Crime and Policing Bill

Richard Foord Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

As the Liberal Democrats made clear at earlier stages, there are parts of the Bill that we can support and parts that we strongly oppose. We welcome a number of the new measures brought forward today. None the less, it is a pity that the Government have overlooked opportunities to take action in some crucial areas, from cracking down on rural crime to supporting a real return to proper neighbourhood policing.

In addition, we are deeply disturbed by the use of the Bill to further erode the protest rights of British people. These are hard-won freedoms that were won by the suffragettes, trade unionists and others over many years, but the previous Government and this one are recklessly taking them away for short-term political expedience, so we strongly oppose those measures. That is happening not just because of the measures in the Bill before us today; it is happening regularly under this Government. We must all consider that at some length in this House.

However, I am pleased that the House will today consider two amendments tabled by Liberal Democrats in the other place. Amendment 2 will ensure that private companies are not incentivised to issue as many fixed penalty notices as possible, so more serious antisocial behaviour is prioritised instead. The Government’s amendment in lieu does not go far enough. It substitutes the clear ban on fining for profit with non- statutory guidance. We must remove this perverse incentive with a ban, not guidance that will inevitably be open to challenge.

Amendment 342, another Liberal Democrat amendment tabled in the other place, will change how youth diversion orders are issued, ensuring courts are given a full account of any alternative interventions that have been tried or considered, why those interventions failed and what consultation took place with the child, as well as relevant agencies. Multi-agency input will help courts better understand why other interventions have failed, leading to higher success rates and time efficiency. Crucially, this amendment will mean better outcomes for young people who would otherwise become embroiled in terrorist activity. We call on Members from across the House to support these measures.

The Liberal Democrats are also supporting several other amendments. We support Government amendments 1 and 4 regarding respect orders, which were concessions secured by our Liberal Democrat colleague Lord Clement-Jones. Respect orders will grant police extended powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, with police chiefs given the power to issue orders without oversight. Lords amendments 1 and 4 require the Secretary of State to make appropriate consultations before issuing or revising those orders.

We are backing several further measures that take action on violence against women and girls. We support Lords amendment 294, a concession thanks to the work of our Liberal Democrat colleague Baroness Brinton, which would replace the power to issue stalking guidance by the Secretary of State with a duty to do so. That follows similar provisions in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which places a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

There was a discussion earlier about the register of non-consensual intimate images, which is set out in Lords amendment 259. I want to share with the House the experience of one of my constituents, who was subject to the creation of a non-consensual abuse image by her husband while unconscious, having been the victim of spiking. Zoe Watts has chosen very bravely to speak with the media to help to secure legal change and public education, and she points out that there is a disturbing rise in pornography that depicts sex with somebody who is sleeping. Does my hon. Friend share my view that the depiction of non-consensual intimacy in sleep can encourage spiking and sexual abuse and should be banned?

[Max Wilkinson]

Zoe’s case goes to show that we need to go so much further to protect women, and the depiction of that kind of activity clearly might provoke unintended consequences that none of us in this House want to see. Spiking remains a big problem on high streets and in pubs and bars up and down this country.

With a view to strengthening online protections, we will support Lords amendments 258 and 259, relating to the non-consensual generation and sharing of intimate images. It is crucial that the law catches up to the reality of abuse being faced by women like Zoe every day. We will support Lords amendment 301 to extend the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to include protections against hostility motivated by a range of characteristics, including sex and disability. The Liberal Democrats will support Conservative Lords amendment 15, which would increase the maximum penalty for possession of a weapon with intent to use unlawful violence against another person to 10 years, in line with the recommendations from Jonathan Hall KC.

To effectively tackle criminal gangs, we must ensure that the legal system can effectively cut off their revenue sources. The current closure notice periods for shops selling counterfeit goods are too short, and criminal gangs are too often able to survive the economic hit, impacting the prosperity of our high streets. That is why we support Lords amendment 333, which would extent the period in which the police and the magistrates courts may make closure notices to seven days and closure orders to 12 months.

We are supportive of the suggestion in Lords amendment 311, proposed by Cross-Bench peers, that an alternative is needed to proscription. That has been made particularly clear by what has happened with Palestine Action. However, we are cautious about voting for such a change while the outcomes of the independent review of public order and hate crime legislation are not yet known.

Finally, Liberal Democrats are vehemently opposed to the Government’s Lords amendment to give the police unprecedented powers to further restrict the right to protest. That follows a pattern started by the previous Conservative Government, who hacked away again and again at the historical right to protest enjoyed by British people. It is an absolute travesty that that has carried on under Labour. The right to protest is a vital component of our democracy, and Liberal Democrats will fight to defend it.

I urge Members on all sides of the House to put aside their personal feelings about certain ongoing protests and seriously consider what the consequences of this change would mean for our right to challenge those who exercise power over us. Members on the Government Benches might be content with that approach while they are in charge, but Labour MPs must ask what might happen under a future Government who might not adhere to liberal democratic principles.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

As well as increasing the number of police officers on our streets and in our neighbourhoods, we are introducing respect orders to tackle antisocial behaviour. We are seeing shop theft charges going up in our town centres, and we are taking a targeted approach in policing, so that we really tackle our town centres. We take antisocial behaviour very seriously. We will continue to ensure that we make our streets safer—and they are becoming safer. They will be even safer when we have 13,000 additional officers on our streets.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

T6. Residents in Devon want visible community policing. The new towns taskforce recommended a new settlement called Marlcombe in east Devon. When new towns are built, how are additional police officers allocated to the area?

Police Grant Report

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Max Wilkinson]

We envisage them being staffed. Clearly, people want to see police face to face. AI can have a role, although we all know there was a cautionary tale from the west midlands recently that we would all like to put behind us. AI surely has a role, but in the proposals the Liberal Democrats are putting forward there would be staffed desks in convenient community hubs. I ask Ministers to consider that.

As Members will know, crime is not only concentrated in cities and towns. Many Members here in the Chamber represent rural constituencies. NFU Mutual estimated that the cost of rural crime in 2024 was as high as £44.1 million—a shocking cost to our countryside. We must consider the impact on those who live in rural areas, specifically farmers who are having a really difficult time. Their mental health and wellbeing can be badly harmed by crime. A survey of 115 NFU Mutual agents found that 92% believed rural crime was disrupting farming activities in their area and that 86% knew farmers who had been repeat victims of crime, leaving them feeling vulnerable in both their workplace and in their home. Rural communities have seen increasingly organised and damaging offences, yet only a small proportion of the police workforce is dedicated to tackling them. Rural crime is currently dealt with by just 0.4% of the overall police workforce.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about rural crime. My concern is that as the boundaries of police forces become greater, the resources tend to go to the urban areas. We see that in east Devon, where Cranbrook has sucked in resources from villages and towns that have previously had a police presence. Does he recognise that the effect of police being pulled into urban areas is being seen in other parts of the country?

[Max Wilkinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his timely intervention. On the issue of policing structures, if the Government impose wider boundaries, as they intend to, we need to ensure that they follow through on their pledges on local community policing areas. The responses we heard in the debate from many Members about five minutes ago tell us that the Government have not yet told the story in a way that will reassure my community or his.

Rural communities are increasingly concerned by the increase in crime they are seeing and want to be reassured that Ministers are allocating the funding that is needed to tackle it. In the report we are considering today, there are few references to rural areas and the countryside. Can we be reassured that rural crime will be tackled by a specific team in every police force? We are calling for a “countryside copper guarantee”, which would see properly resourced, dedicated rural crime teams or specialists embedded in every police force. Will the Government pledge to deliver the equipment, specialist knowledge and communication tools needed to tackle these crimes effectively?

The shadow Home Secretary mentioned facial recognition technology. We accept that this technology has the potential to improve the outlook for members of the public and to make the police’s job easier, too, but it does place our civil liberties at risk, and we must not be relaxed about that. In December 2025, the UK’s data protection watchdog asked the Home Office for “urgent clarity” over the racial bias of police facial recognition technology. Official Home Office research has shown that the technology identifies the wrong person about 100 times as often for Asian and black people as white people and twice as often for women as men.

We seek reassurances that this technology will not be used unless the data can be safely captured, and seek assurance from Ministers that those in minority communities will not be misidentified and wrongly arrested. We hope that Ministers can reassure us that the data will be stored appropriately and that this will not result in the widespread retention of data relating to innocent people. Will the Government consider statutory guidance on this technology to ensure that each police force takes a common and safe approach?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Back in 2010, I was deeply concerned about lots of things—the damage to our economy, the number of people without a job, the challenge of the difficult choices that the Government had to make—but the previous Government left office with record numbers of police on our streets.

[Richard Foord]

Measuring police effectiveness by looking solely at numbers is absolutely flawed. Does the shadow Minister accept in retrospect that the way in which Theresa May allowed police numbers to plummet while claiming that crime was falling was completely flawed? We lost a lot of experience in those years.

[Matt Vickers]

When the Conservatives last left office, we had record numbers of police on the streets. I do not know how many police officers we had on the streets when the Liberal Democrats last left office. [Interruption.] I will make some progress.

In terms of headcount, the picture is starker. In March 2024, under the previous Government, there were 149,769 officers—the highest number since records began. As of September 2025, that number stands at 147,621—a decrease of more than 2,000. When the Minister speaks about supporting the police, the House is entitled to ask a simple question: how can the Government support policing while presiding over fewer police?

Worryingly, the bad news does not stop there. The number of officers in the British Transport police and the number of staff in the National Crime Agency have also decreased, all while the Government announce a national police service that will be created from organisations such as the NCA. The staff who will make up that service are leaving. That is critical because the grant that we are discussing comes against the backdrop of many forces warning about their long-term financial stability.

As the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council said:

“The overall financial picture remains challenging. Many forces are planning service reductions, with consequences for officer numbers, staff capacity and overall resilience.”

That is a direct consequence of the Government’s decisions. There are real funding challenges, here and now, with real consequences for forces and communities across the country. The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners says that this year’s settlement leaves police forces with a shortfall that could be as high as £500 million.

Labour’s own police and crime commissioners across the country have spoken out on the challenges. In my own part of the world, Labour PCC Matt Storey has said that Cleveland police have to operate with

“one hand behind their back”,

and that funding has

“failed to keep pace with the level of inflation, while other funding has been removed and re-allocated”,

making it impossible to maintain current levels of service. I understand that he has written to the Minister on three occasions and is still awaiting a response. Durham’s Labour police and crime commissioner has been even more direct in her criticism. She said that the Labour Government have

“consistently demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of policing and community safety.”

The Minister will no doubt point with great enthusiasm to headline figures. Such spin fails to acknowledge inflation, pay awards and the ongoing cost of the Government’s jobs tax. Many at home will be stunned that our police forces were subjected to hundreds of millions of pounds of costs by way of the national insurance increase, and that the Government have actually taxed the police off our streets. This settlement is not the straightforward increase that the Minister claims it is. It relies heavily on the police precept, pushing more of the burden on to local taxpayers, while forces face rising costs and rising demand.

In 2023, an MP told this House that the then Government’s approach was to

“put up local taxes, put up council tax, push the problem on to local forces”,

and that

“Ministers have chosen to heap the burden on to hard-pressed local taxpayers through the precept.”—[Official Report, 8 February 2023; Vol. 727, c. 935.]

Any idea who that might have been? [Interruption.] Yes, it was the current Policing Minister. Given the Government’s fondness for U-turns, I am not surprised by the Minister’s change of view.

Police Reform White Paper

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Numbers matter, of course, but what matters more is what those officers are doing, and that is exactly what these reforms are about.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

One resident from Uplyme on the border of Dorset and Devon wrote to me about a burglary that she had experienced. She reported it to Dorset police, who told her that it was for the police in Devon to pick up and that her case would be passed on to Devon, but days later she had heard nothing more. Can the Home Secretary assure us that the mergers she has described today will mean that cases, and indeed residents, will no longer be bounced between neighbouring police forces?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Yes. The point of the new model for policing is to make sure that victims of crime get a good standard of service for whatever type of crime they have been victims of, no matter where they are in the country.

Violence against Women and Girls Strategy

Richard Foord Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

With regard to my hon. Friend’s Rape Crisis service, there will be a specific amount of uplift to the ringfenced budget for Rape Crisis services in the country. I think Rape Crisis England and Wales asked for a 15% uplift. Funnily enough, that will be from health service funding. That is the cultural change I am talking about—people making this their business. We expect to see those uplifts, so Rape Crisis services will hopefully benefit from that.

On domestic abuse, compared with the £130 million a year under the previous Government for refuge, housing and other support, there will be £109 million extra over the three years. I hope that her organisations will be able to access that through the commissioning process, which we will redesign, so that it works better, and works over a longer period, rather than our doing this every year.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

A recent Ofsted inspection of children’s services in Devon found that they

“share a determination to improve services to care leavers”.

How will the new strategy to end violence against women and girls pay particular attention to preventing harms to care leavers and care-experienced people? How will it build on the improving practice that we see in local authorities, such as in Devon?

[Jess Phillips]

That is absolutely a vital part of this puzzle. I have worked with the Children’s Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), in the Department for Education on the “family first” part of the strategy—the bit about children’s social care and care leavers. People often talk about grooming gangs, but we cannot talk about grooming gangs without talking about care-experienced children, and the interaction between the two. That is a vital part of getting this right. The Government also have a children in care plan that they will work towards, and I sit on the board for that.

Asylum Seekers: MOD Housing

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

I would start by saying that I share the hon. Lady’s spirit on that, and I believe that the British public do too. Whether it is regarding Syrian refugees, Homes for Ukraine, the Afghan resettlement scheme, or British nationals overseas, the British public meet the moment when people need shelter, and show extraordinary capacity for compassion. But there has to be a limit on that, exactly as she says. I can assure her that we will break the pull factors, so that those who do not have a legitimate claim—more than half of those assessed do not have a legitimate reason—will no longer have a reason to come. In the meantime, in exactly the spirit of what she said regarding public confidence, we have removed £1 billion of spending from this area for exactly that reason.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The UK is spending a fifth of its official development assistance budget on hotel bills. Some of that money was previously used to prevent conflict and to help refugees find refuge in their own regions. I served with an Army training regiment at Crowborough, one of the two sites, and I consider that if it was good enough for us, it is good enough for some of the refugees who are seeking asylum. But can the Minister assure the House that this move to use decommissioned barracks will cost taxpayers less than hotels currently do?

[Alex Norris]

The reality is that the unit cost per night is broadly similar. The point is that we have to reduce the number of people in that accommodation. That is how we get value for the taxpayer and how we will not need the accommodations at all.

Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison.

I can entirely understand where the petitioners are coming from. After all, hotels are holiday accommodation, and for most people, the idea of spending a few days a year in a hotel is desirable—if probably unaffordable as things are at the moment—so I can completely understand people’s anger and outrage at the taxpayer paying for others to stay in hotels. However, I want to point out that the issues of asylum seeking have been conflated with other migration—migration supported by visas. I also want to talk about how alternatives to hotel accommodation might be found.

A September 2025 Reuters report concluded that the UK media frames immigration overwhelmingly through the lens of illegality and crisis, giving disproportionate attention to small-boat crossings relative to their scale. Legal migration is routinely lumped into that same narrative, and the distinction is blurred. We can see that very well from the numbers. In the year ending March 2025, the UK issued 875,000 visas for work, study and family purposes—legal migration. Subtract from that number those leaving, and net migration is 431,000, which is a large figure. In the same period, there were around 44,000 irregular arrivals, largely on small boats. Arrivals that were not supported by a visa therefore made up about 5% of all new arrivals and 10% of net migration.

On migration supported by visas, 260,000 people who were born outside the UK work as doctors, nurses and care workers in our health and social care system. Without legal migration supported by visas, our hospitals, care homes and even some farms would simply grind to a halt.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point; we desperately need people to come and work in our national health service and care sector. Does he agree that the case for legally working migrants and refugees who genuinely need asylum, perhaps from Syria or Afghanistan, and the case for our communities, who want stability, have been undermined by the staggering incompetence of the asylum system? Waiting times for decisions have gone up to more than a year, or more like a year and a half in nearly two thirds of all cases. That incompetence is stirring division and disbelief, and it needs to be addressed urgently.

[Richard Foord]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Government have to speed up decisions, cut backlogs and return those asylum seekers who are unsuccessful in their applications and have no right to stay, and they must that so swiftly.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a really powerful speech. The Conservatives and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) created this crisis in small boat crossings. Before the botched Brexit deal, we had, in effect, a returns agreement with every other EU nation under the Dublin system, as our hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) said. Now this Government, like the last, are struggling to manage a rise in small boat crossings. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must urgently negotiate more returns agreements with other EU countries?

[Richard Foord]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for talking about Europe, because our European neighbours are contending with exactly the same problems as us in this respect. The longer asylum seekers are drawn to the UK, the longer they are drawn into the European Union, so it is in our common interest to address this issue. I will talk a bit more about the EU and its member states later in my speech.

Pundits are blurring the two issues, and while people say that immigration is wrecking the economy, the truth is quite the reverse. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, higher legal net migration is expected to raise our total GDP by around 1.5% by 2028-29, while GDP per capita is likely to be raised by 0.8%.

Migrants arriving with visas tend to arrive in their prime working years, paying more in taxes than they take out in services. According to the Migration Advisory Committee, in 2022-23, the average skilled migrant made a net contribution of around £16,300 to the UK public finances in their first year in the UK. Legal migration is a cornerstone of our economy, and because of our ageing population, it will continue to be so for years to come.

I will now address migration through irregular routes, which is the focus of this debate, and in particular the use of immigration hotels. In May 2025, the Government noted that they would spend £2.2 billion this financial year on migrant hotels. That is an eye-watering sum, but it is part of the £1.28 trillion—or more than £1,200 billion—that the Government spend each year, so we are talking about less than 0.2% of public spending. None the less, £2.2 billion is an enormous sum of money.

The UK counts these domestic refugee costs as official development assistance, and the House of Commons Library reported that in 2024, one fifth of all foreign aid was spent domestically on hotels. That makes me really angry. I am angrier, perhaps, than any of the petitioners on this point, because when we spend that money here in the UK, we do not use it to its full effect or achieve its full purchasing power.

Let us think about what official development assistance has achieved for us in recent years. Between 2013 and 2019, the UK committed £400 million to the eradication of polio and helped to vaccinate millions of children, leading to Africa being declared polio-free in 2020. These sorts of things are partly benevolent, but they are also in Britain’s interests. During the 2014 to 2016 Ebola outbreak, the UK provided £427 million in aid to Sierra Leone to address it. Had it arrived on these shores, we would certainly have had to spend so much more on addressing this absolutely appalling disease.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is Liberal Democrat policy that asylum costs should not come out of the foreign aid budget?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Foord]

I am of the view that asylum hotels should not be paid for by the foreign aid budget. This country has an international development budget that has fallen from 0.7%—when my party was in government with the hon. Gentleman’s—to 0.3% today, which is honestly a great pity. That is not helping us to prevent conflict and deal with the problem at source.

From 2014 to 2015, we had the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, which was set up by the coalition Government. It brought 20,000 of the most vulnerable refugees, including survivors of torture and violence, to the UK, but in a way that was safe and legal. Those people were assessed for their suitability by the UN high commissioner for refugees. We are talking about women and children at risk, as well as those in severe medical need and survivors of torture. Those were people who did not try to get to the UK through Europe, because they were assessed for their vulnerability in the region, in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey.

Let us remember the vulnerable three-year-old refugee, Alan Kurdi, whose fragile body washed up on a beach, with waves lapping into his dead face. A lot of people had a lot of sympathy at that time for taking asylum seekers who were in genuine need through a safe and legal route. Today, we need to think about deterring illegal ways of approaching the UK, and Britain should work with neighbouring countries and look to collaborate on proposing a third country where failed asylum seekers may be processed overseas, such as one in south-east Europe. That is something that EU member states are looking into at the moment. Unsuccessful applicants could appeal from third countries, rather than from within the UK or EU, as is happening right now. We should work with our European partners so that we can find a continent-wide solution, because the UK will not be able to solve this alone.

While such schemes may act as an incentive for people to apply from their own region, we also need to think about a deterrent. I was wholly opposed to the Rwanda scheme, which was brought forward by the Conservative Government at a cost of £700 million and then scrapped. More could be made of the fact that people are coming to a pretty appalling end in the English channel. The Migration Observatory reports that 73 people were confirmed to have drowned in the English channel while attempting small boat crossings in 2024. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution recalled rescuing children with chemical burns from leaked petrol, and others so frozen that they could not walk because they had spent 30 hours at sea. A Home Affairs Committee report found in 2022 that smugglers deceive migrants and downplay the risks and danger. More could be made of that.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order. I have not imposed a time limit, but the hon. Gentleman has been going on considerably longer than other colleagues. He may wish to reflect on that.

[Richard Foord]

Thank you, Dr Murrison; I will conclude.

Legal migration builds our economy, and it staffs our hospitals and care homes. Crossings by people who do not have a visa are damaging trust in Government. A builder put it quite simply to me in recent months when he said that the last Government promised to stop the boats, but the opposite happened, and he had lost faith in Government as a result. We need to stop these dangerous crossings and restore order to a broken asylum system. That means investing in safe and legal routes and working with our European allies and partners on shared solutions, communicating the truth about the dangers of crossing the channel to those who would try to do so. If we do that, we can protect our borders and values, while upholding the compassionate and common-sense country that we are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Foord]

I think the Minister is either misunderstanding or mischaracterising my contribution, but will he please comment on the potential return hubs for failed asylum seekers?

[Alex Norris]

I would certainly never seek to mischaracterise the hon. Gentleman. I cannot commit to never misunderstanding him, but I certainly would never mischaracterise him. I understood that he had asked why there is so much focus on this cohort within the wider migration figures. If I am wrong, I apologise without reservation. On return hubs, he will have seen what the Prime Minister said, and that is the Government’s position on that matter.

Any system that involves multiple tens of thousands of people entering the channel and making an incredibly dangerous journey, any system in which tens of thousands of people are living in hotels, any system that leads net migration in this country to reach 900,000, any system in which people must wait and wait for a letter about their future—I have had conversations with people in that situation, and they are often people who have left the most desperate situations—is a broken system. Of course the Government of the day, whether in the borders Bill or the immigration White Paper, will seek to tackle those things. We must not defend a status quo that works for neither the British people nor the individuals who are reliant on it for sanctuary and safety.

This has been a robust and very important debate. I hope that those who signed the petitions in considerable numbers will have had the chance to watch the debate and seen that Parliament has taken their views seriously and had a thoughtful and constructive debate on them. This is a hugely important issue for the Government of the day. We have been working in overdrive since the general election to fix the chronic problems that we inherited. We will keep doing so, and along the way we will end the use of hotels once and for all.

Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

With great respect, and I do not mean to be flippant, I think it is a rather unfortunate use of “sledgehammer”, given previous events. No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I think the actions of the Government have been necessary and proportionate for the reasons I explained earlier. I worry that there are a number of people who seek to express support for an organisation who do not fully understand the activities that that organisation has engaged in in recent times.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Mr Justice Chamberlain granted the judicial review on the basis that the Home Secretary had not consulted Palestine Action before proscribing it. The judge ruled that it was “reasonably arguable” that there was a duty to consult Palestine Action before proscribing it, as reported in The Guardian. If organisations meet a high standard and a high threshold for proscription under the Terrorism Act, why should there be a duty to consult that organisation before proscribing it?

Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, because Baroness Casey pointed out how many of her recommendations hinge on there being a good child protection authority, and that work is being done by Department for Education colleagues. I have been involved, along with Alexis Jay, and I have ensured that she has been in meetings with them. The authority will evolve, because what we do not want to do, contrary to the views of some in the House, is to wait forever to set it up or to try to get it exactly right first time when it is a complicated thing. It will evolve along the way, but all those involved in the inquiry, across both local and national bodies, will have the opportunity to feed in their views about what it needs to look like.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I am wholly supportive of this Government-commissioned report into group-based child sexual exploitation, but the Government must not be distracted from the places where child sexual abuse occurs most frequently. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children reports that 90% of young people who have been sexually abused said that the perpetrator was someone they knew. Around a third of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by young people under the age of 18, and the NSPCC says that in relation to sibling sexual abuse:

“The number of children affected by this hidden harm is far greater than is acknowledged by…policymakers”.

Is the Minister certain that the Government will not be distracted from abuse within schools and within families?

[Jess Phillips]

I praise the hon. Gentleman for saying that, because familial abuse and child exploitation not by groups but by families or peer groups are, I am afraid to say, not uncommon. I know that from my years of experience. Those victims feel as if their voices are being marginalised. This piece of work that we have announced today is part of a much broader child abuse body that sits within the Home Office and works on all those things. The recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse keep us on that track, but we must not lose sight of all the abuse, especially that happening among young people against other young people and online.

Borders and Asylum

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s point. She is absolutely right to say that any comprehensive and effective approach—internationally, not just here in the UK—must consider the causes and drivers of mass migration: people fleeing persecution and conflict, and the economic migration issues that have caused significant challenges. The Foreign Secretary and I have set up a joint migration team to work closely on some of those issues, and he has also made issues around migration a key priority for the Foreign Office. This is clearly an important cross-Government issue on which we are working together.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

When Labour was in opposition, it attacked the Conservatives on the small number of asylum seekers who had been removed to Rwanda as part of the Tory deterrent. Now that the Conservatives are in opposition, they are attacking Labour for the small number of asylum seekers who will be removed to France as part of the Labour deterrent. Does the Home Secretary accept that, in order for a deterrent to work, people considering that dangerous crossing need to know that it may be in vain?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have established the agreement with France as a pilot agreement, and we want to develop and expand it. It allows us to detain people immediately on arrival at Western Jet Foil in Dover in order then to be returned. The first cases have been referred to France, and we expect the first returns to start during the course of this month. As well as the impact of undermining the criminal business model of the gangs—the deterrence that the hon. Gentleman talks about—there is the important principle that people arriving illegally on dangerous boats having paid criminal gangs should be returned, but the UK should do its bit, in a controlled and managed way alongside other countries, for those who apply through legal routes and go through proper security checks.