MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected any amendments.
Joy Morrissey
Luckily we are under a new leadership. I am waiting to hear—and I would love to hear from the hon. Gentleman—why not one member of the Labour party has responded to the women of Piddington who have written to them about this issue. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. There is one person speaking at this moment, and that is the only voice I wish to hear.
Joy Morrissey
The Government have said that middle-class areas need to bear their share, using class as a new weapon to silence concerns. It is a dangerous, lazy approach from a Government who are supposed to unite our country. This is not about class, or race, or anything else that the Labour party wants to use to silence those who are speaking up. That technique was used to silence rape gang victims in our cities and towns, and it is appalling that Labour has not learnt from that scandal. This is about women speaking up about fears for their safety and that of their children. The Prime Minister should listen, and Labour Members should listen. They know that these women and their communities will suffer: they know that because we already have the proof. Communities across this land have seen the lives of their women and girls ruined—ruined by the fundamental failure of this Government to protect them from the threat posed by men who come here illegally.
Joy Morrissey
I do agree. You have made an excellent point, which I will bring up later in my speech.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Because this is going to be a long debate, I must say that we should be hearing no “you” or “yours”.
Joy Morrissey
In respect of this issue of asylum accommodation, let me give a few examples of men who have raped and assaulted women and girls. Muhammad Sheikhi, a Syrian asylum seeker, came here illegally by boat. He was placed in asylum accommodation, and then sexually assaulted two women in Falkirk. He told police that he was just roaming around. The judge sentenced him to four years, saying that he had
“treated these women as though their autonomy, dignity, and bodily integrity counted for nothing.”
Three asylum seekers from Iran and Egypt were convicted in April of raping a woman in Brighton. They travelled from their asylum accommodation in Horsham. They kicked her, grabbed her throat, raped her and filmed it.
Mohammed Abbas, an illegal migrant claiming to be Palestinian, was put up in a taxpayer-funded house in Cardiff. He broke into a nearby property and exposed himself to two girls, aged 16 and 13, in their bedroom.
An Afghan illegal migrant raped a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton just four months after he arrived here by boat. He abducted her, raped her and filmed her. These are just a few examples.
Joy Morrissey
I would point out that when the right hon. and learned Lady was Home Secretary, in charge of all of these things and making these key decisions, immigration was at record levels. I commend her for calling out many of these issues, but she had the opportunity, while at the helm, to do something. I leave that there; enough said.
Finally, let me say this to the women in the Public Gallery, those I met in Piddington and elsewhere, the women who have written to me, and women and girls across Britain who are worried about their safety: I hear you; my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary hears you; the Leader of the Opposition hears you; and the Conservative party hears you. We are here for you, and we will act.
Anna Turley
I am going to make some progress, because I have detained the Chamber a little too long.
That appropriate accommodation includes former military sites, which are basic, safe and self-contained by their nature. As I have said, that approach has already saved the taxpayer £1 billion. But, of course, we recognise the concerns of certain communities.
While the Home Office has submitted a planning application to use the MOD Bicester site for asylum accommodation, no final decision has been made. As part of that planning process, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government provided members of the public and local organisations an opportunity to give their views, ensuring we can fully understand the impact on the local community. I want to pay tribute to the campaign in Piddington. It has been an incredibly imaginative and forceful democratic campaign, which I recognise and respect.
There are many facets to the process and a lot of different considerations to take into account, but I am clear that public safety is and always will be at the forefront of our thinking. If the site is taken forward, there would be specialist security onsite 24/7, supported by CCTV. Everyone must sign in and out, and we would work closely with the police, the council and other local organisations to address concerns.
It is important to note that this is not the first proposal of its kind. Similar sites such as Wethersfield have operated for years with no evidence of any significant increase in criminality attributable to the operation of that site. In fact, in September this year, the chief constable of Essex police confirmed that crime linked to the Wethersfield site is very low, and that there is no reason for the public to be concerned about possible criminality in the area associated with the site.
I emphasise that I fully understand the important desire of Members across the House to press for what they see as the best outcome for the areas and people that they represent. That is their democratic duty, and it is right that any Government are held to account for the decisions that they make. At the same, it is the duty of Government to act in a way that reflects the needs of the whole country. The approach we are taking is in the national interest, and it is the fairest way to restore order and control to our asylum system: ending the use of hotels; reducing the numbers in the system by addressing pull factors; removing those with no right to be here; and opening safe and legal routes, underpinned by community sponsorship, so that those with genuine claims can come to this country in an orderly and controlled way.
Finally, I will address the reference in the Opposition motion to the European convention on human rights. As I have set out, removals of those with no right to be in this country are at the highest level in years. That is thanks to the work that this Government have done and continue to do. But there is much more to be done. The idea that leaving the convention is the way forward is not born out by reality. Not only is it unnecessary to restore effective control of the immigration system, but it would be counterproductive given the risk of undermining crucial co-operation with European partners—something we are already dealing with as a consequence of Brexit.
Let us be clear: the convention delivers for people in this country too. It guarantees their right to privacy, a fair trial, free speech—permanent privileges that cannot be chopped and changed. In an increasingly dangerous and uncertain world in which conflict and cross-border crime present shared challenges, a close relationship with our European allies has never been more important. It is for those reasons that we remain committed to the ECHR and those relationships.
Of course, commitment does not mean complacency. This Government have worked hard to listen to the concerns of the public with respect to the ECHR and the immigration system. That is why our focus is on reforming the domestic application of article 6 and restoring the proper balance between individual rights and public interest. The UK is proud of the role that we played in drafting the convention, and now it is our responsibility to ensure that it is strong and relevant for today’s world. That requires honest conversations and continued evolution, not turning our backs when it matters most.
We have ahead of us what I expect will be a wide-ranging debate. I conclude by recounting the central facts about our record. Crossings: down. Asylum hotel use: down. Removals: up. Order and control: returning at last. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) has chuntered from a sedentary position for a while, but I remember that when he was in the Home Office his Government began the use of many similar large sites, such as Wethersfield. [Interruption.] I am just reminding him that Wethersfield was opened under his watch.
Let us remember the “why” as well as the “what.” The reason underlying all that we have done, are doing, and will do in this area is fairness—fairness to those in genuine need of sanctuary from tyranny, conflict and persecution; and fairness for the British public, who rightly expect their Government, not criminal gangs, to determine who can come to this country, and who expect asylum seekers to be fairly housed across the country. Fairness is the principle on which our progress to date has been built, and the work continues relentlessly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Unfortunately, the Front Bench speeches went on for quite some time, so Back Benchers will begin with a six-minute speaking limit. I call on the Liberal Democrat spokesperson also to respect the amount of time that we have for the debate.
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.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Back Benchers are on a speaking limit of six minutes.
Chris Murray
I absolutely understand why people say that; it is a perfectly reasonable response to risk. However, the role of Government is to mitigate risk. The role of Government is to intervene through public policy and deploy public resources and capacities. That is the best way to mitigate risk. That is normal across policing and all kinds of Home Office security, but in this case it is quite right. The Government of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle placed asylum seekers in hotels without telling anybody in the local community—without social workers, the police or anybody else knowing. The local women had no clue. Most of the cases quoted by the shadow Minister came from that system. He cannot say to the women in Piddington that will leave the ECHR and it will solve everything. That is not realistic and it is not treating them with respect. Far better to say we will try to solve this problem, mitigate the risk and do the stuff required to actually deal with it.
I should have expected to hear what we have heard from the Tories and Reform in this Opposition day debate. These are the people who broke the system and let it spiral, yet they are somehow arguing that leaving the ECHR can happen tomorrow and will solve any issues in Piddington and Bicester—that is for the birds. But I am particularly disappointed in the Liberal Democrats and their amendment. They say that they oppose asylum hotels and they want a better public debate on immigration, but whether it is in Cameron barracks, in Crowborough or now in Bicester, they oppose every large site. They say we should welcome asylum seekers and have a humane system, but it is “not in my back yard” the minute there is one near them. Are they really saying that is for the working-class communities of Britain to tolerate asylum seekers in hotels and in HMOs, but not their constituencies in secure, well-resourced, large public sites? I think that is wrong. The public are fed up of posturing, point scoring, pointless gesturing and nimbyism on this. They want the issue solved, they want it gripped, and if the Government can get large sites to solve the problem, that could be a big part of solving this country’s asylum accommodation challenges.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We have had so many interventions that I am going to have to drop the time limit on Back-Bench speeches to five minutes.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I think that is a no—the right hon. and learned Lady has finished her speech.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In his response to a question at Prime Minister’s questions earlier, the Prime Minister said:
“Can I start just by recognising, with the charges that have been laid against the individual responsible for the murder of Ann Widdecombe”.
He did not say the individual “accused of” her murder; he spoke of the individual “responsible for” her murder. A man is innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence goes back to Magna Carta and it applies without exception, but the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has just publicly spoken as though a man awaiting trial has already been convicted of murder. It is directly contrary to the rule of law, it is a breach of the presumption of innocence, it is misleading to the House and in any other forum it would be a contempt of court, which could be used to suggest that the defendant had been prejudged on the merits of a case. The Prime Minister needs to apologise. May I ask your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, as to whether the Prime Minister needs to apologise, to withdraw the statement and to correct the record immediately?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. Given that he is so experienced, I assume that, within protocol, he has also mentioned to the Prime Minister that he was going to raise this matter—or I will accept that as something he will be doing incredibly quickly. The content of Ministers’ speeches and answers are not a matter for the Chair, but those on the Treasury Front Bench will have heard that point; I am sure that they will do everything they can to make sure that it gets to where it should, and that the appropriate action is taken. The right hon. Member can, of course, take more advice from the Clerks if needed.
Dr Ahmed
I am afraid that it is not the point that I was trying to make, but I will take on some of the hon. Member’s arguments. In Scotland, we have some of the highest levels of unemployed young people anywhere in the United Kingdom. We should first and foremost start by addressing their issues and getting them into employment before we start opening up a wider debate about immigration, illegal migration and numbers. I also say to him that in the city of Glasgow, it is bad enough that the right wing manipulates immigration and migration issues to march masked men down the streets of my constituency, but also on the other side, politicians must also take responsibility, including those in the Scottish Government, who pay lip service to social cohesion and anti-racism rhetoric but never follow through by funding the infrastructure that fundamentally relies on social cohesion to be a successful endeavour.
Let me get back to the point I was trying to make. We must address this issue because we are placing minorities in the firing line if we do not. I am so glad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is bringing forward a Bill that will do precisely that, because what is missing right now in this debate is trust and confidence in the asylum and immigration system. The Immigration and Asylum Bill, currently in Committee, precisely serves to restore that trust and confidence by ensuring that we can regulate and produce an independent authority that will fast-track asylum applications, and that we can reinterpret components of human rights legislation to make sure that they are fit for the present and not the past.
On that, I must note that the ECHR is not some kind of foreign construct, as some have tried to outline today in this place. It is a British construct. It is a Churchillian construct. It is the fabric of what it means to be British. It is what made my grandfather and my father serve the British and come to this country. It is because of the ECHR that we have freedom of religion. It is because of the ECHR that we have freedom from torture. It is because of the ECHR that we are able now to extricate ourselves from things like corporal punishment. And, actually, it is because of the ECHR—we are talking about women’s safety today, and rightly so—that women who are victims of domestic violence are protected from their housing benefit being cut.
I ask hon. Members from both sides of the House to remember that when we have this debate, it has consequences for people from many communities up and down the country. It has consequences for people who are legitimately here, many for generations, and who are caught in the net by people who wish to exploit this debate and question their legitimacy in this country—and often to question the legitimacy of people like me to be in this place. That is something we must never forget.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am afraid that we have further time constraints. Back Benchers are now on four minutes—and, Mr Jopp, I do not wish to hear you speaking from a sedentary position.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, and nowhere is that duty more important than across our communities and in the protection of women and girls, who have a right to feel safe, and a right to expect the Government to do everything in their power to protect them. Today’s debate is an opportunity to send a clear message that we will not accept policies that put our communities at risk, and that we are prepared to take the difficult decisions necessary to restore control of our borders.
The grooming gang scandal is a national disgrace. Girls, some as young as 11, were raped, abused and trafficked by organised gangs, and when they cried out for help, too often they were ignored, disbelieved or dismissed. Those in positions of authority, whose first responsibility was to protect them, failed them appallingly. We must never allow that to happen again. That means putting victims first, listening to their experiences, and having the courage to confront uncomfortable truths, however difficult they may be.
In July, I raised the case of Shabir Ahmed, the Rochdale grooming gang ringleader, directly with the then Foreign Secretary. She agreed that every possible lever should be explored to secure his deportation, yet three months later, he remains in the UK. When the law protects the man who raped a child rather than the child he raped, something is profoundly wrong, and this House must have the power, and the determination, to put that right. Our rights in this country long predate the ECHR. Under our Conservative borders plan, we will leave it, with illegal arrivals removed within a week, every foreign criminal deported, and an end to the cycle of last-minute claims that let dangerous men run down the clock.
What is this Government’s answer? It is to house over 1,200 single men at MOD Bicester, next to Piddington, which is a village of just 350 people, with limited local infrastructure and services. The way these plans have been imposed on a small rural community has left many others fearing that they could be next. In villages such as Audlem in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, residents have raised serious concerns about the future of the old grammar school site. When I asked Ministers whether any site in Audlem had been approved for asylum accommodation, the Government failed to give me a straight answer, and when I asked about the suitability of rural locations, I was told that the Home Office does not even record asylum accommodation according to whether it is in a rural area.
Many of the concerns raised in Piddington are equally relevant to Audlem. Small rural villages simply do not have the infrastructure to accommodate what would realistically be an influx of young men. My constituents deserve clarity. They deserve straight answers about the future of that site, and above all they deserve an immigration system that tackles illegal arrivals in the first place. That means a credible deterrent, and that is delivered by leaving the ECHR. That is why I wholeheartedly support the motion, because whether it is Piddington, Audlem, or communities across the country, people deserve to feel safe in their homes and communities. Above all, we owe it to every woman and girl in this country to do everything in our power to protect them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Sir John Hayes and Sir Julian Lewis, is everybody calm or does anybody need to leave the Chamber? I call Pete Wishart.
Pete Wishart
Look at them! The appalling behaviour from the Conservatives on sensitive issues such as this and the language that they have used today is an absolute and utter disgrace. No wonder communities up and down this country are concerned about their very safety, given the language that these Conservatives use.
The issue that most concerns me is the Conservative proposal to leave the ECHR. That would send a deeply troubling message to communities across the country and to our partners internationally. It would deprive our citizens of valued and essential human rights and diminish our very sense of ourselves. The new Reform and Tory hostility towards human rights is well established. Their disdain for international co-operation and consensus is now a defining characteristic. Yet the fact that they would drag us out of the ECHR tells us something reassuring about the ECHR, because when the likes of the new right Tories and Reform want to do that, that shows that the ECHR is doing its job properly and defending us from the likes of them. That tells us why we actually need it. Let us remind ourselves of the company we would keep if we were to leave the ECHR: Russia and Belarus—bastions of human rights and freedoms. Let us remind ourselves about this document.
The ECHR was born from the ashes of the second world war, when the horrors of the Holocaust still cast a shadow over the world. The UK was at the heart of its creation. It was Winston Churchill, a giant of a Prime Minister—a Conservative Prime Minister—who was the designer and who ensured that we got it in place.
Leaving the ECHR, as the Conservatives suggest, would do absolutely nothing to stop the boats coming to the UK, as it would do absolutely nothing to end irregular immigration. However, what it would do is put a huge statement to the rest of the world that Britain is closing down, does not value international co-operation and has become more insular. I loathe the idea of a world that is going to be run under that type of culture and language under a Conservative-Reform coalition.
Pete Wishart
Absolutely. Whole communities across the United Kingdom are now concerned about their safety. They are very anxious about the type of culture that is evolving and developing in every constituency and community. They are right to be concerned, because I hear it in my constituency myself.
On the subject of the small boats, the truth is that there are more National Lottery millionaires each year than there are foreign nationals who have won human rights appeals due to the ECHR in the United Kingdom. If the ECHR were removed, it would deprive us in Scotland of our basic fundamentals in the Scottish Parliament, which is that every part of our legislation has to be ECHR-compliant. It is not just the devolution process in Northern Ireland that will be compromised; it will be my Parliament and our democracy in Scotland, which the Conservatives care not a jot about, and they would pursue our leaving the ECHR without giving it a second thought.
For all of these reasons, this is a thoroughly bad motion—an abhorrent motion—and I despair of the language that has been used. I hope when the Conservatives sum up we will hear a little bit more about decency and the common values that we could all buy into, but I doubt that very much—
Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)
We all understand that the protection of women and girls is a matter that transcends party politics. Today’s debate is not about point scoring, but it is an important conversation that we need to have. The current direction of this Government’s immigration policy is harming our women and girls. In communities across the country, those who are most vulnerable are put at risk by hordes of single men who do not understand basic human rights, including the right not to be raped. Why are we allowing individuals into our country who do not have the capacity to function as part of British society?
Small boat crossings surged by 50% between the 2024 general election and the end of 2025, reaching nearly 65,000 people. I know that Government Members will have their fair share of statistics to deploy in this debate, but we must focus on the situation right now and how to address it. The impact of that vast influx is felt right now by teenage girls who are too scared to walk to school alone, and by young women who are filled with fear when travelling home after an evening with friends. That fear is felt by our mothers, sisters, daughters and friends. I have felt that fear myself. Promises from those on the Government Benches to smash the gangs are hollow and empty. The Prime Minister is enjoying his new-found rhetoric of hope, but I encourage him and his ministerial colleagues to visit communities such as Piddington and Crowborough and see the reality that confronts the women and girls there.
Let us not make the mistake of thinking that we do not have a choice in this matter. In the first instance, I suggest to Government Members that a rural village of 350 people is not a suitable site for more than 1,000 single men. Beyond that, we in this House have the power to make policy decisions that will protect our women and girls. Our Conservative borders plan details just some of the measures that we could take to tackle illegal immigration, including leaving the ECHR and repealing the Human Rights Act, removing it from all immigration-related matters.
As it stands, the ECHR is a barrier to common sense. Why are Government Members so resolutely committed to remaining part of a treaty that prevents the deportation of foreign rapists and paedophiles? Lord Wolfson’s review confirmed that the UK Government are significantly constrained by ECHR membership. As long as we remain bound by these foreign court regulations, we cannot carry out the core duties that we owe to the British people. Any notion that we would lose fundamental rights upon leaving the ECHR is simply false. Advanced democracies such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand function effectively without the constraints of the convention, and it is naive to believe that the birthplace of parliamentary democracy cannot do the very same.
I agree that our country has been built on legal immigration, but we must be crystal clear that the doctors, nurses, builders, engineers and teachers who come here to contribute to our country and strengthen our economy are not the same as single men sitting in asylum camps and living off taxpayer money. My constituency is a testament to that distinction. It is one of the most diverse constituencies in the country and one of the most entrepreneurial, with more than 20,000 small and medium-sized enterprises driving Leicester’s economy. Making that distinction is crucial. Uncontrolled, illegal immigration undermines everyone who seeks to come here legally—those who want to integrate and spend thousands of pounds on visa applications and work tirelessly to build a better life for their families. That is who we as a Conservative party stand up for.
In closing, I encourage Members of this House to talk to women who now fear leaving their homes. They should listen to their fathers, brothers and husbands and hear how little hope they feel under this Government’s plans. They should go to Crowborough and see how the Home Office’s occupation of the training camp there is bringing hope to residents in Wealden. When we force more than 1,000—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Nor will you give way to a Member who has just come into the Chamber.
Sir John Hayes
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
This is an urgent matter, because the failure of successive Governments to deal with it has created a belief among the population that Governments do not care and Parliament does not understand. Until we address that, we will undermine the very character of our democracy.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
No case more powerfully illustrates the gravity of this matter than that of Rhiannon Whyte. I met Rhiannon’s mum Siobhan a few weeks ago and heard her story. Rhiannon was 27 years old. She worked in an asylum hotel, and one night after leaving work, she was followed by a Sudanese illegal immigrant who entered the country by small boat in late July 2024. This man murdered Rhiannon by stabbing her 23 times. He left her for dead on a station platform, and was later filmed laughing about it.
This terrible crime is by no means isolated. Many other illegal small boat migrants living in asylum accommodation have committed terrible offences against women and girls. A 31-year-old woman on a Brighton beach was gang-raped by two Iranians and an Egyptian who entered the country by small boat. A 12-year-old girl was abducted and raped by an Afghan illegal immigrant. A woman was abducted and raped by an Egyptian asylum seeker—again, an illegal immigrant—in Hyde Park, barely a mile from where we now stand. It turns out that that man also had criminal convictions for Islamist terrorism in Egypt. An Ethiopian illegal immigrant sexually assaulted a young teenage girl in Epping. Two Iranian nationals—again, illegal immigrants who entered the country by small boat—have now been charged with preparing terror attacks against Manchester’s Jewish community.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We do not talk about cases where people have just been charged or have not been sentenced, because it is sub judice. I ask the shadow Home Secretary to be incredibly careful with the words he uses in his closing speech.
Chris Philp
Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. The fact that they have been charged is a matter of public record; I will not say anything beyond that.
In another case, an illegal small boat migrant who entered the country is fighting extradition back to Germany, where he is wanted for rape. He is also linked to ISIS. In case after case—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. If somebody is fighting a case, it is still a live case. Can I ask the shadow Home Secretary to revisit his words before he speaks them out loud in the Chamber?
Chris Philp
I am repeating what has been publicly reported today, but I will of course take account of your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In case after case, we have seen women and girls attacked by illegal small boat migrants. The data, I am afraid, is very clear: two of the three most predominant nationalities are Afghan and Eritrean. The data that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) referred to—data produced using freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Justice—shows that Afghan males are 22 times more likely than average to commit sex assaults, and for Eritrean men, the number is similar. That, of course, is why just a few weeks ago, the Government felt it necessary to produce a leaflet asking these illegal migrants to kindly not rape women and girls. The Government themselves know it is a problem, which is why they produced those leaflets. It is why mothers and grandmothers in Piddington are so concerned about the safety of their daughters and granddaughters. It is why parents in Crowborough are so concerned as well, because these threats are real, these crimes have happened, and these convictions have taken place.
The data is clear. What my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings says is true: these men come from cultures that are alien to ours, where women are not respected. This is an immigration crisis, a border security crisis, a public safety crisis, and a crisis for women and girls. The Government are allowing 92% of small boat migrants to stay; only 8% have been deported. Yes, there are slightly fewer asylum hotels, but only because the Government are moving the illegal immigrants into flats instead—they are up by 12% since the election.
To save places such as Piddington, Crowborough, Linton-on-Ouse and Wethersfield and towns and villages up and down the country, the solution is not, as the Prime Minister said, to distribute illegal immigrants equitably across the country. It is instead to deport people who enter our country illegally, and to do so within a week of their arrival. If we did so, we would need no accommodation anywhere, whether in flats, hotels or military sites, because we would not be accommodating illegal immigrants at all. It would also deter the crossings. If the people who are leaving France—which, by the way, is a safe country; nobody needs to flee war in France—knew that they would be rapidly deported, either to their country of origin or to a safe third country such as Rwanda, the crossings would soon stop. When Australia did something similar in September 2013, its illegal maritime crossings, which had been running at levels similar to ours, stopped within about three months. It is a solution, if only the Government would grasp it.
To do that, though, it is necessary to leave the ECHR. What started in 1950 as a very well-intentioned piece of human rights legislation has subsequently been stretched and distorted beyond all recognition. Clauses that were originally intended to prevent the horrors of the second world war are now expansively interpreted to mean that rapists cannot be sent back to their country of origin because of their supposed family rights. Under article 3, which is unqualified and cannot be amended in domestic legislation, a Zimbabwean rapist was not sent back to Zimbabwe because he might face hostility there. An Iraqi drug dealer was not sent back to Iraq because he had apparently become too westernised. What started off as a sensible set of protections has been stretched beyond recognition—beyond anything common sense would recognise—and it is preventing successive Governments, the last Government as much as this one, from deporting people who cannot be here. That is why there are 21,000 serious foreign criminals still in this country. It is why the Home Office knows of 412,000 people with no right to be here who cannot be deported.
Leaving the ECHR is a necessary, but not sufficient, step. We need to do it in order to control our borders, but on its own, it is not enough. We would also have to amend domestic legislation—for example, to ban asylum claims by illegal immigrants, abolish the immigration tribunal and immigration legal aid, restrict judicial review of immigration matters to all but the narrowest grounds, and end modern slavery claims being used as a basis to oppose deportation. All of these measures would need to be taken as well as leaving the ECHR, but without leaving the ECHR none of those measures is possible.
Dover and Portsmouth: Protests
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
The sight of the Government escorting illegal migrants into Portsmouth harbour, the home of the Royal Navy, was a national humiliation. Sometimes I wonder whether Members of this House have no appreciation of the level of anger there is in the country at the rapes, the murders and the billions being wasted that should be being spent on the British people. Will the Minister put the Royal Navy in the channel today to escort those illegals to France? As Reform proved on Saturday, that is operationally, legally and now diplomatically possible. It is a matter of political will.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Minister, can you please keep your answers short, and will Back Benchers please make sure their questions are short too?
Sarah Jones
There is absolutely nothing that the Government have said that would suggest we do not understand the level of anger about the state of the country in which the right hon. Gentleman left us, and we have a big job to do. We of course understand the level of anger, but this Government are doing the hard work of restoring control at our border and fairness in our migration system, and no rhetoric from the right hon. Member—who does not have a leg to stand on, given his own personal involvement in the situation we find ourselves in—is going to stop us.
Sarah Jones
The proportion of people being granted asylum has shrunk massively in the last few years, and we have removed more than 80,000 illegal migrants and foreign criminals from this country. We are improving the system and making the changes we need to make, and we will continue to do so.
Policing in Cleveland
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before the statement on Cleveland policing, I should inform the House that charges have been brought against a number of individuals in relation to the fatal collision on the A66 and the house fire in Grangetown. Those cases are now sub judice. It is possible that other charges may be brought.
Mr Speaker is granting a full waiver for today, and for future proceedings, to enable discussion on support for the victims and wider issues of concern raised in the context of these incidents. However, I must urge Members not to discuss the details of any individual case. That includes not discussing any motive, or the guilt or innocence of any individual. Members should avoid wider speculation that could be prejudicial in any future criminal trials.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about the fatal crash near Middlesbrough on 22 August, and the death of two brave police officers that day: Police Constable Matthew Blades and Police Constable Tom Clough. It is the most humbling duty of any Home Secretary to oversee the work of our police forces and the thousands who serve in them, and that is never more true than on a day like today, when we honour those who have fallen in the line of duty—those who lost their lives as they sought to protect us all.
The detail of what happened will by now be well known to most in the House and beyond it, but it is right to begin by recounting the facts. At 3.39 on the morning of Saturday 22 August, a Volkswagen Passat containing five young men, travelling the wrong way down the A66, collided with a marked Cleveland police armed response vehicle. The police car was, I should add, travelling on the correct side of the road. A significant emergency response was deployed. I must pay tribute to all the first responders who attended the scene and worked in extremely difficult circumstances. Despite their best efforts, PC Blades and PC Clough both died as a result of the collision, as did the five individuals who were driving on the wrong side of the road.
Following such an incident, it is mandatory that a referral is made to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. That has happened in this case, and the IOPC has begun an independent investigation. On 23 August, it issued an update, which I will now summarise. Prior to the crash, Cleveland police received intelligence regarding numerous incidents linked to a Volkswagen Passat. The Passat was later sighted and an armed response vehicle began a pursuit. The pursuit lasted just under seven minutes before the Passat crossed over to the wrong side of the A66. At that point, the pursuit was aborted by officers, who continued to travel on the correct side of the carriageway. However, about 10 seconds later, the Passat collided with a police vehicle that was not involved in the pursuit but was in the area to assist in the search. That car contained police constables Blades and Clough. This is an ongoing investigation, so we must heed the request of those best placed to examine the circumstances of this awful incident by avoiding speculation and giving them the time and space they need to carry out their vital work.
Significant police activity has followed the crash. Some 27 arrests have been made as part of a wide-scale investigation into suspected serious and organised crime. There are limits on what can be said publicly at this stage, but both the IOPC and Cleveland police have my full backing in their respective tasks.
Members may be aware that Cleveland police has also been investigating a house fire in Grangetown in which two people died, including, tragically, a child. It should be noted that the force is not treating that as connected in any way to the A66 crash. However, it has undoubtedly added to the sense of disquiet in a community already reeling from that earlier tragedy.
Many in the House and across the country will have also been troubled by the scenes in County Durham, where a number of vehicles were set on fire at a memorial for one of the occupants of the Passat. I recognise how unnerving it will have been for law-abiding citizens in both the affected areas and beyond to see a spate of incidents in close proximity and in quick succession. Let me therefore assert once more that lawlessness of any kind will never be tolerated, and the Government stand squarely behind the police as they face down criminality and disorder on our streets.
The Government are supporting the police in word and deed. Cleveland police, like all forces, is receiving a real-terms uplift this year, taking its total funding to £197.8 million—an increase of £7 million compared to 2025-26. Clearly, the events of recent days have placed exceptional pressure on Cleveland police, and I can confirm today that the force has received additional resource under mutual aid arrangements, which have seen officers deployed to Cleveland from around the region. I thank those forces and personnel who have stepped up and taken on this additional work.
I can also announce today that in the light of the situation Cleveland police has faced, we will allocate an additional £2 million to the force to tackle serious crime in the area. That will build on existing operations, including the “clear, hold, build” approach, which is tough both on serious crime and on the causes of serious crime, and has been shown to work across the country.
In addition, as I have said, 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. In the meantime, the Government will continue to work closely with Cleveland police to ensure that it has all the support it needs as it faces these challenging circumstances and grieves the loss of two of its own.
Let me end by paying tribute to those two men. PC Blades and PC Clough devoted their lives to the noblest form of public service, protecting their fellow citizens. In remembering them, we hold in our hearts those they leave behind—above all, their family and all those who love them. I think also of their colleagues in uniform, not just in Cleveland but across policing, who have lost friends, colleagues and fellow members of the policing family.
This tragedy speaks to an enduring truth: policing is not just a profession; it is a calling answered only by those who are willing to place themselves in harm’s way to protect us all. PC Blades and PC Clough epitomise that courage. At 37 and 38, they were no age at all, but in their all too brief lives they gave so much. An extraordinary number of tributes have poured in, but I think we must leave the final words to their families, who knew them best and loved them most. PC Blades’s wife remembers a “beloved husband” and “the most devoted father” to their two young boys. She said:
“He was loved beyond words by all his family and friends, and his loss has left a space that can never be filled. He gave his life in the line of duty, protecting and serving others with courage, dedication and selflessness.”
PC Clough’s family describe him as their “hero”. They remember his “fantastic sense of humour” and pay tribute to a man who
“jumped into action whenever needed”
and who was
“always on public duty throughout his short life.”
A death in the line of duty is a moment of profound national sorrow, but our public loss is a fraction of the private and personal tragedy for these two families, so, across the House, let us offer them our love, support and prayers. Let us never forget who those two brave men were and how much they meant to those who loved them. For all they did and all they gave, PC Blades and PC Clough were the very best of us. Today, we remember them. I commend this statement to the House.
Immigration and Asylum Bill
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsMonday 13th July 2026
(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 View all Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
First, I thank the Home Secretary for listening to me and my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), and for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), as well as all our constituents; she acted super quickly and seized this issue, to make sure that we could change the law to allow for the deportation of Shabir Ahmed.
The Bill introduces a new power, personally applied by the Secretary of State, to allow offences like Ahmed’s to be classed as so serious that the offender loses protections under the Immigration Act 1971. Let us be clear: that Act was meant to give rights to law-abiding citizens of the Commonwealth who came here to work hard and play by the rules; its drafters never intended for it to exempt vile sex offenders and grooming gang leaders from deportation.
Shabir Ahmed’s release from prison this month was, for many, another painful reminder of the wicked crimes he committed. Ahmed, who lived in Oldham, was the ringleader of the Rochdale grooming gang. He was convicted of the serial rape, exploitation and vile abuse of young white girls in Heywood, and was separately convicted of 30 rapes of a young Asian girl. All his victims were failed for years by the institutions that should have protected them. It is important for me to say that the people of Rochdale, whatever their racial background, are united in their disgust at paedophiles like Ahmed.
It was this Labour Government who finally created a specific offence of grooming, which, unbelievably, did not exist before. The Government are also trialling the use of chemical castration for convicts in jails, which I personally would welcome being made compulsory for sex offenders like Ahmed. Ever since my election, I have pressed Ministers to pursue the deportation of every grooming gang member who can legally be removed from the UK. I know that this is just the start, and that even once the law is changed, Pakistan may still say that it will refuse to take back this man. Whatever diplomatic barriers exist must be challenged, and every possible avenue must be explored.
The public interest is clear in this case; more broadly, the public interest is strengthened by this Bill. Article 8 of the European convention on human rights—the right to family life—has always been a qualified right, as the Home Secretary has pointed out. This means that judges are asked to strike a balance between those rights and the public interest. That is precisely why the Rochdale grooming gang members lost their appeals under human rights law. However, these bogus appeals happen far too often, and for many, it is a sick joke that paedophiles who have robbed children of their own right to family life depend on human rights to stay in this country. That is why I welcome the new provision in the Bill to require decision makers and courts—
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I cannot see Steve Yemm, so I call Euan Stainbank.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I have made it very clear to the Whips on duty that I am not going to get everybody in, and interventions are not helping.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)
The media, Reform and all on the far right in Britain have created the most horrible and dangerous atmosphere in this country against refugees, migrants and minorities. They have promoted racism, and that racism has played out in the violence on the streets, the violence against mosques, the violence against synagogues, and the violence against any minority group within our society. They should think very carefully about what they say and how they depict asylum seekers and refugees. When I listen to the rhetoric in the media and follow it in some of the papers, it seems to me that they have taken leave of all aspects of humanity.
The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) said that he had been over to northern France to examine what was going on there. I have been over to northern France as well—I have been over to Calais and talked to people living in tents, and they are desperate. They are desperate people who once worked for the British Army in Afghanistan. They are desperate people who were bombed in Iraq or in Syria. They are desperate people trying to find somewhere in this world to survive, and what they find is hostility, danger and abuse.
Nobody in their right mind would get into one of those dinghies and cross the channel unless they were utterly desperate to do so, so can we not just have a sense of humanity about this and have an international, Europe-wide approach to the issues faced by people who are desperate? Thousands have died crossing the Mediterranean, and hundreds have died crossing the channel. The historians of the next century will say of this century, “What were the politicians of Europe doing while all these people were drowning because they were trying to get to a place of safety?” Can we not instead accept the importance of international institutions and the value of the European convention on human rights, which protects all of our human rights, and try to have a humane system of doing things?
In the last minute I have for my speech, I want to draw attention to the amendment I have tabled, endorsed by Members of the independent alliance group, which concerns the Afghan resettlement schemes. The people of Afghanistan have suffered grievously from the war. In August 2021, the Taliban took over in Kabul; the UK created resettlement schemes, and then dropped them all. Now, we have the horrible situation in which, although many Afghan families who have come to Britain as part of those schemes were told that the rest of their family could come, there are many dependants stuck in Afghanistan who can have no place here. The Government, through the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office, guaranteed that right of family reunion and guaranteed that extended family members could come here. When the Minister for Border Security and Asylum responds to the debate, I hope he will remember the words of the Afghan International Council in the United Kingdom, who said that
“many Afghan families continue to endure the pain of prolonged separation”—
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am going to squeeze in one more speaker, with two minutes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Unfortunately, I have to go to the Front Benchers now. I call the shadow Minister.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
This has been an important and thoughtful debate, and I begin by thanking Members from across the House for their contributions.
There have been genuine differences of opinion this evening, but I think there is broad agreement on one point: our immigration system is not working. Immigration is one of the defining issues facing our country. It goes to the security of our borders, the integrity of our laws, the pressure on our public services, and, ultimately, the confidence the British people have in the ability of the Government to keep their promises.
The British people expect an immigration system that is fair to those who play by the rules and firm with those who seek to abuse them. They expect secure borders, swift decisions, effective enforcement and, above all, a Government to deliver. That is the test the Bill must meet.
In many respects, today’s debate brings us full circle. Ministers stood at the Dispatch Box and argued that immigration policy should be about grip and control, not gimmicks and false promises, yet over the past two years, we have seen too many headlines, too many announcements and too many promises, while illegal migration has continued to undermine confidence in our borders.
Let me be clear: I do not believe that anyone in this House wants to see people risking their life crossing the channel in small boats. Those crossings benefit organised criminal gangs, undermine confidence in our immigration system, place enormous pressure on communities, public services and public finances, and all too often end in tragedy. Nobody should accept them as inevitable. The question before us today is therefore a simple one: does the Bill contain the measures necessary to stop illegal migration? That must surely be the ambition.
The Government’s own impact assessment recognises that deterrence is essential, but it also accepts that the deterrent effect of these proposals is too uncertain even to quantify. That uncertainty goes to the heart of the Bill. The fundamental principle should be straightforward: if someone enters the United Kingdom illegally, they should not be able to stay. Everything else flows from that principle. Without it, public confidence is weakened and genuine refugees lose out. Those who come here legally and contribute to our country are let down, and the criminal gangs continue to exploit the gaps in our system.
To be fair to the Home Secretary, there are measures in the Bill that the Opposition welcome. It is right that the Government are seeking to recover more of the costs of asylum support. It is right that Ministers are finally acknowledging that the article 8 framework has frustrated removals. It is right that they recognise shortcomings in the operation of the modern slavery system. It is right that they acknowledge that the current appeals process is too slow, too cumbersome and too vulnerable to abuse. In truth, one of the most striking features of the Bill is that the Government have finally accepted many of the arguments that they have spent the last two years dismissing.
Recognising a problem, though, is not the same as solving it. The Home Secretary and I agree on much of the diagnosis; we disagree on the cure. Time and again, the Bill identifies the right issues but stops short of the reforms needed to address them. The Government propose a new independent immigration appeals authority, yet they cannot tell us with any certainty whether it will speed up removals or simply replace one backlog with another.
The Bill looks to narrow article 8 claims, while simultaneously creating a new, sponsored human rights claim that risks opening another avenue for litigation. It speaks about strengthening deportation powers, yet it leaves unanswered the wider questions about the legal framework that continue to frustrate removals. Despite repeated promises, the Bill contains no comprehensive reforms to settlement, no clear answer on preventing those who arrive illegally from obtaining citizenship, and no comprehensive removals framework capable of delivering the deterrence that Ministers say is necessary.
That is why the Opposition have tabled our reasoned amendment. We believe that the Bill does not yet go far enough to restore public confidence or deliver the outcome that the British people rightly expect. Our alternative is clear: those who enter the country illegally should have no right to stay.
Several Members have spoken about public confidence, and they are right to do so. Public confidence depends on knowing that the rules matter; that those who have no right to remain will be removed; that foreign national offenders can be deported swiftly; that endless legal challenges cannot frustrate the clearly expressed will of Parliament; and that those who come here legally, work hard and contribute are not disadvantaged by a system that appears unable to distinguish between those who respect the rules and those who seek to exploit them.
As has been mentioned, the Home Secretary faces a political challenge from her own Benches. If she wants to come back and deliver real and meaningful reform that will properly secure our borders, and if she needs some support to do that, she can give us a call—[Interruption.] Give me a call.
The British people do not want another cycle of announcements followed by disappointment. They want to know that criminal gangs will no longer profit from human misery; that dangerous channel crossings will end; and that those with no right to remain will not spend years exhausting endless appeals while the taxpayer picks up the bill. They want to know that Britain remains a country that welcomes those who come legally, while maintaining control over who enters and stays. Those are not unreasonable expectations, but the foundations of a fair immigration system.
As the Bill progresses through Committee, the Opposition will scrutinise it carefully. Where measures meaningfully strengthen border security, improve enforcement and restore confidence, we will support them. Where they fall short, we will seek to strengthen them. The Home Secretary has moved some way towards recognising the scale of the challenge facing our immigration system, and I welcome that. The Bill identifies many of the right problems, but it still stops short of the bold reforms needed to solve them. For that reason, we have tabled our reasoned amendment.
The British people deserve an immigration system that is fair to those who follow the rules, uncompromising with those who do not, and capable of restoring control of our borders. That remains the standard by which the Opposition will judge the Bill. I commend our reasoned amendment to the House.
Police Leadership Commission Report
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on leadership in policing.
The police perform a unique and vital role in our society. They enforce our laws, tackle those who break them, and keep the public safe. These are awesome responsibilities. The officers and staff who uphold them every day, at all levels, are owed our respect, admiration and thanks. At the same time, if forces are to serve their communities effectively, they must secure and retain the trust of those communities. But in recent years, that trust has come under strain. Creaking systems, outdated structures and a lack of central grip from previous Governments have meant that the police have struggled to consistently hit the high levels of performance that we rightly expect of them.
Things have to change. That is why earlier this year, the Home Secretary announced the most significant police reforms in 200 years. Our plans will ensure that the right policing happens in the right place, building on the progress that we have already made on restoring neighbourhood policing and driving down serious threats such as knife crime, and creating a new model in which local policing protects our communities and national policing protects us all.
The reform programme provides us with a generational opportunity to address the long-standing challenges that have hampered the police’s ability to provide a consistently world-class service to the public. One such challenge centres on the question of how we ensure that our forces have the strong, effective leadership that they need to meet the significant demands that are placed on them. It is a question that is rightly the subject of considerable parliamentary and public scrutiny, especially when things go wrong, as they have in the recent past.
Equally, I want to emphasise that there are a great many outstanding officers and staff across the police service, including those in the highest ranks. When failings occur and the public are let down, they feel it more keenly than anyone. The reality is that leadership is about more than just individuals. It is about culture and standards, and about giving every member of the police workforce the support and skills that they need to flourish and become leaders themselves.
We are not the first Government to grapple with this topic. Various tweaks have been made to the system over the years, yet the same concerns keep arising, whether they relate to culture, conduct or the retention and promotion of talent. As we roll out our reform programme, this is clearly an issue requiring close examination. That examination has now taken place in the form of an independent review commissioned by the Home Secretary last year.
The police leadership commission was established last October and is co-chaired by two former Members of this House with extensive knowledge of policing: my noble Friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord Herbert of South Downs. Together with the other members of the commission, they have carried out the most significant review of police leadership in recent times. Its findings and recommendations are published today. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Lord Blunkett and Lord Herbert for the care and skill with which they have approached their task. I am grateful, too, to the other commission members, and all who have participated. There has been a particular emphasis on giving voice to those on the frontline, which is welcome and essential.
The review’s report sets out a comprehensive and, in places, candid assessment of police leadership in England and Wales. While the commission found examples of excellent leadership and delivery, it also identified concerns around consistency, capability and culture, and the impact that shortcomings in those areas have on the service received by the public. To quote from the report,
“the policing profession has not consistently had the excellent leadership it needs”.
It was also clear that those on the frontline are not getting the consistent support they deserve, amid wide variations in approaches to leadership development.
The commission highlights the critical importance of leadership to ensuring that policing is prepared for the challenges of the future while upholding the sacred principle of policing by consent, without fear or favour. It is also important to emphasise, as the report rightly does, that leadership must not be confined to the senior officer ranks. It can and does exist in all parts of the service. It should be nurtured at every stage of a policing career—for both officers and staff. The review’s findings are rightly unsparing, and I welcome its willingness to engage with difficult issues, because, as the report’s foreword states:
“Fundamentally, this is about ensuring that the public receives the quality of policing to which they are entitled.”
I will turn now to the review’s recommendations, of which there are 27 in total. They are ambitious in breadth and scale and, taken together, they make a compelling case for change. While it is right that we now take the time to consider them in full, we welcome the commission’s proposals and the intent behind them. In particular, we are actively looking at the recommendation to create a formal senior constable rank and at how this could be done.
The commission also recommends a new professional digital passport for every individual in policing, and other measures to put stronger supporting structures in place around professional development and performance. These could in the future help to build a route to a licence to practise, which is a proposal we included in our police reform White Paper, as one way of raising standards and promoting a stronger culture of professional development. Other recommendations from the review include: a new police leadership fast stream; a new targeted direct entry scheme to fill specific gaps in policing, with a focus on leaders from professions with transferable skills; and a role for the forthcoming national police service in promoting ethical policing at national level.
As I have said, we will consider all the report’s findings and recommendations carefully. I am certain that they will be of great assistance as we advance our police reform agenda. A full Government response will follow in due course. In the meantime, we are making progress on leadership-related measures designed to improve public confidence and police performance, such as a new senior appointments panel and reforms to promotion processes, alongside the wider work we are doing on restructuring, including the creation of the national police service, which will provide a single source of strategic leadership and a stronger set of national standards.
I will finish where I started: by paying tribute to the thousands of men and women who work tirelessly every day to protect our communities from harm. From the officers and staff on the frontline and their colleagues performing essential roles behind the scenes to the chief constables they ultimately report to, I am grateful to them all. While the threats they must tackle are evolving all the time, what will never change is our commitment to the founding principles of British policing, which dictate that in this country we police by consent, and assert that the police are the public and the public are the police.
To uphold these traditions while meeting the demands of modern crimefighting, we must ensure that our police forces are fair, open and meritocratic workplaces that are able to meet the high standards we rightly expect of those entrusted with keeping their fellow citizens safe and driven forward by strong, effective leadership at all levels. Reform on the scale required is no easy task, but working in partnership with policing and aided by the findings of this important report, I believe that we can and will succeed in making our police service stronger and our society safer. I commend this statement to the House.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is right. We have to be laser-focused on what will improve outcomes for the public and what will enable the police to do the job that we ask them to do. I do recommend that he reads the report—it is a very good read. At its heart, it says that we want our police to have sound judgment and common sense in their policing. We want them to be freed up to make the decisions that are commonsensical and the right thing to do. To do that, we have not only to strip away the bureaucracy and all the forms they have to fill in, but to ensure that they are trained to be the police officers we want them to be. How do we match that training with freeing up our police to get on and do the job that we all ask them to do in the first place?
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I thank the noble Lords Blunkett and Herbert for the report, which is a welcome shining light on the challenges facing leadership in our police forces. I know at first hand from my constituency that police forces deal day in, day out with highly sensitive, dangerous and traumatic incidents. They keep us safe. It is deeply challenging work, and we are greatly indebted to them. That is why the findings of the report are so concerning.
The report shows that officers are too often hampered by scarce resources, excessive bureaucracy and conduct processes, which leave them unable to focus on delivering for the public. The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for a return to the proper community and neighbourhood policing that our constituents want. For that to happen, officers must be properly supported and equipped to tackle the many issues facing our communities. Will the Minister set out what plans the Government have to increase the numbers of bobbies on the beat?
Even more concerning are the report’s findings on the inconsistent leadership standards across our police forces. The numerous instances of leaders falling short of the standards of integrity, honesty and professionalism expected of them—including in cases of cronyism, nepotism and abuses of power for sexual purpose—are appalling. It is clear that we need root-and-branch reform of the policing system, as the report calls for, to stamp out that bad behaviour, improve leadership and hold senior officers to the highest standard. Will the Minister confirm that that recommendation and others in the report will directly inform the forthcoming police reform Bill?
Finally, the Police Federation has highlighted poor leadership in the police and an increase in officer suicides, but we do not have the data. Will the Minister commit to requiring police forces to gather that data?
Sarah Jones
I completely agree with my hon. Friend and congratulate him on his honesty in his description of his previous chiefs. There are on average fewer than three applicants for each chief constable job, which is frankly woeful, and many are filled by internal applicants. We do not have the pool of people going for these jobs that we want to see. We had already said that through the police reform programme we would set up a national body to help with recruitment, as well as giving the Home Secretary new powers to remove chief constables in extreme circumstances. There is a lot in this report about how we can improve the pipeline up to the chief constable level, but also how we can achieve a better system of promotion within the chief constable ranks and ensure that we get diversity of talent, so that we have—as we would want—a good cohort of people applying for every single job.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for the £100 million grant she has given to Lincolnshire police and the transformative extra £12 million a year. We have been campaigning for that for years and have averted 400 job losses. When the Government do something right, it is right that we should say thank you. However, she may want to say a word about our problem. We are losing our excellent police and crime commissioner, Marc Jones—she could perhaps say a nice word about him—and those powers will be transferred to the mayor, but we have the Lincolnshire police and Humberside Police, and Humberside Police, of course, straddles two mayoralties, so she has a problem. May I urge her, in any local reorganisation, not to do away with small police forces such as Lincolnshire, to concentrate on old-fashioned policing—not woke, not courses, not staff—and to try to avoid throwing too many chairs up in the air with boundary reorganisation?
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
A white man on a night out in Birmingham is assaulted by two black men. The police intervene and arrest the white man—the victim—and allow the two black lads to flee the scene. They then call the victim a “dick” and hit his head against a police car while they are sticking him in it. They then misrepresent what happened at the event, saying that it was a fight, when it was actually an assault. They say that absolutely nothing is wrong. The footage then goes viral, as ever, and the police are forced to change their tune—footage that the police actually tried to suppress.
I have three simple questions for the Policing Minister. One, does she consider this to be another appalling incident of two-tier policing? Two, will she haul the acting chief constable of—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Jenrick, one question is normally enough, and I have given you the privilege of two. I call the Minister.
Sarah Jones
There is no room in policing for anything other than for the police to do their job without fear or favour, and that involves treating everybody equally under the law. Where the police are trained, have good leadership and are given good support, we believe we can ensure better outcomes for the citizens we are all here to serve. That is the point of the leadership work that has been done over many months, and it is the point of our reform programme. Where things go wrong, of course we must shine a light on that, and a huge amount of work has been done over the past few years—for example, police wearing body-worn cameras, publishing that evidence so that people can see it for themselves, and being quicker to speak publicly about what has happened in certain incidents. Those are all important, transparent changes that we are making to our police, but ultimately we need to make sure we are trying to bring people together through reforms that give them the policing we all need.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Mr Vince, you have moved. No wonder it is so quiet in your usual part of the Chamber.
Chris Vince
This is the closest I am ever going to get to the Front Bench. [Laughter.]
Having spoken to police officers across my constituency of Harlow, I know that the two things they want to do are keep my constituency safe and—to paraphrase a new Labour manifesto pledge—tackle crime and the causes of crime. Can the Minister outline what she is going to do on the back of this review to ensure we take away the barriers, so that police officers can do their job of protecting my community and keeping the country safe?
Domestic Abuse and Public Life
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Natalie Fleet)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for raising this vital issue, and for her continued advocacy for victims and survivors of domestic abuse everywhere.
There are parts of this job that I find really difficult, and I know that my hon. Friend shares that. And then there are parts of being here, in this Chamber and on these Benches, that are the most incredible privilege. As I sit here, as a Minister, to be able to hear your testimony as a survivor—sorry, I mean my hon. Friend.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I know the Minister is new to the Dispatch Box, but no “you” and “yours” because it is not my story. To help, she must look into the microphone and speak through the Chair.
Natalie Fleet
Thank you for your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is the most incredible privilege to be here in this Chamber to hear how my hon. Friend triumphed against the most horrendous abuse and to see her surrounded by her colleagues in the most supportive way possible. That feels like a real privilege, and I am very grateful to have been here for that moment.
My hon. Friend championed the importance of a whole system approach to domestic abuse and violence against women and girls more broadly. I also know how hard it is to come forward and share experiences of abuse. I am proud to use my platform to shine a light on the challenges many victims and survivors face, and I know that so many will have been listening to my hon. Friend’s account this evening and will take strength from it.
I want to reassure my hon. Friend that tackling VAWG is a top priority for this Government. We have made it a mission to halve these crimes in a decade. Domestic abuse and violence against women and girls are the source of untold harm. The abuse can remain hidden, regardless of a person’s lifestyle, their social circles and their profession, including people in public life. It is something that affects every single part of society, and too often it is still hidden and accepted as part of everyday life. That is why this debate is so important, and I am so grateful for my hon. Friend’s testimony and campaigning on this issue. Her bravery and honesty, and that of other survivors, is crucial. Only by listening to those who have first-hand experience can we continue to champion and advocate for victims of these crimes.
The Government have been clear that things must change. Our violence against women and girls strategy is driving that change by strengthening early intervention, pursuing perpetrators at every turn, and giving victims the best possible support. It is about not just responding to harms after they happen but focusing on stopping them in the first place. We are taking clear steps to challenge attitudes, norms and behaviours that allow abuse to continue.
Through the updated relationship and sexual health education curriculum, we are giving our children the tools to spot and challenge unhealthy relationship dynamics. We are delivering “Enough”, our behaviour change campaign, to help young men and boys reflect on and question harmful behaviours that have absolutely become normalised. By raising awareness across our society, spotting those early signs, and teaching everyone to challenge those behaviours, I hope that we continue to reduce the shame and stigma that stop people seeking help early.
We are taking a victim-centred approach to tackling violence against women and girls by investing £550 million to pay for counselling, court guidance and children’s services to support victims. In the Home Office, I am proud that this month we launched a £24 million competition for helpline and advocacy services. Those specialist helplines are for minority groups and will help victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence, honour-based abuse, intimate image abuse, and stalking. We have worked hard to secure multi-year funding that will give our services more certainty and reassurance.
If we are going to make real change in tackling VAWG, however, we need to transform how we work across the public sector and services. We need a whole-of-Government and a whole-of-society approach, so victims can access housing, health, justice and the support they need. We have established the National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection, so that victims receive a consistent VAWG response across our forces. Our strategy focuses on pursuing perpetrators, holding them accountable for their crimes, and managing them, wherever they are, to prevent further harm.
An example of that is our domestic abuse protection orders, which bring together the strongest elements of protection orders into a single flexible order. That means that they can impose behaviour change programmes on perpetrators. The pilot has seen more victims protected and perpetrators held to account, with prison sentences able to be handed down where breaches occur. We are rolling out DAPOs across England and Wales as soon as we can, so that more victims can benefit from the impact it is having in pilot areas. Though we are taking active steps to combat all forms of violence against women and girls and domestic abuse, there is so much more to do.
My hon. Friend raised post-separation abuse. I found out today about the interventions that have been made in this area—it blew my mind that they were not always a thing. But they were not. Too often, abuse continues after a relationship has ended. That is why, in our changes to the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, we extended the offence of controlling and coercive behaviour to former intimate partners. We have also removed the requirement for the victim and perpetrator to live together, to reflect that this can happen once the ex-partner has left the property.
As technology advances, it amplifies the scale, severity and reach of abuse. That is why the VAWG strategy includes ambitious commitments to tackle online and technology-facilitated harm. We are already taking decisive action to protect all of us online. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduced measures to ban nudification apps, and requires platforms to remove non-consensual intimate image abuse within 48 hours. On 8 June, the Prime Minister announced that Britain will be the first country to prevent children from taking, sharing and viewing nude images on their devices.
My hon. Friend mentioned how difficult it is for people like her to hold public office because of the challenges she has faced. Our democracy is richer with Members like her in this House. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Democracies across the world need women and survivors within them. In fact, public office should be open to everyone, regardless of background. All our democracies are better for it. Again, I thank her for her campaigning in this area. My hon. Friend mentioned our sister Jo Cox and her legacy more than once. The work taking place in this space to ensure that we support each other to be here is absolutely vital.
The Government absolutely recognise that MPs face abuse and intimidation, and that they have a disproportionate impact on minority groups in politics, including women and those from minority ethnic backgrounds. Through the defending democracy taskforce, we are working with policing and electoral partners to ensure that candidates and elected officials are safe while campaigning and when in office. The taskforce is driving a whole-of-Government approach to tackle abuse targeted at elected officials and has taken steps to make it safer to stand for and be elected to public office. We continue to review and develop our approach, working with partners across law enforcement, Parliament and the third sector to identify and address any gaps in our response.
On vexatious civil court proceedings, the Government are absolutely committed to preventing courts from being used as tools of abuse by perpetrators. We recognise the damage that vexatious litigation has on individuals. In England and Wales, the courts have several mechanisms to protect individuals from being subjected to repeated meritless or abusive litigation. Most commonly, a party can seek a civil restraint order, which restricts a person from making further applications or issuing claims without the court’s permission where those applications have been found totally without merit. CROs can range from limited orders, which apply only to current proceedings, to extended or general orders to prevent wider use of the court system without prior approval. In more extreme cases of persistent abuse, the High Court may declare an individual a vexatious litigant under section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. If this happens, the individual must obtain permission before bringing forward any new proceedings.
Along with those measures, courts must also strike out baseless claims and impose cost sanctions. In certain circumstances, where litigation forms part of a pattern of harassment, injunctive relief may be available. Together, these remedies help to ensure that individuals are protected from repeated unfounded claims while preserving the integrity of the justice system.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I have refrained from commenting on any individual case, but I will say that listening to the personal accounts in this debate has been an incredibly moving experience. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for not just the powerful and thought-provoking contribution we heard tonight, but the contributions she continues to make across the House. I have heard her.
As I hope has been clear from my response, the Government’s commitment to tackle domestic abuse and violence against women and girls is total. We have taken important steps forward, especially with our VAWG strategy to improve criminal justice outcomes, restore trust in policing and ensure that tackling domestic abuse and violence against women and girls is everyone’s problem. However, we all know that there is more to do. Across Government, Parliament, policing and beyond, we all must now step up our efforts to prevent abuse and protect the vulnerable as we work towards halving VAWG in a decade.
I have been able to set out the measures that the Government are taking and where there is more that we can do, but I cannot overstate how powerful it is for survivors everywhere to see a survivor raising this issue here, surrounded by a group of her peers who support her without question. I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Asylum Accommodation
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
This is deeply concerning news for my constituency. The boundary fence of RAF Barnham adjoins the market town of Thetford, which I represent; the town centre is a short walk away from the base.
I strongly support the right of people to claim asylum, and I am proud that we are able to offer refuge to those fleeing war and persecution, including those who have supported our armed forces abroad, but that is not without risk and impacts on community relations. In the absence of openness and transparency and a proper plan, malign forces will fill the void, stoking greater fear and division. Whether it is a Conservative Government or this Government, these announcements should be sensitively handled and thoroughly planned, but that has not happened in this case, where there has been secrecy and confusion. It is my community who pay the price for that failure.
While such news will never be welcomed by a community, the worst could be mitigated by a stronger commitment to transparency, engagement and reassurance. Alongside this announcement, where is the engagement plan? Where is the communication strategy? Where is the commitment to addressing community cohesion concerns in these areas?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I will be paying close attention to these answers.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those important questions. Let me start where he started; everything is local somewhere, and the impact of our proposals is significant on those local communities. I recognise that, and that is important, but we are developing plans to mitigate the impact. There is a reason that we do not wait until the very end and announce the decision just as it is taken. At some point, we vet sites; we have vetted all sorts of sites around the country ahead of being able to bring these ones forward.
There comes a point, however, when we need to get onsite and start peeling back the layers and engaging with the local authority, police and health services, and that point is now. My hon. Friend is right; there needs to be sensitive handling of plans. I appreciate that the burden is on me and the Government to demonstrate that we will do so. I believe that we can do this while mitigating the impacts on his community and surrounding communities, but, as I say, it is up to us to demonstrate that.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I regret that the Labour Government still have not set out a credible plan to restore fairness and control in our immigration and asylum system. This announcement is another sideways step that fails to address the root cause of the problem.
Simply moving asylum seekers from one form of expensive and unsuitable accommodation to another is not good enough, particularly when the costs are going up. At the Crowborough MOD site, which is currently in operation, accommodation costs around £160 per asylum seeker per night. That is more than the cost of the average asylum hotel place. The Government are choosing a more expensive option, adding an estimated £60,000 every night to the bill faced by taxpayers. How does the Minister justify that? Will he confirm whether this decision is driven by a desire to be seen to be closing asylum hotels, rather than securing the best value for taxpayers? The Government should instead be focusing on reducing the asylum backlog and ending the limbo that many asylum seekers are in. The overall asylum caseload is now higher than when Labour took office, while the appeals backlog has reached record levels. Will the Minister set out what he and his Department are doing to reduce that backlog and ensure that the Home Office gets more decisions right first time, avoiding unnecessary appeals?
Finally, if we are to deliver the controlled and compassionate immigration and asylum system that my constituents in Woking and the whole of the British public want, it is essential that we tackle dangerous channel crossings. Will the Minister work with our European partners to establish a genuinely effective returns agreement that ensures that we can have controlled, legal routes and that those who arrive in small boats can be returned swiftly?
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He has heard the plan from me and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary before: co-operation abroad, quicker and better decision making, and more returns. All those things are going much better than they did under our predecessors. It is also about tackling illegal working, but crucially, it is about reducing pull factors too. I sometimes feel that Opposition colleagues have given up on the idea that the numbers might go down. Actually, the numbers are significantly elevated from what we are used to, and with sensible attempts to tackle pull factors—including tackling illegal working, but also this proposal—we can reduce them.
The hon. Gentleman talked about costs. He cited the per night figure for Crowborough; that figure will of course fall if we stay at Crowborough longer, because some of that is up-front capital investment. Pro-rated over a longer period of time, the nightly rate will come down, but again I say gently that we are doing this because we want less of this activity. We are not merely asking, “We expect to house the same number of people, so where is the cheapest place to put them?” but, “What is the best use of our estate to promote a number of goals, one of which is reducing those numbers?” That is how we get costs down. I might add that we speak with a degree of credibility, given that we have already taken £1 billion out of taxpayer spending in this area. That is progress.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned appeals. He knows very well why the appeals backlog has grown—we have had a huge backlog of initial decisions, because the previous Government stopped making them. Of course, that cohort is now in the appeals system. As he will have heard in the King’s Speech, important reforms to appeals are coming, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will support us in that venture.
On his point about co-operation abroad, that is of course crucial. We engage all the time with our European and EU neighbours, working together on a shared problem. The fruits of that can be seen in our much-enhanced deal with France. That work is crucial, and it will continue to grow.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
As the Minister has repeatedly mentioned Crowborough, which is in my constituency, I assume he will be meeting me this week to clarify the position for my constituents.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) for mentioning RAF Barnham, which is in my constituency—it is adjacent to the border of Thetford, and within easy walking distance of it. It was formerly a base that housed mustard gas during the first world war, and in the cold war it was the home of the RAF’s strategic nuclear weapons, so it has an interesting history.
The people of Suffolk are a kind and compassionate people, and they understand the need to house those who are fleeing war and persecution. However, I saw a protest at RAF Barnham this weekend, so how will the views of local people be taken into account, and what exactly is the role of the local planning authority?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Although I am more than happy to have the Minister here for hours and hours, we do have other business to get on with, so I ask Back Benchers to make sure their questions are as short as they can be. I call the Father of the House.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I thank the Minister for confirming that RAF Scampton is not cost-effective. Frankly, he has been a lot more helpful than his predecessor Conservative Ministers, who have now left the Conservative party, so I thank him.
The problem with these sites, as I know from asking hundreds of questions, is that they are unbelievably difficult to transform into asylum centres, so can I ask the Minister: is this really a deterrent? If someone comes from a hellhole of a country, does it matter where they are going to be sent? However, can I be positive and ask a question in this way: is not the best way to solve this problem to process these asylum claimants very quickly, preferably within a month? There will be some who cannot be sent back because their country is not safe, but surely the solution is to create a returns hub in a Council of Europe country—distant, small—so there is no question of their human rights being abused. That is a real deterrent: to treat them quickly and then send them home.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Minister is right that all we saw under the previous Government were the numbers going in the wrong direction and the operation of Government coming to a standstill. Of course, we should never forget the role of the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who does not grace us with his presence in the Chamber, but who was the orchestrator of all this. The Minister is right to bring down the numbers, which are now heading in a positive direction. He will know, because of the many times I have contacted him, about the urgency of returning the Sandpiper hotel in Chesterfield to its proper purpose. It is now being massively underutilised. Will the Minister tell us when we are likely to see the Sandpiper, which has done its turn, being returned to proper use? On appeals, can he tell us more about how we will ensure that the cases of those whose appeals have no serious prospect of succeeding can be expedited so that we do not have the appalling backlog in the appeals process?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I remind colleagues that it is always best to let other Members know in advance if you intend to refer to them.
Alex Norris
In a general sense, a number of the people we now see in leadership positions in the Reform party were previously in the Tory party and had significant agency over this issue. They pretend now to be concerned bystanders, but actually they are the architects of the situation we are now in. I feel for some of our Conservative colleagues who have been left to tidy up behind them—at least they stand and take on the question, as right hon. and hon. Members have done in this debate. On my hon. Friend’s point about the Sandpiper, I cannot give him a date but I will say, to be clear to him and his community, that it will not be open a day longer than needed. The Sandpiper hotel is a vital community amenity that needs to be returned to its public use. With regard to important reforms to appeals, my hon. Friend may not have to wait much longer to see more.
Alex Norris
It is rare that I disagree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. His incredible work on the persecution of Christians abroad, for example, is something on which I agree with him, and it shows the importance of having managed but humane asylum systems around the world. That is what we must have in this country. I did not take it from what he said that we are actually that far apart. He talks about the cost in financial terms and about the cost in terms of the community. I share those concerns. These types of schemes are part of changing that reality, because they will reduce the pull factors so that people are not tempted to come here or exploited by traffickers to do so. I think that that is the right balance.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
It is deeply disappointing that I have to remind the Minister and the Treasury Benchers that paragraph 9.1 of the “Ministerial Code” and paragraph 19.21 of “Erskine May” make it clear that statements on important matters should be made to this House first, not to the press at 10.30 pm on a Thursday night. MPs and their constituents should hear about important policy news in this House first. I expect much better from the Minister. It is totally unacceptable that constituents and MPs hear about important policy matters on the news and not in this House. There is an impact on Members, including me as a constituency MP, and our constituents deserve much better. Minister, we need to see better from you on this.
National Security (State Threats) Bill (Allocation of Time)
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsWednesday 17th June 2026
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 View all National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 17 June 2026 - (17 Jun 2026)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Do any other Members wish to contribute? I call Sir Jeremy Wright.
National Security (State Threats) Bill
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsWednesday 17th June 2026
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 View all National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 17 June 2026 - (17 Jun 2026)
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I was going to ask the Home Secretary later but, as she has raised the matter, perhaps I can ask her this now. On proposed new section 17C of the National Security Act and, indeed, in respect of other parts of the Bill, the knowledge of the person who may be committing an offence becomes important. Can the Home Secretary clarify—because the language in the Bill is potentially ambiguous—that the knowledge required of the person in question is that the body they are supporting or being remunerated by is a designated body? The language could be read simply to mean that the individual needs to know that the body they are supporting is a particular body, not necessarily that they know that that body has been designated. Can the Home Secretary be clear that the language refers to knowledge of designation, not simply knowledge of the particular institution or body that the individual is supporting or being remunerated by?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before the Home Secretary responds, I remind the House that many people wish to contribute and it is just a four-hour debate.
Shabana Mahmood
Let me be very clear: it is the former of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s points. On the construction of knowing or “ought reasonably to know”, obviously the “ought reasonably to know” is both a subjective test of what was known and then an objective test as to what it is reasonable to surmise based on that knowledge. We think that captures exactly the kind of activity that I hope all of us in the House can agree should meet the test for criminal sanction.
Let me make progress quicker than perhaps others might have wanted. As I have noted already, the genesis for the Bill comes from the excellent work of Jonathan Hall KC, whom I thank for the work he has completed. In May 2025, he made further recommendations regarding gaps in our state-threats legislation. The Government have accepted all his recommendations in full, and we will legislate for them all in due course, but, in the interests of the pace at which we are required to bring this vital legislation forward, that will not happen in this Bill. As was set out in the King’s Speech, there will be further national security legislation in this Session.
Every day, our intelligence agencies and their law enforcement colleagues make this country safer for their presence. They do so, however, facing a rising challenge. The threat from terrorism is growing and, at the same time, we face foreign powers acting with greater hostility than we have seen at any time since the cold war. In the face of the growing threat, it is essential that we equip those we expect to protect us with the tools they need to do the job at the moment that they need them the most. The need for the Bill is therefore great. It gives us a new and powerful tool to tackle hostile states and those who act on their behalf.
I end with a request to the House. We do not just require this Bill; we require it as quickly as possible. For that reason, the Government have promised to fast-track the legislation through both Houses. While we must debate it fully and rigorously, and I know that we will, I hope we can work together in the pursuit of a shared ideal, and one that is greater than our political differences: our solemn duty to protect our country. I hope that, today, the whole House can unite around the first and most sacred responsibility of us all. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The world has clearly entered a new era of geopolitical volatility, with technology and strategic competition for resources driving an increasingly contested and competing world. This has not just happened since July 2024. It has been on the horizon for a good many years, and that intensifying and escalating rivalry between states is now the new normal. The United Kingdom must adapt to this new world, not cling to a dying world order, and this Bill is the latest recognition from the Government that they must and will adapt and respond, and that they will always put the national security of the UK first.
Today, I will centre my remarks on the state threats we face, on the Bill and on the wider response that is needed to tackle those state threats. The three greatest state threats facing the United Kingdom are from Russia, China and Iran, and they each pose a distinct and unique threat. Only this week it has been confirmed that Russian proxies set the Prime Minister’s house and car on fire. We need to urgently grasp the seriousness of that. It was abhorrent political violence targeted against the elected leader of the United Kingdom—our country—but that was not all. The individuals spread disinformation, whipped up community tensions and paid for far right posters to be put up and for “Stop Islam” graffiti to be sprayed. We must not tolerate this. That was not an isolated event. We have heard about the assassination of Litvinenko, the attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal, the attack on the warehouse in east London in March 2024 by the Wagner Group and many other suspicious attacks on these shores. These include the cyber-attacks on Jaguar Land Rover, on Marks & Spencer and on the British Library, which still has not recovered from the attack several years ago.
In October 2025, the director general of MI5, Ken McCallum, said that state threats had risen by a third over a year and were now equal to or even greater than the threat of terrorism. In the last year alone, there has been a 35% increase in state threat activity. For example, between 2022 and 2025, the UK prevented 20 Iran-backed plots, all of which were potentially lethal threats. Meanwhile, Chinese espionage and cyber-attacks are a continual threat. With China’s thousand grains of sand theory, every piece of information, no matter how small or seemingly unimportant, is of value. In May 2024, the director of GCHQ said that the service
“devotes more resource to China than any other single mission”
and that China poses a
“genuine and increasing cyber risk”
to the UK.
Those three countries present three different ideologies and three different strategies, but they all represent an intensifying and rapidly evolving threat to the United Kingdom. The Bill is another important step following the critically important National Security Act 2023 to protect the United Kingdom from these state threats. It will introduce a new power to designate bodies involved in foreign power threat activity, as we have heard, and create a new offence of supporting, assisting or benefiting from designated bodies. Of course, that follows the review by Jonathan Hall KC into whether existing terrorism powers could be used to address state threats. He found that the terrorism proscription charges would not be appropriate, so instead this legislation will now designate bodies, including proxies, such as the IRGC or the Wagner Group.
It was clear from the inquiry by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy into the China spy case that while the 2023 Act was a big step forward, the ever-evolving threat landscape means that it would need to evolve, be improved upon and be amended, just as we are doing today. I am pleased that the Government have taken up the recommendation and acted in the national interest. The designation of certain bodies should and must send a clear message to our adversaries that the person will be held responsible for it, with a maximum of 14 years in prison for such an offence.
It is slightly unusual for a Bill to be expedited in this way, but I recognise the urgency and thank the Department for its continued engagement with the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. However, I do have one area of concern. The impact assessment outlines a potential long-term consequence that I would like to focus on. The assessment says that a long-term impact may be “Detrimental impact of foreign policy objectives/bilateral relationships”.
On the risks to bilateral relationships, my immediate thought is, of course, China. The Chinese state does not take kindly to accusations of espionage, as we saw with the collapsed China spy case whereby, under the last Conservative Government, the deputy National Security Adviser was unable to describe China as the enemy due to Government policy, despite the security threat—this tricky tightrope that we continue to have to walk. We have to engage with China. Its economic might and, quite frankly, our dependence on it, which we have to reduce in the long term, means that ignoring China is not an option, but how does the Minister plan to mitigate the risk to our national security while avoiding damaging that relationship? It seems that the contradiction here is yet to be fully resolved. Could the Minister assure me that there are clear contingency plans for an incident like that and that all civil servants, police forces and intelligence services are clear on the Government’s position regarding China?
I am pleased that this Labour Government have already taken a raft of measures to keep us secure and safe, with today being the latest piece of legislation to meet the moment. Of course, there will be other piece of legislation because the threats will become greater and even more diverse. The Representation of the People Bill, the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill and the Bill before us are all interlinked and should be seen as a co-ordinated effort, but there is more to be done.
We need to explain this very real threat to the public and build resilience in our institutions and businesses, and throughout the country for each and every individual. We need a national conversation with the public because the Government cannot do this alone. In this new era of state threats, legislation is crucial, and the Government have an integral role in keeping us all safe, but so does the public. We need to explain that and not shy away from the realities before us.
Murder of Henry Nowak
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
Let me give that assurance to my hon. Friend and, through him, to Henry’s family, as I did earlier in my statement. The family asked me a specific question when they responded yesterday. I have met that challenge and will ensure that we continue to meet that challenge, and that they get the answers they need and deserve.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
For the final question, I call Tristan Osborne.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the House today, and I extend the sympathies of my constituents to Henry Nowak’s family over this heinous and horrific crime. There is speculation online about the identities of these police officers, which is putting at risk other officers across the country due to the irresponsible actions of extreme-right groups and others, fanning the flames of tension. Will the Home Secretary confirm what we are doing to protect our officers on a daily basis under these circumstances, and will she comment on the irresponsible speculation that is happening online?