Policing in Cleveland

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)]

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about the fatal crash near Middlesbrough on 22 August, and the death of two brave police officers that day: Police Constable Matthew Blades and Police Constable Tom Clough. It is the most humbling duty of any Home Secretary to oversee the work of our police forces and the thousands who serve in them, and that is never more true than on a day like today, when we honour those who have fallen in the line of duty—those who lost their lives as they sought to protect us all.

The detail of what happened will by now be well known to most in the House and beyond it, but it is right to begin by recounting the facts. At 3.39 on the morning of Saturday 22 August, a Volkswagen Passat containing five young men, travelling the wrong way down the A66, collided with a marked Cleveland police armed response vehicle. The police car was, I should add, travelling on the correct side of the road. A significant emergency response was deployed. I must pay tribute to all the first responders who attended the scene and worked in extremely difficult circumstances. Despite their best efforts, PC Blades and PC Clough both died as a result of the collision, as did the five individuals who were driving on the wrong side of the road.

Following such an incident, it is mandatory that a referral is made to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. That has happened in this case, and the IOPC has begun an independent investigation. On 23 August, it issued an update, which I will now summarise. Prior to the crash, Cleveland police received intelligence regarding numerous incidents linked to a Volkswagen Passat. The Passat was later sighted and an armed response vehicle began a pursuit. The pursuit lasted just under seven minutes before the Passat crossed over to the wrong side of the A66. At that point, the pursuit was aborted by officers, who continued to travel on the correct side of the carriageway. However, about 10 seconds later, the Passat collided with a police vehicle that was not involved in the pursuit but was in the area to assist in the search. That car contained police constables Blades and Clough. This is an ongoing investigation, so we must heed the request of those best placed to examine the circumstances of this awful incident by avoiding speculation and giving them the time and space they need to carry out their vital work.

Significant police activity has followed the crash. Some 27 arrests have been made as part of a wide-scale investigation into suspected serious and organised crime. There are limits on what can be said publicly at this stage, but both the IOPC and Cleveland police have my full backing in their respective tasks.

Members may be aware that Cleveland police has also been investigating a house fire in Grangetown in which two people died, including, tragically, a child. It should be noted that the force is not treating that as connected in any way to the A66 crash. However, it has undoubtedly added to the sense of disquiet in a community already reeling from that earlier tragedy.

Many in the House and across the country will have also been troubled by the scenes in County Durham, where a number of vehicles were set on fire at a memorial for one of the occupants of the Passat. I recognise how unnerving it will have been for law-abiding citizens in both the affected areas and beyond to see a spate of incidents in close proximity and in quick succession. Let me therefore assert once more that lawlessness of any kind will never be tolerated, and the Government stand squarely behind the police as they face down criminality and disorder on our streets.

The Government are supporting the police in word and deed. Cleveland police, like all forces, is receiving a real-terms uplift this year, taking its total funding to £197.8 million—an increase of £7 million compared to 2025-26. Clearly, the events of recent days have placed exceptional pressure on Cleveland police, and I can confirm today that the force has received additional resource under mutual aid arrangements, which have seen officers deployed to Cleveland from around the region. I thank those forces and personnel who have stepped up and taken on this additional work.

I can also announce today that in the light of the situation Cleveland police has faced, we will allocate an additional £2 million to the force to tackle serious crime in the area. That will build on existing operations, including the “clear, hold, build” approach, which is tough both on serious crime and on the causes of serious crime, and has been shown to work across the country.

In addition, as I have said, we are committed to a wider review of the police funding formula to ensure that force funding is fair and keeps the public safe. A new approach to allocating funding will be brought in as part of our reforms to police structures. In the meantime, the Government will continue to work closely with Cleveland police to ensure that it has all the support it needs as it faces these challenging circumstances and grieves the loss of two of its own.

Let me end by paying tribute to those two men. PC Blades and PC Clough devoted their lives to the noblest form of public service, protecting their fellow citizens. In remembering them, we hold in our hearts those they leave behind—above all, their family and all those who love them. I think also of their colleagues in uniform, not just in Cleveland but across policing, who have lost friends, colleagues and fellow members of the policing family.

This tragedy speaks to an enduring truth: policing is not just a profession; it is a calling answered only by those who are willing to place themselves in harm’s way to protect us all. PC Blades and PC Clough epitomise that courage. At 37 and 38, they were no age at all, but in their all too brief lives they gave so much. An extraordinary number of tributes have poured in, but I think we must leave the final words to their families, who knew them best and loved them most. PC Blades’s wife remembers a “beloved husband” and “the most devoted father” to their two young boys. She said:

“He was loved beyond words by all his family and friends, and his loss has left a space that can never be filled. He gave his life in the line of duty, protecting and serving others with courage, dedication and selflessness.”

PC Clough’s family describe him as their “hero”. They remember his “fantastic sense of humour” and pay tribute to a man who

“jumped into action whenever needed”

and who was

“always on public duty throughout his short life.”

A death in the line of duty is a moment of profound national sorrow, but our public loss is a fraction of the private and personal tragedy for these two families, so, across the House, let us offer them our love, support and prayers. Let us never forget who those two brave men were and how much they meant to those who loved them. For all they did and all they gave, PC Blades and PC Clough were the very best of us. Today, we remember them. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I know that the whole House will join the Home Secretary and me in paying tribute to those brave officers tragically killed in the crash on the A66 in the early hours of 22 August. Our thoughts are with the families of PCs Matthew Blades and Tom Clough, whose lives were cut short by a car recklessly driven on the wrong side of the road by criminals. Those brave officers made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. They will never be forgotten.

Every day, police officers up and down the country risk their lives to keep us safe. We owe them all a deep debt of gratitude. This tragedy has sent shockwaves through Cleveland police and the public more widely. The Home Secretary has set out some of the steps being taken to support local police, but will she confirm that every request for extra assistance made by Cleveland police has been met?

In the aftermath of 22 August, I was shocked to see so-called tributes staged for some of the men directly responsible for PCs Blades and Clough’s deaths that included cars being driven dangerously and set on fire. Criminal activity of that kind is wrong in principle and deeply offensive in these circumstances. Will the Home Secretary join me in condemning that activity and calling on the police to ensure it does not happen again?

Organised crime was allowed to take hold in whole parts of Middlesbrough. Criminal gangs ran rampant and engaged in retaliatory attacks on one another. Homes and properties were attacked with no consequence, and that escalated even further in the days after 22 August. Although it is welcome that 27 people have finally been arrested, such lawless gang chaos should never have been allowed to take root in the first place. The police need proper resources to stop that. Many campaigners, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), the shadow police Minister, who I see in his place, have raised concerns for some time that there is a multi-million pound shortfall in funding for Cleveland police in the current financial year. Even the local Labour police and crime commissioner, Matt Storey, said this Government’s financial settlement this year

“completely fails to deliver the resources required to meet the demand faced by Cleveland Police and falls far short of what is needed.”

Does the Home Secretary accept her own police and crime commissioner’s assessment that the funding she put in place for Cleveland police this year is inadequate? Lawless chaos followed that underfunding, and I think the Home Secretary should apologise for that. The £2 million just referred to is only 0.5% of Cleveland’s budget and is clearly wholly inadequate in the circumstances.

I am afraid that that reflects a wider national trend that goes beyond Cleveland. The last Government left behind record ever police numbers, but there are now 1,800 fewer police officers under this Government. As a result, crime has increased by 10% and antisocial behaviour has gone up by 15% in just the last year. The Home Secretary must accept that cutting overall police numbers was a mistake. Will she take steps to reverse that decline? The truth is that only zero tolerance of crime and disorder will ensure that criminals are the ones who are afraid, and not the law-abiding public. We have seen the consequences, with the rampant gangs going unchallenged in Middlesbrough, and it is clear now that a zero-tolerance approach is required to keep the public safe.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me start by saying that I appreciate that, at the beginning of his statement, the shadow Home Secretary paid tribute and gave his condolences to the families of PC Blades and PC Clough. There is, at least, agreement across this House on their enormous sacrifice, and the need to support their family and friends as they face that loss. On the wider matters that he raises, he has absolutely no credibility when it comes to police numbers. It was his Government who cut police numbers, not by a few thousand here and there, or a few hundred, but by 20,000 police officers. They then decided to replace the 20,000 that they cut, but did so in a distorted way that meant that we have warranted police officers working in admin jobs and behind desks across police forces in this country.

The truth is that the Tory Government made an absolute mess of policing over their time in government. I have said this many times to the shadow Home Secretary, and though it falls on deaf ears, it remains true and I will keep saying it: he would have more credibility entering this debate if he fronted up on what went wrong under the Tory Government and apologised for it. I notice that he has the shadow Justice Secretary sitting next to him; he was a special adviser to a former Tory Home Secretary. Until there is humility about the mess that the Tories made of our public services and our policing in particular, they have no credibility, and I will take no lessons from them, especially given that his party oversaw the loss of over 200 officers in Cleveland.

This Government are righting those wrongs. We have increased funding for policing by £2 billion since being elected, and all forces will receive a real-terms uplift in their funding this year as part of an overall £18.5 billion package. Funding to Cleveland has increased by £18.3 million since 2024, and that is a real-terms increase of 4.4% over two years. That is the truth of what we have had to deal with as an incoming Labour Government, and we will not stop until we have our police service functioning exactly as the public would expect.

Let me also say to the right hon. Gentleman that, on the issue of criminal gangs and the efforts made by Cleveland police, I do not think it is a fair characterisation of that police force to suggest that they have done nothing for all this time and have only sprung into action since this horrifying incident took place. They are responding to the incident, arrests have been made and they will continue, and this Government will stand shoulder to shoulder with them as they get control of the matter and of the streets in Cleveland. That is why we have announced the additional funding today and that is why there are mutual aid arrangements in place to assist them.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the unlawful activity that has been taking place in relation to tributes and memorials for some of those who lost their lives in the crash. I of course condemn all unlawful activity and all attempts to breed public disorder as a result of what has happened. Again, we stand four-square behind the police as they respond to those incidents. People should be in no doubt that any attempt to instigate public disorder or to break our laws will be met with the full force of the law, and the Government will support the police as they carry out that incredibly important work.

There will be questions about the ability of the police to respond effectively and to ensure that we are able to give confidence to all the public about the standard of service that they can expect from their policing. Members of this House should have absolutely no doubt that this is a Government who have increased funding for policing and who are going to make sure that we reform policing so that the police are capable of dealing with every type of challenge that a modern force faces and we have a police service that we can all be absolutely proud of and can rely on in our time of need. I hope that all Members across this House, acting reasonably, can unite around that.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough. I also pay tribute to all the officers of Cleveland police who, while grieving the loss of their two colleagues, have continued to serve with extraordinary professionalism, remaining visible in our communities, pursuing offenders and making arrests. My thoughts, those of my Middlesbrough and Thornaby East constituents and those of everyone across Teesside remain with the families of the officers, their friends and colleagues. That has been magnificently demonstrated by the overwhelming generosity shown in donations to the fund established to support the families of Matthew and Tom, and at the outpouring of love and solidarity at the Riverside stadium on Saturday, which reflect the decency of the overwhelming majority of people in our communities.

We must, however, confront the reality of crime honestly. The latest figures show around 123 recorded crimes per 1,000 people across the Cleveland police force area—the highest rate of any police force in England and Wales. Yet Cleveland has experienced the largest percentage reduction in full-time equivalent officers since 2010, losing around 13% of its officers. Police numbers are not the only factor, but a force facing the highest demand in the country needs the resources to respond. I am truly grateful to the Home Secretary for the financial assistance she has announced for Cleveland today, and that will address the mutual aid bill and some. Will she meet me and my colleagues to discuss how that deficit in resources can be urgently and permanently corrected?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I know how deeply affected he and other parliamentarians who represent the local area have been by what has happened, and I pay tribute to their ability to give voice to what their communities are experiencing. I particularly agree with him on thanking the officers who are still on duty, who have lost one of their own. They are showing incredible bravery in very difficult circumstances.

I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and colleagues from neighbouring constituencies to discuss these matters in more detail. I hope he will take comfort from the additional resourcing that has been announced today. We believe that is important to get on top of the serious and organised crime issues in the area, but of course we will want to ensure that the force has everything it needs in order to respond. More widely, I would like to discuss with him how this matter makes the case for wider police system reform, so that we can ensure we have a service that can not only respond to local need but, at regional level, surge resources into areas that are experiencing particularly high levels of crime.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I want to join others in extending my sympathies and those of my party to the families and colleagues of PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough. My thoughts are with their loved ones at this extremely difficult time. By virtue of my in-laws, I am from a policing family, so I know the shock and grief that is being felt in the wider policing community, too. That should be acknowledged today in the Chamber.

At least one of those killed in the Middlesbrough crash is in multiple videos posted on TikTok depicting dangerous driving. This is part of a concerning wider trend on social media platforms, where lives are being risked in the pursuit of clicks, and we must ask: who is benefiting from this? It is some of the world’s richest people. They are getting richer off the back of these platforms, which are currently under-regulated, while communities suffer the consequences. Can the Home Secretary explain why, despite her Government’s intention to force platforms to remove dangerous content that leads to dangerous activities and deaths, such platforms still have no legal obligation to do so? Events in America have shown that these companies can be brought to heel, so will the Home Secretary work with the Culture Secretary to strengthen the Online Safety Act 2023, so that the glorification of dangerous driving is brought into scope?

It is, as others have said, deeply worrying to see the scenes of unrest that have followed this incident. We know that there are national pressures on police resources, so can the Home Secretary tell the House how long mutual aid will continue, and can she say something about the support given to the other forces that are losing resource under mutual aid arrangements? Given the apparent links, is she confident that her reforms will give the police and the National Crime Agency the resources and powers they need to tackle the scourge of organised crime that impacts not only Middlesbrough but so many communities across our country?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the Lib Dem spokesman for his comments and questions. Let me assure him that I am already discussing with colleagues across Government the wider issues of social media platforms and the content that is posted on them. He will know that this Government have been implementing various elements of the Online Safety Act and that from the middle of next year the wider measures within the Act will come online. That will mean that the larger social media platforms, including TikTok, will be under a legal duty to act against harmful content that breaches their terms of service. That will include content of this nature. In the meantime, most of the platforms are taking this content down. It is a reactive process, in the sense that they are responding to content being flagged—it has then, for the most part, been removed from their platforms—but from the middle of next year there will be a duty on those platforms to act proactively, not just reactively.

However, as I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, there are wider questions about the efficacy of the Online Safety Act and whether we need to revisit the measures in that Act and go further, given the unique pressures that some of the content on those platforms poses for law and order, and for criminal justice more broadly. Those are matters that the Government are considering, and other Government colleagues will come to the House to update Members in due course. Let me assure him that I work closely with colleagues on the specific matters raised by this case.

On the hon. Gentleman’s question on mutual aid, that will continue as long as it is needed by the chief constable in Cleveland, but I think this case shows the need for wider police structural reform. Cleveland is a relatively small force, and we can see the pressures on a small force that is having to do local neighbourhood policing as well as the much more specialist investigations that go with organised crime and public order-related issues. As I have made clear before, moving to a three-tier system with local forces, regional forces and also the new national police service will put us in the best possible position to provide a policing service that is able to respond to local issues in the way that local people expect, with a very visible local policing presence, as well as giving us the flexibility to respond to cases across a larger area, such as those we have seen in Cleveland, with the capacity and numbers needed to deal with public order risk, for example, without having to rely on mutual aid to get through and survive day by day, and having a national police service that can take up the types of crime that are prevalent nationally and also have an international dimension. We will bring forward our proposals on reform later this year, and I look forward to debating those with the hon. Gentleman and others across this House.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The whole of Teesside has been shaken by the tragic deaths of PC Tom Clough and PC Matthew Blades last week, and the real Teesside—the one not depicted in the media—is the one that filled up the Riverside with a standing ovation for those two brave officers on Saturday, that has raised over £1 million for their families and that stands with our emergency services every single day. However, those services need their Government to stand with them, too. I am grateful for the £2 million extra funding that has been announced today, and for the 300 extra officers who have been deployed from across the country to keep our streets safe in the short term, but what we need in the long term is funding formula reform, so will the Home Secretary bring that forward at pace and ensure that we get the fair funding settlement that Cleveland so desperately needs?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way that he has responded to this incident on behalf of his constituents, who I know have been deeply affected, as he has himself. The outpouring of support for the families of PC Blades and PC Clough is a real testament to the people he represents. Let me assure him, on ensuring that the Government proceed with their planned review of the funding formula, that as we change police force structures, the case for the necessity of changing the formula is also made out. We could not keep the same funding formula with a new policing system in any case. I say that to assure him that both reviewing and reforming the police funding formula are absolutely critical to the programme of police reform. We know that on many occasions over 14 years the previous Government promised reform of the funding formula but then ducked that reform at every opportunity. The move to a new structure for policing in this country provides the best opportunity to relook at funding, and let me reassure him that that is absolutely on the agenda. We will be updating the House on the timetable for that, once the independent review on police force structures has been completed and presented to the House.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

As a local Member, I pay tribute to PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough, and to every police officer who has worked tirelessly throughout these horrific and tragic events. Our thoughts remain with their families and colleagues. Despite having the highest crime rate in the country, Cleveland received the lowest increase in funding, with our local Labour police and crime commissioner warning of a £2.4 million shortfall. I very much welcome the mutual aid and the funding that has been announced, but will the Home Secretary guarantee that the new funding formula will properly reflect the pressures of serious and organised crime faced by Cleveland, so that this funding does not prove to be merely a sticking plaster?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman is a local Member, and he is taking the opportunity to ask a question from the Back Benches to reflect his local interest; I pay tribute to him for his response to this incident and the wider pressures in his local area. I assure him that, when we begin the work on reforming the funding formula, we will start with a first-principles approach to what we are seeking to achieve. That will include broader issues of demand for policing and will reflect the reality of what policing different areas looks like.

The new police force structure—a new regional force model that is big enough to surge capacity to local areas when required—will give the flexibility to ensure that forces are not condemned to permanently relying on mutual aid. It is to the credit of the policing system that people step up and do what is required to keep their areas safe, but nobody could argue that that is the right way to run policing in our country in the 21st century. It desperately needs reform. Most of the policing system leaders recognise that the structure needs reform. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that funding reform will flow as a result of that. The first phase of consulting on funding reform will relate to the first principles of what the funding is for and how to reflect the needs of different areas.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I join the Home Secretary and the whole House in paying tribute to PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough, and in sending our heartfelt condolences to their families and loved ones. Matthew was a coach at my son’s football club, FC Hartlepool, and at Seaton Carew FC. The teams played each other last Saturday, when I was proud to join so many other Poolies in paying tribute to a remarkable man who was so loved by everyone who knew him. I also pay tribute to our police and all emergency services personnel, who are getting up every single day grief-stricken at the loss of their two colleagues, but are still doing their jobs to an amazing extent.

These tragic events did not materialise out of the blue. The lawlessness that we are seeing in certain parts of our communities did not happen overnight. It is the consequence of systemic underfunding of our police and our fire service. I welcome the £2 million announced by the Home Secretary today, but does she agree—I join my colleagues in saying this—that we need a long-term solution to fix the funding formula, for both our police and our fire service, if we are to protect all of our communities? I hope that she is sincere about ensuring that that happens.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in providing reassurance to his local community. It is particularly difficult when you have a personal connection to somebody who has lost their lives in these circumstances, so I pay tribute to him for the work he is doing in what are very difficult circumstances for local representatives and all members of our emergency services in the area. I reassure him that the work that we will do on police funding is a very real part of the wider police reform programme. I hope that when we discuss these matters, as we will when I meet local Members of Parliament for the area, we can see how this fits in with the wider programme of police reform.

This incident shows, in a very horrifying way, why we need to reform policing structures so that we have the right level of policing in each of our areas, such that we can respond to shop theft and antisocial behaviour on our high streets, ensure that we can deal with local organised and serious crime, and ensure that specialist investigation and public order are not left to be looked after by mutual aid arrangements. The case for reform is made out; as a necessary part of that reform, we will of course look at the funding formula. I look forward to discussing that with my hon. Friend very soon.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

The deaths of PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough have, of course, been felt acutely in Cleveland, but they have also been felt more widely across the whole north-east and the policing family. I pay tribute to colleagues across the House, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), who has spoken with dignity as a local representative in the light of those terrible events.

As the Home Secretary said, some of the officers stepping forward to provide mutual aid are from neighbouring forces, such as Northumbria, Durham and others. Unfortunately, the sad reality is that three of the four forces that have had the highest fallen officer numbers from 2015 are north-east forces. That makes the Home Secretary’s point about the need for fundamental change in the funding formula. Those officers are, despite the cuts, putting themselves back into duty and providing mutual aid at enormous personal cost. As she reviews the funding formula, will she ensure that officers have ongoing access to wellbeing and mental health support to help them respond to communities as they have been?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I assure him that the usual arrangements on the engagement of the national police wellbeing service have been activated and support is being provided. We will obviously monitor that to ensure that it is adequate and can rise to the challenge of what we are seeing in Cleveland. His point is incredibly important because, at the end of the day, police officers are human beings; they are still running towards danger, working very long hours and helping people in their local community, but they do need support. When you have lost two of your own in such terrible, terrible circumstances, the case for that support is more than made out. That is being provided, but the Policing Minister will continue to talk to the chief constable and others to ensure that our officers are being supported and looked after.

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on the need for fundamental change in the way that we do the funding formula for policing. That is also tied to the fundamental change that we need on police force structures as well. He will know that Cleveland is a force of about 1,500 officers. Even before the cuts under the Conservative Government, it was around 1,700. That is very different from a force such as mine in the west midlands, which has 6,000 officers, or Greater Manchester, which has around 8,000 officers. We have a system that is very lopsided when it comes to police force sizes and, more importantly, the number of officers in each force. That sometimes limits what smaller forces can do without needing mutual aid to support them.

There is a case for structural reform, but it needs to be done in a way that ensures that the public have absolute confidence that their local forces will be highly focused on local issues and that regional forces can handle these specialist investigations and public order issues—and then there is the National Police Service on top of that. I look forward to discussing these issues with my hon. Friend; I know we will do so, because he is a member of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. I echo her words about the two brave police officers who lost their lives in this collision incident on the A66. My constituency has experienced similar deeply antisocial and incredibly dangerous experiences of racing and speeding on our roads. Groups of predominantly young men gather along our main roads, watching cars speeding down those busy roads as content is filmed to be posted on social media. We had a particularly bad spike and hotspot over the weekend in a stretch of road called Bob Dunn Way, next to the Bridge estate. I thank local people who have raised this matter with me and BBC South East, which has highlighted the problem. This activity is clearly dangerous for other road users and is really disruptive for local residents. Does the Home Secretary agree that we must do absolutely everything we can to tackle this lawlessness on our roads and the social media trends that appear to be driving it?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter in his constituency, which faces some of the same issues as we have seen in Cleveland; I see the same in parts of Birmingham as well. He is absolutely right that we have to do everything we can to clamp down on the emerging pattern of behaviour that glorifies this type of activity, which can lead to incredibly dangerous situations on our roads. As I said in response to an earlier question, social media platforms—admittedly, in a reactive way—are taking down the content flagged with them. I urge him to ensure that he shares any local examples he has with those platforms directly, but also with the Home Office, so that we can ensure that they are taken down. As the wider measures in the Online Safety Act are implemented, we can expect the platforms to take a much more proactive position, so that we can stop this trend in its tracks.

Bills Presented

Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes Order 2023 (Revocation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Richard Holden, supported by Claire Coutinho, Andrew Bowie, Sir Gavin Williamson, Richard Fuller, Jerome Mayhew, Greg Smith, Mr Gagan Mohindra, Katie Lam, Rebecca Paul, Rebecca Smith and Joe Robertson, presented a Bill to revoke the Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes Order 2023; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 134).

Greyhound Racing Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Lisa Smart, supported by Liz Jarvis, Anna Sabine, Tom Gordon, Will Stone, Neil Duncan-Jordan, Cat Eccles, Dr Simon Opher, Hannah Spencer, Alison Hume, Irene Campbell, presented a Bill to prohibit the racing of greyhounds on racetracks in England; to create offences in connection with the organising of, and the keeping, breeding or training of greyhounds for, such racing; to make provision about the welfare and rehoming of greyhounds retired from racing; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 135).

Undercover Policing Inquiry: Consultation

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)]

Today I am launching a consultation on the future of the undercover policing inquiry (UCPI). This Government are committed to delivering justice and to ensuring that public inquiries are able to provide answers, accountability and recommendations within a reasonable timeframe.

The UCPI was established in 2015 to examine undercover policing in England and Wales since 1968. Sir John Mitting, the current chair of the inquiry, will retire in 2027. His retirement provides an opportunity to consult those affected, core participants and others with an interest in the inquiry on how its remaining work should best be taken forward. I am grateful to him for his work on the inquiry.

The terms of reference of the inquiry are broad. In addition to examining the role of undercover policing in the prevention and detection of crime, the inquiry is required to examine the motivation for and scope of undercover police operations, their effect on individuals and the public, the extent of Government awareness of such operations, and the adequacy of the legal, policy and judicial framework governing undercover policing. The inquiry is also tasked with reviewing the extent of the duty of disclosure in criminal proceedings involving undercover police operations and the scope for miscarriages of justice where disclosure was inadequate.

The terms of reference envisaged the inquiry concluding within three years. It has made real progress in investigating the Metropolitan police’s special demonstration squad and produced an interim report on tranche 1 of its work (relating to 1968-82) and will publish an interim report concluding its work on the special demonstration squad next year. More than a decade after it was established, the inquiry remains ongoing. As at the end of March 2026, the inquiry has spent £137 million. Ministers remain concerned about the length and cost of the inquiry and the delay in providing outcomes to those affected.

The consultation will seek views on the future structure, scope and format of the work needed to bring to a conclusion the remaining matters that the inquiry is set to investigate. It is not a re-opening of evidence, nor a call for new factual material about undercover policing or individual cases. Respondents will be invited to focus on how the inquiry’s remaining areas of work should be prioritised and delivered.

Respondents to the consultation might wish to share their views on alternative ways the inquiry might discharge its remaining areas of work. They might wish to consider fairness to victims and those who were affected by undercover policing, bearing in mind transparency and public confidence, proportionality of cost and duration as well as the ability of different approaches to deliver meaningful recommendations. The consultation has been published on the gov.uk website https://www.homeofficesurveys.homeoffice.gov.uk/s/UCPI-consultation and will close on Thursday 20 August 2026.

We plan to announce our decision on the future of the inquiry, informed by this consultation in autumn 2026.

[HCWS278]

Border Security Commander Annual Report 2025-26

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)]

Today I can announce that the first border security commander’s annual report, for the period 2025 to 2026, is being laid before Parliament.

In our manifesto, this Government promised to create a new border security command to tackle the organised criminal gangs behind illegal channel crossings, with the ability to deliver a response befitting the scale and urgency of this challenge. As this report shows, it has had a significant impact since becoming operational in July 2024. In 2025 alone, we have invested an additional £100 million into the system through the BSC, with a commitment to invest an additional £280 million per year by 2028.

Over the past year, investments across the system have enabled a substantial uplift for National Crime Agency officers tackling OIC, as well as building and enhancing operational capabilities. The NCA has made tackling OIC its main effort and has heavily pivoted resource and capability to tackle the facilitators and enablers of people smuggling, leading to a 55% rise in OIC-related arrests. UK law enforcement has collectively delivered 46% more disruptions—29% of those major disruptions with a long-term impact—74% more arrests and the seizure of hundreds of boats and engines. This has been supported by the passing of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, which introduced new counter-terror-style powers and new offences to investigate and deter offending.

The BSAI Act also requires the border security commander to report on how they have exercised their functions over the previous financial year and set out their assessment of the performance of the border security system. This report outlines how the commander has strengthened, aligned and driven the system to deliver against clear strategic priorities to counter the threat we face.

The report also includes an evaluation of the collective contributions to outcomes and highlights the positive impact of the border security system in tackling illegal migration and reducing dangerous crossings, including increased investment in the border security command and across the system, strengthened co-operation with international and domestic partners, and a renewed international effort to disrupt organised immigration crime.

The public rightly expect us to control who and what enter this country. It is one of the most fundamental duties of the state and remains a top priority for me and the Government I serve in. This report sets out significant achievements which amount to a major upscaling of the UK’s border security system. It has been a strong start, but further work is needed. We know that illegal migration remains one of the defining issues of our time. The BSC will be at the forefront of our continued efforts to meet that challenge.

I thank all partners and agencies, both domestically and internationally, for their continued efforts to tackle this threat and protect the United Kingdom.

Copies of the report will be available in the Vote Office, and it will also be published on gov.uk.

[HCWS290]

Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office Report

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)]

This statement updates the House on the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s investigation into how MI5 came to provide false evidence to the courts on whether or not it had confirmed the status of “Agent X” as a covert human intelligence source. This follows the then Home Secretary’s written ministerial statement https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-07-03/hcws775 of 3 July 2025 and the Prime Minister’s written ministerial statement https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-09-16/hcws928 of 16 September 2025.

Following the direction provided by the Prime Minister in September 2025, Sir John Goldring, the Deputy Investigatory Powers Commissioner, has conducted a comprehensive investigation into how MI5 came to fall short of its high standards, ultimately misleading the High Court, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and associated special advocates. This investigation has now concluded, and Sir John Goldring’s report is complete. Its findings have been submitted to the Prime Minister and the courts.

I would like to thank Sir Brian Leveson, Sir John Goldring and the wider team at IPCO for the hard work that they have undertaken over recent months. I am grateful for their willingness to complete this investigation at the behest of the courts, which is outside the usual remit of IPCO’s work.

Sir John’s conclusions make stark reading. His report outlines a series of failings both individually and organisationally within MI5 that led to false evidence being included in its witness statements. The High Court and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal will now consider their next steps, and we will need to await the outcome of those judicial proceedings.

Nevertheless, I am taking decisive action to ensure that MI5 is held accountable for the failings identified in Sir John’s report and to strengthen the assurance mechanisms by which I hold the director general to account for the actions of the Security Service. This includes a package of measures to enhance accountability, increase independent challenge, review key operational policies, and improve scrutiny of MI5’s litigation strategy and practice. Specifically, I will:

Strengthen current structures where I hold the director general of MI5 to account. This will continue to sit alongside extensive wider assurance and oversight across Government, Parliament and the judiciary;

Increase independent senior-level challenge and external leadership and accountability of MI5’s internal reform and improvement programmes;

Enhance work across legal teams to better understand and scrutinise MI5’s approaches to litigation cases.

MI5 plays a critical role in keeping our country, and the public, safe. I am deeply grateful for the commitment and dedication of its staff. However, given the significance of its responsibilities, it is imperative that the service maintains the highest standards of integrity, accountability and rigour, particularly in its engagement with the courts. This case demonstrates the damage to public, parliamentary and judicial confidence in our security services when MI5 gets it wrong.

Over the last 12 months, MI5 has undertaken a comprehensive programme of work to learn from and rectify the errors exposed by Sir John’s report, as well as previous independent reviews into this case, as has been recognised in the IPCO report. This work has made significant progress, but there is more to do, and MI5 must continue to learn and to hold itself fully to account. I believe the new measures this Government are taking to strengthen oversight will ensure it does.

A copy of the IPCO report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be available on IPCO’s website https://www.ipco.org.uk/

[HCWS285]

National Crime Agency Workforce: Pay and Allowances

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)]

The 12th report of the National Crime Agency Remuneration Review Body is being laid before Parliament and published today. The NCARRB report advises the Government on the pay and allowances for National Crime Agency officers with operational powers and considers the whole NCA workforce.

I would like to thank the Chair and members of the review body for their work on gathering evidence from the NCA, the Home Office, His Majesty’s Treasury and the trade unions, resulting in their detailed, comprehensive report. The Government value the independent expertise and insight of NCARRB and take on board the useful advice and principles set out in response to our remit letter of 27 October 2025.

The NCA is a leader in the fight against serious and organised crime, supporting law enforcement partners with its specialist capabilities and focusing on the highest harm offenders, groups and networks which pose the greatest threat to our society. It is a key operational partner in delivering our priorities for organised immigration crime, working in support of the Border Security Command. It is providing national leadership in tackling grooming gangs, making our streets safer and protecting the economy by tackling money laundering and fraud.

The Government are committed to ensuring that the NCA continues to develop and evolve in response to the rapidly evolving and complex nature of serious and organised crime. Part of this transformation includes empowering the agency’s ability to attract, recruit and retain the skilled workforce it needs.

The NCARRB’s 12th report made the following recommendations:

A consolidated pay award of 4.7% for all NCA officers within our remit group. The spot rates for grades 1 to 5 and the minima and maxima of the standard pay ranges for grades 1 to 6 should be raised by 4.7%.

An increase of 4.7%, in line with the pay award, to the London Weighting Allowance and South-East Allowance for all NCA officers within our remit group.

The NCA undertakes a review of the purpose, design and uprating mechanisms of the London Weighting Allowance and the South-East Allowance. In parallel, the NCA should work with policing partners and trade unions to consider the long-term future of these allowances in the light of the wider reforms set out in the Police Reform White Paper and the NCA’s transition to the National Police Service.

An increase of 4.7%, in line with the pay award, to the International Liaison Officer Allowance and the Diplomatic Compensation Allowance for officers in our remit group.

After careful consideration, I have decided to take the following approach:



Fully accept recommendation 3, which will deliver increases to NCA allowances.

An increase of 3.8%, in line with the proposed pay award for the NCA, to the London Weighting Allowance and South-East Allowance for all NCA officers within our remit group.

An increase of 3.8%, in line with the proposed pay award for the NCA, to the International Liaison Officer Allowance and Diplomatic Compensation Allowance for officers in our remit group.

A pay award of 3.8% is proposed for the NCA. This baseline award will be complemented with the approval of pay and contract reforms that the NCA will be able to take forward, including pay progression for its officers. Taken together this is an excellent outcome for the agency and is consistent with the NCARRB’s report. In particular, this step supports progressing the NCA’s transition to the future National Police Service as announced in the Government’s White Paper “From local to national: a new model for policing”.

In reaching these decisions, I have given due consideration to a number of factors including the value NCA officers give to the public by protecting them against the threat of serious and organised crime, affordability, and delivering value for the tax-paying public.

This award represents a significant increase, with this year’s 3.8% award building on last year’s increase of 4.5%. The award will be funded within the NCA’s existing budget, and I am confident it will greatly support the agency’s efforts to eradicate the most dangerous organised crime groups operating within and against the UK.

Alongside the pay award, the Government are approving the NCA’s pay and contract reform package. This will support the NCA’s transition towards the National Police Service by introducing conditional pay progression, further helping to narrow differences with policing.

[HCWS266]

Police Workforce Pay and Conditions

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)]

The 12th report of the Police Remuneration Review Body is being laid before Parliament and published today. The body considered the pay and allowances for police officers in the federated and superintending ranks in England and Wales. The supplement to the 48th annual report of the Senior Salaries Review Body, which made recommendations on the pay and allowances for the chief police officer ranks in England and Wales, is also being laid before Parliament and published. I would like to thank the chairs and members for their reports and detailed considerations.

Police officers perform one of the most challenging and important roles in public service. Every day, they put themselves in harm’s way to keep our communities safe, protect vulnerable people, and uphold the rule of law. Through our police reform programme, we are committed to ensuring that officers have the support they need to carry out this vital role and to meet the demands of modern policing.

The PRRB recommended a consolidated increase of 3.9% for all ranks and pay points, up to and including chief superintendent. The SSRB recommended a consolidated increase of 3.7% for the chief officer ranks. The Government have given very careful consideration to the recommendations and have decided to award a consolidated increase of 3.5% to all ranks and pay points. This is the highest award that is manageable within existing police force and Home Office budgets, while enabling the continued delivery of the Government’s crime and policing priorities, and considering the evidence and findings of the PRRB and SSRB. This increase will take effect from 1 September 2026.

To support forces with the additional costs of the award, the Home Office will provide additional funding of £84 million in 2026-27; £144 million in 2027-28; and £145 million in 2028-29. I have always been clear that I will prioritise crucial frontline services and this funding has been made available through contingency budgets created by rigorous reprioritisation, difficult decisions and savings exercises undertaken during and after the spending review 2025. The funding will be allocated using police funding formula shares.

London weighting will be increased by 3.5% in line with the pay award. The maximum rates of London allowance and the south-east allowance will also be increased by 3.5%. All protection allowance rates will be increased by £8. These increases will take effect from 1 September 2026.

The PRRB recommended that the 10-day qualifying period for acting up allowance should be abolished from 1 September 2026. This recommendation has been accepted but will instead be implemented following consultation on amendments to determinations made under the Police Regulations 2003.



The PRRB further recommended that maternity support leave entitlements should be increased to two weeks with full pay from 1 September 2026. The second week of full pay will be available to those officers meeting the current service requirements to receive statutory paternity pay, as set out in determinations made under the Police Regulations 2003. The recommendation will also be applied to adoption support leave entitlements. Both changes will be implemented following consultation on amendments to the determinations.

The PRRB recommended that rate three of the protection allowance should be applied for each day an officer is deployed to a qualifying country. This recommendation will be subject to further discussion with all relevant stakeholders to fully understand the impact.

Further recommendations were also made on how statutory employment rights should be applied in the Police Regulations 2003. The Government note these recommendations but emphasise that the PRRB and SSRB will continue to have a role in advising on any enhancements beyond statutory minimum employment rights. In addition, the PRRB made recommendations on timescales for implementing outstanding changes required to the Police Regulations 2003 and determinations made under them. The Home Office will work with policing stakeholders to develop a realistic timetable for progressing these amendments.

The SSRB recommended that the Home Office and the National Police Chiefs’ Council work with policing stakeholders to develop a solution at pace to address chief officer retention through all stages of policing reform. The Home Office will consider how best to take this forward with the NPCC.

[HCWS264]

Immigration and Asylum Bill

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Two years ago, when this Government took office, we inherited an asylum system in chaos. The Conservative Government had ceded control of our borders to criminal gangs and, as a result, between January 2021 and June 2024, 110,000 people arrived here by small boat, while a further 175,000 claimed asylum by other routes. As numbers soared, so did the cost to the taxpayer. In just a single year, spending on asylum support was £4.7 billion, including £9 million spent daily on housing people in 400 asylum hotels.

In the last two years, this Government have begun the work of restoring order to our borders. That starts by taking the fight to the criminal gangs. In the last year, arrests of people smugglers were up 55%. Since taking office, we have disrupted organised immigration crime on 3,700 occasions—up by 46%. In partnership with French law enforcement, we have stopped 46,000 attempted channel crossings. We are now taking that partnership further with a new deal signed in April. This will fund increased patrols and intelligence operations, with a 53% increase in personnel on the French coast. The deal is already bearing fruit. In May, nearly two thirds of attempted small boat crossings were thwarted.

Meanwhile, we have rebuilt a shattered asylum system. Decision making ground to a halt under the last Government; now, decisions are at a 24-year high. As a result, removals are now at their highest level in nearly a decade—up 41% on the same period prior to our taking office. We have now deported and removed nearly 10,000 foreign criminals. That is 36% more than the last Government achieved.

We are also beginning to lighten the burden on local communities. This Government committed to ending the use of asylum hotels within this Parliament. Two years in, we have already emptied one in five, reducing the hotel population by 29% and cutting asylum costs by £1 billion.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I can say absolutely wholeheartedly that the Home Secretary retains my complete support for seeing this legislation through in full. Does she not agree that, as we take this action forward, it is important not just that the hotels are reduced, but that the dispersal accommodation that has overburdened communities, like mine in Hartlepool, is also reduced?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend for what he said. He is absolutely right: we need to reduce the pressure in local communities as much as possible. He knows that dispersal accommodation has been part of the asylum accommodation estate for many years, including under the previous Government. Of course, the best way to reduce the need for asylum accommodation—the use of large sites, dispersal accommodation and other sites—is to reduce the inflow of people coming to the country on small boats in the channel. Once we get to grips with those numbers, we will see the biggest decrease in asylum accommodation, no matter what form it takes, and that is the work that this Government are taking forward.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I congratulate the Home Secretary on not resiling at all from the tough stance that she is trying to take. Has she received any indication that after 20 July, a Labour Home Secretary—hopefully she herself—will be able to continue to develop this important work?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Oh, the right hon. Gentleman tempts me with some attractive bait, but I will resist the temptation! I am sure that once the events of 20 July have taken place, all these matters shall become clearer still.

This Government have taken some considerable steps forward, but we must do more: around 94,000 people remain in asylum accommodation at a total cost of £3.7 billion per year; while asylum claims fell by 12% last year, they remain close to historic highs; and with the criminal gangs still at work, people continue to die in the channel, with over 100 deaths since the start of 2024, including women and young children.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

We always forget that people lose their lives in the channel—including last year, tragically, a young girl of four and a young man of 16 who had just tried to phone his parents. Does the Home Secretary agree that anyone with any humanitarian beliefs at all should be doing everything they can to stop cross-channel boats, and that it is incumbent on everyone that we do everything we can about that?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is really shocking that we no longer seem to give huge amounts of attention to the deaths that still occur in the channel; in fact, they barely make the news. Most people do not realise that so many still lose their lives when crossing on small boats in the channel. That is why there is a moral responsibility on all of us to think about how we deal with the particular challenge of small boats crossing the channel, how we play our part as a Government committed to our humanitarian responsibilities, and how we ensure that we finish off this trade once and for all. The only people who really benefit from this trade, and from the huge risks that people place themselves under, are the criminal gangs themselves. That money is going into the pockets of hardened criminals who would harm us in other ways, and we have got to put a stop to it.

This country has always provided sanctuary to those fleeing war and persecution, and I am proud of that fact, but we must accept that public consent for our asylum system is fraying, and unless we restore control, we will lose the British public’s support entirely. My goal as Home Secretary is to rebuild the public’s confidence, and thereby ensure that we can continue providing protection to those in need today and for generations to come. To do so, I believe we must restore fairness to our asylum system—fairness both to those who are fleeing war and persecution, and towards those communities already here who bear the burden of support.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

On fairness, I understand that some 80 Labour Back Benchers have written to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), asking him to review the Home Secretary’s plans for indefinite leave to remain. Are they likely to be disappointed or encouraged by his response?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Indefinite leave to remain, and the Government’s proposals on earned settlement, will be settled policy later this year when the Government respond to the earned settlement consultation, in which we have said that we are consulting on transitional arrangements. Those will be settled later this year, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not the subject of the Bill.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: we have a proud tradition of welcoming those fleeing persecution, oppression and injustice. In my constituency, over a decade ago many Rohingya who were fleeing genocide made Bradford their home, and we welcomed them. Many of them were able to reunite with their families from refugee camps, who are now living with them in Bradford, and all of them are contributing very positively to Bradford and to this country. Under the Home Secretary’s changes, they would never have been able to reunite with their families, and they would not have done that. Does she think that is right and fair on them?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I remind my hon. Friend that, as he knows, we have paused family reunification, and the Government have said that we will bring forward further proposals for our approach to that. We need to ensure that we have more parity of treatment between those who are ultimately recognised as refugees and other migrants who come to this country—and indeed British citizens who may marry from abroad but are subject to different rules that do not apply to their refugee counterparts. I think there is a need to bring some coherence to the family reunification system, and to ensure that we have an approach that is fair to all the sorts of people who make claims for family reunification. That is not the subject of the Bill, but it is something on which the Government will soon bring forward additional policy proposals.

There is nothing fair about a system that is based on uncontrolled, unsafe and illegal routes into this country. The only people it serves are the people smugglers. Instead, a fair asylum system must be grounded in controlled, safe and legal asylum. For that reason, in the last few weeks I announced new routes for genuine refugees to build a new life here. These capped, safe and legal routes will soon allow communities, universities and businesses to sponsor refugees. The approach means that those in need of protection arrive with the consent of communities, and with the financial support of their sponsor and not the taxpayer. It is an approach to asylum that promotes integration within, and contribution to, this country.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary put on record thanks to communities like mine in Hornsey and Friern Barnet who have opened their doors for the Homes for Ukraine scheme? People have been deeply involved—through the synagogue, the mosque and the church—in community-based schemes that find accommodation locally, and have helped people into work who were already refugees—the UNHRC had decided they were refugees, so there was no question about their application—and that has been a really positive development for our communities.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When people arrive through controlled, safe routes, when we have made a decision to allow people to enter, and when we are in control and not the people-smuggling gangs, the inherent openness, tolerance and generosity of the British people is unlocked. People are willing to welcome those who are in need and who come to this country at our invitation and through a system that has broad public support. Those are the principles that will underpin this Government’s approach to the asylum system.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Even in rural areas like Cornwall, community schemes welcoming Syrian refugees are working very well. They show that community sponsorship schemes can work well across the country.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—yes, they can and they do. That is the difference with a safe and legal route that has buy-in from communities across the country, and that is the basis on which we will build a system for the future.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

It is great to hear my right hon. Friend supporting schemes like Homes for Ukraine. The reason we do not see Ukrainians crossing the channel on small boats is because, rightly, we have a safe and legal route. Why not expand those safe and legal routes to places like Sudan and Eritrea, because obviously if an asylum claim comes from those countries, at the very least they should be fast-tracked? That would help to clear up the backlog, so would she support that?

[Shabana Mahmood]

We have set out our proposals to open up a student refugee scheme and a community sponsorship scheme that will go live later in autumn this year, with the first arrivals coming in the autumn of the following year. Numbers on those schemes will grow. We will also make it possible for businesses to sponsor refugees to come to this country and provide them with work opportunities. I think that is the right way forward. It means that we will be able to accommodate different cohorts of refugees, where we believe we are able to offer a fresh start for people, and to make the best of the contribution that they are able to make to the country. I look forward to getting those routes open, and to welcoming the first arrivals.

In Canada, local communities have long sponsored refugees, and 70% of those sponsored refugees have found work within a year. Here the story is very different. In the first year after being granted asylum, just a quarter of refugees are in work. That leaves them unable to contribute and build a life here, relying instead on the support of British taxpayers. This autumn we will begin to take applications for our new community sponsored and study routes. The first refugees will arrive in autumn 2027, and while numbers will start relatively small, it is my intention that they grow in scale as we restore order to our asylum system by reducing the numbers arriving by unsafe, illegal routes. The Bill is focused on how we reduce the numbers arriving unsafely and illegally in this country, and on reducing the burden placed on local communities.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)]

We have read reports recently that the Home Secretary’s important reforms to indefinite leave to remain are being watered down because of the views of the incoming Prime Minister. We have also read of the letter from 80 Labour MPs, many of whom are in the Chamber today, who oppose her plans today. My simple question is: what are we all doing here right now? Is there any guarantee that her reforms and the Bill will survive contact with the next Prime Minister, who will be assuming power without any scrutiny, without any transparency, and with absolutely no accountability as to what his plans are?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I have already answered the point about proposals around indefinite leave to remain; I remind the right hon. and learned Lady, and the House, that it has been settled Government policy to increase the qualifying period from five years to 10 years since last summer—since before I was Home Secretary. In our earned settlement consultation, we have set out a series of proposals that we are consulting on. We are seeking views on the appropriate transitional arrangements that should be applied to that cohort. That is not what we are debating today, but if there is one thing I am sure of, it is that those arrangements will be the subject of intense debate in the weeks and months to come.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

For the benefit of the House and for clarification, does the Home Secretary intend to implement her proposed ILR changes via amendments to the Bill, or via the immigration rules in the autumn?

[Shabana Mahmood]

As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, the Bill is specifically about the changes we are making to our asylum system, to human rights laws, and to the approach that the Government want to take to asylum appeals. This is not a Bill about indefinite leave to remain. When we have settled policy later this year, those changes will be subject to the usual procedure for changes to immigration rules, which always take place with the scrutiny of this House.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will give way to the right hon. Lady, but I will make progress after that.

[Ms Abbott]

The Home Secretary referred earlier to immigrants coming here to live off the taxpayer. I put it to her that not only do a disproportionate number of immigrants find themselves in work, whether legal or illegal work, but the children of immigrants pay tax. She should remember that.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I say to the right hon. Lady, for whom I have the greatest respect, that it is not as if I am about to forget my own background, so I do not really need other people to remind me of my own history or background in my own country. We are talking about people smugglers, and about men, women and children—these days, primarily young men—getting on small boats in the channel and crossing into this country. They are not arriving in a safe and legal way. They are not migrants in the usual sense.

We wish to pivot to a system in which this country will live up to its responsibilities to help those in need across the world and fulfil our international obligations by taking people through safe and legal routes. We will be able to increase the numbers that we take on those routes, and that will be subject to debate in this Parliament. We will ensure that we are playing our full part, but in a controlled way that does not put tens of thousands of pounds per person in the hands of people smugglers. The right hon. Lady knows that that is the trade we are trying to break. We have been going after the gangmasters, and now we must make legal changes to change the calculus of those who seek to get on a boat in the north of France.

The Bill focuses on how we reduce the numbers arriving unsafely and illegally in this country and on reducing the burden placed on local communities. It is designed to be fair to genuine refugees and fair to British citizens. It will ensure that asylum claims are fair and fast, with legitimate claimants not stuck in limbo, and ensure the swift removal of those with no right to be here. It will ensure that human rights protections remain robust where they must be, but are also tightened where necessary to eradicate the abuse that has crept into our system. Finally, the measures in the Bill ensure that we support those in their hour of need while making it clear that, although this may be a right, it comes with responsibilities. When the recipients of public support are in a position to contribute to their costs, they should do so.

With those goals in mind, I will take the House through the detail of the Bill. It begins with measures to make asylum decisions fast and fair. Today, the backlog in appeals hearings is a major barrier to this. Although the Government have slashed the backlog in initial decisions, the vast majority of failed asylum seekers lodge an appeal. There are now more than 150,000 people waiting for an appeal decision, with average wait times of well over a year. We must be honest about the nature of the appeals queue.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

A number of civil rights organisations are opposed to the changes to the appeals process, and the Bar Council has spoken out strongly against them. It has said that

“it is in the interests of justice that the persons who decide immigration appeals are legal qualified”.

Will the Minister listen to those criticisms, and the strength of feeling in this House, and remove these proposals so that we can ensure high-quality and legally sound dispute resolution for asylum appeals?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

Well, I disagree with my hon. Friend, the Bar Council and other groups on this matter. In fact, I will shortly set out the many tribunals in which people make decisions of great import every single day without being required to be legally qualified professionals before they do so.

We must be honest about the nature of the appeals queue. Some are genuine appeals, but others have been made simply to delay a legitimate removal from this country. By placing themselves last in the long queue for a hearing, people delay the date of their removal, continue to receive taxpayer support and use the time to accrue rights that could strengthen their appeal. The best way to prevent this gaming of the system is to speed up decision making while ensuring that claims are heard fully and fairly.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary give way on that point?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will in a moment. I will make a little more progress—I think I have been rather generous.

As many here will know, appeals are currently heard by judges in the first-tier tribunal immigration and asylum chamber. This model, which relies on judicial availability, simply does not have the capacity to meet the scale of demand, nor does it have the flexibility to respond to sudden surges in cases. Part 1 of the Bill will therefore establish a new independent immigration appeals authority, staffed by independent adjudicators, not judges. That will allow us to recruit from a far wider pool of candidates and therefore respond more rapidly to increasing and changing demand.

To those who say that such decisions can be taken only by a judge, I need point only to the complex and weighty decisions taken each and every day by those without law degrees, such as magistrates, parole board members, ombudsmen, planning inspectors and many others. A person does not have to be a judge to have good judgment.

[Tony Vaughan]

The Home Secretary refers to the “gaming of the system”, but will she clarify the basis on which she says that? Around half of Home Office initial asylum decisions are overturned on appeal, so there is a huge issue about the quality of Home Office decision making, as various National Audit Office reports have shown. It would be useful to know the proportion of appeals that are actually, in her words, abusive.

[Shabana Mahmood]

As my hon. and learned Friend will know, 50% of a 150,000 backlog is still 75,000 cases. He will also know that the multiple appeals made to delay and frustrate legitimate removal from the country are a real problem in the system. That is why our proposals include a single appeal route. With the new authority, we are seeking to change the totality of the behaviours that are designed to frustrate lawful, legitimate removal from this country.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will make more progress and I will come back to the right hon. Lady.

As anyone who knows these tribunals can attest, most immigration and asylum appeals turn on the facts. That requires careful, impartial and well-trained decision makers. Our adjudicators will be paid professionals who are trained to make robust, defensible decisions. Where specific legal expertise is required, we will have on hand a smaller cohort of legally trained adjudicators, who must have been a barrister or solicitor or have similar legal experience. Decisions taken in the new authority will be appealable to the upper tribunal, which will continue to sit before a judge. As today, the appeals will be only on a point of law; they will not be an opportunity to rehear full cases.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

On the independent immigration appeals authority, I wonder whether hon. Members will be concerned, given the political nature of the decisions made here, that the Home Secretary’s proposals involve a blurring of the line between the Executive and the judiciary.

[Shabana Mahmood]

As the right hon. Lady will see, the authority will be fully independent, and the impartiality of this new authority is vital. As clause 1 makes clear, its decisions will be entirely independent of Government, with every Minister of the Crown compelled to uphold the independence of the authority. As is often the case with establishing a new body, the first chief executive and chief appeals officer will be appointed by the Home Secretary, but appointments thereafter will be made by the chair of the authority, as set out in clause 2. These will be made on merit and on the basis of fair and open competition.

The authority’s operations and performance will also be subject to external scrutiny, and it will be placed under the remit of the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration.

[Chris Murray]

rose—

[Imran Hussain]

On that point, will the Home Secretary give way?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will give way to my hon. Friend who has not asked a question yet.

[Patricia Ferguson]

Does my right hon. Friend think it would be more appropriate for the Lord Chancellor or the Judicial Appointments Commission to have input into the first of each of these appointments, to ensure their independence is guaranteed?

[Shabana Mahmood]

All such appointments will be subject to the usual public appointments principles, which will apply here as they do elsewhere. I am happy to discuss with Members, as the Bill passes through the House, whether there are any additional safeguards—

[Imran Hussain]

On that point, will the Home Secretary give way?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I have given way to my hon. Friend before; I will make progress and come back to him.

In the new system, a single, faster appeal route will be established, as addressed in clauses 11 and 12. Today, too many claimants make multiple claims at different stages of the process, including at the last possible moment, often to thwart their legitimate removal from this country. To give just one illustrative and eye-opening example, one case involved a convicted rapist who was due to be sent home after serving eight years in jail. Despite not challenging his deportation at first, he went on to make a series of late claims, including a judicial review on the eve of being removed from this country. Although we eventually managed to remove him, it took more than four years to get this criminal out of the country. For that reason, alongside the new authority, we will create a single appeal route. That will require claimants to raise all relevant matters up front.

Where late claims are raised, particularly in the run-up to removal, they will be dealt with through an expedited process. That means that genuine issues will still be considered, but tactical claims can no longer be used to frustrate a removal. As is already the case, claimants may access advice and legal representation, with legal aid available to those who are eligible. That advice and support are vital to ensure that appeals progress fairly, without delay or disruption.

In clause 21, in part 3 of the Bill, we are introducing further measures to ensure that decision making is fast and fair. Today, there are two separate types of protection: refugee status and humanitarian protection. Both carry near-identical entitlements and eligibility for settlement. That creates near-duplicate claims and unnecessary complexity, which slows down our asylum system. The Bill therefore replaces those two forms of protection with one form—the core protection model. That means that each claim will be assessed once, with one outcome. A right of appeal will be available only to those refused protection, not those who wish to seek protection under a different status. That is a clearer, simple process that will make no difference to those lodging genuine claims, but will cut inefficiency in the system and ensure that those with genuine appeals get a faster, fairer decision.

An effective asylum system is one in which claims are heard fast and fairly. Those who have a legitimate claim receive the protection they need, while those who do not are removed from this country, without turning the bureaucracy against us. That is what the measures in this Bill seek to achieve.

[Chris Murray]

rose—

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), if he still wants to come in. [Interruption.] No? I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) then.

[Chris Murray]

The Home Secretary is being very generous. The purpose of the Bill is to make the system more swift, but I am surprised to see that there is no component of mandatory reconsideration included in it. As we have seen in the Department for Work and Pensions, that has really made the system faster. We had a broadly similar system in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, which was replaced, and that did not make the system quicker. How will this situation be different from what we have had before?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I think my hon. Friend means mandatory reconsideration in the context of a case when an appeal is made.

[Chris Murray]

indicated assent.

[Shabana Mahmood]

To reassure my hon. Friend, before a case proceeds to appeal, we already have an internal process whereby we check whether we should still defend the claim at appeal stage. If the facts have changed or if there are issues with the original decision, we remove cases from the list of those proceeding to an appeal under the current system. We are doing something similar already. I do not want to create additional bureaucracy and ever-more complication, but that is part of the Home Office’s current process. We have removed cases from the appeals backlog where we know that they should be granted.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The case that the Home Secretary is making for this legislation is that the way in which appeals are being dealt with is unnecessarily slowing up and clogging up the system, because of the nature of the appeals being made. She has just argued that there is a quality control with the initial decisions that the Home Office is making. Looking at the figures, I see that that accounts for 40% of these appeals being overturned. Will she reflect again on the quality of initial Home Office decision making? Will bringing in a piece of legislation that will further complexify that decision-making process lead to better decisions being made the first time? For value for the public purse and the decency of how we treat refugees, surely that is where she should focus her efforts.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Actually, I think we need to focus our efforts in a number of areas. We need to ensure that we are improving the quality and speed of initial decisions, and we have been doing that. However, as my hon. Friend will know and as I have just set out, people make multiple claims, often at the last minute. I raised the example of a foreign national offender who it took us four years to remove from the country after he had served a sentence. That is because he kept putting in appeal after appeal after appeal after appeal. These reforms are designed to deal with that problem.

I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that we need to be able to look at the system in its totality, so we should absolutely look at the quality of initial decisions, but there is no silver bullet here. There is nothing that says, “As long as you fix that one thing, you are not going to have a problem anywhere else.” There will still be claims that are rightly refused both at the initial stage and at appeal stage, and it is imperative that we can remove people from this country as quickly as possible when they have no right to be here.

It is vital that we provide protection to those who are truly in need. Following the devastation of the second world war, this country led the world in promoting human rights to ensure that we learned from the horrors of the past. This Government will always be committed to that internationalist ideal and to the robust human rights laws that underpin it. However, we are also realists, so we admit where noble intentions have been misused and abused. Today, too often, we see well-meaning laws used not to defend a human right, but as a way to frustrate the removal of someone with no right to be in this country, including failed asylum seekers, visa abusers and even foreign criminals.

The British people have a natural sense of fairness. They believe that those who require protection should receive it, but no one should be able to abuse that protection. The abuse of human rights law does not just erode the public’s support for our immigration system; it erodes their support for the very idea of having such laws at all. For those who believe that these laws matter, it is essential that we reform them to end their abuse.

Clauses 17 to 20 reform the domestic application of article 8 of the European convention on human rights—the right to a family and private life. Article 8 is undoubtedly a vital protection, but it is a qualified right. That means that the rights of individuals must be weighed against the public interest. Over time, the balance between an individual’s family rights and the rights of the wider community has shifted. Without a clear definition from Parliament of how that balance should be struck, the interpretation of article 8 in our domestic courts has expanded beyond the original convention and what Strasbourg case law requires.

To understand how far the balance has shifted, consider just one example. In 2025, an Albanian man jailed for growing cannabis escaped deportation not because he had any right to be here, but because it was deemed unduly harsh on his partner to deport him. She was not his wife or life partner—instead, this relationship began only after a deportation order had been served. Why was the deportation deemed to be unduly harsh? The partner spoke no Albanian and had never visited the country before. While that is just one example, the expansion of article 8 is clear throughout the system. More than half of those who stayed in the UK for family reasons last year did not meet our own rules, relying instead on their article 8 rights, and 71% of those who stay in the UK because of article 8 rights arrived here illegally or overstayed their visa.

The Bill addresses both the definition of family life and the public interest test. Clause 19 tightly defines the public interest. It clarifies that judges must consider the economic impact on the taxpayer of allowing people to remain in the UK, including whether they are able to support their family, and that no weight should be given to an article 8 claim when someone is here illegally.

Clause 20 strengthens the public interest test so that foreign criminals can be removed more easily. It states that the more serious the offending, the greater the public interest in removing them from this country. It also specifically addresses those facing deportation who may be appealing on article 8 grounds. The Bill makes it clear that a deportation should go ahead outside of a limited number of truly exceptional circumstances, as set out in clause 20.

On the subject of deporting foreign criminals, the Government intend to table an amendment to the Bill in response to the widely reported case of the vile grooming gang leader Shabir Ahmed. Our amendment will provide the Home Secretary with a new power to disapply section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971 for serious criminals. That section provides protections for long-term UK residents, but it clearly should not act as a bar to removal in cases such as that of Shabir Ahmed. The threshold for the power will be tied to the power to deprive citizenship, which applies only in cases of exceptional severity. It is important to note that that does not guarantee his removal from this country, as the Conservatives know all too well from their own experience. The Foreign Secretary and I will continue to work on all avenues to pursue a deportation. I know that the thoughts of everyone here are with the victims and survivors of this vile criminal.

Let me return to the Bill as drafted and our reforms to the definition of family life in domestic law. Clause 18 tightens the definition of family life. For immigration purposes, a “family” will now normally mean relationships in the immediate family unit. That means a spouse or partner, a parent or a child under the age of 18, apart from in truly exceptional circumstances, such as an incapacitated adult who lives with and is entirely dependent on their sibling.

Clause 19 makes it clear that judges must consider when article 8 rights were established and, in particular, whether that happened after someone entered this country illegally or overstayed their visa. In clause 17, we clarify whose article 8 rights should be considered. This makes it clear that for someone overseas to come to the UK on article 8 grounds, a family life claim must be made by a UK-based sponsor, and cannot be made by family members overseas. That is because our obligations under the ECHR are, rightly, to those who are living in the UK.

In clause 19, as part of our reforms to article 8, we set out where it is unreasonable to expect a child to leave the UK when a member of their family is being removed. Specifically, it is if the child will not receive an education in the other country or will not be able to integrate into that country, or where relocation would have a very significant and long-lasting adverse effect on them. This brings us in line with case law in the European Court. We also set out the limited circumstances in which it may be reasonable to remove a parent where they do not have a genuine and subsisting relationship with the child. In doing so, we once again bring UK law in line with existing Strasbourg case law.

We do so with legitimate cause. As the interpretation of article 8 has widened, we have seen shocking examples of the abuse of parental relationships, including a paedophile who was allowed to stay in this country because his deportation to Pakistan was, under article 8, considered “unduly harsh” on his children. That was despite the fact that his contact with those very same children is restricted by law, in order to protect them from their father. The Home Office appealed the case and eventually won, but only after a lengthy legal battle necessitated by the lack of a clear definition in the law. This Bill rectifies that situation.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that these agreements have come about through partnership working with our European partners, and that this has been a central part of the negotiations? There is a unity of purpose among other European countries that want to tighten their borders and prevent people abusing the system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I have been far too generous, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will plough on, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right: the way to make sure that the interpretation of international human rights law is in line with what the general public would expect and with the original intention of the drafters is to work with our international colleagues—not to rip up human rights law and give up on it, but to make sure it is fit for purpose.

Just as article 8 has been exploited by those facing legitimate removal from our country, so has our modern slavery system. Human trafficking is an abhorrent crime, and we will always provide the support victims need, especially vulnerable children. For that reason, the Bill strengthens a number of those protections, especially by placing child trafficking guardians on a statutory footing and making sure that modern slavery decisions about children are devolved to local authorities, so that those closest to the child—those best placed to make decisions about the support they need—make those decisions properly. We are also strengthening slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders, ensuring that law enforcement can restrict offenders’ movements and work. Clauses 44 to 49 raise the standards for businesses and public bodies. They must report on their actions to identify and tackle abuse in their supply chains, or face potential fines of up to £1 million.

However, we know that we must also address the growing misuse and abuse of those protections. In 2025, modern slavery claims by arrivals on small boats reached an all-time high. Over half now relate to alleged exploitation overseas, rather than here in the United Kingdom, and claims are increasingly being used to frustrate legitimate removals from this country. Last year, over a third of charter flight returns failed to go ahead because of a modern slavery referral lodged at the last minute. Foreign criminals have seen the opportunity—in recent years, last-minute claims have been made by a convicted rapist, a gangster jailed for possession of a firearm, and an attempted murderer. In every case, those claims successfully delayed their removal from this country.

For that reason, part 5 of the Bill introduces measures to address abuse in the system. In particular, we make it clear that anyone who poses a threat to public order or national security will not receive modern slavery protection and support. This includes any foreign national who has received a custodial sentence, including if that sentence was suspended. In clause 36, we make clear that delayed disclosures have a damaging effect on a person’s credibility unless there are good reasons. By doing so, we further reduce the incentive to make claims as late as possible.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will not, because Madam Deputy Speaker wishes me to wind up quickly.

In clause 37, we close another significant loophole. As it stands, those whose claims turn out to be unfounded can continue to receive taxpayer-funded support for a 30-day recovery period. The Bill will ensure that we stop providing protection for those who we know do not need it.

This Government are committed to the protections provided by human rights law, but those protections must be applied fairly. That means ensuring that they are always given to those who are truly in need, and it means ending the abuse that runs contrary to their spirit and intention. The measures in the Bill are realistic and proportionate, and are designed to protect those who are genuinely deserving while bearing down on abuse that erodes public support for the very existence of such protections.

A fair asylum system is one in which claims are heard fast and fairly, and where protections are upheld for those who need them, but not for those who seek to abuse them. It is one in which we provide support, but expect that those who are in a position to contribute do so. Every day, we ask our constituents to bear the burden of funding our asylum system. As that asylum system has spiralled out of control, the weight on their shoulders has grown. That is not fair, and it was also never foreseen; the original drafters of the refugee convention could never have imagined that the British people would spend billions each year on asylum support. To continue their legacy—providing protection to those in need while retaining public support—we need to adapt to our new reality. We need a fair way of addressing the challenges of the world as it is.

To that end, part 4 of the Bill creates a new contributory principle within our asylum regime. It does so through clause 23, by introducing a power that requires those who have received taxpayer-funded support to pay back a portion when they can. This measure reflects a principle that most people would recognise as fair: once you are able to contribute, you should.

Refugees have immediate access to the labour market and housing, and many go on to work, build successful lives and contribute enormously to our society. Payments under our new system will be proportionate and made over time; no one will be asked to contribute more than they can afford, but payments will not be optional for those who can make them, and those who have received support but have been removed from the country will not be able to return until their debt is repaid. There are some to whom this will not apply, including children and anyone who came to this country via a safe and legal route. Clause 23 of the Bill introduces this new power; however, the precise design of the payment programme will be set out in draft regulations, which I will share with the House during the Bill’s passage through Parliament. There will be ample opportunity for full parliamentary scrutiny of these changes.

That brings me to the end of the Bill. It must be read in the light of the inheritance that this Government received—borders out of control, an asylum system in crisis, and a burden placed on the British people that was simply too great. This country has long provided support to those fleeing war and persecution, and proudly so, but the chaos that the Conservative party left behind has eroded public trust in our asylum system. This Government have already done much to restore order at our borders, but there is more to do. That is the goal of this Bill: to ensure that decisions and appeals are fast and fair; to provide protection to genuine refugees; to offer protections under human rights laws for those who are in genuine need, while closing loopholes that have too often been abused; and to ensure that the generosity of the British people is not forgotten, and that people can contribute when they are in a position to do so. This is a Bill that will provide fairness for genuine refugees, but also fairness for local communities, thereby making sure that we secure our asylum system for generations to come.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

3. What steps her Department is taking to close asylum hotels.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)]

Before I answer the question, may I briefly say what is on the minds of many in this House and pay tribute to Ann Widdecombe? She was a true public servant, and I will shortly make a statement about Ann and the ongoing police investigation.

This Government committed to end the use of asylum hotels in this Parliament, and we are on track to deliver just that. We have brought the number of hotels down from 213 in July 2024 to fewer than 170 today, meaning that one in five hotels open at the election are now closed. We continue to move people into more basic accommodation, speed up caseworking and remove record numbers of people from this country.

[Dr Ahmed]

I commend my right hon. Friend for how she has gone about reducing the use of asylum hotels in this country, after the shocking legacy left behind by 14 years of the last Government. She will know that these hotels have unfortunately become a source of right-wing intimidation and violence, affecting community cohesion and creating tension. Can she reassure me that as families are moved out of these hotels, particularly in Scotland, they are put in accommodation that is appropriate not only for them, but for the communities in which they are housed?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I reassure my hon. Friend that we work closely with local authorities, accommodation providers and safeguarding partners to ensure that families and vulnerable individuals receive the support they need throughout any move, and that is true across the whole UK. We understand that hotels can impact community tensions, and although people have a right to protest peacefully, nobody has the right to intimidate communities or vulnerable families.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

Building on the last question, RAF Linton-on-Ouse, where up to 1,500 asylum seekers may be put, will have open gates, in a village of 600 adults. Close to the site is a primary school. In the light of the comments about community cohesion, will she now rule out RAF Linton-on-Ouse as an inappropriate site, because of the proximity to the primary school?

[Shabana Mahmood]

No decision has been taken, and all these factors, including other community assets, such as schools and community facilities, are taken into account as part of the decision making.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I inherited three asylum hotels in Bournemouth, and I know that the Home Secretary is working through a complicated process to close those hotels. I have asked on 5 January, 9 February, 9 March and 8 June whether the Government have positive news about the closure of any of the asylum hotels in Bournemouth. I ask again today. Can she give an update, please?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend for the tremendous campaigning he has done in this House on behalf of his constituents. There may be further good news to come, but this Government have a commitment to end the use of all asylum hotels by the end of the Parliament, and we are on track to do that.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for what she said about Ann, whom I first met more than 50 years ago. She was as formidable as an undergraduate as she became in later life as a mature politician.

I believe that nobody on the Labour Benches other than the present Home Secretary could do more to tackle the asylum problem than she is doing. Having said that, this strategy of moving people out of hotels and into camps, or dispersing them, can only ever work if other people are not coming in constantly to replace them, so what plans does she have for truly deterring people, so that they know that if they embark on a small boat, they will physically not be allowed to melt into British society in the future?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct: if we are to deal with this problem effectively, we must also reduce the inflow of people coming across the channel. As he will know, later today we will debate a Bill that includes measures designed to do just that, and since I have been Home Secretary I have announced wider policy changes designed to alter the calculations of those who are in the north of France seeking to get on to a boat to come to this country. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is signalling the Conservative party’s previous policy, the Rwanda scheme. As he will know, we disagree with that as a deterrent, but we are working on every other measure to deter those people from making the journeys in the first place.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Last year the National Audit Office reported that the cost of asylum accommodation contracts had more than tripled, from under £5 billion to more than £15 billion. Clearly they are bad value for money, bad for communities and bad for the asylum seekers themselves. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has stated his ambition to activate the break clause in these contracts. Given that he is set to become Prime Minister next week, is the Home Secretary planning to rip up the agreements?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Those are contracts that we inherited, and they will be retendered under this Government to ensure that we drive value for money across them. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the cost of asylum accommodation and support has come down by more than £1 billion since this Government came to office, and we will continue to make progress in that regard.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

4. What steps her Department is taking to help tackle violence against women and girls.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)]

We have made the landmark commitment to halve the levels of violence against women and girls in a decade, and already we are taking action. We will prevent children from taking, sharing and viewing nude imagery on their smartphones and tablets. We have invested £53 million to tackle the highest harm perpetrators. And we have protected more than 1,000 victims through domestic abuse and protection orders. Our ambition is clear, and there is much more work to be done.

[James MacCleary]

Sussex is in the grip of a crisis of violence against women and girls. In the county, only 3% of reported rape cases ever make it to trial, and of the few who ever get their day in court after distressing delays, just 53% see a conviction. That is 10% below the national average. It is therefore no surprise that so many women in the county have so little faith that their abusers will ever face justice.

Operation Soteria was launched in 2021 to overhaul the way in which rape and other serious sexual offences are investigated and prosecuted, but there appears to be little progress in Sussex. Can the Minister update the House on the progress of Operation Soteria, and set out what action she is taking to improve the investigation and prosecution of rape cases in Sussex?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I recognise that rape and other sexual offences can have a devastating impact on victims, as can the process leading up to an investigation and, hopefully, a charge—and those rates are far too low. I am happy to arrange a meeting for the hon. Gentleman with the Minister for Policing and Crime, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), to discuss the specific issues in Sussex, but all forces are implementing Operation Soteria, which is designed to help officers and prosecutors to build the strongest case possible through tools, training and guidance. I have, of course, also asked all the forces across the country to establish specialist rape and sexual offences teams by the end of this Parliament.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

In a number of cases in my constituency, male perpetrators of domestic abuse have used their partners’ immigration status as a tool to control and abuse them. Those women feel unable to report crimes of any kind because they are worried about their own immigration status. What is the Home Office doing to protect women from that form of abuse?

[Shabana Mahmood]

No woman should be afraid of coming forward to report domestic abuse, regardless of their immigration status or, indeed, any other status here. Let me make it very clear that they should do so, unafraid of the impact that might have on their immigration status. We will support all victims of violence against women and girls, regardless of their status in this country.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

May I associate myself with your comments, Mr Speaker, and those of the Home Secretary about Ann Widdecombe? She was a formidable human being, and someone about whom we are all thinking very much at this time.

This week, in the light of that news, the safety of politicians is something that we should all consider. The Home Secretary may be aware of the situation of a district councillor in Staffordshire Moorlands, Councillor Jill Salt, who has been the victim of sexualised artificial intelligence images. I do not agree with Councillor Salt on many matters, but on this I stand with her in total solidarity. Will the Home Secretary join me in condemning the comments of a Reform councillor, Dave Poole, who said that Councillor Salt needed to grow bigger balls in order to do the job?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Those comments are a disgrace, and I hope that all Members across the House, regardless of their party political persuasion, will take a unified stance on all instances of violence against women and girls, threats, abuse, the creation of explicit sexual images and, indeed, those who break the law. Let me say that message clearly from the Dispatch Box, and I hope it is shared across the House.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

A report by the National Audit Office in January 2025 said that there was a lack of buy-in from other Departments when it came to the previous violence against women and girls strategy. We know that if we are going to tackle violence against women in my constituency of Harlow and across the UK, we need to ensure that this is cross-party work and that Departments do not work in silos. What is the Home Secretary doing to ensure that that is the case?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me assure my hon. Friend that this is a cross-Government strategy and commitment. It has been led directly by the Prime Minister himself, who has got Government Departments together, knocked heads together and made sure that everybody is equally committed. I am sure that will not change, regardless of what may happen in the very near future. Let me assure my hon. Friend that this remains a cross-Government strategy, and I hope that it has support across parties as well.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to echo your tribute to a predecessor of mine, Ann Widdecombe. She was an exceptionally effective Member of Parliament, has been a really tough act to follow, and is very fondly remembered in the Weald. On behalf of my constituents, whom she served for decades—a role that she fulfilled with outstanding dedication—I would just like to say thank you. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Last week I met a group of victims and survivors of the most appalling sexual violence, like Angela. It is not her real name, but Angela was first raped by her stepfather at the age of eight. He then sold her to men for sex to pay off his gambling debts. He was sentenced to just 10 years in prison and, having served only six, is now being let out early by the Government. My question to the Home Secretary is one that those women were asking: why did they endure the years of pain and danger that it took to have their abusers put in prison, only for this Government to let them out again after such a short time?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I recognise the strength of feeling and the experiences of all these victims and survivors of the most appalling abuse. I am pleased that justice was sought through the criminal justice system in this case, because too often victims do not come forward at all. The hon. Lady will know that the Ministry of Justice is focused on ensuring that we do not run out of prison places in this country. Over the 14 years of the Conservative Government, only 500 places were added to the whole of the prison estate. It is a crisis that I directly inherited when I came into government, and I know how precarious the number of prison places in this country has been. I hope she will agree that, for all victims and survivors, the most important thing is to make sure that we never run out of prison places in this country again.

[James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)]

5. What assessment her Department has made of the effectiveness of the high streets organised crime unit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)]

22. What assessment her Department has made of the effectiveness of the high streets organised crime unit.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)]

Last year saw over 3,000 illegitimate premises raided and nearly 1,000 arrests, and I have provided £30 million of additional funding over the next three years to go even further. As a result, thousands more businesses will be raided, hundreds of people will be arrested and millions in cash will be seized as part of a permanent national crackdown.

[James Asser]

High street crime and shoplifting remain key concerns for my constituents, who have seen some pretty awful examples. My local police have had some successes, and they are running local initiatives on high streets that are starting to deliver results. Given that there will be other such examples around the country, will the Home Secretary make sure that, as well as the national initiatives, we are gathering together localised initiatives and local successes, and sharing good practice, to make sure that we are bringing it all together as part of an attempt to clean up our high streets?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I pay tribute to the work that is happening in my hon. Friend’s local area. I reassure him that we in the Home Office are working very closely with our colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as part of the Government’s wider strategy for high streets. This is a criminality-focused crackdown to deal with some of those businesses that we know are front organisations for other criminal behaviour, but we will work closely with our colleagues, and I will ensure that all the good examples are used as a spur for others to take action too.

[Patrick Hurley]

The criminals on the high street move quickly, but the Government response has tended to be too slow over many years. When will the current pilots finish, how will success be judged, and when will all towns in Britain be able to say that they benefit from what works?

[Shabana Mahmood]

First, let me say to my hon. Friend that this is not a pilot; it is the real thing. I have made funding available to every force area in the country to take part in this national crackdown. In addition, I have provided enhanced funding to three hotspot areas where the need is greatest. I would say that success means more shops closed, more criminals arrested and more cash seized.

[Matt Turmaine]

I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. Residents in my constituency of Watford are concerned about crime on the high street, whether that is theft, antisocial drinking and drug use, or violence and hate crime. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is only thanks to this Labour Government that we are finally getting a grip and dealing with it?

[Shabana Mahmood]

We are certainly starting on that long road to making all our communities safe. We have made good progress so far in this Parliament, with knife crime and knife homicides down very significantly. There are of course 3,000 additional police officers and police community support officers in neighbourhood policing as well. We will make more progress as the Government roll out the measures in our Crime and Policing Act 2026, as well as the wider high streets strategy, which includes the crackdown I have announced, but is part of wider work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

[Gerald Jones]

Many of my constituents want tougher action against the criminals who hide behind businesses such as rogue barber shops, vape shops and mini-marts, which are a blight on many high streets in my constituency. Can the Home Secretary update the House on what the Government are doing to tackle this type of offending, and get these dodgy shops closed once and for all?

[Shabana Mahmood]

That is precisely what this new national crackdown is designed to do. The additional money will put more officers on the street to raid dodgy shops and other premises. We are also providing funding for trading standards and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, because we know that this multi-layered problem requires assistance from other professionals. Immigration enforcement will also receive additional funding as part of this crackdown. We are determined to make sure that our high streets are safe places for communities to use.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Harpreet Uppal—not here.

[Gill German]

Many seaside towns, like Rhyl and Colwyn Bay in my Clwyd North constituency, are working really hard to regenerate their high streets and attract investment. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the high streets organised crime unit will ensure that coastal towns facing issues with organised criminal activity receive the same support as larger urban centres?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me very clearly offer my hon. Friend that reassurance. The nationwide crackdown, which is led by the National Crime Agency, will involve enforcement activity across the country, including in coastal areas like hers. Enhanced funding is currently available for all police forces to bid for, via the National Crime Agency, and I would encourage her to make sure that her force is involved.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

Why was the effectiveness of the high streets organised crime unit completely lacking when, two weeks ago, BBC journalist Sue Mitchell and her excellent team exposed the case of Mr Twana Jamal working in such a high street business right next door to my constituency office? Why has neither the Home Secretary nor any of her Ministers had the courtesy to respond to my correspondence asking for an urgent meeting on this nationally significant case involving a convicted human trafficker?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am not aware of the hon. Gentleman’s correspondence, but I will chase that up when I get back to the Department later this afternoon and ensure he receives an appropriate response. He will of course know that there is a live investigation at the moment, so I cannot comment on any of its details, and certainly not on the operational details, but I will make sure he is updated in an appropriate way, given that he is the local Member of Parliament.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

High streets are already under pressure, as I have seen with our local fight to keep the Thatcham and Hungerford post offices open, and retail crime and antisocial behaviour make that pressure worse. Can the Secretary of State expand on how the high streets organised crime unit remit will extend to smaller market towns such as Hungerford, Thatcham and Newbury and villages such as Lambourn?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that this is a national crackdown led by the National Crime Agency. I have provided funding for all forces, regardless of the type of area they represent, and they can bid for the enhanced activity funding in their areas. I would encourage him to talk to his force about what it is doing to make sure that it gets its share of that money.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Bridgwater high street has many excellent independent businesses, such as Styles Menswear, Soda & Rye, and Alise and Louie, but there are also too many dodgy Turkish barbers and criminal enterprises selling illegal cigarettes. Will the Home Secretary outline what additional funding she will give Avon and Somerset constabulary to get rid of this menace on our high streets?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I recognise the strength of feeling across the House and I feel it myself as a constituency Member of Parliament. When such premises open up, everyone in the local community knows that they are dodgy, that they are involved in all sorts of other criminality and that they are front businesses. That is why I have announced this crackdown, which will apply across the country. The NCA will take the lead, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman’s force to think about how it might benefit from the funding that has been made available.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The high street organised crime unit is a welcome step to take illegal vapes off our high street, but organised crime gangs are then moving with impunity online, where enforcement is a lot less rigid. What is the Home Office doing to stop making it so easy to move from illegal trading on our high street to illegal trading online?

[Shabana Mahmood]

First, the hon. Lady raises an important point about online illegality. The Home Office has an interest in that, as do other Departments. We will continue to work with partners across Government to ensure we are doing everything we can to clamp down on the platforms that enable illegality. She will recognise that the physical presence of these many thousands of businesses across our country on our high streets has had a very damaging impact on local communities. In that context, it is right that this Home Office and this Government are focused very specifically on the physical locations of those businesses to make sure we are driving out the criminality and the antisocial behaviour that has left too many of our high streets no-go areas for local communities.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Dodgy vape shops are a scourge on our high streets, but even more horrifying are some of the people who run them. Twana Jamal, convicted in France and described as the godfather of people trafficking, has reportedly been found running two vape shops in Leicestershire. Does the Home Secretary agree that that demonstrates the need for stronger powers to tackle rogue vape shops and organised crime? If so, why have the Government cut funding to regional organised crime units, and opposed stronger closure powers for the police and local councils.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The Government have not opposed stronger closure powers. In fact, the Government are currently consulting on a planned increase in closure orders, from six months to 12 months. We will be bringing forward legislative measures very shortly and are also looking at the separate regime in relation to closure notices, none of which was acted on when the hon. Gentleman and his party were in government.

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

6. If she will take steps to provide Ukrainian refugees with a route to permanent settlement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)]

This weekend an event in Suffolk was due to be attended by over 10,000 Muslims. Instead, it ended early, because the police became aware of a credible threat to the lives of those present. They acted with speed and skill, and I thank Suffolk police, Counter Terrorism Policing and the organisers for their swift and effective response. Thanks to their actions, those attending the UK Ijtima in Barham were kept safe.

Twelve individuals have now been arrested as part of an investigation led by Counter Terrorism Policing, which described the incident as “extreme right-wing terrorism related”. This investigation is at an early stage, and we are giving them space to pursue their lines of inquiry. I know that the police will provide further updates.

We must all stand united against hatred. The actions of a minority do not represent who we are as a country, and we should never be defined by those who plot violence against their fellow countrymen and women.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Given the reports in the press of yet another U-turn being forced on the Government by revolting Back Benchers, does the Home Secretary still believe that the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain should be increased from five years to 10 years?

[Shabana Mahmood]

It has been settled Government policy—since last summer, in fact—that the qualifying period will rise from five years to 10 years. The Government are consulting on what transitional arrangements may be needed, and we will come forward with settled policy later this year.

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

T2. During a coffee morning on the Sherborne estate in Crewe, I spoke with several residents who described persistent and distressing levels of antisocial behaviour in our community, including having eggs thrown at their properties. Can the Minister set out what steps are being taken to ensure that antisocial behaviour is dealt with robustly in places like the Sherborne estate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, I join you in paying tribute to Ann Widdecombe. She was a formidable campaigner who served with huge integrity. She will be missed. I know that the whole House supports the police in delivering justice for Ann.

Reports today suggest that the Home Secretary and the new Prime Minister plan to capitulate to some of their open-border MPs on the Government’s own indefinite leave to remain plans. Previously, the Home Secretary was clear that the changes will apply to those in the country already. Will she now repeat that pledge, or is the new Prime Minister doing his first U-turn before he has even entered Downing Street?

[Shabana Mahmood]

That is rather desperate from the shadow Home Secretary. He knows that the position is exactly as was set out in the consultation, which was published by the Government. We consulted on transitional arrangements for those who are already in country, and it is settled policy that the qualifying period will rise from five to 10 years. The implementation of that is being consulted on, and we will have settled policy on that later this year.

[Chris Philp]

The Home Secretary was not as quite as clear as she was previously.

Vile rapist Shabir Ahmed must be deported back to Pakistan along with all eligible rape gang perpetrators. Separately, survivors like Fiona Goddard have said that they are terrified at the prospect of rape gang perpetrators being released early from prison in the coming weeks. First, will the Home Secretary bring forward emergency legislation to ensure that Ahmed can be deported? Secondly, will she urgently make the changes needed to ensure that no rapists will ever be eligible for the Government’s expanded early release scheme?

[Shabana Mahmood]

First, the shadow Home Secretary knows that the issues in relation to Shabir Ahmed and his deportation from this country are exactly the same as those his Government faced when they were in power. There is both a legal challenge and a practical one. I will be dealing with the legal issues later today when we debate the Immigration and Asylum Bill. The Government’s work on the practical hurdles to deportation continue between me and the Foreign Secretary and others in government.

On releases from prisons, it was the shadow Home Secretary’s Government who allowed the situation in our prisons to get to a dangerous level. We all but ran out of prison places under his Government; under this Government, we will never run out of prison places again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. The Government have passed new legislation to allow for the designation of the organisations that the Minister for Security referenced earlier, and that includes the IRGC. The designation tool means that it is now brought within the context of the National Security Act 2023, and I do expect that when our laws are broken, prosecutions will follow. He knows that we have had some success with National Security Act investigations; I expect that to continue.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

The scampi catching sector in Northern Ireland is currently reliant on foreign seasonal workers. To stay afloat, the sector needs about 66 visas to be valid for just seven months of the year. Will the Minister consider extending the seasonal worker visa route to the nephrops industry to give the catching sector the certainty it needs and protect processing jobs at Whitby Seafoods in my constituency?

Death of Ann Widdecombe

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the death of Ann Widdecombe. It is with great sadness that I say those words. My thoughts today are with her family, her friends and all those who loved her.

Ann Widdecombe dedicated her life to politics and public service. She was a fixture of our political life for nearly 40 years. She brought conviction to our politics, grounded in her profound Catholic faith. She was forthright in her opinions and argued courageously for the things she believed in. But, perhaps most of all, she brought an inimitable style to politics. She was forthright and fearless. As Lord Howard of Lympne can attest, she had a memorable turn of phrase. And she was joyful: she thought seriously about ideas but did not take herself too seriously, and that allowed her to reach beyond this place and charm the country at large. She was one of those rare politicians who was bigger than politics.

There have been so many moving tributes in the past few days, reflecting Ann’s impact both within this place and beyond politics. But I think her outlook on life is best summed up by Ann herself. Sitting on Graham Norton’s sofa, she said:

“We get one go this side of eternity—one go. Life is not a dress rehearsal. You take opportunities that you like, and you go for it.”

Ann took her opportunities. She was the proud MP for Maidstone for 23 years—a champion of her constituents. She served the country in government, as Minister for employment and then Minister for prisons. She took politics out of these ancient walls and became a bona fide TV star. Her contribution to our politics and national life will never be forgotten.

On Wednesday, Ann Widdecombe was murdered in her home. The circumstances of her death are extremely distressing. Counter Terrorism Policing has now taken the lead in the investigation. As Laurence Taylor, the head of national Counter Terrorism Policing has said:

“We now have new information and evidence that means Counter Terrorism Policing is leading the investigation... We are pursuing multiple lines of inquiry to establish the motivation for this attack.”

The police now have a suspect in custody: a 28-year-old white British man. I can confirm to the House that this man was not known to Prevent. The police have cautioned against speculating about the case. That is the right thing to do for Ann’s family and friends. It is also vital that the police are given the space they need to carry out their work.

For now, what matters most is supporting the investigation, so that we can see justice delivered for Ann and all who loved her. I urge anyone, with any information at all, to come forward immediately.

I know this raises questions about the security of those in public life. I will not be the only one in the Chamber also thinking of two other beloved Members of this House:

Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. Politics is a calling for those of us here, but it should not be a dangerous one. It is incumbent on the House and the Government to work together to protect those who choose to serve. The Home Office and the police work closely with the Parliamentary Security Department to provide practical advice and support directly to MPs. But we must always be vigilant and respond to changing threats.

Security measures are kept under constant review to ensure that MPs can carry out their duties safely. The police intend to issue guidance to MPs soon, and they will be contacting parliamentarians in their constituencies to offer support. I also recently commissioned the former Lord Chancellor, Sir Robert Buckland, to review the lessons from Sir David Amess’s murder, including into required improvements to security for MPs working in their constituencies.

I recognise the particular concern that the Reform UK party will feel today, and of course Nigel Farage, the party’s leader. I am happy to offer a meeting for Mr Farage with the chair of RAVEC—the Royal and VIP Executive Committee—the independent body within the Home Office that manages the security of those in public life. I will also be looking at what security guidance can be provided to former Members of Parliament, which I hope to work with you on, Mr Speaker, as well as to those who serve a party outside of this place.

Today is a dark day in our political life, but we must also use it as an opportunity to celebrate Ann Widdecombe’s memory. She was a unique figure in our politics: a distinctive and devoted public servant, the likes of whom we will rarely, if ever, see again. Ann had a profound faith. Her journey in this life has ended too soon, but may she now rest in eternal peace. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I start by offering my deepest condolences to Ann’s family and friends. She will be terribly missed.

Ann sat as the Conservative MP for Maidstone for nearly a quarter of a century, and in the European Parliament for the Brexit party. She served in government and in opposition, including as shadow Home Secretary. She always fearlessly spoke her mind. She did not worry about whether her opinion would be popular or fashionable; she always said exactly what she believed and exactly what she thought. Her integrity and her fortitude were unmatched.

I first met Ann 29 years ago at a university debate, where we were speaking on opposite sides. I was a callow 21-year-old student; she had just left government and was at the height of her powers. I remember starting my speech by asking her to treat me more gently than she had recently treated Michael Howard. Needless to say, I was put very firmly in my place.

Ann was also a much-loved celebrity, with memorable appearances on “Celebrity Big Brother” and “Strictly Come Dancing”, where she was whirled around by Anton Du Beke. We will all remember Ann fondly as a public figure who was always formidable, always charming and always entertaining.

As we discuss this appalling murder, we should heed the words of Devon and Cornwall Assistant Chief Constable Matt Longman, who said over the weekend:

“We are aware of online and public speculation, particularly with regards to motive… I urge people not to share or engage with that speculation. It’s unhelpful”

and distressing to Ann’s friends and family, and is particularly harmful to the police’s investigation. Criminal barrister Dennis Kavanagh has also pointed out that speculation makes the police’s job harder and, in some cases, could even prejudice a trial. I urge everyone debating this issue to keep that in mind.

It has just been confirmed by the Home Secretary that counter-terrorism police are now leading the murder investigation. In order to help to avoid that speculation, can the Home Secretary properly share any further information about this matter without prejudicing the investigation? I thank the police for releasing the information they have so far, including about the identity of the suspect. It is always important to release as much information as possible in the interests of transparency and to avoid misinformation filling the void, as Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has said previously.

I will turn now to threats against those in public life. Any threats against MPs, who have been democratically elected to represent their constituents, or against others in public life, should be taken extremely seriously. In the past 10 years, two MPs—Jo Cox and Sir David Amess—have been murdered, and now a former MP has been murdered, too. The threat is clearly real. I remember when, in 2017, terrorist Khalid Masood drove a car into pedestrians along Westminster bridge, injuring more than 50 people, four of them fatally, and then ran into New Palace Yard—just yards from where we sit in this Chamber—where he fatally stabbed PC Keith Palmer. That was also an attack on democracy itself.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank you personally for all the work you are doing to protect MPs and those in public life. As the Speaker of the House of Commons, I know that you have made the safety and protection of those in public life your highest priority, and I would like to thank you for that. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

We must redouble our efforts to ensure that public political figures—both those who are MPs and those, like Ann, who are not—always receive the proportionate protection that they need. I would be grateful if the Home Secretary could confirm that she will review all the arrangements with that objective in mind.

I believe that, in this country, we should be able to debate each other robustly on important issues, but that we should also speak to each other in a way that is civil and respectful. Of course, nothing excuses violent attacks on public figures, but we should all also set an example of civility and calm, and not inflame matters.

We need people to step up and become MPs and to speak in the public square. Debate and disagreement are what make our country great. Ann Widdecombe exemplified that every minute of her life, and I pay tribute to her. I know that we will all remember Ann forever.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks and memories of Ann Widdecombe and for his questions. He asked about the new information that has come to light and the progress on the Counter Terrorism Policing investigation. A statement has been put out by Counter Terrorism Policing. I believe it has been published online, but I will make sure that it is placed in the Library of the House as well. The main points to draw out from it are, as I said in my statement, the fact that new information and evidence means that Counter Terrorism Policing is now leading the investigation and pursuing multiple lines of inquiry in order to establish the motivation behind the attack. As soon as more information is available that can be shared without compromising any future trial, it will be shared.

We take very seriously, as does Counter Terrorism Policing, the learnings from the summer of 2024. We definitely want to heed the call of Jonathan Hall KC and others about the timely release of information without compromising the ability to bring someone to justice, which is the main aim when such a horror of an attack happens.

I would like to echo the shadow Home Secretary’s remarks to you, Mr Speaker, and thank you personally for all your efforts to maintain the safety and security of parliamentarians. I know that it is something that you personally worry about and take a deep interest in.

Given the fast-moving nature of this investigation, I do not want to say anything here that will prejudice the direction of travel. However, this murder raises a question about the security arrangements for not only sitting Members of Parliament but those who have left this place but nevertheless retain a public profile as a result of their political party membership or their political activities. Also, given the range of new political parties that are contesting the political and democratic space, there are questions about those who are not represented at all here in the House of Commons. To reassure you, Mr Speaker, I will look at those arrangements very closely and seek to work with you directly. My officials will engage with parties across the House and those outside of it to make sure that whatever changes are made are done so in a manner that covers the multiple range of threats that we see.

There has been a step change in the security of parliamentarians over the last few years, but I think that that is a reflection of the multi-layered threats that our democracy faces and that active individuals in that democracy face. This is not something that we can ever take for granted or believe to be settled; it is something that we have to review continually, which we do. New questions have been raised, and I will make it my personal business to answer them. I will update the House in due course.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Mother of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)]

The Home Secretary will be aware of how important it is to make sure that Members of this House get the protection and defence that they need. At one point, I got as much abuse and as many threats of violence as all the other women MPs put together, so it is important that we take this issue seriously. We should recognise—I can speak to this, because of my years in the House—that the situation has gotten much, much worse with the rise of online activity. We need to find a way to make online companies more accountable for the abuse and threats of violence that they allow on their platforms. We need to make them aware of the importance of protecting Members of Parliament.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Given the sheer range of threats that have been made to the Mother of the House personally, it is a testament to her personal bravery that she has continued to be an active parliamentarian, but it should not take such levels of bravery just to be able to represent the people of your constituency. She is right that we must always ensure that our security arrangements can keep pace with the changing nature of threats. Let me assure the Mother of the House that the Government will do that. We work closely with the Parliamentary Security Department to ensure that that is the case so that all Members can make their contributions just as effectively and for just as long as she has.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The news about Ann Widdecombe is shocking and deeply distressing. My thoughts are with her family, including her nephew, the Rev. Roger Widdecombe—my constituent—and his wife Hannah, who lead the congregation at St Paul’s church in Cheltenham. Her death is all the more tragic given what we now know about the upsetting and disturbing circumstances.

Ann Widdecombe was a conviction politician, and also an entertainer. Many did not agree with her views—including me, particularly when she was briefly my Member of the European Parliament—but the style in which she put those views was compelling and captured the attention of the nation, just as her dance moves did. They were deeply held beliefs. She was a passionate public servant who was never afraid to challenge those in power—might I briefly speculate, a strong liberal inclination to challenge power from a strong Conservative politician?

I pay tribute to the police for their rapid response in this case. I also pay tribute to you, Mr Speaker, for the way in which your office gives security support to MPs. It is important that we can do our jobs without fear, intimidation or worse. It is horrifying that three politicians have been murdered in this country in the past decade. Clearly, there is more work to be done.

Might the Government support some amendments to the upcoming Representation of the People Bill to impose a duty on the Electoral Commission to provide more guidance on safety for politicians? Will the Home Office consider supporting measures so that politicians’ safety can be improved?

Finally, some alarming allegations were made on the weekend by the Reform home affairs spokesperson Zia Yusuf. If they are true, they are extremely concerning— but, given his record, many of us have doubts. I am certain that the Government and the House authorities, including you, Mr Speaker, are taking seriously the duty of care to Members from all parties in the House. For the sake of the record, perhaps the Home Secretary can confirm that that remains the case.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. He raised three specific issues. I am happy to discuss amendments to the Representation of the People Bill with him. He knows that the Home Office is not the lead Department on that Bill, but I am happy to have a discussion about any additional legislative measures that might be needed. Of course, the Electoral Commission has its own work to do, and it might be better for duties to be placed elsewhere, but, as I said, I will happily discuss that with him.

Equally, on whether any further obligations or changes of policy in respect of the Home Office, or indeed the Parliamentary Security Department, are necessary, I am happy to engage with the hon. Member and other Members across the House.

I do not wish to speak for you, Mr Speaker, but I think that all of us who are Members can attest to the fact that we are treated equally in this place by the Speaker and for the purposes of the Parliamentary Security Department when it comes to our safety on the estate and in our constituencies. That position is shared by the Government.

There is equal treatment for all in work that we do on security for Members of Parliament. Specific work is undertaken by RAVEC—the executive committee for the protection of royalty and public figures—which is the independent body in the Home Office that looks at security arrangements for some of those in public life. That work is also fiercely independent. It has been the subject of legal proceedings previously, and I have always maintained the independence of that process, which is based on risk assessment and risk management.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I join the Home Secretary in paying my respects and condolences to the family of Ann Widdecombe. We might not have agreed politically, but I always greatly admired and respected her outspokenness, her fearlessness and her ability not to take herself too seriously. She was one of a kind, of the like that, frankly, we do not make any more. I think we can all agree on that. I hope that, at moments like this, we can come together across the House to talk about these issues with one voice. May I also place on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for your leadership, in all that you have done over many years, in making sure we are all kept safe and secure?

Does the Home Secretary agree, though, that this is about not just our security and our safety but reducing the level of threat? Debate in this country is now highly politicised, highly polarised and highly personalised, which is bringing more and more threats on to all of us. Does she agree that we must do more to tackle, with urgency, the online algorithms and business models that heighten polarisation and hate towards those in public life?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My right hon. Friend is right to say that the climate in which we are operating in our national politics is unlike any that most of us have seen. Those of us who have been around for a while can see the big change that has occurred over the last decade or so. We must do more, as a Government and as a society, to know exactly what the boundaries are between passionate, contested, fierce debate of the kind that Ann Widdecombe herself engaged in, and behaviour that spills into threats and harassment of the kind that is designed to drive people out of public life. Getting that balance right is absolutely crucial. It is clear that there is more work for the Government to do, and there is more work to do across society, which includes social media platforms taking greater responsibility for the kinds of behaviours that are promoted on their platforms. I assure my right hon. Friend that I will be discussing with colleagues across Government how to ensure we are responding to all those challenges.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

Like many on this side of the House, I have very fond memories of Ann. She made the effort to travel to Staffordshire Moorlands—not many people do; we are quite isolated—[Interruption.] Yes, they come to Alton Towers—the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) is quite right. But Ann came to Consall Hall Gardens, as it was then, to do a fundraising dinner for me, and she delivered a tour de force, which I suspect the then Prime Minister, now the noble Lord Cameron, might not have entirely approved of. My association was totally enraptured, however, and thought it was the most wonderful event. It is still fondly remembered in the association, not least because Ann told me I had to take off my heels because it would not be appropriate to stand too tall next to her in the photographs.

May I also thank Staffordshire police for contacting me this weekend and making a visit to my home to review my security arrangements? I know that police forces across the country will be doing that and I am grateful to them for taking that time. May I ask the Home Secretary to comment on what might happen in the longer term around the Prevent duty? She will know that the Home Affairs Committee produced a report on new forms of radicalisation and extremism, with some recommendations that, we hope, might help law enforcement and others to find those who have a tendency towards violence. Will the Home Secretary consider that in the longer term?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The right hon. Lady makes an important point on the consequences for the Prevent duty of the changing nature of the threat. It is essential that we retain a deradicalisation programme that is focused on ideology, but as she and those who are experts in these matters know, the range of threats and the links between ideology, mixed ideology, occasional ideology, mental health and other issues ask a bigger question about how the Prevent strategy will work in the future and how we deal with the threats that fall outside of that through wider and other societal programmes. I will look at the recommendations, which I will discuss with her Committee when I appear before it, I hope, very soon.

[Mr Speaker]

I call John Slinger, a member of the Speaker’s Conference on the security of candidates, MPs and elections.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I send my deepest sympathies and condolences to the friends and family of Ann Widdecombe, and I extend that to her former colleagues from the Conservative party and Reform UK, for whom I know this must be a very difficult and sad time. Mr Speaker, you chose the security of MPs, candidates and elections to be the subject of the Speaker’s Conference this Parliament. We have done good work in the Speaker’s Conference, but there is much more to be done, as I am sure we can all agree. Will the Home Secretary confirm that she will work closely with you, Mr Speaker, the parliamentary security department and all others who care about protecting our democracy from the threats that sadly are growing?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I absolutely give that assurance to my hon. Friend. I will pick up discussions with Mr Speaker and others on how we think about security for those who are no longer Members of this place, and the specific new circumstances that are raised by Ann Widdecombe’s murder. I am happy to work across parties, across this House and with the Speaker’s Conference.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

We are all reeling with shock, sadness and anguish at the loss of our Ann, and also the manner in which she has been taken from us. She was a colossus in public and political life—a legend, adored and loved by millions and millions of people, including my own late mother, who spoke very warmly of Ann.

Ann was a remarkable lady. She had an incredible work ethic: she would think nothing of going the length and breadth of the country to speak at rallies. She was an incredible orator, who always spoke without notes—absolutely remarkable. The Home Secretary touched on Ann’s philosophy of life: she viewed life as not being a dress rehearsal—you grasp every opportunity and you go for it, as far as possible.

In relation to her political career in this House, I checked earlier and in 23 years Ann made over 8,000 contributions in this place, including some remarkably witty interventions. When an hon. Member said that she should disappear with her broomstick, she immediately replied that she had her broomstick and she would cast a spell over him. That was her nature. Likewise, her media career was also remarkable: she was an agony aunt on two programmes, a most deserving semi-finalist in “Strictly Come Dancing” and appeared on “Celebrity Big Brother”. She was an incredible panto performer, who was adored by so many.

Ann’s conviction, her passion and her advocacy for free speech were to be commended. I had the honour of working with her for the past seven years. Despite being a foot taller than her, I somehow always found myself looking up to her. When she phoned, I always stood up on my toes: incoming—beware! That was Ann. We will miss her dearly. Also, the Scottish whisky industry has lost a very discerning customer. Maybe there could be a limited edition of Widders whisky, where the tasting notes may reflect unique, unforgettable flavours, a fiery, spicy series of tones, but a blend to be treasured to eternity? May she rest in peace.

Will the Home Secretary ensure that the counter-terrorism unit keeps us updated as regularly as possible? We all want our police forces to do brilliantly, but when considering motivation when giving us early updates, would it be wise to keep things open ended, as opposed to ruling out motives too quickly that may then end up being ruled back in?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman has made a very moving and affecting tribute to Ann Widdecombe. On Widders whisky, as a teetotal Muslim, I would never be able to partake of such a drink, but if there were a non-alcoholic version available I would happily imbibe.

We will ensure that, as and when it is possible to share more information about the circumstances of the murder and the motivation, that is done in the appropriate way. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that at no point has anything been taken off the table in terms of the investigation. It is a live investigation and it is not unusual that in a fast-paced investigation, more information comes to light that changes the nature or the character of what the police are dealing with. I am reassured that Devon and Cornwall police have been working closely with Counter Terrorism Policing, and as soon as the additional information was made available, Counter Terrorism Policing took over, as is appropriate and the right thing to do.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I share the sentiments that have already been expressed and send my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Ann Widdecombe. Of course, security is a huge issue to all of us in this Chamber, and I am sure that I was not the only one this weekend who went about my business in the constituency looking over my shoulder more than I normally would. It is terrible that this is the third Member of Parliament or ex-Member of Parliament to have been murdered—it should not be like this. While I thank Mr Speaker for everything he is doing, and I have already heard from my Operation Bridger contact this morning, who I was delighted to have heard from, about my security and if everything is okay, it does seem that security fobs and security in our houses are not enough. What more can the Home Secretary do to work with the Parliamentary Security Department and with Mr Speaker to ensure that our security is not undermined?

[Shabana Mahmood]

We would not, of course, ever comment on the specific nature of the arrangements made for the security of Members of Parliament, either here on the estate or in their homes or constituencies. However, let me assure my hon. Friend that a number of measures are taken. For local policing, as well as working with the Parliamentary Security Department, there is an offer for all Members of Parliament, and there are specific risk assessments when there is something of concern relating to a particular individual. Let me reassure her that I think those arrangements are comprehensive; however, we should always ask ourselves whether they are enough and whether they are responding to the changing nature of threats or the spike in threat activity that we sometimes see. I assure her that I will of course be working closely with the Parliamentary Security Department and policing more broadly to ensure that these arrangements are as tight, robust and comprehensive as they need to be.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

May I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House that the fact that I have to chair a meeting in a few minutes’ time prevents me from staying, as I would wish to do, to the end of the statement?

When I went up as an undergraduate to Oxford in late 1970 and joined the university Conservative association, there were two outstanding figures a year ahead of me in that august body: one was Ann Widdecombe and the other was Nicolas Turner. A few years later, in February 1980, Ann Widdecombe and I shared a taxi to the funeral of Nicolas Turner, who had heroically sacrificed his life in an attempt to rescue his young daughter Alice—it was a double funeral—who had been swept into the sea by a freak wave. Ann was always there when her friends needed support and, on a lighter note, she was always there ready to bring her friends back down to earth.

When Ann was elected in 1987 for the first time, and I happened to be moving flats, I gifted her a relatively new washing machine that was now surplus to my requirements. For several years after she became an MP, she used to invite me once a year, almost like clockwork, to have lunch with her in this place. I naturally assumed that it was that she wished to imbibe the wisdom of my political advice. It was only by accident when I suggested that to her and how flattered I was that she revealed the truth, saying, “Oh no, Julian—this is rent for the washing machine!”

Mr Speaker will certainly remember that in 2008 to 2009, this House spent a lot of time taking steps to ensure that MPs’ home addresses did not, in future, have to be revealed either in answer to freedom of information requests or on ballot papers and notices of nomination. It therefore comes as a bit of a shock to me to read in one of the reports today that Ann had—it may turn out to be complete coincidence—featured in her home on a programme on television extensively only six days before she died. The report said that the name of the home had been obscured, but software is available so that if someone puts up a picture of a place, particularly if they know the general area, it will identify the address. Let me please appeal to Members and ex-Members from whatever political party: do not throw away the gains we made, and whatever else you do, keep your home addresses as private as you possibly can.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The right hon. Gentleman makes wise points about the safety of MPs’ home addresses, and in my work alongside Mr Speaker on lessons to be learned from the circumstances of Ann’s murder, I will ensure that we consider the privacy and security of home addresses.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I join the many heartfelt tributes paid to Ann Widdecombe by Members across the House. I did not know her personally, but before I came to this place there were many names I always came across, and hers was definitely one of them. May her gentle soul rest in peace.

Earlier this afternoon, I spoke to a group of students who were completing work experience and shadowing. One young girl asked me, “What are the downsides, and what do you not like about this role?” To be honest, it pained me to be honest and to say, “The death threats, and the abuse you get just because you are doing something you love and enjoy,” and we must be honest about the real-life threats faced by parliamentarians across the House, just for doing the job they enjoy.

Will the Home Secretary confirm that it is good that counter-terrorism police are leading the investigation, and that they have all the necessary resources they need to carry out a full and thorough investigation? They will be dealing with many competing demands in our ever unstable world. Will she also look at the area mentioned by the Mother of House, namely misinformation that is spread online? I will declare an interest as I sit on the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission and we have looked at that area.

I add my tributes and thanks to Mr Speaker for his work on that Committee and the Speaker’s Conference. Whenever I have raised issues, the parliamentary liaison and investigation team have taken them seriously, which I thank them for, and it is important that we do not deter people from standing for public office.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is right that we must ensure that people are not either driven out of politics or put off entering political life at all. It is incumbent on us all to work together to ensure that whenever we are asked about the downsides of public life, we are able to give a positive view, because that is the truth, rather than where we are today.

I assure my hon. Friend that Counter Terrorism Policing has the resources it needs. I had an extensive discussion and briefing from the head of national Counter Terrorism Policing, and I will be kept updated on its progress. If it needs any more from us at the Home Office, we stand ready to offer greater assistance, but I am assured that at the moment it has everything it needs.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Friday was a funny day. I heard the news very early in the morning that Ann had died, and I was utterly surprised about that because she had seemed perfectly fit the last time I saw her, so I gave my condolences and spoke about it on the radio. Sadly, later that day, just after lunch, I discovered that it was not just sad but a tragedy—a tragedy that a phenomenal woman, and a former Member of this House, should have been murdered in her own home for reasons we know not what.

The news allowed me to think back to this woman who was a force of nature. She was impossible to argue with, because she never accepted that she was losing the argument, until finally she was able to turn it 180 degrees and make you feel guilty that you had even dared to argue with her. A particular memory is that during the Maastricht debates, when, I have to confess, I and one or two others here were deeply rebellious, Ann lectured me from the Dispatch Box—she was in government—about how I should support the Maastricht treaty and the European Union, which rather worried me. It is rather ironic that she went over to Reform. I thought to myself, “Now there’s somebody who takes collective responsibility more seriously than she even had to.” It was rather remarkable.

Ann was a remarkable woman in many, many ways. I got to know her during shadow Cabinet, when we would debate and argue. She argued as robustly in shadow Cabinet as she did across the Dispatch Box. Whether you were Labour or Conservative, if you disagreed with her, you were the enemy—you got used to it. It was phenomenal, because she was so certain about the way that she was.

Ann embodied something else: the passion that is necessary for us in this Chamber to make our arguments without the fear of any other person doing something to us. Another thing she embodied, and completely demonstrated, was our unique responsibility to our constituents and the nature of the personal contact we make with them, which I do not think is replicated almost anywhere else. We go into their homes. I do not ask for security when I go into someone’s home. We go to see them if they are too ill to come and see us. We all do that, and we do not want to lose it. We do not want the epitaph of her terrible murder to be that we withdrew from the nature of who we are and what makes this place so great.

We need to reiterate, and the Government and the Home Secretary need to specify, to all the social media companies that they must do something to close down the visceral, violent language that some people use in attacking others personally, as they did over Ann’s murder, which shocked me. We must get on top of that, because it is the root of violence and death. It is not only Ann who was murdered. It is not only Jo Cox and my good friend David Amess who were murdered. As the rack of shields in the Chamber shows, terrorists have murdered many in our party. If we want to stop that, we have to be bold and we have to be clear. We will not accept being shut down, stopped from performing our duties or silenced in any way, because that is what Ann would have approved of.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The right hon. Gentleman makes some powerful points. He is absolutely right: it is not just sad; now that we know more about the circumstances of this murder, it is a tragedy. More will obviously come to light in the fullness of time.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, as a society and as a Government, we all have to do much more to hold social media companies to account for what is said and done through their platforms. Some progress has been made, but it feels like it takes a long time to get legislation through, and it is many years before any of it can be implemented. This is a fast-moving environment. We need to get the balance right: there is fierce and contested debate, and then there is behaviour that turns into threats, visceral abuse and harassment. It is incumbent on all of us to work together across the House to achieve the necessary balance and the necessary regulation of social media.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

I join the Home Secretary and other Members in sending condolences to the family of Ann Widdecombe. May she rest in peace.

I have concerns not just about Members of this place, but about our party members, councillors and council candidates. Every week, volunteers go knocking on doors in my constituency; most of the responses we get are absolutely fine, but there is an increasing trend towards violence and aggression on the doorstep. These people are giving up their time to engage in the political process, and they should not be met with violence and intimidation. We need to do far more to tackle the causes of this division and aggression.

I absolutely agree with what Members have said about social media companies and the algorithms that peddle hate, but we also need to look at what we can do. I have tabled some amendments to the Representation of the People Bill to deal with misleading information online and to provide for a statutory code of conduct to prevent abuse and intimidation in campaigns. I am concerned that intimidation on the doorstep is putting off the next generation of Members of this place. We need a wholesale review and real action to protect everyone who does their bit in democratic life.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes some really important points. Just as joke candidates are a feature of British democracy, so is knocking on doors at election time and talking to people up and down the country. All of us have a responsibility and a duty to ensure that the unique features of British democracy are protected at all times. That has been the work of the defending democracy taskforce, which was led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), the former Security Minister and now the Defence Secretary, and has been taken over by the new Security Minister. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) that we will do everything we can to protect the norms by which our democracy is felt across the country and to ensure that the ways in which we all take part in it are protected.

My hon. Friend mentioned potential amendments to the Representation of the People Bill, as have other Members. The Home Office is not the lead Department for the Bill, but I undertake to discuss this issue with colleagues in Government and ensure that we respond on specific amendments, or at least on a body of work, to ensure that any additional amendments made to the Bill are capable of reflecting the nature of the challenge we face.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

The news about Ann Widdecombe is truly shocking, and it is compounded by the way in which she met her death. The thoughts of the Scottish National party are with her friends and family today. As has been said, Ann was a larger-than-life political figure, liked by people right across this House for her wicked sense of humour and her straight talking. I remember when I inadvertently strayed into a private Conservative event, only to be met by Ann sending me packing. For somebody of her stature, she was a very effective bouncer.

There is great interest in this tragic death beyond those with an obvious interest in politics, and there will be temptation to speculate about her death, including among those with more malevolent intent on social media. Will the Home Secretary do everything she can to ensure that the information passed on about this particular case is correct? Will she do everything possible to counter bad bits of misinformation?

[Shabana Mahmood]

It is incredibly important that nobody indulges in speculation of any kind, and we should collectively call out those who do. People should exercise caution before they comment on this case—that is the right way to behave for those who wish to see justice done. We should all want the proper functioning of our criminal justice system, which requires careful handling of information. Wherever possible, we will step in to correct misinformation, as the police have done, but occasionally in these sorts of cases the police are constrained in what they can put out into the public domain, because they wish to protect proceedings that may follow. We all have to be vigilant and careful, and send out the right message from this House about our expectations.

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

I join Members across the House in giving my deepest condolences to the friends and family of Ann Widdecombe. I never had the privilege of meeting her, but I certainly remember growing up and seeing her on the TV and thinking what an outspoken, strong woman she was and how she would not take no for an answer. I pay tribute to her.

I do not want to speculate on the case or on what happened, but I place on record my concern about the fact that we see very frequently the media either photograph or broadcast identifiable details of Members’ or former Members’ homes. That is happening repeatedly to Members across this House, including members of the Cabinet, members of the shadow Cabinet and former Members. We have heard today about the risks that come with that. The former Member for Surrey Heath mentioned in a podcast fairly recently that the man who killed Sir David Amess had visited his home, using details that he had identified from the media. That is how serious this issue is.

I know that the Speaker’s Conference has looked at this issue. Given the risks that exist and the new tools such as reverse image searching, which makes it easier to look at a media image and find out where a house is on Google Maps, will the Home Secretary urgently look at this issue with her colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the media regulators Ofcom and the Independent Press Standards Organisation?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I assure my hon. Friend that that is one of the issues I will pick up, as I said in answer to a question from an Opposition Member a little earlier in this statement. I shall discuss this matter with colleagues on a cross-party basis, and I will speak with Mr Speaker and the House authorities about what more we can do in respect of specific details relating to the homes of Members and former Members of Parliament.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and her tribute to Ann—it was extremely moving, if I may say so. Can I also point out the unfortunate statistical fact that a Member of Parliament is more likely to meet a violent death than a member of His Majesty’s armed forces or a member of the British police forces? I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to assure Mr Speaker that none of us doubts his personal commitment to our security, but this remains a very relevant problem. None of us wants our homes to be turned into fortresses, but maybe more people need to be encouraged to, for example, put security gates on the front of their houses, and to have security cameras recording what is going on, rather than just relying on the Ring bell that happens to be on their front door.

Can I also pay my own tribute to Ann? Much has already been said. I shared 18 years of her parliamentary life, alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). There were disagreements about Maastricht, and about women candidates—my goodness, she loathed me trying to promote women candidates in the Conservative party. I maintain that she was wrong about that, but she was right about many things. Her maiden speech, about the Trident nuclear deterrent, was made at a time when the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats were a bit wobbly on that subject. What an emblem of her patriotism, and her fervour for strength and clarity of purpose!

I served in the shadow Cabinet with Ann when the Government were introducing the Human Rights Act 1998 and pressing for close adherence to the European convention on human rights. She was the one member of the shadow Cabinet who said, “We should oppose this”; members of our shadow Cabinet were saying that we should relish joining the ECHR. Her prescience has often invited derision from others, but she was right on that score. We in the Conservative party are learning the lessons that she left behind during her life; maybe other parties will learn them, too.

[Shabana Mahmood]

That was also a very moving tribute to someone of whom the hon. Gentleman was clearly very fond, and with whom he worked closely. He has dared to say that she was wrong; perhaps if we listen carefully, we can hear her saying something quite forceful in response.

I take the security of all Members of Parliament very seriously, as I know Mr Speaker does. Considering what has happened to Ann Widdecombe, we must now live up to our responsibilities to former Members of Parliament as well, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will take my duties in that regard very seriously. I do not want it to be the case that people are more likely to die a violent death if they are Members of this great House. This great House has great public servants in it from all over the country and from every party, and the public service of all Members of this House is something without which our country cannot do. It is incumbent on us all to protect that, for this generation and for generations to come.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

My thoughts and condolences are with the family and friends of Ann Widdecombe, and with colleagues on the Conservative Benches who worked closely with her. It is hard not to see the murder of an ex-MP as an attempted attack on this place and our way of life, but we must not let it have a chilling effect on those who want to stand for public office.

I thank Mr Speaker for the time he took with new-intake MPs in 2024, giving us his hints and tips, and really focusing on security. I also thank the Home Secretary for looking at the safety of ex-MPs and the risks that they face. I am in almost daily contact with one of my predecessors, and I am sure that will come up in our next phone call. I can tell the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) that I have a call with representatives of the Scotch Whisky Association scheduled for this afternoon; I think they want to talk about the free trade agreement, but I will happily talk about Widders’ whisky. Does the Home Secretary agree that we must do all we can to ensure that people are not put off standing for public office, particularly by online hate and the increasing violence that we see on the doorstep and in our society?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we must all do more. I assure him that the Government will work closely with Mr Speaker and the Parliamentary Security Department to make sure that we are doing everything we can, but as I have said in answer to other questions, I think we as a society have to take a stronger position on the right boundary between contested debate and unacceptable behaviour and abuse online. We have more work to do in that space.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

On behalf of the Green party, I would like to say how shocked, saddened and horrified I am by Ann Widdecombe’s horrific death—her brutal murder—and my sincere condolences go to her friends and family and all who knew her and loved her, including colleagues in this House. I welcome the points that the Home Secretary has made about reviewing security arrangements for those in public life, including former MPs and those outside this House. I very much agree with her about the responsibility that we all have, across this House and beyond, to avoid speculation, so that the police can hold their vital investigation and bring the culprit to justice. She has recognised the calls that have been made from across this House today for further action to tackle the proliferation of polarisation and hatred online. May I press her to set a timescale for taking that further action, to protect not only the safety and security of all those in public life, but the fundamentals of our democracy?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution and question, and assure her that I will be picking up a discussion with my colleagues across Government about how we do more on social media platforms and the behaviours that are promoted there, which we know are having a damaging impact on our democracy, as well as the safety and security of people involved in politics in different ways, including activists and elected representatives. Specifically, I will be discussing this matter with colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, as well as others. I will ensure that the House is updated soon after the summer recess.

[Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I echo the thoughtful and meaningful comments that Members from across the House have made today. I did not know Ann Widdecombe, but I definitely knew what she stood for: public service. She was a unique character and an amazing public servant, with many years of sacrifice. How have we ended up in a position where individuals who put so much time and effort into public service are at risk? One of the reasons is that when we were young, we would walk into a library, and the librarian was apolitical; she or he would allow us to read whatever we wanted, within a set boundary. Now, that librarian is no longer apolitical; it is an algorithm, and that algorithm is bought by anyone from American tech bros to Russia and China. This is not four or five different threats; it is one consistent threat, which is swaying the minds of large chunks of populations across the globe. Can the Home Secretary give me some detail on how we are clamping down on some of that adversarial, nefarious activity and making online activity much safer?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. He will know that colleagues in DSIT are working carefully on the Online Safety Act 2023 and its further implementation, learning lessons from how it is being applied and thinking carefully about what might need to be done. It is clear that we need a much stronger and better policed boundary between what is acceptable in a democracy and behaviour that is challenging the very foundations of our democracy. I have undertaken to have that discussion with colleagues across government, and I will make sure that the House is updated on the programme of work that the Government intend to take forward. We must make sure that all our arrangements are as robust as possible, and that it is we, the people of this country, who decide the inheritance that we wish to leave for our children, not algorithms operated by a very small number of men who live abroad.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I thank both Front-Bench spokespeople for their touching tributes to Ann. For the benefit of those outside this House, I place on record that we all know the absolute personal commitment of Mr Speaker and all the Deputy Speakers to the security of all Members and their families. Can we thank him and the rest of the team for that? We must not comment on the investigation, but can we at least wish the police Godspeed in bringing whoever was responsible for this utterly heinous act fully to book?

We now have another fallen comrade; there was Jo Cox, Sir David Amess, and now Ann. Years ago, we lost others to republican terrorism, too. This is a challenge for all of us, and for our loved ones. As I said after Sir David was murdered, I believe that the social media companies also have a responsibility in this regard. We always needed a thick skin to come into politics; now we need the hide of a rhino. The social media companies could do something to calm down the level of hate to which hon. Members and their families are exposed online, and I look to the Home Secretary in the hope that something positive can be done.

Ann Widdecombe was unmissable. She was a one-woman nuclear deterrent, whether she was debating in the House of Commons or arriving on “Strictly” by zipwire. I saw her only about three weeks ago at a breakfast meeting, and she was in fine fettle that morning. I knew her through Sir David. They were great friends; they arrived here in a similar era, in the 1980s, and they had a strong bond via the Catholic faith. They got on extremely well. I appeared in a number of photographs with both Sir David and Ann down the years, but for some reason, I was never asked to remove my shoes.

I have one brief anecdote. In 2010, having obviously upset someone in authority, I was made the Government accommodation Whip, and it was my responsibility to hand out offices. Anyone who has ever done that job will tell you that it is not easy. Ann, who had retired from the House, had a very attractive office overlooking Parliament Square, which was on my list as one that I knew would be in high demand. When I went along to check it out, I found Sir David already neatly ensconced in the office, and when I asked him how this had come about, he told me that he was claiming squatter’s rights, and that, moreover, he had been bequeathed the office by Ann as a personal gift. When I sought to remonstrate, he told me that if I did not like that decision, I could take it up with her personally—at which point I decided that discretion was the better part of valour, and withdrew.

Ann was remarkable. You could not argue with her; well, you could try, but you never got very far. She was the type of character whom people deeply respected, because she was absolutely consistent in her view, whether you agreed with her or not. We have lost a distinguished and incredibly remarkable colleague in the most awful of circumstances, but Ann Widdecombe would tell us to keep calm and carry on, and I believe that that is exactly what we should do.

[Shabana Mahmood]

That was a very moving and funny set of memories from the right hon. Gentleman—very affecting. “Keep calm and carry on” are definitely words to live by, and we could all do with taking that lesson on board. Let me also echo the right hon. Gentleman’s best wishes for the police as they continue this investigation: Godspeed.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)]

Ann’s tragic murder has shocked the nation. Dear Ann was the personification of political courage, patriotic tradition and the importance of faith. I got to know her when I was Home Secretary, through her immense support for the Amess family when we unveiled his plaque—a poignant reminder of the threat facing our democracy today. The nation has lost an exemplary public servant and a force of nature in Ann.

People are free to disagree with Ann’s views, but some of the online comment that we have seen in the aftermath has been frankly disgusting. It has come from so-called reputable journalists, including those working at Sky News and The Mail on Sunday, and we have read some conspiracy theories in The Times; and today we have heard a Labour Member of Parliament apologise for her intemperate comments. Does the Home Secretary agree that that kind of language only serves to worsen the problem with which we are dealing, rather than being part of the solution? Will she join me in urging calm in the media, and among those on the left? They should afford Ann some dignity in death, and show some respect to their opponents, instead of whipping up hatred.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I have not seen all the comments that the right hon. and learned Lady refers to, but I have seen some of them, and they were deplorable and completely unacceptable. I know that an apology has been made in relation to comments that were made, I believe, on Sky News. I know that others have reacted with horror and anger at comments that were designed to denigrate Ann’s political views, and to deny her dignity in death. I share the right hon. and learned Lady’s absolute revulsion at such behaviour towards an elderly woman who has lost her life in very distressing and deeply tragic circumstances. It has no place in our politics or our national life, and I know that all Members of the House will agree with that. I urge everyone, wherever they may sit on the political spectrum, to exercise calm and careful judgment before hitting the send button on social media messages. A little time for reflection is often the best thing in these circumstances.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I thank Mr Speaker in his absence, and indeed all the Deputy Speakers, for everything that the Speaker’s Office and the Parliamentary Security Department do to keep all Members, of all political parties, safe. I thank the Home Secretary and the deputy leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), for their warm tributes. As a west midlands MP, I also put on the record my thanks to the fantastic people at Counter Terrorism Policing West Midlands and in West Mercia police’s special branch, who do a fantastic job. I have been in the House for 21 years, but it has only been in the last two or three years that I have had to take serious and substantive security advice. That is an unwelcome development, and we all need to work together to tackle it.

Reference has been made to technology companies. Should we expect technology companies to act, given that some of their owners do not even believe in democracy? They want to undo democracy in order that they have ultimate power. That is not a conspiracy theory; it is on the record, because some of them have stated that. In defence of the mainstream media—particularly the so-called deadwood press, with whom I have had disagreements over the years—they have to regulate, with very limited resources, the comments that people put under stories. Why will tech companies not do so as well? For too long the mainstream media in this country have taken most of the blame, but the tech companies, which have more resources, should be doing more.

On a lighter note, I want to give a couple of stories from Ann’s life. We spent five years together as Members of Parliament, but I knew her before entering the House. I have two stories. First, I remember when there was a move to stop the first ever appointment of a Catholic as the British ambassador to the Holy See. Ann, David Amess, myself and others worked to overturn that. To paraphrase a Times diarist, I was the only Anglican in the village, and a middle-wicket Anglican at that—a very poor one. I wasn’t literally poor—well, actually, it was both. [Laughter.] As the only Anglican in the village, I felt that it was completely wrong that there was discrimination against Catholics being appointed to the Vatican. Thankfully, the decision was overturned, and Tony Blair and others allowed the appointment to happen. Francis Campbell was appointed the first Catholic ambassador to the Holy See and did a fantastic job.

I have a second story. Having seen David Austin—the founder of David Austin Roses, who has now passed—at the 2009 Chelsea flower show with the former Deputy Speaker Nigel Evans, we were coming back in a taxi when we heard that Michael Martin had resigned as Speaker. We both thought that Ann would be a great Deputy Speaker, but there was a problem: in 2007, she had announced that she was going to step down at the following election. We met with her and said, “Ann, we think you’d be a great Speaker. Would you do it?” She said, “Yes. What have I got to do?” We said, “Well, you’ve got to go and speak to all the different parties in Committee Room 14. Everybody’s stuffed in there, as usual, and you’ve got to do a pitch.” I said to her, “But whatever you do, don’t say you’re running for Speaker and then say you’re standing down in 2010.” As we all know, Ann was very wise. She completely dismissed that advice, stood up and said, “I’m running for Speaker, but I will stand down in one or two years’ time.” Of course, she did not have any success.

I will conclude by saying that Ann was a lady of conviction, clarity, compassion, integrity and authenticity —a lexicon of virtue. Of course, she was recognised by His Holiness the Pope with a papal damehood—a DSG—but unfortunately she was, I think unfairly, never recognised in this country in the same way. I hope that is something that, in her honour and memory, could be considered.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The right hon. Gentleman has shared with the House some lovely memories of his dear friend. As he was making his contribution, I thought I would follow what he said about Counter Terrorism Policing, and place on the record my gratitude for our counter-terrorism police across the country. We have a world-leading counter-terror policing operation in this country. We are very lucky to have them, and they do a great job keeping all of us safe. I know I speak on behalf of the whole House when I place those remarks on the record.

The right hon. Gentleman is right, and many Members have made the point today about the unaccountability of social media platforms for their algorithms and for the type of content they host on their platforms. The Government have already done some work in this area, but I am sure we will have to go further. As I have committed before, I will make sure the House is updated in due course.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I speak on behalf of my party, Plaid Cymru. I think all of us will remember where we were when we heard the news that once again somebody—in this case, a former Member of Parliament—who lives the same lives as ourselves had died in such a hideous, shocking way with the murder. Of course, the work of the police and the justice system that must now come first and foremost.

I was with North Wales police in training many of their officers on Operation Bridger only on Friday afternoon, just before this happened. I do commend the police, but also I think we really need to know how difficult it is for them, because Operation Bridger has to go down to the frontline and those on the frontline need to be alert to that. I must also mention the importance of Operation Ford for Senedd Members in Wales and other national Parliaments elsewhere, and also for councillors.

The ability of elected representatives—all of us—to do our job by being available to meet constituents and speak directly to them is precious, and we need to be alert to keeping that. The trust that goes with being able to meet people is precious, so does the Home Secretary agree that we are not just talking about protection for ourselves for this year or for a few years to come, but that what we are endeavouring to do here is safeguard the values of democratic debate over violence?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I think the right hon. Lady is absolutely right. When I was first elected in 2010, I used to run an open, first-come-first-served advice surgery, but that is no longer possible, and I have had to change that in the last few years. I still offer advice surgeries, but on terms that are very different from when I first became a Member of Parliament. That is a huge change, and it is entirely as a result of what happened to Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. It is a tragedy because it does change the way we relate to our constituents.

It is a very precious thing, and we must protect that connection between Members of Parliament and those they represent, and between councillors and those they represent as well. That is the work that the Government and the Parliamentary Security Department, Mr Speaker and all his team here in the House are determined to see through to make sure that, even if there are some changes in the way we relate to our constituents, we are still able to do so on terms that we would all recognise as good old British democracy at its best.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

There are no words to express the sadness we feel about the passing of Ann Widdecombe, but the sadness, unfortunately, is turning to anger—anger at not just the social media companies, but all of us in this place and the politicians, and some of the language that we use in this place. Reform UK MPs have been labelled as racists, Nazis and bigots by people serving in this place, and that undoubtedly increases the risk of attacks on politicians on this side of the House. Is the Home Secretary aware of any increased risk to Reform UK MPs?

[Shabana Mahmood]

It is important that all Members of the House are careful and calm in the way we describe other Members of this House and the work done by other Members in this House. We have to imagine how we would feel if we were on the receiving end of that, and try to treat others the way we wish to be treated ourselves.

I certainly want to make sure that I say from this Dispatch Box, for myself and for the Government, that any abuse or harassment by Members of Parliament of other Members of Parliament is unacceptable. We should all moderate our language. We have to get the right balance in this place between fierce and contested political debate, which happens on both the right and the left of the spectrum, and also make sure we do not slip into behaviours that increase threat to any of our colleagues. It is sometimes a difficult balance to strike in the heat of the moment or in the heat of a very polarised debate, but we still have a responsibility to show our best selves at work, as it were. I would always caution all Members, “Before you say anything quickly, just take a minute to reflect, and then think about what you’re about to say.”

On specific threats, let me say to the hon. Gentleman that no, I am not aware of any. He knows that I would not ever comment on threats, or the arrangements in place for any Member or others in public life, only because to comment starts to affect the integrity of the overall system, but I will make sure that the leader of Reform UK is offered a meeting with the independent chair of RAVEC to discuss specific issues relating to risk assessment. If there are any other matters in relation to risk assessment, the police are monitoring that very carefully and will discuss, with all political parties in this House, any additional changes that they might wish to make.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

I join colleagues across the House in paying tribute to Ann, a woman who was brave, principled, kind and generous. I, like many others, will miss her enormously—even though on my first morning as a Member of Parliament, when I was the youngest MP, I met her in Westminster Hall and she asked me whether I was here on work experience. [Laughter.] I think I have eventually shed my MP nappies.

The Home Secretary is the ultimate arbiter of what happens in the Home Office. She is not powerless and no one would pretend so. Would she agree that it was unwise of the Government to heavily reduce the security offered to the former Member for Clacton, given all we know about the particular danger that is posed to him and his family? Does she agree that, frankly, it should not have taken the murder of Ann for him to be offered a meeting with the committee, and that many will conclude—perhaps unfairly, but none the less—that it is only because of the political views of the former Member for Clacton that he is placed in this position? Will she use her power as Home Secretary to make sure the security that he and his family need is put in place immediately?

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that it is an independent process within the Home Office that deals with the risk assessment and risk management of those in public life. I am not going to compromise the integrity of those arrangements by commenting in any detail on specific instances. Let me simply observe that, in the 10 months I have been in the Home Office, I have seen media reports in relation to various suggested risk assessments and risk mitigations. I have never commented to say whether something is true or false, simply because I believe that the principle of not commenting should not be breached, so as to protect the integrity of the system. The meeting has been offered.

Let me assure him that RAVEC is and will always be fiercely independent. It must be, because the protection offered to people, and the level of protection and the tactics of protection that are offered, must never be based on a political assessment of who needs it, but on an independent operational assessment of what risk is and how it is best managed. That operational independence is incredibly important. I will always maintain it and protect it, and I know the Government as a whole will do so as well.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

The death of Ann Widdecombe is shocking. I did not know her as an MP, but it has been wonderful listening to colleagues from across the House share some of their memories. She was clearly a formidable political leader. Of course, we will also remember her as an entertainer. My thoughts are with her family and friends at this incredibly difficult time.

Her death is a devastating reminder of the problem that all of us elected Members and councillors face on a day-to-day basis while we try to serve the communities we love and have been elected to serve. It has come across very clearly in the Chamber that we all want and need to do more to protect each other and our democracy. I speak a lot to my councillors in Guildford and, as the Liberal Democrat local government spokesperson, to councillors across the country. The stories I hear are horrendous, whether it is parish council leaders or council leaders telling me about death threats. This is a democracy and elected representatives should not be experiencing that.

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for what she has already set out, but could she also set out what actions the Government are taking to protect elected officials at all levels, in particular councillors and those who are served by Operation Ford? Can she confirm that more resources will be made available to Operation Ford, so that a consistent level of support can be provided across the country? I know that police officers and forces across the country want to do that, but I hear about varying levels of support.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I join the hon. Lady in saying that it has been a very moving afternoon, hearing tributes to Ann Widdecombe from across the House, particularly from her former colleagues in the Conservative party and her colleagues in Reform UK, who are obviously personally affected. Once again, I offer my condolences to all of them on the loss of their friend and colleague.

I take very seriously the wider risks to our democracy, including for local councillors. The hon. Lady has already referenced some of the steps that the Government have taken through our defending democracy taskforce and Operation Ford. I am sure that there will be further developments in this space. We are learning lessons from the taskforce’s work in relation to the most recent local elections, and the developing nature of the threats must be reflected in new arrangements as we move forward.

We are very alive to the risks to those of us in this place, given what has happened to Jo Cox, to Sir David Amess and now to Ann Widdecombe. The security of parliamentarians gets a lot of attention, and this is perhaps the most high-profile Chamber—we are often referred to as “the mother of Parliaments”, so that is understandable—but this country also cannot do without the work of its local councillors, parish councillors and all the people who put in the hours to make their local area better, and this Government will stand by them too.

Southport Inquiry Phase 1: Government Response

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)]

On 13 April 2026, the chair of the Southport inquiry, Sir Adrian Fulford published his phase 1 report. Sir Adrian sets out five fundamental failings, and makes 67 recommendations for central Government, and a range of national and local partners to consider. He concludes that the attack was foreseeable and avoidable.

I am grateful to Sir Adrian and his team for their diligent work in producing this comprehensive report. When I addressed Parliament on 13 April, I committed to publish our response by summer. Today that response has been published. The response has been laid before Parliament as a Command Paper (CP 1623) and copies are available in the Vote Office and on gov.uk.

In the response, we recognise the five fundamental failings. We accept all the recommendations that are for central Government to deliver and set out how we are working at pace to implement these in full. There are recommendations that Government have already made progress against, or in some cases, completed. The pace of this work demonstrates the urgency with which Government are working towards meeting the outcomes set by the inquiry. I have committed to formally report to Sir Adrian again in a year’s time.

I am clear that Government expects other organisations to implement their recommendations. We have written to all organisations to highlight the findings of the inquiry and will facilitate and support on delivery as far as possible.

The Government have already acted across a number of areas.

We have published our halving knife crime plan with the ambition to halve the level of knife crime across 10 years. We have also taken the Crime and Policing Act 2026 through Parliament to significantly tighten the law on knives and other bladed articles. We have also recently held a public consultation about introducing licensing for sellers of knives and importers.

We published a youth justice White Paper setting out a comprehensive programme of reform to modernise the youth justice system, establishing a clear direction toward earlier intervention and taking action to encourage and strengthen the use of parenting orders.

The Government are introducing legislation this session to criminalise lone individuals planning an attack without an ideological motive, closing a gap and strengthening our ability to disrupt the most serious threats from violence-fixated individuals.

We have announced that we will ban social media companies from offering their services to under-16s, in addition to new action to restricting their access to livestreaming and communication with strangers on services including gaming. We will also introduce legislation to tackle extreme violence content, to create a safer online environment, particularly for children and young people.

Alongside delivering the recommendations in phase 1, we will work with the inquiry throughout phase 2 to strengthen our understanding of the evolving threat from extreme violence and the effectiveness of different interventions.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, my predecessor appointed Lord Anderson as the interim independent Prevent commissioner and asked him to review the Southport attack along with the tragic murder of Sir David Amess. Today I am also publishing a letter accepting all the recommendations Lord Anderson made and setting out how we have delivered against them.

Today my thoughts remain with Alice da Silva Aguiar, Bebe King and Elsie Dot Stancombe, their families and friends, and the survivors. We owe it to them to act on the findings of these reports.

[HCWS178]