Minister over the past year.

Under the last couple of years of the Conservative Government, shoplifting soared: we saw a 70% increase. Street theft rose by 60% in two years, and the Conservatives ignored antisocial behaviour. Violence and abuse against shop workers was at epidemic levels, and the yo-yoing of the police numbers did not help; the hon. Gentleman may remember that the Conservatives cut them by 20,000. We are prioritising neighbourhood policing. We will ensure that the police have the resources that they need, and we will use new technology to ensure that we are tackling crime as much as we can. Those 3,000 neighbourhood police officers will be in place by next year, and the 13,000 police officers that we have pledged in our manifesto will make a real difference to people’s lives.

[Mr Speaker]

May I gently say that the question is about the Mayor of London and police closures? We have allowed a little bit of leeway. Let us see how we go from here and try to stick to the questions before us.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Ind)]

2. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her Department's policies of the approval under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 between April and June 2025 of the use of 1,656,930 animals over the next five years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me be very clear: I understand the strength of feeling across communities in this country about the use of hotels, in particular—the right to protest is an ancient right in this country, and we will protect it—but it is important that we do not slip into rhetoric that incites violence or hatred towards other communities. I love the St George’s flag and I love the Union Jack. Those flags belong to me as much as they do to anybody else, and we must never allow any of our flags to become symbols of division.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Lots of people know that under this Government, the number of people arriving illegally has hit a record high. What many do not know is that this Labour Government are repealing the power to scientifically test the age of those arriving and are hiding the data on the number making false claims about their age. Why are the Government doing away with powers that could prevent adult migrants from getting into classrooms with children, and why are they hiding this data from the British people?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Coming from one of the Conservative Members who, frankly, did nothing across their period in office and who are responsible for the mess I am having to clear up, I think that is a little bit rich. This Government have been absolutely transparent. We will carry on being so, and we will publish all the relevant data at the appropriate time. I am very clear that nobody who tries to game our system will get away with it. We will strengthen our rules, rather than weaken them, which is what we saw under the Conservative party.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Many of those who come to this country by crossing the channel go on to be granted refugee status. Earlier this month, the Government backtracked on their promise to continue with the 56-day move-on period for those granted refugee status, barely weeks after a Home Office Minister assured this House that the policy would last until the end of the year. The move-on period extension was working, in that it was giving refugees time to secure work and housing while shielding local councils from sudden surges in homelessness caused by people being forced out of asylum accommodation too quickly. Halving the move-on period is worse for refugees who want to support themselves, worse for the communities supporting them until they can get on their feet and certainly worse for already stretched council budgets. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is better to do what works, both for refugees and for communities welcoming them, and will she look again at reinstating a policy that worked, rather than chasing headlines?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Minister—welcome.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

This Government remain committed to supporting Ukraine following Russia’s vile, illegal invasion. I acknowledge the warmth and generosity shown by so many local communities in supporting Ukrainians in the UK. Since the conflict began, more than 300,000 Ukrainians have been offered temporary sanctuary through the dedicated Ukraine schemes. Ukrainians can still apply to the Homes for Ukraine scheme with a UK sponsor and, once here, extend their stay to a total of 3.5 years, as recently announced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the fact that we are signed up to the European convention underpins other international agreements that we have with partners. It underpins the Good Friday agreement. It also underpins our treaty with the French on the France returns pilot. That is why we should be responsible in taking forward a conversation on reform of the convention, and that is the approach we are taking. I was taking that approach in my previous role, and I will carry on doing so as Home Secretary.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Home Secretary to her place. I very much look forward to the exchanges that we will have, so long as the Prime Minister leaves her in post. When it comes to human rights, does she not accept that tinkering around the edges simply will not work? She said in her answer a second ago that she wants to see the ECHR reformed, but her own Government’s Attorney General Lord Hermer said just four days ago that ECHR reform is a “political trick”. Perhaps she and the Attorney General should get themselves on the same page. Given that the Attorney General says that reform is not possible, does she not agree that more fundamental changes are needed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) said a moment ago? This year has been the worst in history for illegal immigrants crossing the channel—the number is up 38%, compared with last year. Only radical change will fix this mess, so will the Home Secretary back the Conservative plans to completely disapply the Human Rights Act 1998 and ensure that all illegal immigrants are immediately removed upon arrival?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. You know the score; you know we have to get through questions. When colleagues do not get in, they will blame the shadow Home Secretary. Please try to help others.

[Shabana Mahmood]

After that performance, I have to confess that I find myself rather missing the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). The shadow Minister says that we are tinkering at the edges. He could not be more wrong; we have a proper plan for looking at legislative reform. But tinkering at the edges would have been fantastic under the Conservatives, because their track record is that they did nothing—sod all—in 14 years. Suddenly, they have found their reforming instincts now that they are in opposition. This Government will take forward domestic as well as international reform.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

For the sake of the victims, who we all think about today, we must ensure that we get this right. There were multiple issues with the chair at the start of Baroness Jay’s inquiry, which took many years. We want to do what Baroness Casey has recommended, do this right and properly, and do this alongside the victims, whom we are talking to. We must, of course, lead the way on this. We will ensure that we get the right strategy; it is for Scotland and the Scottish Government to decide on whether to have a similar strategy. It is important to say that, alongside having this important national strategy, we are putting in place lots of other policies to tackle this kind of crime.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

The Conservatives raised the issue of a national statutory inquiry in January. The Government attempted to block our calls for an inquiry until they were forced into a U-turn in June. On 2 September, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), said,

“this Government will not lose any more time in pursuing truth and justice for victims and survivors,” —[Official Report, 2 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 160.]

yet here we stand today—no start date, no chair announced, and no terms of reference agreed. The victims need actions, not words, so will the Minister please tell the victims of these abhorrent crimes when the national inquiry will begin—or will this Secretary of State have to be forced into action, just like the last?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

This year, £200 million has been made available to forces to kick-start the delivery of 13,000 more neighbourhood officers across England and Wales. I would be very happy to talk to my hon. Friend about the issues that he is facing. We must tackle antisocial behaviour.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary accept that her predecessor was moved because this Government are failing on immigration? Indeed, 75% of the public think that the Government are failing. Illegal migration is up 38%, making this the worst year in history. Let me try again: will the Home Secretary take this opportunity to commit to real action, back our plans to disapply the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to all immigration matters, and immediately remove every illegal immigrant upon arrival?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the question, because the targeted intimidation and harassment of elected representatives is completely unacceptable. The defending democracy taskforce works to ensure the safety and security of all electoral processes and democratic institutions, and to strengthen democratic society. We are conducting a review of the harassment and intimidation faced by elected representatives. The taskforce has also concluded a review of transnational repression, and we have updated Parliament on that. I hope this will be a shared endeavour, right across the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

This weekend, as the Home Secretary said, Elon Musk used a rally to call—alongside convicted criminal, so-called Tommy Robinson—for the Dissolution of Parliament, and to incite violence on our streets. Given the seriousness of a high-profile figure apparently urging attacks on our democracy, what assessment has the Home Office made of these statements, and what steps are being taken across Government to respond to them, and to protect our democracy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

I share my hon. Friend’s important interest in that issue. I would never miss a chance to meet her and I would be very glad to do so.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to the urgent question, I should remind hon. Members to avoid referring directly to criminal cases that are currently before the courts. There is also an active application for judicial review relating to the proscription of Palestine Action. I have decided to grant a waiver in relation to that case, as it concerns a matter of public order in which there is significant public interest. Members may therefore refer to that case.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

Anyone who wishes to demonstrate about the humanitarian situation in Gaza or the actions of any Government, including our own, has the absolute freedom to gather with others and voice their views, provided that they do so within the law, but supporting Palestine and supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation are not the same thing. The vitally important issue of Palestinian rights should not be co-opted by one organisation that has shown that it is willing to use violence in pursuit of its cause. The clear advice and intelligence given to the then Home Secretary earlier this year was that Palestine Action satisfied the relevant tests in the Terrorism Act 2000 and should be proscribed.

Some of those holding placards in support of Palestine Action may not know the extent of its activities. It has conducted an escalating campaign involving intimidation and sustained criminal damage, including to Britain’s national security infrastructure. Some of its attacks have involved the use of weapons, resulting in alleged violence and serious injuries to individuals. Palestine Action’s members have been charged with violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent, actual bodily harm, criminal damage and aggravated burglary—charges that include, in the assessment of the independent Crown Prosecution Service, a terrorism connection.

These are not the actions of a legitimate protest group, and for a Government to ignore expert security assessments, advice and recommendations would be highly irresponsible. Were there to be further serious attacks or injuries, questions would rightly be asked about why action had not been taken.

The Metropolitan police has confirmed that a total of 890 arrests were made at a demonstration in central London on Saturday. Most of those were under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 for displaying articles in support of Palestine Action. Thirty-three people were arrested for other offences, including 17 assaults on police officers. As the Metropolitan police has pointed out, that was in stark contrast to the 20,000 people who peacefully marched and attended the Palestine Solidarity Campaign demonstration.

Demonstrations of this scale require a significant policing response. The new Home Secretary joined the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police on Saturday to observe the force’s operations and express her backing for the officers working tirelessly to enforce our laws and to maintain order. The fact that some officers were subjected to violence and abuse is utterly shameful.

It is completely understandable that people rightly feel very strongly about the situation in Gaza. But supporting or being a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation is a criminal offence and will never be acceptable, regardless of the wider context. We all want the suffering in Gaza to end and the remaining hostages to be returned. We all want to see peace. I say to the House that we must keep our focus squarely on achieving those aims and not on one harmful group that refuses to abide by our laws and threatens our public safety.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not know who is doing the speeches, but I am going to crack down on Ministers and shadow Ministers if they do not keep to three minutes. I have to get Back Benchers in. Does the Minister agree to stick to the time in the future?

[Dan Jarvis]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you—I am glad that there is some acknowledgment.

[Ms Creasy]

Nearly 1,500 people have now been arrested because of concerns about proscription. There is clearly a problem with violence and intimidation in our politics, and we have to get this right because public confidence is falling, too. I am not here as a supporter or defender of Palestine Action and its tactics. I condemn without hesitation abuse, intimidation and attacks on the police and any political opponent. The case for acting on the group itself was and is strong. We have seen a pattern of violence at its events, and it has not dissociated itself from that violence. But we also see police and refugees being targeted for violence alongside those who want to protest about immigration matters—banners that say, “Kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out!”, neo-Nazi groups circling. We cannot ignore the impact on policing on our streets because of these incidents, but this is just not sustainable for our police or our criminal justice system.

There is a difference between people protesting using violence and people protesting the use of proscription. If we do not get the response right, if we continue to arrest those in that secondary category, the seriousness of the term “terrorism” risks losing its meaning and becoming diluted rather than strengthened. Proscription was supposed to be about stopping those inciting direct harm and violence. Going after somebody with a poster testing the boundaries of liberty—many of whom are clear that they do not support Palestine Action, but feel strongly about Palestinian rights or free speech—confuses rather than clarifies the Government’s intention. People must be able to protest what is happening in Gaza, and the focus should be on what is happening in Palestine, not Parliament Square.

I asked for this urgent question because I think it is for us to act. Legislation on public order focuses on specific Acts; proscription orders target specific terrorist groups. Nothing sits in between. Given that, what discussions has the Minister had with the police about distinguishing between members of Palestine Action and people concerned about proscription itself? [Interruption.] The offence of recklessly encouraging support of a proscribed group runs counter to that focus on criminality. If he will not abolish that offence, will he at least set out guidance to the Crown Prosecution Service and the police on any public interest test in using it? The previous Policing Minister—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is what happens. I granted the urgent question because I thought it was important to hear you, and you were advised that it was two minutes. I think you have now finished or are about to.

[Ms Creasy]

I do apologise, Mr Speaker. I was advised that it was three minutes, but that is my fault.

Terrorism is different from terrorising opponents, but both should be criminal offences. Will the Minister commit to a review of that section so that we can get it right for the sake of our democracy?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I believe the advice was corrected to two minutes. [Interruption.] That is correct. I do not want my department to be blamed.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing these issues to the House. They are important, and it is right that Ministers are held accountable for them.

I am sure that the whole House will agree with my hon. Friend’s remarks about violence and intimidation, which have absolutely no place in our politics. She will be aware that there is a significant body of work taking place across Government, co-ordinated by the defending democracy taskforce, to ensure that all our elected representatives are able to do their duty and represent their constituents without fear or favour. The Government take that very seriously indeed.

My hon. Friend made a number of points, and I will struggle to respond to all of them. She will understand that the police are operationally independent of Government, but of course we remain in regular contact. It is important to take this opportunity to thank the police for their important work. They come under a huge amount of scrutiny—rightly so—but I think we saw at the weekend an impeccable police operation in which brave officers stood and did their duty, at least 17 of whom were allegedly assaulted in the line of duty.

The final thing to say to my hon. Friend relates to drawing the distinction, as she will well understand, on the absolute right of anybody in our country to express their concern about the desperately difficult situation in the middle east and more specifically in Gaza. The ability to go to the streets and join others in expressing individual or collective concern about unfolding events, be they in this country or further afield, is a cornerstone of our democracy. This Government would never do anything to get in the way of that. It was interesting that tens of thousands of people took to the streets this weekend and were able to express their concern in an entirely lawful way.

My hon. Friend asks about whether we are seeking to review any elements of the Terrorism Act. It is worth pointing her to the recently published article by Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who said with regard to tackling Palestine Action that

“There is no way ordinary criminal law would be effective against funding, training and recruitment.”

The Government must ensure public safety, and that is what we will seek to do.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I take the opportunity to acknowledge the difficult job that the police do. In my experience, recently and over a longer period, the police have done an excellent job, often under very difficult circumstances. It is important that we consider proportionality. These operational judgments have to be made by the police, often on the ground and often under pressure or in difficult circumstances. It is also important that we consider that we would not tolerate the kind of activity that we have seen in recent days and weeks from an organisation that was motivated, for example, by Islamist extremism, or by an extreme right-wing ideology. Similarly, we cannot tolerate that activity from Palestine Action, and this Government will support the police in doing the difficult job that we have asked them to do.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of a liberal democracy, but events over the weekend have set a dangerous precedent and risk having a chilling impact on free speech and legitimate protest in the UK. The arrest of 857 protesters under terror laws, following hundreds of arrests under the same powers last month, is deeply alarming. The Lib Dems warned that that would be exactly what happened when the Conservatives expanded terrorism powers in 2018. There is no doubt that those using violence, antisemitic abuse or hate speech must face the consequences, but those crimes are already covered by existing law. It cannot be right that simply displaying a placard in support of a proscribed organisation, while peacefully protesting, can result in a conviction and up to six months in prison. Will the Minister urgently review terrorism legislation, specifically as it is impacting the right to protest peacefully, to ensure it is proportionate and contains the nuance that it so clearly needs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in and concern about these matters. I give her an absolute assurance that the law is being applied fairly. I say to her—I know that she will agree with this—that nobody is above the law. It is important to think about how we collectively seek to respond to those who behave in a similar way but underpinned by very different causes, such as extreme Islamist terrorism or an extreme right-wing ideology. If people were demonstrating on behalf of those organisations in the same way that we have seen people demonstrating in support of Palestine Action, I think people would absolutely want the police to act in the way that they saw them act over the weekend. I say again: the law is being applied fairly; nobody is above the law; and the police need to be able to ensure that they are able to enforce it without fear or favour, and that is what I think they did over the weekend.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

The burden of policing these protests is falling on certain forces more than others. That was also the case during the disorder last summer. Can the Minister give some reassurance that the Home Office is providing the support that is needed to those forces to ensure that they can manage the protests and so that their doing so does not distract from day-to-day policing?

Borders and Asylum

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to the statement by the Home Secretary, I should like to say something about the House’s sub judice resolution. The case of Epping Forest district council v. Somani Hotels is still active and before the courts, but because the case concerns wider issues relating to the planning consent required for hotels to house asylum seekers, I have decided to grant a waiver so that Members are free to refer to it in proceedings. However, I remind the House that there are other active criminal prosecutions related to disorder around the Bell hotel and elsewhere, as well as one prosecution of an asylum seeker for alleged sexual offences. Hon. Members may refer to the general issues relating to asylum accommodation, but should avoid discussing any specific criminal cases.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)]

With permission, I will update the House on the actions we are taking with France to strengthen our border security and the next steps in our reforms to the asylum system.

The House will be aware that when we came into government, we found an asylum and immigration system in chaos: for seven years, small boat gangs had been allowed to embed their criminal trade along the French coast; the asylum backlog was soaring; and illegal working was being ignored. The previous Government had lost control of the system and, as a result, opened many hundreds of asylum hotels across the country, while returns were a third lower than in 2010. Before leaving office, they deliberately cut asylum decision making by 70%, leaving behind a steeply rising backlog. It is little wonder that people across the country lost confidence in the system and demanded to know why they were paying the price of a system that was so out of control.

However, that does not mean that people rejected the long and proud history of Britain doing our bit to help those fleeing persecution or conflict—including, in the past decade, families from Ukraine, Syria and Hong Kong. It is the British way to do our bit alongside other countries to help those who need sanctuary. However, the system has to be controlled and managed, based on fair and properly enforced rules, not chaos and exploitation driven by criminal smuggler gangs. It is exactly because of our important tradition that substantial reforms are needed now.

In our first year in government, we have taken immediate action, laying the foundations for more fundamental reform. We restored asylum decision making and then rapidly increased the rate of decisions. Had we continued with the previous Government’s freeze on asylum decisions, thousands more people would have been in hotels and asylum accommodation by now. Instead, we removed 35,000 people with no right to be here, which included a 28% increase in returns of failed asylum seekers and a 14% increase in removals of foreign criminals. We have increased raids and arrests on illegal working by 50%, and we cut the annual hotel bill by almost a billion pounds in the last financial year. We are rolling out digital ID and biometric kits so that immigration enforcement can check on the spot whether someone has a right to work or a right to be in the UK. On channel crossings and organised immigration crime, we are putting in place new powers, new structures and new international agreements to help to dismantle the criminal industry behind the boats.

I want to update the House on the further steps we are now taking. In August, I signed the new treaty with France allowing us, for the first time, to directly return those who arrive on small boats. The first detentions—of people immediately on arrival in Dover—took place the next day, and we expect the first returns to begin later this month. Applications have been opened for the reciprocal legal route, with the first cases under consideration, subject to strict security checks. We have made it clear that this is a pilot scheme, but the more that we prove the concept at the outset, the better we will be able to develop and grow it.

The principles the treaty embodies are crucial. No one should be making these dangerous or illegal journeys on small boats; if they do, we want to see them swiftly returned. In return, we believe in doing our bit alongside other countries to help those who have fled persecution through managed and controlled legal programmes.

This summer we have taken further action to strengthen enforcement against smuggling gangs. France has reviewed its maritime approach to allow for the interception of taxi boats in French waters, and we will continue to work with France to implement the change as soon as possible. In the past year, the National Crime Agency has led 347 disruptions of immigration crime networks—its highest level on record, and a 40% increase in a year.

Over the summer, we announced a £100 million uplift in funding for border security and up to 300 more personnel in the National Crime Agency focusing on targeting the smuggler gangs. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill will give them stronger powers: counter-terrorism powers against smuggler gangs, powers to seize and download the mobile phones of small boat arrivals, and the power to ban sex offenders from the asylum system altogether. If Opposition parties work with us to speed the passage of the Bill through the other place, instead of opposing it, those powers could be in place within months, making our country safer and more secure.

Let me turn to the major reforms that are needed to fix the broken asylum system that we inherited. Although we have increased decision making and returns, the overall system remains sclerotic, outdated and unfair. As we committed to in the immigration White Paper, we will shortly set out more radical reforms to modernise the asylum system and boost our border security. We will be tackling the pull factors, strengthening enforcement, making sure that people are treated fairly and reforming the way that the European convention on human rights is interpreted here at home. We will be speeding up the system, cutting numbers and ending the use of hotels, and developing controlled and managed routes for genuine refugees.

At the heart of the reforms will be a complete overhaul of the appeals system—the biggest obstacle to reducing the size of the asylum system and ending hotel use. Tens of thousands of people in asylum accommodation are currently waiting for appeals, and under the current system that figure is to grow, with an average wait time already of 54 weeks. We have already funded thousands of additional sitting days this year, and the border security Bill will introduce a statutory timeframe of 24 weeks.

However, we need to go further. We will introduce a new independent body to deal with immigration and asylum appeals. It will be fully independent of Government and staffed by professionally trained adjudicators, with safeguards to ensure high standards. It will be able to surge capacity as needed and to accelerate and prioritise cases, alongside new procedures to tackle repeat applications and unnecessary delays. We are also increasing detention and returns capacity, including a 1,000-bed expansion at Campsfield and Haslar, with the first tranche of additional beds coming online within months to support many thousands more enforced removals each year.

Our reforms will also address the overly complex system for family migration, including changes to the way that article 8 of the ECHR is interpreted. We should be clear that international law is important. It is because other countries know that we abide by international law that we have been able to make new agreements with France, to return people who arrive on small boats, and with Germany, to stop the warehousing of small boats by criminal gangs, and it is why we have been able to explore return hubs partnerships with other European countries. However, we need the interpretation of international law to keep up with the realities and challenges of today’s world.

There is one area where we need to make more immediate changes. The current rules for family reunion for refugees were designed many years ago to help families separated by war, conflict and persecution, but the way they are used has now changed. Even just before the pandemic, refugees who applied to bring family to the UK did so on average more than one or two years after they had been granted protection, which was long enough for them to get jobs, find housing and be able to provide their family with some support. In Denmark and Switzerland, those who are granted humanitarian protection are currently not able to apply to bring family for at least two years after protection has been granted.

However, in the UK those family applications now come in, on average, around a month after protection has been granted, often even before a newly granted refugee has left asylum accommodation. As a consequence, refugee families who arrive are far more likely to seek homelessness assistance. Some councils are finding that more than a quarter of their family homelessness applications are linked to refugee family reunion. That is not sustainable. Currently, there are also no conditions on family reunion for refugee sponsors, unlike those in place if the sponsor is a British citizen or long-term UK resident. That is not fair.

The proportion of migrants who have arrived on small boats and then applied to bring family has also increased sharply in recent years, with signs that smuggler gangs are now able to use the promise of family reunion to promote dangerous journeys to the UK. We continue to believe that families staying together is important, which is why we will seek to prioritise family groups among the applicants to come to Britain under our new deal with France, but reforms are needed. So in our asylum policy statement later this year, we will set out a new system for family migration, including looking at contribution requirements, longer periods before newly granted refugees can apply, and dedicated controlled arrangements for unaccompanied children and those fleeing persecution who have family in the UK.

We aim to have some of those changes in place for the spring, but in the meantime we do need to address the immediate pressures on local authorities and the risks from criminal gangs using family reunion as a pull factor to encourage more people on to dangerous boats. Therefore, this week we are bringing forward new immigration rules to temporarily suspend new applications under the existing dedicated refugee family reunion route. Until the new framework is introduced, refugees will be covered by the same family migration rules and conditions as everyone else.

Let me turn next to the action we are taking to ensure that every asylum hotel will be closed for good under this Government, not just by shifting individuals from hotels to other sites but by driving down the numbers in supported accommodation overall, and not in a chaotic way through piecemeal court judgments, but through a controlled, managed and orderly programme: driving down inflow into the asylum system, clearing the appeals backlog, which is crucial, and continuing to increase returns. Within the asylum estate, we are reconfiguring sites, increasing room sharing, tightening the test for accommodation and working at pace to identify alternative, cheaper and more appropriate accommodation with other Departments and with local authorities. We are increasing standards and security and joint public safety co-operation between the police, accommodation providers and the Home Office to ensure that laws and rules are enforced.

I understand and agree with local councils and communities who want the asylum hotels in their communities closed, because we need to close all asylum hotels—we need to do so for good—but that must be done in a controlled and orderly manner, not through a return to the previous Government’s chaos that led to the opening of hotels in the first place.

Finally, let me update the House on the continued legal and controlled support that we will provide for those facing conflict and persecution. We will continue to do our bit to support Ukraine, extending the Ukraine permission extension scheme by a further 24 months, with further details to be set out in due course. We are also taking immediate action to rescue children who have been seriously injured in the horrendous onslaught on civilians in Gaza so that they can get the health treatment they need. The Foreign Secretary will update the House shortly on the progress to get those children out.

I confirm that the Home Office has put in place systems to issue expedited visas with biometric checks conducted prior to arrival for children and their immediate accompanying family members. We have done the same for all the Chevening scholars and are now in the process of doing so for the next group of students from Gaza who have been awarded fully funded scholarships and places at UK universities so that they can start their studies in autumn this year. Later this year, we will set out plans to establish a permanent framework for refugee students to come and study in the UK so that we can help more talented young people fleeing war and persecution to find a better future, alongside capped and managed ways for refugees to work here in the UK.

The Government are determined to fix every aspect of the broken system we inherited and to restore the confidence of the British people, solving problems, not exploiting them, with a serious and comprehensive plan, not fantasy claims based on sums that do not add up or gimmicks that failed in the past. What we will never do is seek to stir up chaos, division or hate, because that is not who we are as a country, and that is not what Britain stands for.

This is a practical plan to strengthen our border security, to fix the asylum chaos and to rebuild confidence in an asylum and immigration system that serves our national interests, protects our national security and reflects our national values. When we wave the Union flag, when we wave the St George’s flag, when we sing “God Save the King” and when we celebrate everything that is great about Britain and about our country, we do so with pride because of the values that our flags, our King and our country represent: togetherness, fairness and decency, respect for each other and respect for the rule of law. That is what our country stands for. That is the British way to fix the problems we face. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Anyone who comes to our country needs to abide by our laws. The rules need to be enforced. We also believe that new partnership and stronger measures are needed between policing and immigration enforcement and the Home Office to ensure that there are proper public safety plans for the asylum estate. We are drawing up new arrangements, including not only stronger checks at the border but stronger arrangements in local communities. I recognise the important point that she makes.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

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

Anyone with any sense knows that the Conservatives trashed our asylum system and left the backlog spiralling out of control, with applications for asylum routinely taking years to process. Some of the Home Secretary’s remarks are welcome, but I worry that this Government risk repeating some of the same mistakes.

The Liberal Democrats will closely scrutinise the plan that the Home Secretary has talked about today, but given that the Home Office itself says that one of the reasons that those human beings seeking asylum make dangerous small-boat crossings is the lack of safe, alternative family reunion routes, cutting those back further seems counterproductive, especially when more than half of those granted family reunion visas in the year ending June 2025 were children under 18.

It is right that the Government have increased the rate of decisions made—those with no right to be here should be sent back swiftly, and those who have a valid claim should be able to settle, work, integrate and contribute to our communities. The backlog is still too large, however, and initial application decisions still take too long. As the Home Secretary stated, a significant share of the backlog comes from appeals. According to the Government’s own figures, in 2024 almost half of rejected asylum applications were overturned on appeal. For applicants from high-grant countries, that proportion was even higher. I would welcome clarity from the Home Secretary on how long it is currently taking to process the average asylum application, and on what concrete steps are being taken to ensure not only that cases are processed more swiftly, but that decisions are right the first time, so that applicants are not left in limbo, the courts are not overburdened and taxpayers are not footing the bill for avoidable delays.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s encouraging comments about the reciprocal agreement with France. Can she confirm whether the Government plan for that to be scaled up and, if so, when? Given that one of the main drivers of dangerous channel crossings is the absence of safe, legal family reunion routes, does the Home Secretary agree that cutting family reunion rules risks making the small-boat crisis worse, not better?

The Home Secretary rightly also mentioned the impact on local authorities. When individuals leave hotels, many present as homeless, creating an unsustainable burden on councils, including my own. Will the Home Secretary explain how she is working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to support councils and ensure that this crisis is not simply shifted from one overstretched system to another?

In recent weeks, constituents have been in touch with me as they are concerned about the number of flags that have gone up on lampposts around our area. They worry that the flags have been put up by those who seek to divide our community, not bring it together. Patriotism is a good thing. We should be proud of our country. We should be proud that our country welcomed people such as my nan in the 1930s, when she was fleeing the Nazis. We should be proud of our record of doing our bit. We should be proud of the British values I see in action across my community every day.

I am proud of those police officers who kept everyone safe during the protests at two hotels in my constituency over the summer; proud of those teachers and pupils who welcome new classmates when they have been placed in one of the hotels; and really proud of those who volunteer their time to support new arrivals, whether through local churches or other voluntary groups and charities—because that is what patriotism looks like.

Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the shadow Home Secretary to ask this urgent question, I remind the House that hon. Members must not refer to any matters that are currently before the courts. Members are free to refer to broader policy issues, but they should not get into the details of the specific cases for which criminal charges are being brought.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

There was no proper management of public safety risks posed by individual asylum seekers. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Do we both understand?

[Chris Philp]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

Okay. Carry on, Minister.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

There was no proper management of public safety risks posed by individual asylum seekers, and migrants could work illegally in the gig economy with few sanctions for the companies responsible.

This Government are gripping the situation and turning the system around. We have removed 5,179 foreign national offenders in our first year in office. Just to put that in perspective for the benefit of the House, that is more foreign criminals than were removed in the entire 20 months when the right hon. Gentleman was the Minister for Immigration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend will know that the Immigration Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), who I believe gave evidence to the esteemed Home Affairs Committee on which he sits, is looking at that issue. A number of companies have been reported in the press as employing or using people in particular from asylum hotels—I know the shadow Home Secretary has taken a particular interest in this—and the Minister is working very hard to ensure that those companies are held to account, and that the new provisions we are bringing in to ensure that the gig economy is treated in the same way as other employers, who have to check individuals’ immigration status, are followed through. There is much more to do, but certainly I know the Immigration Minister is working hard on this.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The scenes of violent unrest at the Bell hotel this weekend are deeply concerning. Liberal Democrats will always defend the right to peaceful protest, but what we saw went far beyond that. There is no place for that sort of violence and thuggery in our society. I thank the police and the emergency services for their brave and professional response, and my thoughts go out to anyone who is feeling frightened as a result of those unacceptable scenes.

It is completely understandable that people are concerned about criminal activity, not least after the former Conservative Government’s chaotic approach to immigration shattered public trust. That is why we need an efficient asylum system that swiftly returns those without a genuine right to stay. I would welcome details from the Minister on what steps the Government are taking to deliver that. Clear rules that are properly enforced will be key to rebuilding public trust in the system after it was broken by the Conservatives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am the Policing Minister, but I know that work is already under way on that issue. The Immigration Minister has had a number of conversations, particularly with employers, as I have just said, about where work should not be taking place because of individuals’ immigration status. There has been investment in the National Crime Agency—additional officers are working on this issue—and work is under way on smashing the gangs who were behind bringing people across in the small boats. There are also our international arrangements and treaties that we are signing with various countries, which the previous Government were unable to do.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

This is a real national crisis, and there is such an outcry and such outrage in the country that there is a real danger that people will take the law into their own hands, which we all deprecate. We have to solve this, and the only way to do so is to have a reasonable and proper deterrent. We must arrest the people who land on our shores, detain them and send them back to where they came from. The Human Rights Act 1998 was never intended to cover illegal immigrants of this sort. We have to do this for all our sakes; otherwise, people will wrongly take the law into their own hands.

Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 11th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to our proceedings, I remind Members of the difference between Report and Third Reading. The scope of debate on Report is the amendments I have selected. The scope of the Third Reading debate to follow will be the whole Bill as it stands after Report. Members may wish to consider those points before deciding at which stage, or stages, they want to try to catch my eye.

Clause 1

Offence of unauthorised entry to designated football matches

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “or attempts to enter”.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, page 1, line 8, leave out “or attempted entry”.

Amendment 3, page 1, line 11, leave out “or attempting to enter”.Amendment 4, page 1, line 13, leave out “or attempted to enter”.

Amendment 5, page 1, line 15, leave out “or attempted entry”.

Amendment 6, clause 2, page 2, line 3, leave out from “force” to end of line 4 and insert

“at the end of the period of 2 months beginning with the day on which it is passed.”.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Many people watching and observing proceedings in Parliament will wonder whether we have our priorities right. The Bill is about unauthorised entry to football matches in particular circumstances, but I think most people are much more concerned about the proliferation of unauthorised entry into our very country, and the failure of the Home Office and its officials to do anything effective about it. In my submission, the Bill is a trivialisation of legislation by Home Office officials who should be doing other things—but I will not dwell on that now, Mr Speaker.

The long title of the Bill states that its purpose is to

“Create an offence of unauthorised entry at football matches for which a football banning order can be imposed following conviction.”

However, it is about not just unauthorised entry but any attempt at unauthorised entry. My amendments are designed to exclude from the Bill provisions relating to attempts to enter. Such attempts are less important than actual unlawful entry, and to include them in the same category is disproportionate and unreasonable. When we come on to debate other parts of the Bill on Third Reading, points can be made about the Bill more generally, but it seems to me that someone attempting to enter a football match without authorisation should not be subject to the same penalties, as set out in the Bill, as people who actually succeed in getting into a football match.

Actually, 11 July is quite an interesting date. On this very day four years ago the 2020 Euros final at Wembley stadium resulted in the unauthorised entry of thousands of fans, which caused a lot of disorder. Baroness Casey, who is an expert on producing reports, was commissioned by the Football Association to look into that issue and come forward with recommendations. In her report, which spanned more than 100 pages, she emphasised the fact that much of the disorder was nothing to do with people coming in without tickets and tailgating; in fact, a lot of it was attributed to other failures to enforce the law, in particular the taking of drugs and alcohol on public transport in London, which is verboten, and the taking of drugs in the vicinity of a football match, which should also be forbidden but was allowed to proceed with impunity. She also made the point that unlike at many football matches, what happened at Wembley was largely exacerbated by the inadequacy of the stewarding arrangements.

As a result of Baroness Casey’s report, the Home Office decided to bring forward this Bill. However, nowhere could I find in the report any reference to the fact that Baroness Casey wanted to treat attempts to enter in exactly the same way as entering, which is why I have put forward these amendments. There is no need to expand on that except to say that it is in common law. Normally, an attempt to commit a criminal offence is an inchoate action, which can itself be the subject of criminal proceedings; in those circumstances, there would be no need to have this provision written into the Bill.

It seems to me that the provisions would create a penalty that is quite severe; it could affect people’s ability to go and watch football matches for many years into the future. The presumption under the Bill—as you will know, Mr Speaker—is that if someone is guilty of an offence, they will be unable to go to football matches again as a spectator. My assessment is that that is disproportionate and unnecessary. For those reasons, I strongly oppose this aspect of the Bill, and seek through these amendments to remove references to “attempts”.

Amendment 6 is another example of where we need to try to tighten up private Members’ Bills when they are brought before this House, so that the Government do not have everything their own way. Members will know that there are four other Bills to be debated on Report this morning. All those other Bills have a commencement date, but clause 2(2) of this Bill says:

“This Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint.”

The question I ask is: why? Why is that necessary? Why can we not in this very simple Bill say that these provisions will come into effect either on the day of Royal Assent or within two months of that date? That would be the norm.

What sometimes happens, of course, is that the Government give themselves powers and do all the talk about supporting Bills such as this, and then never bring forward the regulations. The consequence of not having a specific timetable is that the ball is very much—to use that expression—in the Government’s court, because they can decide whether they will implement the provisions of this Bill, which has been put forward by the Home Office. I hope that when the Minister responds to this debate, he will explain why the Bill has to be introduced by regulations on a date yet to be specified. Of course, the making of regulations is in itself a further unnecessary administrative burden. I would be interested to hear from the Minister as to why the Bill is being treated differently from the other Bills the Government are hoping will get through today.

--- Later in debate ---

Fourthly, my hon. Friend’s amendments would protect civil liberties. I have spent many long years and Fridays in this place defending civil liberties. I do not believe in over-regulation and ever more laws restricting civil liberties. The amendments would guard against penalising individuals where intent or context is unclear. We are criminalising only intent; we are not criminalising an actual fact, and that is a dangerous legal proposition. If we start doing it now on this Bill, where will it stop? Will we criminalise an attempt to enter a cinema or theatre?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is straying a little wide into different areas. As he rightly said, the Bill is quite narrow. I am sure that he will want to get back on track. This is about football, not cinemas.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am so grateful to you, Mr Speaker; you will be grateful to hear that having made those remarks, I am drawing to a conclusion.

We have a duty to ensure that punishment is based on actual misconduct in entering a football ground, not suspicion or misjudged behaviour. Fifthly, my hon. Friend’s amendments would allow for practical enforcement. Focusing on completed unauthorised entry would help police and clubs concentrate their resources on the most serious breaches, rather than chasing marginal cases. The amendments would provide necessary implementation time. The two-month delay before commencement gives football clubs, police and stewards time to prepare for the new legal framework, reducing confusion and aiding smooth enforcement.

Finally, the amendments would encourage propor-tionality. They keep the law from becoming an unnecessarily blunt instrument and instead preserve a proportionate, targeted response to genuine requests.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I thank the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for bringing the Bill forward and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for his amendments. At this stage, is it correct that you wish us to speak only to the amendment, Mr Speaker? [Interruption.] Yes. We the Opposition have nothing further to add to the debate that we have had this morning.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Minister.

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I thank the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for tabling these amendments, which propose two changes. First, amendments 1 to 5 would remove attempted unauthorised entry from the scope of the offence. Secondly, amendment 6 would bring the Act into force two months after it receives Royal Assent, rather than by commencement regulations made by statutory instrument.

It is absolutely essential that the Bill explicitly covers both attempted and successful unauthorised entry. We have seen widespread issues involving ticketless fans at football matches attempting to force entry and tailgate at high-profile matches, including the 2024 champions league final, premier league fixtures and at the Euro 2020 tournament. These forms of attempted entry place significant demands on stadium safety and security personnel and, at times, require police intervention. Maintaining provisions for attempted unauthorised entry ensures that law enforcement can act before a breach occurs and thus maintain safety and security at football matches across the country. It also enables the imposition of preventive football banning orders against persons involved in attempted entry. Banning orders are an effective deterrent against those who may seek to compromise public safety.

I turn to amendment 6. The Bill is designed to allow the measures to come into force by regulation on a date shortly before the start of the domestic football season. This approach will ensure that all organisations involved in safety and security operations are prepared to implement the new offence. A fixed date two months after Royal Assent may not coincide with the football calendar or allow sufficient time for training, communication and co-ordination. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Member for Christchurch to withdraw his amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right, and he and I have talked to shop managers in his constituency about the importance of tackling town centre crime. It is why Lancashire police are getting an additional 83 police officers and PCSOs into neighbourhood teams this year. I strongly welcome the work they are doing as part of the Government’s safer streets summer initiative to tackle shop theft and street assaults; doing so can make so much difference to keeping people safe.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

May I associate myself and my Committee with your words earlier, Mr Speaker, regarding the 20th anniversary that we are marking today?

Live facial recognition technology is an effective tool in community and neighbourhood policing. We know that is being used effectively by the Metropolitan police, but other police forces are nervous because they do not believe that the statutory underpinning is in place. Can the Home Secretary provide some reassurance about what the Government will do to make sure this technology can be used effectively?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We want to see standards raised across policing and across all police forces. That is why the police reform White Paper will set out new measures to improve performance management across all police forces. Warwickshire is getting an additional 22 police officers, PCSOs and specials on to the streets.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

May I join you, Mr Speaker, in marking the anniversary of the 7/7 London bombings? Our thoughts are with the victims and families, and all who did all they could to help those in need.

Yesterday, Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley called the spending review “disappointing”, highlighting that he is being forced to cut 1,700 officers and staff. Policing may not be a priority for this Labour Government, but the last Government put a record number of police on our streets. Will the Home Secretary commit to keeping total number of police officers above 147,746, as it was under the last Government—yes or no?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that police forces are following the guidance that the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), drew up on this issue. We have a review that is happening under the College of Policing at the moment, but the shadow Minister refers to the Crime and Policing Bill, which is introducing new measures on stalking, spiking, respect orders, e-bikes, off-road bikes and a whole serious of different issues, and which sadly the Conservatives voted against—so much for caring about tackling crime.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The best community policing is embedded within communities, responding to their needs. Whether it is attacks on Jewish-owned businesses or hateful chants at music festivals, there are too many sobering reminders of the reality of the antisemitism that too many within the Jewish community across the UK are facing right now. Home Office figures have shown that religious hate crimes are at record highs, and that the number of hate crimes specifically targeting Jewish people has more than doubled. Everyone deserves to feel safe in our society, and that must include British Jewish communities, so what steps is the Home Secretary taking to ensure that police have the training and resources needed to effectively tackle antisemitic hate crimes, while supporting survivors?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We are as anxious as my hon. Friend to end the use of asylum hotels, but the backlogs we inherited from the Conservatives and the time it was taking—decision making collapsed by 70% in the last three months of that Government—have made it harder to empty hotels than we thought it would be at the beginning. However, we have sped up; there has been a 116% increase in initial asylum decisions. We are speeding up the system, we are getting people through the system, and we will close all asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I gently remind the Minister that the number of immigrants in asylum hotels has gone up since the general election. I recently visited an asylum hotel and saw bikes from Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber Eats in the hotel compound. Local eyewitnesses confirmed that the illegal immigrants in the hotel had been illegally working. That creates a pull factor, because people smugglers actively market illegal working opportunities. It also creates risk for women and girls, who might receive deliveries late at night from these undocumented illegal immigrants. Will the Minister at least commit now to preventing this illegal working from taking place from the hotels that she runs?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We have had a 50% increase in raids and arrests on illegal working since we came into government, so perhaps the shadow Home Secretary should have spent more time when he was in government enforcing the rules on illegal working. We are doing more, including extending the law on illegal working to the gig economy. That measure is in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which he voted against.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Enabling new refugees to prepare properly for life in the UK will be key to reducing the need for asylum accommodation. In my constituency we have seen the extension of the move-on period not only giving new refugees much-needed time to make those preparations, but protecting other public bodies such as the local authority from being left to pick up the costs. We welcomed the news last December of the Government’s decision to trial a longer move-on period for six months, but those six months have now come and gone, and despite numerous requests for an answer, the Government have provided no certainty on whether the trial will be extended. Can the Minister provide clarity today?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

Of course. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but he should take up that issue with the Scottish Government, as it is devolved. As I have said, we will make sure that all learning is passed on to the devolved Administrations.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) relate to the question of whether it will be a national inquiry, rather than a co-ordination of a few local inquiries. All the victims and survivors deserve justice, so can the Minister please confirm for us today that every town and city with a grooming and rape gang will be part of the inquiry, including and especially where local authorities may not wish to be part of it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I associate myself with the Home Secretary’s remarks about the terrorist atrocities perpetrated on 7/7. The 52 victims and their families of course remain in our prayers. The whole House will want to send thanks to the emergency services for what they did on that day and what they do every day.

It is now clear that the Home Secretary has lost control of our borders. So far, 2025 has been the worst year in history when it comes to illegal immigrants crossing the channel. Her claim to be smashing the gangs is clearly laughable. The French are having almost no effect, despite spending hundreds of millions of pounds, and the press report that not much will change in the negotiations this week. Returns of small boat arrivals are down, representing only 5% of overall arrivals, so will—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is topical questions. You have to help me get the Back Benchers in, but you are not at the moment. I am sure you are coming to an end now.

[Chris Philp]

I am, Mr Speaker. Will the Home Secretary finally admit that the only way to fix this situation is for there to be a removals deterrent whereby every single illegal immigrant is immediately removed?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)]

That is an important issue. I am working closely with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), and the Israeli, Jordanian and Egyptian authorities to identify safe routes by which British nationals and other eligible people can leave Gaza, or indeed the west bank, and so are able to obtain visas and travel to the UK.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The number of small boat crossings is driving people mad and eroding support for the Labour Government, just as it eroded support for the Conservatives. I worry for the Labour Government; I want them to do better on this, for all our sakes. Have not our French friends got a point about this country being uniquely attractive to illegal asylum seekers? We do not have identity cards, and we do not do what the Belgians do, which is to refuse to put them in reception centres. Can we make a study of what every other member of the Council of Europe is doing, and replicate the strongest actions, so that this is not the most attractive country for illegal asylum seekers?

Crime and Policing Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 53—Arranging or facilitating begging for gain.

Government new clause 54—Proving an offence under section 38.

Government new clause 55—Special measures for witnesses.

Government new clause 56—Causing internal concealment of item for criminal purpose.

Government new clause 57—Secretary of State guidance.

Government new clause 58—Department of Justice guidance.

Government new clause 59—Removal of limitation period in child sexual abuse cases.

Government new clause 60—Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour towards emergency workers.

Government new clause 61—Threatening or abusive behaviour likely to harass, alarm or distress emergency workers.

Government new clause 62—Interpretation of sections (Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour towards emergency workers) and (Threatening or abusive behaviour likely to harass, alarm or distress emergency workers).

Government new clause 63—Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices.

Government new clause 64—Section (Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices): supplementary.

Government new clause 65—Section (Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices): interpretation.

Government new clause 66—Section (Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices): confidential information.

Government new clause 67—Section (Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices): code of practice.

Government new clause 68—Extraction of online information: ports and border security.

Government new clause 69—Extraction of online information following agreement etc.

Government new clause 70—Lawful interception of communications.

Government new clause 71—Law enforcement employers may not employ etc barred persons.

Government new clause 72—Meaning of “law enforcement employer”.

Government new clause 73—Application of section (Law enforcement employers may not employ etc barred person) to Secretary of State.

Government new clause 74—Application of section (Law enforcement employers may not employ etc barred person) to specified law enforcement employer.

Government new clause 75—Duty of law enforcement employers to check advisory lists.

Government new clause 76—Application of section (Duty of law enforcement employers to check advisory lists) to specified law enforcement employer.

Government new clause 77—Interpretation of sections (Law enforcement employers may not employ etc barred persons) to (Application of section (Duty of law enforcement employers to check advisory lists) to specified law enforcement employer).

Government new clause 78—Special police forces: barred persons lists and advisory lists.

Government new clause 79—Consequential amendments.

Government new clause 80—Power to give directions to critical police undertakings.

Government new clause 81—Ports and border security: retention and copying of articles.

Government new clause 82—Extradition: cases where a person has been convicted.

Government new schedule 1—Amendments to Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.

Government new schedule 2—Confiscation orders: Scotland.

Government new schedule 3—Special police forces: barred persons lists and advisory lists.

Amendment 157, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “The Anti-social” and insert—

“Subject to a review of existing anti-social behaviour powers under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2014 being conducted and completed by the Secretary of State within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Anti-social”.

Amendment 167, page 1, line 13, leave out “18” and insert “16”.

This amendment would lower the age to 16 at which a court can impose a respect order on a person to prevent them from engaging in anti-social behaviour.

Amendment 168, page 2, line 29, at end insert—

“(9A) If a court makes a respect order against a person (P) more than once, then P is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.”

This amendment means that if a person gets more than one Respect Order, they are liable for a fine.

Amendment 169, page 2, line 30, leave out from “behaviour” to end of line 31 and insert

“has the same meaning as under section 2 of this Act.”

This amendment would give “anti-social behaviour” in clause 1 the same definition as in section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

Amendment 170, page 4, line 18, at end insert—

“D1 Power to move person down list for social housing

(1) A respect order may have the effect of moving any application the respondent may have for social housing to the end of the waiting list.”

This amendment would mean that a person who receives a respect order would move to the bottom of the waiting list for social housing, if applicable.

Amendment 171, page 8, line 2, at end insert—

“(4A) A person who commits further offences under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates' court or a fine (or both);

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).””

This amendment sets out the penalties for repeated breaches of a respect order with a prison sentence of up to 5 years.

Amendment 158, in clause 2, page 9, line 35, at end insert—

“(4) Prior to issuing any guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must conduct a full consultation exercise.”

Amendment 2, in clause 8, page 17, line 23, insert—

“(3) To facilitate the ability of the Police, under the provisions of section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002, as amended by subsection (1), to seize e-scooters or e-bikes that have been used in a manner which has caused alarm, distress or annoyance, the Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue a consultation on a registration scheme for the sale of electric bikes and electric scooters.

(4) The consultation must consider the merits of—

(a) requiring sellers to record the details of buyers, and

(b) verifying that buyers have purchased insurance.”

Amendment 172, in clause 9, page 17, line 34, at end insert—

“(c) section 33B (Section 33 offences: clean-up costs).”

Amendment 173, page 17, line 34, at end insert—

“(1A) Guidance issued about the enforcement of section 33 offences must ensure that, where a person is convicted of a relevant offence, they are liable for the costs incurred through loss or damage resulting from the offence.”

This amendment would ensure the Secretary of State’s guidance on fly-tipping makes the person responsible for fly-tipping, rather than the landowner, liable for the costs of cleaning up.

Amendment 174, page 18, line 3, at end insert—

“(4A) The consultation undertaken by the Secretary of State must include an examination of establishing a penalty point fine to those found convicted of an offence under sections 33 or 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult on establishing a system for those who fly tip or leave litter to receive penalty points on their driving licence.

Amendment 175, in clause 25, page 30, line 24, leave out “4” and insert “14”.

This amendment would increase the maximum sentence for possession of a weapon with intent to commit unlawful violence from four to 14 years. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation recommended an increase in his review following the Southport attack.

Government amendments 24 to 33.

Amendment 176, in clause 35, page 50, line 38, at end insert—

“(4) If the offender has previous convictions for an offence under section 14 of the Crime and Policing Act 2025 (assault of a retail worker) or for shoplifting under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968, the court must make a community order against the offender. The community order must include a tag, a ban, or a curfew.”

This amendment clause would require the courts to make a community order against repeat offenders of retail crime in order to restrict the offender’s liberty.

Government amendment 34.

Amendment 4, in clause 38, page 51, line 29, leave out “criminal conduct” and insert “conduct for criminal purposes”.

This amendment would expand the remit of the offence created under clause 38 to include exploiting a child into conduct for criminal purposes.

Amendment 7, page 51, line 31, leave out paragraph (b).

This amendment would remove the requirement that for an offence of child criminal exploitation to be committed, the perpetrator did not reasonably believe that the child was aged 18 or over.

Government amendment 35.

Amendment 5, in clause 38, page 51, line 37, leave out “criminal conduct” and insert “conduct for criminal purposes”.

This amendment would expand the remit of the offence created under clause 38 to include exploiting a child into conduct for criminal purposes. It is consequential on Amendment 4.

Amendment 6, page 52, line 2, leave out “or” and insert—

“(b) activity that is undertaken in order to facilitate or enable an offence under the law of England and Wales, or.”

This amendment would expand the remit of the offence created under clause 38 to include exploiting a child into conduct for criminal purposes.

Government amendments 36 to 49.

Amendment 8, in clause 53, page 61, line 5, after “(A)” insert ““aged 18 or over”.

This amendment would ensure children cannot commit an offence of cuckooing.

Government amendments 50 to 66.

Government motion to transfer subsection (4) of clause 59.

Government amendments 68 and 69.

Amendment 177, in clause 64, page 73, line 24, at end insert—

“4A) For the purpose of this section—

“Child” means a person under the age of 18.

“Grooming” means meeting or communicating (in person or online) with a child and or their network (on one or more occasion) with a view to intentionally arrange or facilitate child sexual abuse (in person or online) for an act including themselves or others.”

This amendment would introduce a legal definition of grooming.

Amendment 178, page 74, line 31, at end insert—

“70B Group-based sexual grooming of a child

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a court is considering the seriousness of a specified child sex offences,

(b) the offence is aggravated by group-based grooming, and

(c) the offender was aged 18 or over when the offence was committed.

(2) The court—

(a) must treat the fact that the offence is aggravated by group-based grooming as an aggravated factor, and

(b) must state in court that the offence is so aggravated.

(3) An offence is “aggravated by group-based grooming” if—

(a) the offence was facilitated by, or involved, the offender, who was involved in group-based grooming, or

(b) the offence was facilitated by, or involved, a person other than the offender grooming a person under the age of 18 and the offender knew, or could have reasonably been expected to know that said person was participating, or facilitating group-based grooming, or

(c) the offender intentionally arranges or facilitates something that the offender intends to do, intends another person to do, or believes that another person will do, in order to participate in group-based grooming.

(4) In this section “specified child sex offence” means—

(a) an offence within any of subsections (5) to (7), or

(b) an inchoate offence in relation to any such offence.

(5) An offence is within this subsection if it is—

(a) an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (taking etc indecent photograph of child),

(b) an offence under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (possession of indecent photograph of child),

(c) an offence under any of sections 5 to 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape and other offences against children under 13),

(d) an offence under any sections 9 to 12 of that Act (other child 25 sex offences),

(e) an offence under section 14 of that Act (arranging or facilitating commission of child sex offence),

(f) an offence under any of sections 16 to 19 of that Act (abuse of position of trust),

(g) an offence under section 25 or 26 of that Act (familial child sex offences), or

(h) an offence under any of sections 47 to 50 of that Act (sexual exploitation of children).

(6) An offence is within this subsection if it is—

(a) an offence under any of sections 1 to 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape, assault and causing sexual activity without consent),

(b) an offence under any of sections 30 to 41 of that Act (sexual offences relating to persons with mental disorder),

(c) an offence under any of sections 61 to 63 of that Act (preparatory offences), or

(d) an offence under any of sections 66 to 67A of that Act (exposure and voyeurism), and the victim or intended victim was under the age of 18.

(7) An offence is within this subsection if it is an offence under section 71 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sexual activity in a public lavatory) and a person involved in the activity in question was under the age of 18.

(8) For the purposes of this section—

(a) “group-based grooming” is defined as a group of at least three adults whose purpose or intention is to commit a sexual offence against the same victim or group of victims who are under 18, or could reasonably be expected to be under 18.”

This amendment would introduce a specific aggravating factor in sentencing for those who participate in, or facilitate, group-based sexual offending.

Amendment 159, in clause 65, page 74, line 39, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(2) An officer may seek independent judicial authorisation to engage in conduct which is for the purpose of obtaining data from the person.

(2A) Authorised conduct may consist of an officer—

(a) scanning the information stored on the device using technology approved by the Secretary of State for the purpose of ascertaining whether information stored on an electronic device includes child sexual abuse images,

(b) requiring the person to permit the scan, and

(c) requiring the person to take such steps as appear necessary to allow the scan to be performed.”

This amendment subjects any searches of electronic devices to prior authorisation by a judge.

Amendment 179, in clause 66, page 75, line 16, leave out subsection (7).

This amendment would keep an individual under the duty to report child abuse despite the belief that someone else may have reported the abuse to the relevant authority.

Amendment 3, page 75, line 31, at end insert—

“(2) the duty under subsection (1) applies to—

(a) any person undertaking work for the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, or any other Christian denomination on either a paid or voluntary basis,

(b) any clergy of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, or any other Christian denomination, notwithstanding any canonical law regarding the seal of confession, and

(c) any person undertaking work on either a paid or voluntary basis, or holding a leadership position, within the Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim or Sikh faiths, or any other religion, faith or belief system.”

This amendment would ensure that the duty to report suspected child sex abuse covered everyone working for the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church whether paid or on a voluntary basis, including clergy, as well as all other faith groups. Reports received by clergy through confession would not be exempt from the duty to report.

Amendment 10, page 76, line 28, at end insert—

“(10) A person who fails to fulfil the duty under subsection (1) commits an offence.

(11) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”

This amendment would implement part of recommendation 13 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse that a failure to report a suspected child sex offence should be a criminal offence.

Amendment 22, page 77, line 13, at end insert

“or

(c) an activity involving a “position of trust” as defined in sections 21, 22 and 22A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.”

This amendment would implement part of recommendation 13 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse that any person working in a position of trust as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, should be designated a mandatory reporter.

Amendment 11, in clause 68, page 78, line 19, at end insert—

“(7) The sixth case is where P witnesses a child displaying sexualised, sexually harmful or other behaviour, physical signs of abuse or consequences of sexual abuse, such as pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease, to an extent that would cause a reasonable person who engages in the same relevant activity as P to suspect that a child sex offence may have been committed.

(8) The seventh case is where P witnesses a person (A) behaving in the presence of a child in a way that would cause a reasonable person who engages in the same relevant activity as P to suspect that A may have committed a child sex offence.

(9) A failure to comply with the duty under subsection (1) is not an offence where the reason to suspect that a child sex offence may have been committed arises from subsection (7) or subsection (8).”

This amendment would implement part of recommendation 13 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse that there should be a duty to report where a person recognises the indicators of child sexual abuse. Failure to report in these instances would not attract a criminal sanction.

Government amendment 70.

Amendment 9, in clause 80, page 84, line 22, at end insert—

“(b) if the name change is by deed poll, 7 days prior to submitting an application for change of name (whichever is earlier), or”.

This amendment would require relevant sex offenders to notify the police of an intention to change a name 7 days before making an application to do so by deed poll.

Amendment 180, page 85, line 26, at end insert—

“(11) If a relevant offender does not comply with the requirements of this section, they shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Level 4 on the standard scale.”

This amendment imposes a fine of up to £2,500 if a registered sex offender does not notify the police when they change their name.

Amendment 181, in clause 81, page 86, line 41, at end insert—

“(10) If a relevant offender does not comply with the requirements of this section, they shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Level 4 on the standard scale.”

This amendment imposes a fine of up to £2,500 if a registered sex offender does not notify the police when they are absent from their sole or main residence.

Amendment 182, in clause 82, page 88, line 25, at end insert—

“(9) If a relevant offender does not comply with the requirements of this section, they shall be liable to a fine at Level 5 of the standard scale.”

This amendment imposes an unlimited fine if a relevant registered sex offender does not notify police if they are entering a premises where children are presented.

Government amendments 71 to 73.

Amendment 19, in clause 94, page 115, line 25, at end insert

“, or

(c) the person does so being reckless as to whether another person will be injured, aggrieved or annoyed.”

This amendment would expand the offence for administering harmful substances, including by spiking, to include those who do so being reckless.

Amendment 20, in clause 95, page 116, line 37, at end insert—

“(6A) In determining a sentence for an offence committed under this section, the Court is to treat encouragement or assistance of self-harm, when preceded by a history of abuse perpetrated against the victim/other person by D, as an aggravating factor.

(6B) The criminal liability for D, when the other person mentioned in subsection 1(a) or 1(b) commits suicide, and where D has subjected that person to physical, psychiatric or psychological harm, is the offence of murder.”

This amendment treats encouragement or assistance of serious self-harm when preceded by a history of abuse as an aggravating factor in sentencing with explicit recognition of murder as the criminal liability for perpetrators who cause serious physical, psychiatric, or psychological harm that directly results in, or significantly contributes to, suicide.

Government amendments 74 to 76.

Amendment 14, in clause 102, page 124, line 16, leave out from subsection (1) to “where” in line 29 and insert—

“(1) A person who possesses a SIM farm without good reason or lawful authority commits an offence. For the meaning of ‘SIM farm’, see section 104.

(2) In subsection (1) the reference to a good reason for possessing a SIM farm includes in particular possessing it for a purpose connected with—

(a) providing broadcasting services,

(b) operating or maintaining a public transport service,

(c) operating or maintaining an electronic communications network (as defined by section 32 of the Communications Act 2003),

(d) tracking freight or monitoring it in any other way, or

(e) providing or supporting an internet access service or the conveyance of signals (as defined by section 32 of the Communications Act 2003).

This subsection does not limit subsection (1).

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1),”.

This amendment would mean that a person would only commit an offence if they possessed a SIM farm without a good reason, such as for broadcasting purposes, or lawful authority.

Amendment 15, in clause 103, page 124, line 37, leave out from subsection (1) to “prove” on page 125, line 2, and insert—

“(1) A person who supplies a SIM farm to another person commits an offence unless subsection (2) applies.

(2) It is not an offence for a person to supply a SIM farm under this section provided the person (‘the supplier’) can”.

This amendment would mean that a person would only commit an offence if they supplied a SIM farm without taking reasonable steps to confirm that the person receiving the SIM farm would have a good reason, including for broadcasting purposes, or lawful authority to possess the SIM farm.

Amendment 16, in clause 104, page 125, line 34, after “interchangeably,” insert “and designed primarily” and line 39, at end insert—

“(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), a device is not a SIM farm if it uses five or more SIM cards simultaneously or interchangeably for the purposes of provided data only services or internet access services or conveyance services.”

This amendment would amend the meaning of “SIM farm” to cover only devices that are primarily used for calls and text messages and would exclude devices primarily used for data connectivity such as Bonded Cellular Devices used by broadcasters.

Amendment 164, page 128, line 5, leave out clause 108.

Amendment 184, in clause 108, page 128, line 10, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—

“(2) No offence is committed under this section where a person wears or otherwise uses the item for—”

This amendment would ensure that Clause 108 does not apply to people wearing the hijab, niqab or wearing a mask for health reasons.

Amendment 185, page 128, line 25, at end insert—

“(6) Within a year of this section coming into force, the Secretary of State must review the equality impact of the provisions of this section, and lay a report of the review before both Houses of Parliament within a month of its publication.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the equality impact of the provisions of Clause 108.

Amendment 165, page 128, line 26, leave out clause 109.

Amendment 166, page 129, line 28, leave out clause 110.

Government amendments 77 to 86.

Amendment 161, page 131, line 29, leave out clause 114.

This amendment would delete Clause 114 which would place restrictions on the right to protest near places of worship.

Amendment 160, in clause 115, page 133, line 12, at end insert—

“(4) Prior to imposing conditions under either Section 12 or 14, the senior officer of the Police Force in question must confirm that live facial recognition will not be in use, unless a new code of practice for the use of live facial recognition surveillance in public spaces in England and Wales had previously been presented to, and approved by, both Houses of Parliament.”

Amendment 21, in clause 120, page 140, line 37, at end insert—

“(8) The authorised persons listed in Clause 71A may not use the information referenced in subsection (1) for the purposes of biometric searches using facial recognition technology”

Government amendment 87.

Amendment 162, page 148, line 1, leave out clause 126.

Amendment 163, in clause 126, page 148, line 13, at end insert—

“(3) Within a year of this section coming into force, the Secretary of State must review the human rights and equality impact of the provisions of this section, and lay the report of the review before both Houses of Parliament within a month of its publication.”

Government amendments 88 to 91.

Amendment 183, in clause 141, page 168, line 5, leave out subsection (7) and insert—

“(7A) A youth diversion order must specify the period for which it has effect, up to a maximum of 12 months.

(7B) An assessment must be taken of the respondent before the conclusion of a youth diversion order to determine if they continue to hold extremist views or pose a terror threat.

(7C) An assessment must be made by a qualified expert in extremism and counterterrorism.

(7D) Assessments taken by the respondent’s youth offending team must be reviewed by an external expert with no pre-existing relationship to the respondent.

(7E) If the respondent is assessed as holding extremist views or as a terror threat the youth offending team or a chief officer of police must apply to an appropriate court for the youth offending order to be extended up to a maximum of 12 months.

(7F) All provisions, prohibitions and requirements of a youth diversion order remain in effect until the respondent has been assessed as holding no extremist views or posing a terror threat.”

This amendment would give the police the ability to apply for youth diversion orders in cases of youth extremism and terror risks. The diversion orders would conclude automatically after a maximum of twelve months without an assessment as to whether the individual remained a terror risk or extremist.

Government amendments 92 to 101, and 134 to 151.

Amendment 23, in schedule 9, page 229, line 15, at end insert—

“(11) Section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (time limit for summary offences) does not apply to an offence under subsection (1).”

This amendment allows the offence of taking or recording intimate photograph or film to be tried by a Magistrates’ Court at any time by disapplying the six-month time limit in s.127 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980.

Government amendments 152 to 156 and 102 to 133.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Before I speak to the key Government amendments tabled on Report, I quickly remind the House why the Government have brought forward this Bill. It is a vital part of our safer streets mission, and contains a host of measures to tackle antisocial behaviour, retail and knife crime, and the epidemic of violence against women and girls, and to restore confidence and trust in policing.

It is worth reminding the House that on the previous Government’s watch, shoplifting soared to record-high levels; there was a 70% increase in their last two years in office alone. Street theft was rapidly rising; it was up by almost 60% in just the last two years. Antisocial behaviour was rampant in our towns and cities, with 1 million incidents last year. In the year to June 2024, the crime survey of England and Wales estimated that 25% of people perceived antisocial behaviour to be a fairly or very big problem in their area. That is the highest level since at least March 2013, over a decade ago. Violence and abuse against shop workers was at epidemic levels. The British Retail Consortium said that incidents of violence and abuse against shop workers stood at more than 2,000 a day in ’23-24—up by almost 50% on the previous year, and nearly treble the pre-pandemic figures from 2019 to 2020.

Child Sexual Exploitation: Casey Report

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)]

With permission, I will update the House on the audit the Government commissioned from Baroness Casey on child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs, and on the action we are taking to tackle this vile crime—to put perpetrators behind bars and to provide the innocent victims of those crimes with support and justice.

The House will be aware that on Friday seven men were found guilty of committing the most horrendous crimes in Rochdale between 2000 and 2006. They were convicted of treating teenage girls as sex slaves, repeatedly raping them in filthy flats, alleyways and warehouses. The perpetrators included taxi drivers and market traders of Pakistani heritage, and it has taken 20 years to bring them to justice. I pay tribute to the incredible bravery of the women who told their stories and fought for justice for all those years. They should never have been let down for so long.

The sexual exploitation of children by grooming gangs is one of the most horrific crimes. Children as young as 10, plied with drugs and alcohol, were brutally raped by gangs of men and disgracefully let down again and again by the authorities that were meant to protect them and keep them safe. These despicable crimes have caused the most unimaginable harm to victims and survivors throughout their lives and are a stain on our society.

Five months ago, I told the House that our most important task was to stop perpetrators and put them behind bars. I can report that that work is accelerating—arrests and investigations are increasing. I asked police forces in January to identify cases involving grooming and child sexual exploitation allegations that had been closed with no further action. More than 800 cases have now been identified for formal review, and I expect that figure to rise above 1,000 in the coming weeks.

Let me be clear: perpetrators of these vile crimes should be off our streets, behind bars, paying the price for what they have done. Further rapid action is also under way to implement recommendations of past inquiries and reviews, including the seven-year independent inquiry into child abuse—recommendations that have sat on the shelf for too long. In the Crime and Policing Bill, we are introducing the long-overdue mandatory reporting duty, which I called for more than 10 years ago, as well as aggravated offences for grooming offenders so that their sentences match the severity of their crimes.

Earlier this year, I also commissioned Baroness Louise Casey to undertake a rapid national audit of the nature, scale and characteristics of gang-based exploitation. I specifically asked her to look at the issue of ethnicity and the cultural and social drivers of this type of offending—analysis that previously had never been done despite years of concerns being raised. I asked her to advise us on what further reviews, investigations and actions would be needed to address the current and historical failures that she found.

I told Parliament in January that I expected Baroness Casey to deliver the same kind of impactful and no-holds-barred report that she produced on Rotherham in 2015, so that we never shy away from the reality of these terrible crimes. I am grateful that Louise and her team have done exactly that, conducting a hugely wide-ranging assessment in just four months. The findings of her audit are damning. At its heart, she identifies a deep-rooted failure to treat children as children, and a continued failure to protect children and teenage girls from rape, exploitation and serious violence and from the scars that last a lifetime. She finds too much fragmentation in the authorities’ response, too little sharing of information, too much reliance on flawed data, too much denial, too little justice, too many criminals getting off and too many victims being let down.

The audit describes victims as young as 10—often those in care or children with learning or physical disabilities—being singled out for grooming precisely because of their vulnerability; perpetrators still walking free because no one joined the dots or because the law ended up protecting them instead of the victims they had exploited; and deep-rooted institutional failures, stretching back decades, where organisations that should have protected children and punished offenders looked the other way. Baroness Casey found that

“blindness, ignorance, prejudice, defensiveness and even good but misdirected intentions”

all played a part in that collective failure.

On the key issues of ethnicity that I asked Baroness Casey to examine, she has found continued failure to gather proper robust national data, despite concerns being raised going back many years. In the local data examined from three police forces, the audit identifies clear evidence of over-representation among suspects of Asian and Pakistani-heritage men. Baroness Casey refers to

“examples of organisations avoiding the topic altogether for fear of appearing racist or raising community tensions”.

These findings are deeply disturbing, but most disturbing of all, as Baroness Casey makes clear, is the fact that too many of them are not new. As her audit sets out, there have been 15 years of reports, reviews, inquiries and investigations into the appalling rapes, exploitation and violent crimes against children—detailed over 17 pages of her report—but too little has changed. We have lost more than a decade. That must end now. Baroness Casey sets out 12 recommendations for change, and we will take action on all of them immediately, because we cannot afford more wasted years.

We will introduce new laws to protect children and support victims so that they stop being blamed for the appalling crimes committed against them; new major police operations to pursue perpetrators and put them behind bars; a new national inquiry to direct local investigations and hold institutions to account for past failures; new ethnicity data and research, so that we face up to the facts on exploitation and abuse; new action across children’s social services and other agencies to identify children at risk; and further action to support child victims and tackle new forms of exploitation and abuse online. Taken together, this will mark the biggest programme of work ever pursued to root out the scourge of grooming gangs and child sexual exploitation.

Those vile perpetrators who have grown used to the authorities looking the other way must have no place to hide, so let me spell out the next steps that we are announcing today. Baroness Casey’s first recommendation is that we must see children as children. She concludes that too many grooming cases have been dropped or downgraded from rape to lesser charges because a 13 to 15-year-old is perceived to have been in love with or consented to sex with the perpetrator, so we will change the law to ensure that adults who engage in penetrative sex with a child under 16 face the most serious charge of rape, and we will work closely with the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to ensure that there are safeguards for consensual teenage relationships. We will change the law so that those convicted for child prostitution offences while their rapists got off scot-free will have their convictions disregarded and their criminal records expunged.

Baroness Casey’s next recommendation is a national criminal investigation. As I have set out, arrests and investigations are rising, but the audit recommends that we go further, so I can announce that the police will launch a new national criminal operation into grooming gangs, overseen by the National Crime Agency. It will bring together for the first time all arms of the policing response and develop a rigorous new national operating model that all forces across the country will be able to adopt, ensuring that grooming gangs are always treated as serious and organised crime, and so that rapists who groom children—whether their crimes were committed decades ago or are still being committed today—can end up behind bars.

Alongside justice, there must also be accountability and action. We have begun implementing the recommendations from past inquiries, including Professor Jay’s independent inquiry, and we have said that further inquiries are needed to get accountability in local areas. I told the House in January that I would undertake further work on how to ensure that those inquiries could get the evidence that they needed to properly hold institutions to account. We have sought responses from local councils, too. We asked Baroness Casey to review those responses, as well as the arrangements and powers used in past investigations and inquiries, and to consider the best means of getting to the truth. Her report concludes that further local investigations are needed, but they should be directed and overseen by a national commission with statutory inquiry powers. We agree, and we will set up a national inquiry to that effect.

Baroness Casey is not recommending another overarching inquiry of the kind conducted by Professor Alexis Jay. She recommends that the inquiry be time-limited, and its purpose must be to challenge what the audit describes as continued denial, resistance and legal wrangling among local agencies. We will set out further details on the national inquiry in due course.

I warned in January that the data collection we inherited from the previous Government on ethnicity was completely inadequate; the data was collected on only 37% of suspects. Baroness Casey’s audit confirms that ethnicity data is not recorded for two thirds of grooming gang perpetrators, and that the data is

“not good enough to support any statements about the ethnicity of group-based child sexual exploitation offenders at the national level.”

I agree with that conclusion. Frankly, it is ridiculous and helps no one that this basic information is not collected, especially as there have been warnings and recommendations stretching back 13 years about the woefully inadequate data on perpetrators, which prevents patterns of crime from being understood and tackled.

The immediate changes to police recording practices that I announced in January are starting to improve the data, but we need to go much further. Baroness Casey’s audit examined local data in three police force areas—Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire —where high-profile cases involving Pakistani-heritage men have long been investigated and reported. She found there that the suspects of group-based child sexual offences were disproportionately likely to be Asian men. She also found indications of disproportionality in serious case reviews.

Although much more robust national data is needed, we cannot and must not shy away from those findings. As Baroness Casey says,

“ignoring the issues, not examining and exposing them to the light, allows the criminality and depravity of a minority of men to be used to marginalise whole communities”.

The vast majority of people in our British Asian and Pakistani-heritage communities continue to be appalled by these terrible crimes, and agree that the criminal minority of sick predators and perpetrators in every community must be dealt with robustly by criminal law.

Baroness Casey’s review also identifies prosecutions and investigations into perpetrators who are white British, European, African or middle eastern, just as Alexis Jay’s inquiry concluded that all ethnicities and communities were involved in appalling child abuse crimes. So that there is accurate information to help tackle serious crimes, we will, for the first time, make it a formal requirement to collect ethnicity and nationality data in all cases of child sexual abuse and exploitation. We will also commission new research on the cultural and social drivers of child sexual exploitation, misogyny and violence against women and girls, as Baroness Casey has recommended.

The audit’s final group of recommendations is about the continued failure of agencies that should be keeping children safe to share vital information or act on clear signs of risk. Worryingly, the audit finds that although the number of reports to the police of child sexual abuse and exploitation has gone up, the number of child sexual abuse cases identified for protection plans by local children’s services has fallen to its lowest ever, but no one has been curious about why that is. The audit also details an abysmal failure to respond to 15 years of recommendations and warnings about the failings of inter-agency co-operation. We will act at pace to deliver Baroness Casey’s recommendations for mandatory information-sharing between agencies, and for unique reference numbers for children, building on work already being taken forward by my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary. My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will also work at pace to close loopholes in taxi licensing laws.

I want to respond to three other important issues identified by Baroness Casey in her report, but on which she has not made specific recommendations. On support for victims, my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will fund additional training for mental health staff in schools on identifying and supporting children and young people who have experienced trauma, exploitation and abuse. Baroness Casey reports that she came across cases involving suspects who were asylum seekers. We have asked her team to provide all the evidence they found to the Home Office, so that immigration enforcement can immediately pursue individual cases with the police. Let me make it clear that those who groom children or commit sexual offences will not be granted asylum in the UK, and we will do everything in our power to remove them. I do not believe that the law we have inherited is strong enough, so we are bringing forward a change to the law, so that anyone convicted of sexual offences is excluded from the asylum system and denied refugee status. We have already increased the removal of foreign national offenders by 14% since the election, and we are drawing up new arrangements to identify and remove those who have committed a much wider range of offences.

Finally, Baroness Casey describes ways in which patterns of grooming gang child sexual exploitation are changing, and evidence that rape and sexual exploitation are taking place in street gangs and drug gangs who combine criminal and sexual exploitation. I do not believe that this kind of exploitation has been investigated sufficiently. The report also describes sexual exploitation in modern slavery and trafficking cases. Most significantly of all, it describes the huge increase in online grooming, and horrendous online sexual exploitation and abuse, including through the use of social media apps to build up relationships and lure children into physical abuse. The audit quotes a police expert, who says:

“If Rotherham were to happen again today it would start online.”

We are passing world-leading laws to target those who groom and exploit children online, and investing in cutting-edge technology to target the highest-harm offenders, but we need to do much more, or the new scandals and shameful crimes of the future will be missed.

When the final report of Alexis Jay’s seven-year national inquiry was published in October 2022, the then Home Secretary, Grant Shapps, issued a profound and formal public apology to the victims of child sexual abuse who were so badly let down over decades by different levels of the state. As shadow Home Secretary at the time, I joined him in that apology on behalf of the Opposition, and extended it to victims of child sexual exploitation, too. To the victims and survivors of sexual exploitation and grooming gangs, on behalf of this and past Governments, and the many public authorities that let you down, I want to reiterate an unequivocal apology for the unimaginable pain and suffering that you have suffered, and for the failure of our country’s institutions, over decades, to prevent that harm and keep you safe.

But words are not enough; victims and survivors need action. The reforms that I have set out today will be the strongest action that any Government have taken to tackle child sexual exploitation. There will be more police investigations, more arrests, a new inquiry, changes to the law to protect children, and a fundamental overhaul of the way organisations work in order to support victims and put perpetrators behind bars, but none of that will work unless everyone is part of it, and everyone works together to keep our children safe. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

Hopefully the report will be available in the Table Office for those Members who wish to see it. The Home Secretary quite rightly took longer than expected, and I have no problem with that. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, and to the Lib Dems, that it is available to them to do the same.

[Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of the statement, although when I listened to it, I could not believe my ears. It was as if this was the Government’s plan all along, when we all know it is another U-turn. After months of pressure, the Prime Minister has finally accepted our call for a full, statutory, national inquiry into grooming gangs, and I welcome our finally reaching this point. We must remember that this is not a victory for politicians—especially not for the ones, like the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, who had to be dragged to this position. This is a victory for the survivors, who have been calling for this for years. However, I have been speaking to many who do not have confidence that a Government who ignored their concerns will deliver.

Before I turn to the detail of the Home Secretary’s statement, I want to recognise the tireless work of those who refused to let this issue be buried: survivors like Fiona Goddard, who bravely waived her anonymity; the parents of survivors, like Marlon West, who I spoke to this morning; Maggie Oliver, whose courage in speaking truth to power has been instrumental in bringing us to this point; the late Andrew Norfolk, whose fearless journalism brought these crimes to light; Baroness Casey for her review; and Charlie Peters, who has consistently been a voice for the voiceless.

The Prime Minister’s handling of this scandal is an extraordinary failure of leadership. His judgment has, once again, been found wanting. Since he became Prime Minister, he and the Home Secretary dismissed calls for an inquiry because they did not want to cause a stir. They accused those of us who demanded justice for the victims of this scandal of “jumping on a far-right bandwagon”, a claim that the Prime Minister’s official spokesman restated this weekend—shameful.

Time and again, it has been left to the Conservatives to force this issue. Three times—[Interruption.] They can all mutter now, but these Labour MPs voted against a national inquiry three times. The Liberal Democrats did not bother to vote at all—asleep at the wheel. Labour MPs voted against a reasoned amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and in Committee they voted against the Bill. At Committee stage of the Crime and Policing Bill—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Swallow, I want you to set a good example. This is a very serious statement, and tempers are running high, but I certainly do not want to see you pointing, shouting and bawling in that way.

[Mrs Badenoch]

Mr Speaker, they can point and shout as much as they like; they know the truth, just as we on the Conservative Benches do. Three times—[Interruption.] I will repeat myself: Labour MPs voted against the reasoned amendment to the children’s Bill; in Committee, they voted against that Bill; and they voted against the Crime and Policing Bill in Committee. They voted against a national inquiry and, at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister repeatedly ruled out a national inquiry, to the cheers of all the Labour MPs who are now pretending that they believed in an inquiry all along.

No doubt, in her response to me, the Home Secretary will try to claim that the previous Government did nothing—a wholly false assertion that she should not repeat today. The Conservative Government took extensive action, starting with the original Jay report, commissioned in 2014 by the then Home Secretary, Theresa May. A year later, she commissioned the independent investigation into child sexual abuse, and Sajid Javid commissioned ethnicity data collection in 2018. It is wrong to claim, as the Home Secretary did, that ethnicity data collection had not been done. I remind her that the Foreign Secretary criticised Sajid Javid at the time, saying that he was bringing the office of Home Secretary “into disrepute”, and that he was pandering to the far-right for doing exactly what the Home Secretary says she will now do. They should be ashamed of themselves.

We accepted all the recommendations made by the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in 2022, except the recommendation to have a new Cabinet Minister, which would not have made any difference at all to the victims of this scandal. The Home Secretary claimed that the recommendations sat on the shelf, but let me be clear that we went further than those recommendations. It was the Conservatives who established the grooming gangs taskforce, which supported police forces to make 807 arrests for group-based child sexual exploitation last year, so do not tell me that we did nothing.

It is vital that this inquiry is robust, swift and, above all, independent.

There are legitimate concerns about institutions investigating themselves, especially as some of the most egregious cases of institutional failure occurred in Labour-controlled authorities. [Interruption.] Labour Members can moan as much as they like, but the people out there believe that is why nothing has happened yet. In Greater Manchester, Operation Augusta was prematurely shut down. In Rotherham, which has been under continuous Labour control since 1974, we saw repeated failures. In Telford, where Labour has predominantly held power, the current MP, the hon. Member for Telford (Shaun Davies), initially rejected calls for an inquiry while serving as council leader.

This inquiry must have teeth. It must start with known hotspots such as Bradford and Rochdale, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for his persistent advocacy on this issue. We need clear commitments. For example, will the inquiry examine the role of ethnicity in these crimes, confronting hard truths about potential cover-ups motivated by fears of appearing racist? [Interruption.] There is no point in Labour Members muttering—the Home Secretary said it herself.

I spoke to the father of a survivor just this morning, and he told me that survivors need to have someone who is independent and who they can go to and trust. It is no use them being forced to speak to the same authorities who ignored them in the first place. Will this inquiry ensure that no one, whether police officers, councillors or council officials, is beyond scrutiny?

The Government’s approach to the Casey review itself raises serious concerns. While the review’s findings are crucial, we as legislators are sent here to make decisions, not to outsource the difficult ones. The Prime Minister has waited months for someone to take this decision for him. That is the kind of dithering and delay that the survivors complained about.

We need answers to the following questions. The House deserves to know what changed the Prime Minister’s mind from thinking that this was dog-whistle, far-right politics to something that he must do. When exactly did Baroness Casey submit her findings to Downing Street, and did the Government request any changes to her report? Does the Home Secretary agree that anyone in authority who deliberately covered up these disgusting crimes should be prosecuted for misconduct in public office and that those prosecutions should happen alongside, not after the inquiry? We believe that anyone in the police, local authorities, social services or even the CPS who covered this up because they cared more about so-called community relations than about protecting vulnerable girls as young as 10 years old should be pursued.

We welcome the Home Secretary’s comments about perpetrators not being able to make asylum claims. I remind her that we put forward an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, and she and all her colleagues voted against that very measure. Does she now agree that the perpetrators should also not be able to make human rights claims to avoid deportation, and will she legislate to do that? Will the inquiry be concluded within two years, and will every one of the 50 towns affected be covered, including Bradford, which is still refusing to conduct an inquiry into this? Will those local inquiries have the power to summon witnesses, or is that power only for the national inquiry? Most critically, we need a clear timeline for conclusions and actions. The victims cannot wait another decade for justice: we should be able to do this in two years.

Finally, we did not need to commission a report to tell us what we already knew. Will the Home Secretary apologise on behalf of herself, the Labour party and the Prime Minister for wasting so much time and voting against this, dismissing the concerns of the survivors? The House, the British public and, most importantly, the many brave survivors deserve clear answers from a Government of dithering and delay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the appalling case in his constituency, where seven people were convicted on Friday. He will also know that further criminal investigations are still ongoing—it is shameful how long it has taken to get justice for those victims. I agree with him that no one can hide from justice on this appalling issue, on which victims and survivors have been let down for far too long. I hope that supporting that aim will be a cross-party process.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Child sexual abuse and exploitation are among the most abhorrent crimes imaginable, and we must all support every effort to deliver justice for victims and prevent these vile acts from happening again. It is, of course, right that the Government follow the recommendations of Baroness Casey’s report, including a new national inquiry. Survivors must be at the heart of this process. Their voices, experiences and insights must shape both the inquiry and its outcomes, and I would welcome hearing more from the Home Secretary about how she intends to ensure survivors are heard, are respected, and—essentially—are allowed to build on their existing testimony without being asked to repeat themselves and relive their abuse again and again.

The seven-year inquiry into child sexual abuse, chaired by Professor Alexis Jay, delivered its final report in 2022, and the Government at the time delivered none of its recommendations, leaving survivors waiting for justice. In her remarks, the Home Secretary mentioned two of Professor Jay’s recommendations being introduced through the Crime and Policing Bill: a mandatory reporting duty and aggravated offences for grooming offenders. What does this new inquiry mean for the remaining recommendations of Professor Jay? Will victims and survivors see all 20 recommendations implemented while the new inquiry is being carried out?

Any new inquiry must be more than symbolic; it must be robust, victim-centred and capable of driving real change. A duty of candour would require public officials and authorities to co-operate fully with such an inquiry, so it continues to be disappointing that the Government have delayed bringing that provision forward. I ask the Home Secretary plainly: what is stopping the Government from introducing a duty of candour via a Hillsborough law now?

Finally, now that Baroness Casey has completed her review, I welcome her appointment as chair of the independent commission into adult social care. I trust that she will bring to that hugely important role the same determination to challenge injustice and to champion the voices of those too often left unheard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

May I welcome my hon. Friend’s points that she makes about the anger in her community and the anger across British Muslim communities towards the grooming gangs, towards the rape of children and towards these appalling crimes? She has long called for work, including stronger action from the police to be able to go after perpetrators and bring them to justice. She is right that the horror at crimes committed against children and in particular against young girls is shared across communities. It is in the interests of those children and victim-survivors that we have reforms now.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for early sight of it, and I am pleased that Baroness Casey has agreed to appear before the Committee tomorrow to set out the contents of her report more clearly. However, I am concerned about the potential for inquiries intended to get to the truth to prejudice criminal trials. How does the Home Secretary envisage the two elements running alongside each other—an inquiry and criminal prosecutions?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He will be aware that visa processing times can vary based on the type of visa and where people are applying from. However, for most applications, even those made outside the UK, decisions are usually made within three weeks. He will also be aware that we are looking at how to reform our immigration system as a result of the record levels of net migration under the previous Government, and making sure that we focus our immigration on the needs of our economy is a priority for this Government.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

New research shows that foreign nationals are claiming almost £1 billion in benefits each month. We now face the highest number of asylum claims ever recorded—up another 9% since Labour took office. Meanwhile, the 42,000 appeal backlog at the end of 2024 is projected to more than double to almost 100,000 by the end of this year. The Home Secretary herself has admitted to the media that her White Paper would cut immigration by just 50,000. This is utterly inadequate. Without real deterrence and stricter measures, the visa processing delays will only worsen, so will the Minister commit to two concrete measures: implementing the previous Conservative threshold of £38,000; and introducing a legally binding annual migration cap that actually delivers accountability?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just say to the shadow Minister that we have a lot of Members to get in—I want to get to Question 15 on the Order Paper—and I need her help to do so?

[Seema Malhotra]

This is yet another example of the Opposition wanting to rewrite history. The Conservatives quadrupled net migration to record levels. I think the hon. Member will want to correct herself on the immigration White Paper, which will be reducing net migration by considerably more than she suggested; the Home Secretary has said so. The latest figures show that, since this Government came to power, almost 30,000 foreign criminals, failed asylum seekers and others with no right to be in the UK have been removed. That includes an increase of enforced returns in the last quarter compared with the same period last year, which is a much better record than the shadow Home Secretary could achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member will know that neighbourhood police understand the challenges in each area, whether it be in North Ascot or other parts of the country, and local police can target those issues and work with local councils. There are different rules for different councils, so combined work between the council and the police is the best way to tackle local crime.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Six of Britain’s most senior police officers have warned that the Government’s actions are making it harder to keep our streets safe. From the damaging jobs tax to releasing criminals early, Labour is pushing forces to the brink. Does the Home Secretary agree with Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley that he will be forced to cut 1,700 police officers, PCSOs and staff this year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The shadow Minister is, as he knows, talking nonsense. The police have to police without fear or favour; that is the standard that they apply and sign up to. I am really sorry that he wants to undermine the important work of police across the country, just as his party in government undermined the number of police on the streets—took them off the streets—so we ended up with thousands fewer police on our streets. This Government are finally putting them back into communities and back on the beat where they belong.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Peaceful protest is a fundamental right in any free society, but for protests to remain safe and orderly, a visible, well-trained and effective police presence is often needed on top of existing neighbourhood police teams. Cities such as Manchester are seeing rising numbers of demonstrations, which the combined authority estimates will cost up to £2 million this year to police. While the Met receives specific grants to cover the cost of policing protests, Greater Manchester police receives no such allocation. That is not only unfair to my constituents, but unsustainable. In the light of the worries highlighted by police leaders about their funding being cut in the upcoming spending review, can the Home Secretary ensure that areas such as Greater Manchester receive the funding they need to police protests properly without taking away from the neighbourhood policing our communities deserve?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

It is well beyond my remit as safeguarding Minister to make asylum policy, but I can absolutely guarantee the hon. Lady that migrant women and their experiences will be part of the violence against women and girls strategy; this issue has received some of the money from the recent uplift in victim services. Working together with by-and-for services across the country, we will always take account of the experiences of all women and girls in our country.

[Mr Speaker]

I call shadow Minister Katie Lam.

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

On 28 April, the Minister was clear with this House that the framework for local grooming gang inquiries and Baroness Casey’s audit would both be published in May. It is now June. Presumably there is a new timeline for publishing them, so will the Minister share it with us, please?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Enforcement of the law is the best way to deal with this issue, which is why there has been a 40% increase in visits to check whether illegal working is going on, and a 42% increase in arrests since this Government came to office.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Could I be counterintuitive for a moment and make a New Labour point? The cause of a lot of illegal migration is the fact that it is easier to work here illegally than anywhere else in Europe, and that is because we do not have national identity cards. The Gordon Brown Government, quite wisely, were going to bring them in, and the coalition Government wrongly stopped that idea. Why should we not have national consensus now on bringing in national identity cards, given that we all carry mobile phones? It would dramatically reduce illegal working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

Indeed, carers, including those who have come from overseas, do important work to support us, our families and our communities. My hon. Friend will recognise that, as I have said, it is important for us to ensure that people’s voices can be heard in the consultation. We recognise that settlement is an important step in integrating and contributing to local communities and families. Under the current system, people primarily qualify for settlement on the basis of their length of time in the UK, but we also believe that people should be contributing to the economy and society before they gain settled status in our country.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Another group for whom the immigration White Paper is creating uncertainty is refugee families. Family reunion is a vital route by which refugees can safely reach the UK, free from the grasps of criminal trafficking gangs. The Government should be looking for more ways to facilitate refugee family reunion, not hindering it. It is unclear how the White Paper’s reforms on English language requirements will apply to refugee family reunion. Will the Minister acknowledge the needs of this unique and vulnerable group? Is she able to provide clarity on the level of English language proficiency that people who apply for refugee family reunion will be expected to have once the reforms are implemented?

--- Later in debate ---

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

Immigration centres are not used for indefinite detention. We can only keep anyone in detention in an immigration centre if there is a reasonable prospect of their removal. If there is not, they have to be released.

[Mr Speaker]

I call shadow Home Secretary, Chris Philp.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to the people and emergency services in Liverpool.

On the Home Secretary’s watch, this year so far has been the worst in history for illegal immigrants crossing the channel. The Government’s laughable claim to “smash the gangs” lies in tatters—they are not smashing gangs; they are smashing records. The right hon. Lady mentioned the French. The French prevention rate on land is lamentably under 40%, and even those who are stopped are then released to attempt a crossing again the next day. Although she talks about action at sea, nothing has happened whatsoever. At the weekend we saw pictures of the French police just standing there taking photographs while illegal immigrants departed. Does the Home Secretary agree that the recent 12-year fishing deal should be suspended until the French agree to stop those small boats at sea and prevent illegal immigration?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

T9. Doncaster East’s neighbourhood policing team recently seized multiple stolen offroad bikes using tactics including drones and high-visibility patrols. Its swift action has made a real difference in tackling antisocial behaviour in places such as Hatfield and Dunscroft. I commend the team on its work and the public support it has received through its “Where’s the bike” campaign. In the light of that, I ask the Minister about the progress around the neighbourhood policing guarantee and when Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme can see named police officers in their towns—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the work that South Yorkshire police has been doing and the Doncaster East neighbourhood policing team going after the offroad bikes, which cause havoc and are a total nightmare in the community. They are getting additional neighbourhood police as part of the neighbourhood policing guarantee, and we will give them stronger powers to keep the streets safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I join my hon. Friend in saying a huge thank you to all the first responders—those who I met last week, but also many more who were involved in a very swift response that undoubtedly saved lives that day. It was a day of huge joy across the city of Liverpool that ended in a horrific incident, but I know from her constituency and across Liverpool that it is a city where communities come together in the face of the greatest difficulties and show their strength as a community.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

Can I draw the Home Secretary’s attention to the amendment I have tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill, which would extend the definition of exploitation in the Modern Slavery Act to include orphanage trafficking? It is a horrific crime that affects about 5 million children across the world, and it is something we need to recognise in our legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

Lord Hermer does not decide sentencing—he has a particular role as the Attorney General. The right hon. Gentleman, as a very experienced Member of this House, will know the way in which the system works.

[Mr Speaker]

For the final question, I call Harpreet Uppal.

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

At a recent roundtable on violence against women and girls hosted by the Mayor of West Yorkshire, we heard from local organisations that do outstanding work but are hampered by short-term funding, as well as from a brave survivor who shared her experiences. They specifically asked for the Government to commit to strategic investment. Will the Minister review contracts with the sector so they are multi-year and take a long-term view of service delivery and preventive work?

National Security Act 2023: Charges

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the Home Secretary to make her statement, I must remind the House that the resolution of the House relating to matters that are sub judice prohibits any reference to cases in which an individual has been charged. Three men have been charged with offences under the National Security Act, and the matter is therefore sub judice. However, since this case concerns matters of national importance and it is in the public interest for the House to hear from the Home Secretary, I am granting a limited waiver for the purposes of this statement only, to allow discussion of the wider security issues. Members should exercise a high degree of caution in their remarks and take every care to avoid saying anything that could potentially prejudice the criminal trial.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about the charging of three individuals under the National Security Act 2023 that took place on 17 May, and the further action that the Government are taking to counter national security threats. I want to thank the police and the security and intelligence agencies not just for their work on the vital operations and investigations that are currently under way, but for the dedication that they show each day to defending our national security and keeping our communities safe. Their tireless work—often in the shadows, often in secret, and often in great personal danger—is indispensable, and I hope that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to their service.

On Saturday, three Iranian nationals were charged with offences under the National Security Act 2023. All three have been charged with engaging in conduct likely to assist a foreign intelligence service. Additional charges were brought in relation to engaging in conduct, including surveillance, reconnaissance and open research, with the intention to commit acts of serious violence against a person in the United Kingdom. The foreign state to which these charges relate is Iran, and those individuals are the first Iranian nationals to be charged under the National Security Act. The criminal and national security investigations in these cases are ongoing, and the police and security services have my support in their vital work. These cases must now also progress through the criminal justice system, which means that until the trial, there are limits on what we can discuss so as not to prejudice that process. However, in respect of a series of grave, wider issues, I want to update the House on the stronger action that the Government are taking to strengthen our national security, including the introduction of new powers on state threats, further action on Iran, and strengthening our border security to keep the public safe.

This is the first time there have been charges under the National Security Act linked to Iran, although the House will be aware that it comes against a backdrop of a rising number of Iran-linked operations on UK soil, where there have been repeated warnings by Ministers, the police, and our security and intelligence agencies. The director general of MI5 said in October last year that the police and MI5 had responded to 20 Iran-backed plots presenting potentially lethal threats. Let me be clear: we will not tolerate growing state-backed threats on UK soil. The Iranian regime poses an unacceptable threat to our domestic security, which cannot continue. 

Following the charging decision, I can confirm that the Iranian ambassador has been summoned, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has told the Iranian Foreign Minister in the strongest terms that we will not accept any Iranian state threat activity in the UK. As the Security Minister set out in March, we have placed the whole of the Iranian state in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, which is due to come into effect on 1 July. The Government have also introduced sanctions as part of efforts to systematically dismantle the criminal networks and enablers that Iran uses to carry out its work, including the Foxtrot network, which was sanctioned last month. 

International co-operation is critical in challenging Iranian transnational threats, which is why we are convening ministerial counterparts from allied nations facing similar threats to discuss co-ordinated action, but we need to go further in strengthening our powers to address national security threats. The Security Minister and I have both warned of the increasing complexity of the threats we face. Threats from extremist and terrorist groups and individuals, including from Islamist extremism and far-right extremism, continue, and vigilance and action against them remain crucial.

But malign activities against us by, or on behalf of, foreign states have grown and the threats we face have become more complex and intertwined. MI5 state threats investigations have increased by nearly 50% in a year, and police investigations into state threats, led by counter-terrorism police, are up fivefold since 2018. As well as growing, those threats are becoming more interconnected, and the old boundaries between state threats, terrorists and organised criminals are being eroded. We have seen malign foreign state organisations seek to exploit any vulnerability, from criminal networks to our cyber-security and our borders, to do us harm. 

In our manifesto we committed to stronger action on state-based security threats. Before entering government, the Foreign Secretary and I set out plans for the establishment of a joint unit to pursue and co-ordinate action. I can announce that the new state threats joint unit is now in place, with staff from across Whitehall driving a broader approach across Government and building new partnerships with industry and academia. Last week the Security Minister set out the recommendations of a review by the defending democracy taskforce into transnational repression—where foreign states attempt the intimidation, surveillance and harassment of UK-based individuals—including providing stronger support for those who are being targeted. This is criminal activity and will be treated as such, because everyone in this country should be able to go about their daily lives freely and without fear. 

We have of course supported the National Security Act, which was rightly brought in by the previous Government, but we need to go further. That is why I commissioned Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, to examine further gaps in the national security legislation where counter-terrorism powers could be emulated and to look at proscription powers, because I have long raised concern that it is too difficult to apply existing powers to state and state-backed bodies. Today Mr Hall has published his review, and I thank him for working so swiftly and comprehensively. He has concluded that there are gaps in a series of areas, including proscribing legislation, where he identifies a series of legal difficulties in using powers that were designed to deal with terrorist groups for state and state-backed organisations, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. 

I can tell the House that we are committed to taking forward Mr Hall’s recommendations and that we will draw up new powers, modelled on counter-terrorism powers, in a series of areas to tackle state threats. Crucially, I can tell the House that we will create a new power of proscription to cover state threats—a power that is stronger than the current National Security Act powers in allowing us to restrict the activity and operations of foreign state-backed organisations in the UK—including new criminal offences for individuals who invite support for or promote the group in question. We will not hesitate to use the power against organisations that pose a threat to UK residents, because we will not stand for foreign state organisations seeking to escalate threats on UK soil.

As was confirmed at the weekend, the three individuals who have been charged came to the UK between 2016 and 2022 by lorry and small boat. This Government have made it clear that border security is national security, which is why we are introducing new counter-terrorism powers at the border. However, let me also be clear that our border security needs to be strengthened. Those involved in organised crime, malign state actors and extremists can all exploit any vulnerabilities, so the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill is introducing a wide range of counter-terrorism-style powers to pursue organised immigration crime and strengthen border investigations. We have introduced the Border Security Command, which is drawing together security operations around our border that have not been taken seriously enough before, modelled on the approach that successive Governments have taken to counter-terrorism.

As part of our existing CT capabilities, security identity and criminal record checks are carried out on everyone who applies for a visa through our immigration system, on identified clandestine entries and on those who arrive by small boat, so that immigration and counter-terrorism powers can then be used to address threats, including refusals, restrictions, tagging, heightened monitoring and immigration bail. However, I have instructed officials to review those capabilities against the state threats as well as the terrorism-related risks we face, so that we can strengthen our security response alongside the new counter-terrorism-style border powers that we are introducing. We are already reviewing our current response to criminality or threats in the asylum system, including the potential for greater use of a range of techniques and technology, as well as the existing ability to revoke or refuse asylum.

Finally, in the face of this increasing range of hybrid threats to our national security, the Prime Minister has committed to publishing a new national security strategy. The strategy, which is in development, will set out how not just our world-leading police and security and intelligence agencies, but the whole of Government and society, including businesses and communities, need to respond to these changing and complex threats.

National security is the first duty of Government, and it is the foundation of our plan for change. The threats we face are more intertwined than ever, and our response needs to adapt. Together with our international allies, we need to face down the security threats and strengthen the powers and capabilities of the police and security services, who work around the clock to investigate and disrupt those who mean us harm. Our agencies have the wholehearted support of this Government because, in a volatile and uncertain world, their efforts could not matter more. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.