Immigration: Earned Settlement
Max Wilkinson Excerpts(2 days, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a year since the Home Secretary’s initial statement on her immigration reforms, and we still disagree with the Government and with the official Opposition. Just as we predicted, the Government’s immigration reforms are unravelling. By prioritising tough rhetoric rather than a system that works, the Home Secretary has apparently split her party and the Cabinet, and has alienated people on all sides. Viewing immigration simply as a matter of raw numbers and images of small boat arrivals is degrading the nation’s ability to engage in the informed national discussion that we need. Immigration reforms must of course bring greater control, and they must prevent small boat crossings too, but, crucially, they must also serve our economy and public services.
The Home Secretary previously claimed that ILR for care workers will cost us £10 billion. The shadow Home Secretary made much of that today, yet the IPPR, using the same methodology, estimates that the net benefit of skilled migrants settling in the UK under the current rules is £115 billion. Will the Home Secretary publish the full economic impact of the changes that she is suggesting?
As the Prime Minister has acknowledged, being an EU member brought more order to our migration system. It prevented small boat crossings, and it meant that many who came to work here went home again in due course. This is not all down to the Government; they simply would not be considering today’s changes to ILR if it was not for the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal and the record levels of immigration that they allowed while promising lower numbers. It is no wonder so many people in this country are confused. Now that the Conservatives are the official Opposition, their No. 1 policy on immigration is leaving the European convention on human rights.
But something does not add up. The Conservatives tell us also that their Brexit deal is settled and must never be reviewed. The fact is that the Brexit deal they negotiated with the EU would be ended if this country left the European convention on human rights, which would send the UK into further chaos. [Interruption.] They look confused and are disputing this, but perhaps that is because Conservative MPs have no idea what they are actually arguing for. Either they are misinformed, or they are misleading the public.
I turn back to this Government. Today I have two further questions for the Home Secretary. First, why does she think that so many of her Back Benchers disagree with her about immigration? My second question relates to Europe. Our future clearly lies closer to Europe, which will bring opportunities to fix our migration system, so why does the Home Secretary disagree so strongly with the Prime Minister about this?
Shabana Mahmood
That was a classic Lib Dem response: all very “I agree that this is a problem, this is a problem and this is a problem, but, but, but—”, which leads to no solutions whatsoever. Again, I am not going to engage with ridiculous political rhetoric. We consulted, and I have presented the House with a fair solution that does right by all the different cohorts—those who came to this country and those who are already here—recognising the exceptionality of care workers in particular, given that they arrived at a very specific post-covid moment when they were needed for gaps in our care sector. I think that is a fair settlement, and it has taken place after a genuine consultation. Usually, the Lib Dems are so in favour of consultations. They should be applauding the fact that this was a genuine one. We asked questions, we have considered the responses, and we have formulated the policy as a result of those responses.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the recent IPPR report. He is right to say that it uses the same methodology that I have used before, but he failed to say that the report looks at a totally different cohort of people in order to talk about the numbers. Perhaps he would like to go back and look at the detail. I am happy to engage with him once he has acknowledged the difference in cohorts.
The hon. Gentleman made some points about the EU. It is another classic Lib Dem thing to assume that all these matters relate only to our post-Brexit reality, but settlement is a policy of this Government and all our predecessor Governments. It is a right conferred on people, who then obtain the right to live in this country permanently. It is right that this Government consider what the rules should be, just as every previous Government have done. He will know that after we left the European Union, over 5 million European citizens settled in this country under the EU settlement scheme. That is another of our post-Brexit consequences. I am always happy to discuss with him the position in relation to the EU, but I do not think that has anything to do with settlement.
Oral Answers to Questions
Max Wilkinson Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and we are indeed flattered to see the Prime Minister discussing improved relations with the EU as a way to solve issues in the asylum system, but when the Government say that they will negotiate access to various agreements, including Eurodac, without dropping their red lines, they are engaging in Brexit delusion of the type we saw under the Conservatives. If we want useful co-operation on asylum and a good deal for taxpayers—because it will cost less if we are in the pact—we will have to join the EU migration and asylum pact, and that means dropping the Government’s red lines, doesn’t it?
Shabana Mahmood
The delusion here is the hon. Member assuming that the EU asylum pact is up and running, and that it is a silver bullet. He will know that across Europe, while there is greater co-operation on data sharing and so on, everyone wants to remove people from their country, but nobody wants to receive them. On returns under the pact for the countries that are in it, those returns are not happening at scale. He knows that was also the case under the Dublin regulation, of which we were part; in our last five years in it, we did not deport as many people as we managed to under our agreement with France.
Max Wilkinson
We await more on the agreement with France, and perhaps with Belgium and many other countries. It might just be simpler to have an agreement with the entire EU.
It grieves me to say this, but internal difficulties have arisen within the Labour party over migration. Cabinet members seem to be struggling to defend the Home Secretary’s position, and Government Back Benchers have a wide range of opinions. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has called for an “honest discussion” about EU freedom of movement. Will the Home Secretary back down and get behind the Prime Minister, who is open to freedom of movement, or will she stay loyal to her Back-Bench allies in the blue Labour faction, who are so hostile to it?
Shabana Mahmood
Honestly, what absolute piffle from the hon. Gentleman. He will know that the Prime Minister has been discussing having an open debate; that is not the same as settled policy, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware. The Prime Minister has also observed that there were very significant issues with freedom of movement when we were in the EU. Having an honest debate means actually being honest about all aspects of the issue, not cherry-picking, as the Liberal Democrats so often do.
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Max Wilkinson Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I will indeed respect the amount of time for the third party, which I understand is 10 minutes. Thank you for giving me that time, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Ten minutes is a guide, not a target that the hon. Gentleman has to reach.
Max Wilkinson
Your advice is noted, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Of course it would be inappropriate to house 1,200 asylum seekers on a military base next to a village of a few hundred people, and of course it would be inappropriate to house them on a site that has never previously been used for residential accommodation. That goes without saying. The Liberal Democrats can back that element of the motion, even if we do not agree with the wording deployed by the official Opposition. I will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) to deal with the specifics of the local matter when he contributes later.
What must be disputed, however, is the second part of this deeply harmful motion. Brexit has made us all poorer. It has reduced Britain’s standing in the world and made it more difficult for this country to run a safe and controlled asylum system. So why on earth are the Conservatives suggesting leaving the ECHR, which would be Brexit 2.0? Not only would that make the UK a pariah state, but it would likely result in the end of the Brexit deal that they negotiated. The Conservatives often tell us that the Brexit settlement must not be reopened, but that is exactly what they are suggesting.
Once again, the Conservative party is arguing that this country should pursue what would basically amount to a no-deal Brexit, except this time it is not a fringe argument being contested among factions in the Conservative party, but the position of the shadow Front Bench and the Leader of the Opposition, backed by all Conservative MPs. Indeed, their leader has told them that they will be barred from their party unless they adopt the position, which is why so many of them have now changed their mind on the issue.
The drift of the Conservatives away from the centre-right to the hard-right is a dereliction of duty. It runs counter to many of the traditions in British Conservatism. But we know why they are doing it: they are terrified of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) so they chase after him. They increasingly make his arguments as they prepare for their grubby deal. We all remember what happened in 2019, when the hon. Member for Clacton stood down his candidates in alliance with Boris Johnson. People up and down the country are more than aware that those two parties would engage in the same sort of stitch-up again without a second thought, no matter how much Tory MPs and their leader plead the opposite in public.
Max Wilkinson
The point is that we are in Europe, we are a European nation and most of our relationships are with the ECHR nations. I gently caution the Conservatives that every time they change position in an effort to catch up with Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton will move further and further to the right. This week that resulted in the horrifying suggestion made by Reform that our military should be told to murder civilians on small boats in the English channel.
The suggestion that leaving the ECHR will help us to deal with a broken asylum system is absolute nonsense—a system that was broken by the Conservatives, by the way, who now spend so much time brazenly telling us that they alone have the solution. Leaving the ECHR will not stop a single small boat crossing from France. It will not, as the Conservatives suggest, make it easier to deport people, because when a nation ditches international agreements, others are less likely to work with it.
What leaving the ECHR would do, as I have said, is make this nation an international pariah. It would likely result in the conditions once known in the public debate as a no-deal Brexit, which the Conservatives told us they were against. In fact, the trade and co-operation agreement makes continued UK adherence to the ECHR a major part of our current Brexit conditions. If we were to leave the ECHR, we would also end co-operation with our neighbours on law enforcement and criminal justice, which risks leaving dangerous criminals walking free, unidentified and able to escape overseas and evade prosecution, and would seriously jeopardise public safety, including that of women and girls. That is deeply irresponsible.
Pete Wishart
It would also have huge implications for settlements across the United Kingdom. The Conservatives did not know this, but there would be a massive implication for Scottish devolution, for all our legislation is predicated on a commitment to being compliant with ECHR regulations. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Conservatives exactly what this would do to our internal arrangements across the UK?
Max Wilkinson
I will come to that point later, I hope, with specific reference to Northern Ireland.
There is more than that to this debate, though. Leaving the ECHR would also rob British people of hard-won British rights—rights that have for so long been championed across political divides, in so many notable cases by Conservatives, who now argue that we must scrap those rights on the altar of the debate about small boat crossings. Article 2, for instance—the right to life—helped the brave families of the Hillsborough victims to secure fresh inquests to get to the truth of what happened in that tragedy. Article 3 helped the victims of John Worboys, the black cab rapist, to get justice and build into British law additional protections for victims. Alongside article 3, article 4 helped victims of the Rochdale grooming gangs—who Conservative and Reform Members talk about so often—to secure damages and better justice from Greater Manchester police.
Article 10 protects the right to freedom of speech and expression, something that the right tells us is so important—just for them; maybe not so much for everybody else—although certainly not important enough to retain and protect it in law for all of us. This article also guarantees the right for journalists to protect their sources. While it is not for me, as a one-time rubbish journalist and now a politician, to tell journalists how to do their job, there has so far been disappointingly little scrutiny from the fourth estate, particularly in the right-wing media, on the Reform and Tory proposals on the ECHR. Article 10, by the way, also protects the rights of people to hold their politicians to account in the most direct terms. This is established in law.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
The Minister spoke fondly before of working for a former Home Secretary who, on one occasion after 9/11, disapplied part of the European convention on human rights using article 15. Does the hon. Member recognise that there is a difference, perhaps, between leaving the European convention and suspending elements of it while we deal with a crisis?
Max Wilkinson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Of course, the second part of the convention does tackle those sorts of derogations. It is important that we see the convention in its entirety.
As I said earlier, all of this is before we consider the implications for Northern Ireland, which have been well rehearsed in this Chamber. When British people up and down the country hear Conservative and Reform politicians pledging to erase those rights, we must all ask ourselves whether we trust those politicians to give us back those rights when they no longer exist. The answer is, of course, that they will not give us those rights back. [Interruption.] And do not argue with me about the Wolfson report, because that is nonsense.
Leaving the ECHR will mean that we have even fewer opportunities to work on agreements with the EU—the place small boats set off from—to prevent those crossings, and that goes to the nub of the matter that we are discussing today. If we have learned one thing over the past decade, it is that the concept of the UK becoming more successful and prosperous while distancing itself from its closest allies is a total fiction. It was a lie in 2016, and it is a lie today. The only way to move towards an asylum system that works is by working with our European allies, and that means that this Government must first drop their self-defeating red lines, and secondly apply to join the EU migration and asylum pact.
While the media is excited that the Prime Minister has been more expansive in his wording on relations with Europe, it is important to note that he is pledging to retain all his red lines. He is not promising to remove any of them, even though he knows that those red lines are making us poorer and scuppering our chances of an asylum system that could, in future, command public trust, look after genuine asylum seekers and create a fair system, as this country has always had. It will also cost UK taxpayers more and more money.
Max Wilkinson
The hon. Member will know that the framework within which signatories to the EU migration and asylum pact work is different from the Dublin agreement.
Today we renew our calls for Ministers to drop their red lines on Europe and to join the EU asylum pact. We also renew our calls for the Conservatives to recognise the reality that the first Brexit they gave us has failed this country. Do not pretend that giving us Brexit 2.0 will be any better.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Mullan
I wish we had a system in which we could test the hon. Member’s proposition, because at the minute, we have absolutely no idea about the attitudes and values of the people coming from those countries. She is correct to say that we have issues of misogyny in this country, but for our country the equivalent figures to those I have just mentioned are significantly lower. That is the point: these cultures are worse than ours on the many issues we care about in relation to women and girls.
On the one hand, the Government are pledging action on women and girls and driving improvements in that area—we have done so in our society for many decades—but on the other hand they are pretending that the citizens of those countries, which have done none of that work, are exactly the same as us and will come over and treat our women exactly the same. I am afraid that flies in the face of common sense and the clear statistical evidence I gave about rates of crime and the social attitudes of those people.
I am not afraid to say that there is a lot to do when it comes to women and girls in our culture, but we have a significantly better culture towards women and girls than countries such as Eritrea, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and a whole range of others, so it is perfectly reasonable for women being asked to live alongside huge numbers of unvetted people from those countries to be concerned and to have worries.
We should not be afraid to call that out, and it has nothing to do with racism. We have a culture of football hooliganism in this country, and it is predominantly white people who engage in that football hooliganism. I am happy to say that; it does not make me racist towards white people. It does not make me racist towards other cultures when I point out the issues and problems that they have, which we should not be afraid to call out.
Max Wilkinson
I think the hon. Member mentioned that 80% of women in one country said they had been sexually harassed in public. What is the rate of women in the UK who report being sexually harassed in public?
Dr Mullan
It is around one in four. It was 80% in the country I referenced, which is significantly more. The equivalent figure for this country is much, much too high—I would want it to be zero—but that makes the exact point, which I think the hon. Member did not want to draw out, that those countries are worse than we are. We should not be importing large quantities of unvetted young men from those cultures without a proper way of dealing with that. We do not have a way of doing that.
The Government inadvertently admitted that, as they have had to actively tell those people not to rape women. That is because they know the things I have said about the differences in attitudes towards women in many of those countries. The question is: what do we do about it? I am clear that it should be up to us to decide who comes here from what countries and on what basis. We should decide asylum policy—not the people smugglers—and the routes on which people come. The Conservatives have been clear and admitted that we should have been quicker in bringing in our own deterrence policy, but we are committed to doing that now and have a plan for it. That is what actually counts.
The only country that has successfully dealt with this issue is Australia. It saw a decrease of more than 90% in the number of people crossing the sea and entering illegally by saying, “If you come here illegally under that method, you don’t get to stay—end of story.” That worked, and we should do exactly the same thing. The Government like to talk about the failure of the Rwanda plan and the four people sent as volunteers. They know that those people went voluntarily. It is clearly not a deterrent if someone goes voluntarily, but we were never allowed to use the scheme as a deterrent to deport people whether they wanted to go or not.
The Government can do everything they want to reform and tweak the operation of human rights laws in this country, but there are two ways in which that approach is fundamentally flawed. First, it does not matter if a claim can be successfully rejected if someone cannot be deported to the country they came from. It is completely futile. Unless the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) thinks that we will deport people en masse to Afghanistan or some other third world, war-torn country, clearly, whatever we might want to do around the validity of their claim is worthless if we cannot send them to another country or back to the country they came from. Secondly, we have talked about the nature of the claims and how we might tweak them. The European Court of Human Rights is a precedent-setting Court. If it makes a ruling and sets a precedent, ultimately, that will hold sway.
I asked the hon. Member for South Norfolk to comment on article 3, which he failed to do. That is just one example of how the European convention on human rights has become totally distorted. Article 3 was originally envisioned to prevent people from being deported to a country where they might face torture. That was the aim of the article. It is now used to say that when someone comes to our country and commits horrendous crimes such as rape, but they have a psychiatric illness, it is torture if the country we seek to deport them to does not have adequate healthcare provision. Under article 3, that is not allowed. Who can reasonably argue that that was envisioned by all the people the hon. Member referenced when they created a set of rights which, at the time, were appropriate and applied appropriately? Does he really think that those people envisioned that, 50 years later, that would mean we could not deport a rapist because he would not get adequate healthcare in the country that we were deporting him to?
The article has been totally distorted from its original purpose, and the question of whether we can operate a safe and decent framework of rights in this country without the use of the ECHR is quite clearly scaremongering. Canada manages it, New Zealand manages it, Australia manages it. They all manage to have a framework of rights and international agreements, and that includes Canada, which is seeking a closer relationship with the EU, which is not part of the ECHR.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Although the MOD Bicester site is outside my constituency, it is approximately 11 km from my nearest settlement. I wrote to the Home Secretary on 1 September on behalf of not only female constituents, but Piddington women, who I am so pleased to see in the Gallery today. They contacted me to express their concerns for their safety, and I reiterate that the guidance entitled “Understanding behaviour and expectations in the UK” reinforces their concerns.
I have a migrant hotel in my constituency, and we know the issues that come from having migrants in the area. One big question is what they will do with their time. Rural crime is already an issue, and they could be exploited by existing criminal gangs. I ask the Minister: why have stab vests been issued to security staff working at the base in the last month, when they have never been needed before? The site was deemed unsuitable for an open accommodation centre by the Planning Inspectorate and the local authority more than 20 years ago, and little has changed since then. In the early 2000s, the High Court ruled that no more than 750 people could live there, but now the figure is 1,250. The Home Office argues that not using hotels is ensuring the “better use of public money”, but these large accommodation sites could cost £46 million more, according to the National Audit Office.
All that could be avoided if only the Government would take a robust approach to our asylum system, which means reviewing our position on the ECHR. As Lord Wolfson’s excellent report highlights, the ECHR places significant legal constraints on the Government’s ability to address issues such as immigration. Other countries across Europe are reconsidering their relationship with the ECHR in the light of immigration issues—countries such as Belgium, Italy, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Lithuania and Austria. We are not alone.
Sarah Bool
I will make progress, because we are very close to the end of the debate.
Max Wilkinson
Can the hon. Lady tell us which of those countries are considering leaving the ECHR?
Sarah Bool
All those countries have looked at reforming the ECHR.
The European Court of Human Rights has expanded the interpretation of human rights. For as long as the Court regards the ECHR as a living instrument such that its decisions—and, in consequence, the decisions of domestic courts—are not constrained by the actual wording of the ECHR, we will have problems.
Police Funding: North-east England
Max Wilkinson Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I commend the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for securing this debate. I begin by putting on the record my party’s thanks and admiration for our police services up and down the country, and for the vital role that officers play in keeping our communities safe.
The tragic A66 collision that claimed the lives of two police officers, Matthew Blades and Tom Clough, horrified us all. The disorder that followed in the days after that tragedy disturbed people far beyond the north-east, and we must hope it has brought renewed focus on the area’s safety. I commend all the MPs from the region who have spoken so powerfully with one voice in this debate today.
This summer’s disorder underlines the importance of having a police service that is properly resourced, that is visible and that is trusted by the communities it serves. We have long called for a return to genuine community policing, focused on preventing crime through policing that builds relationships with local communities.
Just a few days ago, I was in the north-east, in Peterlee, to appear on a televised political panel debate. It was clear that crime is a real concern for residents in that area. Indeed, it was raised by the audience member who asked the first question. The audience spoke about the impact on their communities and the underlying causes, including the fact that many communities have been hollowed out economically over the last few decades. What came across was a deep frustration and, very sadly, a sense of helplessness from those in the room.
Police presence must be part of the focus to address the concerns of residents across the north-east. Under the Conservatives, Cleveland police lost hundreds of officers—I think around 400—and after the disorder this summer, 200 officers had to be drafted in to deal with what unfolded. This is not an acceptable state of affairs. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s pledge to recruit 13,000 additional police officers, but police numbers have sadly not matched the Government’s ambition. If the Government are serious about restoring neighbourhood policing, they must get more officers back on to our streets, and they will need to recruit many more. We cannot expect overstretched officers to do more with less, as other Members have said, and too many crimes go unsolved.
We hear about these issues regularly in relation to the north-east and elsewhere; they are common to so many places across the country. The Government will tell us that they have increased national police funding, but with reference to the north-east, Cleveland’s funding increase is the lowest in the country, worth £1.65 million a year less than if it had received the 4.5% average increase. On top of that, Cleveland police is being asked to find £3.88 million of savings to balance its budget. Regardless of the regional issue, it is clear that policing must refocus on finding more resources and making the best of the resources it has.
There is also the issue that a huge amount of police time is taken up by online crime, principally fraud but also including child sexual exploitation and violence against women and girls. Unfortunately, the companies that facilitate this behaviour have not acted strongly enough to prevent it from happening. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a new police agency to tackle serious online crime, funded by a levy on big tech and AI companies. Will the Minister commit to taking steps to ensure that the companies that facilitate online crime are called to account and asked to pay for some of the problems that they create, on a “polluter pays” basis? That would help to redirect police resourcing to the frontline, to build and maintain the physical policing presence that our communities rightly expect. It would help to restore a police counter in every community, giving people accessible, convenient places to share information and engage with the police within their communities.
The Government talk about their neighbourhood policing guarantee, but we now need to see change in our communities. We believe that our proposals can help. One other concern lies in police force reorganisation. If merging forces means that officers become more distant from the communities they serve or are less able to respond to local crime—or, indeed, if three underfunded forces become one massive underfunded force—the reforms will have failed. Will the Minister ensure that police reform does not lead to resources being directed away from smaller communities, which are often in rural areas, to larger urban centres? That is particularly important for the rural communities we have heard about today, where crime has become increasingly organised, serious and persistent. We are calling for a countryside copper guarantee, with properly resourced, dedicated rural crime teams or specialists in every police force. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that forces serving rural areas have the resources they need?
Finally, transferring police and crime commissioners’ powers to mayors without sufficient democratic scrutiny risks replacing one flawed model with another. Local crime and police boards made up of local residents and representatives of the community can provide meaningful local accountability and oversight of policing. Is that being considered by Ministers in their police reforms? That is vital, because only by empowering communities to work with local police will we reduce crime across the country, including in the north-east.
National Security
Max Wilkinson Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I start by sharing my support for the police and security services. As the MP for GCHQ, that means a great deal to me, given that so many of my constituents work there.
The murder of Ann Widdecombe shocked us all, and the revelations about the suspect’s plans apparently to attack other MPs are deeply concerning to all of us in the House. Those of us who want protection for politicians must demand it for all, no matter the political persuasion of those politicians; that needs to be said on the record. In return, we must hope that all politicians on all sides moderate their language when necessary to lower the temperature of debate and reduce the threat against us all. That is an important part of the debate that must not be lost.
Those who target politicians must not be allowed to impose their intended chilling effect on our democracy. My thoughts remain with Ann’s family, including my constituent Rev. Roger Widdecombe who leads the congregation at St Paul’s in Cheltenham.
Sadly, the public discourse aimed at politicians has coarsened in the last decade, which has resulted in increased hatred, abuse and offences against politicians and retired politicians at all levels, and politically motivated killings. We must never forget what happened to Sir David Amess and Jo Cox. It is important that we can all do our jobs without intimidation, fear or worse. I know that the Speaker takes that seriously. We therefore welcome the review into the protective security provided to those in public life. It is right that it will be done swiftly.
On another of the many elements of the statement, we must be clearly ever more mindful of the threat to this country from our enemies on the global stage—and those at home, too. We must do all we can to prevent those threats: especially, as we have seen in recent months, those that have wickedly targeted the Jewish community in this country. It is right that today we remember Melvin Kravitz and Adrian Daulby. We welcome the Home Secretary’s comments on an inquiry for the Heaton Park attacks. Let us all remain vigilant to antisemitism and supportive of our Jewish communities—that goes for all political parties.
In April, I wrote to Ministers seeking additional support for the police to account for the added strain on their resources in areas around military bases. Ministers told me that the police should work within their existing budgets without extra support, but given what has recently happened will Ministers look again at how they can support the police forces responsible for the areas around RAF Fairford and other bases? Will the Home Secretary push Ministers to accelerate the previously announced security review and set out what she will do to strengthen the security of all bases in general?
Earlier, the Prime Minister stated that Iran and the IRGC were “highly likely” to have been behind the incident at RAF Fairford. So, finally, what action is being taken against Iranian operatives involved in that activity? Is the expulsion of diplomats being considered?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the hon. Member for his comments and questions. On the issues relating to the murder of Ann Widdecombe, he made a point about our responsibility to lower the temperature. I observe that it is possible to have very robust debate and a thorough contest of ideas without having to cross a line and call into question our collective security. I urge all Members as ever to reflect on their own behaviour to ensure that we are modelling the right behaviour, which we expect our citizens to see. We lead the national discourse and we should seek to do it in an appropriate way without losing all of the political contestation that is a hallmark of a thriving democracy.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments on remaining vigilant on antisemitism as a collective, whole of society response. All political parties have a responsibility to ensure that they are active partners in the fight against antisemitism, which is a pernicious form of hatred. We know that it has increased substantially in recent years, and we all have a responsibility there.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the issue of military bases is primarily one for the Ministry of Defence, but of course it works closely with the police and with us at the Home Office. Let me assure him that I am in good discussions with the Defence Secretary to ensure that all appropriate measures are being taken at our military bases, that we are aware of all the risks and that there are good security measures. It is my belief that there are, but of course we are never going to be complacent on that matter and will always review and ensure that our response is appropriate. I would be happy to discuss that with the hon. Gentleman as well, if needed. If he writes to me again, I can make sure that he gets an updated response that reflects the current and recent events.
Public Confidence in the Police
Max Wilkinson Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) on securing the debate.
Something odd has happened recently that has turned the debate about crime and policing in this country on its head. The hard right have always presented themselves as the defenders of law and order, but a problem has arisen because people on the hard right, in Reform and parties such as Restore, have started to argue about two-tier policing. That is a daft suggestion—there is nothing of the sort—but such accusations are a real problem in this country, because all sorts of issues have arisen and trust in the police has diminished specifically as a result.
According to the Office for National Statistics, confidence in the police has decreased in the past decade, even if crimes against people and property have mostly decreased. Tackling that will require proper resourcing. The hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe mentioned the 20,000 police yo-yo: there were 20,000 police fewer, and then the previous Government restored them. There is still a question about whether the Government have fulfilled, or are on track to fulfil, their pledges on police numbers.
Jim Shannon
At the same time as the number of officers remains the same, the population has increased dramatically. Surely the right way of doing this would be to ensure that if the population increases, the number of officers does too. Does the hon. Member agree that the 28,000 would not be enough, and that it should be more?
Max Wilkinson
I have an awful lot of sympathy with what the hon. Member says. We could get into a debate purely about police numbers—I know that the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe was not keen to—but we should focus on not just the numbers but the visibility of police officers. We need police counters in our local communities and police officers on our streets.
In contrast with Members who have suggested there is two-tier policing, I would like to place on record my party’s thanks and admiration for hard-working police officers and their public service—I believe there are at least two former officers here today. I would also like to thank the police team in Cheltenham, ably led by Inspector Steve Benbow and Superintendent James Glansfield, who I visited recently. This debate is not about parochial local issues, but it is important when we have experience of joining our police officers on the streets that we reflect that in this Chamber.
During my visit, I learned that police officers in Cheltenham work very hard in increasingly difficult circumstances. I joined Inspector Benbow and Superintendent Glansfield as part of Operation Shield, which followed a summer in which we suffered very visible antisocial behaviour and crime in our town centre, and I know that that has been reflected in towns and cities across the country. One of the most arresting things I learned was that even in Cheltenham, which most people think of as a well-heeled place, there are several, mostly independent, shops where large groups of teenagers are making the lives of the shop workers and owners a misery. We were shown a video captured on a mobile phone by a shop owner of what looked like dozens of teenagers. They apparently go into that shop several times a week, steal stuff and abuse staff. That is not acceptable.
Wendy Chamberlain
When we talk about confidence in policing, it is important that we acknowledge that we have a role to play in that as elected representatives. Youth antisocial behaviour has been a problem in my North East Fife constituency over the summer, in places such as Crail and Elie, but when I engaged with local officers, I found they had good intelligence and had dealt with the events pretty robustly afterwards. The fact of the matter is that the community were not aware of that. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have a responsibility to tell the public about the work our local officers are doing?
Max Wilkinson
Absolutely. As it happens, I was invited along by my local police force because I was talking about crime and antisocial behaviour in the town centre. The more we talk about the issue and raise it in our constituencies, the more likely it is that the police will be able to get their messages out about extra resourcing and making tweaks to legislation that will help them do their jobs better. I will come later to some of those points, which were raised by the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe.
Another thing that is clear from Cheltenham town centre and across the country is the concerning and increasing aggressive and misogynistic behaviour targeted at women. I have been hugely disturbed to hear reports of women being catcalled and abused with increasingly frequency in my constituency, most notably early in the morning when they are commuting to or from work or the gym. Clearly, a visible policing presence disturbs those who might cause problems and, crucially, gives reassurance to women in our town and city centres.
Will the Minister provide an update on tackling the growing problems with violence against women and girls, much of which is encouraged by the online world? One in four women have experienced domestic abuse. Perhaps more shockingly, fewer than one in six victims of rape or attempted rape report the assault to the police. The reasons they cite include the belief that the police simply will not be able to help, or the concern that they will not be believed.
Wendy Chamberlain
I am one of the co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group for the survivors of Fayed and Harrods. In recent weeks, the APPG has met the Metropolitan police and the Independent Office for Police Conduct. There is absolutely no doubt that historical failures in investigations have damaged the survivor cohort’s trust in the police and the criminal justice sector more widely. My hon. Friend is talking about violence against women and girls now, but does he agree that historical legacies also play a part?
Max Wilkinson
Absolutely. The more we learn about the al-Fayed case, the more shocking it becomes. I commend the work of the APPG, of which my hon. Friend is a leading member, alongside the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson). It is uncovering what seems to be a bigger and bigger scandal every time we hear more about it. We need Harrods to be open and transparent, to start co-operating and perhaps to give more resource to aid the investigation.
The issue of violence against women and girls needs to be tackled now, with taskforces that work in partnership with frontline women’s services. That also requires a very visible presence to reassure women that their safety is a priority. To do that, it is clear that police resource must be more focused on the community, rather than just having officers behind desks—although we of course need desk resource too in these complex investigations. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a police counter in every community to increase visibility across the country. That will allow people to share information and intelligence with the police in a convenient and accessible location. Simply emailing a local police officer does not always bring the desired result for local residents who are trying to work out what is going on or share intelligence. We say that we need extra police counters, in contrast to the huge decline in police counters seen under the previous Government and the specific issues in Labour’s London.
On a more structural note, will the Minister provide an update on the Hogan-Howe review and the Government’s response to it? Can she also update us on whether police force boundaries are now due to match the boundaries of regional mayors? It is important that we hold to account the people responsible for policing. That is of particular interest to rural areas. In recent years we have seen rural crime become seriously organised and persistent, yet it is often overlooked. Rural crime networks can also be harder to detect and prosecute. Will the Minister commit to giving rural police forces the necessary resources to clamp down on organised crime operating in the countryside?
The hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe mentioned public order and free speech, which is a really important point. Big Brother Watch revealed this weekend that more than 60,000 people have been arrested in the last five years for communication offences. There are some high-profile cases, such those of Lucy Connolly and others, who are held up by the hard right as martyrs of free speech, but they are nothing of the sort. They have rightly been prosecuted, even if some people have valid questions about the severity of the punishment.
Despite that, the facts seem clear: too many people are arrested not for committing crimes but for making tasteless online jokes, offering controversial opinions on social media or non-violent protest. It is a result of legislative failure that the police are not able to do their job properly on these issues. That undermines trust in the police and the work of officers, whose job it is to keep us safe, not to intervene in online arguments that would not trouble us if they happened in verbal form in the Dog and Duck. That is a threat to faith in policing, and to the very fabric of our liberal democracy. It gives space for people such as Reform’s James Orr to make bizarre comparisons between free speech in the UK and Russia and to peddle daft conspiracy theories, undermining British democracy in the process. We must all stand up against that in this place. In the light of the Big Brother Watch report, can the Minister confirm what the Government are doing to work with police and crime commissioners and chief constables to clarify the legal position, give officers greater clarity in their frontline work and protect British free speech rights?
Earlier I mentioned the issue with the right, who were previously the big defenders of policing and order. They have traditionally told us that they stand up for those ideas, but the corrosive narrative of two-tier policing has crept into that side of politics. Where they once backed the police, they now use that daft “two-tier” phrase and tell us the police are part of the problem. That places the police alongside those who would do us harm; it is a dangerous narrative, and one that we at the moderate centre of politics must address.
Support must be given to and extended for those working in the police, who put their lives and wellbeing on the line every day. Mind has reported that 91% of police officers report mental ill health. That is a shocking statistic, and it undermines the work they are able to do. Let us ensure that, as part of efforts to boost trust in policing, we are able to support police officers too. Improving their working conditions and the support available is vital to ensuring that we have the police force we need, staffed by brilliant police officers, and that they are able to fulfil their vital role to keep us safe.
Jo White
The commitment is to deliver 13,000 additional neighbourhood policing personnel by the end of this Parliament, which will give us the capacity to ensure that they can be focused on the role they are employed to do.
Since the election, the Government have increased funding to forces by close to £2 billion. This year funding to police forces has increased to its highest cash level of up to £18.5 billion—a 4.5% cash increase compared with the previous year. That means that all forces will receive a real-terms uplift in their funding. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), since March 2025 the Met has grown by 607 neighbourhood officers. We recognise the unique challenges faced by the Met. In 2026-27 the Met will receive up to £4 billion in funding, which is an increase of £175 million.
In addition, we are supporting policing to deliver £354 million of efficiency savings by the end of this Parliament through the police efficiency and collaboration programme, but we cannot stop there. The police funding system we inherited was complex, outdated and the product of legacy decisions rather than strategic design. Many PCCs, MPs and policing partners have complained that the police funding formula is out of date and not fit for purpose. Changes to police governance, force mergers and the creation of the national police service require a new way of allocating funding between forces aligned with those new structures.
Max Wilkinson
I asked a specific question about the alignment of boundaries. In my constituency of Cheltenham, we are served by Gloucestershire police. We are apparently due to get a regional mayor with Herefordshire and Worcestershire. We are served by the health board for Bristol and the west, but policing apparently is being sent eastwards. Given the Government’s devolution agenda and the need for transparency and accountability in public services, that causes a real issue. There are rumours that the Government are changing course and trying to align boundaries. Is that the case—yes or no?
Jo White
As I am standing in for the Policing Minister, I cannot immediately answer that question, but I am sure that the hon. Member will get an answer as quickly as possible.
We are committed to a wider review of the police funding formula to ensure that force funding is fair and keeps the public safe. A new approach to allocating funding will be brought in as part of our reforms to police structures.
Public confidence in policing depends on communities knowing what they can expect from the local police service and on seeing those expectations met. That is why the Government are introducing local policing guarantees, which will provide greater transparency and accountability on the policing services that matter most to the public.
The Government have committed to setting clear expectations on the issues that matter most to the public, including a target for forces to attend 90% of the most serious incidents within 15 minutes in urban areas and 20 minutes in rural areas, alongside measures to improve the speed with which 999 calls are answered. However, public confidence is about more than response times alone. It is also shaped by whether victims receive a good service and whether forces are effective at tackling crime.
HMICFRS’s recent “State of Policing” report urged forces to make urgent improvements in how they investigate crime and secure justice for victims. Forces must get the basics of investigation right. The Government are strengthening the way police performance is monitored and improved. Through the policing performance system, inspection findings are brought together with analysis against the police performance framework to provide a comprehensive picture. This enables earlier identification of concerns and targeted support in collaboration with the College of Policing, and intervention where required. A stronger focus on delivering better outcomes for victims and the public will play a key part in rebuilding and maintaining trust and confidence for victims of crime and communities.
Dover and Portsmouth: Protests
Max Wilkinson Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
How is that far-right thugs in balaclavas were able to close Britain’s busiest port without the police receiving any prior intelligence? How is it that an apparently separate group with some commonalities was then able to blockade another site the next evening? Will the Minister tell the House whether she will review why the police were caught off guard? More shockingly still—or perhaps just as shockingly—no arrests have been reported. People have drawn comparisons this weekend with the hundreds of sign-holding protesters who have been arrested since July 2025 on other protests. Can the Minister understand why people are confused by the difference in approach? Can she also answer questions from Portsmouth Liberal Democrat council leader Steve Pitt about the lack of local consultation on identifying appropriate landing sites? That is a key question that needs answering, because it clearly caused problems in Portsmouth.
Britain’s transport infrastructure cannot be left vulnerable to far-right mobs. It is a disgrace that this weekend, Reform MPs took to social media to fan the flames alongside people like Musk and Robinson. It is a disgrace that Members of this House support such vigilante action. It was the decision to leave the European Union, championed by those Reform Members and their allies in the Conservative party, that created the small boats crisis in the first place. We will only get a safe and controlled asylum system in line with British values if we join the EU migration and asylum pacts. That will also save taxpayers’ money. The Government are paying at least £500 million for a three-year agreement with France. More money will follow when the agreement is struck with Belgium. The UK’s contribution to join that pact, which would bring order and safety to the asylum system, would be significantly less than what we are currently pledging to pay in those agreements. Joining the pact must be top of the agenda when the Prime Minister meets EU leaders later this year.
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman asked about the lack of intelligence. It would not be appropriate for the Government to comment on specific intelligence matters in these cases, but we are of course looking at all decisions that were taken, and we will learn any lessons. The two events happened on consecutive days, and there was crossover in the online activity, but they were very different. One was clearly organised by a group called the South-East Patriots, which I think is part of Patriot Platform, which is a kind of far-right racist platform. That was clearly organised, whereas what happened in Portsmouth was a response to a series of events that led to this boat having to dock at Eastney marina. It will have been a mix of local people who were concerned and bad actors who were whipping up activity online and responding in kind. They were two separate events, but we will learn any lessons that we need to.
The hon. Member asked about the landing site and why it was picked. We are making sure that we understand what exactly happened, but taking a step back, Members will have seen a bit of a trend towards people leaving France further to the west. We are looking at what that means and making sure that we are responding in the right way and that enough resource is going into that. We have pushed some of that resource from the French police down the coastline, but we will be monitoring these things.
Policing in Cleveland
Max Wilkinson Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I want to join others in extending my sympathies and those of my party to the families and colleagues of PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough. My thoughts are with their loved ones at this extremely difficult time. By virtue of my in-laws, I am from a policing family, so I know the shock and grief that is being felt in the wider policing community, too. That should be acknowledged today in the Chamber.
At least one of those killed in the Middlesbrough crash is in multiple videos posted on TikTok depicting dangerous driving. This is part of a concerning wider trend on social media platforms, where lives are being risked in the pursuit of clicks, and we must ask: who is benefiting from this? It is some of the world’s richest people. They are getting richer off the back of these platforms, which are currently under-regulated, while communities suffer the consequences. Can the Home Secretary explain why, despite her Government’s intention to force platforms to remove dangerous content that leads to dangerous activities and deaths, such platforms still have no legal obligation to do so? Events in America have shown that these companies can be brought to heel, so will the Home Secretary work with the Culture Secretary to strengthen the Online Safety Act 2023, so that the glorification of dangerous driving is brought into scope?
It is, as others have said, deeply worrying to see the scenes of unrest that have followed this incident. We know that there are national pressures on police resources, so can the Home Secretary tell the House how long mutual aid will continue, and can she say something about the support given to the other forces that are losing resource under mutual aid arrangements? Given the apparent links, is she confident that her reforms will give the police and the National Crime Agency the resources and powers they need to tackle the scourge of organised crime that impacts not only Middlesbrough but so many communities across our country?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the Lib Dem spokesman for his comments and questions. Let me assure him that I am already discussing with colleagues across Government the wider issues of social media platforms and the content that is posted on them. He will know that this Government have been implementing various elements of the Online Safety Act and that from the middle of next year the wider measures within the Act will come online. That will mean that the larger social media platforms, including TikTok, will be under a legal duty to act against harmful content that breaches their terms of service. That will include content of this nature. In the meantime, most of the platforms are taking this content down. It is a reactive process, in the sense that they are responding to content being flagged—it has then, for the most part, been removed from their platforms—but from the middle of next year there will be a duty on those platforms to act proactively, not just reactively.
However, as I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, there are wider questions about the efficacy of the Online Safety Act and whether we need to revisit the measures in that Act and go further, given the unique pressures that some of the content on those platforms poses for law and order, and for criminal justice more broadly. Those are matters that the Government are considering, and other Government colleagues will come to the House to update Members in due course. Let me assure him that I work closely with colleagues on the specific matters raised by this case.
On the hon. Gentleman’s question on mutual aid, that will continue as long as it is needed by the chief constable in Cleveland, but I think this case shows the need for wider police structural reform. Cleveland is a relatively small force, and we can see the pressures on a small force that is having to do local neighbourhood policing as well as the much more specialist investigations that go with organised crime and public order-related issues. As I have made clear before, moving to a three-tier system with local forces, regional forces and also the new national police service will put us in the best possible position to provide a policing service that is able to respond to local issues in the way that local people expect, with a very visible local policing presence, as well as giving us the flexibility to respond to cases across a larger area, such as those we have seen in Cleveland, with the capacity and numbers needed to deal with public order risk, for example, without having to rely on mutual aid to get through and survive day by day, and having a national police service that can take up the types of crime that are prevalent nationally and also have an international dimension. We will bring forward our proposals on reform later this year, and I look forward to debating those with the hon. Gentleman and others across this House.
Death of Ann Widdecombe
Max Wilkinson Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The news about Ann Widdecombe is shocking and deeply distressing. My thoughts are with her family, including her nephew, the Rev. Roger Widdecombe—my constituent—and his wife Hannah, who lead the congregation at St Paul’s church in Cheltenham. Her death is all the more tragic given what we now know about the upsetting and disturbing circumstances.
Ann Widdecombe was a conviction politician, and also an entertainer. Many did not agree with her views—including me, particularly when she was briefly my Member of the European Parliament—but the style in which she put those views was compelling and captured the attention of the nation, just as her dance moves did. They were deeply held beliefs. She was a passionate public servant who was never afraid to challenge those in power—might I briefly speculate, a strong liberal inclination to challenge power from a strong Conservative politician?
I pay tribute to the police for their rapid response in this case. I also pay tribute to you, Mr Speaker, for the way in which your office gives security support to MPs. It is important that we can do our jobs without fear, intimidation or worse. It is horrifying that three politicians have been murdered in this country in the past decade. Clearly, there is more work to be done.
Might the Government support some amendments to the upcoming Representation of the People Bill to impose a duty on the Electoral Commission to provide more guidance on safety for politicians? Will the Home Office consider supporting measures so that politicians’ safety can be improved?
Finally, some alarming allegations were made on the weekend by the Reform home affairs spokesperson Zia Yusuf. If they are true, they are extremely concerning— but, given his record, many of us have doubts. I am certain that the Government and the House authorities, including you, Mr Speaker, are taking seriously the duty of care to Members from all parties in the House. For the sake of the record, perhaps the Home Secretary can confirm that that remains the case.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. He raised three specific issues. I am happy to discuss amendments to the Representation of the People Bill with him. He knows that the Home Office is not the lead Department on that Bill, but I am happy to have a discussion about any additional legislative measures that might be needed. Of course, the Electoral Commission has its own work to do, and it might be better for duties to be placed elsewhere, but, as I said, I will happily discuss that with him.
Equally, on whether any further obligations or changes of policy in respect of the Home Office, or indeed the Parliamentary Security Department, are necessary, I am happy to engage with the hon. Member and other Members across the House.
I do not wish to speak for you, Mr Speaker, but I think that all of us who are Members can attest to the fact that we are treated equally in this place by the Speaker and for the purposes of the Parliamentary Security Department when it comes to our safety on the estate and in our constituencies. That position is shared by the Government.
There is equal treatment for all in work that we do on security for Members of Parliament. Specific work is undertaken by RAVEC—the executive committee for the protection of royalty and public figures—which is the independent body in the Home Office that looks at security arrangements for some of those in public life. That work is also fiercely independent. It has been the subject of legal proceedings previously, and I have always maintained the independence of that process, which is based on risk assessment and risk management.
Oral Answers to Questions
Max Wilkinson Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Last year the National Audit Office reported that the cost of asylum accommodation contracts had more than tripled, from under £5 billion to more than £15 billion. Clearly they are bad value for money, bad for communities and bad for the asylum seekers themselves. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has stated his ambition to activate the break clause in these contracts. Given that he is set to become Prime Minister next week, is the Home Secretary planning to rip up the agreements?
Shabana Mahmood
Those are contracts that we inherited, and they will be retendered under this Government to ensure that we drive value for money across them. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the cost of asylum accommodation and support has come down by more than £1 billion since this Government came to office, and we will continue to make progress in that regard.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Culture Secretary has quit X and removed her Department from the platform, citing its descent into misinformation and abuse. Does the Home Secretary agree with her decision? What is the Home Office doing about the abuse and misinformation on X? Will the Home Office be leaving, too?
Sarah Jones
I think that everyone in this place is concerned about the rise of hatred and division online, not just on X but on other platforms. As a Government, led by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and other colleagues, we are looking at how we crack down on that and at how we create a society in which we try to unite people and not divide them. Members in this place have a strong role to play in that.