Terrorism Legislation Review
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(3 days, 20 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has prepared a report on the operation of the Terrorism Acts in 2024.
In accordance with section 36(5) of the Terrorism Act 2006, the report is today being laid before Parliament and copies will be available in the Vote Office. It will also be published on gov.uk.
I am grateful to Mr Hall KC for his report. I will carefully consider its contents and the recommendations he makes and will respond formally in due course.
[HCWS1549]
Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Today, I am announcing the formal commencement of the independent inquiry into grooming gangs.
The setting-up date of the inquiry, as per section 5 of the Inquiries Act 2005, is 13 April 2026.
The inquiry will confront one of the darkest periods in our country’s history, where the most vulnerable people were abused and let down by those meant to protect them. I am committed to delivering the truth, accountability and reform that victims and survivors deserve and expect.
On 9 December 2025, I updated the House on the publication of the draft terms of reference for the independent inquiry into grooming gangs. Given the importance of getting this right, I asked the chair and panel of the inquiry to undertake a period of consultation, including with victims and survivors of these crimes, before returning their views to me for agreement on the final terms of reference.
The final terms of reference for the independent inquiry into grooming gangs were published on gov.uk on Tuesday 31 March. This upheld our previous commitment to agree terms of reference by the end of March. The interval between publication and formal commencement reflects the timing of parliamentary recess.
The terms were agreed with the chair and panel following a period of consultation. This included an online open consultation, which received over 25,000 responses, direct engagement with victims and survivors across England and Wales and engagement with parliamentarians. I would like to place on record my thanks to the chair of the inquiry, Baroness Anne Longfield CBE, and the panel, Zoë Billingham CBE and Eleanor Kelly CBE, for their work in leading this consultation.
The terms of reference have been shaped by the testimony, priorities and lived experience of victims and survivors and make clear that their experiences will continue to guide the inquiry’s work throughout. I would like to pay tribute to their involvement and tireless campaigning to ensure we right the wrongs of the past and ensure evil perpetrators of these crimes have nowhere to hide.
The inquiry is time-limited for three years, supported by a £65 million budget, to help ensure that justice is delivered swiftly for those who have already waited too long for answers. Its initial phase will focus on identifying priority areas for investigation, before undertaking targeted local investigations alongside a national-level review of the findings of those investigations. The criteria used to select local areas will be published by the inquiry within three months of the formal setting-up date.
The inquiry will examine systemic, institutional and individual failures, making recommendations for improvement at both national and local levels, as appropriate. The inquiry will be laser focused on grooming gangs and will explicitly examine the role ethnicity, religion and culture played in these crimes. It will seek to hold individuals, institutions and statutory services responsible to account for any failures.
With a national remit across England and Wales, the inquiry will work closely with the national police operation into group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse, Operation Beaconport, overseen by the National Crime Agency. As set out in the terms of reference, where criminal allegations and evidence are identified by the inquiry, this will be referred to law enforcement.
The Government accepted all 12 recommendations in Baroness Casey’s national audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse. The Government remain fully committed to implementing these recommendations and to driving forward broader action to tackle child sexual exploitation and abuse.
The Government are clear that this inquiry must deliver truth, accountability, and meaningful reform so that the injustices suffered by victims and survivors are not repeated and children are better protected in every community in future.
I recognise the long-standing interest from parliamentarians in this work. The inquiry has committed to publishing their findings regularly and I remain committed to keeping Parliament informed as the inquiry progresses.
[HCWS1492]
Southport Inquiry
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Southport inquiry. I must thank all who participated in the inquiry and the chair, Sir Adrian Fulford, and his team. Today, Sir Adrian published the report of the inquiry’s first phase. This summer, the Government will provide a full response. That will also cover Lord Anderson’s Prevent review. Today, I will provide the Government’s initial reaction to an inquiry that exposes a series of tragic failures from which we must learn.
We do so in the shadow of the events of 29 July 2024. I will not name the perpetrator, nor dwell on the details of the crimes that saw three beautiful young girls murdered, the attempted murder of eight other children and two adults, and lasting physical and psychological harm to many more. I know that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that my thoughts today are with all those affected. In honour of them and the memory of three murdered girls, Elsie Dot Stancombe, Bebe King and Alice da Silva Aguiar, we must now act to prevent similar attacks. It was for that reason that my predecessor appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead a full statutory inquiry.
The inquiry’s work has two parts. The first, which reported today, considered the decisions made by the agencies and services that interacted with the perpetrator. That included a range of institutions in the criminal justice system, as well as in education, healthcare and local government. It also considered the actions of the perpetrator’s parents.
The findings of the inquiry are unsparing. Sir Adrian has uncovered systematic failures across multiple public sector organisations. The recording and sharing of information were poor. None of the agencies involved had a full understanding of the risk that the perpetrator posed, and many did not take steps to assess the risk he posed to others. There was a failure by the agencies involved to take responsibility, and nobody was clear as to who was in charge; so the failure, because it belonged to everyone, belonged to no one. Where individuals missed opportunities to intervene, lessons must be learned, but they did so within organisations that repeatedly passed the risk to others and where systemic failings existed.
The perpetrator came into contact with the state on countless occasions. Lancashire police responded to five calls to his home address. The police were called when he was in possession of a knife in a public place. He was referred on several occasions to the multi-agency safeguarding hub. He came into contact with children’s social care, the Early Help service and children’s mental health services. He was referred to Prevent on three occasions. He was convicted of a violent assault and referred to a youth offending team. All failed to identify the risk that the perpetrator posed, and so he fell through the gaps. The warning signs were missed: a growing history of violence, and a clear and continuing intent to commit harm.
In the Home Office, the focus falls on Prevent and policing. Sir Adrian is clear that police should have progressed the perpetrator to the multi-agency Channel programme. Channel could have actively assessed and managed his risk. Instead, he was not deemed suitable because he had no fixed ideology. That ran counter to the guidance at the time, but the thresholds were unclear and the guidance was applied inconsistently. The perpetrator’s multiple referrals were also considered individually, when they should have been seen as a cumulative and compounding risk. The perpetrator did not receive the correct interventions, and his autism diagnosis meant that professionals focused far too much on his vulnerability and far too little on the threat that he might pose to others.
The horrific attack was itself evidence of the ease with which it could be conducted. There were no restrictions to stop the perpetrator watching the violent content that inspired him, downloading instructions to make poison, or viewing terrorist materials online. He was also able to bypass the safeguards that should have stopped him buying and receiving dangerous weapons. These findings are devastating, but they are not surprising. Findings like these have been heard before in inquests and inquiries. This time, however, they must be a spur for change. The inquiry makes 67 recommendations. The Government are reviewing them and will respond to those which relate to national government this summer, and I expect local agencies to do the same.
Since this awful crime, the Government have already acted. That begins with Prevent. Since the Southport attack, the Home Office and counter-terrorism policing have reviewed historical cases to ensure that similar instances were handled correctly, with cases reassessed for any change in risk and managed accordingly. The Government have reviewed the Prevent thresholds and published updated guidance. We have introduced a new Prevent assessment framework, with mandatory training for counter-terrorism case officers. Oversight of repeat Prevent referrals has been strengthened, ensuring that cumulative risk is not missed and senior sign-off is required before a case is closed. To provide independent oversight of the whole system, we have created an independent Prevent commissioner. I thank Lord Anderson, whose term ends today, for so ably taking on that position on an interim basis. I am pleased to say that I have appointed Tim Jacques as the new Prevent commissioner, and he begins his role tomorrow.
This Government have also begun to place greater controls on a dangerously unregulated online world. The Online Safety Act 2023 requires companies to remove illegal content from their platforms. The Act is intended to limit children from encountering content that is legal but poses a risk of significant harm, although that is just the beginning of what can and must be done. The internet remains a dangerous place for children, and we are clear that tech companies have a moral responsibility to keep their users safe. The House should be in no doubt that, when they fail to do so, the Government will intervene. That is why we are consulting on whether to remove children’s access to social media entirely.
I can also announce today that we will legislate to prevent the spread of extreme violent content online. We have also made it harder for people to purchase weapons. The Crime and Policing Bill places new controls on the online sale and delivery of knives. We have banned the manufacture, purchase and possession of ninja swords and zombie-style machetes, and earlier this year we published new guidance mandating that any child caught with a knife must be referred to a youth offending team.
In the aftermath of the attack, the Government commissioned Jonathan Hall KC—the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation—to consider the legislative gaps exposed by the attack. That work identified an inconsistency that clearly needed addressing: unlike for terrorist attacks, there is no crime on the statute book for planning an attack without an underlying ideology. Jonathan Hall therefore recommended the creation of a new offence. That legislation will be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.
The inquiry also identifies a wider issue: rising numbers of young men are fascinated by extreme violence—boys whose minds are warped by time spent in isolation online. That is a risk to us all. Where someone is vulnerable to terrorism, they can and should be managed through the Prevent programme. However, where they are not, there is no clear approach to that risk. Today, we publish the terms of reference for the second part of the Southport inquiry, which will face directly into that challenge. Sir Adrian will provide recommendations on the adequacy of the existing arrangements, across all arms of the state, for identifying and managing the risk posed by violence-fixated individuals. He will explore what specific interventions are required to reduce the risk to the public. He will also review the influence of the internet and social media, and the ease with which weapons can be procured. Sir Adrian begins this work immediately, and will present his final recommendations next spring.
In the summer of 2024, an act of unspeakable evil took place in Southport. Nothing will ever heal the pain of those who survive, including the families who suffered unimaginable loss. Responsibility rests with the perpetrator, but there was also responsibility within the family. The perpetrator’s parents knew the risk that he posed but did not co-operate with the authorities. There is also responsibility on the state, and on all of us here, to learn the lessons from failures, wherever they occurred. That lesson is that the failures happened everywhere. We must ensure that we do not find ourselves here again, grieving deaths that would never have happened had the state—and those who work within it—acted differently. That is our task. I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. Let us remember the three victims of this savage attack—Bebe King, aged just six; Elsie Dot Stancombe, aged seven; and Alice da Silva Aguiar, aged nine—and the eight more children and two adults who were seriously injured. I also want to thank Merseyside emergency services, who responded to this event.
As the Home Secretary rightly said, this report identifies very serious repeated failings by public bodies. Sir Adrian said that a
“merry-go-round of referrals, assessments, case-closures and ‘hand-offs’”
meant no agency took the lead or properly addressed the danger Rudakubana posed. Multiple opportunities were missed to prevent this tragedy. Sir Adrian also found that Rudakubana’s parents created
“significant obstructions to constructive engagement.”
Sir Adrian makes important recommendations. I am glad the Home Secretary will respond by the summer, and we on the Conservative Benches will support necessary actions.
During the inquiry, we heard evidence given by Rudakubana’s former headteacher Joanne Hodson. She told the inquiry that she was pressured by mental health services to water down the education, health and care plan to minimise the danger posed by Rudakubana because of his ethnicity. Miss Hodson told the inquiry:
“my efforts to include this information in the EHCP were met with hostility by the father and also by mental health services. Miss Steed”,
who was from child and adolescent mental health services,
“even went as far as to accuse me of racially stereotyping AR as ‘a black boy with a knife’. Nothing could be further from the truth”,
but
“in the end…the wording of the EHCP was re-written in many places”.
This contributed to the clear risks being missed.
The Nottingham inquiry into the three tragic murders there identified exactly the same issue: mental health professionals in Nottingham decided not to section Valdo Calocane because they were concerned about an
“over-representation of young black men in detention”.
Even the Government’s notes on the Mental Health Bill accompanying the King’s Speech refer to that issue.
The fixation with ethnic disproportionality is deeply damaging. Ethnicity should never be a consideration: when an agency is taking steps to protect the public, everybody should simply be treated exactly the same. We cannot allow dangerous individuals to avoid detention for public safety simply because of their ethnicity. Everybody should be treated the same. It would be helpful if the Home Secretary made clear from the Dispatch Box that she agrees with that approach and set out how the Government will change their approach in the future.
Today’s report also makes it clear that Rudakubana’s autism was wrongly allowed to inhibit the way he was dealt with, yet the Government’s King’s Speech notes on the Mental Health Bill again expressly said that people with autism should be sectioned less often. Given the findings of today’s report, will the Government reconsider that?
I also want to raise the aftermath of this tragedy, which saw serious rioting. It is of course important to avoid prejudicing criminal trials. However, as Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said:
“The Government has to be aware…that if there is an information gap…then there are other voices, particularly in social media, who will try and fill it.”
He went on:
“Quite often, there’s a fair amount…that can be put into the public domain”,
and indeed in October, two or three months after the attack but well before the trial, information concerning the al-Qaeda terror manual and ricin was put in the public domain without prejudicing the trial. The failure to provide information created an information vacuum in those early days of August 2024, and that vacuum was filled by untrue speculation online, some of it originating outside the UK, which fuelled the riots. Will the Home Secretary therefore commit to making sure that in future such information is routinely released in cases of public interest?
As the mother of Elsie said at the inquiry, this tragedy must be a “line in the sand.” We owe it to the victims, to the survivors and to their families to learn the lessons from this tragedy and to make sure it never happens again.
Shabana Mahmood
I welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s comments about potentially working together on the changes that need to be made as a result of the inquiry’s initial findings. The Government will respond by the summer, and I look forward to discussions with him and other hon. Members to ensure that the House is united as one in the action that needs to be taken. As he said, that is the very least that we owe the victims’ families and all those who have been affected by this horrific tragedy.
The shadow Home Secretary referred specifically to the testimony of Mrs Hodson, the headteacher. She gave evidence to the inquiry and I believe that her position was vindicated very strongly by the chair in the inquiry’s findings. Let me be absolutely clear: the only factors that should be taken into account are the potential risks posed by an individual and how best to manage those risks. No other factors are relevant. It is clear, in relation not just to Mrs Hodson’s experience but to the failures that existed across a multiplicity of public agencies, that at the heart of the problem was a failure to assess appropriately the risk that the perpetrator posed to others. He managed to slip through the cracks because no one agency took responsibility for the assessment of that risk, and ultimately for the managing of the risk that the perpetrator posed to others. Those are the only factors that should ever be taken into account. I will be working closely with Ministers from other Departments as we formulate our full response to the inquiry’s findings and set out our expectations of professionals, not just in health but in other public services.
On the diagnosis of autism, in his report Sir Adrian made it clear that it would be
“wrong to make a general association between autism and an increased risk of violent harm to others.”
However, he also found that the way that the perpetrator’s autism manifested itself increased the risk of harm that he posed to others. That shows the absolute importance of taking a case-by-case approach, making sure that all factors are adequately taken into account and that agencies take responsibility for how that risk is to be managed. Again, there are good lessons to learn for health practitioners and others in our local services when it comes to assessment of risk and how it is best managed.
On issues relating to communications after the attack took place, especially at the point when a lot of misinformation was being spread, particularly online, the shadow Home Secretary will know that there has already been a change in practice, having learned the lessons of what happened. There was a well-meaning desire to ensure that nothing was done that might prejudice a trial, but exactly how the rules are applied can be a matter of interpretation and degree. The College of Policing has already created new professional practice in its guidance for police officers, there is already a new Crown Prosecution Service and media protocol, and we are developing a new charter between criminal justice agencies and the media to ensure that whatever information that can be readily and easily be made available is made available at the earliest opportunity. It will always be incredibly important that nothing is done that might prejudice a trial, but I know that the shadow Home Secretary will acknowledge that since this horrific attack there has already been a change in approach to communications by the Government and other agencies. In other instances and cases, the Government and other agencies have made much more information available to the media, and therefore to the public.
I know that the inquiry’s findings and the phase 2 report will be of great interest to Members across the House. I look forward to working not just with the official Opposition but with Members from all parties to ensure that the House is as one in the response to this horrific tragedy—that is what we owe all the victims of this case.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. My constituents expect Prevent to keep them safe, so can she reiterate what changes she will make to Prevent, as the Home Secretary in this Government, to help to stop an attack like this happening in the future?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point about the reliance that all of us place on the Prevent programme. We should rightly be able to place that reliance on the programme and ensure that it is as strong as it possibly can be when it comes to preventing tragedies, diverting people away from potentially committing a terrorist act and driving them away from extremism more broadly.
We have already been delivering a number of improvements to the Prevent programme. There is new statutory guidance, improved training, new case management systems and much stronger interventions for people who are already on the programme. We also have a strengthened approach to managing repeat referrals; where there are a number of referrals, which individually might not have led to an onward referral to the Channel stream, the cumulative impact is now being taken into account. There is also a much more robust risk assessment tool. The totality of the changes that we have already made has put the programme in a much stronger position, but in learning of the findings from this inquiry, we will take more action as necessary.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. It is truly heartbreaking to know that there were so many missed opportunities to stop the Southport attack. My thoughts today are with the bereaved families whose young daughters were so cruelly taken from them and with the many other victims who suffered unimaginable trauma that day. We owe it to them to make every attempt to prevent a senseless attack like this from ever happening again.
The report lays bare that agency after agency failed to step up and take ownership of the risks that the perpetrator posed. There are monumental failures across a number of authorities, from the police, Prevent and NHS mental health services to children’s social care, youth offending services and the perpetrator’s parents. That is simply not acceptable. Will the Home Secretary confirm how soon she plans to report back on whether the Government will accept all 67 recommendations? Will she commit to providing Parliament with an update on progress every six months?
Today’s report exposes serious oversights by online giants that allowed the perpetrator to collect an arsenal of weapons without effective age verification checks. Will the Home Secretary confirm whether the recently published knife crime strategy will address the ease with which knives are available for purchase online? Will it crack down on big tech companies, like Amazon, that are putting profit above protocol when it comes to the sale of dangerous items?
Finally, the Liberal Democrats have long argued that Prevent is not fit for purpose. It is deeply shocking that the perpetrator was referred three times yet no further action was taken. We understand that was because he did not possess a specific ideology—well, there should be no clearer sign of a system unable to address modern threats. Will the Home Secretary today commit to a full overhaul of Prevent within this Parliament so that future warning signs are not missed? Will she also commit to bringing forward the legislation recommended by Jonathan Hall KC in the next King’s Speech?
Shabana Mahmood
The Liberal Democrat spokeswoman is absolutely right; the sheer number of missed opportunities in this case is truly horrifying. That is why we must do everything we can to reform all these systems in our public services to make sure that no such incident can happen again.
There will be a comprehensive response from the Government on all of the inquiry’s phase 1 recommendations. I intend for that to come before the summer so the House will have an opportunity to debate it. As we move to delivery of the Government’s response to the recommendations, I will keep the House updated on our progress, including on where potential future legislation might be needed.
In the Crime and Policing Bill, which is continuing its passage through Parliament, we have introduced new age verification checks both at the point of sale and at the point of delivery of knives. That is a way of directly responding to some of the issues we have seen in this case, whereby the perpetrator was able to slip through the system. That should not be possible in the future once the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and is implemented.
Let me turn to the question of the threat posed by those who are fixated by violence but do not necessarily have an ideology, by those who have a mixed ideology, or by those who flit between having an ideology and not having one; there is a developing, complex picture of the sorts of threats that we face. We have made it very clear that those who have no fixed ideology but are vulnerable to terrorism are still, and should be, referred to the Prevent programme. That remains the lead programme for dealing with the risk posed by those individuals.
The inquiry recognises that there is a gap through which those who do not have a fixed ideology and are not vulnerable to terrorism might slip. Phase 2 of the inquiry will consider how best to respond to those sorts of cases, and will make recommendations on who should take the lead on dealing with those individuals, but I want to assure the hon. Lady and all Members of the House that the Government are not simply waiting for phase 2 to report. We are already trialling with a number of local authorities a new approach for those who are below the threshold for Prevent, but who present a risk that we are concerned about and who we believe might pose a risk of harm to others. We are thinking about different ways in which agencies might handle that risk in order to make sure those individuals do not slip through the net. As we learn lessons from those pilots, we will seek to start implementing them, while we wait, of course, for Sir Adrian Fulford and the inquiry team to come forward with fuller recommendations in this area in future.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and place on record my sympathies for the families of Alice, Elsie and Bebe, who are living with the most unimaginable loss.
The Southport attack has been ruled a “disaster waiting to happen” after the perpetrator was referred to Prevent on three separate occasions, and Sir Adrian Fulford has highlighted other multi-agency failings. On 20 June 2020, my constituents Gary and Jan Furlong lost their son James, who was murdered during the Forbury Gardens terrorist attack—I am also thinking of them today. Like Southport, the perpetrator of the Forbury Gardens attack had been referred to Prevent four separate times, and multi-agency failures were also highlighted by Sir Adrian Fulford. Like the deaths of Alice, Elsie and Bebe, the deaths of James Furlong, Dr David Wails and Joseph Ritchie-Bennett were ruled to have been “probably avoidable”.
I acknowledge that it will take some time to go through the 67 recommendations that have been made in respect of Southport. However, can the Home Secretary advise the House on whether, despite the improvements to Prevent that she has outlined today, she actually believes that it is fit for purpose? She said in her statement that
“We must ensure we do not find ourselves here again, grieving deaths which should never have happened, had the state, and those who work within it, acted differently”,
but the fact is that we are here again, and we are here time and time again after multi-agency failures. Can the Home Secretary immediately take steps in respect of joined-up partnership working, and outline to us what those steps will be, in order to ensure that no other family has to endure such loss?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for what she has just said, and associate myself with her remarks about the victims of the Forbury Gardens attack—about those who died and their families. She is absolutely right that we have been here far too many times. This must be a moment of change, and I am very hopeful that with such a thorough report from Sir Adrian Fulford, with such clear, practical recommendations for action to prevent such a tragedy from occurring in the future, we can and will make progress. As I know she will accept, that is the very least that we owe all the families, and I look forward to working with colleagues across the House to implement recommendations as we move forward. We all have to do more, and Government agencies all have to do more as well.
I assure my hon. Friend that I am standing up a taskforce to bring together all Government Ministers with relevant responsibilities, to make sure we begin work immediately on improving the systems and processes that are in place at the moment and that we are not simply waiting for the final phase of the inquiry to report—there will be more progress. We have taken steps to reform Prevent. I know that the Prevent strategy and the work it does has been of interest in this House for many years, and has been scrutinised very thoroughly. An intervention programme of this kind is always going to have to move very quickly to deal with changing threat patterns—for example, the way that Islamist extremism might have presented in the era of Daesh and ISIL in Syria becoming prominent is different from how it presents now—and practitioners have to be able to adapt as quickly as the presentation of extremist ideologies is developing. It will always be a work in progress, because the nature of the threat is changing so quickly and regularly. That is something we should acknowledge. However, we can and will have strong mechanisms in place to make sure that the programme does the job we all know it needs to do.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
As a consultant paediatrician, I have to undertake Prevent training at regular intervals. On each one of those occasions, I have raised with Ministers my concerns about either the quality or emphasis of that training, or both. Can the Home Secretary say whether she feels that in this particular situation, the problem was mostly that the perpetrator did not conform to the usual patterns that people were being trained to spot; that people were being badly trained; that people were not using their training diligently; or that the actions once the case had been reported were not followed through? Which does she think was the major factor?
Shabana Mahmood
I would be happy to hear the hon. Lady’s personal experiences of the quality of that training. I think this is the first time that she and I have had an interaction on this matter, so I would be very happy to pick those issues up with her offline.
On the substance of the hon. Lady’s point, we must follow the findings of the inquiry’s chair, who said that there were five major failures in this case, including that no single agency took ownership of the risk that the perpetrator posed, that there was poor information recording and management, and that the behaviour was sometimes excused on the basis of the perpetrator’s perceived or diagnosed autism spectrum disorder. There were a range of factors in place, and we should follow the evidence and the findings of the inquiry’s chair. We will respond based on the failures that have been found.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
All of our thoughts today are with the families of Alice, Bebe and Elsie. They have already suffered the most horrific loss, and to have confirmation today from Sir Adrian Fulford that their loss was preventable is utterly unbearable. Sir Adrian’s report highlights the failure of the multi-agency safeguarding hub, which was exactly the place where joint responsibility between different agencies should have been held, and he also said that children’s services were not well equipped to manage a risk presented by a young person, as distinct from risks to a young person. Can I therefore ask the Home Secretary what plans she has to work with the Department for Education and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that, as a matter of urgency, every professional working with high-risk young people knows exactly what to do when they are fearful that a young person is a risk to others, and is accountable for taking that action?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend notes one of the key failures, which related to the question of who the risk was to. In this case, too many of the internal assessments were of the risk to the perpetrator himself, not the risk that he posed to others. That must change, and Sir Adrian Fulford will make practical recommendations for the individual agencies, but his report speaks to the need for a cultural shift in the way in which these cases are looked at and managed. That will be a cultural shift for colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education, as well as those in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Where a Prevent referral is made because there is a vulnerability to terrorism, there are already systems in place that would enable those risk assessments to be made on the basis of risk posed to others. Of course, in this case, the onward referral to Channel should have been made, but it was not. However, we have to make sure that even where an onward referral to Channel does not take place and somebody does not quite meet the threshold for Prevent, they are still picked up, and that that cultural shift for dealing with risk—for its management and assessment—takes into account all of the findings that Sir Adrian Fulford has made.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and for the way in which she is promoting learning rather than blaming, because that is the best way to get the change we need. I also thank her for her robust response to the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), about the point he raised, and for the point she is now making about the requirement for a cultural shift. Can she take a close interest in this? Not many leaders in many organisations understand that it means changing the attitudes and behaviours of individuals in their organisations—it is not just about setting a policy. It requires a very concerted act of leadership, alongside diligence and consistency, as well as making sure that those who do not want to make that change are eased out of their positions and that there are no promotions for those people who do not respect and demonstrate the changed attitudes and behaviours that are required. This is a big ask, and does not often happen in the public service.
Shabana Mahmood
It is a big ask, and I am very clear that this must be a moment of change. I do not want to be standing here with a future tragedy, saying the same things that have been said in response to what happened in Southport. We owe the families a true moment of change in how public services are delivered. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: a cultural shift is critical for making onward progress, including for agencies that do not normally consider the risk posed to others, because they are primarily concerned with the risk of harm a person poses to themselves and their clinical need, which is different from the wider societal need to protect others from harm.
That is something the Government will now have to look at closely, to bring forward real change within our health service, within education and within local government. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I will take a close personal interest in that because, at the end of the day, preventing harm and keeping our people safe is my responsibility. I will make sure we do everything we can to have those mechanisms as robust as possible for people who meet the threshold for being dealt with through the Prevent strategy and onward referral to Channel. Where people are below that threshold, we still need an answer as a society. I will take a close interest in that myself.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I know that the thoughts of the whole House are with the families, as are mine. One of the many aspects of what has gone wrong here relates to children’s mental health services. Will the Home Secretary please outline what we are doing about the workforce in children’s mental health services? There is a real shortage of people who are skilled in that area.
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government have already taken steps to shore up the provision of mental health services within the national health service, and I am joined today on the Front Bench by colleagues from the Department of Health and Social Care. I know they are listening closely and will be absorbing the findings that Sir Adrian Fulford has made in phase 1 of his inquiry. I will be working with all Ministers across Government before we formulate our fuller response to all 67 recommendations, but let me assure my hon. Friend that the provision of mental health services will be critical to the work that the Government do as a result of this inquiry.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The Home Secretary’s statement confirms the core failure that when everyone was responsible, no one was accountable, and we have seen that pattern before. We saw the same passing of the buck in safeguarding, in grooming gang cases and in mental health. We have heard today about reviews, frameworks and guidance, but not about enforcement. Can the Home Secretary tell this House plainly what consequences will follow if recommendations are not followed to the letter?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is right that it is one thing to bring about changes and to change professional practice, but that these things should be enforced properly. When the Government respond in full before the summer to all 67 recommendations, I will lay out our expectations. It is important to recognise that Sir Adrian Fulford does not make individual findings of fact in terms of individuals and those failings, because there was such widespread system failure. It is right that in the first instance the Government look at the wider systems we have in place, but ultimately, if there are failures within those systems, including individual failures, there should be accountability.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement today and for her continued leadership on this issue. Can I join the whole House in sending my sympathies not only to the victims, but to their families? This was a dreadful crime, and I am sure that any parent in the Chamber will be, like me, rightly appalled by it. Having worked in education and in the charity sector, I saw an awful amount of buck passing when it came to mental health support and safeguarding issues. My view was always, “If in doubt, report it.” In this case, things were reported, but they were not taken forward, which is hugely concerning. Can the Home Secretary assure me that this buck passing, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Hussain), will stop and that there will be accountability and people will be held responsible for these issues?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend raises an important point. He is absolutely right that the failure of any one organisation or group of individuals to take responsibility for the perpetrator is one of the key failures in this case. Phase 2 of the inquiry will consider the best mechanism for managing people who pose these sorts of risks going forward, and recommendations will be made about the proper structure that should be brought forward. Where somebody meets the Prevent threshold, Prevent will remain the lead institution for referrals. That referral and onward progression to the Channel stream should have happened here. If it had, we would be in a different position today. For those who do not fall within that threshold, we will need a wider system response. As I have said, I am trialling pilots in different local authorities to look at different approaches for what we might do with those individuals who are below the threshold. In the end, Sir Adrian Fulford’s work will give us the new framework and some guidance on the best agency to take the lead in different cases. When an agency takes the lead, or even if they are convening all the other agencies, there is an obvious form of accountability. That is how multi-agency safeguarding hubs should work but sometimes do not. Those are the key areas where lessons need to be learned.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Does she plan to provide any additional resource or funding to the Prevent programme? If so, does she have any initial idea as to where that may be targeted?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. When the Government respond in full to the recommendations, I will set out any resource implications not just for the work of the Home Office, but for other agencies.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I join the Home Secretary in commending the bravery of victims in coming forward to give evidence to this inquiry. We owe it to them to make this a turning point and to make certain that the systemic failures and culture that made this attack possible are fixed and can never be repeated. Many of us in this House will recognise from the report the difficulties in accessing CAMHS, the ambiguities in responsibility and massive under-resourcing of this vital service. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this moment calls for nothing less than a revolution in how children’s mental health services are commissioned and resourced?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. There are recommendations for different Departments, including Health, to take forward, and I will be working closely with Ministers from across Government as we design our response to Sir Adrian’s recommendations. Violence fixation, the descent into nihilism and fascination with extreme violence demand a new public policy response from all of Government, particularly for those children who would not necessarily meet a test for clinical need, but who absolutely do pose a risk of serious harm to other people.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
When I heard the news this morning and the catalogue of failures and missed opportunities were read out—including the focus and attention there was on this murder, yet he was allowed to get away—my heart went out to the families of those three wee girls whose murder could have been avoided, yet the opportunity was missed. Time and again in this House, over the time I have been here, I have heard of individual child abuse cases, rape gangs and mass murder, and on each occasion there was failure by public bodies and individuals in public bodies to prevent what happened. Unfortunately—it has been highlighted here again today—there seems to be this attitude that if there is colour or ethnicity involved, the fear of racism is an additional factor. I welcome the Secretary of State’s assurances today, but given how deeply this attitude is embedded in the public sector, what steps does she intend to take to make sure that this does not happen again and that those who are responsible for these decisions are held to account?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman is right that the report of the inquiry makes for horrifying reading. The recommendations are incredibly important. The Government will respond in full by the summer, and we will take forward practical work to ensure that we strengthen all our systems so that this cannot occur again. I repeat that the only thing that matters—the only relevant factor—when we have a person who is violence-fixated and has a fascination with extreme violence is the risk they pose, the assessment of that risk, and the steps to mitigate that risk. No other factor should be taken into account by any agencies. The most important thing is that we keep people safe and that we do not allow other irrelevant considerations to play any part. The inquiry made findings in relation to Mrs Hodson, the headteacher, and I agree with and endorse Sir Adrian Fulford’s findings.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Home Secretary will be aware, there are 28 Prevent priority areas across the country—there used to be 40, and Stoke-on-Trent was one of them until 2023, when the last Government changed the criteria. She will also know that for an area to become a Prevent priority area, the local authority normally has to demonstrate that it is a hotspot for either right-wing extremism or Islamist activity—or, in the chequered past of my own city, both. If Jonathan Hall’s legislative suggestions come into force and there is a new offence of non-ideologically based fixation with violence, how does the Home Secretary see that playing into the Prevent priority areas, given that the locality will be much more difficult to consider? Following the events of August 2024, when there were riots in Stoke-on-Trent, has she given any thought to whether any recommendations for where new funding should go to help deal with some of these issues should take account of the places where there was rioting at that time—particularly places, such as Stoke-on-Trent, that do not currently qualify for Prevent priority funding?
Shabana Mahmood
Once phase 2 of the inquiry has concluded—especially when it comes to the proper mechanism by which we deal with some of these violence-fixated individuals—there will of course be knock-on consequences for the wider counter-extremism system. It would not be right for me to get ahead of that, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I am well aware that both the current and the future work of the inquiry will require further clarity on exactly where responsibilities sit. I believe that the Prevent programme will continue to play an incredibly important role and will remain our main tool for countering extremism, although I am sure there will be more we can do to strengthen its ability in that regard. However, as I have said, there will be knock-on consequences in other parts of the system, including funding consequences. I will be able to set out more of the Government’s response on that when we respond fully to the inquiry’s recommendations, but I think that as phase 2 gets under way, some of the real meat of the new policy responses that are needed for violence-fixated children will emerge.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
A young person who is at risk of harming others will often become known to a teacher, a social worker or a health worker before any other agency is aware of that risk, but statutory requirements make it very difficult to report on a young person who is below a certain age. Will the Home Secretary work on the introduction of multi-agency, multi-departmental changes to establish, above all else, a statutory requirement for teachers, health workers, councils and others to bring forth young people who are under age if they pose a risk? Currently, many agencies are afraid to come forward because they believe that there is a statutory requirement to protect the child, rather than to report a potential risk to others.
Shabana Mahmood
Phase 2 will consider how we deal with, and what is the correct public policy response to, children who are violence-fixated. One of the horrifying developments of the last few years is the number of children—ever younger children—who are fascinated with extreme violence, and have a nihilistic approach to it. That is shocking, and I have seen cases involving very young children. There must be an adequate public policy response that is able to counter this descent into violence fixation, and to do so effectively. That is the meat of the work that will be done in phase 2, and we will of course follow closely all of the recommendations that are made.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Like those of others, my thoughts and prayers are with the victims of the horrific attack in Southport. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken to address what can only be described as a very challenging environment. Only two weeks ago, I visited the Islamic Jami Community and Education Centre in Kingstanding, along with the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), because we share a constituency boundary. The building had been attacked a few weeks into the month of Ramadan, and then attacked again with vile vandalism and graffiti. Those attending the institution were clearly very anxious, but members of the community also came out to support the local Muslims. Will the Home Secretary join me in commending not only the actions of West Midlands police, who acted very swiftly, but those of the various faith groups who came together? They do not just come together in solidarity when an incident such as this occurs; they are also the very backbone when it comes to identifying any form of extremism within our communities.
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the solidarity between people from different communities. We do not often talk about it in the House—we tend to do so only when a horrifying incident has taken place—but it is indeed the backbone of the way in which we function as a society. I pay tribute to all those who spend their time working with people from backgrounds that are different from theirs, in terms of either race or faith, to hold our communities and ultimately our nation together.
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the overall threat picture shows a very challenging environment. The issues with which we are dealing today relate to someone with no fixed ideology who was clearly vulnerable to terrorism and had a fixation with extreme violence. We see that running alongside the more traditional, well-known and understood elements of extremism, such as Islamist or extreme right-wing terrorism, but even within those better understood forms of extremism, we see that the pattern is changing. It is always evolving and developing, which poses a challenge to all the practitioners who must try to keep up with the way in which extremism is presenting itself in our communities. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that that work is as robust as possible, and to taking every possible step to counter extremism in all its forms.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Home Secretary for her very positive statement. Let me also associate myself with the events of a year ago, when the nation mourned for those three children. I think that every one of us recognised the horror of what took place, and our prayers and our thoughts are very much with the families even today, and especially with the parents. I think that is how we all feel.
This is a very full report, and I commend the author for his determination to ensure that political correctness did not influence it. It is clear that a sea change is required in departments so that they are less concerned about offending people and more concerned about protecting our innocents. What lessons can be learned to inform new procedures to ensure that there is accountability in the intelligence and security services in particular?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is right: it is cultural change that is needed, and that is what Sir Adrian Fulford’s initial recommendations in phase 1 were designed to bring about, along with practical measures to change the way in which risk is assessed and ultimately mitigated. The Government will respond fully to those recommendations, and will bring together every part of Government—every part of the state—to ensure that people are doing all that they should be doing to assess risk, because the only factors that matter relate to the risk posed by an individual to other people of significant harm of the type that we have seen in this case. The Government will ensure that that happens in the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement this afternoon.
Southport Inquiry: Phase 1 Report and Phase 2 Terms of Reference
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
On 7 April 2025, the then Secretary of State for the Home Department announced the establishment of an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, to be chaired by the right hon. Sir Adrian Fulford. This inquiry was to examine the appalling events that took place at a children’s dance class in Southport on 29 July 2024.
Three young girls were tragically murdered on that day, Elsie Dot Stancombe, Alice da Silva Aguiar and Bebe King, and many more were seriously harmed. Our thoughts remain with the families who have suffered such devastating loss, as well as those who survived the attack but live with the lasting physical and psychological impact.
The chair has today published his findings from the first phase of this inquiry, which provides a detailed account of the events leading up to the attack, and the attack itself. The inquiry examined the perpetrator’s history and interactions with a range of state systems including policing and criminal justice, education, health and social care, as well as considering the account of all those who were impacted by the attack.
The findings point to missed opportunities which could have stopped this attack from occurring. They indicate systematic failures, structural gaps, and a lack of ownership of the risk from the many agencies involved. The inquiry also highlights how agencies failed to adequately share information and take all the facts about the risk the perpetrator posed to the community into consideration, which ultimately meant that his risk was not managed effectively.
Sir Adrian has examined these issues thoroughly, and I welcome his recommendations. The Government are determined to learn the lessons identified by the inquiry and to take the necessary action to reduce the risk of such an attack happening again. I must thank the chair, his team, and all those that took part in the inquiry, for the speed, rigour and professionalism with which they have conducted their work.
The Government will consider the report and its recommendations and will respond in full later this summer. Alongside this, the Government will respond to the recommendations made by the Prevent commissioner, Lord Anderson KC, in his “Lessons for Prevent” report, which examined Prevent’s role in the Southport attack and the murder of Sir David Amess.
While the first phase of the inquiry has looked specifically at the failings in this case, it has identified wider gaps in how to address the risk from individuals who hold a fascination with extreme violence. Following consultation with the chair and those most affected by this attack, I am today publishing the terms of reference for the second phase of the Southport inquiry.
I have asked the chair in phase 2 to examine the adequacy of arrangements for identifying and managing the risk posed by individuals who are fixated with extreme violence. The inquiry will consider the role of multi-agency management, the interventions needed to reduce risk to the public, the effectiveness of laws around knives and weapons, and the extent to which the internet and social media are influencing and enabling people to carry out violent attacks.
This next phase of the inquiry will begin immediately and is expected to report in spring 2027. A copy of the terms of reference for phase 2 of the Southport inquiry will be placed in the Library of each House.
The Government will provide the inquiry with the resources it needs to complete this next phase and will fully support the chair in the discharge of his duties. We will continue to engage with those affected by the events in Southport, to ensure that their questions are answered, and their views are heard, as this next stage commences.
[HCWS1497]
Oral Answers to Questions
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
As the right hon. Gentleman may know, data on immigration status and crime was not recorded under the last Government. We have a new programme that will improve data collection, and we have strong local relationships with police and local authorities to ensure that the full force of the law will apply to anyone breaking our laws.
Sir Edward Leigh
The Home Secretary knows perfectly well how much it worries and infuriates people that people can enter this country illegally and commit crimes, and that there is no proper vetting procedure before they are unloosed on society. To reassure our own citizens, will she ensure that everybody who enters this country illegally is detained and fully vetted, and, as most of their asylum claims are bogus anyway, perhaps deal with their asylum claims while they are in detention and then deport them to protect our own people?
Shabana Mahmood
I recognise the public concern around criminality. That is why this Government are working closely with all our partners to improve data collection and have a risk-based approach so that we can manage those individuals who pose the highest risk on our immigration estate. I gently say that the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestions for how we deal with those who seek to come to our country illegally, primarily through channel crossings, would have had more force if his Government had succeeded in stopping those boats, as they often claimed that they would but utterly failed to do so. This Government are using a number of approaches to try to get to grips with illegal migration and will be bringing forward further changes to the House in due course.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The way to deal with any asylum seeker—or, indeed, any migrant—who commits a crime, is to remove them from the country. That is why it is good to see that removals of foreign national offenders have gone up 40% from what was left under the previous Government. The way we deal with crime in communities is by reinvigorating neighbourhood policing and supporting our police. Does the Home Secretary agree that those are two areas where this Home Office is clearing up the mess left behind by the previous Government?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right. It is one of many areas where we are cleaning up the multiple messes left by the previous Conservative Government. He is right to note that the removal of foreign national offenders has increased hugely under this Government and will continue to do so. Removals from this country are at nearly 60,000 since we have been in office. They will continue to rise.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I recently met Siobhan Whyte, the mother of Rhiannon. Rhiannon was brutally murdered by Sudanese illegal immigrant Deng Majek, who stabbed Rhiannon 23 times. Majek arrived by small boat in late July 2024. As the Home Secretary will know, small boat crossings since the election have gone up by 45%. Majek would have been among the first eligible for removal to Rwanda, so Siobhan wants me to ask the Home Secretary this: why did the Government cancel the Rwanda scheme just before it was due to start? If Majek had been removed to Rwanda, Rhiannon would still be alive today.
Shabana Mahmood
Let me say, first and foremost, that the murder of Rhiannon Whyte was an abhorrent, horrifying crime and our thoughts, and I know those of the whole House, are with her loved ones. The vile criminal responsible for her murder is behind bars where he belongs, and he has rightly received the strictest punishment of a life sentence. I do not wish to play politics with personal tragedy and Government policy, but the right hon. Gentleman will know that, as we have discussed across the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, the Rwanda policy was a gimmick. Hundreds of millions of pounds were spent, with only four removals made from this country. His Government knew that they were already running into problems with that scheme. This Government have focused on measures that we believe will deal with the problems we are facing. It is taking some time, but they are the right measures and they will get to grips with the problem that he left behind.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Before I give my answer, I want to pay my respects to PC Bradley Corke, who sadly lost his life yesterday in the line of duty. My thoughts and those of the whole House, I am sure, are with his family and friends.
On the matter of police efficiency, we must seize the opportunity to transform policing through technology. Through the creation of a national police service, we will invest £115 million in artificial intelligence and automation, saving 6 million policing hours every year.
Dr Gardner
Live facial recognition technology is being deployed across the country to support the police to prevent and detect crime. While I recognise the importance of improving police efficiency, we have also seen a number of wrongful arrests linked to the use of live facial recognition systems, and only last week one police force paused the use of facial recognition due to racial bias. In the light of that, will the Secretary of State reassure the House that deployment, oversight and auditing of facial recognition technologies are subject to robust and transparent safeguards, and will she state when the facial recognition framework will be published?
Shabana Mahmood
I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. We are absolutely clear that police forces must comply with data protection, human rights, equality and other relevant laws. This means that the police can use live facial recognition only for targeted, intelligence-led and time-bound deployments to locate specific individuals on a watchlist, such as wanted offenders or people who may pose a risk of serious harm. My hon. Friend knows that we have consulted on a legal framework on how and when law enforcement should use biometrics and facial recognition. The consultation is closed, and we are going through the responses now. We will bring forward proposals to the House in due course.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Police efficiency is the argument being used to propose the merger of Lancashire and Cumbria police forces, something which I strongly oppose. Lancashire is a wonderful county, but it is a county that has many urban centres with larger populations. Does the Home Secretary agree that there is a real risk that the people of Cumbria will see our police officers being drawn down to those larger, more populous places in Lancashire and that it would be wise to call off the merger?
Shabana Mahmood
There are no planned mergers. An independent review is being carried out by Lord Hogan-Howe. That review will advise the Government on the right number of regional forces to have. This is part of our plan to change policing so that we have a national police service, regional forces and local police areas that are able to police their local communities. Those are the proposals that have been announced. When Lord Hogan-Howe’s review reports, I am sure we will be able to debate what he proposes for regional forces, but I can reassure the hon. Member that local police areas will be a key part of the reforms as they are rolled out and will deal with exactly the problems that he has raised.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
I want to address the terrible scenes in Golders Green last night, where four Jewish community ambulances were set on fire. Mercifully, no one was hurt. For that, we owe our thanks to the police and fire services, which responded with speed and professionalism. An investigation is under way. The Metropolitan police are treating this as an antisemitic hate crime, and have stepped up their support to Jewish communities across London. The fact that the attack was directed at Hatzola, a community ambulance service and an institution devoted to saving lives, illustrates how warped those behind the attack are.
I am pleased that the Health Secretary is providing replacement ambulances, but clearly justice is required. There have, as yet, been no arrests, but the perpetrators must be in no doubt: we will pursue them and make them face the consequences of this wicked crime. I urge anyone with information to contact the police, who have the full support of my Department. The incident comes at a time of soaring antisemitism in our country, and today my message to our Jewish community is clear: we stand with you, we will do everything in our power to protect you, and we will fight relentlessly to rid our society of antisemitism.
Mary Kelly Foy
I congratulate Maya’s law campaigners, particularly Maya’s great-aunts Gemma and Rachael, on their passion and tenacity in lobbying MPs to support their campaign to improve child protection laws in the UK. Does the Minister agree with me that it is unforgiveable for someone who is supposed to look after a child to hurt them instead? Will the Minister ensure that the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) has secured on Maya’s law receives the full support of the Government?
Shabana Mahmood
The circumstances outlined by my hon. Friend are obviously horrifying. It is abhorrent for anyone entrusted with the care of a child to cause harm to them. I assure her that the Government will absolutely engage fully and constructively with the debate that she mentions.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I have come to the House directly from Golders Green, where I have visited the scene of the appalling attack on the Hatzola ambulance service. I strongly urge the Home Secretary to visit as well. I thank the police, fire service and Hatzola volunteers for their response in the early hours of this morning. The members of the Jewish community who I spoke to this morning in Golders Green feel under attack, so what more can the Home Secretary say about the Government’s plans to protect the Jewish community, including potentially by using counter-terrorism-style surveillance powers to identify and disrupt antisemitic attacks before they occur? Does the Home Secretary agree that calls on our streets at marches for jihad and intifada are calls for violence that fuel antisemitism, and does she agree that they should no longer be allowed? Finally, will she ensure that all antisemites and extremists who are not British citizens get deported?
Shabana Mahmood
I assure the shadow Home Secretary and, most importantly, the whole of the British Jewish community—not just those in Golders Green—that this Government take the rise in antisemitism that we have seen across our country very seriously. We are approaching this issue with a whole-of-Government response. My colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are all taking forward the Government’s social cohesion action plan and taking specific measures to tackle antisemitic hate crime. There must be zero tolerance of antisemitism; I know that across this House, there is unanimity on that, from all Members. The shadow Home Secretary knows that we have an independent review on public order and hate crime legislation. We will bring forward more proposals in due course, but we will never tolerate antisemitism in our country.
Chris Philp
I will pursue these questions with the Security Minister, when he gives his statement later.
Media reports suggest that the Home Secretary is under pressure from the former Deputy Prime Minister on her indefinite leave to remain policy, so will the Home Secretary tell the House who is running the Government’s immigration policy now? Is it her, or is it the former Deputy Prime Minister? Will the Home Secretary confirm to the House now—
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to Members on both Front Benches that these are topical questions, and Members from all parties are waiting to ask them. I gave the shadow Home Secretary a lot of leeway during his first question; he has already asked one, and is coming in with another. That is not acceptable to any of the Back-Bench Members who I am trying to look after. Please ask one question during topicals. There will be a statement shortly on the subject that he asked about. It is a very important issue, and I am very concerned about it, but I have to allow Back Benchers time to ask their questions. It is unfair of Members on the Front Benches to take up that time.
Shabana Mahmood
I have almost forgotten the shadow Home Secretary’s question, but the assertion he just made is absolute rubbish. He knows that the Government have already said that we will consult on the changes that we wish to make, and I will bring forward those proposals in due course.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to community sponsorship of refugees who come here under proposed new safe and legal routes; we have several good examples of that in my constituency. What steps is she taking, in line with the recent asylum policy statement, to allow more communities like mine to sponsor refugees and support the Government’s safe and legal routes programme?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. and learned Friend knows that we have announced three specific types of safe and legal route for students and workers, as well as a community sponsorship scheme. The student scheme will go live later this year, with the first applicants arriving in the autumn of next year. We are designing the community sponsorship route with community organisations and international partners. I am sure that he will want to make representations on what his community wants to contribute to the new routes, but the design is under way, and the routes will be rolled out in due course.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has been commendably robust in her response to antisemitism and attacks on Jewish institutions, particularly since the two members of the congregation at Heaton Park synagogue were killed. After that attack, the Macdonald inquiry was set up to look into hate crime and public order. I think this afternoon is the first time that we have heard that that inquiry is not going to report until May, when it was promised for February this year. Can the Home Secretary speed it up, please?
Shabana Mahmood
It is an independent review. I am in constant discussion with Lord Macdonald, who has requested a short extension in order to deal with the matters comprehensively. It is right that the independent review has the time it needs, but it will be brought forward very soon.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Protest Policing
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on public order.
The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Mark Rowley, has requested a prohibition on processions relating to al-Quds Day under section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986. I have consented to that request, placing a ban on those processions for both protesters and counter-protesters that will now last for a month. This is the first ban since 2012, so I wish to explain to the House today why I have done so.
It is important that we start with the context. Initiated by Iran’s then leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, in 1979, al-Quds Day is an event held on the last Friday of Ramadan. The day is marked worldwide by rallies and demonstrations in support of Palestine, including here in Britain. Plans for a procession this Sunday in London have been led by the Islamic Human Rights Commission, an organisation that has been closely associated with the Iranian regime. Of course, this year’s event interacts with the ongoing conflict in the middle east. It comes at a time when the Iranian regime is attacking British forces and bases, as well as those of our allies. It also comes just days after the arrest of four individuals as part of an investigation led by counter-terror police. Those individuals were arrested under the National Security Act 2023 for allegedly spying on Jewish communities on behalf of the Iranian regime.
This context creates clear challenges for the police: heightened attention and therefore larger expected attendance, and heightened tensions between protesters and counter-protesters and therefore greater potential for conflict. The expertise on whether and how those challenges can be safely managed rightly sits with the police, and the legal test is clear. Any request to prohibit a procession must only be lodged with the aim of preventing serious public disorder that could not otherwise be prevented by imposing other conditions on a public procession under section 12 of the Public Order Act. Section 12 conditions typically include specifying the route, location and times of a protest. Under normal circumstances, they are sufficient to ensure protests remain peaceful and the public are kept safe.
However, the commissioner has clearly stated that the Metropolitan police’s view is that serious public disorder cannot be avoided unless a prohibition under section 13 is introduced. That assessment is grounded in the tensions created by international conflict, the scale of the expected march, and the presence of protesters and multiple counter-protesting groups all seeking to march at once.
My first duty is to keep the public safe. Having carefully and thoroughly considered the risk assessment presented to me by the Metropolitan police, I am satisfied that an order under section 13 is necessary. For one month, there will therefore be a prohibition on processions in London related to al-Quds Day involving protesters and counter-protesters, which will come into effect today and end on 11 April. Should the commissioner consider that a further extension is required, he will be able to make a further submission at that time.
I must be clear about what this prohibition does not do. The police and the Home Secretary only have the power to prohibit a public procession. Section 13 cannot be used to ban a static protest, referred to in the legislation as a “public assembly”. Should a static demonstration proceed this weekend, the police will not be able to stop it. Instead, they will be able to impose conditions, such as dictating the precise location and timing. People will therefore be able to exercise their right to peaceful protest, although the full force of the law will be enforced if hate crimes, or other crimes, are committed.
Today’s announcement is confined to specific circumstances, but I know that it will excite scrutiny of the wider issue of policing protests. The House will be aware that I have appointed Lord Macdonald of River Glaven to carry out an independent review of public order and hate crime legislation. His review is ongoing, and I will update the House on its findings at the earliest possible moment. I do, however, want to make a wider point about the right to protest in this country.
What I have announced today is narrowly focused on specific circumstances in a unique moment, but it does not alter an enduring fact. In this country, we rightly pride ourselves on our freedoms, including the right to peaceful protest. It is a precious right and one that I revere, as it sets us apart from autocracies of all kinds across the world. This prohibition is therefore limited and specific. It bans marches, but not static demonstrations, in relation to al-Quds Day. Equally, I must add, there is no prohibition on protesting against the plight of Palestinians, and there never will be. Hundreds of protests have already taken place across the country this year in solidarity with Palestinians, and the Met alone has policed 32. Peaceful and lawful protest, whether for Palestine or for Israel, or for any other cause, must be cherished and protected, and this Government will always defend that sacred freedom.
At the same time, as Home Secretary I have a solemn duty—and it is my first duty—to keep the British people safe. I have been presented with the assessment of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police that he cannot guarantee the security of our capital and prevent serious public disorder without a prohibition on processions relating to al-Quds Day. I have reviewed his assessment, and it is clear to me that my duty to the public and their safety dictates that I must accept his request. It is right that we prohibit these processions, while continuing to uphold our ancient commitments to the freedoms of which we are rightly proud. That is the balance that I have sought to strike today, and I commend my statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I fully support a ban on this march. The police assessment of the risk is right, and, in fact, I wrote to the commissioner a week ago urging for exactly this ban. However, the problems with the al-Quds march go beyond simply the risk of serious disorder. In 2024, 10 people were arrested for the assault of an emergency worker, inciting racial hatred, and public order offences. Chants at al-Quds marches in the past have called for intifada and revolution. Calls for intifada and revolution are calls for violence, and calls for violence have no place on our streets.
A leading speaker at these marches has been Nazim Ali, a man who has demanded that Israel
“be wiped off the map”.
Speaking at a previous march, Ali even blamed what he called “Zionists” for the Grenfell fire. He also said:
“"We are fed up of the Zionists. We are fed up of their rabbis. We are fed up of their synagogues.”
The reference to rabbis and synagogues shows that when this despicable man says “Zionist”, he means Jews. That is clear antisemitism. Speech inciting violence and speech inciting antisemitism, which we have heard at these marches in the past, has serious consequences.
Antisemitism is now rampant. Jews are 10 times more likely to be victims of hate crimes than Muslims. We saw an Islamist-motivated murder at a synagogue in Manchester just a few months ago. In the past 25 years, 94% of all terror murders in the UK have been committed by Islamist terrorists, who also make up 75% of counterterrorism caseloads. Does the Home Secretary share my concern about the fact that that the Prevent caseload is only 10% Islamist in nature, and if she does, what does she propose to do about it?
The organiser of the al-Quds march is the so-called Islamic Human Rights Commission, which, as the Home Secretary rightly acknowledged, is in essence a front organisation for the Iranian regime. A former Iranian Deputy Minister of Culture, Aliasghar Ramezanpour, has said that there is a network of Islamic charities in the UK which are, in his words, not autonomous but funded and controlled by the regime in Tehran. Does the Home Secretary share my concern about that, and what does she propose to do about it? In opposition, the Labour party—I think, rightly—pledged to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Will the Home Secretary update the House on the implementation of that pledge?
I am also deeply concerned about the many events that have been held recently, particularly at universities, lamenting the demise of Ayatollah Khameini—a man who in the last few weeks was directly responsible for the murder of 30,000 of his own people; a man who supported and sponsored terrorism around the world, for instance backing Hamas and the atrocities on 7 October, and who backed various regional wars. Will the Home Secretary join me in condemning those who mourned his demise and celebrated his evil acts?
More generally, the al-Quds marches are a troubling symptom of a growing division in our society, whereby some people define themselves primarily by their religion or their ethnic heritage, and we have seen that spilling over into the conduct of elections. This is deeply troubling and deeply divisive. It undermines the very foundations of our nation, which depend on a shared identity and shared values. I should be interested to hear the Home Secretary’s views on that, and I hope the House will return to the topic.
Let me finish with a broader point. Extremism has no place in the UK. Support for terrorism or violence has no place in the UK. Religious and racial hatred, including antisemitism, have no place here. I believe that when someone who is not a British citizen expresses extremist, violent, pro-terror or racist views, they should have their visa revoked and be expelled, as set out in section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. The Home Office’s own guidance makes it clear that support for
“extremism or other unacceptable behaviour”
meets that statutory test. Will the Home Secretary use those powers to expel extremists who are not British citizens?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his comments and his questions. He began by talking about some of the unacceptable acts of violence and incitement to violence that have taken place at various marches, not just marches relating to al-Quds Day. It is not unusual for multiple arrests to be made at all the different types of protest marches that take place. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will join me in supporting the police as they ensure that the full force of the law is applied at all times and in all circumstances. I have, of course, recognised that there are some complexities in the legal framework and an inconsistency of application. I have asked Ken Macdonald to carry out a review to ensure that there is much more consistency of practice across the UK, and that there is clarity for the police about what they can and cannot do when it comes to some of the things that are said when protests take place. I hope that we can continue to work together across the House on those matters.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a specific question in relation to Prevent. I do of course keep under review the way in which the Prevent programme is functioning. A large number of recommendations have been made over many years, with many reports on the functioning of Prevent. It is important that Prevent referrals are made in line with the statutory requirements and the guidance, and that they are picking up those whom we want to take away from a mindset and an ideology that could ultimately result in harm. I do not think it appropriate for us to set percentage requirements for what should happen in terms of referrals, but it is important that the right referrals are made. We always work with partners who deliver the Prevent programme, and with local authorities and others, to ensure that that is done properly.
On the Islamic Human Rights Commission, the trust that is responsible for that charity is currently subject to a statutory inquiry by the Charity Commission, and it is important that that work is allowed to continue. Once the Charity Commission has reached a determination, I am sure that it will be discussed in the House.
On the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the right hon. Gentleman will know—we have had this discussion many times at the Dispatch Box, and the answers are not all that different from when the positions of our parties were reversed—that we do not comment on matters relating to proscription, but this Government have accepted the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC. We will take forward that work at the earliest available opportunity.
In relation to those who are publicly mourning the death of Khamenei, the deceased supreme leader of Iran, this is where free speech butts up against what most of us would consider to be appropriate conduct. I do not mourn the passing of Ayatollah Khamenei, but it is for others to decide what they do and do not support. I am absolutely clear that, whatever methods people use to express their political views, they must do so in line with the law of this land. That law should always be enforced without fear or favour, and I will always support the police in ensuring that that is the case.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about how we work as a society, and I think his questions are about citizens’ responsibilities in this country. I do not think it is for a Government to dictate to their citizens what political views they are allowed to hold or how they should express themselves or their identity, regardless of whether that is religious, ethnic or something else. It is the job of Government to ensure that we have a set of rules and values that are equally applied—our respect for democracy and the rule of law, and all the norms by which our society operates. That means that we accept free speech and people’s ability to have views that might be offensive. Many of us might disagree with those views, but people are still allowed to express them. I would not want to see these very troubling events lead to a clampdown on the freedoms that are so precious to us. There is always a judgment to be made and a balance to be struck, and it is important that the Government always try to strike that balance in the right way.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s final point, this Government have already taken action, and I will always use my full powers under the law to ensure that those who would cause harm in our country with their extremist views are not allowed to enter our country. I will not hesitate to use my powers under the immigration legislation to exclude from this country people who have no right to be here.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision to ban this weekend’s al-Quds march. Al-Quds was founded by the ayatollah 40 years ago. It has repeatedly featured support for the Iranian regime and terrorist groups, and often promotes dangerous antisemitism too. Given the growing threat to Jewish communities across the UK, will the Home Secretary now move to proscribe the IRGC, consider sanctions on regime-linked assets, and outline what further steps have been taken to protect the Jewish community?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend will know that the IRGC is already sanctioned in its entirety. As I say, we do not comment on matters relating to proscription, but we have accepted the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC. The Government will take those forward at the earliest available opportunity.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Home Secretary is aware that we have concerns about her authoritarian tendencies. We have particular concerns about this Government’s enthusiasm for restricting the right to protest and their use of terrorism legislation to proscribe protest groups. The Liberal Democrats place a much stronger weight on the right to peaceful protest than the Home Secretary does. That is her right. The right to protest is a fundamental freedom, and any decision to ban a march must only be made in exceptional circumstances.
On this occasion, however, it is right to take a cautious approach. The Islamic Human Rights Commission has very concerning views on Iran. The organisers of the al-Quds march have expressed support for the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and have claimed that he stood on the right side of history. Clearly, these values are at odds with those of the British public, who would rightly condemn the ayatollah’s oppression of the Iranian people and sponsorship of terrorism across the world. At a time when Iran is putting the safety of British citizens in the middle east at risk with its indiscriminate attacks, it would be inappropriate for the march to go ahead.
Nevertheless, the decision to ban the march highlights a deeper failure by the Government to tackle the underlying threats that fuel such tensions. Labour has dithered and delayed over the proscription of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the organisation responsible for much of the violence and terror emanating from Iran, and for attacks abroad. It is utterly ridiculous that the Home Secretary has already sunk almost £1 million of taxpayers’ money in fighting in court to keep Palestine Action proscribed while dragging her heels on the IRGC’s proscription, even when the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has urged immediate proscription. Will the Home Secretary commit to confronting the threat of the Iranian regime by immediately proscribing the IRGC? If not, will she give the House a date for legislation?
Shabana Mahmood
I have to say that the hon. Gentleman’s opening remarks were rather disappointing. Let me remind him of what I have actually said and done in relation to the right to protest. I have allowed the cumulative impact on communities that are affected by protests to be one of the reasons why police can place additional conditionality on a procession or public assembly under sections 12 to 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. I am very disappointed that the Lib Dem spokesperson thinks that is an authoritarian tendency, because we are responding to repeat protests that create real tension in our communities.
We are creating the conditions to enable those protests to go ahead, but with additional conditions as to their location and time, and we are ensuring that that framework is very clear for the police. That is actually an argument for allowing the protests to happen, but not in a way that creates real fear among minority communities in this country. I am very disappointed to see that the Lib Dems have set their face against that and would characterise it as authoritarianism. They are wholly wrong. These are the necessary steps to protect our vital freedoms, as well as our minority communities. The law in this area always requires a balance, and this Government are seeking to strike that balance in exactly the right way.
The only other remarks I have made in relation to protests were immediately after the terrorist attack at the Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester. I suggested that marching the very next day in support of the Palestinian cause is perhaps not British because we should show some compassion to those who are suffering. Those are the only two acts, and the hon. Gentleman set his face against both of them in his opening remarks.
I have already addressed the point about proscribing the IRGC, which is sanctioned in its entirety. We will take forward the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC, but the hon. Gentleman knows that that requires legislative change. We must act at speed, but also with care, and this Government will do so. It is important that we do not conflate different issues. A lot of these issues are causing tensions across the country, but the situation in relation to the Palestine Action group is different from the matters that we are discussing today. Members of other parties should not seek to conflate those to score political points. I will leave my remarks there.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I represent the area affected by the Home Secretary’s intervention on public order policing, which I welcome. I listened carefully to her statement, which made it clear that this prohibition is specific, discrete and focused. What I heard was a balancing of the challenges that she and public order policing in London face every single day. The centre of London is home to dozens of synagogues, mosques and prayer rooms, and it is important that I take seriously the responsibility of ensuring that everybody is safe. Over the last week, I have been in regular contact with my constituents on this very topic. Will the Home Secretary work with me to articulate clearly the rules and legislation that are in place to address the very challenging issues that we all face?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks and her question, and for the work that she has done on this issue, which I know has affected the people she represents. It is important to note, as she rightly does, that we received a very specific and discrete request from the Met police, who have huge experience in dealing with multiple protests on multiple occasions and who have good policing experience. I take seriously the fact that this is the first time in many years that they have sought such an order, and they have done so because of the unique challenges posed by the planned marches in a few days’ time, particularly the threat of both protests and multiple counter-protests all moving through London at the same time. That represents a very unique policing challenge, but I pay tribute to the Met police for the work that they have been doing to ensure that our freedoms in this country are protected.
My hon. Friend will know that we have already commissioned Lord Macdonald to look at the legislation in this area, and to make recommendations on clarifying the legal framework. I look forward to working with her on all that work once his review is in.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s decision, but as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary made clear, this speaks to a much wider problem. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to ensure that the United Kingdom cannot be used as a safe haven for the wealth, influence networks or political activity of senior figures connected to the Iranian regime, with specific regard to recent reports that the new so-called supreme leader of the Iranian regime is linked to a network of high-value London properties acquired through associates or shell companies? What steps will she take to close any loopholes or strengthen such sanctions?
Shabana Mahmood
We are obviously looking very carefully at the allegations that have been made, and we would of course expect the police and our security services to respond appropriately. We will always work closely with them to ensure that they do so.
The hon. Member raises a broader point about the state threat represented by Iran, which has been discussed in this House on many occasions. He will know of the public comments made by Sir Ken McCallum, the director general of MI5, and others. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government take all levels of state threat very seriously. We work very closely with our security agencies to make sure that we are always taking the necessary steps to keep our country safe.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
The al-Quds Day march, glorifying a despicable, blood-soaked regime, has long been a cause of great concern to my constituents in Hendon. That is why I wrote to the commissioner of the Met asking for the march to be banned, and why I thank the Home Secretary for her resolute action today. However, the threat posed by the Iranian regime to our Jewish community has not ended. Following the arrest of four men for allegedly spying on our Jewish community on behalf of the Iranian regime, what steps have been taken to keep our Jewish community safe?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend will know that a live police investigation is taking place, so I cannot comment or give any additional details on that case to this House until the criminal justice process is complete. However, let me assure him that we work very closely with our colleagues in Counter Terror Policing and our security services to monitor the threats posed to individuals and organisations in our country and take all appropriate measures to keep our people safe.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Home Secretary may know that I and other Opposition Members have signed at least two letters to the Prime Minister in recent months calling for recognition of the state of Palestine, but I also support the decision the Home Secretary has taken today. I think she has demonstrated seriousness of purpose in taking a very important decision, which clearly commands huge national support. One can be in favour of the decision she has taken and also in favour of the rights of the Palestinian people; the two are not alien to each other.
The Home Secretary mentioned that a static protest could take place in lieu of the march. Does she or the Metropolitan Police Commissioner have the power to limit the time of that specific event, to ensure that ordinary people going about their business are not disrupted and that huge blockages do not take place in the capital in lieu of a moving march?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the hon. Member for the points he made. He is absolutely right—let me agree with him on the first part of his remarks—about the right of people in this country to support the Palestinian people, their right to self-determination and their desire for an end to conflict and recognition of their own state. No decision that this Government have taken prevents anyone from being able to express those political views or to take part in peaceful protest to draw attention to that cause, and all that can continue.
The hon. Member is right about the static protest. There are powers under the Public Order Act for the police to place conditions on static protests, which can relate to both time and location, as well as other measures. Those will be operational decisions for the Met police to make in the coming days.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I thank the Home Secretary for this action, which is proportionate; she seems to have been taking lessons from the Liberal Democrats on that. I reiterate Liberal Democrat calls to proscribe Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and encourage her to come forward with a timetable for that legislation to be delivered. What steps have been taken to ensure effective policing of the static protests, which will go ahead on Sunday, to protect Londoners and our police from potential clashes?
Shabana Mahmood
The House will be pleased to know that I decline the invitation to learn any lessons from the Liberal Democrats—not just on this occasion, but for evermore.
Let me reiterate the point about the IRGC. We will bring forward measures as soon as we can. We obviously have to proceed with care, because these are complex matters, and we have to get the balance right in the action we take. However, we have accepted the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC, and the Government are working at pace to move forward with delivery.
The conditions that might be placed on a static protest that may or may not take place are operational matters for the Met police. However, I and the whole House should have every confidence in our police, not just in London but across the country. Police forces have been dealing with a huge increase in the number of protests, the variety of protests and the multiplicity of counter-protests that take place, and I think we should pay tribute to the work day in and day out of our hard-working police officers, who manage to keep our country safe while allowing respect for our fundamental freedoms.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with everything the Home Secretary has said, especially as she is one of the best Conservative Home Secretaries we have ever had! Will she forgive me for asking her to stress just one part of her statement? I have noticed an increasing tendency to say that we should ban marches because we find the views of the marchers thoroughly offensive. Frankly, I find most of the marches in London fairly offensive, because most of them are left wing, but I would defend to the death the right of those people to march. Can she emphasise that there is a very high bar, and that marchers will be banned only if they might incite or cause violence?
Shabana Mahmood
I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I am Labour all day long. I enjoy swatting Conservatives, Lib Dems, Greens and everybody else at my leisure, and I will continue to do so.
The Father of the House is right about the law. There is a high bar for any banning order to be requested or granted under the framework set out in the Public Order Act. He is absolutely right that it should be a high bar. People are allowed to have their own views, and we should not be seeking to shut down views which, although offensive or provocative, are still within the law. It is important that we always ensure that the law is followed, and any attempts to interfere with freedom of expression or assembly should always meet a high bar. I am very satisfied that, in the specific and unique circumstances set out for the public procession that had been planned, that test has been met. Of course, the other protests can and should go ahead, and the full force of the law will always be applied.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
What consideration did the Home Secretary give to compliance with articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights on the right to protest? What discussions did the Metropolitan police have with the organisers of this planned march to ensure that it could go ahead safely and would be properly stewarded and properly run? In my experience, the police are very accommodating and keen to have long discussions with march organisers to make sure that the right to protest is maintained in our society. There is a slippery slope here, because banning a march that is not necessarily a very popular march may lead to draconian banning orders on all kinds of protests within our society.
Shabana Mahmood
First, on the European convention on human rights, the right hon. Gentleman is right that articles 9 to 11 are relevant to the matters we are discussing. However, those are qualified rights—they have always been qualified rather than absolute rights—which means that the state can limit them in specific circumstances as long as the legal tests of proportionality and so on are maintained. I am confident that the legal arrangements we have in this country, as set out in the Public Order Act, are fully in compliance with our convention obligations, and that there is a very high bar for the powers in section 13 of the Public Order Act. I am satisfied that that high bar has been met on this occasion.
The Met police have been policing the al-Quds Day procession for many years. It is an annual event, and they have policed it even when there has been huge opposition to its going ahead. They have faced a lot of pressure over many years to seek a ban, and they have never done so. I am very confident that they have assessed the risk posed by this procession in the current context, particularly the range and number of counter-protesting marches planned for the same day; managing five different marches at the same time in the same bit of London presents a unique challenge for policing. I think they have made a fair point and a strong case, and I have agreed with them on this occasion.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I very much welcome the statement and I commend the Home Secretary’s judgment on this occasion. The Islamic Human Rights Commission will seek to exploit the loophole offered up under section 13, around the ability to protest in a static way. Has a likely location yet been identified for the static protest? Does she agree with me that it should be away from where it would discommode the general public and somewhere that will not place undue burdens on our policing resources, which are finite?
Shabana Mahmood
Any conditions that may or may not be placed on a static protest are matters for the police—those are operational matters. They have the powers available to them and I am sure they will make use of them, in the way they have been doing with protests that have been taking place across the capital for some time now. They would, of course, take into account many of the factors that the right hon. Gentleman raises in his question to me.
Let me caution a little on the description of the difference between a static protest and a moving procession of public assembly. It is not a loophole. The law deliberately treats the two things differently, because the policing challenges of a static protest are different in nature from the challenge of policing a march that is moving from one location to another. The Public Order Act recognises the difference between those two things. The police have the powers to place conditions on the way a static protest takes place. In my opinion, they have made use of those conditions very well to date and I am sure they will continue to do so.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Notwithstanding my liberal instincts, I too agree with the Home Secretary’s decision to prohibit this march given Iran’s targeting of UK nationals abroad and our allies overseas. That targeting also occurs here in the UK. It occurred in my constituency with the stabbing of an Iranian dissident journalist two years ago. What specific steps is the Home Secretary taking to protect Iranian dissidents here in the UK who might be targeted by the Iranian state?
Shabana Mahmood
I will bank the fact that the hon. Gentleman agrees with my instincts on this one—perhaps I am not so authoritarian after all. He raises a more serious point about dissidents. We know the threat posed to dissidents here on UK soil by the Iranian regime. He rightly noted an earlier case. Let me assure him that we work very closely with Counter Terrorism policing and our security services on monitoring the threats posed to all individuals in the UK by foreign states. We are always ready to take any appropriate action. Indeed, the police and the security services take action every day.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I very much welcome the Home Secretary’s decision. Iran has a track record of hostile activity in the United Kingdom. We have so many Iranians who have had to flee their home country for safety here in the UK, yet we still see charities effectively operating as proxies for the terrible regime in Tehran. What further action will the Home Secretary take to clamp down on organisations that masquerade as charities?
Shabana Mahmood
The Charity Commission has powers to launch its own inquiries and enforce compliance. It has a full suite of powers to take action if it thinks someone has fallen outside of our rules. There is an ongoing Charity Commission investigation into the overall body relating to the IHRC—the trust, rather than the organisation we are discussing here today. I am sure that once the Charity Commission has completed that work it will take appropriate action, and I know that that will be the subject of further discussion in this House. Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that we recognise the desire by some to use our charities legislation and to find gaps to pursue ends that are not charitable and for which the law was not intended. We will not hesitate to take further action in that area if we need to do so.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Will the Home Secretary care to explain a contradiction? She has taken to ban a peaceful march that has been happening for over 40 years, citing serious public disorder, while the Government continue to permit the far right, who call for serious public disorder outside hotels housing asylum seekers, to protest outside those hotels. In September 2025 at the Tommy Robinson “Unite the Kingdom” march—the Home Secretary might like to know that he is a big fan of hers—violence was sighted, in particular against Muslims. Will that march be banned in future as well?
Shabana Mahmood
Each case has to be dealt with on its own facts. The “Unite the Kingdom” march was very large. The police did not seek this power because, based on their own risk assessment, they assessed that it was possible for that march to take place safely and that they could police it safely, as well as the counter march that took place, which was smaller in nature. If they had made such a request, I would obviously have had to consider that request based on the full facts disclosed to me in the risk assessment.
The hon. Gentleman should not conflate multiple different things. There is a very specific risk that is being posed by the march on this occasion, given the international context and given that there will actually be five marches; there is the main march by those behind the al-Quds Day rally and then there are the four counter-protesting marches. He must recognise the unique challenge posed by five marches taking place at the same time in this international context. That is different from every other kind of protest and march that has taken place. I would hope that he does not conflate the two, because that could cause a loss of confidence across our communities.
Marches take place every day on a whole range of issues—international and domestic in nature—but the police almost never ask for those to be banned. In fact, such a request has never been made of me. I think the last time this power was used was in something like 2010 or 2012—many, many years ago. This is a unique situation, given the current context and the unique policing challenge of five different marches at the same time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can focus a little more on the facts, rather than the hyperbole with which he began his question.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I stand, and we stand, for an Iran free of the ayatollah, free of the IRGC, free of a despotic regime that carries terrorism all over the world, and free of the regime that killed 35,000 of its own citizens in January this year. With that mind, may I thank the Home Secretary very much for her decision to ban the al-Quds Day march? It is very important that we in this House take a stand to show that we support those in Iran who are fighting for freedom.
In the light of repeated concerns of law enforcement and community organisations about the risk of public disorder and clashes with protesters, what further steps will the Home Secretary take to prevent groups promoting extreme ideologies from organising events that will incite intimidation or violence against minorities or other vulnerable groups in the United Kingdom?
Shabana Mahmood
We already have strong laws and other measures in this country on inciting violence, and I would expect the police to always bring the full force of the law on anybody found to be contravening our laws without fear or favour. It is important that we respect and rely on our legal framework, because we do have one of the strongest legal frameworks in the world on all these matters. The Government will always take further action if it is necessary, but I do believe our current framework allows us to strike the right balance on protecting individual freedoms. Even if they are offensive and even if they are provocative, they should still be protected, but as long as that is within the confines of the law.
Migration Reform
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
I am today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules.
Introduction of the visa brake
The number of asylum claims from people who arrived in the UK on a visa or other leave has tripled since the year ending June 2022. Nationals of Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan present some of the highest proportions of asylum claims to visas issued. In total, as of September 2025, 15,906 of these nationals are in receipt of Home Office support, including 6,412 individuals in hotels.
To protect UK border security, we are introducing a visa brake for Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar, and Sudan. This will come into force on 26 March 2026. This means we will refuse student visa applications from main applicants who are nationals of Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar, and Sudan. Additionally, we will refuse skilled worker visa applications from main applicants who are nationals of Afghanistan. The brake will not apply to applications made before 26 March. We are publicising the changes so that travellers can plan accordingly.
The brake will meet the intent of the immigration White Paper and the asylum policy statement. Its key aim is to reduce the strain on the asylum system. It will also strengthen public confidence in the immigration system.
The decision to introduce a visa brake has been taken solely for migration and border security reasons. The brake is not intended to be permanent and will be regularly reviewed, with the aim of ensuring that it can be released as soon as it is considered appropriate to do so.
Reducing the duration of refugee and humanitarian protection, permission to stay
We are amending the existing rule to reduce the duration of permission to stay from five years to 30 months for those recognised as refugees or in need of humanitarian protection. Renewal of protection will not be equivalent to making an initial asylum claim. The rules will come into force from 26 March and will apply to adults and families, including accompanied asylum-seeking children who claim asylum on and after 2 March 2026.
Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children will be exempt from this change and will continue to receive five years’ permission to stay. This will remain Home Office policy while the pathway for this cohort is developed.
Procedure and rights of appeal changes for failed asylum seekers
As part of the “restoring order and control” package, I am making changes to the further submissions process, which enables individuals to present evidence following the refusal or withdrawal of their asylum claim, once all appeal rights have been exhausted.
Under these reforms, individuals will be required to meet all validity requirements at the point they make further submissions. This includes: being in the UK when further submissions are made; being a failed asylum seeker, meaning that their initial asylum claim has been refused or withdrawn; and having no outstanding appeal rights or other ongoing protection claims or appeals. Where these requirements are not met, the further submissions may be rejected as invalid without consideration.
In addition, I am also introducing a new provision for implicit withdrawal, similar to the arrangements already in place for initial asylum claims. This will allow the Home Office to treat further submissions as withdrawn where an individual fails to comply with process requirements, including maintaining contact with the Home Office, attending reporting events and responding to requests for information.
Disclosure of information relating to asylum claims when cases are subject to public interest
This minor addition to the existing rule about the disclosure of information relating to an individual’s asylum claim clarifies that the rule does not prevent the Home Office from confirming, in certain cases, that an asylum claim has been made by an individual claimant. However, the change also states that the Home Office must ensure that the release of such information is in the public interest.
Introduction of a visit visa requirement for nationals of Nicaragua and St Lucia
I am introducing a visa requirement for all visitors from Nicaragua and St Lucia. This will come into force at 15:00 Greenwich mean time today. Nationals of Nicaragua and St Lucia will also need a direct airside transit visa when transiting through the UK. They will no longer be eligible to apply for an electronic travel authorisation for travel to the UK.
A six-week visa-free transition period will apply for those who already hold an ETA and have confirmed UK travel booked on or before 15:00 GMT on 5 March 2025, where arrival in the UK is no later than 15:00 BST on 16 April 2025. We are publicising these changes to support traveller awareness and planning. This action follows significant numbers of Nicaraguan and St Lucian nationals travelling to the UK for purposes not permitted under visitor rules, including to claim asylum, creating unsustainable pressure at the border and on the asylum system. Concerns also remain about St Lucia’s Citizenship By Investment programme. While the UK welcomes ongoing programme reforms, the inherent risk of Citizenship by Investment and issues linked to the programme’s past operation and legacy cases further increases the need for a visit visa requirement at this time.
This decision has been taken solely for migration and border security reasons. We keep the border and immigration system under regular review to ensure it continues to work in the UK national interest.
Further extension of the Ukraine permission extension scheme
The Government remain steadfast in their support for the people of Ukraine in the face of Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion. From the outset of the conflict, the Government have acted decisively and compassionately, offering sanctuary to over 310,000 Ukrainians through the Ukraine family scheme, the Homes for Ukraine scheme, and the Ukraine extension scheme.
Changes to Appendix Ukraine are being introduced to ensure that the Ukraine schemes continue to provide stable and secure protection for those displaced by the ongoing conflict, while giving individuals and families greater certainty about their status in the UK. Extending Ukraine permission extension leave by a further 24 months reflects the Government’s commitment to maintaining temporary sanctuary for Ukrainians. Increasing the application window from 28 to 90 days is designed to make the process more accessible and reduce unnecessary pressure on applicants. This extension will remain fee-free, and those granted permission to remain under UPE will continue to be able to access work, benefits, healthcare, and education.
In addition, the changes ensure that no one loses any existing permission they currently hold: any extant leave will be preserved and added to their new grant. This package of amendments is intended to improve clarity, support continuity for families, and provide reassurance while the future situation in Ukraine remains uncertain.
English language requirements for settlement applications
The White Paper “Restoring Control over the Immigration System”, published in May 2025, set out the Government’s plans to introduce new English language requirements across a broader range of immigration routes, including arrangements for settlement routes. Reformed English language requirements will help to ensure that those who come here to build their lives in the UK can integrate into life in this country. We are commencing implementation of those plans in relation to settlement applications through these rules changes, which increase the English language requirement for settlement to B2 level under the common European framework of reference for languages for a number of routes where the existing requirement is at B1 level.
The changes to the English language requirements for settlement applications will come into force on 26 March 2027, providing those subject to the new requirements with sufficient opportunity to take any steps necessary to meet them. Further changes to English language requirements in relation to settlement applications will be considered in the light of the Government’s assessment of responses to the recent consultation on proposals for earned settlement.
For the changes that introduce a visit visa requirement for nationals of Nicaragua and Saint Lucia, due to the need to safeguard the operation of the UK’s immigration system, those changes will come into effect at 15:00 on 5 March 2026. The changes relating to the introduction of the visa brake, disclosure of information relating to asylum claims, and reducing the duration of refugee and humanitarian protection permission to stay will come into force on 26 March 2026. The changes to the procedure and rights of appeal changes for failed asylum seekers, global business mobility and scale-up routes, and the further extension of the Ukraine permission extension scheme, will come into force on 8 April 2026.
Revoking the duty to provide asylum support
As set out in the Restoring Order and Control statement, I am making further legislative changes to revoke the current legal obligation to provide asylum support to asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute, and am restoring the power to offer support, as previously provided under domestic law. This is the first step in moving to a more conditional support system. A statutory instrument is being laid in Parliament today and the policy will come into force in June. The overarching intention is to ensure that support is focused on those who genuinely need it and comply with the system.
Conditions of support and illegal working
I am also amending existing conditions of support legislation to enable the suspension or discontinuation of asylum support where an asylum seeker is working illegally. This will apply where support is provided under sections 4, 95 and 98 of the 1999 Act. Those who are offered asylum support are expected to comply with the conditions of that support. This change is to ensure that asylum support is provided to those who comply with the rules of the asylum system. This will be done via two instruments. The first will amend regulation 20(1) of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000 for section 95 and section 98 support, and this change will come into force on 27 March 2026. The second will amend regulation 6 of the Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum Seekers) Regulations 2005 for section 4 support, and will come into force on 2 June 2026.
Family returns consultation
I am beginning today to consult with a range of partners and stakeholders over a 12-week period on our approach to family returns. Within a fair, effective and orderly immigration and asylum system, it has to be the case that families with no legal right to remain in the United Kingdom depart. The family returns process is designed to maximise voluntary departures and minimise enforcement—but where a family chooses to remain here, compliance with the requirement to leave will be enforced.
The consultation will seek views on the commencement of provisions in part 5 of the Immigration Act 2016 that reform the support available to families with no legal basis to remain in the UK and the framework under which support may be provided or discontinued. These changes will provide clarity and consistency across the system by ensuring that support is focused on those who truly require it, while reinforcing the expectation that families will depart from the UK if they no longer have a lawful basis to stay.
The consultation also seeks views on the Government’s approach to enforcing the return of families who do not depart voluntarily. This includes proposals relating to the circumstances in which physical interventions may be used in the course of an enforced return, and the safeguards, oversight and reporting requirements that should apply. These proposals emphasise the need for clear, proportionate processes that enable enforcement activity to proceed safely, with the welfare of children remaining a primary consideration.
A copy of the consultation will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1379]
Asylum Changes
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
This country will always provide sanctuary to those fleeing war and persecution. But we must also ensure our asylum system is not creating pull factors that draw people on dangerous journeys across the world, fuelling and funding the human traffickers.
Genuine refugees will find safety in Britain, but we must also reduce the incentives that draw people here at such scale, including those without a legitimate need for protection. So, once a refugee’s home is safe and they are able to return, they will be expected to do so.
This is a firm but fair approach, restoring order and control of Britain’s borders, while protecting those fleeing war and repression.
Last November, as part of the most sweeping reforms to tackle illegal migration since the second world war, this Government announced that refugee protection would become temporary. At the same time, refugees who wish to stay in Britain and have skills will be able to apply for new work and study visas, helping them integrate with and contribute to society.
Britain will also open new, safe and legal routes, with community sponsorship becoming the new norm. The entire approach is designed to shift the asylum system in Britain away from dangerous, illegal crossings, and high levels of applications from those without legitimate asylum claims.
Under these changes, adults and accompanied children claiming asylum from today will receive a 30-month period of protection, if granted. At a 30-month review, refugees with a continuing need of sanctuary will have their protection renewed, while those whose countries are now deemed safe will be expected to return home.
Under the previous system, refugees were granted five years of protection and allowed to bring their families—followed by near-automatic, fee-free permanent settlement with continued access to benefits and housing. This was among the most generous offers to refugees in any country in western Europe. This has become a pull factor that has seen asylum claims in Britain rise steeply, including tens of thousands of illegitimate claims each year, as they fall across the rest of the continent.
Refugees under the reformed system will need to renew their permission to stay or apply for a legal visa route. Family reunion remains paused while new rules are designed that bring financial and integration requirements in line with those expected of British citizens.
The reset in Britain’s asylum offer, inspired by Denmark’s success, will encourage those wishing to build a life in the UK to do so via legal routes and reduce the pull factors driving illegal migration. The first step towards a new, “core protection” system will be introduced through a change to the immigration rules later this week.
While Denmark was cutting asylum claims to a 40-year low, the UK saw a 13% increase in the year to September 2025. Across the EU, applications fell by 22% over the same period.
Since 2015, Denmark has made refugee status temporary—subject to review every two years—introduced restrictions on family reunion and increased the wait for permanent settlement to eight years, subject to strict integration and employment requirements.
Under reforms announced last autumn, refugees in the UK will have to wait 20 years for settlement, unless they switch to a legal visa route, as part of the “core protection” model.
New routes will be created as an alternative to “core protection” for those who can contribute through work or study, encouraging use of the legal migration system and contributing to better social cohesion. Further details of these will be set out in future immigration rules changes.
Unaccompanied children will continue to receive five years’ leave, while the Government consider the appropriate long-term policy for this group. Further details will be set out in due course.
Robust age assessment measures are already in place to root out false claims by migrants claiming to be under 18. AI technology currently being tested will strengthen this further.
There will be transitional provisions for people who submitted an asylum claim before today, so that existing rules continue to apply.
[HCWS1373]
Oral Answers to Questions
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Asylum hotels were a legacy of the last Conservative Government—at their peak, there were 400 open across the country, as asylum case working had ground to a halt. We have already restarted decision making, increased returns and opened new military sites. We are now closing asylum hotels, and by the end of this Parliament, we will have shut every single one.
Euan Stainbank
The Tories’ asylum hotels have divided communities and endangered vulnerable people in communities such as Falkirk, but we must be honest: the Inverness barracks proposal is controversial, and will aggravate community tensions in Scotland rather than cool them if there is no corresponding urgent move to close asylum hotels in Scotland. Will the Secretary of State join me this month in visiting Kemper Avenue to see at first hand why the Cladhan must now be fairly prioritised for closure in the hotel exit plan?
Shabana Mahmood
There are no easy options having inherited a broken asylum system and in which there are asylum hotels, which were opened by the Conservative party, in operation across the whole of the country. We believe that large military sites are a better way of reducing the burden felt by communities across the country, including in Scotland. I reassure my hon. Friend that, by the end of this Parliament, we will get out of every single asylum hotel, including in his constituency.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
In her response, the Home Secretary noted the speeding-up of processing times, but I wonder whether enough is being done on that. Surely, making sure that asylum seekers are processed as fast as possible is the route to closing the hotels.
Shabana Mahmood
Asylum claims are being processed at the fastest rate for 20 years, so we are moving very quickly to deal with those claims. As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, though, many of those people go on to appeal, and there is a backlog at the court. That is why we will be reforming our appeals system in legislation later this year.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With asylum claims falling in Europe and rising here, we must reduce the incentives that pull people here. The permanence of refugee status in this country is clearly a pull factor, and we are therefore making it temporary. The ability to melt into our illegal economy lures people here, so we have raised immigration raids to record levels. Effective removals send a clear message, and returns are now up by about a quarter under this Government.
Ms Minns
Illegal immigration, illegal working and illegal trading frequently go hand in hand, and all too often manifest themselves in the proliferation of dodgy shops on our high streets. While I welcome the shop raids in my constituency last summer, without action to tackle illegality at source the police and trading standards face a never-ending game of whack-a-mole. Can the Minister please assure my constituents that this Government will redouble their efforts to clamp down on both illegal immigration and illegal working?
Shabana Mahmood
I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. Illegal working undermines honest employers, undercuts local wages and fuels organised immigration crime, and this Government will not stand for it. Since we came to power, enforcement action has increased nationwide, with an 83% rise in the number of illegal-working arrests, and we will be stepping up that action even further in the year ahead.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
One of the main reasons behind the false narrative that Britain is broken is people’s sense of despair that neither this Government nor the previous one could deal with illegal migrants. It is simply driving our people mad. Let me give this advice to the Government, if the Home Secretary will forgive me: they are not going to solve this problem by getting rid of the Prime Minister or anything like that; what they need to do is finally deal with the pull factor. The only thing that will work is to arrest, detain and deport anybody who arrives illegally in this country, and to have a temporary derogation from any convention that prevents us from doing so. If they do that, the nation will be so much more confident, the Prime Minister will be more popular and people will not drown any more.
Shabana Mahmood
I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am always willing to listen to advice, wherever it may come from, but I point out that in 14 years under his party in government, we did not see any such action. It is very easy to say from the sidelines, “Just deport everybody.” If it was so easy to derogate from international obligations, I am pretty sure the previous Administration would have done so. The fact that they are only now saying that from the sidelines says a lot about them and their attitude to government.
There is no one silver bullet in dealing with the problems of illegal migration, and that is why I am taking action across every potential forum. We are changing our human rights laws, passing legislation later this year on the application of article 8, dealing with our appeals processes, talking about reform of the European convention on human rights, and getting the number of illegal working raids up. Those are all important steps to try to get the system under control. I am determined that we will deal with the problem of illegal migration, but there is no one silver bullet. That is why I am taking action across all fronts.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Last week, The Times reported that companies and company directors who have previously abused the work visa system have been allowed to continue sponsoring visas, despite the Government’s promise of a clampdown. One social care business has been able to sponsor 116 visas, despite being caught hiring illegally. As the Home Secretary just said herself, being able to work here illegally is one of the greatest pull factors, so what message does she think this sends to companies that break the rules?
Shabana Mahmood
What the shadow Minister should have done first is apologise for being part of an Administration who opened the social care route, which was open to such horrifying levels of abuse. That route was closed by this Government, which was the right action to take. Since we have been in government, 1,000 sponsor licences have been revoked, and we will continue to take action. We are already following up on the newspaper investigation that the hon. Lady refers to, and we will keep revoking licences, so that only legitimate businesses with proper jobs are able to sponsor workers to come to our country.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
British people have watched in horror over the past weeks as President Trump’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement squads have murdered, kidnapped and oppressed people. Even infants and children have not escaped this rough treatment. The Conservatives have suggested that they would like to introduce a removals force styled on ICE, and we can only guess what the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) would do if he was in charge, even if he concedes that ICE has “gone too far” on occasion. Will the Home Secretary condemn Trump’s ICE squads, and will she reassure us that we will not see ICE squads on the streets of Britain?
Shabana Mahmood
Unlike most of Westminster, I am not plagued with “America brain”, and I do not spend any of my time worrying about what is happening over in the States. As the Home Secretary, I focus on my day job, which is protecting people in our country. The hon. Gentleman will know full well that we do not have anything like the sorts of arrangements that we have seen over in America, but we already have record removals without having armed immigration enforcement—just under 60,000 since we have been in government. We will go further, but we will do so in line with the arrangements that we already have in place and our British values.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
We are investing a record £140 million in state-of-the-art technology to make our communities safer, including the roll-out of the live facial recognition technology that is already transforming policing. Investing in technology means more time for the police to be where we want them, which is out on the streets fighting and deterring crime in our communities.
Dr Gardner
I recently met Home Office Ministers to discuss the use of synthetic cathinones, often referred to as monkey dust, in Stoke-on-Trent. These substances cause significant harm to users and, indeed, communities. They are frequently sold via the dark web and imported through the post. Can the Secretary of State provide an update on her work with the National Crime Agency and Royal Mail to detect illicit substances using technology, and advise whether existing opioid detection methods can be adapted or applied to synthetic cathinones?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the scourge of synthetic cathinones. Let me assure her that the work of the National Crime Agency, Royal Mail and others continues apace. The use of synthetic drugs is a concerning development in the global drugs market, but this Government and law enforcement are taking action. We continue to innovate and seek new methods for screening and identifying drugs using emerging technologies, including AI, to tackle this challenge.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I recently visited a major retailer in my Spelthorne constituency, and it reported that corporate systems for getting information to the police are so clunky that to transfer evidence of shoplifting, the police have to resort to sending round an officer to film the retailer’s footage on their body cam. As well as sorting out the technology within the police, will the Home Secretary encourage and reach out to big corporate retailer chains, so we have a seamless flow of information to drive down shoplifting?
Shabana Mahmood
I am very pleased that the hon. Member raises that issue, and I am happy to look at the detail of what he has seen in his constituency. Let me assure him that there is a lot of work happening with retailers, and I know that different platforms are being adopted. The pace of technological innovation in this area is very quick indeed, and we will do everything we can to make sure all these systems are joined up and that the police are in the best possible position to go after the criminals as quickly as possible.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
This Government pledged to restore order and control to our borders, and our work is taking effect. Since we took office, removals of illegal migrants are up 31%, to nearly 60,000, forced returns are up 45%, and deportations of foreign criminals are up by a third. In December we imposed visa sanctions on three countries—Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo—and those sanctions have worked, with each of those countries now accepting its citizens back. I know that the public want us to do more, and we will: we will reform human rights law and our appeals processes to swiftly remove those with no right to be here. This country will always offer sanctuary to genuine refugees, but with those who do not play by the rules, we must be firm. The previous Conservative Government lost control, and it is this Labour Government who are restoring order to our border.
Rupert Lowe
As the Secretary of State knows, our independent rape gang inquiry hearings are ongoing just a short walk from this Chamber. Last week I sat opposite one woman who was raped by between 600 and 700 men. She estimated that 98% were Pakistani Muslims. The evidence we are collecting is brutal. We have been told again and again of attempts to traffic raped and abused women overseas to Pakistan and elsewhere; thankfully, those attempts failed, but how many did not? Will the Secretary of State agree to urgently review cases of missing girls in target areas and launch a full state investigation into reports of such trafficking?
Shabana Mahmood
The testimony of the victims that the hon. Gentleman has heard from is absolutely horrifying, and the grooming gangs scandal was one of the darkest moments in this country’s history. Victims and survivors of these hideous crimes deserve justice, and we will make sure that they get it. Our inquiry is a full, statutory independent inquiry, with all the powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 to deliver justice. I urge the hon. Gentleman and anybody else who has heard any allegations or evidence of criminality to share it with the police immediately.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Deng Majek from Sudan is an illegal small boat migrant who was sentenced last week to 29 years in prison for the brutal murder of Rhiannon Whyte. He stabbed Rhiannon 23 times as she desperately tried to defend herself. Given timing of Majek’s arrival, in the summer of 2024, he would have been eligible for deportation to Rwanda, but Labour cancelled the Rwanda plan and instead accommodated this illegal immigrant in a hotel at taxpayers’ expense. Does the Home Secretary now accept that it was a huge mistake to cancel, just before it started, the Rwanda plan, which would have seen Majek deported, thereby preventing Rhiannon’s murder?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me say first and foremost that the murder of Rhiannon Whyte was an abhorrent crime and our thoughts are with her loved ones. I would caution all Members against using individual cases to make a bigger political point, as the shadow Home Secretary has just sought to do. He knows full well that his Government’s Rwanda plan was nothing more than a gimmick—£700 million was spent on four volunteers going to Rwanda. There is no silver bullet in dealing with the mess of the migration system left to us by the previous Conservative Administration, but we are taking action across every front to get illegal migration under control and to secure our border.
Chris Philp
The Rwanda scheme never started because this Government cancelled it. The Home Secretary talks about gimmicks. Her Government’s gimmicks have failed, and that is why cross-channel migration is up 42% since the general election.
I am afraid that this is not an isolated case. Hundreds of crimes are being committed by illegal immigrants, including a 30-year-old woman raped on a Brighton beach, a 15-year-old girl raped in Leamington Spa by two Afghan small boat migrants, and a girl aged just 12 strangled and raped by two illegal immigrants in Nuneaton. Does the Home Secretary agree that this cannot go on, that only radical action will fix it and that, just as the Father of the House said earlier, we need to leave the European convention on human rights and deport all illegal immigrants within a week of arrival, because then the crossings will stop?
Shabana Mahmood
The shadow Home Secretary has only picked up this new policy of leaving the ECHR in opposition; it is not one that the Conservatives took up when they were in government. [Interruption.] I am afraid he is now just carping from the sidelines, to which he has been condemned by the British people for failing to control our borders. It is this Government who are sorting out the abject mess in our migration system left by the Conservatives—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Philp, please can you calm down? It does not look good on TV for anybody to be shouting somebody else down.
Shabana Mahmood
We are already taking action. We will go much further, and we will not stop until we have restored order to our border.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
In recent weeks, those warning that a rapid dip in net migration could harm public services and the economy span left and right, including commentators such as Fraser Nelson, not known for his softness on this sort of thing. It is no secret that the Government are struggling to deliver growth after their two damaging Budgets and stubborn refusal to join a customs union with the EU. Is the Home Secretary totally certain that her plans on immigration will not further harm the economy and public services like our precious NHS?
Shabana Mahmood
Yes, I am, because having an ordered migration system both for legal migration and to sort out the problems of illegal migration is absolutely critical to maintaining public confidence across the country and making sure that we can hold our country together. I back all of these reforms, and I know they will have nothing but a positive impact.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
In Aldershot and Farnborough, we have a brilliant police team, but recruitment of officers is difficult because of the pay difference along the Hampshire-Surrey border. Officers can earn more by working just a few miles away, leaving our local police team understaffed and overstretched. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to address those recruitment challenges, to ensure that we have bobbies on the beat in every community?
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Shabana Mahmood
Let me condemn in the strongest possible terms all the antisemitic incidents that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted in his question. This Government will not stand for any antisemitism in our country, and we will take every step we can across Government to wipe out this evil from our society. He will know that I am reviewing police protest powers, and I have already made some announcements on changes that we will make. Lord Ken Macdonald is conducting a review, and I will not hesitate to take further legal steps in order to protect our Jewish community.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
What action is my right hon. Friend taking to disrupt the finances of the organised crime groups facilitating illegal migration to the United Kingdom, and what steps is her Department taking with international partners to prosecute those who are funding those operations, both domestically and internationally?
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I was at the Westminster Hall petition debate on indefinite leave to remain. Some 60 Labour MPs turned up and unanimously rubbished and disparaged the Home Secretary’s proposals. I got the impression that they were highly unlikely to support them, so can she guarantee that any changes to ILR will be brought to this House for debate and a vote?
Shabana Mahmood
These are the right reforms. We have set out our proposals for an earned settlement scheme, and they are being consulted on. That consultation closes in a matter of days, and the Government will consider all responses. If there are any changes that we wish to make, we will make them in the usual way.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Town centre crime in Hartlepool has fallen by 15% in the last year, thanks to the brilliant work of our police force under the leadership of Helen Wilson, but far more needs to happen. My constituents deserve to feel safe in their town centre, so can the Secretary of State tell me what more we can do to make sure that our town centres remain safe?
Shabana Mahmood
I am delighted that town centre crime has fallen by 15% in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It has fallen in many towns across the land since this Government came to power—not just because we are introducing new technology, including live facial recognition, where we need to; not just because we are introducing more neighbourhood policing; and not just because we are changing the law to ensure that all crimes are investigated; but because we are all working together to get this done.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
My constituents are concerned about the imminent closure of volunteer-manned Pinner police station, as part of a programme of closure by the Mayor of London that leaves the whole London borough of Harrow with no in-person access to the police. Thus far, the volunteers who man the front desk and I have had no response at all from the Mayor of London to our attempts to raise this issue. Will the Minister intervene to ensure that we at least get a response, and that the Mayor of London listens to my constituents’ concerns?
Police Reform White Paper
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on police reform.
A little less than 200 years ago, speaking at this very Dispatch Box, Sir Robert Peel declared that:
“the time is come, when…we may fairly pronounce that the country has outgrown her police institutions”.—[Official Report, 28 February 1828; Vol. 18, c. 795.]
Those words could just as well have been spoken today.
Policing is not broken, as some might have us believe. Last year, the police made over three quarters of a million arrests—5% more than the year before. Some of the most serious crimes are now falling, with knife crime down and murder in the capital at its lowest recorded level. However, across the country things feel very different. Communities are facing an epidemic of everyday crime that all too often seems to go unpunished—and criminals know it. Shop theft has risen by 72% since 2010, and phone theft is up 58%. At the same time, in a rapidly changing world, the nature of crime is changing. Criminals—be they drug smugglers, people traffickers or child sexual abusers—are operating online and across borders, with greater sophistication than ever before.
The world has changed dramatically since policing was last fundamentally reformed over 60 years ago. Policing remains the last great unreformed public service. Today, as this Government publish a new policing White Paper, I set out reforms that are long overdue. They define a new model for policing in this country, with local policing that protects our communities and national policing that protects us all.
Since taking office, we have already restored a focus on neighbourhood policing that the last Conservative Government eroded. They pulled bobbies off the beat, and now over half of the public report that they never see police on patrol in their local area. It was a foolish error, because neighbourhood policing works. Across the world, the evidence shows that visible patrols in high-crime areas work. The last Labour Government put more officers on the streets, and confidence in policing hit record levels. The Tories cut them, and confidence fell.
This Government are righting that wrong, with a target of 13,000 more neighbourhood officers by the end of the Parliament, and we have already put 2,400 back on to the beat. We have also introduced the neighbourhood guarantee, so that every community has a named, contactable officer. I also intend to end the distortive “officer maintenance grant” that was introduced by the last Conservative Government, who had to replace the 20,000 police officers lost on their watch. The results were perverse: uniformed officers hired but stuck behind desks, with 12,000 men and women in uniform now working in support roles, including—absurdly—some 250 warranted officers working in human resources. I intend to end that by introducing a neighbourhood policing ringfence, which will ensure that forces are putting uniformed officers where the public want and need them: out in the community, fighting crime on our streets.
However, we must do more. Today, policing happens in the wrong places. We have local forces responsible for national policing, which distracts them from policing their communities. At the same time, we have forces of various shapes and sizes, and quality varies widely force by force. This Government’s reforms will ensure that we have the right policing happening in the right place. That starts with the creation of a new national police service.
At first, the force will set standards and lift administrative tasks off local forces. In time, it will draw in all national crime-fighting responsibilities, including counter-terrorism policing, serious organised crime, and fraud. This will ensure that local forces are no longer distracted by national responsibilities, while at the same time creating an elite national force that is expert at fighting the ever-more sophisticated criminals who are operating nationwide, across our borders, and online.
Alongside the new national force, we will replace the patchwork of 43 local forces that has remained almost unchanged since the Police Act 1964. That model has been straining for decades, and today it is simply not fit for purpose. Our 43 forces are of varying sizes: some have just 1,000 officers, others over 8,000, and the Metropolitan police is 30 times larger than our smallest forces. As a result, some forces are not equipped to handle complex investigations or respond to major incidents.
Meanwhile, the duplication across force headquarters means that money is wasted, drawing resource away from frontline policing. We will introduce a smaller number of regional forces responsible for specialist investigations, including murder, serious sexual offences and public order. Within these forces, we will introduce smaller local policing areas. These will be focused exclusively on local policing, tackling the burglaries, shoplifting and antisocial behaviour that too often go unpunished today. It is vital that we set these new forces up in the right way, so I will soon launch a review to determine the precise number and nature of the new forces. Its work will be completed this summer. Taken together, these reforms will put the right policing in the right place: an elite national force will tackle nationwide crime; regional forces will conduct specialist investigations; and local policing will tackle the epidemic of everyday crime.
Our structures are outdated, and so is our adoption of the tools and technology that could make our policing more effective and more efficient. Criminals are operating in increasingly sophisticated ways, but in policing, in all honesty, our response is mixed. While some forces surge ahead, with the results to show for it, others are fighting crime in a digital age with analogue methods. We will ensure that every force is adopting the latest technology, led out of the new national police service. This will include the largest-ever roll-out of live facial recognition technologies, across England and Wales. We know that this approach works. In London, in just two years, the Metropolitan police has made 1,700 arrests, taking robbers, domestic abusers and rapists off our streets.
When the future arrives, there are always doubters. A hundred years ago, fingerprinting was decried as curtailing our civil liberties, but today we could not imagine policing without it. I have no doubt that the same will prove true of facial recognition technology in the years to come. At the same time, we will launch police.AI, investing a record £115 million in AI and automation to make policing more effective and efficient, stripping admin away to ensure that officer time can be devoted to the human factor that only a police officer can provide.
Common standards apply both to the technology we use and the quality and performance of our officers. We must, and we will, set and maintain the highest standards. We have already introduced new vetting requirements enabling forces to dismiss those who fail vetting checks, alongside a range of measures to lift policing standards. We will introduce a licence to practice for police officers, recognising the professionalism, dedication and duty that comes with the uniform. We must be willing to set clear standards and the performance that we expect within forces, and to hold policing leaders to account for their delivery. Under the last Conservative Government, there was a retreat from the historical role held by Home Secretaries and the Home Office since the days of Peel. That was an error, and this Government will reverse it.
As the old Peelian maxim has it, the police are the public and the public are the police. I consider it essential that the people, through Parliament, can determine what they expect from their forces, so this Government will restore targets for police forces and set minimum standards that forces must abide by. Force performance will be transparent and public, and where performance falls, we will take action. We will create new turnaround teams to go into a force where performance has fallen, and in the most extreme examples of a failure of leadership, I will restore the Home Secretary’s power to fire a chief constable. This vital power was relinquished by the last Conservative Government, who handed it to police and crime commissioners—a position that I consider a failed experiment, despite the best efforts of many excellent PCCs across the country. We will now draw that experiment to an end. Local accountability and governance will remain essential, however, and will continue to be provided by mayoralties or local crime and policing boards.
Taken together, these are, without question, major reforms: a transformation in the structures of our forces, the standards within them, and the means by which they are held to account by the public. These are the most significant changes to how policing works in this country in around 200 years. The world has changed immeasurably since then, but policing has not. We have excellent and brave police officers across the country, and effective and inspiring leaders across many of our forces, but they are operating within an outdated structure, making the job of policing our streets and protecting our country harder than it should be.
I began by quoting Peel’s declaration that
“the country has outgrown her police institutions”.
He went on to argue that the
“safest course will be found to be the introduction of a new mode of protection.” —[Official Report, 28 February 1828; Vol. 18, c. 795.]
Now, as then, it is time we had the bravery to pursue a new mode of protection and a new model of policing, with the right policing in the right place. That means local forces protecting their communities and national policing that protects us all. That is what this Government will deliver, and I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
You did run slightly over, by over a minute, so I will give a little bit of leeway to the Opposition Front Benchers. I call the shadow Home Secretary.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement—especially after her busy weekend chairing the national executive committee, which excluded Andy Burnham from returning to Parliament. Anyway, the Home Secretary’s statement—[Interruption.] There seems to be some concern from the Benches behind her on that.
The Home Secretary’s statement is striking for what it does not say, because there was no mention—not one word—of her plans for total police officer numbers. The reason for that is simple: total police officer numbers are falling under this Labour Government, as figures due for release later this week will confirm. The last recruitment intake before the election was in March 2024, and there were 149,769 officers in post—the highest number in this country’s history. By the same time the following year, under Labour officer numbers had fallen by over a thousand, and in the current financial year, numbers are falling even further, with the Met alone saying that it will lose a staggering 1,500 officers this financial year.
On officer numbers, the Government are engaged in a con trick. They are transferring officers away from crime investigation, 999 response and other teams into neighbourhood teams, so they can say neighbourhood numbers are going modestly up. But total police officer numbers are falling, so there will be fewer 999 response and investigation officers, response times will be slower and investigations will not be as effective. The Home Secretary can set targets and make announcements, but the fact is she is presiding over falling total police numbers and the public will be less safe as a result.
The Home Secretary has said that she will change the structure of policing. Briefings over the weekend said the reorganisation will be complete in—I had to double check this—2034, nearly a decade away. But we have a crime crisis today. Shoplifting and phone theft are surging under this Government, with shoplifting now at its highest level ever. Knife crime in London is up by 80% under Mayor Sadiq Khan. Women are being let down, too, with sex crimes up by 9%, rape up by 6%, stalking up by 5% and harassment up by 6% under this Labour Government. That requires action today, not in 2034.
The Home Secretary’s plan includes mandating the merger of police forces. Briefings over the weekend suggest a reduction from 43 down to 10 or 12, so a single police force might cover an area from Dover to Milton Keynes or from Penzance to Swindon. Such huge forces will be remote from the communities they serve, and resources will be drawn away from villages and towns towards large cities. The biggest force in the country is the Met, and yet it has the worst crime clear-up rate of any force; it fails to solve 95% of reported crimes. That goes to show that large scale does not automatically deliver better results, and therefore we will oppose the mandated merger of county forces into remote regional mega-forces.
Police forces are warning that Labour’s early prisoner release scheme means more crime and more demands on policing. Most criminals will now be released after serving just one third of their prison sentence, and even rapists will serve only half of theirs. To make things even worse, Labour plans to abolish prison sentences of under one year, so even the most prolific shoplifters will never face jail. That is a recipe for disaster, cooked up by the Home Secretary in her previous role.
We can agree on some things, because the Home Secretary has copied them from us. I am glad that she is continuing the roll-out of artificial intelligence and live facial recognition started under the previous Government —we fully support that. It is right for Home Secretaries to have greater powers to intervene; we announced that policy at our conference last year, and of course we support it. She now says that she will abolish non-crime hate incidents. We need to see the details, but might she explain why Labour voted against that measure when we tabled it as an amendment just last year?
The simple fact is this: total police officer numbers are falling under this Home Secretary’s watch. As a result, 999 response times and crime investigations will suffer. Shoplifting, phone-snatching and sex offences are all rising under this Government. Regional mega-forces will make things worse, not better. Her grand plans will not even be fully implemented until 2034, but action is needed today. These announcements will not make our streets safer this year or next year, and the public will see that rapidly.
Shabana Mahmood
Dear me! I will take no lectures on policing from the Conservatives. They had 14 years in government and delivered no meaningful change beyond decimating neighbourhood policing, introducing the failed experiment of police and crime commissioners, and sweeping away meaningful targets to hold our police forces to account.
The shadow Home Secretary complains about non-crime hate incidents. Pray tell, who was in government when they were brought in? He talks about the powers of the Home Secretary. Which Government got rid of them? It was the Conservatives—and not once in all their time in opposition since the general election have they had the gumption to apologise from the Dispatch Box for their appalling track record on policing. Conservative policies saw police numbers slashed by 20,000. They very hastily tried to reverse that measure by bringing back another 20,000 officers, but they did so in a distorted way that meant that 12,000 of those warranted police officers were doing desk jobs. I ask him to read the detail of the White Paper and reconsider whether he wants to stand against everything in it. He cannot possibly believe it a good idea for warranted police officers to do desk jobs; he cannot possibly think it fine for 250 of those officers to be in human resources and 200 in admin support. I cannot believe that even he, with all his lack of attention to detail, thinks that that is a good idea.
I urge the shadow Home Secretary and his Back Benchers to reconsider whether they will stand against the policies unveiled in the White Paper. I urge him to look again carefully at regional police forces. He will have looked at the White Paper, so he knows full well that the regional forces will have local police areas that can concentrate on policing local communities right down to the neighbourhood level. The only reason I am bringing in this new model of policing is to protect neighbourhood policing, which was decimated on the Conservative party’s watch. If he wants to stand against local police areas focused on local communities, and against regional forces dedicated to specialist investigation to ensure that rape and murder cases benefit from exactly the same high standards of service across the country, more fool him. Those measures will result in a better policing model for everyone across our country.
The shadow Home Secretary raises the example of the Met. One thing that Louise Casey found in her 2023 report was that the Met’s national responsibility for counter-terrorism policing—it does counter-terror for everyone across the UK—distracts from its policing of London. These reforms will mean that counter-terror policing, and all other national policing requirements, will sit with the National Police Service, so that the Met and every other force in the country can focus on policing their local areas. I cannot believe that he wants to stand against reforms that deliver better local policing, but that appears to be where the Conservatives are at.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the announcement by the Home Secretary. In London, we have long known that neighbourhood policing is vital. Only yesterday I was in Dalston, where there has been a lot of antisocial behaviour, and people have noticed the extra police on the streets. There has, though, been an issue of abstraction in London, where officers often have to backfill blue light officers or police national demonstrations. How will the Home Secretary plan this process to ensure that that does not happen, and that those teams are dedicated to neighbourhoods?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right to say that too many of our police forces are distracted from being able to police their local communities because they are dealing with national level issues, including national issues relating to public order. All those functions will ultimately sit within the new National Police Service, but in the interim I will appoint a special command to deal with public order policing in particular, to ensure consistency of approach across the country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
After a busy weekend policing Labour leadership rows, the Home Secretary is today in the House to announce reforms to policing. I think we all agree that we hope she is more successful with the latter than she was with the former.
This Government came to power with a pledge to increase police numbers, but instead of 13,000 more neighbourhood police, the latest stats tell us that we have 4,000 fewer frontline police. Numbers are down, and so is public trust. The police are stretched, and too many crimes are going unchecked. After years of Conservative chaos, people are crying out for a visible police presence in their communities. That is why we welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to focus on restoring proper community policing; we hope that is more than simple words. As well as getting more police on our streets, the Home Secretary must also address the horrifying decline in police counters and stations, which began under the Conservative but sadly continues under Labour in London today. Will she commit to ensuring a police counter in every community that needs one?
Policing must be fit for the modern era. It must be able to tackle organised crime, which too often presents itself in our communities through mobile phone theft, drug dealing, car crime and bike theft. Can the Home Secretary reassure the House that the new national force will be properly resourced and integrated with local forces, so that counter-terrorism and intelligence work are not undermined? As local forces are abolished and merged, we must not see vital links lost to local communities. For example, Gloucestershire police is one of the smallest forces, with urban and rural policing teams. If its leadership is placed under the control of a Bristol-based force, how will people in Cheltenham, Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds be reassured of that local focus?
Is placing the power to hire and fire chief constables in the hands of the Home Secretary the right approach? Does it not further politicise policing, particularly with the prospect of the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) as a future Home Secretary in a Farage-led coalition of chaos between the Tories and Reform?
Rural communities have long been neglected. Will the Home Secretary commit to placing dedicated rural crime teams in every force?
Finally, the Home Secretary mentioned facial recognition. Will she ensure that proper safeguards are put in place to ensure that the technology is not biased, and that those from ethnic minorities can be reassured that they will not be wrongfully criminalised?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his support, I believe, for at least some of the reforms, particularly those on neighbourhood policing. He is absolutely right: neighbourhood policing is critical and will be bedrock of the new policing model unveiled in the White Paper. We have already made progress on increasing the number of neighbourhood police officers. There are already 2,400 additional officers, and that number will be 3,000 by the end of March, with at least 1,750 over the next financial year; we will continue to make progress on neighbourhood police officers.
The hon. Member also mentioned police numbers. As is clear in the White Paper and from my statement, what matters is what those officers are doing. I hope that he and his Liberal Democrat colleagues will agree that nobody wants warranted police officers to be sat behind desks working in HR and admin support. We want police officers out policing our communities, going after criminals, and providing the reassurance that only visible policing can provide. He will know that decisions on police counters and other measures are for individual forces, but I hope that he will recognise that we have delivered on our commitment to have a named contactable officer in every neighbourhood, which I believe goes some way to reassuring local communities.
The hon. Gentleman made a good point about counter-terror policing and the National Crime Agency. I assure him and the whole House that those two organisations will only move into the National Police Service when it is fully ready. We will not compromise on the operational capabilities of either of those organisations. I will work closely with the leadership of both to make sure that the switch into the National Police Service only happens in a way that does not compromise the operational effectiveness of either counter-terror policing or the National Crime Agency.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that these reforms are fully funded to the end of the Parliament. He also made a point about regional forces. Again, I urge him to absorb the detail of the White Paper and I look forward to discussing these issues with him in more detail. Within the regional force structures, there will be local policing areas, right down to the neighbourhood level. That will ensure that whether people live in a rural area or in an urban one, like me, they get the local policing that they need and deserve. That is the absolute foundation of all these reforms, so that regional forces can concentrate on the things that can be done at scale, like specialist investigations and public order policing, and local police areas can police right down to the neighbourhood level and deal with the everyday crimes that are blighting communities all over the country, exactly as he says. That will apply equally and just as forcefully for rural communities as it will for those in towns and cities across the country.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that although I believe that live facial recognition is incredibly important technology, we will ensure that its roll-out is in line with the sort of regulations that we would expect to make sure that it does not have a distorted effect. We are consulting on that right now. In the future, the National Police Service will ensure that the adoption of technologies across policing takes place quickly and in line with the standards that we would all expect.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement about the deployment of 13,000 more neighbourhood officers. That will be incredibly welcome in my constituency, where we have a serious antisocial behaviour problem. However, residents in my borough of Lambeth overall have a historical issue with levels of trust in the police, largely due to racial profiling. Will the Home Secretary reassure me and my constituents that reforms to policing, including any measures that grant more powers to the police, will seek to address the issues of police mistrust and racial bias in policing?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me reassure my hon. Friend that we will ensure that the roll-out of all policing powers, including the use of technology, is in line with the race action plan, which we support, and that any measures are stress-tested to ensure that they serve all communities equally. It is our position that the police must always police without fear or favour, so that every community can be confident that they are getting the right quality of policing and nobody is being unfairly targeted.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Kent is one of the largest counties in the country. It faces significant geographic challenges. We have the channel tunnel; Dover, the largest port of entry into the United Kingdom; Manston airport, which is likely to reopen; and, of course, the small matter of illegal migration across the channel. I cannot see how a policing area that I understand will stretch from Banbury in Oxfordshire to Herne Bay on the North sea coast and Sandwich on the channel coast, will be policed effectively and locally, as it currently is. I am, I think, one of the only Members of this House who has held a warrant as a serving police officer—[Interruption.] I did say “one of the only”, not “the only one”. I understand only too well the need for policing to keep pace with the same tools that are used by the criminals, but will the Home Secretary tell the House whether or not this plan has the confidence of the constabulary?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution and for his service, as well as that of other hon. Members who have served in our police service. I reassure him that, as will be clear when I introduce legislation later in the year, the plan for regional forces will include an absolute focus on local police areas. Local policing for local communities will be tailored to many of the needs that he has pointed out, but at a regional level we will have the necessary economies of scale and the capacity to deal with specialist investigations, while ensuring that the quality of those investigations does not depend on which part of the country they happen to be in. When the detail is out, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to support the proposals, given that they will focus carefully on local policing areas specifically in order to deal with some of the issues he has raised.
The exact number of regional forces and the geography that they will span will be a matter for the reviewer—I hope to announce who that will be very soon—with a view to reporting in the summer so that we can crack on with rolling out these reforms.
I have been delighted and a little surprised by the sheer number of policing leaders who have come out in support of these proposals, including those who represent organisations that will see change as a result of the reforms. The sheer range of people who have supported the White Paper shows that these reforms are the right ones for policing in our country.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I very much welcome these proposals. The NCA is hugely under-resourced, and bringing these elements together will hopefully give it the funding required to do its job properly. The amount of duplication of effort that occurs and the lack of information sharing result in huge inefficiencies. It is struggling with the pace of change in technology, especially because of end-to-end encryption, and it is struggling to hire and retain staff with the technical skills that it requires—people who have those skills are eagerly snapped up by the private sector. It does not have the funding to make the technical investment needed to keep up with the pace of change.
As a result of the structure and separated command and control of the regional organised crime units, the NCA and the Met, they make decisions and prioritise independently and without deconfliction, in the procurement of tools and data, for example. That means that the same technologies can be acquired multiple times to benefit only a single area. Does the Secretary of State agree that this White Paper will tackle those challenges head-on?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right. The National Police Service will draw in the national responsibilities of both counter-terror policing and the National Crime Agency. Those two organisations collaborate very effectively, and I pay tribute to their leadership and the way in which they operate alongside one another, but they duplicate and build similar capabilities. Instead of having those capabilities built alongside and within two organisations, it makes sense to bring them into one organisation and to prevent that duplication of capabilities and functions. That is one of the main benefits of the reform.
On the sorts of people whom these organisations go after, we know that we are one of the few major countries in the world that does not combine counter-terror policing and serious organised crime. International criminals often cross boundaries and indulge in all sorts of different types of work, including terrorism financing and serious organised crime. The reforms will lead to a very effective service and build on the excellent work already done by officers in counter-terror policing and the NCA.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Home Secretary quoted Sir Robert Peel at the top of her speech, saying that he was “speaking at this very Dispatch Box”. She clearly has not realised that those Dispatch Boxes were donated by New Zealand after the second world war. Even if she was talking more figuratively, this whole Chamber was destroyed in 1834 after Peel said those words. The accuracy that she sacrificed for rhetoric continued throughout her speech. Following discussions that I have had with the chief constables of Surrey and Hampshire, who are against these proposals, may I ask a question? If chief constables across the country, such as those in Surrey and Hampshire, are against her proposals when her review concludes, will she scrap the proposals—or is this a review in name only?
Shabana Mahmood
I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s greater knowledge of House of Commons trivia; I am sure that he has been an excellent member of every pub quiz team that he has ever been a part of.
The review will look at how we deliver regional forces, so it will mean a significant reduction in the number of forces. However, it will advise on the correct number of regional forces and how we should go about implementing that policy.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)
The Home Secretary’s proposals will allow for a new focus on community policing and engagement, which was proven to work under the last Labour Government. By far the biggest issue that I come across is the lack of feedback to victims of crime. With the proposals that she has announced and with technology improving all the time, will she commit to looking at that to see whether it can be improved for residents and constituents, as well as improving trust and accountability in policing?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think we could make a lot of progress if we could ensure that the victims’ code was implemented consistently across the country, and I know the Justice Secretary also wishes to make sure there is greater adherence to all the requirements of the code. In the end, policing is a public service; it is there for members of the public, and to give victims of crime confidence that their case will be dealt with fairly and as quickly as possible and that criminals are brought to justice. That is exactly why we are making these reforms.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
As a former police officer, I have watched the roll-out of Police Scotland with some sadness because, despite best efforts, it has not delivered in Scotland what the Home Secretary hopes to achieve with her amalgamations. Communities feel that neighbourhood policing is further away from them, and that they do not have the hoped for visibility and local accountability. I hope that she is taking some lessons from Scotland.
The Home Secretary has also been making points about the number of police officers who are working in desk jobs. She surely recognises that a number of those individuals are working in those areas because they are on light or restricted duties, and we always need to have roles available for those people. We have focused too much on police officer numbers and not enough on the back-office functions and the expertise of police staff. Will this White Paper address the overall resourcing model for policing?
Shabana Mahmood
One of the real issues with the Police Scotland reforms was that they were completed within one year. I have made a deliberate decision to phase in these proposals and measures over a number of years—towards the end of this Parliament and into the next. I make no apology for that proposed timeline, because I believe we must go carefully; these are big changes, and it is important that they are rolled out effectively and in a way that maintains the confidence of the public, as well as all those who work in our police services. I think we have already learned the lessons of what has happened in Scotland. Of course, the other big difference between the measures I have introduced today and what happened with Police Scotland is that we have focused from the outset on neighbourhood policing. That has been the absolute bedrock of all the proposals I have made, which is not quite the same as what happened over in Scotland, although specialist capabilities and specialist investigations have certainly improved.
Turning to desk jobs, the most important thing is that we have warranted police officers who are policing our streets. Of course there is often a need for some officers not to be out; there is a need for support staff as well, and we have to strike the right balance between those who are in frontline policing and those who are doing back-office roles in our police service. We will have a workforce strategy as part of this White Paper, but we need always to keep in mind that we are talking about a police service that delivers for the public, so what we really care about are outcomes and what those officers are doing—how they are policing our streets and providing much-needed reassurance to all of our communities.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I am really pleased that the Home Secretary is retaining the role of democratically elected metro mayors in the oversight of police forces. My specific question is about police AI. We know that AI training models have bias, particularly around race, so how are we going to ensure that these AI models will not contain that bias? Also, all of the major AI companies are foreign-owned. How are we going to ensure that our national security is protected, and that this data is not taken and used against the United Kingdom by foreign Governments?
Shabana Mahmood
I reassure my hon. Friend that at the moment we have strong measures in place for how data is used in our police service. In future, all of that capability will sit with the National Police Service, which will set the standards. They will be very high standards with a high degree of transparency, so that we are always stress-testing our use of AI and technology to ensure that it is used effectively for policing, but not in a way that contravenes our collective values.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
To follow on from the previous question, the Home Secretary has strongly supported digital facial ID and artificial intelligence. As her colleague, the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), has said, both of those technologies show significant error rates, particularly when it comes to racial minorities. Innocent people fear this, particularly after the Post Office scandal, which showed that courts believe computers rather than people, resulting in miscarriages of justice.
I have three questions for the Home Secretary. First, what does she regard an acceptable error rate for these technologies? Secondly, does she support the provision of compensation for people who are misidentified by such technology? Thirdly, she has talked about regulations; will she put all of these reforms on a statutory basis, based on primary legislation that passes through this House?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before I call the Home Secretary, I remind Members that a lot of people are on their feet to ask a question, and I want to finish this statement at around 5.30 pm. Will you answer one of those questions, Home Secretary?
Shabana Mahmood
I think that is me being told to go faster. Let me assure the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) that we are consulting on the safeguards for the use of AI in technology and live facial recognition. I assure him that I will always make sure that robust safeguards are in place, and I am sure that we will debate these issues in the House many times over the months to come.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. My constituents expect the everyday policing response to improve, but they know the value of more specialist public order capabilities, because in August 2024 the brave officers of Northumbria police put on their public order gear to protect our citizens against disgraceful violent conduct in our city centre. Can the Home Secretary say a little more about how she envisages public order responsibilities sitting between the national body that she outlines and regional forces? Can she say a little about the funding streams for that?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Learning the lessons of what happened in 2024 is why we have already decided to bring in a national command role specifically for public order policing. He raises other issues, particularly on funding. All these reforms are fully funded to the end of the Parliament, but the specific funding streams are a matter for future funding settlements. He will know that we are publishing the funding settlement for the coming financial year on Wednesday.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I congratulate the Home Secretary on having attracted dozens of her Back Benchers to support her, when the Foreign Affairs Minister responding to the urgent question just before could not find a single one to support him on the dreadful Chagos deal.
Can the Home Secretary tell us a bit more about how the new structure will be governed? I understand the idea about the national police commissioner at the very top, but what sort of executive key people will there be lower down to ensure that relevance is maintained in rural areas, as opposed to the different needs of urban areas?
Shabana Mahmood
The White Paper envisages a whole change to the accountability mechanisms for policing at every level, whether that is for the National Police Service or right down to regional forces and local police areas. The right hon. Gentleman will know that I am bringing back powers to the Home Secretary. We have also published a performance framework today that will bring transparency to how police forces are functioning. A new national commissioner will be in charge of the NPS and all the other structures will sit underneath that. I assure him that at every level there will be a high expectation of high performance and of accountability, both to local policing and crime boards and to the Home Secretary directly.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
As a former police officer of three police forces in this country, I can categorically and honestly say that the many reforms presented in the White Paper are welcomed by my former colleagues and by me. Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats had the chance to bring these reforms forward. They tried many times, and they failed many times to bring them forward. What makes us different from the previous Governments? I put on record my full confidence in the current Home Secretary to get this done once and for all.
Shabana Mahmood
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s support for these proposals and for our ability as a Government to get them done, and I appreciate the support of the other officers of the rank and file with whom I know he is still in touch.. These major reforms will take time to deliver. I have been encouraged by the support received from policing leaders and rank and file police officers all over the country, including from those whose organisations will change and sit within the National Police Service. I say to Opposition Members: if they care about neighbourhood policing and local policing for local communities, these are the reforms for them, and they should support them.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Over the weekend, the Home Secretary was trailing this proposal as a British FBI. While it might indeed be their FBI, British it most definitely is not, as it applies only to England and Wales. In Scotland, we are immensely proud of our culture and ethos of policing by consent and the fact that we have the lowest crime rates in the whole of the UK. The last thing we want is this creeping Americanisation. Can she say today—clearly and concisely—that this proposal will not apply to Scotland and no attempt will be made to foist it on us?
Shabana Mahmood
I do regret the hon. Gentleman’s inability to move beyond party politics. As he will know—in fact, the Minister for Policing and Crime, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), has engaged with the Scottish Government today—the National Police Service will be UK-wide, but its powers and remit will vary between England and Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland. In England and Wales it will have full operational powers and will be able to carry out its law enforcement activities, but in Scotland and Northern Ireland it will carry out operations only with the agreement of the legally designated authority, which is the position today.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Can she confirm that, as she consults on the new police force structures, local accountability, community engagement and place-based policing will remain central to the Government’s approach?
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
It will not take much of a Hansard search for Members to see that many years ago I asked Baroness May, who was then Home Secretary, to do something very similar to this, but the devil will always be in the detail. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, West and South Yorkshire are far more densely populated than North Yorkshire, which is now a big chunk of my constituency. May I ask the Home Secretary who will be involved in the consultation on the smaller policing areas, and how much credence those people will be given—because this very much has to come down to local level and local councils—and may I also ask what scrutiny we, as local Members of Parliament, will be able to give that consultation? Ultimately, that is what it will all hinge on.
Shabana Mahmood
I know that the right hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in these affairs, and I will happily discuss some of the details of these proposals with him. I will announce the appointment of a reviewer in due course, and it will be for the reviewer and the supporting panel to set out how they intend to conduct the review, including the consultation. However, I absolutely take the right hon. Gentleman’s point that these reforms will work if they have the buy-in and if they make sense based on geography. They will reflect that, and I will ensure that when I receive the reviewer’s report, that is the same lens through which I will look at the proposals.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
Policing needs a stronger national centre, modern IT systems that actually work and can talk to each other, and much better mental health support for officers who are exposed to so much trauma. These reforms could deliver that, so I welcome those elements. However, I am sceptical about the licence to practise and the value that it might add, although I approach it with an open mind. Although I believe in having different routes into policing, I am sceptical about direct entry at inspector rank specifically, given that it is such a crucial operational rank—and one that I myself have held. This has, after all, been tried unsuccessfully by the previous Government.
If policing reform is to be a success, it will be down to the implementation on the frontline—that is what really matters to the public—so the voices of those on the frontline must be a key part, and that cannot be possible through the rotten Police Federation, which only today was found to have unlawfully suspended elected officers for speaking up. Will the Home Secretary guarantee that she will take the voices of the frontline into account before making final decisions, and will she meet me to discuss the proposals?
Shabana Mahmood
I will absolutely take into account the views of the rank and file, and I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend. As for the Police Federation, the White Paper makes it clear that we are not happy with the status quo. The Policing Minister has met its representatives directly, and they know that if they do not improve quickly enough, I will not hesitate to bring forward further reforms to ensure that our rank and file police officers are better represented. My hon. Friend also mentioned direct entry. As he will know, Lord Blunkett is currently leading an independent commission on police leadership, and I will look at the proposals that he puts forward. The White Paper signals our interest in this model of direct entry, but, as has been noted, the devil is always in the detail and it is all about how these reforms are implemented. I hope that my hon. Friend and others will continue to keep an open mind as we develop our proposals further.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The White Paper states, on page 24:
“To build trust and increase accessibility, officers will also maintain a visible presence in local hubs, schools and community spaces”.
May I ask the Home Secretary how that vision marries with the fact that in London, under the Met’s “tough choices” programme, we are about to see the closure of the Twickenham police station front counter? We have already lost our specialist schools team and we have lost our specialist parks police, including those in Bushy Park in my constituency. Does this not show that the Home Secretary can make as many reforms to structures as she likes, but if they are not resourced properly, our constituents will not see the community policing that she is promising?
Shabana Mahmood
What the hon. Lady’s constituents will see is the increase in neighbourhood police officers—we will have 3,000 in place by the end of March—and a named, contactable officer in every neighbourhood. The neighbourhood policing guarantee is the absolute bedrock for ensuring that communities, wherever they are—in London or other parts of the country—always have visible policing in their neighbourhoods.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and I pay tribute to all those who serve to keep us safe. In respect of the impact that this will have on Wales, can she assure me that she will consult all local partners—MPs, police forces, local government and the Welsh Government—in order to determine what local scrutiny of governance looks like in Wales as part of these reforms?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me assure my hon. Friend that the Policing Minister met representatives of the Welsh Government today, and we will continue those conversations. The independent review will take into account existing devolution and local governance arrangements, and I will happily ensure that he and others who are interested in this are kept updated as the review rolls out.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
My constituents are already concerned that Avon and Somerset constabulary is dominated by Bristol and that far too few resources are devoted to Somerset’s smaller towns and villages. How will the Home Secretary ensure that her new, larger regional forces police our rural communities properly?
Shabana Mahmood
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be local policing areas within the new regional forces, with neighbourhood policing as the absolute bedrock of those local policing areas. I would not be bringing forward these reforms if I was not absolutely certain that we are absolutely protecting local policing in the set-up of the new model for policing, so that every area gets the type of policing it needs and deserves.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Last Friday I held a community meeting with Cumbria’s police, fire and crime commissioner, David Allen. Since his election just 20 months ago, he has been focused on taking those officers who were forced into the back room under the last Government and putting them back on the frontline. Can the Home Secretary please reassure me, and our police, fire and crime commissioner, that the reforms she has outlined today will continue to strengthen frontline policing, particularly in rural areas such as Cumbria?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly powerful point. I can provide her with that reassurance, and the Policing Minister spoke to her police, fire and crime commissioner today.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The Humberside force that polices my Brigg and Immingham constituency covers four local authorities and two separate mayoral authorities. Exactly what proportion of police funding is likely to come from the police precept, and how will it be divided up?
Shabana Mahmood
Those will be matters for the independent reviewer to advise on. They will look not only at the correct number of regional forces for England and Wales, but at the method of rolling out those police forces. I am sure we will be able to discuss those when the review reports in the summer.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
As a former police officer, I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Under its current chief constable, Greater Manchester police has seen a resurgence and has become a highly performing police force that serves a growing and economically successful city region. That is in part because of a highly effective working partnership between Greater Manchester local authorities and the mayoral combined authority. Can the Home Secretary provide an assurance that the current structure, which is clearly working well, will not be altered?
Shabana Mahmood
It will be for the review to recommend what the new structure of the regional forces should look like, but let me pay tribute to the work of Greater Manchester police and the chief constable in particular. Greater Manchester is a very good example of a large force that is not burdened by significant national services. It is therefore able to concentrate on policing its local communities, and to do so very effectively. [Interruption.] The shadow Home Secretary chunters from a sedentary position, but he could do with learning a few lessons from Greater Manchester.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
In Greater Manchester we love a bit of drama. We have the longest-running soap opera in the world—“Coronation Street”—we have some nail-biting derby matches, and over the weekend there was some pretty high-octane speculation about whether the current person responsible for policing in the city region might be allowed to apply for another job. Where we do not want more drama, though, is in policing our communities. Could the Home Secretary share her thinking about how to preserve what works well in Greater Manchester—where the police force is coterminous with the mayoral authority and the 10 local authorities within it, enabling good, strong partnership working—so that my Hazel Grove constituents get the policing they deserve?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me reassure the hon. Lady that I am very much “No Drama Shabana”. I have already paid fulsome tribute to Greater Manchester police, and I think some excellent work is taking place in that part of the world. I am sure that the reviewer, once appointed, will take into account good examples of local policing within a larger force structure, and I am sure there are many lessons to learn from Manchester.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her action. One local farmer described to me the crime he has been experiencing, with gates cut open, crops damaged, and quad bikes and 4x4s stolen. Because he lives close to the Bedfordshire border, the criminals just flee over the border, and Thames Valley police finds it very difficult to follow that up. Can she say how these reforms will improve the police presence and their response times in rural areas, and in particular how they will solve the problem of police forces not collaborating across borders?
Shabana Mahmood
The absolute bedrock of these reforms is local policing through the local police areas, which will be part of our proposed regional forces, with neighbourhood policing embedded within them. My hon. Friend will know that legislative changes are coming in to deal with some of the issues she raised about quad bikes specifically. The intention of all these reforms is to ensure that whether people live in a rural area or an urban city, as I do, they get an exceptional standard of service at both the neighbourhood level and the regional level, with national policing through the new National Police Service that will keep us all safe.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
We all want to see more effective and efficient policing, but I am not quite sure whether this White Paper will deliver it. Clearly, the devil will be in the detail. The Home Secretary will know that West Mercia police, covering Shropshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire, is a high-performing police force. Can she reassure my constituents that she understands the difference between, for example, West Midlands urban policing—she obviously oversees it, but she also lives in that jurisdiction—and the rural and semi-rural policing of forces such as West Mercia police? In my experience, regional counter-terrorism policing works very well in the West Midlands, which oversees that for West Mercia police as well, and so does the National Crime Agency under its excellent leadership.
Finally on the reforms, can I ask the Home Secretary to review the effectiveness and efficiency of the 101 service, and as the Official Secrets Act covers some police officers, but not all, is this not an opportunity to ensure that all police officers are covered by a duty of confidentiality and secrecy?
Shabana Mahmood
I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s views, but it is precisely because I understand the difference, which he raises, between areas such as those he represents and those I represent that I am bringing in this new model for policing. I believe this is the right model to ensure that it does not much matter where people are in the country—whether Shropshire or inner-city Birmingham —because they will always have excellent, high-quality neighbourhood policing, with a local force entirely committed to policing their local area day in, day out, and dealing with all the crimes that we know are tearing at the fabric of our communities; a regional force, which can do the specialist investigations at scale, so that they do not get a different standard of service depending on which part of the country they are in; and a National Police Service that I believe will bring in the NCA and counter-terrorism policing in a way that will make sure we are all kept safe. We are the only major country that does not have those two functionalities together, and I think it is the right change to make.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
To ask a nice short question, with a nice short answer, I call Mohammad Yasin.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the Government’s reform agenda in support of our mission for safer streets. In Bedfordshire, Operations Boson and Costello—tackling guns, gangs and organised drugs crime—have driven major arrests and a 15% fall in antisocial behaviour in Bedford town centre, backed by £7.3 million in special grants. Will the Home Secretary commit to maintaining these grants or to integrating them into core police funding to ensure that effective, evidence-based, local crime reduction programmes continue to protect our communities?
Shabana Mahmood
We will say more about specific funding in the coming days, so I will not be tempted to say any more about that now. The White Paper makes it clear that, as we roll out a new structure with regional forces, we will take the opportunity to review the police funding formula.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
It must be right to look at this White Paper with an open mind, and I commend the Home Secretary’s willingness to listen. I will make two points for her to consider. First, in Royal Sutton Coldfield we are most concerned that neighbourhood policing—community policing—should be accountable, dependable, reliable and accessible. We know that all policing is, above all, local. Secondly, will she bear in mind that strong leadership is the key to policing? We need to find ways of bringing in fresh blood at senior levels. Will she make it easier for that to happen? In particular, there should be a way of encouraging senior officers in the armed forces to look at transferring to senior positions within the police.
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman is a Birmingham neighbour of mine; I always take what he has to say seriously. I agree with him on everything he said about neighbourhood policing and its responsiveness to the local communities that it serves. The Blunkett review will shortly report. It has been looking at leadership in policing, and I am sure that those recommendations will touch on some of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The litany of failures under the Conservatives of Staffordshire police is too long to mention in the short time that I have for this question. The Home Secretary mentioned local accountability being done through mayors and police and crime boards. Where we will have mayors in areas smaller than those of the likely police forces, can she say more about how she anticipates that accountability working? Can she also say what accountability there will be for local policing areas? In Stoke-on-Trent, we have a really good police service that works well with local partners, but that accountability could be lost if it is moved to big, regional figureheads.
Shabana Mahmood
Let me assure my hon. Friend that accountability at both national and local level is critical to these reforms. Once the review has reported on what the shape of those new regional forces should be, we will be able to say more on the exact relationship between areas where there is a crossover of mayoralties, as well as for local policing and crime boards. It is absolutely the intention that, at every level, there will be obvious accountability for local responsiveness and performance. That goes right up to the national level, where the Home Secretary will have new powers going forward.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—specifically, my role as the co-chair of the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group.
The White Paper recognises that changes to policing governance and crime prevention in Wales will have to reflect the existence of more than a quarter of a century of devolution. Meanwhile, three independent commissions have recommended that justice and policing be devolved to Wales. Considering that around 56% of our police funding in Wales already comes from devolved sources, does the Home Secretary not agree that this package of radical changes is exactly the right time for the devolution of policing to Wales?
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
I warmly welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. I would like to highlight two Government initiatives—Clear, Hold, Build and Operation Machinize—with our hard-working police force that are making a real difference in Ipswich. I can see parallels with some of the proposals that the Home Secretary has laid out for local policing. Although we received a welcome multimillion pound uplift in police funding, we have been majorly short-changed over the years, as one of the worst funded local authorities for more than a decade. Can the Home Secretary assure me that these changes will result in extra resources that we desperately need to continue the good progress that we have made in Ipswich and Suffolk?
Shabana Mahmood
We will say more about the funding settlement for the coming year in just a few days’ time, but my hon. Friend will know—and I hope he will welcome —that every force, wherever they are in the country, will see a real-terms increase in funding. We propose to deal with the wider questions about the police funding formula once we have the review and we know what the recommendations are for regional forces going forward. That will be the appropriate time to review the police funding formula, which we will do.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The basic command unit that includes Torbay does not have services such as firearms officers or roads officers. Will the Home Secretary give clear guidance that all basic command units should include such disciplines?
Shabana Mahmood
Going forward, in the new model, it will be obvious where those disciplines sit, whether that is in the National Police Service or within regional forces, right down to the neighbourhood level. The intention of the new model is to ensure that, wherever someone is in the country, they get an excellent quality of service, including all the capabilities that are needed to keep our communities safe.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I welcome the statement and the improvements to policing that I am already seeing in Exeter thanks to a 13% increase in funding, with 171 officers newly on the streets across Devon and Cornwall. As the Secretary of State consults on police force structures, can she confirm that strong local policing and operational leadership will remain core to the service and that we remain committed to improving standards—important across Devon and Cornwall—both of which are key to public confidence in policing?
Shabana Mahmood
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Responsibility for high standards across the whole service will in future sit with the National Police Service, but in the meantime I am working closely with police leaders everywhere to ensure our standards are as strong as they can be, so that no matter where you are in the country, you get the quality of service that you deserve.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
On this Government’s watch, in the west midlands we now face a £41 million black hole, which we are told will lead to a reduction in policing numbers. Under these new reforms, how will the Home Secretary ensure we see a net increase in the west midlands, particularly in my constituency?
Shabana Mahmood
Under this Government, we have increased funding to forces by close to £2 billion since being elected, and the funding settlement for 2026-27 is an increase of £796 million based on the year before. It is this Government who are funding police.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I welcome in particular the commitment to visible and neighbourhood policing. Many towns across the country continue to face challenges with organised crime and county lines networks. How will the reforms help to tackle that systematically? May I ask the Home Secretary about the future role of violence reduction units, which are really important in providing new focused prevention work?
Shabana Mahmood
I will say more about specific funding decisions in the coming days, but let me reassure my hon. Friend that we absolutely recognise the role that violence reduction units play in dealing with knife crime in particular. Let me also reassure her that local police areas within regional forces will ensure that every community, wherever it is, gets the high standard of service that everyone deserves.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
My concern is about the regional and local levels. In South Northamptonshire, my villages already really struggle to get attention because it always goes to Northampton, Kettering and Corby. The regional system may make that worse, so how will the local areas actually work in practice? If they stick to existing sizes, I will have 96 parishes who still will not get attention, unless we exclude the major towns. Has the Home Secretary given thought to that?
Shabana Mahmood
It is precisely because I have given thought to the problems the hon. Lady raises that I brought the reforms forward in the first place. Within our regional forces we will have local police areas, which will be very clear when I bring forward legislation to this House, with the specific remit of policing their local communities.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
The recent National Audit Office report into police productivity highlights inconsistency in the operational and financial resilience of police forces, which suffered after the criminal inaction of the Conservative party. Will the Home Secretary set out how the National Police Service will enhance collaboration, while maintaining neighbourhood policing, including in my Kent villages and communities?
Shabana Mahmood
The National Police Service will take over many of the administrative functions that are currently done 43 different ways by chief constables across the country, including lifting the burden of procurement. That will now be done once through the National Police Service, saving time, preventing duplication and increasing the effectiveness of policing. Taken together, the reforms meet the challenges set out not just in that NAO report, but, I am sure, in many reports over the years. This new model of policing will deliver for local people, wherever they are, with a national service that can make sure we wipe out duplication and make the savings we need so that we can reinvest them in the frontline.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
Will the Home Secretary give us some clarity on the bespoke legal framework on police AI, please? Will its scope be commendably narrow, getting police use of facial recognition under control while clearly outlawing other uses, which would match the EU’s AI Act, or will it be too narrow, leaving other public authorities, such as potentially the Border Force, local authorities and the private sector, in the ungoverned wild west of uses that we see now?
Shabana Mahmood
We are very much focused just on policing and we are consulting on those matters as we speak.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
In my part of the world, people who get in touch with me about crime raise four major issues: car crime, county lines, antisocial behaviour and retail crime. The first two are often caused by criminal networks that extend beyond Staffordshire, and into the west midlands and further beyond. Will the Home Secretary confirm that the reforms are aimed at ensuring there is a regional response to those cross-border crimes, allowing local police to focus on antisocial behaviour and retail crime?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is 100% right—that is exactly the intention of the reforms, and it is how we will ensure that we have a new model for policing that can serve every community and deal effectively with every type of crime.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
There are a lot of things to welcome in this statement, but police licence to practise is probably not one of them. I say this because other trades and professions that have licencing, annual appraisal, or periodic revalidation have found that it simply becomes a time-sapping industry. I am sure that is not the Home Secretary’s plan for the police, particularly since my constituents want our police to be on the frontline and dealing with online fraud, not ticking boxes.
Shabana Mahmood
Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will work closely with the police as we develop the new licence to practise. We will obviously want to strike the right balance between ensuring that our officers are up to date on training and investing in their skills, but not creating a bureaucracy that then gets in the way. At the moment, we already have quite a bureaucracy when it comes to training. It is right that we move forward to a more professional model by having this licence, but we will consult and work with policing as we roll it out.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Those responsible for organised crime, fraud and terrorism do not operate within the boundaries of local police forces, so I welcome a joined-up, national approach to those types of crime. However, residents in Derby also want more visible policing in our city centre and local communities, and that is what we have been working to deliver. Can the Home Secretary tell us more about how the reforms will empower local forces to respond more effectively to everyday crime and antisocial behaviour?
Shabana Mahmood
Dealing with everyday crime and antisocial behaviour is the reason for the reforms. The new regional forces will undertake specialist investigations, ensuring that we have the same standards of service all over the country. Within them, from local police areas, right down to policing at the neighbourhood level, we will ensure we can deal with exactly the types of crime that my hon. Friend raised, which we know are rising in number. It is critical that we deal with them, and that is the absolute bedrock of our neighbourhood policing pledge, where we are ensuring that every neighbourhood in every community is policed properly, effectively, and in a way that reassures the public.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Thames Valley is already a large police force, where our superb police officers and staff struggle to balance resources effectively, even with local command units now across rural areas like my own and the bigger cities, such as Oxford and Milton Keynes. Given that it is such a large force—and that right now it finds itself with a budget settlement £9 million lower than expected—and given the commitment from the Home Office only to fund 40% of new recruits, what confidence can we have that the Government will adequately fund bigger forces?
Shabana Mahmood
The reforms in the White Paper are fully funded. Let me reassure the hon. Member that every force in the country will see a real-terms increase in its funding in the new police settlement. The hon. Member raises the challenges seen by Thames Valley police and across the country, but the reason we are rolling out this model of policing is to have a better balance between neighbourhood policing, local police areas, regional forces and the new National Police Service.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, which I hope will deliver a more joined-up approach to tackling some of the most serious crimes. However, we know that the police still have significant work to do in rebuilding public trust. Will the Home Secretary outline how the reforms will help raise standards, increase numbers and strengthen public confidence in our police?
Shabana Mahmood
I reassure my hon. Friend that we have already made changes on vetting, learning lessons from some of the cases where things have gone wrong. It is our expectation that the police will provide a very high standard of service, and we will invest in staff to ensure that they deliver the standards expected by all our communities, building public trust not costing public confidence in policing. It is absolutely the intention of the reforms to ensure that we have a police service that we can all be proud of.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I am concerned that a merger of Surrey police with neighbouring forces will divert resources away from communities in Surrey. On a busy Saturday night, Reigate will inevitably lose out to Reading. What reassurance can the Secretary of State provide to my constituents?
Shabana Mahmood
I do not accept that areas will miss out under the new model of policing, because ensuring that we have a model that can deliver for every type of community and deal with every type of crime is exactly the point of the reforms.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I welcome this statement. In Bracknell Forest, our neighbourhood policing teams have been listening to residents’ concerns over e-bikes and off-road bikes, and have taken targeted action to clamp down on this kind of antisocial behaviour, although it is not perfect and there is still more to do. Does the Home Secretary agree that neighbourhood-level policing, driven by community concerns, should be the new model of policing?
Shabana Mahmood
I 100% agree with my hon. Friend. I welcome the good work that has already taken place in his area, although I know there is more to do. The changes that we are bringing in will improve our ability to meet the challenges faced by his community and communities across the country.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I welcome the commitment to police funding reform. Dorset is the second worst funded police force in the country and has a much higher proportion of local funding, with 50% funded by the precept. Dorset MPs and the police and crime commissioner wrote to the Home Secretary in November, and we want to push for a reply. What assurances can we be given that seasonality will be factored into the new funding formula?
Shabana Mahmood
I will ensure that the hon. Lady gets an answer to the letter she sent along with colleagues. Once we have completed the review into the new shape of regional forces, we will announce plans on the review of the police funding formula.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for the Government’s focus on funding for neighbourhood police patrols, which has enabled Thames Valley police to form a new anti-shoplifting unit in Reading. Retail crime is still far too frequent and blatant in our shops. Will the Secretary of State or her Ministers come to visit the newly opened Reading police station in my constituency and meet our local shop staff and police officers to help them to tackle the scourge of shoplifting?
Shabana Mahmood
Just a few days ago, I was out meeting neighbourhood police officers who deal with retail crime in Lambeth; I am sure that either the Minister for Policing or I will avail ourselves of a visit to Reading as well.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Police Service of Northern Ireland is currently excluded from the counter-terrorism policing grant of about £1 billion a year, which is accessible to GB forces. Now that counter-terrorism is being looked after by the National Police Service, will the Police Service of Northern Ireland be able to access some of that funding?
Shabana Mahmood
Again, the Policing Minister met representatives from the Northern Ireland Government. The legal basis for how counter-terror policing works will not change under the new National Police Service, but I will look at what the hon. Gentleman says about funding specifically.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Communities in Kent are pleased to see that funding for police next year will be 20% higher than in the final year of the previous Government, with a target for 43 new neighbourhood police officers across the county to police our streets and rebuild community policing after years of neglect. Does the Home Secretary agree it is crucial that the White Paper rebuilds trust between communities and police not just in Kent but across the country, so that the public can have confidence that a police person will be there when they need them?
Shabana Mahmood
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a powerful point: in the end, policing is a public service. It is essential that we maintain public confidence in our policing and that we are also sure that the standard of service we get from our police is the same no matter where we are in the country.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I have raised in the House a number of times the police allocation formula and how it impacts Cambridgeshire, which is the fourth worst funded force in the country. Could the Home Secretary outline how the formula will be changed to reflect the division of tasks between the National Police Service and regional forces? I heard what she said about rural crime and neighbourhood policing. The rural crime action team in Cambridgeshire, although incredibly under-resourced, is very effective. This seems like a fantastic opportunity to try to restructure rural crime action teams to tackle hare coursing and machinery theft, rather than neighbourhood policing in rural areas. Lastly, on pay, local police officers have raised concerns with me around things like the application of overtime and the adjustment bank, and of course the south-east allowance for forces in Cambridgeshire.
Shabana Mahmood
Once the review’s work on recommendations for the number of new regional forces has completed in the summer, I will set out further proposals on how the police funding formula needs to be reviewed and updated to reflect the changes in the new model of policing. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point, and I am sure we will debate these issues many times in the House over the coming months and years. On rural crime and overtime, I can offer him a meeting with the Policing Minister to go through the detail of those issues.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I offer a cautious welcome to the proposals. Reorganisations and mergers are only effective if they create a more efficient system that reinvests savings into the frontline. Under the Tories, Hartlepool saw cuts to the frontline, including to our custody suite. Does the Home Secretary agree that the proposals will only be successful if such cuts are reversed?
Shabana Mahmood
I can reassure my hon. Friend that the only reason I am bringing forward these proposals is to improve our police service across every part of the country, with neighbourhood policing as the absolute bedrock. We will have local police areas, regional police forces and a National Police Service, so that we can deal with every type of community and every type of crime effectively in this country. We want confidence in our policing to be high no matter where people live. My hon. Friend cautiously welcomed the proposals, but I hope that he will consider the detail and support their delivery over the months and years to come.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Reducing the number of police forces to 12 mega-forces risks rural forces once more being neglected and under-resourced. Since 2023, the cost of rural crime has tripled year on year, while Avon and Somerset’s rural crime team is vastly under-resourced, leaving communities throughout Glastonbury and Somerton feeling frustrated and vulnerable at a time when organised crime in Somerset is surging. Will the Home Secretary commit to a countryside copper guarantee and install a dedicated rural crime team in every force to ensure that all rural crimes are treated with the seriousness that they deserve?
Shabana Mahmood
I think we have done better than that with our neighbourhood policing pledge. Every area will get neighbourhood police officers, and that includes having a named, contactable officer in every neighbourhood in the country. That means that whether someone lives in a rural or urban area, they will get the same standard of service. I would hope that the hon. Lady would welcome that.
The hon. Lady gives the number of 12 for the regional forces. She will know that there will be a review—I will announce an independent reviewer in due course—which will report in the summer on what the correct number of regional forces should be. I ask that she waits until the review recommends the number of forces, and I look forward to discussing these matters with her then.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. I know from my time working at the Home Office that, for some time now, the structure of policing has not been fit for the future. The threat that crime poses has evolved; our police must do so too. The Home Secretary’s reforms will help to deal with the most sophisticated crimes, but could she explain to my constituents how they will be a win for tackling local crime and support operations like “clear, hold, build” in Colindale, which has massively reduced crime in that area?
Shabana Mahmood
The new model for policing will ensure that wherever people live in the country, whatever community they are part of, they will have a high standard of service. The new model will ensure in future the police are capable of dealing with every type of crime, whether that is going after terrorists and serious and organised crime through the National Police Service; dealing with specialist investigations to bring murderers, rapists and other serious offenders to justice; or dealing with the local issues that my hon. Friend raised through local police areas.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I would like to invite the Home Secretary to talk rubbish with me for a moment. Organised waste crime has been described by the former chief executive of the Environment Agency as “the new narcotics”. A recent BBC investigation found that there are more than 500 illegal waste sites operating across the UK, including super-sites like that next to the River Cherwell in my constituency. Rural communities bear the brunt of this crime, yet the Environment Agency’s joint waste crime unit cannot cope with the scale of this criminality. Given that this is serious and organised crime, will the Secretary of State ask the new National Police Service to take responsibility for tackling major waste crime and organised illegal dumping?
Shabana Mahmood
As a Birmingham MP, I can very much relate to the hon. Member’s concerns about waste, fly-tipping and the possible involvement of organised crime. To the extent that it involves serious and organised crime, some of that will of course fall within the remit of the National Police Service going forward. These are important issues, and I would be happy to arrange for either myself or the Policing Minister to meet the hon. Gentleman.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
I particularly welcome the measures to ensure that warranted police officers go where we need them: on to our streets and into our communities. Can I draw particular attention to the intention to scrap the failed police uplift model—a policy that is about as Boris Johnson as it gets? Although it did recruit officers, they often ended up sat behind desks performing roles more suited to experienced police staff. Does the Home Secretary agree that scrapping police uplift will ensure that officers are more likely to be out fighting crime than sat behind desks?
Shabana Mahmood
Numbers matter, of course, but what matters more is what those officers are doing, and that is exactly what these reforms are about.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
One resident from Uplyme on the border of Dorset and Devon wrote to me about a burglary that she had experienced. She reported it to Dorset police, who told her that it was for the police in Devon to pick up and that her case would be passed on to Devon, but days later she had heard nothing more. Can the Home Secretary assure us that the mergers she has described today will mean that cases, and indeed residents, will no longer be bounced between neighbouring police forces?
Shabana Mahmood
Yes. The point of the new model for policing is to make sure that victims of crime get a good standard of service for whatever type of crime they have been victims of, no matter where they are in the country.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and welcome the reforms that she has set out. I was pleased to see a mention of direct entry—although, as I say that, I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) might never pass to me in football again. Can she set out in more detail how this might look in a modern police force like Harlow’s?
Shabana Mahmood
The White Paper signals our interest in the direct entry model for increasing the range of people working within our police service. Lord Blunkett will be reporting shortly on his review of policing leadership, and I am sure that those recommendations will deal with many of the issues that my hon. Friend has raised. I look forward to receiving them and implementing them in due course.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Home Secretary has been reasonably clear today that the National Police Service would be UK-wide, dealing with counter-terrorism, organised crime and fraud, but she then said that there could be an opt-out—or maybe it is an opt-in—in respect of regions like Northern Ireland. Will she explain that? Who would exercise that opt-out? Would it be the Police Service of Northern Ireland? Would it be the Northern Ireland Executive? Where would that leave us in respect of the National Crime Agency, which is ultimately to be absorbed into this National Police Service? Could it continue to exist in Northern Ireland if there was not the opt-in, which would be essential?
Shabana Mahmood
The Policing Minister has met representatives of the Northern Ireland Government today, and I will happily meet the hon. and learned Gentleman and other hon. Members from Northern Ireland to make our proposals clear. The remit of the National Police Service will be UK-wide, but its powers and the remit specifically between England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will vary depending on the arrangements that we already have in place. I will happily discuss this with him in detail.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and I very much welcome the UK-wide National Police Service. The papers over the weekend referred to a “British FBI”, and I am reminded that national and international crime gangs are involved in terrorism, drug smuggling, people trafficking and child sexual abuse. They traverse all the regional borders of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and in Northern Ireland we also have the border with the Republic of Ireland. Can the Secretary of State please confirm that Northern Ireland will be fully included in that police force and that it will not be an England and Wales-only force, as that would in no way increase domestic security?
Shabana Mahmood
In Scotland and Northern Ireland, the National Police Service will be able to carry out operations only with the agreement of the legally designated authority. That reflects the current arrangements for serious and organised crime and counter-terror policing in both Scotland and Northern Ireland. I will be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on any other points of detail.