Improving the UK Visa System

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this timely debate.

We are here to talk about improving the UK visa system. That has to start with addressing one of the most cynical flaws in our system, which is the domestic abuse loophole. That loophole involves migrants falsely claiming to be victims of domestic abuse in order to stay in this country. That is a national issue, and a local one for me in West Yorkshire.

Before I continue, let me be clear that those who are genuine victims of domestic abuse must be afforded the utmost protection by society and lawmakers, no matter their gender, the colour of their skin, the language they speak or where they come from. We cannot, however, allow that obligation to be used to allow people to con their way into this country and ultimately claim citizenship, falsely accusing those they relied on to get here of heinous crimes, potentially causing lifelong impacts for the innocent people with whom they entered a relationship. Under UK law, migrants who claim to be the victims of domestic abuse and who are on temporary visas as the partners of British citizens, can apply for permission to settle permanently if the relationship has broken down because of domestic abuse or violence.

Permission to settle gives them the right to live, work and study here for as long as they like, and to apply for benefits if they are eligible. They can use that to apply for British citizenship. That rule, known as the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession, was brought in to help genuine victims of abuse to secure permanent residence more quickly than through other routes, such as asylum. There is stark evidence, however, that that it is being used by male and female migrants to dupe British partners into relationships and marriage.

[Ayoub Khan]

It is not just the scenario that the hon. Member highlights. There is evidence of false domestic violence cases, where partners get indefinite leave to remain and British nationality, and then bring over their true partner, which is a further exacerbation. Is the hon. Member aware of that?

[Robbie Moore]

I am aware of that, as it resonates with some of the casework I get in my constituency in Keighley. I am also aware of people being encouraged to fabricate false allegations by so-called online legal advisers. The scale of the problem has been amplified through a freedom of information request from the BBC. It found that a total of 5,596 migrants made applications for indefinite leave to remain as victims of domestic abuse in the 12 months up to September 2025, the most recent period for which the data was available.

The BBC reported one case where a British mother, who had left her male partner after reporting him for rape, was subsequently accused by him of domestic abuse. She said that was a false allegation, made so that he could stay in the country. The allegations were never proven, but the partner was able to use them to avoid having to return to Pakistan. I know from the correspondence I get through casework in my constituency that there is a noticeable increase in the issue.

There was one mother whose son and spouse came to reside with her family after a marriage had been entered into. A complaint of domestic abuse was made, not only against the son but the wider family, which resulted in the mother losing her job in a local school. The police explored it, which resulted in them taking no further action, but because the claim had been made, it caused huge stress for the family. The individual who made the claim was protected by the state, through the money they were being paid to reside in a different place and by being able to claim benefits. That is wrong, and I hope the Government will look at that loophole.

Let me reassure Members across the House that it is, of course, right and proper that we offer the utmost protection to victims of domestic abuse. Immigration authorities will not get it right every time, but the numbers I cited earlier and my experience from constituency casework prove that this loophole is getting traction, and is being promoted for others to utilise. What reassurance can the Minister offer me that the Government are aware of this issue, are taking it seriously and have a plan to stop it escalating further?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am conscious that I only have two minutes before having to hand back—

[Robbie Moore]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Tapp]

Let me just make a little progress. I will touch on fisheries. I have had important meetings with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and we are working to ensure that we come to the right conclusion on that. We have provided whaleboat fishermen —and sheep shearers—with concessions, but I think the agricultural sector needs a more holistic approach, and we are absolutely looking at that and working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Before my time comes to an end—my apologies if I have not been able to get through all the many points that were made—I will talk about earned settlement, which is vital. Someone who is looking to settle has to contribute to and integrate into the country. We saw unprecedented numbers arrive, as I have already detailed—I will not go through that again. We have had a massive consultation—the 200,000 responses are being analysed—and I and the Home Secretary will make it our personal mission to ensure that we provide a system that is firm but also fair and that absolutely rewards contribution, because that is what makes this country great.

A number of hon. Members raised specific cases with me. Please can we talk about those afterwards rather than trying to address them in this debate?

[Robbie Moore]

I appreciate that the Minister is short for time. Will he write to me in response to my question about the loophole associated with domestic abuse claims?

[Mike Tapp]

I will touch on it very quickly. I think “loophole” is a misrepresentation; I think it is an abuse of the system. We have new guidance, which came out in March, but there are other abuses—for example, those who say that they are gay when they are not—and we are ensuring that we deal with that.

I will conclude now, with apologies to Members that I could not get through all their many points, but we can of course talk outside the Chamber.

Child Sexual Offender Data

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who opened the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee; the lead petitioner, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe); and the many campaigners who have fought tirelessly, and continue to fight, for justice for the victims of child sexual exploitation.

The petition is asking for

“a statutory requirement on councils, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and all other related institutions to collect, record and publish the nationality, ethnicity, immigration status and religion of child sexual offenders, including gang based crime”,

and rightly so. It believes that to properly protect children and prevent the mistakes of the past, it is essential to collect and record all that information. I agree with the petition, which states that data would

“protect children and inform public policy…allow for better understanding of offender demographics, ensure transparency, and support targeted safeguarding strategies.”

It also states:

“Without this information, critical patterns may be missed, weakening efforts to prevent abuse and protect vulnerable children.”

I agree with this narrative, and I join the over 260,000 people who have taken the time to sign the petition.

Although I appreciate that the petition covers several areas, I would like to start by focusing on the importance of the retention of data in cases of grooming gangs and child sexual exploitation. In her audit published in June last year, Baroness Casey rightly recommended a full national inquiry into grooming gangs. As part of her recommendations, as is set out clearly on page 151, Baroness Casey rightly said that it should be mandated that all local authorities, police forces and other relevant agencies retain all relevant records. Any evidence or data that could help the national grooming gangs inquiry should be retained, and the Government should be mandated to inform that retention.

After much back and forth with various Home Office officials, the previous permanent secretary at the Home Office, the previous Safeguarding Minister and the previous and current Home Secretary, I learned that it took the Home Office 212 days to issue that direction to our police forces and other key Home Office agencies instructing them to preserve those records after Baroness Casey’s report was published in June last year. That is nearly seven months after publication. I then learned that it took eight months for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to write to local authorities with the same instruction. That is a staggering failure at the heart of this Government to address a key recommendation from Baroness Casey.

My first question to the Minister is “Why such a delay?” Secondly, what kind of records are likely to have been lost, or potentially destroyed, in the seven months that it took the Home Office to issue the specific instruction to police forces and the eight months that it took MHCLG to issue the same instruction to local authorities? That question is worth asking, because the reality is that many local authorities up and down the country resisted more openness and transparency on this issue for years—for decades—including Bradford council, whose area my constituency is in.

Another key issue in cases of organised child grooming gangs is not only the lack of data, but the lack of certain types of data. In her audit, Baroness Casey stated:

“The appalling lack of data on ethnicity in crime recording alone is a major failing over the last decade or more. Questions about ethnicity have been asked but dodged for years. Child sexual exploitation is horrendous whoever commits it, but there have been enough convictions across the country of groups of men from Asian ethnic backgrounds to have warranted closer examination.”

I have seen that for myself in my Keighley constituency, within the Bradford district, where the vast majority of convictions have been of men of Asian ethnic background, whose offences were predominantly against white young girls.

We have to be sensible when talking about this issue because, as Baroness Casey rightly found in her audit, only 37% of suspects had their ethnicity data recorded. That is simply not good enough, and addressing it is a key recommendation by Baroness Casey. I welcome the recommendation that the Government mandate the collection of ethnicity and nationality data on all suspects in child sexual abuse and criminal exploitation cases; I only wish that it had come sooner. In my view, the very same approach should apply to the immigration status and religion not only of the victim, but of the perpetrator, so that we can get to grips with the complexity of this issue.

A national inquiry is now taking place. The areas subject to local investigations will be announced by 13 July. Why on earth is that taking so long? I commend the work done by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth, but is the information collected by his inquiry being fed into the national grooming gangs inquiry led by Baroness Longfield? It is crucial that that information is considered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rupert Lowe]

rose—

[Robbie Moore]

I will also take the next intervention.

[Rupert Lowe]

The hon. Member has made a very good point. We have been in touch with the Government and Baroness Longfield and have said that we will help them, but so far nobody has actually made contact with me.

[Robbie Moore]

The point is that all hon. Members in this place have a duty to represent our constituents and to feed any information that we have to Baroness Longfield, as the chair of the national grooming gangs inquiry, so that we can make sure, now that the terms of references have been set, that the local inquiries that form part of that national inquiry take place in the right areas.

That brings me to my key point. Keighley and the wider Bradford district is an area where people have been ignored and abandoned, at a local and national level, for far too long. For years people there have fought hard for our area to be included but they have been ignored. Since I was first elected to this place to represent the people of Keighley and Ilkley, I have stood alongside victims and survivors such as Fiona Goddard and alongside leading child abuse lawyers such as David Greenwood to call for one simple thing: a full independent inquiry should take place across Keighley and the wider Bradford district. These heinous crimes did happen and are happening right now. For decades, child sexual exploitation and gang-related grooming have haunted communities that I represent. Lives have been shattered. Trust has been broken. Far too often, those crying out for justice have been met with silence.

My second question for the Minister is: will she announce in this debate that Keighley and the wider Bradford district will be included as part of the national grooming gangs inquiry? If the Government were confident enough in January 2025 to announce that Oldham would be included, why on earth are they not confident enough today to announce that Keighley and the wider Bradford district will be included? As I have said many times before, I fear that the scale of the issue across the Bradford district will dwarf that in places such as Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford and Oldham, where previous inquiries took place. Bradford has been referenced a lot in relation to child sexual exploitation, and many victims and survivors have unfortunately been trafficked through the city. I would therefore like to hear a positive response from the Minister.

My final point is about the cost of the national grooming gangs inquiry. The Government have allocated £65 million to that inquiry, but we are yet to understand which local areas will form part of it. My third question to the Minister is: will the Government expand the allocation of funds to the national grooming gangs inquiry if the inquiry’s chair, Baroness Longfield, deems that more money is needed because more areas need to be looked at as part of the inquiry?

[Sir Julian Smith]

I pay tribute to the amazing work that my constituency neighbour has done over many years on this issue. The issue of taxi networks in the north of England, particularly those operating in Bradford and Keighley and in my area of Skipton and Ripon, is an example of the fact that analysing broader issues properly will require more funding.

[Robbie Moore]

I completely concur with my right hon. Friend. I do not want the Government’s independent inquiry to be restricted by the amount of funds that it has been allocated. We need to make sure that the inquiry is robust, transparent and open, and that no stone is left unturned.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of gathering data, but something that has not really come out in this debate is an acknowledgment of the significant cuts to public services over the past decade, including cuts to youth services. I was a youth worker in Norfolk for many years, where I was the lead for child protection. Our services were decimated by cuts, and it is youth workers who very often spot signs of abuse and stop it. The hon. Gentleman is calling for additional funding; would he support money for youth work in hotspot areas so that we can protect children?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely concur with the hon. Member’s point. Youth services are a key indicator. Many of those who work for local authorities engage with victims and survivors, and of course they have a safeguarding responsibility and an ability to spot the signs of abuse. If youth services are one of those mechanisms, and if certain local authorities say that funding is an issue, then yes, of course—if that results in the right outcomes.

My final point is that there is always much focus on the national grooming gangs inquiry, but it seems that there is less focus on the report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which was an excellent piece of work by Professor Alexis Jay. It made 22 recommendations, but here we are, 22 months into this Government, and only six of those recommendations have been acted on. I fully acknowledge that the report came out in 2022 and that the previous Administration did not make enough progress on the recommendations in the 20 months that they had to act on them before the general election, but we are now 22 months into the new Government. My fourth question is: what additional progress are the Government making on implementing all 22 IICSA recommendations? I acknowledge and welcome the progress that has been made.

[Mr Brash]

Some of the Jay report recommendations were implemented by the Government through the Crime and Policing Act 2026, which came before the House recently. How did the hon. Gentleman vote on it?

[Robbie Moore]

The Crime and Policing Act did not go anywhere near far enough to provide the safeguarding mechanisms to protect vulnerable victims and survivors who have experienced heinous crimes of child sexual exploitation. I will not vote for poor, badly thought-through legislation introduced by this Government.

Beyond the six that have been acted on already, what additional progress will be made on the 22 recommendations? I conclude by advocating that the Minister include Bradford and Keighley in the national grooming gangs inquiry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Natalie Fleet]

We have all seen the impact of 14 years of cuts to services. There are lots of things that need improving, so I cannot speak specifically to that point.

On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), the inquiry will look at any current offending. As raised by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), from the moment the inquiry was announced in June 2025 organisations already had legal obligations to protect relevant information. A letter from the Government was not required to make that case.

[Robbie Moore]

If that was the case, why did Baroness Casey feel strongly enough to include this issue as part of a recommendation in the report?

[Natalie Fleet]

It also made sense to wait until a draft term of reference, setting out the scope of the inquiry, was developed and published in December ’25. At that point, the chair of the inquiry wrote to the Cabinet Secretary, and the Home Office wrote to the National Police Chiefs’ Council and Home Office-sponsored arm’s length bodies in January 2026 to emphasise the importance of retaining documents.

The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley also raised the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. The Government have set out a clear plan for how we will deliver against the IICSA recommendations. That includes reforms to the Disclosure and Barring Service, a new mandatory reporting duty, a removal of the limitation period for child sexual abuse civil claims, establishing a new child protection authority, and rolling out the child house model across England to improve support for victims and survivors, with £50 million additional funding. Where we have been able to move quickly, we have. However, many of the recommendations require systemic and legislative change. We are moving as quickly as due process allows, and we have recently introduced a tranche of measures in the Crime and Policing Act. Where we are not currently taking forward recommendations, we have been clear about the reasons for that.

The hon. Member also made the case for including Bradford and Keighley in the independent inquiry. It is not for me to decide that, as set out at length to him by the chair of the inquiry on 19 May at the Home Affairs Committee. The inquiry will shortly set out its plans.

On the funding of the inquiry, the chair has been clear that they are determined to deliver on time and budget, and that the inquiry believes that is achievable.

[Robbie Moore]

Will the Minister answer two questions? If the Government were confident enough to announce Oldham more than 18 months ago, why are they not confident enough to announce that Bradford and Keighley will be part of the national grooming gangs inquiry? On the £65 million cost, are the Government challenging the independent chair of the inquiry, Baroness Longfield? Last week she stated to me, in front of the Home Affairs Committee, that she felt that £65 million was about right, yet she has not announced which local areas, or how many local areas, the inquiry will look at.

[Natalie Fleet]

It is absolutely right that it is an independent inquiry, and it is not for me to decide where the local investigations will be. The hon. Member will find out shortly whether his area will be included.

Before wrapping up, I will make some further general points. First, I reiterate that we are working closely with police forces to strengthen how suspect ethnicity data is collected, to identify gaps and to drive improvement so that our evidence base is clearer, more consistent and better supports action. We are strengthening how safeguarding agencies and key institutions work together to identify, disrupt and prosecute group-based child sexual exploitation. That includes bringing together police, local authorities, children’s services, schools and health partners to share intelligence, spot patterns and act faster. We are also reinforcing our expectation that all agencies play their full part so that the national police response and the statutory inquiry draw on the fullest possible evidence and are supported by a co-ordinated, intelligence-led system that leaves no gaps for offenders to exploit.

Regarding the questions raised by the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), we have committed to legislate through the police reform Bill. Measures for tracking and enforcement will be introduced as part of that process.

On rape gang inquiries, I again want to pay tribute to victims and survivors who have shared their experiences. I recognise how difficult and how personal that is. Their courage in speaking out is absolutely extraordinary and these issues cannot and will not be ignored. The independent inquiry into grooming gangs is an official statutory inquiry established under the Inquiries Act 2005.

The inquiry has a clear mandate to uncover the truth and to deliver justice for victims and survivors. I want to be clear that if the rape gang inquiry encounters any evidence of criminal conduct as part of its work, that evidence should be passed on to law enforcement. I welcome the previous commitment of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth to work constructively with the statutory inquiry.

I again thank the petitioners and all hon. Members who have taken part in this debate. There is no doubt that this is an important subject. It is right that we expose it to the full scrutiny of Parliament. Like my predecessor as Minister, I will not shy away from having tough conversations. We have had them in this debate, and we will no doubt have more. I welcome them all. I have always been guided by an unshakeable belief that the protection of the most vulnerable in our society, especially of children, is one of the state’s most vital responsibilities. Where that duty has not been upheld, the consequences are devastating. This Government are taking action to ensure that the failings of the past are never repeated.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

There are no planned mergers. An independent review is being carried out by Lord Hogan-Howe. That review will advise the Government on the right number of regional forces to have. This is part of our plan to change policing so that we have a national police service, regional forces and local police areas that are able to police their local communities. Those are the proposals that have been announced. When Lord Hogan-Howe’s review reports, I am sure we will be able to debate what he proposes for regional forces, but I can reassure the hon. Member that local police areas will be a key part of the reforms as they are rolled out and will deal with exactly the problems that he has raised.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

7. What steps she is taking to help tackle shop theft.

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

We are giving the police the powers they need to bear down on shop theft, including making it a specific offence to assault retail workers and ending the effective immunity for shop thefts under £200. We are also fighting the organised gangs who often drive these crimes. Our £5 million investment in a specialist intelligence-led policing cell is bringing more criminals to justice.

[Robbie Moore]

Colin Appleyard Motorcycles in Keighley was recently the victim of a ram raid, which involved a vehicle being used to smash the entrance before a gang of seven individuals entered the business and stole nine off-road bikes worth approximately £80,000. Will the Minister tell me what the Government are doing to work with local police forces such as West Yorkshire police to identify and shut down these Mafia-style criminal gangs that are causing significant harm, distress and suffering for local businesses across Keighley and our wider area?

[Sarah Jones]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are completely focused on fighting crime. In West Yorkshire—his area—100 additional officers will be in place by the end of March, which will help us with our drive to tackle crime. As I said, our £5 million investment in the specialist intelligence-led policing unit will help us join the dots and bear down on the serious organised criminals who often drive much of this crime.

Firearms Licensing

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ben Goldsborough]

That was excellently put by my hon. Friend. All of us who had the pleasure of spending time with Christopher send our heartfelt condolences to his family, because he was, as my hon. Friend rightly says, a gent.

We also need to ensure that we respond to the risk, protect the vulnerable and ensure that our laws reflect the reality of the world that we live in today, not the world as it was 60 years ago.

Let me begin by setting out clearly where we are. In the United Kingdom, there are about half a million gun owners—they are roughly 1% of the population—and about 90% use their firearms for leisure, for sport or for legitimate countryside management. The overwhelming majority of owners are responsible. The National Crime Agency has said that firearms certificate holders are highly unlikely to be involved in serious and organised crime. That important fact deserves to be stated clearly in this House.

The shooting sector is also economically significant. It contributes £3.3 billion a year in gross value added to the UK economy, generates £9.3 billion in wider economic activity and supports an estimated 67,000 full-time equivalent jobs. Those jobs are not abstract; they are jobs in rural pubs, hotels, small family-run retailers, manufacturing, tourism, land management and pest control. They are jobs that sustain rural communities and working people across our country. In my constituency of South Norfolk and those of many across the House, the leisure sector is not a lifestyle choice, but the backbone of the local economy. We must always be mindful that decisions taken in Westminster have real-world consequences in such communities.

At the same time, our legislative framework is undeniably outdated. Much of it dates back to the 1960s and, while amendments made since then, in particular after tragedies such as Dunblane, have strengthened safety, the overall framework has evolved in a piecemeal way. Such reforms, including the ban on handguns, were necessary and proportionate responses to unimaginable horror. They reflected the will of the public and the duty of Parliament to act in the interests of safety. I do not believe that anyone serious about public safety would suggest reversing those protections, but it is equally true that legislation cannot stand still, because the world does not.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

The hon. Member is making some important points, but did he note that the Law Commission, in its 2015 report on firearms, did not recommend moving section 2 licences into the section 1 system? He references the points made to do with previous incidents, but the Law Commission was very clear in its 2015 recommendations to the Government of the time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for introducing this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. More than 121,000 people have signed the petition, and I believe it has been signed more quickly than any petition the Committee has received for a long period of time.

I think we will all agree that this has been a very worthy debate. I have engaged my constituents in Keighley and Ilkley on this important issue: most recently, BASC kindly invited me to speak at an event at Ilkley rugby club. Many farmers, land managers, pest controllers and those participating in game shoots and clay pigeon shoots turned up to express their concern about the Government’s aspiration to merge section 1 and section 2 licences under the Firearms Act 1968.

It is widely recognised that firearms licensing is effective at protecting public safety, and there is no evidence that moving section 2 to section 1 will improve that protection. I think it is right to look at the data, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) rightly went into. Of course, any death is horrendous, but we know from Home Office data that homicides committed with legally held firearms have averaged about 3.8 deaths per year for the past decade—or, to put that in context, around one for every 15 million of the UK population. Meanwhile, an average of 280 people die each year from knives, and 32 people died in 2023 alone from handling fireworks.

I raise those points because it is important to understand that, despite the coroner’s report into the deaths in Plymouth and the level of reasoning he came out with, he did not conclude by recommending the merging of sections 2 and 1. Therefore, I ask the Minister why this consultation is even being brought before the public and why the Government want to pursue this narrative, despite the data held by the Home Office and despite this proposal not being a recommendation of the coroner.

I raise the point about fireworks because, as a member of the Petitions Committee, I know that we have had two petition debates about them in this Chamber in the last 12 months alone, which were attended by many Members of Parliament. It has been an ongoing request that Governments of the day bring out tougher regulations on fireworks, yet nothing has been forthcoming from this Government. However, here we are in another petition debate, on a consultation that has not been requested by the wider community or by those who hold firearms, and that consultation is forthcoming.

We all know that, despite the regular tightening of controls on firearms since the 1968 Act, there has been no correlation between the rate of deaths from firearms and increased controls. I therefore advocate, as the coroner did in the Plymouth deaths, that we focus on all the other aspirations that have been rightly expressed, around tightening the existing control mechanisms, rather than on merging sections 2 and 1. I also note, as I indicated in an intervention earlier, that the Law Commission’s 2015 report on firearms law did not recommend moving section 2 into section 1. Therefore, I again ask the Minister why this consultation is coming forward.

It is important to look at the inefficiency we are experiencing across the country in the way that firearms licensing departments are working. There are 43 licensing authorities, and the vast majority are operating inefficiently. A quarter are taking more than a year to process grant applications, and some are taking well over three years. Many of those who want to renew their applications or make them in the first place are suffering delay. Processing applications under section 1 for rifles involves more checks and more costs, so this proposal will inevitably place a greater burden on those 43 authorities. Why, therefore, are we going forward with it despite it not being requested?

I also want to look at the impact on the wider shooting community. Shooting alone is worth £3.3 billion to the UK economy. It generates £9.3 billion in wider economic activity and supports 67,000 jobs. Those jobs are not limited to licence holders: there is also the farming community; those carrying out pest control; gun shops; shooting grounds, instructors and coaches; ammunition, firearms and accessory manufacturers; country clothing; pubs, hotels and the hospitality sector; farms and estates; game dealers and processors; vets; feed merchants; agricultural services; and event staff. All of those will be negatively impacted if the Government pursue their agenda. Therefore, I urge them not to pursue this narrative.

In my view, this issue is actually about politics. Under this Government, firearms licensing costs have increased by 138%. We have seen the Government ignore the scientific information put to them about how our moorland is controlled, and ban the controlled burning of heather. We have seen them attack other country pursuits, and we have seen the family farm tax and other negative impacts on our wider farming community. I therefore think the Government are actually pursuing our rural economy in a negative way.

To conclude, I ask the Government why we are in this scenario. I have mentioned the data and the fact that we have had request after request to bring out tougher regulation on fireworks, yet we see nothing from the Government. Meanwhile, we are in a scenario where the courts, the Law Commission and coroners have specifically not put forward this recommendation, yet we are debating it in the House and a consultation is forthcoming. I would like to understand from the Minister why we are even having this conversation about the consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I will come to that. In short, I do not think that we should look at one thing at the expense of another at the same time. We are capable of tackling several things in several different ways, but I will come to that later.

A basic principle that we can all agree on is the need to avoid unintended consequences, in whatever we may or may not do. I have heard that loud and clear. I have had multiple conversations with MPs, colleagues and organisations on that front already. I should acknowledge Christopher Graffius, who has very sadly died after a long illness. I met him both in opposition and in government recently, and he was still working very hard. He made a tremendous contribution not only in his role in BASC, but in supporting the all-party parliamentary group on shooting and conservation. He was very forthright in his views, as probably all hon. Members in the Chamber might have experienced, but he always argued clearly and strongly in the interests of the community that he represented. My condolences go to his family, friends and colleagues at this difficult time.

There is one issue on which I diverge from others in how I look at this issue. Some Members said that they could not see the problem that we are trying to fix. Christopher used to give statistics to me about more people drowning in a bath than dying from a licensed shotgun. I understand that argument, up to a point, but there is something powerful about the gravity of granting a licence. As the state, we hold the power to allow somebody to hold a weapon. That is different from spending money to avoid accidents. We should understand the burden on the state of granting a licence.

Although cases where people have been killed are small in number, they are uniquely horrific for their impact on the immediate family and community, and on the country. I think all of us in the Chamber are old enough to remember Dunblane; we are headed for its 30th anniversary. It was an enormously difficult time not just for that community, but for the whole country. There is something slightly different about the giving of a licence and how we think about that, which we need to consider. I approach that as something that gives me a sense of responsibility.

Let me say that we are looking at doing things in due course. I know that the “in due course” answer is not always satisfactory for the Opposition, but that is the answer. We are not minded to do one thing or another; we are conducting the consultation and listening to the evidence and the debate. There are a range of different things we could do: from doing nothing to completely merging sections 1 and 2, and a whole raft of interventions in between.

Some Members asked me to confirm that we would take into account the voices that we have heard expressed today, which included those in the rural community and the urban community—a point was made about the number of licences granted in London—and of course we will. I understand the points about unintended consequences and needing a balanced system. The point of the consultation is to try to understand those issues.

Members also said, “Don’t do this; do that.” I sort of understand that, but surely we can do more than one thing at a time. Lots of people pointed to something that we are already beginning to think about: calls for centralised licensing. Members will know that we published the White Paper on police reform recently and we are setting up a national police service. That is an opportunity to look at whether we should have a national licensing system. I think there would need to be some local element at all times, because visits to the home, for example, are made by local police and we would need to retain that, but there is an interesting conversation to be had as we go through the reform process and the opportunity of setting up a national police service: “Actually, is now the time to have a centralised licensing system?” That is something that I am happy to look at and have already had conversations about.

Points were made about the licensing system, including about how slow it can be and how different it is in the 43 forces. Again, the police reform programme is looking to reduce the number of forces, and if we had a national police service, that could help us with standardising training. The College of Policing has introduced a new system of training, and I am going to go and have some of that training next week so that I can understand what it is and how good it is. As the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) said, there is new training in place.

There is huge inconsistency, and we need to make improvements across the country to the speed with which licences are granted. His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services is conducting a thematic review at the moment, and it has highlighted so far—

[Robbie Moore]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Jones]

Yes.

[Robbie Moore]

I am interested to understand why this consultation is before the public. It goes against the grain of the Law Commission’s 2015 report and the coroner’s report, which contained no such recommendation. Would the Minister also mind answering my question on fireworks? Fireworks are licensed, too, so why are the Government not willing to explore tougher fireworks regulation, given that in 2023 there were 35 deaths associated with firework usage?

[Sarah Jones]

As the hon. Member will know, the Department for Business and Trade has the lead on fireworks. I have had a conversation with a colleague in the last couple of weeks about that exact point, but that speaks to the point I was making that we can do lots of things at different times. His question is a bit of what-aboutery, but the point about taking seriously the issues with fireworks, and the regime around them, is valid and of course I will take it away.

The hon. Member asked why we are consulting, which is a fair question. We feel a sense of responsibility to make sure that the system works as well as it could and should. I think that everybody would agree that if it needs to change, we need to change it.

A point was made about the Keyham shootings, and the senior coroner’s prevention of future deaths report. He concluded that a shotgun is no less lethal a weapon than a firearm if misused. The Independent Office for Police Conduct recommended, following its independent investigation, that the two should be aligned, and that legislation and necessarily related national guidance should be

“amended to remove any distinction between the processes and requirements in relation to shotgun and firearms certificate holders.”

Other reports have recommended the same, including one by the Scottish Affairs Committee—it was pointed out during the debate that, for obvious reasons, a lot of licences are granted in Scotland. We are looking at this, but that is not to say that we have made a decision. We are open-minded about what would be the right course.

So, on training, yes; on centralising, potentially—we are looking at that; and on improving the licensing system, definitely. The police have recently started producing monthly data on the time it takes for people to get their licence, which is a good way of ensuring that they are operating as they should.

Violence against Women and Girls Strategy

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

Absolutely, I can confirm that. I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and the others she has mentioned to discuss what exactly goes into the guidance. We always have to ensure not just that we write nice words on goatskin in this building, but that we make them workable in the real world. I am keen that everything in the strategy does that.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I absolutely welcome the strategy published today, and I share the Minister’s ambitions on early intervention. However, in constituencies such as mine, one of the state’s greatest failures has been the historical failure to openly and honestly confront perverse cultural attitudes behind violence and abuse against women and girls. I think of the women in my constituency specifically targeted because they were working-class, white girls. I think of the many women I have met who have poor English and little education, and who do not know about their rights or how to access support. I also think of those many women I have met in my constituency who are too scared to raise those concerns. The Minister rightly speaks of challenging misogynistic attitudes within schools, but can she assure me that the strategy will not stop at the school gate and that the Government will challenge any institution, religious or otherwise, that continues to reinforce harmful attitudes towards women and girls and puts their safety at risk?

[Jess Phillips]

I absolutely can confirm that. The strategy is not only about challenging institutions, whether that is children’s services, police forces or the court system; we have tried to look at wherever a person might come forward or has previously been failed, and look at ways we can seek to improve that. We cannot undermine, frankly, millennia of patriarchy overnight—if only; I’d do it if I had a magic wand—but I don’t care what it says above the door of your establishment: if you are not working with us, you are working against us.

Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is right about the need for victims and survivors to be at the heart of the process; that is clear from the draft terms of reference. To begin with, the chair and the panel alongside Baroness Casey will meet the current victims and survivors panel, who have been involved in getting the inquiry set up and running. They will then create the charter, which will set the framework by which the inquiry will ensure that victims and survivors are at the heart of the inquiry, to give those victims and survivors the confidence and trust in the process that they rightly ask for and need. I am sure that the chair will be strong in putting that across.

I used to be the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, so I know the issues of delays in the criminal justice system across the board well. We are working closely with our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the old adage “justice delayed is justice denied” does not come true for these victims.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I have an urgent plea for the Home Secretary and the new chair, Baroness Longfield, who I know will be watching. They will both know that, shockingly, Keighley and the wider Bradford district have never had a full independent inquiry despite Ann Cryer raising the alarm more than 20 years ago. I, leading child abuse solicitor David Greenwood and local survivor Fiona Goddard supported by more than 5,000 local residents have written to the incoming chair urging her to immediately launch a targeted inquiry across Keighley and the wider Bradford district. Will the Home Secretary ensure that Baroness Longfield sees our letter, understands the overwhelming public will across Keighley on this issue and meets Fiona, David and me at the earliest opportunity so that we can ensure that Bradford district is at the heart of the national inquiry?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Member has made a strong and powerful case for the inclusion of Bradford and Keighley in the inquiry as one of the areas for a local investigation. I hope he will understand why I will not make commitments on behalf of Baroness Longfield, but I know that she will see the debate and hear all these representations. She and the panel members will very soon set out the criteria by which they will make decisions about where they will go for local investigations. I know that she and the panel members will want to engage with Members of the House. I hope that the hon. Member will take reassurance from that. I know that he is a doughty campaigner for his local area, and I am sure that those representations will be heard.

Rape Gangs: National Statutory Inquiry

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

I thank my hon. Friend. I think she mischaracterises me as the fiercest of advocates because she, as a grooming victim, with a child born of rape, is the fiercest and bravest. I could cry, I feel so proud that the Government sought to get her elected. I have been campaigning for the thing she has fought for with grooming gang victims for nearly a decade. I met with Ministers of the then Government and nothing was done. [Interruption.] The exact thing that she has campaigned for was asked for repeatedly and nothing was done. I am incredibly proud of her, as it is because of her and this Government that today I can say that that will change.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I have a copy of the Government’s response to the developments last night addressed to the Home Affairs Committee, and I find the response completely unacceptable. Are the Government seriously implying that Fiona and Ellie, who have been disbelieved and called liars by the British state their entire lives, are spreading “misinformation” about a process they have been directly involved in? That would be a deeply damaging thing for any Government to imply.

Worse, there is a line in the letter about the Government’s proposed inquiry in Oldham that says that the Government

“have been in discussions with Oldham Council about the right approach for Oldham”.

How can that possibly be right? How can the Home Office discuss the right approach with the very local authorities being investigated? It would be like the Post Office inquiry sitting down with the Post Office to negotiate how it should be investigated. Will the Minister explain how the Government will restore trust right now in the process, given the contents of the letter that she sent to the Home Affairs Committee last night?

[Jess Phillips]

Can I be completely clear? I am suggesting that I will listen completely and utterly to the feedback from the victims who were on the panel and those who still are. They are not spreading misinformation at all, but the hon. Member’s interpretation is a brilliant case in point.

I will be completely honest. The conversation with Oldham is: do we not think it might be better for Oldham just to take part in a statutory inquiry? It has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that Oldham is telling me what to do. The more people on the Conservative Benches—[Interruption.] Oh, the hon. Member can hold up his letter and have a smug face all he likes, but the fact of the matter is that there is no council in this country that will tell the inquiry where it can and cannot go. I have said that 1 million times from the Dispatch Box, yet the same thing gets peddled again and again.

Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

I praise my hon. Friend for her long-term commitment in this space. The Government have given a number of updates on IICSA. I expect to come back to this House soon—one way or another—with further updates on progress in that area. Much of the progress we are seeking to make is through Bills that are currently passing through Parliament and are over in the other place, but my hon. Friend makes the very important point that we must not undermine the two-year piece of work that has already been done by Professor Jay. We will make sure that all those findings and recommendations, which Casey included as well, and any intelligence that is sent to us feeds into the new national independent inquiry.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

Over the summer, Lord Cryer said that there was a deliberate attempt to silence his mother, Ann Cryer, when she first bravely raised the issue of grooming gangs in Keighley more than 20 years ago. Ann Cryer was, of course, one of my predecessors as Member of Parliament for Keighley.

Lord Cryer said that he was

“absolutely certain there has been a cover up on a local level”,

and that Bradford needs to be examined as part of the inquiry. Unfortunately, Bradford council and others in this House are still saying that they will only support a focus on Bradford if that is deemed necessary by the inquiry chair. That is not the same thing as saying that they will actively lobby for that outcome, so does the Minister share my concern that Bradford council’s reluctance for an inquiry to take place in our area has not changed, despite the voices of so many victims and others demanding one?

Child Sexual Exploitation: Casey Report

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right: what we need is change and action, and recommendations from inquiries need to be implemented. Part of the strength of the Telford inquiry lay in the fact that victims and survivors were at its very heart, and there were also serious plans to ensure, and ways of ensuring, that the recommendations were implemented. That is crucial. It is no good having inquiries if recommendations just sit on the shelf; we must ensure that they are implemented, as well as pursuing answers.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

The fact that victims and survivors of this horrific crime literally had to become campaigners themselves to reach this outcome should make everyone in the House stop and think. When I last met the Safeguarding Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), along with the leading child abuse lawyer David Greenwood, we pointed out the fundamental flaw in her Government’s grooming gangs strategy: namely, the completely ridiculous decision to give council leaders in areas such as Keighley and Bradford the option to simply say no to an inquiry. Now that we have an inquiry equipped with statutory powers, may I ask the Home Secretary what message she has for local leaders in my region who think that they can still get away with saying no, and what message she has for victims such as Fiona Goddard, who is also from my area and who will no doubt be worrying, like me, that there will still be no focus on Keighley and the wider Bradford district?

[Yvette Cooper]

I know that the hon. Member has met the Safeguarding Minister. She has spoken again to Fiona Goddard this morning to ensure that the voices of victims, survivors and campaigners are at the heart of the inquiry. He will know that the Safeguarding Minister said to him in their meeting that she would not allow local councils to be able to turn their backs and say no to investigations where they are needed. That is why we have accepted Baroness Casey’s recommendation to have a national inquiry that will underpin those local investigations. Obviously, the final decisions will be matters for the independent chair of the commission, but we will ensure that the hon. Member’s concerns and those of victims are passed on the national inquiry.

Child Rape Gangs

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

As my hon. Friend points out, I have spoken to and worked with victims of crime for many years. What they want, fundamentally, is for the things that happened to them not to happen to children today. That is the change they wish to see more than anything—more than they want any sort of justice. Ensuring that the new authority does that, and that it is not just words on paper, will therefore be absolutely vital and will deliver that fundamental victims’ need. When we consult experts on the child protection authority, we will ensure that organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which has panels of specialist victims groups to assist its work, will be part of that.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

In February, a brave group of victims and a leading child abuse lawyer wrote to the Home Secretary warning her that the rape gangs scandal across the Bradford district is likely to be one of the most significant of its kind in the UK, and that leaders in Bradford are deliberately seeking to avoid the commissioning of an in-depth inquiry for fear of unearthing a significant problem. The letter, which still sits with the Home Secretary, outlines the dreadful deadlock that we are in across the Bradford district, where there is overwhelming victim-led support for a full inquiry, but a council unwilling to commission one. Does the Minister believe that victims and families across Keighley and the wider Bradford district deserve a full rape gangs inquiry, and if not, why not? If she believes they do deserve an inquiry, what powers will she use to overrule Bradford council if it continues to ignore victims’ wishes?

[Jess Phillips]

Once again, I praise the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue over a number of years; others have come to it more recently. We have a meeting in our diary, so I will make him an offer: I would very much like to meet the victims he is talking about. I will gladly sit down with them. I want the hon. Gentleman to know that he has my guarantee that, if in the work Baroness Casey is doing around problem profiling and police forces across the country local authorities are found to have problems, I will pursue them.