Oral Answers to Questions
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(2 days, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Under the previous Government, net migration hit record highs after they lowered entry requirements and opened our borders. My definition of what is best for the UK economy is one where migration is controlled and where there is investment in skills and training for our home-grown workforce, not an overreliance on overseas recruitment.
Dr Chambers
I thank the Home Secretary for her response. We have 104 different nationalities working in Winchester hospital, throughout Hampshire over one third of the workers in the social care sector are born outside the EU, and we know statistically that we are more likely to be cared for or treated by an immigrant than we are to be waiting behind one for a GP appointment. Does the Home Secretary recognise that the current visa rules for healthcare workers are driving away many of the people who are keeping our NHS and social care services running?
Shabana Mahmood
No one disputes the tremendous contribution that international workers make to our NHS. The picture the hon. Gentleman describes is replicated in constituencies across the country, and we will always welcome that contribution. Overseas recruitment in the NHS is falling primarily because the NHS is leading by example and doing what we want all employers to do: look first at domestic recruitment to ensure that the skills and expertise of the health service are home-grown. I believe that those two systems can go hand in hand, but we have to make changes at the same time.
Christine Jardine
Hospitality, social care and the tech sector are all vital sources of employment and economic stability in my constituency. The companies in those sectors are telling me that, despite their efforts to recruit domestically first, the Home Secretary’s changes to indefinite leave to remain are making it very difficult for them to attract the skilled workforce from abroad that they need to keep the sector going. Will the Home Secretary reconsider the changes in the light of that impact and lighten the regulations to make it possible for these companies to survive?
Shabana Mahmood
We have to remember that currently in our country we have more than 1 million young people who are not in employment, education or training, and the hon. Lady and all Members should want us to turn that around and make sure that there are employment opportunities and a positive economic future in their own country for those young people in many of the sectors that she describes. We are the Government who have formalised that link between migration and skills reforms to make sure that companies are investing in the domestic workforce first and foremost before recruiting from abroad.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
It is a fact to be proud of that four of the world’s 10 greatest universities in the global rankings are in the UK, including Imperial College London’s White City campus in my constituency. We punch way above our population weight and our universities are genuine engines of growth. However, evidence shows that the withdrawal of the post-study work visa coupled with the rumours about changes in indefinite leave to remain are driving some of those brightest brains who have produced such statistics to competitor countries. Will my right hon. Friend meet me, education Ministers and my two vice-chancellors to thrash out a solution? There are real problems, but we do not want to scare off genuine innovators and wealth creators.
Shabana Mahmood
This Government have increased routes at the very top end of the skills spectrum, such as through our global talent visa, to make sure that we are attracting talent from all over the world. We have a good track record in doing so and will continue that. There is work to do with our university sector to make sure that students recruited to this country are on good courses and making a contribution, and obviously we want to make sure that we use the best of that global talent in the future. The changes we are making are not about students—students do not come to attain indefinite leave to remain in our country—but for other parts of the migration system. I will make sure, however, that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the migration Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) to discuss these matters in more detail.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
In Hartlepool we are reversing 30 years of globalisation and taking advantage of the unprecedented falls in immigration, thanks to this Home Secretary, and training our own, whether through our Health and Social Care Academy, our civil engineering academy, our centre of excellence for welding or our nuclear trades academy. Does the Secretary of State agree that rather than seeing it as an economic threat, falling immigration is an economic opportunity to train our own?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At a point when we have over a million young people not in employment, education or training, it is imperative that we make progress in this area. We would be letting our young people down if we did not take this opportunity to ensure that we are investing in our domestic skills workforce. That is a cross-Department priority and the Home Office is playing its full part.
Shabana Mahmood
The employment statistics that the hon. Lady has just used run from January 2020 to December 2025, so I congratulate her on exposing the track record of the Tory Government.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Dodgy shops are blighting our high streets—we all see them in our constituencies—so this Government have announced a new high street organised crime taskforce, investing £30 million in law enforcement action. That will fund more officers and a nationwide unit based in the National Crime Agency, and will strengthen powers to tackle these criminals.
Jo Platt
We welcome the creation of the Government’s high street organised crime unit, and in particular its focus on strengthened partnership working between enforcement agencies. In Leigh and Atherton, communities can see that commitment, but they are asking when they will see action on dodgy shops operating in plain sight. Given the national campaign I have launched with colleagues, will the Minister set out when enforcement will begin locally, how partnerships will be delivered and how we will ensure that these criminal enterprises are shut down without delay?
Shabana Mahmood
First, I welcome my hon. Friend’s important work in this area. Greater Manchester is one of three hotspot areas selected for an enhanced operational crackdown in addition to the nationwide campaign. I cannot comment on specific dates due to operational sensitivities, but the public can expect to see the start of a major offensive against dodgy shops beginning this year.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The Home Secretary will be aware of the inquiry that the Committee is conducting on the role that organised criminality plays in the crime we see on our high streets. We heard compelling evidence recently about counterfeit goods, the role they play, and the role that forced labour plays throughout that supply chain. Can the Home Secretary explain what she is doing to combat forced labour? I look forward to putting more questions to her when she appears before my Committee before the summer recess.
Shabana Mahmood
It is always a pleasure to appear before the Home Affairs Committee, and I thank the right hon. Member and her Committee for their work on this important area. She will know that the money we announced recently will fund work by trading standards, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and immigration enforcement. If we pick up cases of forced labour, that will engage our modern slavery obligations. That money is part of a full-spectrum response to a complex issue. I saw some of the counterfeit goods when I joined the police on a raid at the end of last week. It is a real problem, and the Government are ensuring that we fund every aspect of how we fix it.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
We have made the landmark commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. The Government have already begun to implement domestic abuse protection orders, which have protected more than 1,000 victims, Raneem’s law, placing domestic abuse experts in 999 control rooms, and the provision of specialist rape and sexual offence teams in all police forces in England and Wales. Our ambition is clear, but there is much more work to be done.
Jas Athwal
Harshita Barela was just 24 years old when she was murdered and her body was dumped in a car boot in Ilford. Nearly two years on, her husband and alleged killer has still not been arrested, and is believed to be hiding in India. A few weeks ago I was humbled to meet Harshita’s parents, who had made the journey to trace her last steps. They deserve justice and closure. Does the Home Secretary share my horror at this vile murder, and will she meet me to discuss what further steps can be taken by those in this country, working with the Indian authorities, to bring her alleged killer to justice?
Shabana Mahmood
My deepest sympathies are with Harshita’s family for their unimaginable loss. No one should have to go through what she and her loved ones have endured. As the investigation is live, I cannot comment further. I hope my hon. Friend will understand that doing so could prejudice the investigation and the path to justice for Harshita and her family.
Mary Kelly Foy
At my recent market stall at Durham Pride, local Labour members and I spoke to many people about the Government’s VAWG strategy. The message we received was clear: it is strongly welcomed but long overdue. The clock is ticking, and there is still no published timetable. When will the Government action the plan and the necessary grassroots consultation? How will progress be publicly reported so that women and girls in Durham and beyond feel reassured that this Government take seriously the effort to stamp out violence against women and girls?
Shabana Mahmood
First and foremost, this Government’s commitment is evidenced by our landmark commitment to halve the levels of violence against women and girls over a decade. We have a deliberate 10-year vision to do that, because it is a wider societal change that we are seeking to enact. We are delivering that transformational change to keep more victims safe. Work has begun, but there is much more to be done. As my hon. Friend will know, these matters are discussed regularly in the House, and I will keep Members updated.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Home Secretary for her responses. In the last two to three weeks in Northern Ireland, we have had two horrific murders of women and their unborn children; in both cases, heavy sentences have been handed out. Given her responses to the hon. Members for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), it is important that we have similar rules in Northern Ireland for those who carry out vile, horrific killings of their partners and their unborn children. There must be a sentence that equals that.
Shabana Mahmood
Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that criminal law applies across the whole of the UK. Those are things that we track as a Government, and I will look at the substance to see if we need to change the law. We work very closely with our colleagues in Northern Ireland, and I will ensure that the ministerial team discuss these matters with their counterparts in Northern Ireland.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
May I put on the record my sympathy for the family and colleagues of Sir Alex Younger? He was a true patriot.
Two years ago, this Government pledged to halve violence against women and girls within a decade, but the Minister responsible for delivering that promise has now resigned. In her resignation letter, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) laid a damning charge: that Government progress came from the fear of embarrassment from
“threats made by me in light of catastrophic mistakes”,
and that it was only when the Prime Minister’s shameful decision to appoint paedophile apologist Lord Mandelson “bubbled up” that No. 10 would “kick into gear” and finally do anything about women and girls.
Two years in, we still do not know how this Government are going to measure violence against women and girls and whether it has halved, so my ask is simple and is something that the Government can do today: extradite Andrew and Tristan Tate to the UK to answer Crown Prosecution Service charges that were laid in 2024. It is a political decision. A year since I asked for them to be extradited, the Government should do what is right. If they are in Dubai or Hong Kong, they can be extradited. Why will the Government not extradite them?
Shabana Mahmood
The shadow Minister will know that we never comment on matters relating to extradition, or on any specific cases. I would never want to say anything at the Dispatch Box that prejudices any future action—she knows that well enough. She has made her point in relation to those two men, and I am sure that point has been heard.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
I believe that we in this House have a duty to protect the children of this nation, but there can be little doubt that collectively we have failed to keep pace with the changing threats they face. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the horror of online sexual exploitation and abuse, but we have begun to change the story.
Today, we laid down the gauntlet to tech firms. We have told them that they must block nudity on children’s phones. We know the tech is there; we know there is a way. The question is: do they have the will? The tech firms now have three months. The clock is ticking. If they do not introduce these controls, we will legislate and force them to do so. This is a landmark moment in the protection of children in this country, so if I may, I will end by paying tribute to the woman who has pushed for this harder than anyone else, my hon. Friend and former colleague in the Home Office, the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). The children of this country will be safer as a result of her work.
Dr Chambers
I too pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley for her immense campaigning and work in this area. Can the Secretary of State be more specific on what actions will be taken to prevent women and girls becoming victims of AI-generated sexual content, because it really can ruin lives?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is right that it can ruin lives. The Government have already held different platforms to account, and the hon. Gentleman will know about our row with Grok and the action we forced as a result. We are alive to the online environment and what that means for deepfake images and nudification apps—areas where we have already taken action. The action today on device-level controls to block nudity for children is a game-changing moment because it will prevent children from becoming sex offenders before they even know what sex is, and from being victims of sextortion. It is the right way forward.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
The “Police Anti-Racism Commitment”, a copy of which I have here, published in March 2025 by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, asks police to reverse engineer the same arrest rates for different ethnic groups, even though offending rates are different. It expressly calls for different racial groups to be treated differently, saying that people should not treat “everyone ‘the same’” or be “colour blind”. This is a formal policy requirement for two-tier policing. I have been raising this issue for over a year, and I have never had an answer, including from the Home Secretary last Tuesday. Let me try again: does she agree that this racist and dangerous policy document should be immediately withdrawn—yes or no?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the NPCC, which is independent of Government, is rightly reviewing the wording of the “Police Anti-Racism Commitment” to ensure that there is no ambiguity or suggestion of differential treatment. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman speaks from a sedentary position, but I say to him that I have taken more action on preventing differential treatment in the criminal justice system than he or his party ever did.
Chris Philp
The Home Secretary still gives no clear answer. We have repeatedly raised serious concerns with the Government’s Islamophobia definition. South Wales police has now instructed staff to record anything that goes beyond “legitimate discussion of Islam”, even if there is no crime. That could then be disclosed on someone’s Disclosure and Barring Service check. Police officers in south Wales will now have to decide what is or is not legitimate discussion of Islam. No other religion is treated that way in south Wales. That is completely wrong. Parliament has rightly repealed blasphemy laws, and criticising religion is part of free speech, so does the Home Secretary agree that the guidance is wrong and should be scrapped immediately? Let’s try a simple yes or no.
Shabana Mahmood
Given that the right hon. Gentleman represents a party and former Government that did not take any action on dealing with hate crime, anti-Muslim hatred, or other forms of hatred, I am not going to take any lessons from him. Let me make clear from the Dispatch Box that the police, wherever they are—south Wales or anywhere else—must always police without fear or favour, and we all must always be equal before the law.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Last week we discussed the murder of Henry Nowak, which continues to shock the country. As we said last week, his father, Mark, asked politicians not to use the tragedy to stoke division and hatred. With that request in mind, and considering the need to maintain trust in policing, would the Home Secretary like to take this opportunity to urge Vice-President J. D. Vance and the US Department of Justice to butt out of our politics, leave British law enforcement to Britain and, just as importantly, show respect for British victims of crime?
Shabana Mahmood
I urge all commentators, would-be commentators and wannabes of every description to leave our criminal justice system to us. We have been going for a very long time, and we will carry on in that vein.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Jess Phillips (Birmingham Yardley) (Lab)
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute back to the Home Secretary, who has worked incredibly hard on the issues on which the Government made their announcement today. The BBC carries the headline that we will stop children sending and receiving images; can she say for the House that the change will also stop children ever taking naked images of themselves, and give us an assurance that her Department is working on robust legislation and a legislative vehicle to make sure that can happen?
Shabana Mahmood
I very much thank my hon. Friend for her question, and she is absolutely right. Let me clarify for the House that this involves the taking of those images. We will also follow through on the threat to legislate, and the Department is working at pace on the content of the legislation and the appropriate vehicle in the second Session.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
Murder of Henry Nowak
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the murder of Henry Nowak.
Last December, Henry, aged just 18, was a first-year university student with his life ahead of him. He was kind, hard-working and loved by his family and friends. His murder, at the hands of Vickrum Digwa, was a horrifying act. Digwa murdered Henry and then lied about him as he lay dying, falsely accusing him of racism. It was an evil act.
I know that the thoughts of the whole House will now be with Henry’s family and friends, just as mine are. What they have been through is heartbreaking and, for most of us, unimaginable. I know that nothing can take their pain and loss away, but yesterday we saw some measure of justice. Digwa was sentenced to life imprisonment. He will serve a minimum term of 21 years. His mother, Kiran Kaur, has been convicted of assisting an offender. She is due to be sentenced on 17 July. The Crown Prosecution Service has today authorised further charges against other members of the attacker’s family.
With further sentencing and possible charges pending, we must be cautious still in what we say about this case so that we do not place any proceedings at risk. However, I can and must pay tribute today to the dignified and powerful words of the Nowak family in the statement they gave after yesterday’s sentencing. They deserve answers, in particular about what happened on that awful night and the actions of the police officers who arrived on the scene.
I expect many in this House, and many more across this country, have now seen the police officer’s bodycam footage, which was released last night. It is, without question, a disturbing and tragic thing to see. People are rightly asking questions about how the situation was handled. They are shocked and disquieted to hear Henry’s words, “I can’t breathe.”
I know that it is difficult to wait any longer for answers, but there is a proper process for assessing whether there have been incidents of police misconduct, led by the Independent Office for Police Conduct. It will determine what could and should have been done differently, and it will determine what action may need to be taken against individual officers. The family yesterday called on me
“to ensure the IOPC has the resources, authority and independence it needs to conduct a full, fearless and transparent investigation.”
I can confirm today that I will do so. The IOPC will be equipped and encouraged to act; to find the truth; and to ensure, if necessary, that there are consequences.
There have been accusations, I know, of two-tier policing, and that one community has been prioritised over another. It will be for the IOPC to determine the facts in this case—I cannot and will not comment on them—but let me say this on the question of preferential treatment more widely: the police in this country have a sacred duty to police without fear or favour. Everyone in this country is equal before the law; it is the promise upon which our whole justice system rests. The equality of every citizen is the foundation on which the openness, tolerance and generosity of this country rests.
Let me also be clear about one other thing—a dangerous undercurrent that I have seen in the reaction to this awful crime. Threats against police officers are utterly unacceptable. There can be no justification for intimidation, abuse or attempts to take the law into one’s own hands. A police officer unrelated to this case has been misidentified online and subjected to death threats. He has been forced to relocate, to protect himself and his family. Misinformation and inflammatory commentary is making a dreadful situation even worse. We must all, together, condemn it. We must also allow the facts to be established through the appropriate investigations and the courts, and we must do so calmly and responsibly.
The Nowak family, and Henry’s memory, deserve answers. The family have also called on us all to take action to address the daily tragedy of knife crime in this country. This Government are committed to halving knife crime in this decade. Since the start of this Parliament, we have made progress. Knife crime has fallen by 10%. Knife homicides are down 27%, and are at their lowest level in a decade, but clearly we must do more while there are still tragedies like this one. For that reason, we have recently published our halving knife crime plan. It sets out how we will go further to drive sustained reductions in violence. It brings together action across Government and society to stop people turning to knife crime, and to ensure that perpetrators are caught and brought to justice. It includes a range of measures. It will see schools and families supported to address the root causes of knife crime through the establishment of 50 young futures hubs; police using new crime mapping tools to target enforcement more precisely, and making better use of stop and search; and cruel and exploitative drug gangs stopped from criminally exploiting children, which will prevent the knife violence that is driven by the county lines trade.
On knife controls, there have been calls to limit the right of Sikhs to carry their ceremonial knife, the kirpan, one of the five holy items in their faith. The Offensive Weapons Act 2019, passed under the previous Government, clarified and strengthened existing legal protections in relation to long kirpans. This included extending defences, so that kirpans can be lawfully possessed for religious reasons and used in religious and ceremonial contexts, but let me be clear: carrying the knife for the purpose of religious observance is one thing, but using it, as so tragically occurred in this case, is quite another. It is a vile act, a crime of the utmost severity, and it will be met with the severest punishment.
Yesterday, the Nowak family ended their statement with a powerful call to us all: they did not want Henry’s death
“to be used to create further division, hatred or tension.”
They quoted the words of the prosecuting lawyer:
“This is not a case about Sikhism. This is not a case about racism. This is a case about murder. ”
I echo those words. We cannot allow this murder to turn communities against one another. We must condemn those who seek personal political profit from tragedy. Instead, we must show who we really are in this country. This was a murder—a vile and violent crime. The punishment must be reserved for those who are responsible for the act. We do not believe in collective punishment in this country. Instead, we stand together against an act of pure evil. We condemn those who committed this heinous crime, not all those who share their faith or ethnicity.
Yesterday, a sentence was handed down in court. I know it will never be enough. The loss felt by Henry Nowak’s family and friends will last forever. A wonderful young man will never enjoy the promise of the life that stretched out before him. The evil acts of his murderer and accomplice will never be undone, but we can choose to use this moment to pursue positive change. We are still limited in what we can say—there is a sentence to be handed down, further charges may follow, and an IOPC investigation is ongoing—but I call on everyone here to be responsible in this moment, and to allow justice to run its full course. While we must be limited in what we can say, we must not be limited in how we act.
I will end with the words of the Nowak family, once more. Last night, they wrote that
“no other family should experience the heartbreak and horror of losing a child to knife crime.”
Let that be the challenge to us all, across this House, across Government and across society. It is the very least we can do to honour the memory of Henry Nowak. I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary, and you, Mr Speaker, for ensuring that the Government came to the House today.
The murder of Henry Nowak is devastating for his family. He was an innocent young man on the way home when he was brutally killed. Henry’s family have suffered an unimaginable loss, and I know the thoughts of the whole House will be with them all. The evil murderer Vickrum Digwa lied from start to finish, including in a false allegation of racism. On arriving at the scene, the police appeared more concerned with the accusation of racism, and even the possibility that Digwa was injured, than with helping Henry. Henry told the police that he could not breathe nine times. He told them that he had been stabbed four times. The response from the officer, which we have all heard, was, “I don’t think you have, mate.”
Henry was handcuffed and dragged across the ground as he lay dying. Can you imagine what he must have felt as he cried out for help and was ignored—as the officers who should have worked to save him instead handcuffed him and inquired after the welfare of his killer, standing just inches away? Henry’s dad Mark said:
“Henry did not die with dignity. He did not die with the care he deserved. He lost consciousness before anyone believed him.”
We need the IOPC to urgently and transparently report on how it was that the police attending were more concerned with the accusation of racism than with helping a dying man.
We cannot tolerate a situation in which false allegations of racism by criminals are believed. We cannot allow the colour of someone’s skin to be a consideration in how the police or other public services treat people, yet that has happened. Just recently, we learned that Valdo Calocane, who murdered three people in Nottingham, was not sectioned by mental health professionals because they thought there was
“an over-representation of young black males in mental health detention”.
The consequent failure to section Valdo Calocane, in part because he was black, led directly to the murder of three innocent people. The headteacher of Axel Rudakubana was accused of racist stereotyping when she described Rudakubana as a threat to safety, and the risk assessment was watered down. Rudakubana, of course, went on to stab and murder three young girls at a Southport dance class.
This has not happened by accident; it is enshrined in the police’s own policy documents. The police anti-racism commitment, published in March 2025 by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing, urges police forces to reverse-engineer arrest rates for ethnic groups so that those rates are the same, even though the offending rates are different, by treating different ethnic groups differently. Let that sink in for a moment: an official police document actually says that people should be treated differently based on the colour of their skin. I have said before at this Dispatch Box—at least twice—that that document should be withdrawn. The dangerous ideology of so-called anti-racism, which allows people to be treated differently based on race, must end. Extreme activists have hijacked the policymaking process, and this is where that has led. It has no place in policing; it has no place anywhere. Does the Home Secretary agree that the so-called police anti-racism commitment must urgently be withdrawn? It is morally wrong and dangerous. Police forces must focus on catching criminals and keeping the public safe. They must simply treat everyone exactly the same.
I will finish with the words yesterday of Mark Nowak, Henry’s father. He said:
“Henry was 18. He was kind, ambitious, loved and full of promise. He had his whole life ahead of him. That future was stolen from him, and no verdict or sentence will ever give it back.”
It is true that nothing can bring Henry back, but let us ensure that no one ever again experiences what Henry did in his last tragic moments.
Shabana Mahmood
Let me thank the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks, and the tone in which he has reflected on this horrific murder and the words of the family, which he knows that I share.
I would normally let the right hon. Gentleman’s initial point slide, but there is far too much misinformation floating around on social media for me to just leave it unchallenged. On the point about the Government coming to the House, he will know that the proceedings and sentencing concluded at 4 o’clock yesterday. We said that we would come to the House immediately thereafter, and we have presented ourselves here today. We have responded in an appropriate way, and had all the facts and all the judge’s remarks at our disposal for our review before coming to this House. It is important that we respond in these moments in a measured way, and that is what the Government have sought to do.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to evidence in the Valdo Calocane inquiry. He will know that the inquiry into the Nottingham attacks is well under way. I do not think it would be appropriate for me, at this Dispatch Box, to pre-empt any findings that the inquiry might make, but all the actions taken, and assumptions made, by professionals from the public services, including the police and the health service, are subject to scrutiny in that inquiry. I am sure that we will return to those matters when the inquiry reports.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to phase 1 of the Southport inquiry on the horrific murders, and the findings relating to how the public service systems centred on the danger that Axel Rudakubana might have posed to himself, given his mental health diagnosis, and did not take into account the danger he potentially posed to others. The right hon. Gentleman will know that recommendations for change have been made in this area, which the Government will respond to fully in due course. Let me be very clear to him and to all Members in the House that in all such matters, when it comes to how we engage with our public services and how they assess risk, the only important factor is the risk that an individual poses—not their race, religion or anything else. We will not tolerate a situation in which other, irrelevant factors are taken into account. I repeat that all are equal before the law, and every public service needs to bear that in mind.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the police anti-racism commitment. He will obviously remember that the race action plan for the police began life under the previous Conservative Government—in fact, I am old enough to remember when Theresa May called out the disproportionate use of stop and search in black communities in particular. He will know that the way policing works in this country is by consent. It is important that the police retain the confidence of all the communities they police, and I think he will acknowledge that there is a history and a context here relating to racism and the police. Whatever changes are made, it is important that nobody over-corrects or course-corrects in such a way that all of us citizens are no longer equal before the law.
This Government will always ensure that the police, in fulfilling their sacred duties to keep our communities safe, always act without fear or favour, and always ensure that every citizen is treated equally. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not want to do down or ignore the historical and legitimate concerns from some communities about institutional racism as well as differential treatment. I condemn every and all types of differential treatment; I do not stand for it. My own track record as a Government Minister shows that I will always act when there is evidence of differential treatment, and it is absolutely vital that that message is heard loud and clear across the whole of our country.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Henry was a popular and much-loved student at the University of Southampton, and his murder has horrified our city. Both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur) commend everyone at the university for their response and their support for the university community following this tragedy. Like many, I have watched the bodycam footage, and it is both heartbreaking and infuriating. It makes it plain for all to see how Henry posed no threat that would warrant being handcuffed, yet he was treated as a criminal based on the lies of his murderer. No one in their right mind thinks that one Sikh represents all Sikhs or that one or two police officers represent the entire police force; as Henry’s father has said, this is about murder, our response to it and our prevention of it. As such, I have two questions for my right hon. Friend.
We have a knife problem in this country. That is why we have taken early steps to ban zombie knives and crack down on knife sellers, but it is obvious that that is not enough and we have to go further. Will the Secretary of State commit to clarifying a set of tough and consistent knife laws with the resources to enforce them, so that we can actually move on? Secondly, I echo the words of Henry’s dad, as the Secretary of State did, and ask her to guarantee that the IOPC will have
“the resources, authority and independence it needs to conduct a full, fearless and transparent investigation.”
Will she guarantee that? The catastrophic errors that were made when police officers got to Henry must never happen again.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution and his questions. I give him that guarantee: the IOPC will, and does, have the resources it needs to conduct its investigation, and I know that it will do so with the full independence that our system affords it. I understand that the IOPC intends to report finally within the next three months, and I believe that a meeting is now taking place with the family—some contact had been made before, but the IOPC was waiting for the end of the criminal trial. Of course, it will do its job; it is getting on with doing its job, and I expect it to report as quickly as possible, but I can give my hon. Friend the guarantee he seeks.
My hon. Friend is right that we have a knife crime problem in this country, which is why the Government have a landmark commitment to halving knife crime over a decade. It is why we have launched the knife crime action plan, and I reassure him that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its historic mission.
Max Wilkinson
I am, Mr Speaker, and I apologise.
As Mark Nowak has said, the outcome here should not be further division. In that spirit and in Henry’s memory, we must work together to ensure that this kind of tragedy is not allowed to happen again.
Shabana Mahmood
I welcome the contribution from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, and associate myself with his words about the family and their reaction to what has happened. I am not sure there was a specific question in there for me, but if there are other things that the hon. Member wishes to pick up with me, I would be very happy to engage with him on other points of detail that he maybe was not able to come on to.
For the benefit of the whole House, I reiterate that anyone who uses this tragedy—this horrific, vile act of murder—to stoke further division in our country should be rejected by everyone across this House. Political grandstanding and further division are not what is needed; clear-eyed action and a commitment to ensuring that all of our citizens are equal before the law of our collective land is what is needed.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
This is a terrible incident, and my heart goes out to Henry’s family. Is my right hon. Friend concerned, as I am, that some have said that the Macpherson inquiry has caused the police to hold back when dealing with people who perpetrate crimes and who may be from an ethnic minority? Does she agree that nothing in the Macpherson inquiry suggests that the police should behave in that way or excuses the extraordinary behaviour of the police at the scene of this crime, and does she think that what needs to be reviewed is the way in which police are trained to deal with incidents of this sort? It seems to me that what happened at the scene of this crime falls way below what we expect of the police.
Shabana Mahmood
Police officers must apply the law fairly, without fear or favour, to every single person they serve. They work incredibly hard and get it right the vast majority of the time, and where mistakes are made, it is right that they are properly investigated and examined. The whole House should remember that our police officers run towards danger every day in order to keep our communities safe. As my hon. Friend will know, because of the ongoing independent IOPC investigation, I do not think it is appropriate to comment further on the specifics of this case.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with everything the Home Secretary says. I agree that we should not weaponise this issue, but neither should we tiptoe around it. The truth is that many white people in this country feel that the police are so terrified of being called racist that they either underreact, as in the case of the appalling grooming scandal, or they overreact, as in this case, so there is a role for the Home Secretary now. She needs to summon in top police officers and say, “Things have got to change. We are all equal. Don’t be terrified of what people think about you—just carry out the law as you’re supposed to do as police officers.”
Shabana Mahmood
I have made it very clear from this Dispatch Box and over the course of my tenure as Home Secretary that all are equal before the law, and the police must always act without fear and without favour towards any one group. I do not think it is helpful for us to start pitting either majority or different minority communities against one another; that is not what this moment requires.
The right hon. Gentleman is right that there is always a balance to be struck—there must not be underreaction or, indeed, overreaction. I believe that in the vast majority of cases, the police get that balance right, and as I say, our police officers run towards danger every single day to keep us safe. I will always scrutinise all these actions to make sure that our police service is functioning as it should, so that every single citizen in our country, regardless of the colour of their skin or the faith that they have or may not have, can be absolutely certain that they will always be treated equally, and that whatever complaint they have will always be investigated in the way we would all expect.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I am deeply saddened by the murder of Henry Nowak, and my heartfelt condolences go out to his family, whose pain was made all the worse by the police wrongly handcuffing Henry, believing the lies of the violent murderer. That stripped Henry of his dignity in his agonising final moments, and is something that should never happen again. It is very galling that the likes of Reform, Restore and the far right decided to politicise people’s pain, attacking the Sikh community for wearing the kirpan and wanting it banned, even though the kirpan was not used in this violent attack. [Interruption.] They have decided to scapegoat and throw under the bus an entire community based on the actions of one violent murderer. [Interruption.] Let me also give them a history—
Mr Dhesi
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Hundreds of thousands of Sikh soldiers bravely fought alongside British soldiers in both world wars. Tens of thousands made the ultimate sacrifice, proudly wearing their turban and their kirpan. What reassurances can my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary give to the Sikh community, who are horrified and ashamed by this brutal murder and fearful about their right to freely and peacefully practise their faith?
Shabana Mahmood
I reiterate for my hon. Friend that religious freedom is an important principle that this Government respect. It has been respected by different Governments of different party political persuasions, and I am sure that that will continue to be the case. As I said in my statement, we are not a country that collectively punishes an entire group of people for the actions of individuals. The responsibility for this murder rests with the murderer, and he has now faced justice and been sentenced. That is the right way for these matters to proceed.
I will also say something about the tone of this debate. It is right for the whole House to remember that Henry Nowak’s family and friends are watching. The way that we conduct ourselves in this place can be passionate, but it must not result in name calling and in just shouting different political views. I do not think we should stand for the politicisation of this murder. There are lessons to be learned and further issues to be drawn out from what has happened, once the IOPC has concluded its investigation. I am sure that we will debate that here in the future. The way that we conduct the debate matters just as much as what is said.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
This is an appalling and sickening tragedy. Words cannot express my heartbreak for Henry’s family and my fury at the system that has led to this. We have all seen the body-worn video footage. In a previous role, part of my job was to review that footage and give an independent judgment. In this case, it is clear to everyone that the police did not act appropriately and proportionately. There are many good police officers who work hard to keep us safe, but on that night, these police officers displayed no concern for Henry. Immediate action should have been taken to try to save his life, but instead Henry was put in handcuffs and mocked as he lay dying. Those police officers have serious questions to answer. Can the Home Secretary explain what action the Government will take to ensure that every officer involved is held accountable for the decisions they have made, so that the public can have confidence that we will all be treated equally under the law?
Shabana Mahmood
I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the IOPC is investigating this matter. It will be free to conclude that investigation using all the powers it has and all of its evidence-gathering abilities. He will know, having reviewed such footage in the past, that what is publicly available is three minutes of a much longer incident, but the IOPC will be able to review every bit of bodycam footage in its totality, as well as other evidence that sheds light on the context of the incident, what the police officers saw and how they reacted to it. The IOPC is free to make recommendations not just on specific conduct, but on wider lessons that should be learned. I reassure him that once the IOPC has reported and made its findings, I will make sure that I personally update the House.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my constituent, Henry Nowak, a bright young man at the start of a life that held so much promise. The turnout at his funeral and the outpouring of community support show that he had an impact well beyond his young years. I pay tribute to his family, and in particular to Mark Nowak, his father. Many here have quoted his words calling for Henry’s death not to lead to more division and hatred. Henry’s sister, Olivia, made space in the early days of her own grief to support his friends. That speaks to the family and their courage, bravery and dignity in dealing with one of the most tragic and devastating things that any of us could ever imagine going through.
Like many in this House, I have watched the body-worn camera footage that was released last night, and I watched it with horror. I cannot imagine what Henry’s family felt seeing that, knowing that it was their son’s last moments. They expected help from the police, but when Henry lay dying, what he got was accusation and he was disbelieved. This can never happen again. What will the Home Secretary do to meet Henry’s family’s calls to tackle the national emergency that is knife crime? Like many families who have suffered a loss from this appalling crime, Henry’s family have called for his death not to be in vain and for lessons to be learned, so that they can go forward to see that his legacy is that no one else has to suffer that grief.
I would welcome the Home Secretary’s assurances that the IOPC investigation will be thorough and fully resourced and that no stone will be left unturned, so that the family can have the answers they need and deserve, and can know why their son was treated as a criminal while the criminal was treated with much more dignity than their son. Will she ensure that the family’s needs, wishes and voices are heard throughout this inquiry?
Shabana Mahmood
First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her powerful contribution as Henry’s Member of Parliament, and I give her the assurance that she seeks in relation to the IOPC investigation. That investigation is continuing at pace, and I know that the family are being engaged with. If there are any concerns about the process, I invite her to let me know immediately. I will personally ensure that any concerns are dealt with, so that the family can have confidence in the IOPC process. This Government have acknowledged the epidemic of knife crime in our country and our imperative to act on it. That is why we have our landmark commitment to halve knife crime over a decade and have launched the knife crime action plan, which is a resourced package of measures designed to deal with the scourge of knife crime.
I give my hon. Friend reassurance, exactly as I said in my statement, that we will leave no stone unturned in dealing with knife crime. We do so in the name of all victims of knife crime, including Henry. Their loss must not be in vain, and we must learn the lessons that will prevent these tragedies from occurring in the future.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
When Henry lay on the floor, he warned that he had been stabbed four times and he said that he could not breathe nine times, yet the officer chose to cuff him, rather than treat him. That officer should be in court, being prosecuted for a total dereliction of duty, but the bigger question is this: why do officers behave in this way? Is it because they have been taught repeatedly to elevate perceptions of ethnic minority communities over the safety of white British people? That sickness contributed to the killings by Rudakubana, by Calocane in Nottingham, and now by Digwa. It is a sickness rooted in the anti-racism agenda. Will the Home Secretary root it out? Will she return to equality before the law for all? Will she say that when it comes to public safety, white lives matter just as much as anyone else’s?
Shabana Mahmood
I do not think this is a moment to pit white Britons against non-white Britons; this is a moment to reflect on a horrific tragedy. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the IOPC is investigating the conduct of those police officers. It would be wholly inappropriate for a Member of this House to seek to pre-empt an independent investigation into the potential misconduct of police officers. That IOPC investigation will look at individual conduct, but also at the wider lessons that can be learned from this case. I will personally ensure that all lessons are learned and acted upon.
It is a fundamental principle—not just of the British criminal justice system, but of who and what we are as a country—that we are all equal before the law of our land. That applies regardless of the colour of one’s skin, and regardless of whether someone is a non-white Brit whose family arrived here 50 years ago or 10 years ago, or whether they are a white Brit whose family have been here for 300 years or more. We are all equal before the law of our land, and we should all support that principle but not use it to pit our citizens against one another. That is not what this moment demands.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the Chamber this afternoon. As many hon. and right hon. Members have said, no one can fail to be moved by watching the footage and seeing a young life being wasted like that. The inhumane and degrading treatment that Henry had to go through in his last few moments is something that will stay with the family when the news coverage has moved on and those police officers have been prosecuted, because when someone is killed by a murderer who is intent on killing— regardless of race—it is the families and communities that have to deal with the long-term impact.
Many of us in this Chamber have had to comfort constituents who have lost a family member through knife crime. This epidemic across the UK has to stop. How is it possible that the killer was allowed to roam the streets with a 21 cm knife, freely stab someone and then lie? It is really important that we make sure that this Government get to grips with that. As soon as the IOPC concludes the findings of its investigation, will the Home Secretary come back to the House and make sure that the Government adequately respond, so that we are not back here again and do not have to console another family whose life has been taken by knife crime?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me give my hon. Friend that reassurance. While the investigation is taking place, it is right that we give the IOPC the space it needs to do its important work. It would be wholly wrong for Ministers to pre-empt what findings might be made in the future, but as soon as those findings are made, I will ensure that the Government respond.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. We in this House need to be careful about our response to what is a sad loss of life of a young man who was going to a vibrant university in a fantastic and welcoming city, with the rest of his life supposedly ahead of him. Notwithstanding what the Home Secretary has said—I am grateful to her for saying that the IOPC will receive full resourcing—has she done any thinking about what other investigations her Department might need to do into the conduct of Hampshire constabulary? Can she confirm whether the officers in question have been suspended, pending the investigation? Could she also outline whether she is currently looking at whether she needs to make changes to the exemptions to carrying knives for religious or cultural purposes?
Shabana Mahmood
The question of suspensions is a matter for the IOPC because of the way it makes its initial findings and then reacts to the evidence as it all becomes available. Of course, now that the criminal proceedings have concluded, the IOPC will be able to ramp up and go faster in that process. Again, it would not be appropriate for Ministers to be sighted on that or to seek to direct it in any way, but I know that staff at the IOPC are watching. If clarifications are needed or questions need answering, I am sure that they will respond, but they are wholly independent of Government.
The exemption for the carrying of knives for religious and ceremonial purposes has been a long-standing arrangement, as a way of balancing public safety and religious freedom. It has been supported by successive Governments, including this one, and we are not seeking to move away from our respect for religious freedom. The wider context is an important question that is always worth serious consideration, but my approach would be to engage directly with representatives of the Sikh community and knife crime campaigners, rather than pitting those two groups against one another, because these are issues of a common cause. I will repeat the point I made in my statement: there is a world of difference between a person acting out of religious observance and carrying something as an act of faith, and somebody unsheathing that weapon and using it to kill somebody. That individual has met the full force of the law.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
As you know, Mr Speaker, there is no bigger champion of policing in this House than me, but the body-worn footage of Henry Nowak’s death is gut-wrenching and the police response, on the basis of what we know so far, is unfathomable. It is right that the IOPC is investigating, but as everyone around policing knows, such investigations have often taken far too long—sometimes many years—which is not good for anybody involved. Can the Home Secretary assure me that she will press the IOPC to report as quickly as possible—most of all, for Henry’s family?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend speaks powerfully from deep personal and professional experience, and I pay tribute to him. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I have had many concerns about the length of time it sometimes takes the IOPC to report—concerns that I have raised with the IOPC directly since I have been Home Secretary. However, given that the investigation started in December, the criminal investigation and case in relation to the murderer have only just concluded, and the IOPC has said that it expects to report within three months, I believe that this investigation is proceeding at the pace that the House would expect. I am sure that the IOPC is reflecting on the tenor of today’s debate, and will understand the need for urgency and to make sure that the family have answers as quickly as is humanly possible.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
My thoughts are with Henry Nowak’s family, friends and the local community. The prosecution said that the perpetrator had a “weapons obsession”. It should not have been so easy for somebody with a weapons obsession to amass an arsenal of knives. What is the Minister doing to reduce the availability of dangerous knives on our streets?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Lady makes a really important point. She will know that we have legislated through the Crime and Policing Act 2026, which became law just a few short weeks ago. The measures within the Act will be implemented at pace by this Government; they relate to the possession of weapons and the buying of weapons—whether online or elsewhere—and there are new duties on sellers of knives to report larger sales or bulk sales. The Government have introduced a broad range of measures to deal with the scourge of knife crime, and those measures have just become law. We will ensure that the law is implemented as quickly as possible, so that we can get on top of this issue.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
The death of Henry Nowak is a horrifying tragedy, and my thoughts are with his family, friends and community. We must honour the words of his father by not using this tragedy to create further hatred, division or tension, and the House should not go against those wishes. Henry’s family want action so that no other family goes through what they are going through right now. Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that she will go further and faster to tackle knife crime, so that no one fears walking the streets of the UK?
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Can the Home Secretary please make sure that the findings of the IOPC report are shared with Police Scotland and all police forces across these islands in order to ensure that any recommended structural or procedural changes are made, and that lessons can be learned by all forces and then implemented?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. Although some of these responsibilities are devolved, I hope that other legislatures in our country will show an interest. My Ministers and I certainly engage with our partners in the devolved Administrations. We will continue to do so, and we will discuss this matter as well.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I, too, thank the Home Secretary for her statement. As a Nanaksari Sikh, I wear the five Ks every day as part of my religious observance, including the kirpan, and as a Sikh, I really struggle to express the feelings of sheer horror that this case has generated within me, my family and my friends. It absolutely has been a horror.
The senseless murder of Henry Nowak should be condemned in its entirety by everybody. A young man’s life has been taken in his prime, and I wish to express my and my constituency’s full sympathy with and condolences for the family of Henry Nowak, who have shown incredible dignity in their grief. I totally condemn the action of Vickrum Digwa, the mindless, senseless murder and the lies. There is simply no religious justification for his actions. I am relieved that our criminal justice system and the courts came to the same conclusion, and that sentiment is shared universally across the Sikh community.
This case has raised many aspects of concern for my constituents—Sikh and non-Sikh—including issues of safety and knife crime, and the freedom to practise one’s faith. Will the Secretary of State meet me and colleagues to discuss these issues further?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. Let me again emphasise the dignity and the grace shown by Henry’s family. Their response has been something I do not believe I would have been capable of, if I had been in their shoes, and it is an example to us all.
On the broader issues, and there will be many issues in relation to this case, once the IOPC investigation has concluded we will be able to draw further conclusions on the facts, the police response and the wider problems. I am always happy to discuss with my hon. Friend the different issues raised in this case, and in particular how we get the right balance between the religious freedoms he and I both enjoy as members of faith minorities in our country and the need to make sure that public protection is never compromised.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Henry Nowak’s tragic murder is, sadly, stark proof that we have become a country where we no longer treat everyone as equal under the law. Does the Home Secretary agree it is time to put a stop to the political correctness that has overpowered common-sense policing, and will she commit to ending the nonsense of police cultural competency training being put ahead of protecting every citizen regardless of race?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me reiterate my belief and expectation that the police must always act without fear or favour and treat all citizens equally before the law. I hope the hon. Member will recognise that the vast majority of our police officers run towards danger every day to keep us all safe, and in the vast majority of cases they get the balance right between how they respond in a specific case and, more broadly, how they keep communities safe. Where there are issues, lessons must be learned; I am sure that, once the IOPC investigation has concluded, we will do that.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I think that for all of us as MPs, the time we spend with families who lose a family member in horrific circumstances stays with us throughout our career. I know that in my community there will be many parents who, sadly, have lost children to knife crime, who will have seen Mark Nowak’s statement and felt every single word, and who will want to send their condolences to the family. They will also be acutely aware of how difficult a watch that body camera footage was, and of his words about not seeing the tragedy used to “inflame division”.
Given that, and given how some people are interpreting this matter and the misinformation that is circulating, what thought has the Home Secretary given to ensuring trusted sources of information on this issue? There is an important need for scrutiny and transparency about what has happened—and in a context where there is so much misinformation, we need sources of light, not heat. What more could the Home Office do on that matter?
Shabana Mahmood
We in the Home Office have a responsibility, which we seek always to fulfil, to make sure that we act calmly and responsibly, with the full facts at our disposal; if we do not have the full facts at our disposal, we wait until we do before we comment, in order not to put out misleading or false information.
My hon. Friend is right that the wider environment is very challenging. Of course the Government are taking action through other Departments, such as through the Online Safety Act 2023, in relation to digital platforms. I am sure we will return to those conversations, because there is no doubt that, on social media in particular, the environment makes it very challenging to establish the truth, rather than misinformation and straight-up lies. We collectively have a responsibility in this House to make sure that we shine light rather than heat on these matters, so that we can hold our country together and make sure that all our citizens are treated fairly.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Our sympathies go out to the family, who must have been horrified by what they saw on the police footage. How have we reached a stage in this country where, when the police go to an incident, they arrest a dying man because they are afraid of being accused of racism by his murderer? This is affecting the police right across the United Kingdom. Only this week, in a park on the edge of my constituency, the police were called because a gathering of Muslim men were seen to be carrying weapons. No arrests were made, excuses were made for carrying the weapons, and the anger of the community is palpable.
Would the Secretary of State make it clear to the police that policing should not be based on fear of racism, or direction by chief constables, or on the colour of people’s skin? The police should carry out their duty impartially; two-tier policing only diminishes the police and undermines their credibility and their standing in the community, which is bad for everybody.
Shabana Mahmood
There can, of course, be no suggestion of two-tier policing; we would never—no one would ever—stand for that. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the police respond to danger every single day and have to make quick decisions, usually in very difficult circumstances. In the vast majority of cases they do get things right, and it is important that we acknowledge that broader picture of policing. Of course, when things go wrong or the balance is not struck correctly, that should be investigated and scrutinised, and lessons must always be learned.
I would not want us to be in a position where we just accept that there are big problems with how our police, generally speaking, approach their job. I do agree that any instances where it looks as though something has gone wrong cost public confidence in policing, but that is why we have the independent arrangements with the IOPC to investigate fully and make findings of fact, on which the Government and others can take action.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
Henry Nowak’s murder was a senseless, evil act, a criminal act, which Vickrum Digwa bears responsibility for. It is horrific that he made false claims to evade that responsibility. The actions of a perpetrator do not represent the whole community, and I know the Sikh community in the UK wholly condemn them. Many of us are deeply distressed about the circumstances of Henry’s death and his treatment in his final moments. How will the Secretary of State ensure that those lessons are learned, and that Henry’s family are put first and fully considered? On knife crime, how will we ensure that the root causes are dealt with and that resources are provided to agencies and to communities?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me assure my hon. Friend that the knife crime action plan is funded, and we have put significant money behind violence reduction units and other measures that we know are imperative to deal with knife crime in our country. Let me assure her again that, as soon as the IOPC investigation has concluded, I will make sure that the House is updated.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Is it normal police practice to handcuff a person who is lying helpless on the ground and clearly offering no resistance? Given the Home Secretary’s admirable and utter rejection of differential treatment of people according to their race, will she undertake to examine and withdraw the policing policy document identified by the shadow Home Secretary as embodying precisely such differential treatment?
Shabana Mahmood
On policing practice and the specifics of this case, that is precisely what the IOPC is looking at, because it takes into account the context and the expectations of police officers given the specific dangers that they face. The IOPC will look into that and, once it has made its findings of fact, I will of course return to the House.
On the issue of differential treatment, the right hon. Member will know, as a long-standing Member of this House, that we have had many debates from the opposite end of the race spectrum, if I might put it that way. Today, we are talking primarily about the white community in this instance, but there have been many debates in this House about differential treatment for minority communities. That is why I do not think it is helpful for us to look at this issue through a community-specific lens; it is much broader than that. I will of course ensure that I always engage with the police on the specifics of their policies, but it is not my view that the police are institutionally or systemically operating a system of differential treatment. We will always make sure that we guard against that, and I will work with the police to make sure it never happens.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s fierce rejection of two-tier policing and of any suggestion that people should be judged differently according to their colour. The footage is one of the most sickening things I have ever seen, and my heart goes out to the Nowak family who had to witness it. The Home Secretary is absolutely right to say that we must wait for the IOPC investigation, but if it does turn out that some kind of misguided application of the culture of policing has led to the victim not being believed while the murderer was believed, what more will she do to ensure that every single police officer hears loud and clear her message that everyone deserves to be policed in exactly the same way, regardless of the colour of their skin?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me give my hon. Friend the assurance that, as soon as the IOPC investigation has concluded and it has made its findings on the specific circumstances of this case, I will make sure that we return to the House so that we have an opportunity to debate collectively what the correct response will be. Let me also reassure him and everybody else that I will never stand for a system where there is any suggestion of differential treatment before the law. We are all equal before the law and every lesson we learn must always live up to that abiding principle.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
Henry Nowak was murdered near my constituency and local people are rightly furious with Hampshire police—not only the officers who attended the scene, but those leading the force. It is important to remember that Henry’s murderer accused him of racism. In honour of Henry’s legacy, it is important that we are all abundantly clear that the judge found absolutely zero evidence to back up that claim.
Does the Home Secretary agree that a false accusation of racism against a white person is just as bad as, if not worse than, a legitimate claim of racism, because of the deceit? Does she also agree that, watching the bodycam footage, it is clear that police officers treated Henry with disdain, contempt and arguably negligence because of the colour of his skin? We are hearing No. 10 say that two-tier policing does not exist. I ask the Home Secretary: where is the leadership today? British people are furious. The leadership is not coming from the Government.
Shabana Mahmood
I disagree entirely with the right hon. and learned Lady. Great leadership has already been shown by the family of Henry Nowak in the tenor of their response and their statement, and in their desire—rightly, in my view—not to see this murder used as a tool for furthering division in our country. We would all do well to take our lead from Henry’s family.
I am in the House today; I am answering questions and I have undertaken to come back once the IOPC investigation has concluded. The right hon. and learned Lady is a former Home Secretary and will know that those independent arrangements exist so that people can have confidence in the findings made in cases such as this and can know that they are made without political interference or for political ends.
On the broader point about false allegations that the right hon. and learned Lady made, lies are lies and they must be called out as such. Where a lie is criminal or leads to criminality, it must face the full force of the law. That is what has happened in this case. There has been a measure of justice, because the criminal case has concluded, the murderer has been found guilty of murder and the judge has made further findings in relation to the circumstances of the case. I urge her and some of her colleagues, when commenting on this case, to stick to the facts as they have been established.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary for the way they introduced this very sensitive issue.
The murder of Henry Nowak was a wicked act of brutality. His family and all those who loved him have been left with unimaginable grief, mourning their brother, their son and their friend, who they will never, ever get back. I know Members across the House share my devastation at this vile murder by this vile individual. However, some Members have been using this horrific incident for political capital, spreading disinformation for their own gain. Does the Home Secretary agree that politicians have a responsibility to act with decorum, and to focus on Henry, who lost his life, and his grieving family, who have lost a son and a brother, rather than fanning the flames of division?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that on this matter we should take our lead from Henry’s family, who have set an example for us all to follow.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
“I’ve been stabbed” versus “He racially abused me.” How are the Government going to rebuild public confidence in our culture and in institutions that have attempted to rank people according to perceived oppression, rather than judging each person on their actions and on reality?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me just repeat to the hon. Gentleman the point I have already made in this debate: there can be no suggestion of two-tier policing in our country. In the vast majority of cases the police apply the law fairly and without fear or favour, and they must always do so. Once the IOPC investigation has concluded, I will make sure that the specific lessons from the circumstances of this case are learned and acted upon.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
This was a vile act and a crime of the upmost severity, and I am pleased that it has been treated as such by our courts. The case is about the murder of a young man, and our thoughts should remain with Henry Nowak’s family. We do not know why the officers acted as they did, but there is nothing in the Macpherson inquiry that can be blamed for the apparent lack of humanity displayed in the body-worn camera footage. Does the Home Secretary agree with me that we should reflect on the words of Henry’s father, Mark Nowak, who asked that his son’s death should
“not…be used to create further division, hatred or tension.”?
Does she agree that this is entirely what the interventions of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and others seek to do?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I agree with him; he is right to refer to the words of Henry’s father. Many Members have rightly referred to those words today and we should all bear them in mind. Let me reiterate that I will ensure that all the lessons that must be learned from this case are learned and acted upon properly, but this case must turn on its own facts and its own circumstances. It is not to be used, in my view, to unwind other changes that were made to rebuild public confidence in policing.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
This cowardly murder is not a reflection on the Sikh community, which has integrated itself into the UK with honour and modesty. I understand that the weapon wielded was not that traditionally carried by Sikhs. However, I believe this murder may give reasonable grounds to review existing exemptions to knife legislation on the grounds of religious reasons and national dress. I know that the Home Secretary wants to halve knife crime within the next 10 years. What message do the exemptions give? Is she honestly going to rule out even a review?
Shabana Mahmood
As I said earlier, our religious freedoms and the arrangements we have are of long standing and have been designed to strike the right balance between religious freedom and public protection. I said earlier that the wider question is worthy of serious consideration, which is what I will give to it, but I would want to start that process by discussing the matter with the Sikh community themselves, knife crime campaigners and the police. I think that is the right way to proceed, rather than launching a formal review. As the judge found in this case, this was not an act of religious observance. The minute the knife was unsheathed to be used, it became a murder weapon and the murderer has now faced the full force of the law.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
My thoughts are with the family and friends of Henry Nowak. It was absolutely gut-wrenching to see the video footage from the body-worn camera. In Hampshire, the murder has left people deeply shocked not only by the violence of the act, but by the circumstances as he lay dying. I am pleased to hear that the IOPC will have the resources it needs to fully investigate. I am also glad to hear that the Hampshire police and crime commissioner has said that she will ensure the recommendations are fully implemented. Mistakes have clearly been made, but will the Home Secretary ensure that Hampshire and Isle of Wight constabulary receives any support needed to implement the IOPC findings in full, and that lessons on victim recognition, officer judgment and impartiality are acted on swiftly?
Shabana Mahmood
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. In fact, the Minister for Policing met the police and crime commissioner earlier today.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Henry’s heartbroken father has said that Henry’s family do not want his murder to
“be used to create further division, hatred or tension.”
I pray that we all heed those words in this House. This heinous crime is made worse by the shocking police response, and lessons must be learnt. What will the Home Secretary do differently to crack down on the epidemic of knife crime, such as creating a dedicated knife crime Minister? What steps will she take to ensure that our Sikh community, who are overwhelmingly peaceful and integrated, are not held collectively responsible by those who wish to divide us?
Shabana Mahmood
The Government have a landmark commitment to halve the levels of knife crime in this country over the next decade. We have our landmark knife crime action plan, which is a funded action plan. The Prime Minister has taken a personal interest in that commitment. This Government will strain every sinew to deliver on that.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
In the ’80s and ’90s in this country, many police officers carried out their duties in a prejudicial and racist way. I am proud of having worked alongside many others to eliminate that racism as much as we could. However, we are now left with what is perhaps a more difficult problem to deal with, because many police officers and other public servants are now frightened that they will be accused of racism in carrying out those duties. What actions can the Home Secretary and the Cabinet take to reassure people who are accused of racism that proper process will be followed and that they will not just be left out of a job forever?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the historical context of policing in this country and the question of racism itself. Many minority communities have been on the receiving end of that treatment in the past. It is right that the system as a whole has sought to learn those lessons and to deliver a policing service in which we can all be confident so that we know we will all be treated fairly under the law. I will ensure that continues to be the case going forward.
On his question, when accusations are made—whether in a legal and policing context or throughout other parts of the public sector—they are just that: accusations. We should remember the principles of our broader justice system when it comes to innocence, findings of guilt and the fairness of procedures to give people a chance to explain themselves without findings of fact being made against them before that has happened. I expect to see that happen throughout the criminal justice system, but also throughout wider society.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
When the race card was played by his murderer, was Henry Nowak treated differently because of the colour of his skin, causing the innocent victim to be handcuffed and the murderer to be pandered to?
Shabana Mahmood
The reaction of the police officers attending the scene to the circumstances they faced there is what the IOPC is investigating. Once that investigation is complete and findings of fact are made, I will be happy to discuss the further lessons with the hon. Gentleman and others in the House.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I join colleagues across the House in offering my thoughts and prayers to Henry’s family over his vile and disgusting murder. Unfortunately, far-right groups in Blackpool and across the country are weaponising Henry’s death to create more hatred. Will the Home Secretary join me in condemning those in Blackpool and across the country and ensure that we honour the powerful call from Henry’s family, who do not want his death to be used to create further division, hatred or tension in this country?
Shabana Mahmood
I join my hon. Friend and Members across the House in condemning the actions of the far right utterly. They are completely unacceptable. We should all take a stand against the far right weaponising this horrifying murder—this terrible tragedy for the Nowak family—to spread further division, which is not what this moment requires. I hope that that stand has broad support across the House.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
My thoughts are with Henry’s family. As I listened to his dad yesterday, I could not help but cry at the loss that his family have suffered, and at the fact that the video footage will be etched on their minds forever.
It appears that we have an undercurrent of anti-white racism brewing in the UK. We see white people jailed for allegedly inciting racial hatred on social media, while members of other communities are not even prosecuted for viciously attacking police officers. Henry Nowak deserved better—he did not deserve to be attacked; he did not deserve to spend his final moments pleading for help and saying that he could not breathe; he did not deserve not to be believed; and, above all, he did not deserve to die. Why did it take this Government until yesterday to speak out on this matter, while they run to virtue signal on many other cases? Is the UK no longer a safe place for people like Henry Nowak?
Shabana Mahmood
The reason the Government did not comment until yesterday is because a criminal case was going through our courts. Members of this House, and certainly members of the Government, are not commentators for the purposes of social media. Ministers of the Crown must respect the independence of our criminal justice system and the ability of our courts and independent legal processes to function so that, when findings of fact are made, a conviction happens and a sentence is passed; it commands public confidence across the whole country, because everyone knows it was not interfered with politically; and that it was, in fact, an independent assessment of the facts of a case. I remind the hon. Lady and all Members that that is the responsibility we all have. I urge her to reflect on that.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. I offer my condolences to Henry Nowak’s family, who have been through an appalling ordeal. What assurances can my right hon. Friend provide that Henry’s family’s concerns about the initial police response are being fully considered by the relevant authorities and that lessons will be learned from this terrible incident, so that no other family has to see their loved one doubted in their final moments by those who should be helping them?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me give that assurance to my hon. Friend and, through him, to Henry’s family, as I did earlier in my statement. The family asked me a specific question when they responded yesterday. I have met that challenge and will ensure that we continue to meet that challenge, and that they get the answers they need and deserve.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
For the final question, I call Tristan Osborne.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the House today, and I extend the sympathies of my constituents to Henry Nowak’s family over this heinous and horrific crime. There is speculation online about the identities of these police officers, which is putting at risk other officers across the country due to the irresponsible actions of extreme-right groups and others, fanning the flames of tension. Will the Home Secretary confirm what we are doing to protect our officers on a daily basis under these circumstances, and will she comment on the irresponsible speculation that is happening online?
Shabana Mahmood
Speculation online is not just irresponsible, but wholly unacceptable. As I said earlier, we should all take a stand against that. First, it is putting at risk people who are not connected with this case. Secondly, with regard to the officers who have been connected with this case, there is a proper process that must be allowed to take its course to investigate their conduct and make the appropriate findings in the proper way. Everyone in this House should stand up for the independence of that process and give it space to conclude so that once it has concluded, we can thoroughly debate the lessons that must be learned.
Terrorism Legislation Review
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has prepared a report on the operation of the Terrorism Acts in 2024.
In accordance with section 36(5) of the Terrorism Act 2006, the report is today being laid before Parliament and copies will be available in the Vote Office. It will also be published on gov.uk.
I am grateful to Mr Hall KC for his report. I will carefully consider its contents and the recommendations he makes and will respond formally in due course.
[HCWS1549]
Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Today, I am announcing the formal commencement of the independent inquiry into grooming gangs.
The setting-up date of the inquiry, as per section 5 of the Inquiries Act 2005, is 13 April 2026.
The inquiry will confront one of the darkest periods in our country’s history, where the most vulnerable people were abused and let down by those meant to protect them. I am committed to delivering the truth, accountability and reform that victims and survivors deserve and expect.
On 9 December 2025, I updated the House on the publication of the draft terms of reference for the independent inquiry into grooming gangs. Given the importance of getting this right, I asked the chair and panel of the inquiry to undertake a period of consultation, including with victims and survivors of these crimes, before returning their views to me for agreement on the final terms of reference.
The final terms of reference for the independent inquiry into grooming gangs were published on gov.uk on Tuesday 31 March. This upheld our previous commitment to agree terms of reference by the end of March. The interval between publication and formal commencement reflects the timing of parliamentary recess.
The terms were agreed with the chair and panel following a period of consultation. This included an online open consultation, which received over 25,000 responses, direct engagement with victims and survivors across England and Wales and engagement with parliamentarians. I would like to place on record my thanks to the chair of the inquiry, Baroness Anne Longfield CBE, and the panel, Zoë Billingham CBE and Eleanor Kelly CBE, for their work in leading this consultation.
The terms of reference have been shaped by the testimony, priorities and lived experience of victims and survivors and make clear that their experiences will continue to guide the inquiry’s work throughout. I would like to pay tribute to their involvement and tireless campaigning to ensure we right the wrongs of the past and ensure evil perpetrators of these crimes have nowhere to hide.
The inquiry is time-limited for three years, supported by a £65 million budget, to help ensure that justice is delivered swiftly for those who have already waited too long for answers. Its initial phase will focus on identifying priority areas for investigation, before undertaking targeted local investigations alongside a national-level review of the findings of those investigations. The criteria used to select local areas will be published by the inquiry within three months of the formal setting-up date.
The inquiry will examine systemic, institutional and individual failures, making recommendations for improvement at both national and local levels, as appropriate. The inquiry will be laser focused on grooming gangs and will explicitly examine the role ethnicity, religion and culture played in these crimes. It will seek to hold individuals, institutions and statutory services responsible to account for any failures.
With a national remit across England and Wales, the inquiry will work closely with the national police operation into group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse, Operation Beaconport, overseen by the National Crime Agency. As set out in the terms of reference, where criminal allegations and evidence are identified by the inquiry, this will be referred to law enforcement.
The Government accepted all 12 recommendations in Baroness Casey’s national audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse. The Government remain fully committed to implementing these recommendations and to driving forward broader action to tackle child sexual exploitation and abuse.
The Government are clear that this inquiry must deliver truth, accountability, and meaningful reform so that the injustices suffered by victims and survivors are not repeated and children are better protected in every community in future.
I recognise the long-standing interest from parliamentarians in this work. The inquiry has committed to publishing their findings regularly and I remain committed to keeping Parliament informed as the inquiry progresses.
[HCWS1492]
Southport Inquiry
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Southport inquiry. I must thank all who participated in the inquiry and the chair, Sir Adrian Fulford, and his team. Today, Sir Adrian published the report of the inquiry’s first phase. This summer, the Government will provide a full response. That will also cover Lord Anderson’s Prevent review. Today, I will provide the Government’s initial reaction to an inquiry that exposes a series of tragic failures from which we must learn.
We do so in the shadow of the events of 29 July 2024. I will not name the perpetrator, nor dwell on the details of the crimes that saw three beautiful young girls murdered, the attempted murder of eight other children and two adults, and lasting physical and psychological harm to many more. I know that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that my thoughts today are with all those affected. In honour of them and the memory of three murdered girls, Elsie Dot Stancombe, Bebe King and Alice da Silva Aguiar, we must now act to prevent similar attacks. It was for that reason that my predecessor appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead a full statutory inquiry.
The inquiry’s work has two parts. The first, which reported today, considered the decisions made by the agencies and services that interacted with the perpetrator. That included a range of institutions in the criminal justice system, as well as in education, healthcare and local government. It also considered the actions of the perpetrator’s parents.
The findings of the inquiry are unsparing. Sir Adrian has uncovered systematic failures across multiple public sector organisations. The recording and sharing of information were poor. None of the agencies involved had a full understanding of the risk that the perpetrator posed, and many did not take steps to assess the risk he posed to others. There was a failure by the agencies involved to take responsibility, and nobody was clear as to who was in charge; so the failure, because it belonged to everyone, belonged to no one. Where individuals missed opportunities to intervene, lessons must be learned, but they did so within organisations that repeatedly passed the risk to others and where systemic failings existed.
The perpetrator came into contact with the state on countless occasions. Lancashire police responded to five calls to his home address. The police were called when he was in possession of a knife in a public place. He was referred on several occasions to the multi-agency safeguarding hub. He came into contact with children’s social care, the Early Help service and children’s mental health services. He was referred to Prevent on three occasions. He was convicted of a violent assault and referred to a youth offending team. All failed to identify the risk that the perpetrator posed, and so he fell through the gaps. The warning signs were missed: a growing history of violence, and a clear and continuing intent to commit harm.
In the Home Office, the focus falls on Prevent and policing. Sir Adrian is clear that police should have progressed the perpetrator to the multi-agency Channel programme. Channel could have actively assessed and managed his risk. Instead, he was not deemed suitable because he had no fixed ideology. That ran counter to the guidance at the time, but the thresholds were unclear and the guidance was applied inconsistently. The perpetrator’s multiple referrals were also considered individually, when they should have been seen as a cumulative and compounding risk. The perpetrator did not receive the correct interventions, and his autism diagnosis meant that professionals focused far too much on his vulnerability and far too little on the threat that he might pose to others.
The horrific attack was itself evidence of the ease with which it could be conducted. There were no restrictions to stop the perpetrator watching the violent content that inspired him, downloading instructions to make poison, or viewing terrorist materials online. He was also able to bypass the safeguards that should have stopped him buying and receiving dangerous weapons. These findings are devastating, but they are not surprising. Findings like these have been heard before in inquests and inquiries. This time, however, they must be a spur for change. The inquiry makes 67 recommendations. The Government are reviewing them and will respond to those which relate to national government this summer, and I expect local agencies to do the same.
Since this awful crime, the Government have already acted. That begins with Prevent. Since the Southport attack, the Home Office and counter-terrorism policing have reviewed historical cases to ensure that similar instances were handled correctly, with cases reassessed for any change in risk and managed accordingly. The Government have reviewed the Prevent thresholds and published updated guidance. We have introduced a new Prevent assessment framework, with mandatory training for counter-terrorism case officers. Oversight of repeat Prevent referrals has been strengthened, ensuring that cumulative risk is not missed and senior sign-off is required before a case is closed. To provide independent oversight of the whole system, we have created an independent Prevent commissioner. I thank Lord Anderson, whose term ends today, for so ably taking on that position on an interim basis. I am pleased to say that I have appointed Tim Jacques as the new Prevent commissioner, and he begins his role tomorrow.
This Government have also begun to place greater controls on a dangerously unregulated online world. The Online Safety Act 2023 requires companies to remove illegal content from their platforms. The Act is intended to limit children from encountering content that is legal but poses a risk of significant harm, although that is just the beginning of what can and must be done. The internet remains a dangerous place for children, and we are clear that tech companies have a moral responsibility to keep their users safe. The House should be in no doubt that, when they fail to do so, the Government will intervene. That is why we are consulting on whether to remove children’s access to social media entirely.
I can also announce today that we will legislate to prevent the spread of extreme violent content online. We have also made it harder for people to purchase weapons. The Crime and Policing Bill places new controls on the online sale and delivery of knives. We have banned the manufacture, purchase and possession of ninja swords and zombie-style machetes, and earlier this year we published new guidance mandating that any child caught with a knife must be referred to a youth offending team.
In the aftermath of the attack, the Government commissioned Jonathan Hall KC—the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation—to consider the legislative gaps exposed by the attack. That work identified an inconsistency that clearly needed addressing: unlike for terrorist attacks, there is no crime on the statute book for planning an attack without an underlying ideology. Jonathan Hall therefore recommended the creation of a new offence. That legislation will be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.
The inquiry also identifies a wider issue: rising numbers of young men are fascinated by extreme violence—boys whose minds are warped by time spent in isolation online. That is a risk to us all. Where someone is vulnerable to terrorism, they can and should be managed through the Prevent programme. However, where they are not, there is no clear approach to that risk. Today, we publish the terms of reference for the second part of the Southport inquiry, which will face directly into that challenge. Sir Adrian will provide recommendations on the adequacy of the existing arrangements, across all arms of the state, for identifying and managing the risk posed by violence-fixated individuals. He will explore what specific interventions are required to reduce the risk to the public. He will also review the influence of the internet and social media, and the ease with which weapons can be procured. Sir Adrian begins this work immediately, and will present his final recommendations next spring.
In the summer of 2024, an act of unspeakable evil took place in Southport. Nothing will ever heal the pain of those who survive, including the families who suffered unimaginable loss. Responsibility rests with the perpetrator, but there was also responsibility within the family. The perpetrator’s parents knew the risk that he posed but did not co-operate with the authorities. There is also responsibility on the state, and on all of us here, to learn the lessons from failures, wherever they occurred. That lesson is that the failures happened everywhere. We must ensure that we do not find ourselves here again, grieving deaths that would never have happened had the state—and those who work within it—acted differently. That is our task. I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. Let us remember the three victims of this savage attack—Bebe King, aged just six; Elsie Dot Stancombe, aged seven; and Alice da Silva Aguiar, aged nine—and the eight more children and two adults who were seriously injured. I also want to thank Merseyside emergency services, who responded to this event.
As the Home Secretary rightly said, this report identifies very serious repeated failings by public bodies. Sir Adrian said that a
“merry-go-round of referrals, assessments, case-closures and ‘hand-offs’”
meant no agency took the lead or properly addressed the danger Rudakubana posed. Multiple opportunities were missed to prevent this tragedy. Sir Adrian also found that Rudakubana’s parents created
“significant obstructions to constructive engagement.”
Sir Adrian makes important recommendations. I am glad the Home Secretary will respond by the summer, and we on the Conservative Benches will support necessary actions.
During the inquiry, we heard evidence given by Rudakubana’s former headteacher Joanne Hodson. She told the inquiry that she was pressured by mental health services to water down the education, health and care plan to minimise the danger posed by Rudakubana because of his ethnicity. Miss Hodson told the inquiry:
“my efforts to include this information in the EHCP were met with hostility by the father and also by mental health services. Miss Steed”,
who was from child and adolescent mental health services,
“even went as far as to accuse me of racially stereotyping AR as ‘a black boy with a knife’. Nothing could be further from the truth”,
but
“in the end…the wording of the EHCP was re-written in many places”.
This contributed to the clear risks being missed.
The Nottingham inquiry into the three tragic murders there identified exactly the same issue: mental health professionals in Nottingham decided not to section Valdo Calocane because they were concerned about an
“over-representation of young black men in detention”.
Even the Government’s notes on the Mental Health Bill accompanying the King’s Speech refer to that issue.
The fixation with ethnic disproportionality is deeply damaging. Ethnicity should never be a consideration: when an agency is taking steps to protect the public, everybody should simply be treated exactly the same. We cannot allow dangerous individuals to avoid detention for public safety simply because of their ethnicity. Everybody should be treated the same. It would be helpful if the Home Secretary made clear from the Dispatch Box that she agrees with that approach and set out how the Government will change their approach in the future.
Today’s report also makes it clear that Rudakubana’s autism was wrongly allowed to inhibit the way he was dealt with, yet the Government’s King’s Speech notes on the Mental Health Bill again expressly said that people with autism should be sectioned less often. Given the findings of today’s report, will the Government reconsider that?
I also want to raise the aftermath of this tragedy, which saw serious rioting. It is of course important to avoid prejudicing criminal trials. However, as Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said:
“The Government has to be aware…that if there is an information gap…then there are other voices, particularly in social media, who will try and fill it.”
He went on:
“Quite often, there’s a fair amount…that can be put into the public domain”,
and indeed in October, two or three months after the attack but well before the trial, information concerning the al-Qaeda terror manual and ricin was put in the public domain without prejudicing the trial. The failure to provide information created an information vacuum in those early days of August 2024, and that vacuum was filled by untrue speculation online, some of it originating outside the UK, which fuelled the riots. Will the Home Secretary therefore commit to making sure that in future such information is routinely released in cases of public interest?
As the mother of Elsie said at the inquiry, this tragedy must be a “line in the sand.” We owe it to the victims, to the survivors and to their families to learn the lessons from this tragedy and to make sure it never happens again.
Shabana Mahmood
I welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s comments about potentially working together on the changes that need to be made as a result of the inquiry’s initial findings. The Government will respond by the summer, and I look forward to discussions with him and other hon. Members to ensure that the House is united as one in the action that needs to be taken. As he said, that is the very least that we owe the victims’ families and all those who have been affected by this horrific tragedy.
The shadow Home Secretary referred specifically to the testimony of Mrs Hodson, the headteacher. She gave evidence to the inquiry and I believe that her position was vindicated very strongly by the chair in the inquiry’s findings. Let me be absolutely clear: the only factors that should be taken into account are the potential risks posed by an individual and how best to manage those risks. No other factors are relevant. It is clear, in relation not just to Mrs Hodson’s experience but to the failures that existed across a multiplicity of public agencies, that at the heart of the problem was a failure to assess appropriately the risk that the perpetrator posed to others. He managed to slip through the cracks because no one agency took responsibility for the assessment of that risk, and ultimately for the managing of the risk that the perpetrator posed to others. Those are the only factors that should ever be taken into account. I will be working closely with Ministers from other Departments as we formulate our full response to the inquiry’s findings and set out our expectations of professionals, not just in health but in other public services.
On the diagnosis of autism, in his report Sir Adrian made it clear that it would be
“wrong to make a general association between autism and an increased risk of violent harm to others.”
However, he also found that the way that the perpetrator’s autism manifested itself increased the risk of harm that he posed to others. That shows the absolute importance of taking a case-by-case approach, making sure that all factors are adequately taken into account and that agencies take responsibility for how that risk is to be managed. Again, there are good lessons to learn for health practitioners and others in our local services when it comes to assessment of risk and how it is best managed.
On issues relating to communications after the attack took place, especially at the point when a lot of misinformation was being spread, particularly online, the shadow Home Secretary will know that there has already been a change in practice, having learned the lessons of what happened. There was a well-meaning desire to ensure that nothing was done that might prejudice a trial, but exactly how the rules are applied can be a matter of interpretation and degree. The College of Policing has already created new professional practice in its guidance for police officers, there is already a new Crown Prosecution Service and media protocol, and we are developing a new charter between criminal justice agencies and the media to ensure that whatever information that can be readily and easily be made available is made available at the earliest opportunity. It will always be incredibly important that nothing is done that might prejudice a trial, but I know that the shadow Home Secretary will acknowledge that since this horrific attack there has already been a change in approach to communications by the Government and other agencies. In other instances and cases, the Government and other agencies have made much more information available to the media, and therefore to the public.
I know that the inquiry’s findings and the phase 2 report will be of great interest to Members across the House. I look forward to working not just with the official Opposition but with Members from all parties to ensure that the House is as one in the response to this horrific tragedy—that is what we owe all the victims of this case.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. My constituents expect Prevent to keep them safe, so can she reiterate what changes she will make to Prevent, as the Home Secretary in this Government, to help to stop an attack like this happening in the future?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point about the reliance that all of us place on the Prevent programme. We should rightly be able to place that reliance on the programme and ensure that it is as strong as it possibly can be when it comes to preventing tragedies, diverting people away from potentially committing a terrorist act and driving them away from extremism more broadly.
We have already been delivering a number of improvements to the Prevent programme. There is new statutory guidance, improved training, new case management systems and much stronger interventions for people who are already on the programme. We also have a strengthened approach to managing repeat referrals; where there are a number of referrals, which individually might not have led to an onward referral to the Channel stream, the cumulative impact is now being taken into account. There is also a much more robust risk assessment tool. The totality of the changes that we have already made has put the programme in a much stronger position, but in learning of the findings from this inquiry, we will take more action as necessary.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. It is truly heartbreaking to know that there were so many missed opportunities to stop the Southport attack. My thoughts today are with the bereaved families whose young daughters were so cruelly taken from them and with the many other victims who suffered unimaginable trauma that day. We owe it to them to make every attempt to prevent a senseless attack like this from ever happening again.
The report lays bare that agency after agency failed to step up and take ownership of the risks that the perpetrator posed. There are monumental failures across a number of authorities, from the police, Prevent and NHS mental health services to children’s social care, youth offending services and the perpetrator’s parents. That is simply not acceptable. Will the Home Secretary confirm how soon she plans to report back on whether the Government will accept all 67 recommendations? Will she commit to providing Parliament with an update on progress every six months?
Today’s report exposes serious oversights by online giants that allowed the perpetrator to collect an arsenal of weapons without effective age verification checks. Will the Home Secretary confirm whether the recently published knife crime strategy will address the ease with which knives are available for purchase online? Will it crack down on big tech companies, like Amazon, that are putting profit above protocol when it comes to the sale of dangerous items?
Finally, the Liberal Democrats have long argued that Prevent is not fit for purpose. It is deeply shocking that the perpetrator was referred three times yet no further action was taken. We understand that was because he did not possess a specific ideology—well, there should be no clearer sign of a system unable to address modern threats. Will the Home Secretary today commit to a full overhaul of Prevent within this Parliament so that future warning signs are not missed? Will she also commit to bringing forward the legislation recommended by Jonathan Hall KC in the next King’s Speech?
Shabana Mahmood
The Liberal Democrat spokeswoman is absolutely right; the sheer number of missed opportunities in this case is truly horrifying. That is why we must do everything we can to reform all these systems in our public services to make sure that no such incident can happen again.
There will be a comprehensive response from the Government on all of the inquiry’s phase 1 recommendations. I intend for that to come before the summer so the House will have an opportunity to debate it. As we move to delivery of the Government’s response to the recommendations, I will keep the House updated on our progress, including on where potential future legislation might be needed.
In the Crime and Policing Bill, which is continuing its passage through Parliament, we have introduced new age verification checks both at the point of sale and at the point of delivery of knives. That is a way of directly responding to some of the issues we have seen in this case, whereby the perpetrator was able to slip through the system. That should not be possible in the future once the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and is implemented.
Let me turn to the question of the threat posed by those who are fixated by violence but do not necessarily have an ideology, by those who have a mixed ideology, or by those who flit between having an ideology and not having one; there is a developing, complex picture of the sorts of threats that we face. We have made it very clear that those who have no fixed ideology but are vulnerable to terrorism are still, and should be, referred to the Prevent programme. That remains the lead programme for dealing with the risk posed by those individuals.
The inquiry recognises that there is a gap through which those who do not have a fixed ideology and are not vulnerable to terrorism might slip. Phase 2 of the inquiry will consider how best to respond to those sorts of cases, and will make recommendations on who should take the lead on dealing with those individuals, but I want to assure the hon. Lady and all Members of the House that the Government are not simply waiting for phase 2 to report. We are already trialling with a number of local authorities a new approach for those who are below the threshold for Prevent, but who present a risk that we are concerned about and who we believe might pose a risk of harm to others. We are thinking about different ways in which agencies might handle that risk in order to make sure those individuals do not slip through the net. As we learn lessons from those pilots, we will seek to start implementing them, while we wait, of course, for Sir Adrian Fulford and the inquiry team to come forward with fuller recommendations in this area in future.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and place on record my sympathies for the families of Alice, Elsie and Bebe, who are living with the most unimaginable loss.
The Southport attack has been ruled a “disaster waiting to happen” after the perpetrator was referred to Prevent on three separate occasions, and Sir Adrian Fulford has highlighted other multi-agency failings. On 20 June 2020, my constituents Gary and Jan Furlong lost their son James, who was murdered during the Forbury Gardens terrorist attack—I am also thinking of them today. Like Southport, the perpetrator of the Forbury Gardens attack had been referred to Prevent four separate times, and multi-agency failures were also highlighted by Sir Adrian Fulford. Like the deaths of Alice, Elsie and Bebe, the deaths of James Furlong, Dr David Wails and Joseph Ritchie-Bennett were ruled to have been “probably avoidable”.
I acknowledge that it will take some time to go through the 67 recommendations that have been made in respect of Southport. However, can the Home Secretary advise the House on whether, despite the improvements to Prevent that she has outlined today, she actually believes that it is fit for purpose? She said in her statement that
“We must ensure we do not find ourselves here again, grieving deaths which should never have happened, had the state, and those who work within it, acted differently”,
but the fact is that we are here again, and we are here time and time again after multi-agency failures. Can the Home Secretary immediately take steps in respect of joined-up partnership working, and outline to us what those steps will be, in order to ensure that no other family has to endure such loss?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for what she has just said, and associate myself with her remarks about the victims of the Forbury Gardens attack—about those who died and their families. She is absolutely right that we have been here far too many times. This must be a moment of change, and I am very hopeful that with such a thorough report from Sir Adrian Fulford, with such clear, practical recommendations for action to prevent such a tragedy from occurring in the future, we can and will make progress. As I know she will accept, that is the very least that we owe all the families, and I look forward to working with colleagues across the House to implement recommendations as we move forward. We all have to do more, and Government agencies all have to do more as well.
I assure my hon. Friend that I am standing up a taskforce to bring together all Government Ministers with relevant responsibilities, to make sure we begin work immediately on improving the systems and processes that are in place at the moment and that we are not simply waiting for the final phase of the inquiry to report—there will be more progress. We have taken steps to reform Prevent. I know that the Prevent strategy and the work it does has been of interest in this House for many years, and has been scrutinised very thoroughly. An intervention programme of this kind is always going to have to move very quickly to deal with changing threat patterns—for example, the way that Islamist extremism might have presented in the era of Daesh and ISIL in Syria becoming prominent is different from how it presents now—and practitioners have to be able to adapt as quickly as the presentation of extremist ideologies is developing. It will always be a work in progress, because the nature of the threat is changing so quickly and regularly. That is something we should acknowledge. However, we can and will have strong mechanisms in place to make sure that the programme does the job we all know it needs to do.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
As a consultant paediatrician, I have to undertake Prevent training at regular intervals. On each one of those occasions, I have raised with Ministers my concerns about either the quality or emphasis of that training, or both. Can the Home Secretary say whether she feels that in this particular situation, the problem was mostly that the perpetrator did not conform to the usual patterns that people were being trained to spot; that people were being badly trained; that people were not using their training diligently; or that the actions once the case had been reported were not followed through? Which does she think was the major factor?
Shabana Mahmood
I would be happy to hear the hon. Lady’s personal experiences of the quality of that training. I think this is the first time that she and I have had an interaction on this matter, so I would be very happy to pick those issues up with her offline.
On the substance of the hon. Lady’s point, we must follow the findings of the inquiry’s chair, who said that there were five major failures in this case, including that no single agency took ownership of the risk that the perpetrator posed, that there was poor information recording and management, and that the behaviour was sometimes excused on the basis of the perpetrator’s perceived or diagnosed autism spectrum disorder. There were a range of factors in place, and we should follow the evidence and the findings of the inquiry’s chair. We will respond based on the failures that have been found.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
All of our thoughts today are with the families of Alice, Bebe and Elsie. They have already suffered the most horrific loss, and to have confirmation today from Sir Adrian Fulford that their loss was preventable is utterly unbearable. Sir Adrian’s report highlights the failure of the multi-agency safeguarding hub, which was exactly the place where joint responsibility between different agencies should have been held, and he also said that children’s services were not well equipped to manage a risk presented by a young person, as distinct from risks to a young person. Can I therefore ask the Home Secretary what plans she has to work with the Department for Education and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that, as a matter of urgency, every professional working with high-risk young people knows exactly what to do when they are fearful that a young person is a risk to others, and is accountable for taking that action?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend notes one of the key failures, which related to the question of who the risk was to. In this case, too many of the internal assessments were of the risk to the perpetrator himself, not the risk that he posed to others. That must change, and Sir Adrian Fulford will make practical recommendations for the individual agencies, but his report speaks to the need for a cultural shift in the way in which these cases are looked at and managed. That will be a cultural shift for colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education, as well as those in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Where a Prevent referral is made because there is a vulnerability to terrorism, there are already systems in place that would enable those risk assessments to be made on the basis of risk posed to others. Of course, in this case, the onward referral to Channel should have been made, but it was not. However, we have to make sure that even where an onward referral to Channel does not take place and somebody does not quite meet the threshold for Prevent, they are still picked up, and that that cultural shift for dealing with risk—for its management and assessment—takes into account all of the findings that Sir Adrian Fulford has made.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and for the way in which she is promoting learning rather than blaming, because that is the best way to get the change we need. I also thank her for her robust response to the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), about the point he raised, and for the point she is now making about the requirement for a cultural shift. Can she take a close interest in this? Not many leaders in many organisations understand that it means changing the attitudes and behaviours of individuals in their organisations—it is not just about setting a policy. It requires a very concerted act of leadership, alongside diligence and consistency, as well as making sure that those who do not want to make that change are eased out of their positions and that there are no promotions for those people who do not respect and demonstrate the changed attitudes and behaviours that are required. This is a big ask, and does not often happen in the public service.
Shabana Mahmood
It is a big ask, and I am very clear that this must be a moment of change. I do not want to be standing here with a future tragedy, saying the same things that have been said in response to what happened in Southport. We owe the families a true moment of change in how public services are delivered. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: a cultural shift is critical for making onward progress, including for agencies that do not normally consider the risk posed to others, because they are primarily concerned with the risk of harm a person poses to themselves and their clinical need, which is different from the wider societal need to protect others from harm.
That is something the Government will now have to look at closely, to bring forward real change within our health service, within education and within local government. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I will take a close personal interest in that because, at the end of the day, preventing harm and keeping our people safe is my responsibility. I will make sure we do everything we can to have those mechanisms as robust as possible for people who meet the threshold for being dealt with through the Prevent strategy and onward referral to Channel. Where people are below that threshold, we still need an answer as a society. I will take a close interest in that myself.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I know that the thoughts of the whole House are with the families, as are mine. One of the many aspects of what has gone wrong here relates to children’s mental health services. Will the Home Secretary please outline what we are doing about the workforce in children’s mental health services? There is a real shortage of people who are skilled in that area.
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government have already taken steps to shore up the provision of mental health services within the national health service, and I am joined today on the Front Bench by colleagues from the Department of Health and Social Care. I know they are listening closely and will be absorbing the findings that Sir Adrian Fulford has made in phase 1 of his inquiry. I will be working with all Ministers across Government before we formulate our fuller response to all 67 recommendations, but let me assure my hon. Friend that the provision of mental health services will be critical to the work that the Government do as a result of this inquiry.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The Home Secretary’s statement confirms the core failure that when everyone was responsible, no one was accountable, and we have seen that pattern before. We saw the same passing of the buck in safeguarding, in grooming gang cases and in mental health. We have heard today about reviews, frameworks and guidance, but not about enforcement. Can the Home Secretary tell this House plainly what consequences will follow if recommendations are not followed to the letter?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is right that it is one thing to bring about changes and to change professional practice, but that these things should be enforced properly. When the Government respond in full before the summer to all 67 recommendations, I will lay out our expectations. It is important to recognise that Sir Adrian Fulford does not make individual findings of fact in terms of individuals and those failings, because there was such widespread system failure. It is right that in the first instance the Government look at the wider systems we have in place, but ultimately, if there are failures within those systems, including individual failures, there should be accountability.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement today and for her continued leadership on this issue. Can I join the whole House in sending my sympathies not only to the victims, but to their families? This was a dreadful crime, and I am sure that any parent in the Chamber will be, like me, rightly appalled by it. Having worked in education and in the charity sector, I saw an awful amount of buck passing when it came to mental health support and safeguarding issues. My view was always, “If in doubt, report it.” In this case, things were reported, but they were not taken forward, which is hugely concerning. Can the Home Secretary assure me that this buck passing, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Hussain), will stop and that there will be accountability and people will be held responsible for these issues?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend raises an important point. He is absolutely right that the failure of any one organisation or group of individuals to take responsibility for the perpetrator is one of the key failures in this case. Phase 2 of the inquiry will consider the best mechanism for managing people who pose these sorts of risks going forward, and recommendations will be made about the proper structure that should be brought forward. Where somebody meets the Prevent threshold, Prevent will remain the lead institution for referrals. That referral and onward progression to the Channel stream should have happened here. If it had, we would be in a different position today. For those who do not fall within that threshold, we will need a wider system response. As I have said, I am trialling pilots in different local authorities to look at different approaches for what we might do with those individuals who are below the threshold. In the end, Sir Adrian Fulford’s work will give us the new framework and some guidance on the best agency to take the lead in different cases. When an agency takes the lead, or even if they are convening all the other agencies, there is an obvious form of accountability. That is how multi-agency safeguarding hubs should work but sometimes do not. Those are the key areas where lessons need to be learned.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Does she plan to provide any additional resource or funding to the Prevent programme? If so, does she have any initial idea as to where that may be targeted?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. When the Government respond in full to the recommendations, I will set out any resource implications not just for the work of the Home Office, but for other agencies.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I join the Home Secretary in commending the bravery of victims in coming forward to give evidence to this inquiry. We owe it to them to make this a turning point and to make certain that the systemic failures and culture that made this attack possible are fixed and can never be repeated. Many of us in this House will recognise from the report the difficulties in accessing CAMHS, the ambiguities in responsibility and massive under-resourcing of this vital service. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this moment calls for nothing less than a revolution in how children’s mental health services are commissioned and resourced?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. There are recommendations for different Departments, including Health, to take forward, and I will be working closely with Ministers from across Government as we design our response to Sir Adrian’s recommendations. Violence fixation, the descent into nihilism and fascination with extreme violence demand a new public policy response from all of Government, particularly for those children who would not necessarily meet a test for clinical need, but who absolutely do pose a risk of serious harm to other people.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
When I heard the news this morning and the catalogue of failures and missed opportunities were read out—including the focus and attention there was on this murder, yet he was allowed to get away—my heart went out to the families of those three wee girls whose murder could have been avoided, yet the opportunity was missed. Time and again in this House, over the time I have been here, I have heard of individual child abuse cases, rape gangs and mass murder, and on each occasion there was failure by public bodies and individuals in public bodies to prevent what happened. Unfortunately—it has been highlighted here again today—there seems to be this attitude that if there is colour or ethnicity involved, the fear of racism is an additional factor. I welcome the Secretary of State’s assurances today, but given how deeply this attitude is embedded in the public sector, what steps does she intend to take to make sure that this does not happen again and that those who are responsible for these decisions are held to account?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman is right that the report of the inquiry makes for horrifying reading. The recommendations are incredibly important. The Government will respond in full by the summer, and we will take forward practical work to ensure that we strengthen all our systems so that this cannot occur again. I repeat that the only thing that matters—the only relevant factor—when we have a person who is violence-fixated and has a fascination with extreme violence is the risk they pose, the assessment of that risk, and the steps to mitigate that risk. No other factor should be taken into account by any agencies. The most important thing is that we keep people safe and that we do not allow other irrelevant considerations to play any part. The inquiry made findings in relation to Mrs Hodson, the headteacher, and I agree with and endorse Sir Adrian Fulford’s findings.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Home Secretary will be aware, there are 28 Prevent priority areas across the country—there used to be 40, and Stoke-on-Trent was one of them until 2023, when the last Government changed the criteria. She will also know that for an area to become a Prevent priority area, the local authority normally has to demonstrate that it is a hotspot for either right-wing extremism or Islamist activity—or, in the chequered past of my own city, both. If Jonathan Hall’s legislative suggestions come into force and there is a new offence of non-ideologically based fixation with violence, how does the Home Secretary see that playing into the Prevent priority areas, given that the locality will be much more difficult to consider? Following the events of August 2024, when there were riots in Stoke-on-Trent, has she given any thought to whether any recommendations for where new funding should go to help deal with some of these issues should take account of the places where there was rioting at that time—particularly places, such as Stoke-on-Trent, that do not currently qualify for Prevent priority funding?
Shabana Mahmood
Once phase 2 of the inquiry has concluded—especially when it comes to the proper mechanism by which we deal with some of these violence-fixated individuals—there will of course be knock-on consequences for the wider counter-extremism system. It would not be right for me to get ahead of that, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I am well aware that both the current and the future work of the inquiry will require further clarity on exactly where responsibilities sit. I believe that the Prevent programme will continue to play an incredibly important role and will remain our main tool for countering extremism, although I am sure there will be more we can do to strengthen its ability in that regard. However, as I have said, there will be knock-on consequences in other parts of the system, including funding consequences. I will be able to set out more of the Government’s response on that when we respond fully to the inquiry’s recommendations, but I think that as phase 2 gets under way, some of the real meat of the new policy responses that are needed for violence-fixated children will emerge.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
A young person who is at risk of harming others will often become known to a teacher, a social worker or a health worker before any other agency is aware of that risk, but statutory requirements make it very difficult to report on a young person who is below a certain age. Will the Home Secretary work on the introduction of multi-agency, multi-departmental changes to establish, above all else, a statutory requirement for teachers, health workers, councils and others to bring forth young people who are under age if they pose a risk? Currently, many agencies are afraid to come forward because they believe that there is a statutory requirement to protect the child, rather than to report a potential risk to others.
Shabana Mahmood
Phase 2 will consider how we deal with, and what is the correct public policy response to, children who are violence-fixated. One of the horrifying developments of the last few years is the number of children—ever younger children—who are fascinated with extreme violence, and have a nihilistic approach to it. That is shocking, and I have seen cases involving very young children. There must be an adequate public policy response that is able to counter this descent into violence fixation, and to do so effectively. That is the meat of the work that will be done in phase 2, and we will of course follow closely all of the recommendations that are made.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Like those of others, my thoughts and prayers are with the victims of the horrific attack in Southport. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken to address what can only be described as a very challenging environment. Only two weeks ago, I visited the Islamic Jami Community and Education Centre in Kingstanding, along with the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), because we share a constituency boundary. The building had been attacked a few weeks into the month of Ramadan, and then attacked again with vile vandalism and graffiti. Those attending the institution were clearly very anxious, but members of the community also came out to support the local Muslims. Will the Home Secretary join me in commending not only the actions of West Midlands police, who acted very swiftly, but those of the various faith groups who came together? They do not just come together in solidarity when an incident such as this occurs; they are also the very backbone when it comes to identifying any form of extremism within our communities.
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the solidarity between people from different communities. We do not often talk about it in the House—we tend to do so only when a horrifying incident has taken place—but it is indeed the backbone of the way in which we function as a society. I pay tribute to all those who spend their time working with people from backgrounds that are different from theirs, in terms of either race or faith, to hold our communities and ultimately our nation together.
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the overall threat picture shows a very challenging environment. The issues with which we are dealing today relate to someone with no fixed ideology who was clearly vulnerable to terrorism and had a fixation with extreme violence. We see that running alongside the more traditional, well-known and understood elements of extremism, such as Islamist or extreme right-wing terrorism, but even within those better understood forms of extremism, we see that the pattern is changing. It is always evolving and developing, which poses a challenge to all the practitioners who must try to keep up with the way in which extremism is presenting itself in our communities. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that that work is as robust as possible, and to taking every possible step to counter extremism in all its forms.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Home Secretary for her very positive statement. Let me also associate myself with the events of a year ago, when the nation mourned for those three children. I think that every one of us recognised the horror of what took place, and our prayers and our thoughts are very much with the families even today, and especially with the parents. I think that is how we all feel.
This is a very full report, and I commend the author for his determination to ensure that political correctness did not influence it. It is clear that a sea change is required in departments so that they are less concerned about offending people and more concerned about protecting our innocents. What lessons can be learned to inform new procedures to ensure that there is accountability in the intelligence and security services in particular?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is right: it is cultural change that is needed, and that is what Sir Adrian Fulford’s initial recommendations in phase 1 were designed to bring about, along with practical measures to change the way in which risk is assessed and ultimately mitigated. The Government will respond fully to those recommendations, and will bring together every part of Government—every part of the state—to ensure that people are doing all that they should be doing to assess risk, because the only factors that matter relate to the risk posed by an individual to other people of significant harm of the type that we have seen in this case. The Government will ensure that that happens in the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement this afternoon.
Southport Inquiry: Phase 1 Report and Phase 2 Terms of Reference
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
On 7 April 2025, the then Secretary of State for the Home Department announced the establishment of an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, to be chaired by the right hon. Sir Adrian Fulford. This inquiry was to examine the appalling events that took place at a children’s dance class in Southport on 29 July 2024.
Three young girls were tragically murdered on that day, Elsie Dot Stancombe, Alice da Silva Aguiar and Bebe King, and many more were seriously harmed. Our thoughts remain with the families who have suffered such devastating loss, as well as those who survived the attack but live with the lasting physical and psychological impact.
The chair has today published his findings from the first phase of this inquiry, which provides a detailed account of the events leading up to the attack, and the attack itself. The inquiry examined the perpetrator’s history and interactions with a range of state systems including policing and criminal justice, education, health and social care, as well as considering the account of all those who were impacted by the attack.
The findings point to missed opportunities which could have stopped this attack from occurring. They indicate systematic failures, structural gaps, and a lack of ownership of the risk from the many agencies involved. The inquiry also highlights how agencies failed to adequately share information and take all the facts about the risk the perpetrator posed to the community into consideration, which ultimately meant that his risk was not managed effectively.
Sir Adrian has examined these issues thoroughly, and I welcome his recommendations. The Government are determined to learn the lessons identified by the inquiry and to take the necessary action to reduce the risk of such an attack happening again. I must thank the chair, his team, and all those that took part in the inquiry, for the speed, rigour and professionalism with which they have conducted their work.
The Government will consider the report and its recommendations and will respond in full later this summer. Alongside this, the Government will respond to the recommendations made by the Prevent commissioner, Lord Anderson KC, in his “Lessons for Prevent” report, which examined Prevent’s role in the Southport attack and the murder of Sir David Amess.
While the first phase of the inquiry has looked specifically at the failings in this case, it has identified wider gaps in how to address the risk from individuals who hold a fascination with extreme violence. Following consultation with the chair and those most affected by this attack, I am today publishing the terms of reference for the second phase of the Southport inquiry.
I have asked the chair in phase 2 to examine the adequacy of arrangements for identifying and managing the risk posed by individuals who are fixated with extreme violence. The inquiry will consider the role of multi-agency management, the interventions needed to reduce risk to the public, the effectiveness of laws around knives and weapons, and the extent to which the internet and social media are influencing and enabling people to carry out violent attacks.
This next phase of the inquiry will begin immediately and is expected to report in spring 2027. A copy of the terms of reference for phase 2 of the Southport inquiry will be placed in the Library of each House.
The Government will provide the inquiry with the resources it needs to complete this next phase and will fully support the chair in the discharge of his duties. We will continue to engage with those affected by the events in Southport, to ensure that their questions are answered, and their views are heard, as this next stage commences.
[HCWS1497]
Oral Answers to Questions
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
As the right hon. Gentleman may know, data on immigration status and crime was not recorded under the last Government. We have a new programme that will improve data collection, and we have strong local relationships with police and local authorities to ensure that the full force of the law will apply to anyone breaking our laws.
Sir Edward Leigh
The Home Secretary knows perfectly well how much it worries and infuriates people that people can enter this country illegally and commit crimes, and that there is no proper vetting procedure before they are unloosed on society. To reassure our own citizens, will she ensure that everybody who enters this country illegally is detained and fully vetted, and, as most of their asylum claims are bogus anyway, perhaps deal with their asylum claims while they are in detention and then deport them to protect our own people?
Shabana Mahmood
I recognise the public concern around criminality. That is why this Government are working closely with all our partners to improve data collection and have a risk-based approach so that we can manage those individuals who pose the highest risk on our immigration estate. I gently say that the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestions for how we deal with those who seek to come to our country illegally, primarily through channel crossings, would have had more force if his Government had succeeded in stopping those boats, as they often claimed that they would but utterly failed to do so. This Government are using a number of approaches to try to get to grips with illegal migration and will be bringing forward further changes to the House in due course.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The way to deal with any asylum seeker—or, indeed, any migrant—who commits a crime, is to remove them from the country. That is why it is good to see that removals of foreign national offenders have gone up 40% from what was left under the previous Government. The way we deal with crime in communities is by reinvigorating neighbourhood policing and supporting our police. Does the Home Secretary agree that those are two areas where this Home Office is clearing up the mess left behind by the previous Government?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right. It is one of many areas where we are cleaning up the multiple messes left by the previous Conservative Government. He is right to note that the removal of foreign national offenders has increased hugely under this Government and will continue to do so. Removals from this country are at nearly 60,000 since we have been in office. They will continue to rise.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I recently met Siobhan Whyte, the mother of Rhiannon. Rhiannon was brutally murdered by Sudanese illegal immigrant Deng Majek, who stabbed Rhiannon 23 times. Majek arrived by small boat in late July 2024. As the Home Secretary will know, small boat crossings since the election have gone up by 45%. Majek would have been among the first eligible for removal to Rwanda, so Siobhan wants me to ask the Home Secretary this: why did the Government cancel the Rwanda scheme just before it was due to start? If Majek had been removed to Rwanda, Rhiannon would still be alive today.
Shabana Mahmood
Let me say, first and foremost, that the murder of Rhiannon Whyte was an abhorrent, horrifying crime and our thoughts, and I know those of the whole House, are with her loved ones. The vile criminal responsible for her murder is behind bars where he belongs, and he has rightly received the strictest punishment of a life sentence. I do not wish to play politics with personal tragedy and Government policy, but the right hon. Gentleman will know that, as we have discussed across the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, the Rwanda policy was a gimmick. Hundreds of millions of pounds were spent, with only four removals made from this country. His Government knew that they were already running into problems with that scheme. This Government have focused on measures that we believe will deal with the problems we are facing. It is taking some time, but they are the right measures and they will get to grips with the problem that he left behind.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Before I give my answer, I want to pay my respects to PC Bradley Corke, who sadly lost his life yesterday in the line of duty. My thoughts and those of the whole House, I am sure, are with his family and friends.
On the matter of police efficiency, we must seize the opportunity to transform policing through technology. Through the creation of a national police service, we will invest £115 million in artificial intelligence and automation, saving 6 million policing hours every year.
Dr Gardner
Live facial recognition technology is being deployed across the country to support the police to prevent and detect crime. While I recognise the importance of improving police efficiency, we have also seen a number of wrongful arrests linked to the use of live facial recognition systems, and only last week one police force paused the use of facial recognition due to racial bias. In the light of that, will the Secretary of State reassure the House that deployment, oversight and auditing of facial recognition technologies are subject to robust and transparent safeguards, and will she state when the facial recognition framework will be published?
Shabana Mahmood
I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. We are absolutely clear that police forces must comply with data protection, human rights, equality and other relevant laws. This means that the police can use live facial recognition only for targeted, intelligence-led and time-bound deployments to locate specific individuals on a watchlist, such as wanted offenders or people who may pose a risk of serious harm. My hon. Friend knows that we have consulted on a legal framework on how and when law enforcement should use biometrics and facial recognition. The consultation is closed, and we are going through the responses now. We will bring forward proposals to the House in due course.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Police efficiency is the argument being used to propose the merger of Lancashire and Cumbria police forces, something which I strongly oppose. Lancashire is a wonderful county, but it is a county that has many urban centres with larger populations. Does the Home Secretary agree that there is a real risk that the people of Cumbria will see our police officers being drawn down to those larger, more populous places in Lancashire and that it would be wise to call off the merger?
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)
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
I want to address the terrible scenes in Golders Green last night, where four Jewish community ambulances were set on fire. Mercifully, no one was hurt. For that, we owe our thanks to the police and fire services, which responded with speed and professionalism. An investigation is under way. The Metropolitan police are treating this as an antisemitic hate crime, and have stepped up their support to Jewish communities across London. The fact that the attack was directed at Hatzola, a community ambulance service and an institution devoted to saving lives, illustrates how warped those behind the attack are.
I am pleased that the Health Secretary is providing replacement ambulances, but clearly justice is required. There have, as yet, been no arrests, but the perpetrators must be in no doubt: we will pursue them and make them face the consequences of this wicked crime. I urge anyone with information to contact the police, who have the full support of my Department. The incident comes at a time of soaring antisemitism in our country, and today my message to our Jewish community is clear: we stand with you, we will do everything in our power to protect you, and we will fight relentlessly to rid our society of antisemitism.
Mary Kelly Foy
I congratulate Maya’s law campaigners, particularly Maya’s great-aunts Gemma and Rachael, on their passion and tenacity in lobbying MPs to support their campaign to improve child protection laws in the UK. Does the Minister agree with me that it is unforgiveable for someone who is supposed to look after a child to hurt them instead? Will the Minister ensure that the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) has secured on Maya’s law receives the full support of the Government?
Shabana Mahmood
The circumstances outlined by my hon. Friend are obviously horrifying. It is abhorrent for anyone entrusted with the care of a child to cause harm to them. I assure her that the Government will absolutely engage fully and constructively with the debate that she mentions.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I have come to the House directly from Golders Green, where I have visited the scene of the appalling attack on the Hatzola ambulance service. I strongly urge the Home Secretary to visit as well. I thank the police, fire service and Hatzola volunteers for their response in the early hours of this morning. The members of the Jewish community who I spoke to this morning in Golders Green feel under attack, so what more can the Home Secretary say about the Government’s plans to protect the Jewish community, including potentially by using counter-terrorism-style surveillance powers to identify and disrupt antisemitic attacks before they occur? Does the Home Secretary agree that calls on our streets at marches for jihad and intifada are calls for violence that fuel antisemitism, and does she agree that they should no longer be allowed? Finally, will she ensure that all antisemites and extremists who are not British citizens get deported?
Shabana Mahmood
I assure the shadow Home Secretary and, most importantly, the whole of the British Jewish community—not just those in Golders Green—that this Government take the rise in antisemitism that we have seen across our country very seriously. We are approaching this issue with a whole-of-Government response. My colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are all taking forward the Government’s social cohesion action plan and taking specific measures to tackle antisemitic hate crime. There must be zero tolerance of antisemitism; I know that across this House, there is unanimity on that, from all Members. The shadow Home Secretary knows that we have an independent review on public order and hate crime legislation. We will bring forward more proposals in due course, but we will never tolerate antisemitism in our country.
Chris Philp
I will pursue these questions with the Security Minister, when he gives his statement later.
Media reports suggest that the Home Secretary is under pressure from the former Deputy Prime Minister on her indefinite leave to remain policy, so will the Home Secretary tell the House who is running the Government’s immigration policy now? Is it her, or is it the former Deputy Prime Minister? Will the Home Secretary confirm to the House now—
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to Members on both Front Benches that these are topical questions, and Members from all parties are waiting to ask them. I gave the shadow Home Secretary a lot of leeway during his first question; he has already asked one, and is coming in with another. That is not acceptable to any of the Back-Bench Members who I am trying to look after. Please ask one question during topicals. There will be a statement shortly on the subject that he asked about. It is a very important issue, and I am very concerned about it, but I have to allow Back Benchers time to ask their questions. It is unfair of Members on the Front Benches to take up that time.
Shabana Mahmood
I have almost forgotten the shadow Home Secretary’s question, but the assertion he just made is absolute rubbish. He knows that the Government have already said that we will consult on the changes that we wish to make, and I will bring forward those proposals in due course.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to community sponsorship of refugees who come here under proposed new safe and legal routes; we have several good examples of that in my constituency. What steps is she taking, in line with the recent asylum policy statement, to allow more communities like mine to sponsor refugees and support the Government’s safe and legal routes programme?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. and learned Friend knows that we have announced three specific types of safe and legal route for students and workers, as well as a community sponsorship scheme. The student scheme will go live later this year, with the first applicants arriving in the autumn of next year. We are designing the community sponsorship route with community organisations and international partners. I am sure that he will want to make representations on what his community wants to contribute to the new routes, but the design is under way, and the routes will be rolled out in due course.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has been commendably robust in her response to antisemitism and attacks on Jewish institutions, particularly since the two members of the congregation at Heaton Park synagogue were killed. After that attack, the Macdonald inquiry was set up to look into hate crime and public order. I think this afternoon is the first time that we have heard that that inquiry is not going to report until May, when it was promised for February this year. Can the Home Secretary speed it up, please?
Shabana Mahmood
It is an independent review. I am in constant discussion with Lord Macdonald, who has requested a short extension in order to deal with the matters comprehensively. It is right that the independent review has the time it needs, but it will be brought forward very soon.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Protest Policing
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(2 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on public order.
The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Mark Rowley, has requested a prohibition on processions relating to al-Quds Day under section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986. I have consented to that request, placing a ban on those processions for both protesters and counter-protesters that will now last for a month. This is the first ban since 2012, so I wish to explain to the House today why I have done so.
It is important that we start with the context. Initiated by Iran’s then leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, in 1979, al-Quds Day is an event held on the last Friday of Ramadan. The day is marked worldwide by rallies and demonstrations in support of Palestine, including here in Britain. Plans for a procession this Sunday in London have been led by the Islamic Human Rights Commission, an organisation that has been closely associated with the Iranian regime. Of course, this year’s event interacts with the ongoing conflict in the middle east. It comes at a time when the Iranian regime is attacking British forces and bases, as well as those of our allies. It also comes just days after the arrest of four individuals as part of an investigation led by counter-terror police. Those individuals were arrested under the National Security Act 2023 for allegedly spying on Jewish communities on behalf of the Iranian regime.
This context creates clear challenges for the police: heightened attention and therefore larger expected attendance, and heightened tensions between protesters and counter-protesters and therefore greater potential for conflict. The expertise on whether and how those challenges can be safely managed rightly sits with the police, and the legal test is clear. Any request to prohibit a procession must only be lodged with the aim of preventing serious public disorder that could not otherwise be prevented by imposing other conditions on a public procession under section 12 of the Public Order Act. Section 12 conditions typically include specifying the route, location and times of a protest. Under normal circumstances, they are sufficient to ensure protests remain peaceful and the public are kept safe.
However, the commissioner has clearly stated that the Metropolitan police’s view is that serious public disorder cannot be avoided unless a prohibition under section 13 is introduced. That assessment is grounded in the tensions created by international conflict, the scale of the expected march, and the presence of protesters and multiple counter-protesting groups all seeking to march at once.
My first duty is to keep the public safe. Having carefully and thoroughly considered the risk assessment presented to me by the Metropolitan police, I am satisfied that an order under section 13 is necessary. For one month, there will therefore be a prohibition on processions in London related to al-Quds Day involving protesters and counter-protesters, which will come into effect today and end on 11 April. Should the commissioner consider that a further extension is required, he will be able to make a further submission at that time.
I must be clear about what this prohibition does not do. The police and the Home Secretary only have the power to prohibit a public procession. Section 13 cannot be used to ban a static protest, referred to in the legislation as a “public assembly”. Should a static demonstration proceed this weekend, the police will not be able to stop it. Instead, they will be able to impose conditions, such as dictating the precise location and timing. People will therefore be able to exercise their right to peaceful protest, although the full force of the law will be enforced if hate crimes, or other crimes, are committed.
Today’s announcement is confined to specific circumstances, but I know that it will excite scrutiny of the wider issue of policing protests. The House will be aware that I have appointed Lord Macdonald of River Glaven to carry out an independent review of public order and hate crime legislation. His review is ongoing, and I will update the House on its findings at the earliest possible moment. I do, however, want to make a wider point about the right to protest in this country.
What I have announced today is narrowly focused on specific circumstances in a unique moment, but it does not alter an enduring fact. In this country, we rightly pride ourselves on our freedoms, including the right to peaceful protest. It is a precious right and one that I revere, as it sets us apart from autocracies of all kinds across the world. This prohibition is therefore limited and specific. It bans marches, but not static demonstrations, in relation to al-Quds Day. Equally, I must add, there is no prohibition on protesting against the plight of Palestinians, and there never will be. Hundreds of protests have already taken place across the country this year in solidarity with Palestinians, and the Met alone has policed 32. Peaceful and lawful protest, whether for Palestine or for Israel, or for any other cause, must be cherished and protected, and this Government will always defend that sacred freedom.
At the same time, as Home Secretary I have a solemn duty—and it is my first duty—to keep the British people safe. I have been presented with the assessment of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police that he cannot guarantee the security of our capital and prevent serious public disorder without a prohibition on processions relating to al-Quds Day. I have reviewed his assessment, and it is clear to me that my duty to the public and their safety dictates that I must accept his request. It is right that we prohibit these processions, while continuing to uphold our ancient commitments to the freedoms of which we are rightly proud. That is the balance that I have sought to strike today, and I commend my statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I fully support a ban on this march. The police assessment of the risk is right, and, in fact, I wrote to the commissioner a week ago urging for exactly this ban. However, the problems with the al-Quds march go beyond simply the risk of serious disorder. In 2024, 10 people were arrested for the assault of an emergency worker, inciting racial hatred, and public order offences. Chants at al-Quds marches in the past have called for intifada and revolution. Calls for intifada and revolution are calls for violence, and calls for violence have no place on our streets.
A leading speaker at these marches has been Nazim Ali, a man who has demanded that Israel
“be wiped off the map”.
Speaking at a previous march, Ali even blamed what he called “Zionists” for the Grenfell fire. He also said:
“"We are fed up of the Zionists. We are fed up of their rabbis. We are fed up of their synagogues.”
The reference to rabbis and synagogues shows that when this despicable man says “Zionist”, he means Jews. That is clear antisemitism. Speech inciting violence and speech inciting antisemitism, which we have heard at these marches in the past, has serious consequences.
Antisemitism is now rampant. Jews are 10 times more likely to be victims of hate crimes than Muslims. We saw an Islamist-motivated murder at a synagogue in Manchester just a few months ago. In the past 25 years, 94% of all terror murders in the UK have been committed by Islamist terrorists, who also make up 75% of counterterrorism caseloads. Does the Home Secretary share my concern about the fact that that the Prevent caseload is only 10% Islamist in nature, and if she does, what does she propose to do about it?
The organiser of the al-Quds march is the so-called Islamic Human Rights Commission, which, as the Home Secretary rightly acknowledged, is in essence a front organisation for the Iranian regime. A former Iranian Deputy Minister of Culture, Aliasghar Ramezanpour, has said that there is a network of Islamic charities in the UK which are, in his words, not autonomous but funded and controlled by the regime in Tehran. Does the Home Secretary share my concern about that, and what does she propose to do about it? In opposition, the Labour party—I think, rightly—pledged to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Will the Home Secretary update the House on the implementation of that pledge?
I am also deeply concerned about the many events that have been held recently, particularly at universities, lamenting the demise of Ayatollah Khameini—a man who in the last few weeks was directly responsible for the murder of 30,000 of his own people; a man who supported and sponsored terrorism around the world, for instance backing Hamas and the atrocities on 7 October, and who backed various regional wars. Will the Home Secretary join me in condemning those who mourned his demise and celebrated his evil acts?
More generally, the al-Quds marches are a troubling symptom of a growing division in our society, whereby some people define themselves primarily by their religion or their ethnic heritage, and we have seen that spilling over into the conduct of elections. This is deeply troubling and deeply divisive. It undermines the very foundations of our nation, which depend on a shared identity and shared values. I should be interested to hear the Home Secretary’s views on that, and I hope the House will return to the topic.
Let me finish with a broader point. Extremism has no place in the UK. Support for terrorism or violence has no place in the UK. Religious and racial hatred, including antisemitism, have no place here. I believe that when someone who is not a British citizen expresses extremist, violent, pro-terror or racist views, they should have their visa revoked and be expelled, as set out in section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. The Home Office’s own guidance makes it clear that support for
“extremism or other unacceptable behaviour”
meets that statutory test. Will the Home Secretary use those powers to expel extremists who are not British citizens?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his comments and his questions. He began by talking about some of the unacceptable acts of violence and incitement to violence that have taken place at various marches, not just marches relating to al-Quds Day. It is not unusual for multiple arrests to be made at all the different types of protest marches that take place. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will join me in supporting the police as they ensure that the full force of the law is applied at all times and in all circumstances. I have, of course, recognised that there are some complexities in the legal framework and an inconsistency of application. I have asked Ken Macdonald to carry out a review to ensure that there is much more consistency of practice across the UK, and that there is clarity for the police about what they can and cannot do when it comes to some of the things that are said when protests take place. I hope that we can continue to work together across the House on those matters.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a specific question in relation to Prevent. I do of course keep under review the way in which the Prevent programme is functioning. A large number of recommendations have been made over many years, with many reports on the functioning of Prevent. It is important that Prevent referrals are made in line with the statutory requirements and the guidance, and that they are picking up those whom we want to take away from a mindset and an ideology that could ultimately result in harm. I do not think it appropriate for us to set percentage requirements for what should happen in terms of referrals, but it is important that the right referrals are made. We always work with partners who deliver the Prevent programme, and with local authorities and others, to ensure that that is done properly.
On the Islamic Human Rights Commission, the trust that is responsible for that charity is currently subject to a statutory inquiry by the Charity Commission, and it is important that that work is allowed to continue. Once the Charity Commission has reached a determination, I am sure that it will be discussed in the House.
On the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the right hon. Gentleman will know—we have had this discussion many times at the Dispatch Box, and the answers are not all that different from when the positions of our parties were reversed—that we do not comment on matters relating to proscription, but this Government have accepted the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC. We will take forward that work at the earliest available opportunity.
In relation to those who are publicly mourning the death of Khamenei, the deceased supreme leader of Iran, this is where free speech butts up against what most of us would consider to be appropriate conduct. I do not mourn the passing of Ayatollah Khamenei, but it is for others to decide what they do and do not support. I am absolutely clear that, whatever methods people use to express their political views, they must do so in line with the law of this land. That law should always be enforced without fear or favour, and I will always support the police in ensuring that that is the case.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about how we work as a society, and I think his questions are about citizens’ responsibilities in this country. I do not think it is for a Government to dictate to their citizens what political views they are allowed to hold or how they should express themselves or their identity, regardless of whether that is religious, ethnic or something else. It is the job of Government to ensure that we have a set of rules and values that are equally applied—our respect for democracy and the rule of law, and all the norms by which our society operates. That means that we accept free speech and people’s ability to have views that might be offensive. Many of us might disagree with those views, but people are still allowed to express them. I would not want to see these very troubling events lead to a clampdown on the freedoms that are so precious to us. There is always a judgment to be made and a balance to be struck, and it is important that the Government always try to strike that balance in the right way.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s final point, this Government have already taken action, and I will always use my full powers under the law to ensure that those who would cause harm in our country with their extremist views are not allowed to enter our country. I will not hesitate to use my powers under the immigration legislation to exclude from this country people who have no right to be here.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision to ban this weekend’s al-Quds march. Al-Quds was founded by the ayatollah 40 years ago. It has repeatedly featured support for the Iranian regime and terrorist groups, and often promotes dangerous antisemitism too. Given the growing threat to Jewish communities across the UK, will the Home Secretary now move to proscribe the IRGC, consider sanctions on regime-linked assets, and outline what further steps have been taken to protect the Jewish community?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend will know that the IRGC is already sanctioned in its entirety. As I say, we do not comment on matters relating to proscription, but we have accepted the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC. The Government will take those forward at the earliest available opportunity.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Home Secretary is aware that we have concerns about her authoritarian tendencies. We have particular concerns about this Government’s enthusiasm for restricting the right to protest and their use of terrorism legislation to proscribe protest groups. The Liberal Democrats place a much stronger weight on the right to peaceful protest than the Home Secretary does. That is her right. The right to protest is a fundamental freedom, and any decision to ban a march must only be made in exceptional circumstances.
On this occasion, however, it is right to take a cautious approach. The Islamic Human Rights Commission has very concerning views on Iran. The organisers of the al-Quds march have expressed support for the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and have claimed that he stood on the right side of history. Clearly, these values are at odds with those of the British public, who would rightly condemn the ayatollah’s oppression of the Iranian people and sponsorship of terrorism across the world. At a time when Iran is putting the safety of British citizens in the middle east at risk with its indiscriminate attacks, it would be inappropriate for the march to go ahead.
Nevertheless, the decision to ban the march highlights a deeper failure by the Government to tackle the underlying threats that fuel such tensions. Labour has dithered and delayed over the proscription of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the organisation responsible for much of the violence and terror emanating from Iran, and for attacks abroad. It is utterly ridiculous that the Home Secretary has already sunk almost £1 million of taxpayers’ money in fighting in court to keep Palestine Action proscribed while dragging her heels on the IRGC’s proscription, even when the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has urged immediate proscription. Will the Home Secretary commit to confronting the threat of the Iranian regime by immediately proscribing the IRGC? If not, will she give the House a date for legislation?
Shabana Mahmood
I have to say that the hon. Gentleman’s opening remarks were rather disappointing. Let me remind him of what I have actually said and done in relation to the right to protest. I have allowed the cumulative impact on communities that are affected by protests to be one of the reasons why police can place additional conditionality on a procession or public assembly under sections 12 to 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. I am very disappointed that the Lib Dem spokesperson thinks that is an authoritarian tendency, because we are responding to repeat protests that create real tension in our communities.
We are creating the conditions to enable those protests to go ahead, but with additional conditions as to their location and time, and we are ensuring that that framework is very clear for the police. That is actually an argument for allowing the protests to happen, but not in a way that creates real fear among minority communities in this country. I am very disappointed to see that the Lib Dems have set their face against that and would characterise it as authoritarianism. They are wholly wrong. These are the necessary steps to protect our vital freedoms, as well as our minority communities. The law in this area always requires a balance, and this Government are seeking to strike that balance in exactly the right way.
The only other remarks I have made in relation to protests were immediately after the terrorist attack at the Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester. I suggested that marching the very next day in support of the Palestinian cause is perhaps not British because we should show some compassion to those who are suffering. Those are the only two acts, and the hon. Gentleman set his face against both of them in his opening remarks.
I have already addressed the point about proscribing the IRGC, which is sanctioned in its entirety. We will take forward the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC, but the hon. Gentleman knows that that requires legislative change. We must act at speed, but also with care, and this Government will do so. It is important that we do not conflate different issues. A lot of these issues are causing tensions across the country, but the situation in relation to the Palestine Action group is different from the matters that we are discussing today. Members of other parties should not seek to conflate those to score political points. I will leave my remarks there.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I represent the area affected by the Home Secretary’s intervention on public order policing, which I welcome. I listened carefully to her statement, which made it clear that this prohibition is specific, discrete and focused. What I heard was a balancing of the challenges that she and public order policing in London face every single day. The centre of London is home to dozens of synagogues, mosques and prayer rooms, and it is important that I take seriously the responsibility of ensuring that everybody is safe. Over the last week, I have been in regular contact with my constituents on this very topic. Will the Home Secretary work with me to articulate clearly the rules and legislation that are in place to address the very challenging issues that we all face?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks and her question, and for the work that she has done on this issue, which I know has affected the people she represents. It is important to note, as she rightly does, that we received a very specific and discrete request from the Met police, who have huge experience in dealing with multiple protests on multiple occasions and who have good policing experience. I take seriously the fact that this is the first time in many years that they have sought such an order, and they have done so because of the unique challenges posed by the planned marches in a few days’ time, particularly the threat of both protests and multiple counter-protests all moving through London at the same time. That represents a very unique policing challenge, but I pay tribute to the Met police for the work that they have been doing to ensure that our freedoms in this country are protected.
My hon. Friend will know that we have already commissioned Lord Macdonald to look at the legislation in this area, and to make recommendations on clarifying the legal framework. I look forward to working with her on all that work once his review is in.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s decision, but as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary made clear, this speaks to a much wider problem. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to ensure that the United Kingdom cannot be used as a safe haven for the wealth, influence networks or political activity of senior figures connected to the Iranian regime, with specific regard to recent reports that the new so-called supreme leader of the Iranian regime is linked to a network of high-value London properties acquired through associates or shell companies? What steps will she take to close any loopholes or strengthen such sanctions?
Shabana Mahmood
We are obviously looking very carefully at the allegations that have been made, and we would of course expect the police and our security services to respond appropriately. We will always work closely with them to ensure that they do so.
The hon. Member raises a broader point about the state threat represented by Iran, which has been discussed in this House on many occasions. He will know of the public comments made by Sir Ken McCallum, the director general of MI5, and others. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government take all levels of state threat very seriously. We work very closely with our security agencies to make sure that we are always taking the necessary steps to keep our country safe.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
The al-Quds Day march, glorifying a despicable, blood-soaked regime, has long been a cause of great concern to my constituents in Hendon. That is why I wrote to the commissioner of the Met asking for the march to be banned, and why I thank the Home Secretary for her resolute action today. However, the threat posed by the Iranian regime to our Jewish community has not ended. Following the arrest of four men for allegedly spying on our Jewish community on behalf of the Iranian regime, what steps have been taken to keep our Jewish community safe?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend will know that a live police investigation is taking place, so I cannot comment or give any additional details on that case to this House until the criminal justice process is complete. However, let me assure him that we work very closely with our colleagues in Counter Terror Policing and our security services to monitor the threats posed to individuals and organisations in our country and take all appropriate measures to keep our people safe.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Home Secretary may know that I and other Opposition Members have signed at least two letters to the Prime Minister in recent months calling for recognition of the state of Palestine, but I also support the decision the Home Secretary has taken today. I think she has demonstrated seriousness of purpose in taking a very important decision, which clearly commands huge national support. One can be in favour of the decision she has taken and also in favour of the rights of the Palestinian people; the two are not alien to each other.
The Home Secretary mentioned that a static protest could take place in lieu of the march. Does she or the Metropolitan Police Commissioner have the power to limit the time of that specific event, to ensure that ordinary people going about their business are not disrupted and that huge blockages do not take place in the capital in lieu of a moving march?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the hon. Member for the points he made. He is absolutely right—let me agree with him on the first part of his remarks—about the right of people in this country to support the Palestinian people, their right to self-determination and their desire for an end to conflict and recognition of their own state. No decision that this Government have taken prevents anyone from being able to express those political views or to take part in peaceful protest to draw attention to that cause, and all that can continue.
The hon. Member is right about the static protest. There are powers under the Public Order Act for the police to place conditions on static protests, which can relate to both time and location, as well as other measures. Those will be operational decisions for the Met police to make in the coming days.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I thank the Home Secretary for this action, which is proportionate; she seems to have been taking lessons from the Liberal Democrats on that. I reiterate Liberal Democrat calls to proscribe Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and encourage her to come forward with a timetable for that legislation to be delivered. What steps have been taken to ensure effective policing of the static protests, which will go ahead on Sunday, to protect Londoners and our police from potential clashes?
Shabana Mahmood
The House will be pleased to know that I decline the invitation to learn any lessons from the Liberal Democrats—not just on this occasion, but for evermore.
Let me reiterate the point about the IRGC. We will bring forward measures as soon as we can. We obviously have to proceed with care, because these are complex matters, and we have to get the balance right in the action we take. However, we have accepted the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC, and the Government are working at pace to move forward with delivery.
The conditions that might be placed on a static protest that may or may not take place are operational matters for the Met police. However, I and the whole House should have every confidence in our police, not just in London but across the country. Police forces have been dealing with a huge increase in the number of protests, the variety of protests and the multiplicity of counter-protests that take place, and I think we should pay tribute to the work day in and day out of our hard-working police officers, who manage to keep our country safe while allowing respect for our fundamental freedoms.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with everything the Home Secretary has said, especially as she is one of the best Conservative Home Secretaries we have ever had! Will she forgive me for asking her to stress just one part of her statement? I have noticed an increasing tendency to say that we should ban marches because we find the views of the marchers thoroughly offensive. Frankly, I find most of the marches in London fairly offensive, because most of them are left wing, but I would defend to the death the right of those people to march. Can she emphasise that there is a very high bar, and that marchers will be banned only if they might incite or cause violence?
Shabana Mahmood
I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I am Labour all day long. I enjoy swatting Conservatives, Lib Dems, Greens and everybody else at my leisure, and I will continue to do so.
The Father of the House is right about the law. There is a high bar for any banning order to be requested or granted under the framework set out in the Public Order Act. He is absolutely right that it should be a high bar. People are allowed to have their own views, and we should not be seeking to shut down views which, although offensive or provocative, are still within the law. It is important that we always ensure that the law is followed, and any attempts to interfere with freedom of expression or assembly should always meet a high bar. I am very satisfied that, in the specific and unique circumstances set out for the public procession that had been planned, that test has been met. Of course, the other protests can and should go ahead, and the full force of the law will always be applied.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
What consideration did the Home Secretary give to compliance with articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights on the right to protest? What discussions did the Metropolitan police have with the organisers of this planned march to ensure that it could go ahead safely and would be properly stewarded and properly run? In my experience, the police are very accommodating and keen to have long discussions with march organisers to make sure that the right to protest is maintained in our society. There is a slippery slope here, because banning a march that is not necessarily a very popular march may lead to draconian banning orders on all kinds of protests within our society.
Shabana Mahmood
First, on the European convention on human rights, the right hon. Gentleman is right that articles 9 to 11 are relevant to the matters we are discussing. However, those are qualified rights—they have always been qualified rather than absolute rights—which means that the state can limit them in specific circumstances as long as the legal tests of proportionality and so on are maintained. I am confident that the legal arrangements we have in this country, as set out in the Public Order Act, are fully in compliance with our convention obligations, and that there is a very high bar for the powers in section 13 of the Public Order Act. I am satisfied that that high bar has been met on this occasion.
The Met police have been policing the al-Quds Day procession for many years. It is an annual event, and they have policed it even when there has been huge opposition to its going ahead. They have faced a lot of pressure over many years to seek a ban, and they have never done so. I am very confident that they have assessed the risk posed by this procession in the current context, particularly the range and number of counter-protesting marches planned for the same day; managing five different marches at the same time in the same bit of London presents a unique challenge for policing. I think they have made a fair point and a strong case, and I have agreed with them on this occasion.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I very much welcome the statement and I commend the Home Secretary’s judgment on this occasion. The Islamic Human Rights Commission will seek to exploit the loophole offered up under section 13, around the ability to protest in a static way. Has a likely location yet been identified for the static protest? Does she agree with me that it should be away from where it would discommode the general public and somewhere that will not place undue burdens on our policing resources, which are finite?
Shabana Mahmood
Any conditions that may or may not be placed on a static protest are matters for the police—those are operational matters. They have the powers available to them and I am sure they will make use of them, in the way they have been doing with protests that have been taking place across the capital for some time now. They would, of course, take into account many of the factors that the right hon. Gentleman raises in his question to me.
Let me caution a little on the description of the difference between a static protest and a moving procession of public assembly. It is not a loophole. The law deliberately treats the two things differently, because the policing challenges of a static protest are different in nature from the challenge of policing a march that is moving from one location to another. The Public Order Act recognises the difference between those two things. The police have the powers to place conditions on the way a static protest takes place. In my opinion, they have made use of those conditions very well to date and I am sure they will continue to do so.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Notwithstanding my liberal instincts, I too agree with the Home Secretary’s decision to prohibit this march given Iran’s targeting of UK nationals abroad and our allies overseas. That targeting also occurs here in the UK. It occurred in my constituency with the stabbing of an Iranian dissident journalist two years ago. What specific steps is the Home Secretary taking to protect Iranian dissidents here in the UK who might be targeted by the Iranian state?
Shabana Mahmood
I will bank the fact that the hon. Gentleman agrees with my instincts on this one—perhaps I am not so authoritarian after all. He raises a more serious point about dissidents. We know the threat posed to dissidents here on UK soil by the Iranian regime. He rightly noted an earlier case. Let me assure him that we work very closely with Counter Terrorism policing and our security services on monitoring the threats posed to all individuals in the UK by foreign states. We are always ready to take any appropriate action. Indeed, the police and the security services take action every day.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I very much welcome the Home Secretary’s decision. Iran has a track record of hostile activity in the United Kingdom. We have so many Iranians who have had to flee their home country for safety here in the UK, yet we still see charities effectively operating as proxies for the terrible regime in Tehran. What further action will the Home Secretary take to clamp down on organisations that masquerade as charities?
Shabana Mahmood
The Charity Commission has powers to launch its own inquiries and enforce compliance. It has a full suite of powers to take action if it thinks someone has fallen outside of our rules. There is an ongoing Charity Commission investigation into the overall body relating to the IHRC—the trust, rather than the organisation we are discussing here today. I am sure that once the Charity Commission has completed that work it will take appropriate action, and I know that that will be the subject of further discussion in this House. Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that we recognise the desire by some to use our charities legislation and to find gaps to pursue ends that are not charitable and for which the law was not intended. We will not hesitate to take further action in that area if we need to do so.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Will the Home Secretary care to explain a contradiction? She has taken to ban a peaceful march that has been happening for over 40 years, citing serious public disorder, while the Government continue to permit the far right, who call for serious public disorder outside hotels housing asylum seekers, to protest outside those hotels. In September 2025 at the Tommy Robinson “Unite the Kingdom” march—the Home Secretary might like to know that he is a big fan of hers—violence was sighted, in particular against Muslims. Will that march be banned in future as well?
Shabana Mahmood
Each case has to be dealt with on its own facts. The “Unite the Kingdom” march was very large. The police did not seek this power because, based on their own risk assessment, they assessed that it was possible for that march to take place safely and that they could police it safely, as well as the counter march that took place, which was smaller in nature. If they had made such a request, I would obviously have had to consider that request based on the full facts disclosed to me in the risk assessment.
The hon. Gentleman should not conflate multiple different things. There is a very specific risk that is being posed by the march on this occasion, given the international context and given that there will actually be five marches; there is the main march by those behind the al-Quds Day rally and then there are the four counter-protesting marches. He must recognise the unique challenge posed by five marches taking place at the same time in this international context. That is different from every other kind of protest and march that has taken place. I would hope that he does not conflate the two, because that could cause a loss of confidence across our communities.
Marches take place every day on a whole range of issues—international and domestic in nature—but the police almost never ask for those to be banned. In fact, such a request has never been made of me. I think the last time this power was used was in something like 2010 or 2012—many, many years ago. This is a unique situation, given the current context and the unique policing challenge of five different marches at the same time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can focus a little more on the facts, rather than the hyperbole with which he began his question.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I stand, and we stand, for an Iran free of the ayatollah, free of the IRGC, free of a despotic regime that carries terrorism all over the world, and free of the regime that killed 35,000 of its own citizens in January this year. With that mind, may I thank the Home Secretary very much for her decision to ban the al-Quds Day march? It is very important that we in this House take a stand to show that we support those in Iran who are fighting for freedom.
In the light of repeated concerns of law enforcement and community organisations about the risk of public disorder and clashes with protesters, what further steps will the Home Secretary take to prevent groups promoting extreme ideologies from organising events that will incite intimidation or violence against minorities or other vulnerable groups in the United Kingdom?
Shabana Mahmood
We already have strong laws and other measures in this country on inciting violence, and I would expect the police to always bring the full force of the law on anybody found to be contravening our laws without fear or favour. It is important that we respect and rely on our legal framework, because we do have one of the strongest legal frameworks in the world on all these matters. The Government will always take further action if it is necessary, but I do believe our current framework allows us to strike the right balance on protecting individual freedoms. Even if they are offensive and even if they are provocative, they should still be protected, but as long as that is within the confines of the law.
Migration Reform
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
I am today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules.
Introduction of the visa brake
The number of asylum claims from people who arrived in the UK on a visa or other leave has tripled since the year ending June 2022. Nationals of Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan present some of the highest proportions of asylum claims to visas issued. In total, as of September 2025, 15,906 of these nationals are in receipt of Home Office support, including 6,412 individuals in hotels.
To protect UK border security, we are introducing a visa brake for Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar, and Sudan. This will come into force on 26 March 2026. This means we will refuse student visa applications from main applicants who are nationals of Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar, and Sudan. Additionally, we will refuse skilled worker visa applications from main applicants who are nationals of Afghanistan. The brake will not apply to applications made before 26 March. We are publicising the changes so that travellers can plan accordingly.
The brake will meet the intent of the immigration White Paper and the asylum policy statement. Its key aim is to reduce the strain on the asylum system. It will also strengthen public confidence in the immigration system.
The decision to introduce a visa brake has been taken solely for migration and border security reasons. The brake is not intended to be permanent and will be regularly reviewed, with the aim of ensuring that it can be released as soon as it is considered appropriate to do so.
Reducing the duration of refugee and humanitarian protection, permission to stay
We are amending the existing rule to reduce the duration of permission to stay from five years to 30 months for those recognised as refugees or in need of humanitarian protection. Renewal of protection will not be equivalent to making an initial asylum claim. The rules will come into force from 26 March and will apply to adults and families, including accompanied asylum-seeking children who claim asylum on and after 2 March 2026.
Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children will be exempt from this change and will continue to receive five years’ permission to stay. This will remain Home Office policy while the pathway for this cohort is developed.
Procedure and rights of appeal changes for failed asylum seekers
As part of the “restoring order and control” package, I am making changes to the further submissions process, which enables individuals to present evidence following the refusal or withdrawal of their asylum claim, once all appeal rights have been exhausted.
Under these reforms, individuals will be required to meet all validity requirements at the point they make further submissions. This includes: being in the UK when further submissions are made; being a failed asylum seeker, meaning that their initial asylum claim has been refused or withdrawn; and having no outstanding appeal rights or other ongoing protection claims or appeals. Where these requirements are not met, the further submissions may be rejected as invalid without consideration.
In addition, I am also introducing a new provision for implicit withdrawal, similar to the arrangements already in place for initial asylum claims. This will allow the Home Office to treat further submissions as withdrawn where an individual fails to comply with process requirements, including maintaining contact with the Home Office, attending reporting events and responding to requests for information.
Disclosure of information relating to asylum claims when cases are subject to public interest
This minor addition to the existing rule about the disclosure of information relating to an individual’s asylum claim clarifies that the rule does not prevent the Home Office from confirming, in certain cases, that an asylum claim has been made by an individual claimant. However, the change also states that the Home Office must ensure that the release of such information is in the public interest.
Introduction of a visit visa requirement for nationals of Nicaragua and St Lucia
I am introducing a visa requirement for all visitors from Nicaragua and St Lucia. This will come into force at 15:00 Greenwich mean time today. Nationals of Nicaragua and St Lucia will also need a direct airside transit visa when transiting through the UK. They will no longer be eligible to apply for an electronic travel authorisation for travel to the UK.
A six-week visa-free transition period will apply for those who already hold an ETA and have confirmed UK travel booked on or before 15:00 GMT on 5 March 2025, where arrival in the UK is no later than 15:00 BST on 16 April 2025. We are publicising these changes to support traveller awareness and planning. This action follows significant numbers of Nicaraguan and St Lucian nationals travelling to the UK for purposes not permitted under visitor rules, including to claim asylum, creating unsustainable pressure at the border and on the asylum system. Concerns also remain about St Lucia’s Citizenship By Investment programme. While the UK welcomes ongoing programme reforms, the inherent risk of Citizenship by Investment and issues linked to the programme’s past operation and legacy cases further increases the need for a visit visa requirement at this time.
This decision has been taken solely for migration and border security reasons. We keep the border and immigration system under regular review to ensure it continues to work in the UK national interest.
Further extension of the Ukraine permission extension scheme
The Government remain steadfast in their support for the people of Ukraine in the face of Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion. From the outset of the conflict, the Government have acted decisively and compassionately, offering sanctuary to over 310,000 Ukrainians through the Ukraine family scheme, the Homes for Ukraine scheme, and the Ukraine extension scheme.
Changes to Appendix Ukraine are being introduced to ensure that the Ukraine schemes continue to provide stable and secure protection for those displaced by the ongoing conflict, while giving individuals and families greater certainty about their status in the UK. Extending Ukraine permission extension leave by a further 24 months reflects the Government’s commitment to maintaining temporary sanctuary for Ukrainians. Increasing the application window from 28 to 90 days is designed to make the process more accessible and reduce unnecessary pressure on applicants. This extension will remain fee-free, and those granted permission to remain under UPE will continue to be able to access work, benefits, healthcare, and education.
In addition, the changes ensure that no one loses any existing permission they currently hold: any extant leave will be preserved and added to their new grant. This package of amendments is intended to improve clarity, support continuity for families, and provide reassurance while the future situation in Ukraine remains uncertain.
English language requirements for settlement applications
The White Paper “Restoring Control over the Immigration System”, published in May 2025, set out the Government’s plans to introduce new English language requirements across a broader range of immigration routes, including arrangements for settlement routes. Reformed English language requirements will help to ensure that those who come here to build their lives in the UK can integrate into life in this country. We are commencing implementation of those plans in relation to settlement applications through these rules changes, which increase the English language requirement for settlement to B2 level under the common European framework of reference for languages for a number of routes where the existing requirement is at B1 level.
The changes to the English language requirements for settlement applications will come into force on 26 March 2027, providing those subject to the new requirements with sufficient opportunity to take any steps necessary to meet them. Further changes to English language requirements in relation to settlement applications will be considered in the light of the Government’s assessment of responses to the recent consultation on proposals for earned settlement.
For the changes that introduce a visit visa requirement for nationals of Nicaragua and Saint Lucia, due to the need to safeguard the operation of the UK’s immigration system, those changes will come into effect at 15:00 on 5 March 2026. The changes relating to the introduction of the visa brake, disclosure of information relating to asylum claims, and reducing the duration of refugee and humanitarian protection permission to stay will come into force on 26 March 2026. The changes to the procedure and rights of appeal changes for failed asylum seekers, global business mobility and scale-up routes, and the further extension of the Ukraine permission extension scheme, will come into force on 8 April 2026.
Revoking the duty to provide asylum support
As set out in the Restoring Order and Control statement, I am making further legislative changes to revoke the current legal obligation to provide asylum support to asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute, and am restoring the power to offer support, as previously provided under domestic law. This is the first step in moving to a more conditional support system. A statutory instrument is being laid in Parliament today and the policy will come into force in June. The overarching intention is to ensure that support is focused on those who genuinely need it and comply with the system.
Conditions of support and illegal working
I am also amending existing conditions of support legislation to enable the suspension or discontinuation of asylum support where an asylum seeker is working illegally. This will apply where support is provided under sections 4, 95 and 98 of the 1999 Act. Those who are offered asylum support are expected to comply with the conditions of that support. This change is to ensure that asylum support is provided to those who comply with the rules of the asylum system. This will be done via two instruments. The first will amend regulation 20(1) of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000 for section 95 and section 98 support, and this change will come into force on 27 March 2026. The second will amend regulation 6 of the Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum Seekers) Regulations 2005 for section 4 support, and will come into force on 2 June 2026.
Family returns consultation
I am beginning today to consult with a range of partners and stakeholders over a 12-week period on our approach to family returns. Within a fair, effective and orderly immigration and asylum system, it has to be the case that families with no legal right to remain in the United Kingdom depart. The family returns process is designed to maximise voluntary departures and minimise enforcement—but where a family chooses to remain here, compliance with the requirement to leave will be enforced.
The consultation will seek views on the commencement of provisions in part 5 of the Immigration Act 2016 that reform the support available to families with no legal basis to remain in the UK and the framework under which support may be provided or discontinued. These changes will provide clarity and consistency across the system by ensuring that support is focused on those who truly require it, while reinforcing the expectation that families will depart from the UK if they no longer have a lawful basis to stay.
The consultation also seeks views on the Government’s approach to enforcing the return of families who do not depart voluntarily. This includes proposals relating to the circumstances in which physical interventions may be used in the course of an enforced return, and the safeguards, oversight and reporting requirements that should apply. These proposals emphasise the need for clear, proportionate processes that enable enforcement activity to proceed safely, with the welfare of children remaining a primary consideration.
A copy of the consultation will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1379]
Asylum Changes
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
This country will always provide sanctuary to those fleeing war and persecution. But we must also ensure our asylum system is not creating pull factors that draw people on dangerous journeys across the world, fuelling and funding the human traffickers.
Genuine refugees will find safety in Britain, but we must also reduce the incentives that draw people here at such scale, including those without a legitimate need for protection. So, once a refugee’s home is safe and they are able to return, they will be expected to do so.
This is a firm but fair approach, restoring order and control of Britain’s borders, while protecting those fleeing war and repression.
Last November, as part of the most sweeping reforms to tackle illegal migration since the second world war, this Government announced that refugee protection would become temporary. At the same time, refugees who wish to stay in Britain and have skills will be able to apply for new work and study visas, helping them integrate with and contribute to society.
Britain will also open new, safe and legal routes, with community sponsorship becoming the new norm. The entire approach is designed to shift the asylum system in Britain away from dangerous, illegal crossings, and high levels of applications from those without legitimate asylum claims.
Under these changes, adults and accompanied children claiming asylum from today will receive a 30-month period of protection, if granted. At a 30-month review, refugees with a continuing need of sanctuary will have their protection renewed, while those whose countries are now deemed safe will be expected to return home.
Under the previous system, refugees were granted five years of protection and allowed to bring their families—followed by near-automatic, fee-free permanent settlement with continued access to benefits and housing. This was among the most generous offers to refugees in any country in western Europe. This has become a pull factor that has seen asylum claims in Britain rise steeply, including tens of thousands of illegitimate claims each year, as they fall across the rest of the continent.
Refugees under the reformed system will need to renew their permission to stay or apply for a legal visa route. Family reunion remains paused while new rules are designed that bring financial and integration requirements in line with those expected of British citizens.
The reset in Britain’s asylum offer, inspired by Denmark’s success, will encourage those wishing to build a life in the UK to do so via legal routes and reduce the pull factors driving illegal migration. The first step towards a new, “core protection” system will be introduced through a change to the immigration rules later this week.
While Denmark was cutting asylum claims to a 40-year low, the UK saw a 13% increase in the year to September 2025. Across the EU, applications fell by 22% over the same period.
Since 2015, Denmark has made refugee status temporary—subject to review every two years—introduced restrictions on family reunion and increased the wait for permanent settlement to eight years, subject to strict integration and employment requirements.
Under reforms announced last autumn, refugees in the UK will have to wait 20 years for settlement, unless they switch to a legal visa route, as part of the “core protection” model.
New routes will be created as an alternative to “core protection” for those who can contribute through work or study, encouraging use of the legal migration system and contributing to better social cohesion. Further details of these will be set out in future immigration rules changes.
Unaccompanied children will continue to receive five years’ leave, while the Government consider the appropriate long-term policy for this group. Further details will be set out in due course.
Robust age assessment measures are already in place to root out false claims by migrants claiming to be under 18. AI technology currently being tested will strengthen this further.
There will be transitional provisions for people who submitted an asylum claim before today, so that existing rules continue to apply.
[HCWS1373]