Fast-Track Visas: Skilled US Citizens

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine]

I completely agree. We need a system that allows people to come here—not just from the United States, but more generally. People in the United States have the skills we need in the industries that so much of our economy will be dependent on: artificial intelligence, cancer research, pharmacology, science and the growing space sector. In Edinburgh, we are working hard to create that sort of environment, so I completely agree.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

A constituent has written to me in very similar terms about coming to the UK from the USA to “flee Trump”, as he puts it. He did not come here to steal jobs; he came to create them. He came here to start a business, at great sacrifice and financial cost to himself, but he feels betrayed by the changes in the indefinite leave to remain arrangements. When we are thinking about attracting people and their skills, we have to think about how those people are supported. Does the hon. Member agree that when people come here under an agreement, we must uphold our side of it?

[Christine Jardine]

I completely agree. There is a danger to our international reputation, as well as our economy, if we become somewhere people cannot trust that. If they make the life-changing decision to come here, invest in our country, work for our economy, and contribute through tax and national insurance, we should not turn around decades later and say, “Sorry, we have changed our minds.” That is vitally important.

Some of the people who wrote to me told me of their visceral fears, and their worries for their children or for the LGBT community they are part of or work with. Some are terrified they will lose their jobs in the swingeing cuts of the Trump Administration. There are so many real-life stories from people in the United States.

But there are also the people in this country. We can only be the best representatives we can be if we listen, and I want to highlight something I was told by someone who wrote to me in this country. Speaking of their trans partner, they said:

“I have to say, I’m glad someone is speaking up about this. I see the genuine fear and anxiety he has about being sent back to the States. He told me recently that he has his suicide plan all ready and goodbye letters to family already written, as he’s ‘never going back’.”

It terrifies me that people should be so afraid of going back to the world’s largest democracy because of what it has become. That person went on to say:

“Thank you for maybe finding a solution that saves US LBGTQI+ lives in our current political upheaval. They and any non-white male here are in terrible danger.”

That came from someone from the United States. People have told me that they fear for their family’s safety and for their children.

We have to look at why this is happening, and how we can help people who are living in fear. The idea of fast-track visas was born of two issues. The first was the election of a President who does not represent my values or the values of so many in this place, and the consequences of that election for his own people. We have all seen the news and seen the unnecessary loss. For so many in the US, it is no longer the land of the free. According to official figures, there were more than 1,000 anti-LGBTQ incidents across 47 states and Washington DC in the past year—a 5% increase from the 984 incidents in 2024. Over half of those targeted transgender and non-conforming people specifically.

The second point was our skills shortage, and the way this Government are getting immigration under control: it will be much more difficult for people to come and stay here, to make their lives here and to feel confident, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) mentioned. They want to contribute to our economy, our public services and so many important sectors: space, education, oncology and science. So I thought, “Here’s an opportunity.” Those who know me would say that I am a solutions person, and I saw an opportunity. It is about not just saying there is a problem, but actually coming up with an idea that is beneficial to those people and to us—to both sides of the pond.

For me, it is also about creating a positive case for immigration; it is about looking up and out, and saying that for our country to be successful, we might need to encourage people to travel here from beyond our shores. That is not because I am doing this country down, but because I believe in our future and I know that that is the reality of the current situation. We are better when we work together and learn from our different experiences.

Why not offer sanctuary to those who want to flee, if they can make our country a better, more prosperous place for our people in the process? As I said, I am a solutions person. For many, the American dream is now a nightmare, but we could turn that around and offer them a fresh dream.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for securing the debate, and I am grateful for her contribution and the others we have heard.

When it comes to detailed examination of foreign policy and the United Kingdom’s relationship with the United States of America, colleagues will appreciate that such issues lie outside my remit as a Home Office Minister. However, I reiterate that the UK and US are close allies and partners; the UK-US relationship has been the cornerstone of our security and prosperity for over a century, and we will never turn away from it.

Let me begin by addressing the hon. Member’s proposals. We are not considering a fast-track visa for skilled US citizens, and I do not believe we need one. Our immigration system already offers a broad range of routes to target talented individuals who want to come and work or study in the UK. Alongside that, our increasingly digitised border—with priority fees for quick visa transactions—means that people can come to the UK quickly and easily.

I will talk now about visas and processing in general, and then move on to routes that attract global talent and skilled workers. On visa processing, the UK immigration system already provides a rich offering for people coming to the UK to work and study, with fast-track visa options for those who need them. UK Visas and Immigration is responsible for making millions of decisions each year about who has the right to visit or stay in our country.

The visa service is underpinned by an uncompromising focus on national security, but also a commitment to provide applicants with the best possible service. All applicants can and should expect UKVI to offer a simple online visa application process. A biometric appointment is usually available within five working days in one of our overseas network of more than 250 visa application centres, which cover more than 140 countries. Decisions are made within 15 working days of someone attending the VAC, and come with an online record of immigration status that is secure and that can be easily accessed, checked and shared with employers, landlords and carriers.

The UK service is competitive in terms of the speed at which the whole process can be completed. Those choosing to pay for our priority or super-priority services—which have recently been expanded across most of our routes—get decisions within five working days or the next working day respectively. In practice, if the super-priority service is chosen, a skilled worker visa application could be made on a Monday, and the applicant could attend the VAC on the Tuesday and have the decision by the close of business on the Wednesday. That is our fast-track service, and we stand out from our competitors on this.

Since January 2025 US nationals looking to visit the UK for up to six months on business can apply for an electronic travel authorisation. The quick application process using the ETA app offers fast decisions—usually on the same day—and lasts for two years, allowing for flexibility of regular travel and smooth border crossings.

The issue of attracting talent was raised. As set out in our immigration White Paper and modern industrial strategy, both of which were published last year, the Government are focused on attracting talented individuals to the UK to work and study. From business leaders and entrepreneurs to top-end researchers, our commitment is clear: we want to bring those with expertise, ambition and creativity to the UK, where they will find a unique environment to thrive and innovate and can help our economy grow further.

[Dr Arthur]

Earlier I gave an example of an entrepreneur who came to the UK from the USA. He spent a lot of money coming here, and he feels he has spent an important part of his life in the UK—when he could have spent it elsewhere in the world—but he feels betrayed now, because of the review of the ILR arrangements for him and others. Does the Minister accept that that will make people more reluctant to come to the UK? I am talking about entrepreneurs and people whom we actually need to come here and support our economy.

[Mike Tapp]

I thank my hon. Friend for his point. I cannot comment on the individual case, because I am not aware of that. The ILR changes that we are making are broad. We had a long debate on that the other day, but it is not there in any way to dissuade talent. Actually, post consultation, we are highly likely to see discounts for talent, to ensure that those people can settle in the UK faster; they are earning that through integration and contribution. That will be laid out in due course, following the closure of the consultation on 12 February.

In a volatile world, Britain stands out, as this Government make the UK the premier destination for business and top international talent. We have all the ingredients for exceptional talent to thrive. We recognise that the immigration system, which prioritises the skills that this country needs rather than nationality, has an important part to play in that, helping to ensure that we remain competitive in the global recruitment market. That is why we have established routes that focus on attracting those with the skills and talent to support the growth of our economy.

I will move on to the global talent system. Our global talent route for leaders and potential leaders in the fields of science and research, digital technology and the arts is the most flexible offer to the world’s top talent, including many from the US. Published research shows that this visa influenced four in five global talent visa holders to apply to live and work in the UK. Our high potential individual route gives recent graduates of the world’s top universities the opportunity to build their careers in the UK without the need for a prior job offer. More than 40% of universities whose graduates are eligible for that route are based in the US. It means that employers have access to the most highly sought-after international graduates, as well as to the pipeline of top talent from our own universities.

A world-class visa system is essential to attracting and retaining the best international talent. Our system is just that, but we are committed to going further and have already introduced pro-talent reforms. That includes expanding eligibility for the high potential individual visa to the top 100 global universities; enabling international students to transition seamlessly from study to entrepreneurship on the innovator founder visa; simplified access for top science talent; and a broadened list of eligible prizes for the global talent visa.

Town and City Centre Safety

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

In October last year, I ran a community meeting in partnership with Catriona Munro, who is Labour’s candidate for Holyrood in the Edinburgh South Western constituency. One of the key things that was brought up was the activity of food delivery companies. At the heart of this activity is what some would call a precarious business model, based on precarious work, which essentially exploits these workers and encourages them to drive illegal e-bikes in quite a reckless manner. In November last year, outside my constituency office, the police managed to impound 13 of these e-bikes. Just imagine what they could do if they were fully funded.

[Lola McEvoy]

My hon. Friend is eloquently making a point about the funding given to the police to eradicate e-bike crime. Does he agree that we would be in a better position if we had more bobbies on bikes? Perhaps the Minister will talk about that in her speech.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. We do not have very much longer. I want to get other Members in, and the Minister and the Opposition spokespeople need the opportunity to speak. I am not telling the hon. Gentleman not to take interventions, but I will end up cutting somebody out of the debate if he does.

[Dr Arthur]

Thank you, Mr Dowd. I appreciate that guidance.

We absolutely need more police, but unfortunately their budget was cut in Scotland last year, which has made their job even harder. I recently wrote to Deliveroo, Uber Eats and Just Eat. They track their riders’ every move, and they say that despite knowing where they are all the time, they cannot use their apps to track their speeds and whether they are riding recklessly unless I know the order number for the thing that is being delivered. I find that absolutely incredible. I have, however, been offered a place on the Deliveroo rider training course—it will be interesting to see what that comprises. It is really disappointing that the companies are not taking more ownership of the problem.

I approached the Minister for road safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), and she confirmed that the Government will launch a national work-related road safety charter. I really hope the food delivery companies engage with it constructively, but I have my doubts that it will change matters on the ground. Recklessness and exploitation of their workers is fundamental to those companies’ business model, and we need to address that. I hope the Government will legislate if the companies do not step up.

It was said earlier that the Government must take seriously their powers to manage the import and sale of these illegal bikes, and I agree. I find it absolutely incredible that people can buy them given that, in most of our constituencies, there is nowhere that they can ride them. I hope the Minister will address that point too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Dowd. I also thank the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for calling this important debate. No one can live freely live under the fear of crime. Across London and in boroughs such as mine in Sutton, that freedom begins and ends with residents feeling safe to use their town centres and high streets. It is where people come together and shop, and in this day and age, it is one of the last truly public spaces left.

When our constituents cannot see police on their high streets, they do not feel protected and are left feeling powerless. Their sense of security slips and changes how they live their daily lives. High street footfall drops, shops close earlier, parents worry, and women are forced to plan their routes home with keys clenched in their fists. Londoners should feel safe in their everyday routines without being threatened by an illegal e-bike tearing across the pavement, the fear of their phone being snatched from their hand, or being forced to put up with antisocial, disrespectful behaviour.

Let me be clear: no matter what certain right-wing politicians say—fortunately, they are absent today—London is largely a safe city. Figures for serious crime in the capital are falling, which should be celebrated. The murder rate is at the lowest level in London since 2014 and violent crime in the city is down by 12% compared with 2024, though up by around 30% in 10 years.

Improving figures for the most serious crimes contrasts with an increase in more visible crimes such as shoplifting, up 19% in London this year. The same is tragically true for sexual assaults, which are up by more than 10,000 in a decade, from 16,100 in 2016 to 26,800 in 2025. All crime reporting in London is up from 87.1 per thousand in 2016 to 106.4 in 2025, all under Mayor Khan’s watch and Government funding deals decided by Conservative Ministers.

Those are sobering reminders that crimes that make life miserable—or, in the case of sexual assault, terrifying—are up despite the positive headlines. The lived experience of my constituents tells a far more uncomfortable story than the picture that the mayor and the Government want to paint. It is particularly heartbreaking for women and girls, who have faced under-reported violence on our streets for decades and had hoped that, as society finally begins to shine a spotlight on gendered violence, visible and proactive policing would finally rise to meet the challenge. Instead, they have to bear witness to the erosions of such policing.

Between 2015 and 2025, the number of Metropolitan police officers stayed almost static at around 32,000 full- time equivalents. As our cities become more complex, new crimes and dangers have developed and the population has grown by more than 500,000 people, the Metropolitan police has not. Just last year, under Sadiq Khan’s leadership and a Labour Government, the Metropolitan police lost more than 1,400 officers and staff—a cut of over 4%.

I expect the Minister will talk about decisions made by some of my predecessors up to 16 years ago as a reason for Labour’s failure properly to fund the Met this year, but the responsibility sits squarely on the shoulders of a Labour Government and a Labour mayor. For Londoners, those cuts are a kick in the teeth. Police officers should not seem a novelty. They should be spotted on the street and not thought unusual.

[Dr Arthur]

Does the hon. Member agree that if we are serious about making London safer—as we all want it to be; we all spend a lot of time here—supporting the use of facial recognition to identify known criminals would make a difference? His party opposes that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing this important debate.

Town and city centres are the lifeblood of our local communities. They are crucial for people, local businesses and our economy, yet under this Labour Government it increasingly feels as though our town and city centres are being not supported but attacked—attacked by a jobs tax that raises the cost of employing people, by surging business rates that punish employers and enterprise, and by relentless pressure on pubs and small businesses, the very places that make our high streets sociable, welcoming and safe. The result is plain to see: businesses are closing. And when businesses are closing, confidence drains away.

Thriving town centres are not just about economics; they are about safety. Communities with busy, successful high streets are more likely to report crime, look out for one another and defend what they value. That brings me—

[Dr Arthur]

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

You will not be surprised to hear that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Lewell. I start by thanking the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), who introduced this debate, the hundreds of my constituents who either emailed me or took part in my survey, and, above all else, the 350,000 immigrants who work in our NHS. I refer Members to my registered interest.

I am speaking today because I am concerned that these proposals will damage our ability as a country to attract and retain talent. I think that we can all agree that the UK must continue to attract and retain world-class talent in every sector of our economy. Although it is vital to support our British-born doctors and nurses into good jobs, we must also be aware of the reliance our health and social care system has on those from overseas. In 2015, I experienced that at first hand, when a doctor born overseas saved my life. His nationality was the last thing on my mind, but I do have to admit that I asked what his success rate was.

Through my work on my Rare Cancers Bill, I have also seen how vital the contributions of immigrant doctors, nurses and researchers are to cancer care in the UK. I met representatives of Cancer Research UK today, and they say that they spend just under £900,000 a year on visa costs. Would it not be fantastic if, on Wednesday—World Cancer Day—the Home Office waived those costs?

In my past life at Heriot-Watt University, I was lucky to work alongside fantastic academics from around the world, each of them contributing to research and teaching that enriched the academic experience of students at the university. In May, an old colleague wrote to me with concerns about the changes. He moved with his family to Edinburgh in 2006 to take up a lectureship at Heriot-Watt University. Since coming to the UK, he has graduated over 100 MSc students and 35 PhD students, sharing his experience with others who will go on to benefit our country. His wife also works on infrastructure projects for the NHS and Scottish Water. That couple could choose to live anywhere in the world, so of course they live in Edinburgh South West. I am proud that they do. It is really important that we continue to attract people like him and his wife. Although he is now a British citizen, he tells me that these changes lead him to question how valued he and his children are in the UK. Others in his network feel exactly the same.

I want the immigration system to work, but the first step in getting it to work is for the Government to listen to what people are saying today. Above all else, the Government should look at the consultation responses without any preconceived notions, and think about what is best for our country.

Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I hear the force with which the point is made. I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Member and my colleagues from Scotland have said on how grooming gangs do not respect boundaries. That is a point that I know the inquiry chair and panel will take on board. Many of the public authorities that have failed children sit within devolved Departments. This is necessarily and primarily an England and Wales inquiry, but I expect there to be discussions with colleagues in the Scottish Government to ensure that all the lessons are learned across the whole of the United Kingdom. In the end, these are all our children and we all have a responsibility to keep them safe.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and the Minister for Safeguarding for the work that she has done in this area over many, many years. It should shame us that so many people have waited for many years for today’s announcement. Indeed, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) hinted at the fact that some MPs were actually born after some of these offences took place. It is an absolute disgrace that it has taken so long to get to this point and, as we have heard, it comes a week after the Scottish Government have been shamed into considering their own inquiry. I use the word “shamed” deliberately. We know that £65 million is a lot of money, but is it enough? Will more be made available if needed? How will the Secretary of State keep herself and Members in the Chamber updated on the progress of the inquiry, particularly from the perspective of the survivors?

[Shabana Mahmood]

It is an independent inquiry, so there should be, and will be, some necessary limits on my engagement with the chair and the panel. As it is an independent inquiry, they will go wherever the evidence takes them. I am sure I will receive updates on timescale and on making sure that we are within the three years that has been agreed for the inquiry. I reassure my hon. Friend that I am sure that the correct level of resources has been made available for the inquiry to undertake its incredibly important work. I hear his point on devolution. I will not repeat my earlier answers but I hope, given that the subject matter should be of interest to all Members in this House regardless of which part of the United Kingdom we come from, that we are all doing everything we can to keep children in our country safe and that these lessons are learned across the board by everyone.

Huntingdon Train Attack

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The most important thing is that official sources of information are able to be transparent as quickly as possible so that the vast majority of this country that does not just get its news from social media knows what is happening. There will be a role for the Online Safety Act 2023 in the future as well.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for bringing it to us so promptly. I use LNER every week to come to this place; I always knew that the staff were great, but I did not realise that they were heroes. The response we saw from both the staff and the public on the train really was the best of Britain, but the response on social media was absolutely shameful, if I am honest—it shames us as a country. LNER connects Edinburgh South West to destinations north and south, and I am sure my residents will be really pleased to hear that we are looking at facial recognition on the transport network. That is incredibly important, but I will talk about knife crime more generally. In June, the Government gave a commitment to look at the manufacture and sale of round-tip knives and hopefully mandating them. Is the Home Secretary able to give us an update on that? I am sorry for putting her on the spot.

[Shabana Mahmood]

We will publish a knife crime strategy very soon. I understand the reason why some people think that round-tip knives are part of the solution, and I will consider all the evidence, but in the end millions of normal kitchen knives are available. We have to do a much better job on all the other areas, such as prevention.

Manchester Terrorism Attack

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The attacker was not known to counter-terror policing and had not been referred to the Prevent programme. Once all the facts are in, we will be able to draw wider lessons. As we did not know him, the question will be: should he have been on our radar? That is a question that I and others in our security services will take seriously. He was, of course, known to the police in the context of those two charges for rape, and the IOPC will now investigate all his history with the police in a non-terror context so that we can draw those wider lessons.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and pay tribute to everyone who helped defeat the attack last week. I also pay tribute to the Home Secretary for the leadership she has shown so early in post, which has been fantastic. In an earlier reply, she lamented the decline in interfaith work across the UK. In Edinburgh, it has never been going stronger. The Edinburgh Interfaith Association does fantastic work to ensure that Edinburgh is an inclusive city. I formally invite her to meet it to learn about its work.

None the less, the Jewish community in Edinburgh are concerned about the rise in antisemitism. I met them last weekend, and I spoke to a young man who is proud to be Jewish but said he could not live his life openly—the phrase he used was that he was “Jewish in the closet”, and I felt ashamed. I welcome the Home Secretary looking at the threshold for hate crime, but will she reassure us that she will be speaking to the devolved Administrations to ensure that we get this right across the UK?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will be speaking to all our colleagues in the devolved Administrations. I am happy to discuss with my hon. Friend the wider lessons on interfaith work to be drawn from his own experience.

Borders and Asylum

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Dr Scott Arthur.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I had forgotten how much I enjoyed bobbing.

We all want to be proud of the UK’s asylum system, but because of the mess we inherited from the previous Government, none of us are there right now; that is just a fact. I thank the Home Secretary for the methodical work that she is doing to get a grip of the situation and get the system back on track. It really pains me, though, that some of the people who are behind this mess are now sitting on the Opposition Benches and seeking to weaponise it, rather than apologising to the country. Does the Home Secretary share my hope that extending the Ukrainian visa scheme and the refugee student scheme, bringing Gaza students here and supporting injured Gazan children will provide a chance to show the UK immigration system at its best?

[Yvette Cooper]

I hope the Conservatives will support Gazan students being able to take up their places and scholarships in the UK, just as I hope they will also support the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which they are still opposing.

Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I totally disagree with what the hon. Lady said. Violent disorder is not a symptom—it is criminal. It is thuggery; it is attacks on our brave police officers. There is no reason or excuse for what happened last summer or for any violent disorder that may happen in future. It is criminal, it should be prosecuted, and people should face the full consequences of the law.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the police for how they have dealt with the violent disorder that we have seen from a minority of people in recent days. I would much rather that the police were investigating the crimes that are allegedly behind the incidents. I also thank the Minister for showing zero tolerance to the minority of people in our asylum system who break the law—it is right that we do that. She mentions that the number of asylum hotels has come down. Has the bill also come down?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The number of hotels has come down. The aim is to reduce the overall bill by £1 billion, but the number of hotels has come down since we came into power.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

Today’s push to proscribe Palestine Action, a non-violent direct action group, as a terrorist organisation is a disastrous turning point of historic proportions. It risks undermining existing prosecution cases against activities by Palestine Action activists and is legally dubious. Human and civil rights organisations, lawyers and UN experts have all spoken out against the misuse of terrorism laws, calling the move unjustified and warning of a chilling effect on protest and advocacy generally, especially in relation to the defence of human rights and international law in Palestine.

We have already seen the chilling effect on protest. Palestine Solidarity Campaign has been prevented from protesting outside Parliament this evening, with police placing restrictions on the demo and pushing it further down Whitehall. For hundreds of years, protests outside Parliament have gone ahead. Limiting dissent in this way should concern us all, and we have seen that in the last couple of weeks in relation to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, abortion and the empty welfare cuts.

The question that Members of this House must ask ourselves today is whether non-violent political groups should ever be designated as a terror threat. If Palestine Action is proscribed this week—

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Will she give way?

[Kim Johnson]

No, I will not.

By the weekend, anyone with a branded t-shirt or bag could face a terrorism charge. Amnesty International has flagged that if Palestine Action is proscribed this week, even meeting their lawyers to discuss intervening in judicial review proceedings could see its members fall foul of counter-terror legislation. Those are all examples of potential grounds for prosecution under counter-terrorism laws if Palestine Action is proscribed, which could come to constituents who are not members of the organisation and have never engaged in direct action. The scope of what we are talking about is insanely broad. Will the Government really demand that we vote to criminalise our constituents in that way?

Proscribing Palestine Action today would set a dangerous precedent for future Government misuse of counter-terror laws. It would be the first group proscribed mainly for serious damage to property and the first proscribed direct action group. Proscription is neither necessary nor proportionate. We already have sufficient criminal legislation that has always dealt with this when necessary and the Home Secretary has provided no impact assessment as

“no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sectors is foreseen.”

However, we have received no reassurances about how the proportionality test has been applied or whether unintended impacts on the wider pro-Palestine movement were considered by the Home Office and the proscription review group. Indeed, we have heard from civil rights groups that there have allegedly been meetings with representatives from the Israeli Government and arms companies such as Elbit, but none with human rights groups.

Whether or not Members of this House debating and voting on this statutory instrument today agree with the methods or aims of Palestine Action, we should all be able to agree that lumping Palestine Action together with the other two obscure groups to ensure that it is proscribed is a disgraceful manipulation of parliamentary procedure. Searching Hansard, I see that neither of the other two groups has been mentioned, as they are so obscure. This manoeuvre is transparent, and it shows that the Government know just how shaky this proscription is. Today they come for Palestine Action. If this measure is passed today, who and what will be next? I look forward to the Minister answering the concerns we have raised, particularly about the three organisations being grouped together.

Crime and Policing Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I rise to speak to new clause 156 in my name, which I bring forward because of Isabella, a 14-year-old girl who lives in my constituency. In May of this year, Isabella was hanging out with friends in Lyme Regis when she was lured to the cemetery. A group of young people were waiting. One of them had their phone out and was already filming her arrival. Moments later, another girl who Isabella knew launched a brutal assault. Her head was smashed against a concrete step, she was stamped on and kicked in the face again and again. While Isabella was being attacked, no one stopped to help; instead, they stood by and they filmed. They laughed and they demanded they be sent the video.

The attack was premeditated, but so too was the filming. The recording began before Isabella even arrived. It was not taken to provide evidence or to expose wrongdoing but taken deliberately to broadcast her humiliation and glorify the violence. I have seen the video; it is horrific. Isabella’s mother has seen the video, her friends have seen the video and hundreds, and possibly thousands, of people have seen the video because it was intentionally and maliciously circulated on social media and in private WhatsApp groups in schools across West Dorset. Children who were not there and who do not even know Isabella saw her brutal attack play out on their phones. The violence did not stop when the attack ended. It was shared, it was forwarded, it was replayed and it was whispered about.

Isabella’s attacker was charged with actual bodily harm. She received anger management classes and a six-month restraining order. That was bad enough, but the people who filmed it walked away entirely unpunished. The filming had started before the attack occurred, they knew the attack was coming, they planned to film it and then they proceeded to share the video while laughing. They did not walk away unpunished because there was no proof of what they did—the video was the proof—but because our law does not yet recognise such specific, premeditated and deeply harmful behaviour as the offence that it should be.

That is why I believe that new clause 156 is so important. It seeks to create a specific offence for premeditated filming and distribution of violent acts with the intent to humiliate, distress and psychologically harm the victims. It recognises what too many families already know: that this is not about a punch thrown or a kick delivered, but about the deliberate choice to film violence, broadcast it and humiliate the victim repeatedly for an audience that grows with every share, every click and every forwarded message.

We are not talking about evidence or journalism, or about someone catching wrongdoing to expose it. Indeed, new clause 156 makes it very clear and contains an explicit safeguard to protect public interest journalism and for footage being used as evidence. Yet where there is premeditation and where someone knowingly films or broadcasts an attack with the intent to amplify the victim’s humiliation, that behaviour must face consequences. Isabella’s case is not an isolated one.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with great passion about his constituent. Yesterday evening, I held a roundtable with parents in my constituency to talk about mobile phone use in schools. One of the parents was a GP and she spoke about how children who have been subject to such attacks have come to her surgery saying that they are contemplating suicide because of what they have faced. Does he agree that this goes well beyond mere humiliation and to some of the worst mental health problems our young people could face?

[Edward Morello]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman; we do not fully understand the lasting psychological damage, especially as this is a growing problem.

I have received further letters from other people, who have told me about similar incidents in other schools, other towns and other playgrounds. Nationally, the problem is rising. According to the Youth Endowment Fund’s 2024 survey, 70% of young people reported seeing real-world violence online in the past year and that most of that footage was of fights involving young people. It is happening in our communities right now and the law is failing to keep pace.

Our children already face enormous pressures from social media—from online bullying to apps designed to capture their attention and expose them to content far beyond their years. As parents, we do our best to protect them, but we cannot be everywhere. We have a duty to put proper deterrents in place where social media companies have continually failed us.

We have a duty to send a clear message that this behaviour is unacceptable, that it is dangerous and that it will not go unpunished. I will finish with the words of Isabella’s mother, Sarah. She said:

“I have to live with the flashbacks of watching my daughter being beaten. I also have to live knowing that this video will be forever available on social media.”

On behalf of Sarah and of Isabella, I hope that the Government will support a change to the law so that something positive can come from Isabella’s experience.