Crime and Policing Bill

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I rise to speak to amendment 160, which stands in my name, and briefly in favour of amendments 157 and 158, also in my name.

I wish to start by thanking all those who have campaigned over many years for some of the sensible changes to the Bill that we are discussing today. I also want to put on record my thanks to our fantastic police forces, including Greater Manchester Police, and also to my hon. Friends the Members for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) and for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for their assiduous work on the Bill Committee.

Liberal Democrat amendment 160 would ensure that the police cannot use live facial recognition technology when imposing conditions on public assemblies or processions under sections 12 or 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, unless a new and specific code of practice governing its use in public spaces has first been approved by both Houses.

Regulations around the use of live facial recognition have been discussed many times in this House, and support for strengthening the current situation, bringing clarity and certainty to police forces, has gained support from all parts of the House, both in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall. I hope this amendment does the same today.

The Liberal Democrats oppose the police’s use of facial recognition surveillance. It breaches the right to privacy and is far too often biased, particularly given its propensity to wrongly identify people of colour and women. In our manifesto last year, we committed immediately to halting the use of live facial recognition surveillance by the police and private companies.

When data or technology, such as artificial intelligence, are used by the police, they must be regulated to ensure that they are unbiased. They must be used in a way that is transparent and accurate and that respects the privacy of innocent people. Policing should not intrude on this right for people who are not suspected of any crime.

On the question of bias, much of the recent debate has centred around the National Physical Laboratory’s 2023 study into the equitability of facial recognition technology in law enforcement. This report is frequently cited by proponents of facial recognition, including the shadow Home Secretary, both at the Dispatch Box, when the Bill came before the House on Second Reading, and during a well-attended Westminster Hall debate last November as evidence that bias in the technology is on the decline.

However, we should not overlook one of that study’s most critical findings. In live facial recognition—where a real-time camera feed is compared against a predetermined watchlist—the likelihood of false positives is not fixed. Instead, it depends heavily on the specific parameters of how that technology is deployed, particularly on the face-match threshold. That threshold, in turn, is influenced by both the size and composition of the watchlist, as well as the volume and nature of the people moving through the surveillance zone.

The study recommends that, where operationally feasible, the police use a face-match threshold of 0.6 in order to reduce the risk of bias. However—and this is crucial—without clear regulation, police forces are under no obligation to adopt this or any specific standard. In other words, the presence of the technology alone does not ensure fairness. Without oversight, significant room remains for bias to persist in how facial recognition is applied. This leads to increased instances of the wrong people being stopped and searched—an area of policing that already disproportionately impacts black communities.

New technologies in policing may well present good opportunities to improve public safety, and police should take advantage of them to prevent and solve crime. However, given that new technologies can raise significant concerns related to civil liberties and discrimination, we must ensure that any new powers involving them are scrutinised by both Houses.

Liberal Democrat amendment 160 would ensure that the police cannot use live facial recognition technology when imposing conditions on public assemblies or processions under sections 12 or 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, unless a new and specific code of practice governing its use in public spaces has first been approved by both Houses. This will ensure democratic oversight of any changes to further legislation that may impact public privacy and civil liberties. I hope that the amendment will have support from across the House.

I have just a few words to say on amendments 157 and 158, which would enable a review of antisocial behaviour powers. Antisocial behaviour, as Members have already mentioned this afternoon, blights communities, erodes trust, frays the social fabric and disproportionately affects the most vulnerable. Many colleagues have raised issues within their own communities, some of which I see in my constituency. We have off-road bikes in Heaviley, Marple, Offerton and High Lane. They are a persistent blight on my community. They intimidate people, endanger public safety and are just really annoying. But we must respond with laws that are not just tough, but fair and proportionate. That is why I urge all colleagues to support amendments 157 and 158, which would ensure that antisocial behaviour laws are reviewed before being changed, and that any new guidance is created with public input.

I also welcome amendment 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), which aims to ensure that the duty to report suspected child abuse covers faith groups. I encourage the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) to seek her out as he will find a doughty ally in his attempts to improve the Bill as it impacts on faith groups.

As I said on Second Reading, there are measures in the Bill that the Liberal Democrats support. Were our amendments to be accepted, the Bill would go even further towards keeping our communities safe in a way that is proportionate and that balances the civil liberties implications of giving the police more powers. I hope that the House will support our amendments.

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

I rise to support the Bill and to speak to amendment 20, which stands in my name and is supported by more than 50 Members from across the House. The measures in the Bill represent the most significant package of crime prevention and policing reforms in a generation. From strengthening action against shoplifting, knife crime and antisocial behaviour to introducing new powers to confront child sexual abuse, this legislation gives our police the tools they need to take back our high streets and town centres. I am proud to support the Bill, and I am proud that this Labour Government are showing leadership by putting victims first, supporting our police and turning the tide on crime after 14 years of Conservative neglect.

It is in that same spirit of placing victims at the heart of our justice system that I have tabled amendment 20. It addresses an urgent and under-recognised issue: the devastating link between domestic abuse and suicide and the failure of our legal system to properly reflect it. My amendment is supported by Southall Black Sisters—a pioneering black feminist organisation founded in 1979, dedicated to empowering black, minoritised and migrant women and girls, particularly those fleeing violence. For over four decades, Southall Black Sisters has been a trailblazer in advocating for the rights and safety of some of society’s most marginalised women and girls and in addressing barriers rooted in racism, sexism and socioeconomic inequalities. Their mission is to dismantle the structural injustices harming black, minoritised and migrant women and girls, while fostering global solidarity for a future rooted in equity, justice and empowerment. I sincerely thank the dedicated staff at Southall Black Sisters for their help with my amendment.

Too often those who drive their victims to suicide through sustained coercion, violence or psychological abuse walk away without consequence. While the Bill introduces welcome offences on serious self-harm, it still falls short of recognising the full impact faced by victims of domestic abuse, particularly when the abuse ends in suicide.

The statistics should stop us in our tracks. According to the Vulnerability Knowledge and Practice Programme, suspected suicides linked to domestic abuse now outnumber domestic homicides. It is estimated that three women die by suicide every week as a result of abuse, yet since 2017 there has been just one conviction where a victim’s suicide was legally recognised as the outcome of domestic abuse—just one. That is not justice; it is a failure to see these women, recognise what they have endured and hold their abusers to account.

Coercive control and psychological torment may leave no bruises, but the impact is every bit as lethal. When domestic abuse ends in suicide, it must be recognised for what it is: a crime. The injustice of this issue falls heaviest on those already most marginalised. Black, minoritised and migrant women face the highest barriers to safety—barriers rooted in racism, immigration insecurity, stigma and a lack of culturally competent services. Too often they are misjudged, criminalised or simply ignored. The justice system, and indeed society, must stop asking, “Why didn’t she leave?”, and start asking, “Why wasn’t he stopped?” That is the change that amendment 20 calls for. It shines a light on these deaths and makes it clear that when abuse leads to suicide, the law must see it, hear it and respond.

I am pleased that, through this Bill, the Government are taking forward meaningful changes to deliver on Labour’s mission to halve violence against women and girls. I do not intend to press my amendment to a vote, but I hope that the Government will bring forward changes that recognise the link between abuse and suicide and ensure that our laws reflect that reality. In France, for example, the law was changed in 2020 to recognise suicide or attempted suicide as an outcome of domestic abuse. A perpetrator may now face up to 10 years in prison and a substantial fine if abuse is found to have significantly contributed to the victim’s death. That is the level of seriousness that the issue should demand.

I am grateful to the Victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), for meeting me to discuss the issues that my amendment raises, and I welcome her invitation to submit evidence to the forthcoming Law Commission review. I also welcome the Minister’s recognition that current homicide laws do not adequately reflect these cases. I fully support the Bill’s mission to protect victims and restore trust in our justice system, but that justice must be complete. The women driven to take their own lives because of abuse must no longer be invisible to the law.

In short, amendment 20 would criminalise abusers who drive victims to self-harm or suicide by introducing a new offence of encouraging serious self-harm or suicide following a sustained pattern of abuse. The Bill introduces new offences for encouraging or assisting self-harm but falls short of covering cases where victims die by suicide following sustained patterns of coercive control and abuse. Recognising this form of abuse in law is critical. The amended Bill would reflect the severe psychological impact of coercive control, enhance deterrence and increase survivor and public confidence in the criminal justice system. It would also compel judges, juries, coroners and the police to properly investigate and respond to such cases, treating them with the seriousness that they deserve. Ultimately, it would ensure that victims are not failed by a legal framework that continues to overlook the long-term and often fatal results of domestic abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We have run out of time, so I will call the Front-Bench speakers. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart]

As is usual on matters of conscience, these votes will not be whipped by my party today, as I believe is the case across the House. That said, my party passed relevant policy at our party conference, and I will lay out that policy before talking a little about my predecessor’s work on the 1967 Act. Then I will explain, in a personal capacity, why I will support some, but not all, of the amendments before us.

The Liberal Democrats believe that women have the right to make independent decisions about their reproductive health without interference from the state, and that access to reproductive healthcare is a human right. The current law impacts the most vulnerable women. Under that legislation, some can be dragged from hospital beds to prison cells and endure needlessly long periods of investigation and prosecution. The provisions that allow for this were introduced before women were even allowed to vote, so it is not surprising that many see the need for them to be updated.

In the past five years, there have been both debates about whether the police have the resources that they need to keep our community safe, and a surge of police investigations into women suspected of obtaining medication or instruments to end their pregnancy outside the law. That surely cannot be the best use of police time. Lib Dem policy is to ensure proper funding for impartial advice services, so that people can receive comprehensive, unbiased information without being pressured. Access to abortion should never be made more stressful, so we would maintain safe zones around clinics to protect those seeking care.

My predecessor as Liberal MP for Hazel Grove, the late Dr Michael Winstanley, later Lord Winstanley, was key in shaping the Abortion Act 1967. He was on a cross-party group of around a dozen MPs who sought to refine the language and the strategy of that vital legislation. Dr Winstanley continues to be mentioned on the doorstep in my constituency, and he is known, among other things, for bringing calm, professional insight to the debate. He drew on his background as a general practitioner and on his medical knowledge and experience to ground the discussion in medical evidence, and was especially vocal in highlighting the dangerous and often desperate conditions faced by women when abortion was severely restricted. He made the case that legal, regulated abortion was not only safer but more humane.

At the end of this debate, I will join the World Health Organisation, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, midwives, nurses, psychiatrists, general practitioners and the End Violence Against Women Coalition in supporting new clause 1. To be clear, this new clause would not change how abortion is provided or the legal time limit on it, and it would apply only to women acting in relation to their own pregnancy. Healthcare professionals acting outside the law, and abusive partners using violence or poisoning to end a pregnancy, would still be criminalised, as they are now.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lisa Smart]

I am under strict encouragement from Madam Deputy Speaker to be speedy, so I will not give way.

I very much support the spirit of new clause 20, but I cannot support new clause 106. I acknowledge that those who tabled it want women to be able to access the best healthcare available, but it would be a step backwards to make it harder for women to access the treatment that they need, whether that is women in a coercive relationship, or those who live in a rural area with limited transport options, and who find it hard to access in-person medical appointments. Telemedicine enables timely, accessible abortion care. We rightly speak repeatedly in this House of the strain on our NHS’s space, staff and capacity, so it feels entirely retrograde to roll this service back and insert clinically unnecessary barriers, and I cannot support doing so.

The amendments and new clauses before us are subject to free votes, so Members can rightly choose for themselves. I very much hope that we choose to move forwards, not back.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Child Sexual Exploitation: Casey Report

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member makes important points about the seriousness of this crime, and she is right, too, that we need to continue to implement the recommendations of the overarching inquiry into child abuse. The Safeguarding Minister updated the House before Easter on those recommendations and the action we are taking forward on them. I can tell the hon. Lady that in the Home Office, measures are already well under way, and we will continue to do that. It is important that we do not simply have recommendations sitting on shelves—things have to be implemented.

On the Hillsborough law, we are working at pace to get the details right and to bring it before the House. The hon. Lady will understand that it needs to meet the expectations of the Hillsborough families, as well as be right for the House. We will continue to work on the wider issues, too. In her foreword, Baroness Casey says:

“If we’d got this right years ago—seeing these girls as children raped rather than ‘wayward teenagers’ or collaborators in their abuse, collecting ethnicity data, and acknowledging as a system that we did not do a good enough job—then I doubt we’d be in this place now.”

We lost a decade. We cannot lose another one.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[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?

[Yvette Cooper]

We will continue to support Greater Manchester police and police forces across the country. It is right that they should be able to deal with issues and challenges, including public order. We are strengthening the system in that area as a result of weaknesses in the national co-ordination that we have inherited. I can tell the hon. Lady that Greater Manchester police will be getting 176 additional police officers for their neighbourhood teams over the course of this year.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Member for her question. She will know that in the immigration White Paper we have referenced that we will be looking at reform of the family rules, and we will be consulting on that.

National Security Act 2023: Charges

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the hon. Member for her comments and her support for the police and the intelligence and security agencies. She asked about the IRGC. In his report, Jonathan Hall states specifically that, under the existing legal framework, there are significant challenges when it comes to trying to take restriction or banning action against state-backed and state organisations—there are legal challenges to doing that—and he refers particularly to the IRGC in that context. That is why he set out the need for new powers, and we are committed to bringing those in. Obviously, we will need to follow the process by bringing in the new legislation, but I continue to be concerned about the IRGC.

The hon. Member is also right to highlight threats from Russia and the different kinds of threats and challenges from China. In his report, Jonathan Hall identifies other areas where powers could be strengthened, including stop and search, cordons and post-charge questioning in specific circumstances. We will be looking at the detail in order to take forward all the recommendations and the issues that are raised.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

The intention to repeal much of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 through this Bill, and the scrapping of the Rwanda scheme in particular, are extremely welcome. Years of brutal Tory policies that have criminalised, persecuted and scapegoated migrants and those seeking safety on our shores must be unravelled by this Labour Government, but we must go further, faster, and turn our back entirely on the politics of hate and division if we are to avoid repeats of the recent election results.

The riots that took place in my city last year, which targeted asylum accommodation and organisations and visibly black people and businesses, did not emerge from nowhere; they were the result of the myths and misinformation perpetuated by media and social media. For our Prime Minister to say today that unfettered immigration risks the UK becoming “an island of strangers” is deeply concerning. We cannot concede to the anti-migrant agenda promoted by those who thrive on division. It is simply dishonest to suggest that migration causes falling living standards. It is not migrants but political decisions that have hollowed out our communities, brought public services to their knees and allowed inequality to run rampant.

I am proud of my African and Irish heritage, and proud that my home, Liverpool, is a city of sanctuary. However, I am not proud of some of the language being used today, particularly the phrase, “island of strangers,” which echoes the devices and cruel politics of our past. I have had constituents say that it is reminiscent of the “rivers of blood” speech. Mine is a port city, where people arrive from all over the globe, and our city is far better for it. These people are neighbours and friends. Liverpool has a world-leading higher education sector; thousands of international students want to train there. I have spoken to the vice-chancellors of Liverpool Hope University and Liverpool John Moores University, who are both concerned about the announcements made today.

The Labour Government must unequivocally make the case that the fight against racism and scapegoating is the same fight as that against low pay, poor housing and crumbling public services. We cannot defeat one without the other. While the Bill goes some way towards repairing the damage done by the previous Government, the overall approach remains punitive, particularly in clause 41, which will expand the Home Office’s power of detention retrospectively. The new criminal offences in parts 1 and 2 are deeply concerning, as is the retention of section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act, which removes protections for victims of modern slavery, and section 59 of that Act, which makes asylum and human rights claims from a list of countries inadmissible. Instead, we should focus on restoring the right to seek asylum in the UK, opening up safe routes, abandoning offshore processing, resolving the legal aid crisis, restoring the right to work, increasing support rates for asylum seekers and ending the use of immigration detention and harmful, destructive rhetoric—in short, we should focus on building a compassionate, rights-based and evidence-led approach to immigration and asylum.

I am proud to have added my name in support of new clause 1, which would enshrine in law a duty on the Home Office to publish quarterly statistics—detailed information—on deaths in the asylum system and on small boat channel crossings. We know that lives are being lost, but we do not know how many, which makes our system an outlier. I call on the Home Secretary to take on board those comments.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I rise to speak to new clause 21 and other new clauses in my name and those of other hon. Members. I put on record my particular thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr Forster), and for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray), for the sterling shifts they put in on the Bill Committee.

We can all agree on the need to stop these perilous channel crossings, but under the Conservatives, safe and legal routes were dismantled, forcing vulnerable people into the hands of criminal gangs. Meanwhile, the asylum system was left to rot, and a staggering backlog grew year after year. Now we have thousands of people stuck in limbo, unable to work, rebuild their life or contribute to the UK economy, while taxpayers foot the bill for hotel accommodation in communities like mine.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady accept that, despite what she has just said, under the last term of the Conservative Government, record numbers of people came here through resettlement schemes, which are safe and legal routes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening on me in debates on immigration; this is not the first time we have had a conversation of this nature. Ukrainians and Hongkongers came here under the previous Government, and that is to be welcomed—

[Nick Timothy]

And Afghans.

[Lisa Smart]

And Afghans; the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. But there are countries in the world—Eritrea, Sudan and others—from which there are no safe and legal routes, and that is what new clause 21 is about.

The Home Secretary said in the White Paper published this morning that we need an immigration system that is “fair and effective”, and I strongly agree with her. The current system is neither, and I would have liked to have seen more in the Bill to change that. The Liberal Democrats believe in a common-sense immigration and asylum system that treats people with dignity. That means scrapping headline-chasing gimmicks, such as the Conservatives’ Rwanda plan, investing in swift decision making, and tackling the problem of criminal gangs at its root. We welcome some of the measures in the Bill to achieve those ends, but one of the most glaring injustices of our system is the ban on work for people seeking asylum. Right now, those who have been waiting months and months for a decision are barred from working to support themselves and their family, and from contributing to the economy. That is wasteful and demoralising; it is a lose-lose for everyone. New clause 21 in my name would change that. It proposes that if someone has been waiting for more than three months, they should be able to pay their fair share.

I know from those seeking asylum in my area that these are people who want to pay their way, contribute their skills and taxes and be part of the local community. We should not be stopping them. This is about common sense. Giving people the right to work will ease the pressure on public finances and give dignity back to those caught up in the system. It will help employers to fill vacancies at a time of work shortages, and allow asylum seekers to build the foundations of a new life. I urge colleagues across the House to support this new clause. It is the fair and practical thing to do, and it benefits us all.

Any Government serious about tackling the smuggling gangs—and I believe that this Government are—must cut off the gangs’ business model at the source. New clauses 22 and 36 would require the Government to set out new safe and legal routes, giving those fleeing persecution a proper alternative to dangerous crossings. The lack of these routes is a direct cause of the current crisis. We cannot keep saying that we want to stop the boats while slamming shut every door to safety for those who need it. There must certainly be greater scope for family reunion. No child should have to face the trauma of fleeing war or persecution alone, only to be denied proper contact with their loved ones. New clause 27 would widen family reunion rules, so that unaccompanied child refugees could be joined by their closest relatives.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

On the point about reuniting families, the shadow Minister seemed to be utterly bemused as to why so many migrants and illegal immigrants are male. I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware of the Doctors without Borders report that showed that a large number of sub-Saharan African women were being injected with such high levels of contraceptive as to make them permanently infertile, because they were being raped so many times on their way here that they could not then work to pay off their debt, because they were pregnant. A fairer system would allow more women and children to come to the UK.

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. That is one of a number of utterly hideous stories that any of us could hear through any of the wonderful bodies and non-governmental organisations working with asylum seekers and refugees who are coming to this country. I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend from the other place, Baroness Hamwee, who has done a huge amount of work on family reunification. This is about basic humanity. These children need safety and the support of their families to truly rebuild their life.

People smuggling of the type that this Government are trying to crack down on is an international problem, and we cannot solve it by going it alone. New clauses 23 to 26 will bolster our co-operation with Europol, encourage regular meetings with its leadership and establish joint taskforces, ensure more resources and provide a transparent system of reporting back to Parliament. To dismantle these smuggling networks, we need to work hand in glove with our European allies. This Bill could go further to strengthen those vital ties. The UK should be leading on this, not lagging behind.

The Liberal Democrats will keep fighting for a system that is fair, fast and humane, in which there are safe routes, families can be reunited, and those who come here are treated with dignity and can contribute to their new communities. Our new clauses offer practical steps to rebuilding an asylum system that works for all of us, and I urge the House to back them today for practical, humane and effective solutions.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to the support provided to my office by the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project. I also chair the all-party parliamentary group on refugees. I thank the Ministers and members of the Public Bill Committee for their work on this Bill, which I continue to support as a whole.

My constituents in Folkestone and Hythe want to see Parliament give our law enforcement agencies the powers that they need to tackle these highly sophisticated, organised criminals. The small boats industry, which was allowed to run for years under the Conservatives, flourished in part because of the lack of powers for the National Crime Agency and the lack of co-ordination with our European partners. We absolutely do not need the performative politics of the Conservatives, including their new clause 14 to disapply the Human Rights Act from immigration functions.

We have just had the VE Day 80th anniversary, and it was that fundamentally important victory over tyranny in Europe that led to European democracies uniting to safeguard the rights of everyone living in Europe. When I met Ukrainian politicians at the Council of Europe in January this year, they were very clear that they need human rights, the rule of law, democracy and unity of values in Europe, and they need us, the United Kingdom, to help them in their fight against an enemy that lacks those principles.

We are at a point in history when it is more important than ever to be clear about our values, what makes our society one to be proud of, and what we have in common with our neighbours and friends. Rightly, the Government will not disapply the Human Rights Act from one group today; maybe the Conservatives would want to deprive another group of it tomorrow. The Opposition’s new clause, which I will oppose, is a reminder of this important dividing line in our politics.

I also want to comment on new clause 3 on safe and managed routes to asylum. I raised this issue in the Chamber on Second Reading. I fully accept that safe routes will not, on their own, stop small boat crossings; that is why we need the enforcement measures in this Bill. However, it is unsustainable to continue to make it virtually impossible to claim asylum lawfully, and then criminalise those who have made valid claims, but who have no lawful means of accessing the asylum system. I am grateful to the Minister for Migration and Citizenship, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), for agreeing to meet me next week to discuss this issue. A recent report by the APPG on refugees proposed a pilot system for those from specific conflict zones who have strong claims to be allowed to travel here, so that their claim could be fully examined on UK soil. That would build an evidence base on the issue, to inform future policy.

Finally, on British citizenship, though the Government are repealing the measure that bars citizenship for those arriving unlawfully, they have effectively reintroduced it via policy. I would ask them to rethink their approach. By the time a person in that situation applies for citizenship, they will have been granted asylum, having a well-founded claim. They will have been here for over five or six years; they will be of entirely good character; and they may be making a valid contribution to our society. However, because of their method of entry all those years ago, they could be prevented from accessing citizenship and integrating in this country. We need measures to promote, rather than hinder, the integration of those lawfully present here. Despite these points, I support the Bill, and thank the Government and Members for their work on it.

Immigration System

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Immigration is personal to all of us, whether we are immigrants ourselves, the descendants of immigrants, or benefit from the skills, talents and cultural richness that immigrants bring. I am immensely proud that our country took in my nan, aged 18, when she was fleeing the Nazis in 1939. I am also hugely grateful that the senior surgeon who did my dad’s kidney transplant operation brought his skills and talents to our country, having been born elsewhere.

Yes, the Conservative Government made a total mess of our immigration system. Their chaotic and dishonest approach of making and breaking headline-grabbing targets shattered public trust and left the system in tatters. The line I agree with most in the Government White Paper published this morning is that the immigration system must be “fair and effective”. What the Conservatives left behind was nowhere close to either. Change is needed, and that means rebuilding an immigration system that works for our country and our economy, while treating everyone with dignity and respect.

Of course, that must be coupled with a clear plan to make it easier to recruit British workers to fill those vacancies instead, and I would welcome more details from the Home Secretary on how her Government will achieve this to ensure that these changes do not have unintended consequences for our economy and, in particular, for our health and social care systems. Will this include finally implementing the Lib Dem proposals for a higher minimum wage for carers to reflect the skill levels really involved in caring professions?

We also need to move away from the chaotic chopping and changing of immigration rules that we saw under the Conservatives, so will the Home Secretary provide further clarity on when these changes will be brought forward, including a clear timetable for any changes to visa rules, so that employers—and the workers and their families, who we are talking about today—can plan for their future?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member is right that we need to boost training and skills here in the UK alongside these stronger controls. On social care, we will introduce a fair pay agreement. It is important that the vital jobs of those who look after our loved ones in social care are properly respected. On the timetable, some of these measures will require primary legislation and further consultation, while others will be brought in more swiftly—including, for example, some of the changes to the skilled worker thresholds. To give her an example of the approach we want to take, construction workers will be on the temporary shortage list because they are clearly crucial to growth in our economy. However, that has to happen alongside respect for the workforce strategy, which is why the Education Secretary has set out proposals to train 60,000 more construction workers here in the UK.

Counter Terrorism Policing: Arrests

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for updating the House and for advance sight of his statement. I also add my thanks to the security services and the police for all their work to keep us safe.

Over recent years Members have been called to this Chamber to discuss plots to commit acts of terror on Britain’s streets at the hands of the Iranian regime—but consecutive Governments are yet to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. In opposition, the now Foreign Secretary said:

“The IRGC is behaving like a terrorist organisation and must now be proscribed as such.”

Earlier this year I asked the Minister precisely this question: does he not agree that now is surely the time? In his earlier remarks, he mentioned the review that has concluded. If now is not the time for proscription, when should the House expect a further update?

The Liberal Democrats have welcomed previous sanctions against those linked to the Iranian regime. However, I urge the Government to go a step further and look closely at whether those individuals and others with links to the regime have assets here in the UK. Will the Minister commit to carrying out an audit, so that we know where those assets are, enabling the Government to freeze them as appropriate? The Minister is right to reference the long-standing pattern by the Iranian intelligence service of targeting people of the Jewish faith and of Israeli nationality. Could he update the House on any conversations he has had with the UK Jewish community leadership, specifically the Community Security Trust, about threats here in the UK?

[Dan Jarvis]

I thank the hon. Lady for, as is always the case, the very sensible and reasonable way in which she has phrased her questions. I am always available to discuss these matters in more detail should she wish to do so. To her question on proscription, I hope she will acknowledge the response I gave to the shadow Minister a few moments ago.

We take these matters incredibly seriously. The Home Secretary and I looked at them very closely in opposition, and that is precisely why the Home Secretary commissioned Jonathan Hall. He is the right person to look carefully at our legislative framework and make recommendations about whether we can toughen and strengthen our laws in this particular area. Mr Hall has now concluded his report; we are looking very closely at it, and it will be published shortly. As I said to the shadow Minister, we will not hesitate to bring forward further measures as required.

The hon. Lady made an important and helpful point about sanctions and assets, and I know it will have been heard by the Foreign Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), with whom we work incredibly closely. We work hard to ensure that our response is always as joined up across Government as it can be. The Home Secretary works very closely with the Foreign Secretary, and I work very closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln on these matters, and we will consider whether further measures need to be taken.

The hon. Lady’s final point about the Jewish community is a very important one. I give her and the whole House an absolute commitment that we will work tirelessly to ensure the safety of the Jewish community in our country. The Home Secretary and I, and other Ministers, are in regular contact with members of that community, including the CST, which she referenced and which does an excellent job. I will be meeting them in the very near future, and the hon. Lady can be reassured that we will work very closely with them to ensure that they get the protection that they need and deserve, and the assurances that they rightly want.

Irish Republican Alleged Incitement

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The remarks by members of the band are completely unacceptable, and it is right that they have apologised to the families of Sir David Amess and Jo Cox, but clearly those comments should never have been made in the first place. Incitement to violence against Members of Parliament cuts to the very heart of our democracy. The reality is that two MPs have been murdered in the last decade. It is absolutely right that the authorities are looking into other comments relating to encouraging support for proscribed terror organisations.

I want to look at what more the Government can do. What criteria does the Home Office apply when assessing whether artists or performers are promoting harmful or extremist rhetoric, particularly where there is a clear attempt to provoke public outrage? What assessment has the Minister made of the impact that comments like these may have on community cohesion?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member, as I always am, for the sensible and reasonable way in which she framed her remarks. She is absolutely right. Incitement to violence is utterly unacceptable in any context, and it is completely unacceptable in the context of Members of this House and other elected politicians. That is why the Prime Minister recently refreshed the mandate of the defending democracy taskforce, and that is why, as chair of that taskforce, I am working closely with law enforcement, all Government Departments, the Electoral Commission and a range of different organisations, including the police, to ensure that right around the country we have the most coherent, joined-up and properly resourced response.

Back at the general election last year, I am sure all of us saw things that we consider completely unacceptable. It is my ambition as the chair, and that of the Government, to ensure that electoral events—I am conscious that we are working through one at the moment—are fought in a way that enables and encourages reasonable and robust debate. It is absolutely right that in the cut and thrust of politics there should be the rough and tumble of debate, but I think instinctively we all know where the line is drawn, and this incident went miles over where the line should be drawn.

We will continue to look carefully at the circumstances of this case. As I said, it is ultimately for the police to make an operational decision about where they want to go with it, but I give the hon. Member an assurance that through the DDTF we take these matters incredibly seriously. I would be happy to work even more closely with her, her colleagues and all Members of the House in that endeavour.

Child Rape Gangs

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

No child should ever endure sexual exploitation or abuse. Such horrific and unacceptable crimes must have no place in our society. Victims and survivors of these crimes must be at the centre of our thoughts whenever we discuss these matters. We owe it to them not just to offer words of support, but to deliver justice and bring offenders to account. That also means taking firm preventive action to protect future generations from such harm. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, led by Professor Alexis Jay, published its recommendations in 2022. Will the Minister please set out a clear timetable for the full implementation of the Jay inquiry’s recommendations? Does the Minister agree that a duty of candour, via a Hillsborough law, would bring transparency and accountability to any future inquiry? Will the Government commit to a timetable for delivering that?

[Jess Phillips]

I thank the hon. Lady, and I agree with her that inquiries are only worth anything if we crack on. That is why, when I came to this House before the recess, I said it would go alongside the publishing of an action plan on the recommendations of the Jay report and Jay’s work into grooming gangs. That has all been published as part of a Government plan, but it is only the beginning. Actually, this is going to take years and years. On the duty of candour, it seems appalling that we have to ask people to tell the truth, yet here we are. Of course, that is what we must be striving for, as the hon. Lady says, on behalf of the victims and survivors.

Headingley Incident

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

No one should have to live in fear of such horrific violence. The appalling events in Headingley on Saturday have left a community shocked and two women with really serious injuries. My thoughts and those of all the Liberal Democrats are, of course, with the victims, their families and all those affected by a crime of such awful brutality. This is yet another devastating example of the violence faced by women and girls across the country, which we must all work to end. It is also yet another example of a violent attack in which a crossbow has been used—one of too many in recent years. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), among others, has urged the Government to review and strengthen crossbow regulations. I note the Government’s amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, including new clause 70, and the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). Can the Minister confirm when the Government’s formal response to the call for evidence will be published?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful for the comments from the hon. Member who leads on this subject for the Liberal Democrats. We all are committed to ensuring that violence against women and girls is halved over the next decade. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is sitting with me, is leading on that. It is an important strand of the safer streets mission.

I am pleased to hear of the support from the Liberal Democrats for our ongoing work on crossbows, particularly through the Crime and Policing Bill. We will bring forward details of the Government’s approach, and the response to the consultation, very shortly. I have taken a particular interest in this issue, and I have met families who have been affected by violent crossbow attacks. I recently met Laura Sugden up in Driffield, who lost her partner, Shane Gilmer. Just this morning, I met Joan Whelan, whose partner, Dave Peck, was killed in 2022 by someone using a crossbow. I am aware of the need for action on this issue.