Migration: Settlement Pathway
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(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 your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on a fairer pathway to settlement for migrants.
The story of migration in this country is woven through my own. My father came here in the early ’70s, my mother a little less than a decade later. Both came to seek a better life, and they found one here. In time, while always proud Kashmiris, they became British citizens themselves—Brummies, too—and brought up four children just as proud as them to be a part of this country and that great city. This is not just my story; it is the story of many of my constituents in Birmingham Ladywood, and of many millions more across this country.
Like so many others like me, I am a patriot. Mine is a love of a country that is forever changing, while something essential about us always endures. It is a patriotism that finds room for those who trace their roots back many generations and for those who, like me, do not. However, I worry that for some, that broad patriotism is narrowing, and that a vision of a greater Britain is giving way to that of a littler England, as anger turns to hate. Some will choose to scorn this analysis; they would rather that we simply wished it away, but those who look like me do not have that luxury. Our lives and those of our families are more dangerous in a country that turns inwards, so we have no choice but to ask what the cause of our division is, and how this country might be united.
As I said earlier this week, the pace and scale of migration in this country has been destabilising. I spoke on Monday of the 400,000 people who have claimed asylum since 2021, but that figure pales in comparison with the net migration figure for the same period. In that time, 2.6 million more people moved to Britain than left. To place that in perspective, around one in every 30 people in this country arrived in those four years. This is the result of the extraordinary open-border experiment conducted by the last Conservative Government.
In that period, now sometimes called the Boriswave, immigration controls were drastically lifted. This was most notable in the case of the health and care visa, for which minimum salary requirements were dropped. An attempt to fill between 6,000 and 40,000 jobs led to the arrival of 616,000 individuals between 2022 and 2024. Over half of those individuals were not even filling jobs in the sector—rather, they were dependants of those who were—and as any Member of Parliament could tell us, abuse was rife.
I would have thought that my support for migration did not need to be stated, but after some of the questions I faced on Monday, I think I had better do so. Migrant communities have been woven into the tapestry of British life for generations. While I will never believe in assimilating communities, we have achieved cohesion because different communities have integrated, retaining their distinction within a single, pluralistic whole. This makes demands of those who are already here to remain open to new arrivals, but more than that, it demands something of those arriving. To settle in this country forever is not a right, but a privilege, and it must be earned. Today, that is not the case; settlement, or indefinite leave to remain, comes almost automatically after five years’ residence in this country. At that point, a migrant gains access to many of the rights of a British citizen, including to benefits.
As a result of the unprecedented levels of migration in recent years, 1.6 million people are now forecast to settle between 2026 and 2030, with a peak of 450,000 in 2028—around four times higher than the recent average. That will now change. As this Government announced in their immigration White Paper, the starting point for settlement will move from five years to 10. To ensure that this is earned, new criteria will be added, which will act as a disqualifying bar for those who do not meet them. First, the applicant must have a clean criminal record; secondly, they must speak English to A-level standard; thirdly, they must have made sustained national insurance contributions; and finally, they must have no debt in this country.
While these criteria set the bar that everyone must meet, there are a series of other tests, which today have been published for consultation. These either add to, or subtract from, the 10-year qualifying period. To recognise the particular value to society they play, the Government propose that those who speak English to a degree-level standard could qualify for a nine-year path to settlement; those paying the higher rate of tax could qualify at five years; and those on the top rate could qualify after three, the same as those on global talent visas. Those who work in a public service, including doctors, teachers and nurses, would qualify after five years, while those who volunteer—subject to this consultation—could qualify at between five and seven years. Not subject to consultation, the partners of British citizens will continue to qualify at five years, as is the case today. This is also true of British nationals overseas from Hong Kong, who will qualify at five years in honour of our unique responsibilities to them. All grants under the Windrush and EU settlement schemes will also remain unchanged.
While some people will be able to qualify for settlement earlier than 10 years, others will be forced to wait longer. Once again, these proposals are subject to consultation, but the Government propose that those who have received benefits for less than 12 months would not qualify for settlement until 15 years after arrival. For those who have claimed benefits for more than 12 months, the duration would rise to 20 years, and to encourage the use of legal routes into this country, those who arrive illegally could see settlement take up to 30 years. As has already been set out, refugees on core protection will qualify for settlement after 20 years, although those who move to a work and study visa could earn settlement earlier, and those arriving by a safe and legal route would earn settlement at 10 years. This consultation is open regarding settlement rights for some cohorts of special interest, including children, members of the armed forces and victims of certain crimes.
As well as considering the responsibilities that are expected of those who seek a permanent life in this country, the consultation also raises the question of the rights that will be provided. Specifically, it proposes that benefits might not be available to those who have settled status, reserving them instead for those who have earned British citizenship. Finally, the consultation addresses the question of the so-called Boriswave, specifically the cohort of lower-qualified workers who—along with their dependants—entered the country through the health and care visa, and some of whom are never expected to be net economic contributors. It is right that we apply more stringent controls for this group. For that reason, we propose they should wait 15 years before they can earn settlement. Crucially, for these people and for every other group mentioned, we propose that these changes apply to everyone in the country today who has not yet received indefinite leave to remain, although we are seeking views on whether some transitional arrangements should be available.
May I make one thing absolutely clear, though? We will not change the rules for those with settled status today. These are people who have been in our country for years, or even decades. They have families here— wives, husbands and children. They have worked in our hospitals and taught in our schools, and have been contributing to our society for years. Fairness is the most fundamental of British values. We made a promise when we gave those people settlement, and we do not break our promises.
The Reform party—whose Members, I note, are not in the Chamber today—has said that it will do this most un-British of things. The Tories have said that they will, but then said that they will not; I am left in as much of a muddle about their policy as they are, although perhaps the shadow Home Secretary might enlighten the House today. But I can be clear that this Government will not change the rules for those with settled status.
As this consultation shows, we listen to the British public, and I encourage all those interested to make their voices heard. Today I have set out what we propose and, perhaps more importantly, why. I love this country, which opened its arms to my parents around 50 years ago, but I am concerned by the division I see now, fuelled by a pace and scale of change that is placing immense pressure on local communities. For those who believe that migration is part of modern Britain’s story and should always continue to be, we must prove that it can still work, with those who come here contributing, playing their part and enriching our national life. While each will always retain something of who they were and where they came from, they become a part of the greatest multi-ethnic, multi-faith democracy in the world. I commend this statement to the House.
Shabana Mahmood
I am pleased to see that the Leader of the Opposition let the shadow Home Secretary have a go today. He seems overly concerned about my personal future, but he should worry about his own and that of his party. One good way to secure the future of the Conservative party would perhaps be to start with an open and honest acknowledgement of their track record in government and, dare I say it, perhaps even an apology for messing up the system so badly in the first place. Given their track record, they barely have the right to ask questions, let alone propose solutions. It is my view that, as with settlement, people have to earn the right to offer solutions. One way of earning that right would be to apologise for what the Tories did.
The shadow Home Secretary asked a specific question about when the changes will come into effect. The 12-week consultation will end in the middle of February, and we anticipate making changes and to begin the phase-out once the changes are adopted from April 2026. As he knows, the immigration rules usually change twice a year every year, and that is when we will begin making some of those changes. Some could require technical fixes and solutions that may take a little longer, but the intention is to start from April next year.
The shadow Home Secretary made a point about the qualifying threshold being around £12,000. He will know that we have used the national insurance contributions threshold specifically because it is one of the quickest ways to establish whether somebody is in work. It is designed to give an indication of the period spent in work. He will also know that there are different income thresholds for the different routes by which people can come into the country, and those are not being changed.
The shadow Home Secretary made a valid point about ensuring that the new system does not have any loopholes. I will be alive to that. As we discussed at length in the House on Monday, there is a relationship between some types of visa overstaying and coming straight into the asylum system as well. I am alive to those risks, and we will do everything we can to shut that down. In the end, this will be a whole package of reforms to clamp down on abuse and retain public confidence in running a migration system overall and in the asylum system in particular.
What can I say about a cap? The cap has had a long life in the Conservative party, and I gently suggest that they never managed it in 14 years in power. I do not think we will be pursuing that failure now.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I applaud my right hon. Friend on many points, not least for debunking the idea that a cap will solve anything or is even achievable. There is a lot of detail in this statement, but one issue is that people going through the system have to apply repeatedly to extend their discretionary leave to remain until they reach settlement status. That is costly for them, cumbersome for the Home Office and does nothing to help them integrate or work in the community. I have had the opportunity to meet a junior Minister on this issue, but can the Home Secretary give any assurance to the House that the Home Office is looking at it? We should ensure that those who are welcome here have a less burdensome system to go through. That will hopefully save money and enable the Home Office to focus on more urgent issues.
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend brings a huge amount of personal experience to this discussion, having been a Minister herself, and she has a very august track record as a Select Committee Chair, so I will always take seriously any suggestions that she makes. I will discuss with my ministerial team the detail of what she suggests. Our principled position is that it is right that people pay fees for visa extensions, and that we move from a five-year to a 10-year qualifying period for settlement. We are not consulting on whether we move from five years to 10 years, which is already decided policy. What is set out in the consultation are some of the other questions that sit underneath that. I will happily discuss that with her, because I know she has much experience in the area of Home Office capacity and how we build a system that can work effectively, not only in being delivered by the state but in providing certainty for the people who ultimately want to make their lives in this country.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before I begin, I beg your forgiveness for taking a few extra seconds to reflect on the exchanges in this Chamber on Monday. I would like to use this opportunity to put on the record my utter contempt for those who abuse the Home Secretary and anybody else who is abused based on the colour of their skin or their religion. That is not what Britain stands for.
The Home Secretary will, of course, choose the language that she wants to use in this debate, and I will choose my language too. The constructive and moderate tone of voice that I and the Liberal Democrats will use in discussions about immigration will remain, as will our attempts to help offer feedback as and when the Government bring forward proposals. The number of Liberal Democrats present today shows that we are not ignoring this issue; indeed, we have as many in the Chamber as there are Reform Members—and none of them is here.
Like others, we are aware of the issues facing communities up and down the country, and immigrants who live here too. We agree with the Home Secretary that faith must be restored in the immigration and asylum system, as I stated on Monday, and we agree that that requires changes to policy. Of course, most of what we are discussing today is distinct from some of the discussions we had on Monday about desperate refugees and asylum seekers.
We also believe that it must be acknowledged that prior to Brexit and the removal of nearly all safe and legal routes, this country had a more rational and controlled approach to immigration and asylum. The Conservative party is responsible. We think it is regrettable that the Government have not made quicker progress towards building stronger links with Europe in their work on getting control of our immigration policy, and we believe that discussions about regaining control must also come with a proper discussion about the opportunities that that provides and the potential risks.
Changes to pathways to settlement must be done with regard to the economy and public services, and with fairness to individuals. We are concerned about the chilling effect that some changes could have on the economy. The UK is fast becoming a less competitive place for science and innovation, not least because of Brexit. The cost of a five-year global talent visa to Britain is £6,000 per person—around 20 times more expensive than comparable visas in our competitor countries, where similar schemes typically cost a few hundred pounds. It is no surprise that so few researchers come to Britain on these visas every year. Cancer Research UK alone spends £900,000 annually—money that could be better spent on setting up research labs instead.
The Government must also be careful about the effect that their rhetoric and policy will have on our public services. The NHS is heavily reliant on nurses and staff who are not British nationals. Has the Home Secretary made an assessment of the risk that some will leave, and what steps are this Government taking to develop domestic talent in the health and care sector?
Shabana Mahmood
I do not propose to revisit the detail of our exchanges on Monday, but I will always listen to constructive contributions, wherever they come from in this House, and I will reflect on the points that the Liberal Democrats make in order to be constructive. One thing on which we will perhaps continue to disagree is just how important it is that we acknowledge that there is concern across our country. It is not made up, and it does demand answers of politicians. I hope that that is now a point of agreement between us.
I think the hon. Gentleman made a point in relation to the asylum system. I did not pick it up directly, so if I do not address it now, he is welcome to write to me. Again, I do not propose to go into the details that we discussed on Monday during the asylum policy statement, but one thing that I made very clear is that the number of those arriving on small boats in this country is almost exactly the same as the number of people who overstay visas. There is a relationship between legal migration and illegal migration in the overall migration system: when people overstay and then come straight into the asylum system, and particularly into asylum accommodation, at the point at which a visa ends, it is a very real problem, and a significant number of people are doing that. It is incumbent on us to resolve that, which is what the totality of all these reforms is designed to do.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government has made huge strides in resetting our relationship with the European Union, and these are matters that we discuss very closely with our counterparts in Europe. The progress made since the EU reset has been considerable, and we will continue to build on that. Once again, though, I do not propose to revisit old debates. We live in a new reality, and we are forging a new path ahead.
Of course, we want to give certainty to people who are already in this country. That is what we are doing through the consultation that we have set, and I have given certainty to British citizens who wish to bring their dependants over and to those from Hong Kong. Those arrangements will not change, and we have also given certainty through Windrush grants and EU settlement grants, none of which is affected by the consultation. Since the Government published our immigration White Paper, people have known that the qualifying period will move from five years to 10.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about fairness to individuals. I agree with him, because giving fairness and certainty to those who have come here to work and make a contribution to our economy is absolutely important. However, our reforms are also designed to give fairness to those who are already here, and to build public confidence in the system overall.
The hon. Gentleman made some points on the national health service. I know that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care takes very seriously future labour market reforms and ensuring that there is a pipeline of the required labour so that our NHS keeps going. We absolutely value the contribution that those from overseas who have come to work in our national health service have made, are making and will always continue to make.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I have a constituent, born and bred in Llanelli, who is unable to bring in his foreign spouse because of the current earnings limit of £29,000. The Home Secretary will be aware that the Government’s family financial requirements review notes that a threshold in the region of £23,000 to £25,000 would allow most British workers in full-time minimum wage jobs to qualify. When will she consider this review and look again at the fairness of the current earnings thresholds?
Shabana Mahmood
We always keep those thresholds under review, and we will continue to do so in relation to family and to bringing dependants over.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Home Secretary loves our country and I love her efforts, frankly, because it is not just the fate of this Government that depends on her success, but good community relations, saving dozens of lives at sea and, let us be frank, probably our political fate. Will she undertake to be judged not just by the strength of this announcement and words spoken in the House of Commons but by results, so that we actually make a real contribution towards stopping the boats? Is she prepared to constantly ratchet up the pressure so that if someone is sitting in France, they think, “Is it worth the risk? I’ve got virtually no chance of being allowed to stay in Britain forever. I will have my case reviewed regularly—every two years. I will be sent back to where I came from when it is safe; otherwise, I will go back to a return hub.”? Can we not all agree on that?
Shabana Mahmood
Results are all that matters. It is incumbent on me to think about the way that we have to reform the system, to make a public argument for it, to win that argument, to persuade people and then to get this done. What I care about now is ensuring that we can deliver these proposals, and we will do so. Then I need to ensure that the Home Office is in a position to run a system properly, administratively and fairly in the future. That is what matters. This is a low-trust environment for the public—all of us involved in politics know that. In the end, the public have heard a lot of rhetoric from a lot of people, but this Government intend to get on and deliver and to win the trust of the British people.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, particularly what she said about the more than 75,000 nurses working in our NHS who have arrived in this country since 2021. Those nurses and other healthcare professionals were actively encouraged to come here to fill the gaps left by the previous Government’s failure to do NHS workforce planning. Since they arrived, they have served our communities and cared for our citizens with distinction. I welcome what she said about maintaining a five-year route for those who are engaged in public service. Could she confirm that that will apply to NHS staff, such as those I have mentioned, and could she explain how she will continue discussions with DHSC colleagues to ensure that there will be no unexpected reduction in NHS workforce staffing in the months ahead?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right about the contribution that those nurses and other staff in the national health service are making. He will know that we are consulting specifically on the element of the proposals that relates to public service and to its getting people a five-year discount on the qualifying period. No doubt he will make his own responses to that consultation, and we have heard them, too. Of course, in the normal run of things, public service would include those who work in our critical public services.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I broadly welcome the changes to ILR, but I seek clarification about whether there will be revocation for those already settled who break the law. Why are the Government proposing making low-skilled workers who are net fiscal recipients wait for 15 years for ILR, instead of telling them to just leave the country?
On the broader question of immigration, the Government say that they want to get the numbers down—it is correct that the Boriswave was a disgrace—but the measures implemented so far by this Government are projected to reduce the number of people coming here by only 61,000 a year. That is before we take into account the new rules for Gaza, Afghan dependants and the schemes launched this week by the Home Secretary. In fact, that is less than the revision by the Office for National Statistics of the number coming here last year. If she does want to get the number down, when will she bring forward new policies to ensure that the number of visas issued falls by the hundreds of thousands as soon as possible?
Shabana Mahmood
The powers to revoke indefinite leave to remain are not going to change as a result of this. The hon. Member will know that the specific provisions for foreign national offenders will also be unaffected. Separately, we are going to review the threshold in relation to criminality. The current rules work on the basis that someone cannot qualify for indefinite leave to remain if they have received a sentence of 12 months or more. However, given the changes being brought forward in the Sentencing Bill and others, we will be looking at that threshold in its entirety. He raised a point about retrospectivity, and we will be reviewing that as we review all the criminal thresholds that apply here. He had another question, but—forgive me—I missed it. [Interruption.] If he will write to me, I will come back to him, but I think he was asking about wage thresholds.
The hon. Member made a final point, which I did pick up, about the modelling—essentially, the numbers—and whether a reduction of 61,000 a year is the right number. Let me just say to him that I will be coming to this House on a regular basis to be held to account for the delivery of these reforms and those that I set out on Monday about the asylum system. It is a big package of reforms, taken together. These are the biggest changes to settlement for 40 years, and the asylum package is one of the biggest packages of modern times. The combination of the two will keep modellers and others very busy over the coming months, but I promise the House that we will be transparent on the data, the numbers and what our proposals mean in practice. That will inevitably change as we design the new system, but hon. Members will always get transparency from me in this House.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree with the Home Secretary that our immigration system needs reform and that people are concerned about it. I think we should also be very clear in this House that we recognise the benefits of immigration to our country—the talents, the jobs and the entrepreneurship it brings—and that nobody would ever argue that we will bring this country together by tearing families apart. On that basis, it is very welcome to hear the Home Secretary commit to a five-year pathway for partners of British citizens. Many of my constituents have been deeply concerned about that, because they would never wish the state to tell them whom they could fall in love with. However, given that some of those people are on different visas here, can she clarify how the five-year term will be calculated, so that we do not inadvertently end up penalising people who fall in love with somebody who came here on a worker visa, but has been here for five years? Love is love, and let us make sure that in this country we welcome it.
Shabana Mahmood
None of the rules about marriage in-country, as it were, are going to change, but if my hon. Friend wants to send me some of her constituency examples, I would be very happy to look at them. It is important to have a distinction between what citizenship unlocks as a set of rights for British citizens and what applies for those who are working here and who may not have settled status but may acquire settled status. I think it is right that we open a question in the consultation about what is unlocked from the British state and for people’s rights here at citizenship as well as at settlement. I would be very happy to discuss these matters with her in more detail, and I am sure I will do so over the next few months.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Many migrant survivors of domestic abuse apply to settle in the UK permanently if their relationship has broken down because of domestic violence or abuse, and the right hon. Lady knows just how close this issue is to my heart. Will she reassure this House and survivors of domestic abuse that they will be protected under her reforms, and that her changes to ILR will not have the adverse and perhaps unintended impact of locking those survivors into abusive relationships?
Shabana Mahmood
First, let me put on record my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on his engagement.
The hon. Gentleman is an assiduous campaigner on domestic abuse issues, based on his own experiences. He and I have had many debates across this Chamber on those matters, and I very much respect the perspective he brings and the way in which he constructively engages with the debate. I can assure him that we will continue to have pathways to settlement for victims of domestic violence and for other vulnerable groups as well. In the consultation, we are inviting views and perspectives on how some of the changes might have unintended consequences, and on how we can ensure that those pathways continue to exist. I am sure he will be engaging with the consultation in that regard.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
I agree with the Home Secretary that fairness must be at the heart of the immigration system, but would she say a little more about the route to settlement for the Ukrainian families to whom my generous constituents opened their doors following the horrific invasion of their country?
Shabana Mahmood
Nothing I have said today changes the position of those who have come to this country on the Ukrainian scheme. That is a bespoke scheme for the people who have arrived here from Ukraine. In fact, it is seen not as a refugee route, but as a temporary scheme. All its provisions were supported by us in opposition, and they continue to be supported by us in government. Nothing in the position of Ukrainians in this country will change as a result of anything in the asylum policy statement or today’s Command Paper.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As the descendant of immigrant grandparents, I have a high degree of empathy with the Home Secretary’s opening remarks about her own family. Does she agree that the reason that both main parties are facing the possibility of an electoral bloodbath is not so much the overall level of immigration, but the fraction of it—still a very large number of people—who come to this country on small boats and by other illegal means? We do not know what they believe, we do not know what values they have, and because in many cases they destroy their documents, we do not even know who they are. Can she explain how the measures she has outlined today will have an impact on deterring that sort of person from breaking into our country?
Shabana Mahmood
I have acknowledged that the way the system is working—or, more appropriately, not working—is causing deep unease across the country, including in my constituency and among people who are of immigrant backgrounds themselves, because of a sense of unfairness. A lot of people in my constituency regularly report overstaying to me, which they see as an abuse of visas and as a particular problem, while others are more concerned about the small boats. I acknowledge that those concerns are legitimate, real and felt deeply across the country. That is why I think it is so important that we rebuild public trust in the overall system by dealing with both illegal migration and legal migration, based on the principles of fairness and contribution, and give the public confidence that the rules we have can be maintained, enforced and followed properly.
The right hon. Gentleman is right that the destruction of documents and the other ways in which people seek to frustrate our ability to remove them from this country is driving some of the discontent. That is why the reforms I set out in the asylum policy statement are designed to say to those making the calculation in the north of France, “Don’t get on a boat. It’s not worth it. That is not the way to come to this country.” As we build safe and legal routes to this country—which will clearly be a much more privileged way of entering, with a faster path to settlement at 10 years, as I have said—the reforms will show very clearly to people making that calculation which path is worth it and which one is not.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
I welcome the assurance the Home Secretary has given to those who have achieved indefinite leave to remain and have settled status in this country. That certainty is really important. She will know that in my constituency I have many families from Syria and Afghanistan, who came under the Syrian programme and Operation Pitting. They have limited leave to remain and are deeply worried, from what the Home Secretary has said, as to whether they will ultimately be deported from this country. Can she give an assurance to those who are currently seeking ILR and who came on those programmes that they will be able to follow the path that was set out for them when they arrived? Will she give that assurance and ensure that this country will never do a deal with the Taliban to deport women and children from this country?
Shabana Mahmood
We will always have specific obligations on not returning anybody who has arrived in this country seeking asylum or who has been granted refugee status. We would not return those individuals to danger. We will abide by our international obligations, as I hope I made clear in the statement on Monday. However, our ability to have new rules that look more carefully and more regularly at whether a country is safe for citizens to be returned is important. It is a shift in the way we do things, but we will never return people to face danger. I would be happy to look at some of the examples my hon. Friend has raised today in more detail with him.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
First, I apologise to the Home Secretary for missing part of her statement, but I have read it. Will she confirm whether any assessment has been carried out on the economic impact on Scotland of extending the ILR wait time to 10 years and beyond? If not, why not? Whatever the needs of Wales and Northern Ireland, Scotland’s economic and workforce needs once again appear to have been ignored. Does the Home Secretary understand that such a blanket policy risks exacerbating skills shortages, threatening vital sectors and making it harder for communities to thrive? Incredibly, for a so-called Labour Government, this lurch to the right now appears to favour the wealthy over the less wealthy.
Shabana Mahmood
Really, Madam Deputy Speaker! The hon. Gentleman will know that immigration is a reserved matter. That will not change. The thing that is holding back the labour market in Scotland is skills and education policy, which is devolved. It is on the SNP to sort that out.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
In 2024, in the run-up to the election, I knocked on door after door where people told me that they were absolutely sick of our broken immigration system that we inherited from the Tories. They did not trust Reform, who are not here today, to tackle it. I welcome the intervention from our Home Secretary. Does she agree that to be the open, tolerant and generous country that we know we are, we must get order and control at our borders?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is an open, tolerant and generous country. What I have acknowledged in the reforms I have set out, both today and on Monday, is that there is a condition to unlocking the full extent of that openness, tolerance and generosity. It is about having order and control at our borders and a fair, managed asylum and immigration system where the principles of fairness and contribution are at its heart. That is the way we can prove to the public that it is possible not just to have an asylum system, but one they can be proud of.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I am not sure it helps the Home Secretary’s cause for me to say that I have a great deal of respect for her and that I thought her interventions this week were very important, particularly those pointed towards members of her party on the left who will make the cause they choose to champion more difficult if the system as a whole is not brought under control. The people who support asylum and refugee processes and want them to be there in future need the system to be brought under control.
My sincere question relates to what I would describe as tinkering around the edges of the human rights laws. The Home Secretary must know that whatever she does to clarify the fringes of the rulings the ECHR has made over the years, they have created a case law that forces our judges to rule in favour of spurious claims. She cannot change that; those rulings are those rulings. Unless we are willing at the very least to have a derogation from some elements of the Court’s decisions, how does she think we can override those well-established rulings which give enormous amounts of rights to people when they are making their asylum claims?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman and I have an obvious point of difference on the European convention on human rights. This Government will not be leaving that European convention. We do not see the case for derogation or any other measures. We believe it is possible to achieve the reforms we need by legislating for the way that article 8 applies to immigration cases, by defining family life and by more tightly drawing up what is known as the public interest test. We will debate that legislation in this House in great detail, but I hope to show to everyone who is currently a sceptic of our ability to stay in the ECHR and get control of our migration system that it is possible to do both those things. The convention—the Human Rights Act brought the rights into our domestic legislation—is an important international treaty and we do not see any reason to leave it or derogate from it. I hope that Opposition Members will engage in good faith on the changes we seek to make to article 8, and the immigration rules in particular, because we think that is one of the best changes we can make to get control of our migration system.
Several hon. Members rose—
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I ask, as someone who was not born in this country, whether the Home Secretary agrees that we should not stop talking about the benefits of immigration while managing migration. As she has already acknowledged, will she confirm that we will always offer sanctuary to those truly fleeing peril? Does she accept that for those people, we should be making settlement and integration into British society quicker and easier, not more difficult?
Shabana Mahmood
I hope my hon. Friend will reflect on how I opened my statement today and how I closed it. I see the benefits of migration. I would not be here if this country had not welcomed my parents. It is literally the story of my life and how I have managed to get from there to this Dispatch Box today, so I very much feel those benefits personally. I will always speak up for them—as I have done today, as I did on Monday and as I will always do—as I make the case out there in the country for the need for these reforms. I hope that he and others will always support me on that—I know they will. I have also made clear that we will always offer sanctuary. I want us to be a country that offers sanctuary to those who are in need. That is why it is so crucial that we get order and control back into our asylum system and open up new safe and legal routes. It is important that today I have confirmed that those safe and legal routes will have the earlier 10-year path to settlement. That is what will enable the integration we all want to see.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
In the summer, I spent the morning with Anushka, a senior social care worker in Wimborne. She and her colleagues earn more than the earnings threshold and came here with their families on the understanding that they could make a new life here, contributing to society and paying their taxes. The recent hostile narrative is making her and others consider leaving for places such as New Zealand and Australia. Will the Home Secretary confirm whether Anushka and her colleagues, doing jobs that cannot be filled by British workers who will not do the work, will be considered public sector workers?
Shabana Mahmood
These will be matters for the consultation and I encourage the hon. Lady to engage with it. We have put in an element around public service, because we recognise the specific contributions made by those who fill the gaps in our labour market that we are not otherwise able to fill. On the general principle, I would say to her that settlement is not a right and that it is absolutely fair for a Government to say that it has to be earned. It is not unusual for countries to change their settlement requirements. That is quite normal. It happens all over the world, as British citizens who work abroad know all too well. The proposal to go from five years to 10 years will not change, but all the other measures I have set out today are subject to consultation. I encourage her to engage with that.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, the care and fairness with which she has crafted the proposals, and the incentives that they instil. In my work on the International Development Committee, I have seen the immense negative impact of global displacement and the loss of over $20 billion of economic activity every year from developing countries. Then, of course, there is the impact of asylum accommodation on our overseas assistance budget. Does my right hon. Friend agree that while the measures might ostensibly seem harsh, there is nothing progressive about well-meaning people on the left of politics excusing a situation where thousands of people are risking their lives to cross the English channel from already safe countries?
Shabana Mahmood
It is immoral if we stand by and watch people make dangerous crossings, pay thousands of pounds to criminals, and put their lives and those of others at risk, while we do nothing. That would be a total dereliction of duty. It would also be a dereliction of duty for a Labour Government to continue to preside over a broken system, or to not have the mettle to go ahead and reform that system, and then watch as we lose public consent for having an asylum system at all. I think it is existential for us to have public consent for the asylum system, which is why all the changes are so necessary.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Bobby Dean, with a very short question.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank the Home Secretary for her confirmation about the five-year pathway for Hongkongers—that is a promise kept to them. The statement was otherwise a series of push measures. I am always fascinated by how much more difficult it gets, when it comes to the individual decisions made within the system. To push the Home Secretary on the Boriswave, which she has criticised, the vast majority of those figures were made up of Hongkongers arriving here under the BNO scheme, Ukrainian refugees, and deferred student visas after the covid pandemic. Which of those measures does she think was a mistake?
Shabana Mahmood
I was clear about our responsibilities towards Hongkongers, and that the issues in relation to the Ukraine scheme are not going to change. However, the hon. Member will know that the stats on health and care visa holders, primarily those who came to work in adult social care, will be the main contributors to the settlement increase between 2027 and 2029, because they will make up nearly half of all settlement grants in 2028. The figures really do speak for themselves, so it is important that the Government move to deal with the vast number of settlements due to happen over the next few years. It is therefore right that we extend the path to settlement, and ask some questions about how we manage the situation in the future.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I entirely agree that we need control of our borders in this country. In respect of transitional arrangements, over the next 12 years there will be an 83% increase in the number of over-80s in my constituency. Health and care visa workers are currently providing critical services to many of my constituents, as well as supporting the NHS. Can the Home Secretary confirm how the transitional arrangements will ensure that this care continues to be provided to my constituents?
Shabana Mahmood
The Health Secretary and his Department are always reviewing and considering the arrangements. We need to ensure that we have a workforce capable of sustaining the national health service. We have an ageing population, which brings its own specific challenges. We are not talking about preventing people from working in our national health service; it is about the pathway to settlement. It is about extending the pathway from five to 10 years, and then thinking about the rules we need to bring that number down from 10 and closer to five years, or that might increase it instead. In that spirit, I encourage my hon. Friend to engage with the detail, and I would be happy to talk to her offline.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The Home Secretary announced a consultation on a five-year pathway to settlement for those who work in the public sector to recognise the particularly valuable role they play in society. Will she please put that to the vote, so that MPs can ensure that those who work in organisations that are fundamental to the public sector—such as those who work in hospices, like the amazing Woking & Sam Beare hospice in my constituency—are always included in the five-year pathway?
Shabana Mahmood
All the measures will be taken through in the usual way.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I am delighted to hear the Home Secretary announce that we will keep our promise to British national overseas visa holders from Hong Kong. That is something that I have worked with my constituents to lobby the Government on over the past few months, and I am delighted that the Government have listened. As well as transnational repression, Hongkongers bring other issues to me. Many of them in Leeds South West and Morley are highly skilled and have excellent qualifications, but employers in this country do not necessarily recognise those qualifications, which makes it much harder for them to get their first job. Will the Home Secretary work with other Departments to help employers in this country recognise the amazing contribution that Hongkongers can make to the UK economy?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and while it is not the direct responsibility of the Home Office, I will ensure that those conversations happen across Government and that a Minister from the Department for Business and Trade writes to him on the matter.
Oral Answers to Questions
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
I will later today be sharing the full details of my plans for far-reaching reforms to the UK asylum system to restore order and control to our borders. We have learned lessons from our international partners, including Denmark; fundamental reform to its system has seen asylum claims at a 40-year low. The impact of this Government’s plans will be to restore order and control to the border, so we can be the open, tolerant and generous country that we know ourselves to be.
Nadia Whittome
The Denmark-style policies briefed in the last couple of days are dystopian. It is shameful that a Labour Government are ripping up the rights and protections of people who have endured unimaginable trauma. Is this how we would want to be treated if we were fleeing for our lives? Of course not. How can we be adopting such obviously cruel policies? Is the Home Secretary proud that the Government have sunk to such depths that they are now being praised by Tommy Robinson?
Shabana Mahmood
I am disappointed at the nature of my hon. Friend’s question. I hope she will look at the detail of the reforms. As I have already said on these matters, we have a proper problem and it is our moral duty to fix it. Our asylum system is broken. The breaking of that asylum system is causing huge division across our whole country, and it is a moral mission for me to resolve that division across our country. I know that the reforms I will be setting out later today can fix the system and, in doing so, unite what is today a divided country.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Home Secretary likes to talk tough, while the numbers continue to rise. As part of the statement that she will bring to the House later, will she confirm that detailed modelling will be published and whether she has shared that modelling with No. 10?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman’s question would have had a bit more force if he had apologised for being part of a Government who fundamentally broke our migration system and presided over the crisis inherited by this Government. Of course we will model the impact of our policies. This is a sweeping set of reforms—the most significant in modern times. They will bring down the number of arrivals and increase the number of removals of those who have no right to be in this country. We will build on our track record in government, which has seen removals increase. The totality of the reforms will, I believe, unlock the generosity of this country in creating new safe and legal routes, which will grow more generous over time.
Chris Philp
Okay, I will ask a question. Will the Home Secretary agree with us that in order to control our borders we must come out of the European convention on human rights, enabling us to deport all illegal immigrants within a week of their arrival?
Shabana Mahmood
Well, I think we can all agree that the right hon. Gentleman’s leadership campaign is going absolutely nowhere. Once again his party reverts to an unworkable solution that is a total gimmick, just like their failed Rwanda plan, which saw £700 million spent and a total of four volunteers returned. What we always get from the Conservatives are gimmicks and solutions that would never ever work. What we get from this Government is a track record of increasing removals, following the situation we inherited from the Conservative Government, and a proper plan that will fix this broken system.
Chris Philp
Our leader is not going anywhere, but the right hon. Lady’s leader most certainly is—out of No. 10!
The Home Secretary talks about the Rwanda scheme. That scheme never even started. It worked in Australia and it would have worked here. After her Government cancelled it with no replacement, numbers have surged. The truth is that under this Government, illegal immigration has gone up, and there is a crime wave going up with it, including rape and murder. Her ideas are not radical enough. She wants to give illegal immigrants a 20-year path to citizenship—
Chris Philp
The Home Secretary wants to give illegal immigrants a 20-year path to citizenship. We want to deport them. Will she accept our proposal to come out of the ECHR so that we can actually control our borders?
Shabana Mahmood
I am sure that all Conservative Members will be delighted to hear that the Leader of the Opposition is going absolutely nowhere—and we are very happy to see her remain in place.
This Government will not come out of the European convention on human rights. We are going to reform the way that article 8 in particular is applied to immigration rules within our country. This Government are rolling up our sleeves and doing the hard work of governing—unlike his party, which just gave up altogether.
Max Wilkinson
Metaphorically trying to kill, yes.
Leaving the ECHR would do nothing to halt small boat crossings but it would deny British people hard-won rights: free speech, the Hillsborough inquiry and protections for older people. The Government have announced that they are reviewing certain articles of the ECHR—the Home Secretary has just referenced it. Can she give us a cast-iron guarantee that when she is working on these changes, she will do so in partnership with other signatories to the convention and will not follow the Conservatives and Reform in seeking to isolate this country on the international stage?
Shabana Mahmood
The Prime Minister and I could not be clearer. We are not coming out of the European convention on human rights. We are going to pursue reform—in particular of article 8, which is a qualified right under the convention—and I will set out those plans later today. There is a conversation happening with our partners at the Council of Europe in relation to the application of article 3. A conversation is already happening on reform of the European convention—both here at home with the domestic legislation that we will pursue and at the Council of Europe itself. That is the approach with which this Government will continue.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
The previous Government lost control of our borders, and the result was a ruinously expensive asylum system that used more than 400 hotels at a cost of nearly £9 million a day. We have acted to cut those costs, with fewer than 200 hotels now in use. Our historic agreement with France means small boat departures are prevented, arrivals are detained, and those with no right to be in the UK are returned. As the House knows, I will shortly make a statement setting out the additional steps to go further and faster in the reform of our asylum system.
James McMurdock
According to a recent National Audit Office report, £15.3 billion will be spent on asylum accommodation alone over the next 10 years. That money will be spent on people who will, in some instances, commit violent and sexual crimes—crimes that would make our skin crawl—against the British people. What do we say to our residents, voters and taxpayers, who feel like we are spending money on people who want nothing for us but harm?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman should wait for the statement later today. The assumptions made by the National Audit Office in its projections are based on the current policy environment, which is about to change very significantly.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
I recognise the huge pressure that asylum hotels have placed on communities. This Government are committed to exiting asylum hotels by the end of the Parliament. We have already halved the number of hotels in use since the peak under the Conservative party, but I would like to go faster. That is why I am exploring the use of large sites, including military sites.
Chris Murray
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Home Secretary for that response. The Home Affairs Committee report on asylum accommodation shows that private companies have made millions from the taxpayer, while communities and asylum seekers have suffered. What is the Home Secretary doing to address the appalling profiteering that the Tories allowed, and the disastrous asylum contracts, and will she trigger the break clause next year?
Shabana Mahmood
So far, the amount that has been recouped by this Government is £74 million, of which £46 million is excess profit and the remainder is service charges or service credit and VAT. We are rapidly reviewing the contracts that we inherited, including the break clause, to ensure that they are providing value for money for taxpayers. I will keep the matter under review and update the House in due course.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The last Home Secretary said that we should judge the success of the Government in smashing the gangs by whether the number of channel crossings falls. By which date should we judge whether the Government have been successful? If the Home Secretary fails, will she resign?
Shabana Mahmood
We should already recognise that the action on law enforcement, particularly the co-operation with our colleagues in France and Germany, has led to the confiscation of kit that was being used by organised immigration crime gangs, and has led to 20,000 illegal crossings not taking place. Later today, we will set out a full suite of measures designed to decrease the number of arrivals from across the channel. Unlike many in the hon. Gentleman’s party, I take my responsibilities very seriously and I am happy to be held to account by the British public.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Government have already acted to fix the unworkable mess in which the Tories left the asylum system. An increase of 116% in processing in one year is bringing down the backlog, securing refugee status for those fleeing persecution and removing those with no right to be here, but communities such as those in Falkirk must see the benefit of the difference in approach. What steps will the Home Secretary take to guarantee Tory-created asylum hotels will be closed equitably across the nations of the United Kingdom?
Shabana Mahmood
We are working with Ministers across Government on closing every hotel as soon as possible, and by the end of this Parliament. As we have all seen, that is a complex process that must be delivered through a controlled, managed and orderly programme of work. We do not want to be in a situation where, without an alternative ready, we start exiting hotels before it is time to do so. I assure my hon. Friend that we will take a balanced and evidence-based approach towards making decisions about the locations that we will use and how we will exit hotels. I look forward to talking to him in more detail about these plans in due course.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The Government are currently spending some £2.1 billion on hotels, but the system is not working. It does not have to be that way. The Public and Commercial Services union and Together With Refugees have shown that a humane asylum system, which expedites asylum hearings and supports employment, could reduce asylum costs by 40%. Will the Home Secretary at least look at the evidence and concede that she does not always have to try to outdo the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)?
Shabana Mahmood
What I am interested in is recognising the extent of the problems that this Government have inherited and coming up with proper solutions to those problems. For me, this is not about party politics or individual politicians, but a moral mission to fix a broken system that is unfair, costing the country far too much money and putting huge pressure on communities. I ask the hon. Gentleman to engage with the detail of the proposal, rather than playing party politics himself.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
I am pleased to start with some very good news indeed: one of the heroes of the Huntingdon attack, Samir Zitouni, the member of the train’s crew who risked his own life to save others, has been discharged from hospital. There is a long road ahead of him and his family have asked for privacy, but I am sure the whole House joins me in wishing him the swiftest and fullest recovery possible. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
Since the last Home Office oral questions, I have made a number of significant announcements. A review of police protest powers was launched last weekend, and I am pleased that the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord Ken Macdonald, will lead it.
Last week, we announced that police and crime commissioners will be abolished. The introduction of police and crime commissioners by the last Government was a failed experiment. I will introduce new reforms so that police are accountable to their mayoral teams or local councils. The savings from this will fund more neighbourhood policing on the beat across the country, fighting crime and protecting our communities. I recognise the efforts of all current and former police and crime commissioners, and I thank them because they served their communities with honour and will continue to do so until they have completed their current—
Mr Speaker
Order. The answer is far too long. I still have to get other people in. Please can we have shorter answers.
Seamus Logan
The Muscatelli report, commissioned by the Labour party in Scotland, recommended that the Scottish Government push for a bespoke immigration approach that tackles the unique issues faced by Scotland and its economy. While the leader of the Labour party in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, may be a bit confused about what is devolved and what is reserved, I am sure the Home Secretary is not. Will the Home Secretary meet me to discuss the report further, to deliver a win for the Scottish economy and fulfil one of the manifesto commitments made by the Labour party in Scotland?
Shabana Mahmood
No, I will not, because immigration is a reserved matter. Trying to devolve this matter would create perverse pull factors all across the United Kingdom, which would be deeply inappropriate.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Asylum Policy
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about how we restore order and control to our borders. I do so as this Government publish the most significant reform to our migration system in modern times.
This country will always offer sanctuary to those fleeing danger, but we must also acknowledge that the world has changed and our asylum system has not changed with it. Our world is a more volatile and more mobile place. Huge numbers are on the move. While some are refugees, others are economic migrants seeking to use and abuse our asylum system. Even genuine refugees are passing through other safe countries, searching for the most attractive place to seek refuge.
The burden that has fallen on this country has been heavy: 400,000 have sought asylum here in the past four years. Over 100,000 people now live in asylum accommodation, and over half of refugees remain on benefits eight years after they have arrived. To the British public, who foot the bill, the system feels out of control and unfair. It feels that way because it is. The pace and scale of change have destabilised communities. It is making our country a more divided place. There will never be a justification for the violence and racism of a minority, but if we fail to deal with this crisis, we will draw more people down a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred.
I have no doubt about who we really are in this country: we are open, tolerant and generous. But the public rightly expect that we can determine who enters this country and who must leave. To maintain the generosity that allows us to provide sanctuary, we must restore order and control.
Rather than deal substantively with this problem, the last Conservative Government wasted precious years and £700 million on their failed Rwanda plan, with the lamentable result of just four volunteers removed from the country. As a result, they left us with the grotesque chaos of asylum seekers housed in hotels and shuttled around in taxis, with the taxpayer footing the bill.
My predecessor as Home Secretary picked up this dreadful inheritance and rebuilt the foundations of a collapsed asylum system. Decision making has been restored, with a backlog now 18% lower than when we entered office. Removals have increased, reaching nearly 50,000 under this Government. Immigration enforcement has hit record levels, with over 8,000 arrests in the last year. The Border Security Bill is progressing through Parliament, and my predecessor struck an historic agreement with the French so that small boat arrivals can now be sent back to France.
Those are vital steps, but we must go further. Today, we have published “Restoring Order and Control”, a new statement on our asylum policy. Its goals are twofold: first, to reduce illegal arrivals into this country, and secondly, to increase removals of those with no right to be here. It starts by accepting an uncomfortable truth: while asylum claims fall across Europe, they are rising here, and that is because of the comparative generosity of our asylum offer compared with many of our European neighbours. That generosity is a factor that draws people to these shores, on a path that runs through other safe countries. Nearly 40% come on small boats and over perilous channel crossings, but a roughly equal proportion come legally, via visitor, work or study visas, and then go on to claim asylum. They do so because refugee status is the most generous route into this country. An initial grant lasts five years and is then converted, almost automatically, into permanent settled status.
In other European countries, things are done differently. In Denmark, refugee status is temporary, and they provide safety and sanctuary until it is possible for a refugee to return home. In recent years, asylum claims in Denmark have hit a 40-year low, and now countries across Europe are tightening their systems in similar ways. We must act too. We will do so by making refugee status temporary, not permanent. A grant of refugee status will last for two and a half years, not five years. It will be renewed only if it is impossible for a refugee to return home. Permanent settlement will now come at 20 years, not five years.
I know that this country welcomes people who contribute. For those who want to stay, and who are willing and able to, we will create a new work and study visa route solely for refugees, with a quicker path to permanent settlement. To encourage refugees into work, we will also consult on removing benefits for those who are able to work but choose not to. Outside the most exceptional circumstances, family reunion will not be possible, with a refugee able to bring family over only if they have joined a work and study route, and if qualifying tests are met.
Although over 50,000 claimants have been granted refugee status in the past year, more than 100,000 claimants and failed asylum seekers remain in taxpayer-funded accommodation. We know that criminal gangs use the prospect of free bed and board to promote their small boat crossings. We have already announced that we will empty asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament, and we are exploring a number of large military sites as an alternative. We will now also remove the 2005 legislation that created a duty to support asylum seekers, reverting to a legal power to do so instead. We will continue to support those who play by the rules, but those who do not—be that through criminality or antisocial behaviour—can have their support removed.
We will also remove our duty to support those who have a right to work. It is right that those who receive support pay for it if they can, so those with income or assets will have to contribute to the cost of their stay. That will end the absurdity that we currently experience, in which an asylum seeker receiving £800 each month from his family, and who had recently acquired an Audi, was receiving free housing at the taxpayer’s expense, and the courts judged that we could do nothing about it.
The measures are designed to tackle the pull factors that draw people to this country, but reducing the number of arrivals is just half of the story. We must also enforce our rules and remove those who have no right to be here. That will mean restarting removals to countries where they have been paused. In recent months, we have begun the voluntary removal of failed asylum seekers to Syria once again. However, many failed asylum seekers from Syria are still here, most of whom fled a regime that has since been toppled. Other countries are planning to enforce removals, and we will follow suit. Where a failed asylum seeker cannot be returned home, we will also continue to explore the possibility of return hubs, with negotiations ongoing.
We must remove those who have failed asylum claims, regardless of who they are. Today, we are not removing family groups, even when we know that their home country is perfectly safe. There are, for instance, around 700 Albanian families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation having failed their asylum claims—despite an existing returns agreement, and Albania being a signatory to the European convention on human rights. So we will now begin the removal of families. Where possible, we will encourage a voluntary return, but where an enforced return is necessary, that is what we will do.
Where the barrier to a return is not the individual, nor the UK Government, but the receiving country, we will take action. I can announce that we have told Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Namibia that if they do not comply with international rules and norms, we will impose visa penalties on them. I am sending a wider message here: unless other countries heed this lesson, further sanctions will follow.
Much of the delay in our removals, however, comes from the sclerotic nature of our own system. In March of this year, the appeals backlog stood at 51,000 cases. This Government have already increased judicial sitting days, but reform is required, so we will create a new appeals body, staffed by professional independent adjudicators, and we will ensure that early legal representation is available to advise claimants and ensure their issues are properly considered. Cases with a low chance of success will be fast-tracked, and claimants will have just one opportunity to claim and one to appeal, ending the merry-go-round of claims and appeals that frustrate so many removals.
While some barriers to removal are the result of process, others are substantive issues related to the law itself. There is no doubt that the expanded interpretation of parts of the European convention on human rights has contributed. This is particularly true of article 8: the right to a family life. The courts have adopted an ever-expanding interpretation of that right. As a result, many people have been allowed to come to this country when they would otherwise have had no right to, and we have been unable to remove others when the case for doing so seems overwhelming. That includes cases like an arsonist, sentenced to five years in prison, whose deportation was blocked on the grounds that his relationship with his sibling may suffer. More than half of those detained are now delaying or blocking their removal by raising a last-minute rights claim.
Article 8 is a qualified right, which means we are not prevented from removing individuals or refusing an application to move to the UK if it is in the public interest. To narrow article 8 rights, we will therefore make three important changes, in both domestic law and to our immigration rules. First, we will define what, exactly, a family is—narrowing it down to parents and their children. Secondly, we will define the public interest test so that the default becomes a removal or refusal, with article 8 rights only permissible in the most exceptional circumstances. Thirdly, we will tighten where article 8 claims can be heard, ensuring only those who are living in the UK can lodge a claim, rather than their family members overseas, and that all claims are heard first by the Home Office and not in a courtroom.
We will also pursue international reform of a second element of the convention: the application of article 3, and the prohibition on torture and inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment. We will never return anyone to be tortured in their home country, but the definition of “degrading treatment” has expanded into the realm of the ridiculous. Today we have criminals who we seek to deport, but we discover we cannot because the prisons in their home country have cells that are deemed too small, or even mental health provision that is not as good as our own. As article 3 is an absolute right, a public interest test cannot be applied. For that reason, we are seeking reform at the Council of Europe, and we do so alongside international partners who have raised similar concerns.
It is not just international law that binds us. According to data from 2022, over 40% of those detained for removal claimed that they were modern-day slaves. That well-intentioned law is being abused by those who seek to frustrate a legitimate removal, so I will bring forward legislation that tightens the modern slavery system, to ensure that it protects those it was designed for, and not those who seek to abuse it. Taken together, these are significant reforms. They are designed to ensure that our asylum system is fit for the modern world, and that we retain public consent for the very idea of providing refuge.
We will always be a country that offers protection to those fleeing peril, just as we did in recent years when Ukraine was invaded, when Afghanistan was evacuated, and when we repatriated Hongkongers. For that reason, as order and control are restored, we will open new, capped, safe and legal routes into this country. These will make sponsorship the primary means by which we resettle refugees, with voluntary and community organisations given greater involvement to both receive refugees and support them, working within caps set by Government. We will also create a new route for displaced students to study in the UK, and another for skilled refugees to work here. Of course, we will always remain flexible to new crises across the world, as they happen.
I know that the British people do not want to close the doors, but until we restore order and control, those who seek to divide us will grow stronger. It is our job as a Labour Government to unite where there is division, so we must now build an asylum system for the world as it is—one that restores order and control, that opens safe and legal routes to those fleeing danger across the world, and that sustains our commitment to providing refuge for this generation, and those to come. I know the country we are. We are open, tolerant, and generous. We are the greater Britain that those on this side of the House believe in, not the littler England that some wish we would become. These reforms are designed to bring unity where others seek to divide, and I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I was very generous with the time I allowed the Leader of the Opposition. I call the Home Secretary.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her response to the statement. I see that the shadow Home Secretary has been subbed out after his performance at Home Office oral questions, but whether it is the shadow Home Secretary or the Leader of the Opposition herself, I am very happy to take on the Conservative party any day of the week.
Let me start by saying that we will not take any lessons from the Opposition on how to run an effective migration or asylum system. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, when the Conservatives were in Government, they gave up on governing altogether. They gave up on making asylum decisions, creating the huge backlog that this Government were left to start to deal with. In our first 18 months in office, removals are up 23% compared with the last 18 months that the Conservatives were in office, so I will take no lessons from anyone on the Conservative Benches on anything to do with our asylum system. They simply gave up and went for an expensive gimmick that cost £700 million to return four volunteers and was doomed to failure from the start.
The Leader of the Opposition had a lot to say about the European convention on human rights, but I do not recall the Conservatives ever bringing forward any legislation to deal with the application of article 8, the qualified right to a private life. A Bill that sought to clarify the way that article 8 should apply in our domestic legislation or in our immigration rules was never introduced, so I am not going to take any lessons from the people who never bothered to do that in the first place. This Government are rolling up our sleeves, dealing with the detailed, substantive issues that we face, and thinking of proper, workable solutions to those matters.
The position on article 3 has changed across Europe. In my previous role as Lord Chancellor, I was at the Council of Europe just before the summer recess earlier this year, and I was struck by the sheer range of European partners who want to have this conversation. It is important that the British Government lean into that conversation and seek to work in collaboration with our European partners. The one thing that will not work is simply saying that we are going to come out of the European convention altogether. That is not and will never be the policy of this Government because we believe that reform can be pursued and that this is an important convention, not least because it underpins some of our own returns agreements, including the one with France. The right hon. Lady talked about how many years it would take for us to think about reform of the convention, but as she well knows, it would take just as many years to start renegotiating lots of international agreements that would be affected by us coming out of the convention, so I am afraid that, once again, her solution will not work.
I am always up for working in the national interest because nothing matters more to me than holding our country together and uniting it, but if the Conservatives really wanted to work together in the national interest, they could have started by voting for the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, currently going through the House, that they have voted against at every opportunity. Forgive me if I do not take this newfound conversion to working together in the national interest with much seriousness, but the Conservative party’s track record suggests that it should not be taken seriously.
To not be taken seriously sums up the position of the Conservatives: these are the people that left this Government an abject mess to clear up. They gave up on governing, they gave up on running an effective asylum system, and now they turn up without so much as an apology to the British public, thinking that they have got anything to say that anyone wants to hear.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the first Back-Bench contribution, may I remind Members that in order to expect to be called to speak in response to a statement, they should have been here from the start of the Home Secretary’s statement? There may be Members bobbing quite unnecessarily.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
The reality is that we need an asylum and immigration system based on fairness and consistency. My constituency of Vauxhall and Camberwell Green is a testament to that, as it is a place that has been made richer because of the people who have come there from all over the world. Some of them have fled persecution and have made a home in my constituency over many years. I meet these people every week in the community, including in schools, where I see those children excited about their future. When this Government came into office last year, they were right to say that their priority was to tackle the huge backlog of unprocessed asylum claims left by their predecessor. Clearing that backlog is a big task, but it is right that we identify who has the right to be here, although introducing more assessments of those who have been here for many years and making new judgments about the safety of a country, will take considerable resources. Is the Home Secretary confident that these changes will not have the unintentional consequence of making it harder to achieve her goal?
Shabana Mahmood
I assure my hon. Friend that there will be both the administrative system and the resources needed to underpin the asylum changes that we are making. At the end of the five-year leave to remain period, there is already meant to be an assessment about whether the country of origin remains a safe country or not, but in practice there has ended up being an almost automatic pathway to permanent settlement, and that it what we are changing. I would ask her to look carefully at our protection work and study route, because we will be encouraging those who have sought asylum here and been granted refugee status to go into work or to study. That supports their integration and means that they are making a contribution that will retain public support for the system overall.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is right that the Government are looking for ways to bring order to the asylum system, which was left in total disarray by the Conservatives. Sadly, the Government have been too slow to act.
Britain has a long and proud history of responding with compassion to people fleeing unimaginable horrors. That should continue in a way that is fair and sustainable, so we welcome some of what the Home Secretary has said on that score. However, it is not helpful for the Home Secretary to claim that the country is being torn apart by immigration. Acknowledging the challenges facing our nation is one thing, but stoking division by using immoderate language is quite another.
I welcome the news about safe and legal routes. The Liberal Democrats have called for such routes since they were scrapped by the Conservatives, leading to more small boat crossings, but we have some concerns about the far-reaching detail behind the proposals, which seems to be missing.
The Home Secretary is revoking the legal duty to provide asylum seekers with accommodation, and says that asylum seekers should support themselves and contribute to our society, yet she is still banning them from working so that they can support themselves and contribute to our society, which makes no sense. The Home Secretary relies a lot on Denmark as an example. Denmark lets asylum seekers work after six months, so will she? Can she guarantee that the burden to house asylum seekers will not fall on already struggling local councils? Can she also guarantee that we will not see a wholesale transfer of asylum seekers from hotels to the streets?
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum has announced to the media that asylum seekers could have jewellery confiscated. Is the Home Secretary doing that to raise money or to deter people? Either way, does she acknowledge that many British people will see it as unnecessary and cruel? State-sponsored robbery will certainly not fix a system that costs taxpayers £6 million every day in hotel bills.
If the Government plan to keep their promise to end hotel use, they must process the claims of the 90,000 asylum seekers in the backlog. The Liberal Democrats have a plan to do that within six months using Nightingale-style processing centres. Does the Home Secretary seriously believe that an overstretched Home Office that is yet to clear the existing backlog can also undertake reviews of every refugee’s status every two-and-a-half years?
The UK must continue to lead international efforts to manage large migratory flows. Because the flow of people comes from Europe, the Home Secretary will need to work with the EU on a solution. The Oxford Migration Observatory has identified a clear Brexit effect. That means that people refused asylum in the EU make a second attempt here—a consequence of the Brexit delivered by the Conservatives and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). The Minister for Border Security and Asylum refused earlier to answer whether Brexit has harmed our immigration and asylum system, so I will ask the Home Secretary now. Does she think that Brexit has made it easier or more difficult for this country to control its borders and asylum system? Does she think that reductions in overseas development spending will reduce or increase migratory flows?
We have already made it very clear that we think leaving the ECHR will make no difference to securing our borders and will tear hard-won rights away from British people. It is encouraging that the Home Secretary has said that that is not part of the Government’s plan. We urge the Government to tread carefully and act with fairness, efficiency and compassion for local communities in the UK who want this issue resolved, but also for asylum seekers.
Shabana Mahmood
I wish I had the privilege of walking around this country and not seeing the division that the issue of migration and the asylum system is creating across this country. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, unfortunately, I am the one who is regularly called a “fucking Paki” and told to “Go back home”. I know through personal experience and through the experience of my constituents just how divisive the issue of asylum has become in our country.
I wish it were possible to say that there is not a problem here—that there is nothing to see and that in fact these are all extremist right-wing talking points—but the system is broken. It is incumbent on all Members of Parliament to acknowledge how badly broken the system is and to make it a moral mission to fix this system so that it stops creating the division we all see. I do not think it is acceptable or appropriate for people in this place not to acknowledge the real experience of those who sit outside this House. We are supposed to be in this House to reflect that experience, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will approach the debates that we will no doubt have on all these measures in that spirit.
The hon. Gentleman accused this Government of being too slow to act. I have to say that removals of those who have no right to be in our country are up by 23% in the first 18 months of this Labour Government compared with the last 18 months of the former Tory Government. We are a Government who are getting on with the job. We have made 11,000 enforcement raids, 8,000 arrests and, as a result of those raids, more than 1,000 people with no right to be in this country have been removed from this country. This is a Government who are getting on with the job, and this is just the next phase of our work as we deal with the broken migration system we inherited from the Conservatives.
The hon. Gentleman said he thought that people who are waiting on their claim should be given the right to work. I think he knows that would be a huge pull factor and increase rather than decrease the number of channel crossings. That would be our experience in this country, and that is why we are not pursuing that policy. We have said that those who are granted refugee status in this country who can and want to will be able to switch into the protection work and study route, so that they can start contributing to society. That will help them to integrate, and it will help the communities they are living in.
The hon. Gentleman knows full well that it is not the policy of this Government to confiscate jewellery from those who are accessing asylum accommodation. Asylum accommodation is provided to asylum seekers by British taxpayers, and it is right that if people have high-value assets, they contribute to the cost of that asylum accommodation. In my speech, I gave the example of a man who was in supported asylum accommodation, paid for by taxpayers in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine. He received £800 a month from his family and had enough money to acquire an Audi. It is right that the British state should be able to say to such an individual, “Contribute.” We are not saying that we will take everything away and leave that individual destitute, but contribution is a fair principle here. I would be very disappointed to discover that the Liberal Democrats do not support people contributing, when they can afford to, to the cost of their asylum accommodation.
The hon. Gentleman made his remarks on Brexit. I do not have any more to say about that; I am living in the world as it is today. If he has things to say about that, I am sure that the House will continue to hear them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The Home Secretary should know that language that is not acceptable in this House does not become acceptable if it is attributed to others. She might like to apologise for the language that she used.
Shabana Mahmood
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not mean any discourtesy; I was merely reflecting the truth of words that are used to me.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I think we all appreciate that, but I urge Members to keep their language acceptable in the House.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
I fully support the Home Secretary and her statement. It is a fundamental duty of Government to protect our borders and to know who is coming into this country—something that we have not known for some time. She has set herself a difficult task. Will she agree to publish targets for all the areas that she outlined in her statement, and particularly for a reduction in the number of undocumented and illegal entrants to the country, so that we can check whether the plan is working? If it is not, she may need to alter some of the policies.
Shabana Mahmood
What we will not do is set arbitrary targets or caps. We have learned the lessons from previous Governments, and setting a number in that way actually costs public confidence. The better thing to do is to get on with passing the necessary legislation in this House, to deliver the reforms out there in the country, and to assess them as they go. I have no doubt that there will be much debate and scrutiny in this place and others about the success of these reforms, and I look forward to answering questions over the coming months and years.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I am sure that my Committee will want to look closely at the very significant number of announcements that the Home Secretary has made today. She referred on a number of occasions to asylum seekers contributing when they are given support. Has she given any consideration to setting up a deferred payment scheme, much akin to the student loan scheme, so that when people are granted asylum and are in work, they can start to pay back the generosity that they have received?
Shabana Mahmood
I very much look forward to my first appearance before the right hon. Lady’s Committee, which I hope we can arrange very soon. I am sure that we will discuss in detail all these proposals, as well as other matters relating to the Home Office. On the point about further contribution, we are exploring that; it is not part of the package of measures that I am announcing today, but I will happily update the House in due course.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Does she agree that enforcing the immigration rules, including on removals, is in the public interest? Will she provide greater detail about the action that the Government will take to balance the public interest against individual rights?
Shabana Mahmood
We will bring forward legislation in the next Session on the specific ways that we will deal with the application of article 8 to immigration cases, and on updating our immigration rules. I am happy to discuss with her how that legislation will be developed over the coming weeks, but the intention is to do exactly as I said in my statement. In particular, we will define “family”; set out how the public interest test is to be used, and that it is to be used only in the most exceptional circumstances; and tighten the “who” and “where” of how article 8 claims can be made. Taken together, we believe that those measures will ensure that article 8 is applied exactly as was intended when the European convention on human rights was first agreed to.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We Conservative Members genuinely wish the Home Secretary well, because otherwise, in her own words, the country will start falling apart. It is a good effort—seven out of 10. She clearly has strong conservative instincts, but does she fear that the misery in many of these countries is such that asylum seekers are not really worried about how long they have to wait for their claim to be processed? Does she fear that unless we arrest, detain and deport people very quickly, this problem will just go on and on? The Home Secretary mentioned return hubs; could she say a bit more about those, and will she have an open mind about schemes such as Rwanda?
Shabana Mahmood
On Rwanda, no. Turning to the substance of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I do not think he can be right, because claims are down in Europe but up here. I hope that he will approach the debate that we are having with an open mind, ditch the failed policies of his party, and maybe consider more workable solutions proposed by this Government.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
We want to continue the UK’s proud history of offering sanctuary, while simultaneously reducing illegal channel crossings. Refugees fleeing persecution should seek safe and legal routes that are subject to full security checks and controls, not pay people-smuggling gangs to cross the channel in an uncontrolled and unsafe way. I therefore welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement that such routes will be created. How quickly does she envisage them being implemented?
Shabana Mahmood
It is absolutely through safe and legal routes that we should seek to bring people into our country, not through the people-smuggling route that originates in the north of France and crosses the channel. I have made an explicit policy choice to disincentivise people from coming through that route; they are paying thousands of pounds to organised immigration criminals to do so. We will privilege those who come through our safe and legal routes. As we get order and control into the system we have inherited, those routes will become more generous over time. They will start modestly—the numbers will be in the low hundreds—but they will grow. We want them to grow, because we want people seeking sanctuary to be able to find safe harbour in this country. We are proud of that position as a Government, so those routes will grow over time. I hope that Members from across the House will support that, but we have to get order and control into our system first.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I think there is general agreement that we have chaos in the immigration and asylum system, and that the Government should be looking for new ways to discourage people from crossing the channel in small boats. Given what the Home Secretary has said today, though, is there a danger that the people we need to come to this country legally—people with the skills that we need to fill the employment gap, and who will keep our NHS working and work in the social care sector—will look at this country now and say, “No, I don’t want to go there”?
Shabana Mahmood
I disagree with the hon. Lady—there is no reason to believe that. The people who come into this country on small boats constitute about 40% of all asylum claims. About the same number of people come through a legal route—a visit visa, a work visa or a study visa—and then apply for asylum when that visa comes to an end. I hope that she will recognise that it is important that we stop that abuse of the asylum system, so that we can retain public confidence in the legal migration system that I think we can all agree this country needs.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Over the past few years, three times as many people have come to this country from Ukraine and Hong Kong, fleeing war or persecution, as have come in small boats, and there has been no public outcry about that. The lesson is that the British people are compassionate and generous to refugees when the system is controlled, fair, and gripped by the Government. Over the 15 years that I spent working on asylum issues before being elected, I saw the dysfunction that this Government have inherited. There is nothing progressive about ducking asylum reform and allowing public support for refugees to drain away. How will these reforms address the manifest unfairness in the asylum system, and rebuild public support for the system, and for immigration overall?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. This country is an open, tolerant and generous place, but there are conditions for that openness, tolerance and generosity—there must be order and control in the system. When people can see that a system is not working, and that rules are being abused and not enforced, they rightly feel angry. It is important that this Government deal with those problems, so that we can have public consent, not just for a new system that works better, but for the safe and legal routes that I know my hon. Friend and others in this House want. The two principles that underpin all the reforms that I am announcing today are fairness and contribution. Those are quintessential Labour values, but they are also quintessential British values.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
As the Home Secretary struggles to find these return hubs, she should reflect on the fact that it was her Government who wasted £700 million by giving up an opportunity to Germany and the United States before we got the chance to use it.
Shabana Mahmood
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; in all the finger-wagging, I sort of missed the question. I think it was something about Rwanda, which I think we can all agree was a totally failed scheme and a waste of money. There are good, ongoing negotiations about return hubs, and I very much hope that we can update the House in due course.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I hope we can all agree that a strong immigration system does not have to be cruel. When the Tories painted over murals for refugee children, the number of small boat crossings still went up. When they threatened deportations to Rwanda, guess what? The number of crossings still went up. What evidence does the Secretary of State have that taking personal belongings, such as jewellery, from refugees and selling it off actually works as a deterrent? Would it not be a much better use of all our time to focus on the new plans for safe and legal routes that she has outlined?
Shabana Mahmood
We are not taking jewellery at the border; I cannot say it any more clearly than that. As my hon. Friend knows from the example I used in my speech, the sort of cases we are going after are those in which people have assets and access to money and can afford quite expensive cars. Those people should make a contribution to the cost of what is currently free asylum support. The two things are not the same, and I urge my hon. Friend to not conflate them. We will not, and never will, seize people’s jewellery at the border; we are not going after their sentimental items, such as wedding rings. We are talking about those who have high-value assets and, having claimed asylum in this country, but before they have been granted refugee status, receive free accommodation on the state. If those people have assets, they should contribute to the cost of that accommodation, as I explained through the example that I used in my speech. That is the sort of case we are talking about, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not perpetuate what is being said about jewellery, because I have clearly ruled that out in the House today.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Labour’s change of course is most welcome, and she has outlined some useful steps. My constituents want to see the Holiday Inn in Bridgwater emptied of migrants and returned to commercial use. To achieve that, she will have to be bolder, so does she agree that anyone who arrives in this country illegally should be detained on entry and deported automatically?
Shabana Mahmood
Again, forgive me, but I am not going to take any lessons from the party that gave us hotel use in the first place and is now lecturing me about hotel exit. It is a manifesto commitment of this Government that we will get out of hotels by the end of this Parliament. I hope to do so before then, which is why we are exploring large sites, including military sites. I know that will give rise to more debate in this House over the coming weeks and months, which I look forward to, but the hon. Gentleman is a member of the party that started hotel use; I hope that he will reflect on that fact first.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I support my right hon. Friend’s statement, and particularly her announcement about safe and legal routes. She will know that cities like Cambridge have a long tradition—going back to the Kindertransport—of welcoming people, including those from Syria and Ukraine. I very much hope that she will work closely with authorities like Cambridge city council on measures that can make those routes work.
Shabana Mahmood
We will work with local partners, councils, philanthropists and other charitable organisations as we develop safe and legal routes. As I said in my statement, they will take three primary forms: community sponsorship, because we believe that is the best model for integrating refugees into our communities; a route for talented students; and a route for skilled workers. We want to play our full part as a country in providing sanctuary to those truly in need. We need to move to a better system. Safe and legal routes will be the way to do it in the future.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I am sure that all of us across the House can agree that a key aspect of dealing with the asylum system is to deal with the crisis of the backlog, which is enormous. The Home Secretary said in her speech that the Government are looking at a number of large military sites as an alternative to asylum hotels. One large military site already in use is RAF Wethersfield in Essex. I understand from Essex police that Braintree district council has been given funding to the tune of about £2 million to help with community cohesion, because that facility is nearby. However, buses are taking asylum seekers from Wethersfield to such places as Colchester and my constituency of Chelmsford several times a day. That is placing extra strain on Essex police in those areas, yet they are unable to access those funds. Will the Home Secretary commit to providing extra funds to Essex police in those areas to help police them?
Shabana Mahmood
I think there were two questions. The first was on the backlog of appeals, which I recognise is far too high. That is why we will create a new independent appeals system so that we can run through these cases more quickly, while fulfilling our obligations to have an independent process and provide early legal advice. On the specific point on Wethersfield and pressures on councils, we work closely with local councils and provide funding to assist with community cohesion and other issues. I will look carefully at the example the hon. Lady has raised if she writes to me.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
The Home Secretary’s statement is most welcome. The proposals that she set out today are a significant step in the right direction. The comments that she made about the damage to the social fabric of this country are important. I have a specific question about asylum seekers who have committed crimes and are deported, but are then allowed to make a second application to come back to this country. Will she look at the law to see how that can be addressed?
Shabana Mahmood
On those who are convicted of crimes, the combination of the Sentencing Bill changes and what I have said today should lead to the earlier deportation of foreign national offenders from this country. It is important that those individuals face the full force of the law, but we have made a policy decision as a Government that for the vast majority of foreign national offenders, the appropriate thing to do is to move to immediate deportation wherever possible.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
The Home Secretary said that she was exploring
“the possibility of return hubs, with negotiations ongoing.”
Can she tell the House which countries she is negotiating with and how much it will cost?
Shabana Mahmood
No. I do not think the hon. Member would expect me to comment on live negotiations with other countries, but those negotiations are ongoing. I hope we will have announcements to make soon.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
The Hornsey and Friern Barnet constituency has a long tradition as boroughs of sanctuary, and just today I had an excellent briefing from the Jewish voice for refugees, HIAS+JCORE. Does the Home Secretary agree that there is a real problem with the cliff edge for failed asylum seekers who end up street homeless or rough sleeping, particularly in the Finsbury Park area of my constituency? Will she redouble her efforts to understand the connections between homelessness and the asylum process, so that all people can have shelter as we go into the winter?
Shabana Mahmood
I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. The reality is that there are a lot of failed asylum seekers within the asylum accommodation system, and I am sure she would accept and agree that where somebody has a failed claim and no right to be in this country, the best thing to do is to voluntarily leave the country. We already provide packages to help people make that decision. I do not want to see people homeless in this country, but I know she cannot possibly think that the answer to that is essentially for there to be no consequence of a failed asylum claim. We need to run a system where the rules are enforced, as uncomfortable as that might occasionally be. We recognise that we do not want people in destitution; that is why we make financial packages available for people to voluntarily leave the country, and that will always be the case.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
In its manifesto, Labour promised to defend migrants’ rights and build an immigration system based on compassion and dignity. Instead, we have a policy that is welcomed by Reform UK and has even found favour with Tommy Robinson. Throwing refugees into destitution, denying any meaningful route to citizenship and forcible evictions—where exactly is the compassion and dignity in that?
Shabana Mahmood
Given that Tommy Robinson does not even think I am English, he will certainly not be supporting anything I have to say, but let us just leave that there. We do not need to hear any more about what vile racists have to say about anything.
Let me say to the hon. Member that it is not a surprise to find a Scottish National party Member of Parliament defending a broken status quo; that is what they do with the Scottish Government under the SNP every day, and it is what he is doing now. I hope he can agree that good, much-needed reform of a broken system is the best way to retain public support for having an asylum system at all.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is right to seek to bring order to the chaos at our borders—chaos instituted by the Tories—which undermines trust in our state and imposes such costs on communities. She is also right to address the pull factors that lure migrants to their deaths in our channel, with claims of cushy lives in five-star hotels. She is right to insist that our proposals must reflect British values and work in practice. On that, will she say a bit more about how reviewing refugee status every two years will work in practice, particularly in regard to Home Office capacity and in regard to integration?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. We are moving from a situation where refugee status is effectively permanent and the most attractive of all routes into the country to one where it has a more temporary status. I will ensure that the administration and funding are available to run the new system as it is being designed. We are creating the protection work and study route because we believe that the best integration outcomes happen when people are in work and able to contribute. That is how we will retain popular support for having an asylum system. People will transfer, we hope, into the protection work and study route, but if they do not, they will still receive sanctuary from this country under the core protection model, and it will be more regularly reviewed. I hope we can all agree that where a country is safe for an individual to return to, a return should in the normal run of things take place. If people have switched into a work route and are making a contribution, we will set out plans in the coming days for how they can earn their way to an earlier settlement that is longer than what is available to people today—and still longer than what will be available to people on safe and legal routes—but shorter than for those who remain on the core protection model.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Most on the Government Benches disagree with us, but I share the Home Secretary’s admiration for the Danish model. The Danish Finance Ministry publishes data regularly on the fiscal contribution of different profiles of migrants. It shows in Denmark that migrants from MENAPT—the middle east, north Africa, Pakistan and Turkey—are net recipients over the course of their lifetimes. Will the Home Secretary ensure that the Treasury publishes the same data in the same way in this country?
Shabana Mahmood
We keep all statistics under review, as the hon. Member knows and as was the case when he was an adviser to a former Home Secretary. The principle that underpins all these reforms is fairness and contribution. We believe that most people want to be able to contribute to this country, because refugees recognise that it is the best way for them to have stability and security in their lives, and it is what is needed for the wider community, too. We think that all refugees, if they are on the protection work and study route, will have that opportunity. I am not interested in models that start separating out different nations from one another. Once somebody has got status in our country, they are on a path to becoming one of us if they are working and contributing.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I agree about the need for a fairer asylum system in which the public can have confidence, but everything that the Home Secretary has proposed today is predicated on decent legal advice being available to people, and we know—I know from 20 years as a Member of Parliament—that that is simply not the case. Despite the best efforts of the advice sector in Bristol, which is proud to be a city of sanctuary, there is a dearth of decent immigration lawyers, and I see too many constituents fall into the hands of dodgy lawyers who will help them to falsify and fabricate claims. What will the Home Secretary do to ensure that that decent legal advice is there?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with my hon. Friend, in that many people have turned up at my advice surgeries believing that there are things I can do as a constituency MP to assist them with their migration claims which I cannot do. They have been completely misled and robbed by unscrupulous individuals. Under the new appeals system that we will set up, legal advice will be available from the start. We believe in access to justice, and people need to have the right legal advice, but providing it early, right at the start of claims, means that we can run a system whereby there can be one claim and one appeal rather than the merry-go-round and whack-a-mole of claims that we see today.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
I welcome the rhetoric in the Home Secretary’s announcement. In fact, I recognise her rhetoric. We have our plan for restoring justice, and she has announced a plan to restore order and control. However, before she puts in her application to join Reform UK—and I would very much welcome her doing so—may I just draw out the difference between our parties?
Unlike the Government, we do not propose to give illegal immigrants the right to stay here for two and a half years after arriving; we do not propose to give them the right to study and work here; we do not propose to allow them to bring their families here; and, crucially, we are not going to contort our law to comply with and fit into the European convention on human rights. The derogations announced by the Home Secretary will not work to stop the lawfare, just as the derogations announced in the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 would not have stopped the lawfare, which is why I opposed that Bill as well. She talks about—
Shabana Mahmood
I do not think there was a question in there, Madam Deputy Speaker. As for the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to join his party—hardly any of whose Members appear to be present—let me say to him, “Over my dead body.”
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I commend the Home Secretary for getting the balance absolutely right. I think that her announcement will be widely welcomed throughout our diverse community in Birmingham, because we know that our generosity of spirit is upheld by our rule of law and the kindness that we show is protected by the justice that we share. Will the Home Secretary confirm that while we will always give sanctuary to those who need our protection, what she is advancing today is in effect a form of earned citizenship, and that only those who step up to the full responsibilities of citizenship will enjoy the full rights of citizenship of this country?
Shabana Mahmood
My right hon. Friend has made a powerful point. We are constituency neighbours, and both of us have engaged in many community meetings over the years in which these issues have been discussed, not just by those who are white but by those who are ethnic minority Britons. What unites all Britons, regardless of their background, is a desire for fairness and for a good system in which people can have confidence. My right hon. Friend is entirely right about the concepts of earned citizenship, earned settlement, contribution and fairness. As I said earlier, those are quintessential Labour values, and they are quintessential British values as well, which is why I know that this plan will have support from people throughout the country.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
These steps are definitely a move in the right direction, and I am pleased that the Home Secretary has rejected the Liberal Democrats’ proposal to allow those who arrive in the UK illegally to work, which would, I think, be a ludicrous magnet that would attract more illegal migrants. However, she will be aware that the vast majority of removals from the country are voluntary rather than enforced. What is she planning to do to ramp up enforced removals from the UK, in respect of visa sanctions, and why did the Government vote against their inclusion in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me just say gently to the hon. Gentleman that voluntary removal is the outcome that we should be aiming for. Enforced removals cost more money and are more likely to result in a failed removal, especially if there is such disruption that the pilot in charge of the plane says that he or she will not take the individual concerned. That often costs the British taxpayer much more. It is value for money for voluntary removals to take place wherever possible, but we will pursue all types of removal, voluntary as well as enforced, along with deportations of foreign national offenders. Our track record over the past 18 months shows that we got those numbers up by 23% to just over 48,000, doing better than the Conservatives did over their last 18 months in government. As for the issue of visa sanctions, all I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that these were powers that the Conservatives acquired but did not use.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend my right hon. Friend for the measures that she has introduced to tackle abuse of our asylum system and clamp down on those who are taking advantage of this country’s generosity. The Government have already closed 200 hotels since coming to power, but can my right hon. Friend confirm that her Department is expediting the measures that she has announced so that we can restore public confidence?
Shabana Mahmood
I can assure my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour that we are moving at pace on the exit of hotels. We have already made good progress, having closed a number of them. The number of hotels that remain has fallen from the peak that we inherited to just under 200, but we will go further and faster. We are looking at large sites, including military sites, and there will be more announcements about that in due course. As for the wider proposals, some require consultation while others require legislation—I know that they were debated with real vigour in the House—but we will aim to pass these measures as quickly as possible, because I agree with my hon. Friend about the need for us to make a rapid transition to a better system in which we can all have more confidence, to introduce the safe and legal routes that are the viable alternative and the right alternative, and to persuade people not to get on to a dangerous boat in the north of France instead.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The Home Secretary has spoken a great deal about contribution, but one of the most powerful forms of contribution to our country is getting a job and paying taxes, which the Home Secretary will not allow people seeking asylum to do, despite the fact that it can be done in Denmark. She has said that pull factors cause an aversion to that, but a study conducted by the University of Warwick, which looked at 30 other studies, found that there was no long-term correlation between labour market access and destination choice. Will she therefore review her decision not to offer people seeking asylum the right to work, so that they can pay their own way in our country?
Shabana Mahmood
What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is what I said in response to a question from another Liberal Democrat earlier today. It would be a pull factor, because we know that the ability to work in this country illegally is already a pull factor, which is why we are clamping down on illegal working—we have seen 11,000 raids, 8,000 arrests and the removal of 1,000 people with no right to be in this country. Let me also say to the hon. Gentleman that I have had the misfortune of having to look through the TikTok accounts and the various other ways in which the organised immigration criminals advertise their packages for people to get on to a boat in the channel in the north of France, and it is in all those marketing materials as well. We also know from the intelligence that we gather that that is one of the pull factors, and we have to deal with it.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, which I fully support. My constituency, like hers, is incredibly diverse, with people originating in countries across the world settled and contributing to our communities. One thing that people from all backgrounds have in common is that they detest the unfairness that the Conservative party allowed to creep into our asylum and immigration system. They also detest the demonising of their neighbours by members of Reform. Does the Home Secretary agree that the choice is clear: a choice between the chaos, handed over by the Conservatives, of a system taken advantage of by those who can pay the people smugglers, and a system of fair and safe legal routes for those who need them?
Shabana Mahmood
My own parents were migrants to this country in the late ’60s and ’70s. Migration is woven into the story of my family, and those of thousands of people I represent in my constituency of Birmingham Ladywood. I agree with my hon. Friend that ethnic minority Brits are just like every other kind of British: we value fairness and contribution as well. That is why those principles sit underneath all the policy announcements that I have made today.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
It is not people seeking sanctuary who are tearing our country apart; it is toxic, racist narratives and the scapegoating of migrants and asylum seekers for what is nothing to do with them. The chronic housing crisis and the running down of public services are not caused by migrants; they are caused by political decisions and by the grotesque inequality in this country. Does the Secretary of State understand that attempting to out-Reform Reform is actually just boosting this baseless, far-right narrative and will only deepen divisions, when we urgently need leadership and hope instead?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me tell the hon. Lady that I could not care less about what any other political party has to say about these matters. I do not care what other politicians are saying on the television. I do not care what other activists are saying either. I care about the fact that I have an important job to do, and I can see that there is a problem here that needs to be fixed. If there was not a problem, I would not be pretending there was one. There is a genuine problem in the asylum system and we need someone to sort it out, not to pretend that it does not exist, which I am afraid is one of the things that fuels division in the first place.
Since I have been Home Secretary, my own constituents have been telling me directly of abuses in the visa system that they can see with their own eyes, long before any officials in Whitehall have ever clocked on to those things. When we see something broken, we have a moral responsibility to fix it and to make sure that the fact that it is broken is not fuelling division in our country. Let me also say to the hon. Lady that it is Green party politicians who are absolute hypocrites, because they talk great language in here and then oppose asylum accommodation in their own constituencies.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. As the Member for Bradford West, I am really proud that Bradford is a city of sanctuary. The Home Secretary is aware that I am a former foster parent to an Afghan refugee, and my concern is about the reform of article 8 that the Home Secretary suggests. Had somebody like my foster son come to this country and not had a parent, he would not be able to apply for his only sibling to come over. The same would potentially apply to a Ukrainian woman who has young children and cannot contribute because of the trauma that she has experienced. Will the Home Secretary meet me when she is doing her consultation on safe passage for refugees and asylum seekers?
Shabana Mahmood
Of course, I will always happily meet my hon. Friend. We made it clear in the asylum policy statement that these measures do not apply to unaccompanied children and other vulnerable groups. We will set out our specific policies in relation to vulnerable groups, including unaccompanied children, separately; these measures do not apply to them. She will know that the scheme for Ukrainians is a bespoke temporary scheme that was brought in by the Conservative party when it was in government and supported not just by our party, but across this House. I expect the rules of that scheme to apply in the normal way, but I will of course discuss with her the issues that she raises.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for a copy of her speech. It states that
“the public rightly expect that we can determine who enters this country, and who must leave,”
and I agree. One thing that is missing, though, is verifying the people who come in. We Conservatives put forward the idea of age verification, which many other countries have. Is that part of her plan? If not, would she consider putting it back in the plan, so that we know that those coming in are who they say they are?
Shabana Mahmood
If the hon. Gentleman reads the asylum policy statement, he will know that, on age verification, we are pursuing artificial intelligence as a more effective and workable model, unlike that suggested by the Conservative party, which was all about MRI scans and bones. We believe we have a much more effective way of ensuring that age verification is available and that the methodology for it actually works.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. There is currently a loophole in UK employment law that means that people who are self-employed are not subject to right-to-work checks, which means that many people work illegally in the gig economy, with no potential risk to their “non-employer”. Will the Home Secretary discuss how we can close that loophole while simultaneously ensuring that we uphold rights for British workers, but also the rule of law and the remainder of our rights within the UK?
Shabana Mahmood
We are closing that loophole through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, and it is important that colleagues support us when that is debated again on Wednesday. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that closing loopholes and ensuring that everyone is subject to a right-to-work check, thereby building support for a rule-of-law approach to the way that people access employment in this country, is incredibly important. I hope that all colleagues, even Opposition Members, will support those measures later this week.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Nowhere in the Home Secretary’s statement does she put this into any kind of global context. Millions of people have become refugees or homeless all around the world, and more than two thirds of them are housed by the southern countries—the poorest countries in the world—with the least resources to do it. She is putting in draconian measures against refugees trying to come to this country, failing to recognise that more than 6,000 of those who have crossed the channel this year come from Afghanistan, a war-torn country that we helped to make into a war-torn country. She is instead trying to appease the most ghastly right-wing, racist forces all across Europe in undermining and walking away from the European convention on human rights—a convention created by the post-war Labour Government. Does she not recognise that history is going to be a harsh judge of this Government for undermining the global humanitarian principles behind the ECHR and the universal declaration of human rights?
Shabana Mahmood
Not for the first time, I am a little mystified as to what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. He starts with the global context. I guess my starting point is different from his, because I start with our domestic context first. He ought to know that in this country there have already been bespoke schemes for the resettlement of people from Afghanistan, so perhaps he could read up on those schemes. He should also have heard from what I said in my statement that we remain absolutely committed to offering sanctuary to those who are fleeing conflict abroad. We think that the best way to do that is not to encourage people to get on a boat in the channel by paying thousands and thousands of pounds to people smugglers.
By the way, it is not just smuggling that is a vile crime; those individuals are involved in all sorts of other, disgusting organised crime. They should not be in receipt of money from vulnerable people. I want to disincentive people from making that choice, and I want to incentivise people to come on safe and legal routes instead. If the right hon. Gentleman had actually read the asylum policy statement, he would know that it is the policy position of this Government to provide more safe and legal routes. Once he has done more reading, I will be happy to answer more of his questions.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I remember when the Prime Minister pledged an
“immigration system based on compassion and dignity”,
yet now we have an immigration Minister tweeting
“Deport, Deport, Deport”
and this policy announcement, which I am afraid scrapes the bottom of the barrel. If we are being frank, is this not just a desperate attempt to triangulate with Reform? Like some of the other terrible policy errors that have been made in recent months, it is not only morally wrong but another policy that is set to push away Labour voters. Why not recognise that now, rather than recognising it in a few months’ time and making a U-turn?
Shabana Mahmood
I really caution my hon. Friend not to defend a broken status quo. He should know that it is foreign national offenders who are deported from this country, and I hope he can agree that foreign national offenders should be deported from this country. We should not be keeping convicted criminals in our nation for a day longer than is absolutely necessary. I say to him that the thing that is morally wrong is knowing that we have a broken system and then either pretending that it is not broken or defending a broken status quo. I will never tolerate that.
I have to say to my hon. Friend that, as I have said to Opposition Members today, I do not care for what other parties are saying on these matters or for what other politicians have to say either. First and foremost is my moral responsibility to the people of this country as I fulfil my duty as Home Secretary. I have a series of reforms that are underpinned by the values of the Labour party and the values of the British people: fairness and contribution. I hope my hon. Friend will reflect on that as he reads up on the detail of these reforms.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
In February, at Second Reading of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, I raised the issue of the generous financial and accommodation package that is advertised on the Government’s own website under “Asylum support: What you’ll get”, which outlines the provision of an asylum support enablement—ASPEN—card with £49.18 of cash loaded on to it each week, on top of free accommodation, even if someone has been refused asylum. The cards can be used for gambling and have been over 6,000 times, according to a freedom of information request. In May, I raised this issue again when I asked the previous Home Secretary what she planned to do to address the pull factors of free cash and a free home. Can this Home Secretary now commit to address my previous calls that these pull factors must be mitigated to create a deterrent, and will those on section 4 or section 95 support have the benefit withdrawn under these measures?
Shabana Mahmood
I urge the hon. Member to look at the detail of the asylum policy statement, the whole point of which is to deal with the pull factors that we know are drawing people to get on a dangerous boat and cross the channel illegally. The upshot of the reforms will be to deal with those pull factors, and he will know that we have said in the asylum policy statement that a relatively small number—just under 10%—of those in asylum accommodation already have the right to work, and in future we will expect them, where they have the right to work, to work.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Home Secretary is arguing that what will heal this divided nation is to get somebody who we have agreed is a refugee, with a well-founded fear of persecution, to feel a permanent sense of limbo because they will never be able to plan for the long term for them or their family, because their status will always be uncertain because they could still face deportation. Her consultation document, which I have read, talks about using enforced return for families. Last year alone, 10,000 children, many of whom are with their families, were granted refugee status in this country. I know she plans to consult, but given that this involves children, can she be clear with us about whether she intends to incarcerate children with their families as part of enforced return, or to separate children from their mums and dads as part of this policy? How will we continue to uphold the UN convention on the rights of the child in terms of education?
Shabana Mahmood
I encourage my hon. Friend to look at the detail of the asylum policy statement on our intentions for the protection “work and study” route, which in future will be the route by which refugees can contribute and earn their way to settlement in this country. Of course, it is the express intention of this policy statement to disincentivise people coming on dangerous channel crossings, and to incentivise and to push people towards what will, over time, become more generous, safe and legal routes of entry into this country, with more privileged status when it comes to earning permanent settlement.
Let me say to my hon. Friend on failed asylum-seeking families, because I think that important context was missing from her question, that there are 700 Albanian families at the moment who have made asylum claims and whose asylum claims have failed. The only reason they have not been removed from the country is the policies on not removing families—that is, parents with their children. We are not going to separate parents and their children, but we are going to consult on the removal of support and how we effectively and safely ensure that those individuals are returned. However, we will of course want to see most of those people return voluntarily instead.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Stoking fear and division through the kind of performative cruelty trailed in the media this weekend has consequences. We saw that in Caerphilly last month in that where Reform UK spread information, Ukrainians spoke of intimidation. When the Home Secretary speaks of unity, surely the lesson from Caerphilly is that imitating Reform does not create unity and does not win trust, but that standing firm on values does.
Shabana Mahmood
I am sorry, but that is just unserious from the right hon. Lady. I am sorry to find that the Reform party is living rent free in so many people’s heads, but I can assure hon. Members that it is living nowhere near mine.
These policy proposals are designed to fix what we all know to be true, which is that we have a broken system that is driving division across our country. I see that in my own constituency, and I hope the right hon. Lady is not suggesting otherwise. I have seen that with my own eyes and it is my own experience in my own constituency, where over 70% of people are not white and most of them have a migration story just like my own. These are matters of great interest across our country—across every type of community in our country—and it is incumbent on any Government who want to make sure we can run a decent system and not fuel division in our country to pursue the sorts of reforms that we are talking about. They are underpinned by what I would have hoped were values her party could have signed up to as well—that is, fairness and contribution.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, which I support. This reform of the system is long overdue. It is about reforming safe and legal routes, and cracking down on illegal working and those abusing the asylum and immigration system, yet it maintains support for those that need our support, such as those fleeing war in Ukraine and others who come here legally. It is about fairness. When will these reforms be in place so that residents can see the outcomes of these actions?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We will pursue the consultation on measures that require it as quickly as possible, and there will be legislation in the coming months—certainly in the second Session—which we will obviously seek, subject to the agreement of the House, to pass as quickly as possible.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Home Secretary’s asylum plans still have a gaping hole in the middle of them in that she does not know what to do with failed asylum seekers who cannot be returned home. Her statement says that she is exploring possibilities with third countries. Can I suggest that she swallows her pride, and speaks to a third country that we know is willing: Rwanda?
Shabana Mahmood
I say to Conservative Members that they are going to have to ditch their addiction to Rwanda. The scheme did not work, and nobody in the country supported it. As the hon. Member and Opposition Members well know, when we are negotiating with other countries about possible agreements, the one thing we do not do is publicise them before an agreement is reached.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
The Home Secretary is aware that, in the absence of safe and legal routes, the law forces a refugee to set foot on UK soil to seek asylum, which has led to dangerous journeys and no checks or vetting taking place. She has referenced sponsorship as the primary safe route. Could she clarify whether this can be applied for from outside the UK, and what consideration has she made of recommendations by Safe Passage to implement a visa refugee scheme, so that applications can be done from outside the UK, with cases assessed, vetted and decided before a refugee embarks on a dangerous journey here?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The whole purpose of the new safe and legal routes is that those individuals are accepted as refugees before they enter the United Kingdom. The point is that they never pay thousands of pounds to illegal smugglers along any sort of route on which they may travel. In fact, exactly as she says, we want to accept people as refugees before they set foot on UK soil, and once they are here on a safe and legal route, they will access permanent settlement more quickly than on any other route in this country. It is good that the Government are seeking to incentivise people to come through safe and legal routes, not pay thousands and thousands of pounds to criminals along the way.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
It was a genuinely good statement—as far as it went—from which we learnt that countries could be determined to be safe at some point in the future and refugees from them returned home. What would be the Home Secretary’s criteria for safety, and which countries does she have in her sights? For example, would they include the Council of Europe and NATO member, ECHR signatory and EU candidate, Turkey?
Shabana Mahmood
I am not going to provide a running commentary on countries. The right hon. Member will know that I referenced Syria specifically in my statement. Many thousands of Syrians were making claims related to the regime that was in place before, during the conflict, but it has fallen and there is a new regime, so we have already made a small number of voluntary returns to Syria. Other countries are exploring enforced returns to Syria, given the change in circumstances there, and we will of course look at doing the same. In the normal run of things, when it comes to considering whether a country is safe for a person we will keep such matters under review, as I know he would expect us to do.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
Yes, we have a broken system, but does the Home Secretary really believe that people having to flee violence, war and persecution means they have won a golden ticket if they are lucky enough to get refugee status here? Does she understand that such rhetoric is deeply offensive and feeds division? Does she accept that shutting down routes for settlement will damage integration in our communities, and will only strengthen Reform, not beat it? Would not a better way of measuring contribution be to allow people to work and pay taxes?
Shabana Mahmood
I gently point out to my hon. Friend that we have a large number of failed asylum seekers—that is to say, people whose claims have not succeeded and who do not have the right to be in this country who are still here, despite their home country being safe. Many people who claim asylum in this country have passed through multiple safe countries across Europe before they end up in the north of France. We have seen claims go down in Europe and increase here in the UK. I would just encourage her to remember that we are opening safe and legal routes. The whole point of the reforms is to disincentivise the journeys that lead to criminals earning a lot of money and people being in the north of France, and to move to a system where we have safe legal routes and we accept people as refugees before they set foot on UK soil. That way, when they come here they can earn, contribute and be fully integrated through models such as community sponsorship, which we know work.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I thank the Home Secretary for sharing her experiences earlier and thoroughly condemn the sort of behaviour she described. It is unacceptable in any case.
The Secretary of State described rapid decisions on appeals. Does she also believe, as I do, that rapid decision making on the initial application of asylum seekers should be promoted and highlighted? Will she consider putting a timescale target for decision—a matter of weeks, not years—in place in her Department?
In her remarks over the weekend on our Ukrainians guests, she described them going home when peace breaks out. May I remind her that peace will not mean safety? Please can she assure the House that a more considered and considerate response may be found? Will she meet me and Ukrainian guests to resolve that issue?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me just make a point about Ukraine that I think was not understood fully by those who were questioning me at the weekend. It is a bespoke scheme created only for Ukrainians, with its own rules. It is not subject to what we have set out in the asylum policy statement. The hon. Gentleman will know, as is the position in relation to our discussions with the Ukrainian Government, that those individuals are welcome in our country so that we can keep them safe. They are not classed as refugees, because they are here temporarily on that scheme. We will always uphold our obligations under that scheme—we supported it in Opposition, too.
The hon. Gentleman is right on the point about rapid decisions. It is important that decisions made at first instance, but also through an appeals process, are of high quality. That is one of the ways we have to ensure that they do not get constantly appealed. Our current system means that even though we have made huge progress on decreasing the backlog on initial decisions, the appeals backlog has grown. Over time, as people sit in the appeals queue, more rights are accrued. Unlike with any other type of legal order in this country, the order to leave this country not being complied with still allows people to accrue more rights in the interim. We do not run a good and effective appeals system at the moment, which is why we are going to create a new one, but I can assure him that at its heart will be early legal advice and truly independent adjudicators making the decisions, but doing so in a way that allows them to fast-track claims that have a low chance of success and make sure that the right decision is made quickly— one claim, one appeal—with a certain outcome at the end, not subject to years and years of a merry-go-round around the courts.
Several hon. Members rose—
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly welcome the measures which I believe will tackle a failure by the previous Government to maintain one of the most basic fundamental functions of government: control of our borders. My constituents are worried and angry about the proliferation of houses in multiple occupation to house asylum seekers in towns and villages that already have significant social and economic problems. Will the measures lead to lower demand from the Home Office for that type of housing for asylum seekers and the return of HMOs over time to use as family homes for local people who need affordable housing?
Shabana Mahmood
The totality of the reforms will, we believe, lead to less pressure on accommodation, so I think the short answer to my hon. Friend’s question on HMOs is yes. I recognise the problems he notes, because HMOs are a big problem in my constituency too.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I really do thank the Home Secretary for her statement. This is a tiny step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. To truly show that the Home Secretary is listening to the British people, does she agree with me that if you enter this country illegally, you should never be allowed to stay?
Shabana Mahmood
We will always abide by our obligations under the refugee convention and we do believe in offering sanctuary, but we make no apology for the fact that those who enter illegally by crossing the channel will have a longer path to settlement. We are deliberately incentivising other safe and legal routes into the country to show that that is the proper way to seek sanctuary in this country—rather than paying criminals a lot of money and put lives at risk.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
When we introduce new legislation and new procedures, it is important that we calculate the implications and where they could lead us. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), I have worked—for decades, to be frank—with asylum families, and in particular children. What I find is that the children are extremely traumatised. What we try to do is give them security and peace of mind for the family. Now what will happen is that every 30 months that security could be undermined and they could face removal. Could I ask my right hon. Friend whether she has consulted the Children’s Commissioner, education psychologists or others about the implications of what she is saying today?
The other issue is that in the past, she has mentioned the forced removal of families. I just remind my colleagues that in the past that was happening and families were often detained in Harmsworth detention centre. I used to visit the children. It was one of the most distressing experiences I have had as an MP. Can she give me the assurance that no child will be placed in detention as a result of this policy change?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me tell my right hon. Friend first that there will, in the usual way, be a full equality impact assessment for all these measures. As the consultations take place and as the legislation is drafted and then debated in this House, I am sure all the individuals he mentions will have their say—I would expect them to, as well. I gently remind him that when we are talking about the asylum system today, we are not just talking about those who arrive illegally on small boats; we are also talking about people who arrive on visitor visas, student visas and work visas who, the minute those visas come to an end, immediately claim asylum. We know that the relative generosity of that route—the effective automatic permanent settlement after five years—is one of the things that attracts that behaviour. It is right that we clamp down on that and disincentivise people trying to stay in this country in that way, and instead incentivise people who will come through safe and legal routes. As we get order and control in the system, the safe and legal routes will start relatively modest, but I anticipate them growing more generous over time because this country is fundamentally open, tolerant and generous. [Interruption.]
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the honest and realistic assessment the Secretary of State has made today in relation to the broken asylum system and the division that immigration is causing across the United Kingdom. She has been innovative in some of the proposals she has made. Only time will tell whether the potential loopholes will undermine the honourable objective she has set, namely to cut back on illegal immigration. In my view, the only way of doing that is to make sure that people who enter this country breaking the law get returned immediately. On the ECHR and the expanded interpretation, can she give us an assurance that whatever changes she makes will apply fully to Northern Ireland, where, unfortunately, the previous Government embedded the ECHR in the Windsor framework, which has proven already to be a means of undermining immigration policy?
Shabana Mahmood
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Minister for Immigration has met his counterparts in the devolved Administrations. We will keep all those conversations going, because this is a reserved matter rather than a devolved one.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if I can just say that, in case the microphone did not pick up my answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on the detention of children, I can give him the assurance he sought in his question.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I urge caution. We are in this predicament because the very people who championed Brexit failed to warn of the consequences of leaving the Dublin agreement. Since then, the EU has moved on and will introduce its asylum and migration management regulations next summer. Instead of creating insecurity, what discussions has the Home Secretary had with the EU on how we can explore working with the regulations to protect our human rights and responsibilities through this progressive and pragmatic approach?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Countries across Europe are tightening up their rules, and it is important that we do not become or remain an outlier. In fact, it is a regular complaint of many of our counterparts in Europe that at least 30% of those who travel across Europe are seeking ultimately to come to the United Kingdom. It is something that has come up in all the conversations I have had with multiple counterparts across Europe, and it is one of the reasons why we have to ensure that we have a system that works and that we get our own house in order.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
A constituent wrote to me asking whether I could get a wriggle on with his EU settlement scheme application. We checked with the Home Office and it turned out that he was subject to a live deportation order. It was issued in 2017, and we did deport him. Somehow he got back into the country and made his application. I said to the Home Secretary’s predecessor that if she was prepared to, with a stroke of her pen, re-enact that deportation order, then I was prepared to drive him to the airport myself. Now that we have a Home Secretary who is going to get a grip of this situation, I offer the same thing again.
Shabana Mahmood
I look forward to welcoming the hon. Member’s application to join immigration enforcement. If he wants to write to me about that specific example, I will look into it. I know that the systems at the Home Office need a lot of tightening. It is work that my predecessor started when she brought a new permanent secretary into the Department to make the necessary changes, and it is work I will continue.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that this system is absolutely smashed to smithereens. It is smashed to smithereens because of 14 years of destruction from the Conservatives. Of course we all want to see the control of our borders. We want to stop the boats, and we want to see better and safer legal routes. But I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench this: when the opposition parties—the Tories, Reform UK, not to mention that odious racist chancer who is bankrolled by the world’s wealthiest man—are championing our policies, is it not time to question whether we are actually in the right place?
Shabana Mahmood
I have a lot of time and high regard for my hon. Friend. What I would say is that he should not allow mischief making by those he names to throw him or our party off course, and I hope he has heard the support from our own Back Benchers today who can see that these changes are necessary to fix the broken system that he agrees we have. I would also ask Members to please not keep repeating the name of a man who does not even think I am English. I find that very offensive, and I would ask everyone to refrain from mentioning him. We do not need to do that. We do not need to go there. Do not fall for the mischief that others are making here. We know that there is a broken system, and it is our solemn responsibility as a Labour party and a Labour Government to fix it.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I agree that the asylum system is broken, and I welcome the commitment to safe and legal routes for people to seek asylum, but there is much in these measures that I think is cruel, impractical and will not work. One example is making people have reviews every two-and-a-half years for 20 years. It is cruel because those people are not going to be able to get a sense of security and safety, and it is counterproductive because they will struggle to get good-quality, secure and high-paid jobs and contribute to our society. It will not work.
We know that the Home Office cannot cope with what it currently has to do. My casework is full of people whose papers get lost when they are trying for immigration status. The digital right-to-work system does not work properly, and we have a backlog of asylum claims. How is the Home Secretary going to make this work?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me assure the hon. Member that I am making changes that I will ensure will work. I make no apology for disincentivising routes into this country that basically make people smugglers very, very rich men and fuel other disgusting crimes across Europe and in this country. It is right that we reserve a privileged status for those who get into work and education, as refugees on core protection will be able to do, as well as those who come via safe and legal routes. That should be the proper way that people come into this country and it has better integration outcomes as well.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Earlier the Home Secretary advised that I wait for the detail of the reforms before criticising them. Now the detail is out, and I am afraid it does not reassure me in the slightest. It is hard to know where to begin when so much of what has been announced flies in the face of decency and compassion, but I will focus on family reunion. Limiting access to family reunion for refugees will force children and spouses into the hands of the very people smugglers that the Home Secretary is seeking to smash. It will push them into unsafe dinghies, risking their lives. Would she be comfortable with this?
Shabana Mahmood
I urge my hon. Friend to look at the proposals on protection work and study and on safe and legal routes. It is right that we try to pivot to a more humane system that privileges those who come not via paying people smugglers a lot of money. On family reunification, British citizens at the moment have to meet thresholds and various qualifying tests before they can apply for family reunion. I think it is right that we bring the position in relation to refugees through the protection work and study route to the same level.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Members will have seen how many Members are on their feet. I will need to finish this statement by 8 pm, so please bear that in mind, because I want to get everybody in.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I welcome a sizeable amount of what the Home Secretary has said and is trying to do. Earlier this year the immigration and asylum chamber of the upper tribunal in the case of IX reiterated the established administrative law requirements that Government decision making in asylum cases be proportionate and reasonable and not expose individuals to prolonged or indefinite uncertainty—something that the Home Office used to criticise, under the Tories in fact, as a lengthy limbo period. Can the Home Secretary clarify how her proposal to require a 20-year period before someone granted asylum may obtain a permanent right to remain complies with these fundamental principles?
Shabana Mahmood
I do believe it complies with those principles. At the moment at the end of the five years there is already supposed to be a safe country review. We will bring that forward and make the safe country review a real thing. As I have said, we will also create, alongside the core protection route, the protection work and study route, because we want to encourage people to make a contribution to this country.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
In a previous life I was a 999 call taker with the ambulance service and had the awful experience of answering a call from a distraught family desperate for help. I could not help them save their loved one because they could not understand the life-saving instructions I was trying to give them over the phone due to the language barrier. Does the Home Secretary agree that there is nothing progressive about defending a status quo where vulnerable people are unable to access emergency services due to an inability to speak our language?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I endorse every word that she said.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The common travel area allows movement across the UK, Northern Ireland and to the Republic of Ireland. It has been reported in the Irish media that a UK Home Office official briefed the Irish Department of Justice in regard to what the Home Secretary is bringing forward. Can I ask her what is the Irish Government’s response to the proposals?
Shabana Mahmood
I am afraid I do not recognise the briefing the hon. Member refers to.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I can recall a predecessor of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary describing the Home Office as not being fit for purpose. I have never known a time when there was not a backlog of cases with the Home Office. This set of proposals will require people’s cases to be reviewed every 30 months. Is that a realistic aim, and is the Home Secretary clear that she can make the Home Office fit for the purpose she has set out today?
Shabana Mahmood
We are already supposed to do safe country reviews, and we will ensure that they are done every two-and-a-half years. We will also ensure that wherever possible refugees can move into the protection work and study route instead. I do recognise the phrase “not fit for purpose”. I have been clear that I do not think the Home Office is fit for purpose yet. There is new management at the Home Office, and they are getting on with making the changes that are necessary. I will ensure that it is both fit for purpose and able to enact the reforms I have set out today.
Shabana Mahmood
I will clarify a point of fact. The hon. Member said that I describe myself as a child of immigrants. It is not a description; it is just a statement of fact. Everything else she said is beneath contempt.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
Migrants make immeasurable contributions to our communities. In Manchester Rusholme, Wendy, who has Jamaican heritage, is a community health champion; Najma, from Somalia, leads local initiatives to tackle knife crime; and Hafsa, who grew up in the middle east, leads nature improvement projects. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the language we use to talk about immigration must reflect the important role that immigrants play in the functioning of our nation?
Shabana Mahmood
I absolutely agree about the contribution that migrants and refugees make to our country. I am making these reforms precisely because I can see a broken system that is creating deep division across our country, and it is important that we not only fix the system but retain public consent to having an asylum system at all.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Home Secretary said that nothing matters more to her than “holding our country together”. Does she accept that, to succeed, her reforms, including her adjustments to article 8 of the European convention, must apply equally across the whole United Kingdom? If so, how will that be secured in Northern Ireland, given the impeding effect of article 2 of the Windsor framework?
Shabana Mahmood
All the measures in the asylum policy statement are compliant with the Windsor framework.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Deporting families after they have resettled here because their country is deemed safe is simply wrong. Will the Home Secretary tell us how the Government determine what a safe country is? Will she publish the criteria? She mentioned the DRC; is she really saying that it is a safe country? Will she publish all existing returns agreements, so that Members of this House, and indeed the British public, can properly scrutinise them? I have done the reading, and that is not in the detail.
Shabana Mahmood
We already do safe country reviews, and we would seek to continue that. Those reviews, and our position on different countries, are publicly available; in fact, most pass through the House, in secondary legislation. I make no apology for a system that will privilege those who come to this country through a safe and legal route, rather than those who paid people smugglers thousands of pounds to end up in the north of France.
The point on visa sanctions is related to the fact that many countries do not comply with us when we seek to return people lawfully to their country. That is just one of the tools we have at our disposal to ensure compliance from those countries, so that they take their people back.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The UK has historical and ongoing involvement in unlawful military interventions, alongside allies such as the United States and Israel. How does the Home Secretary assess the correlation between these foreign policy actions and wars, and the displacement of populations, resulting in increased numbers of refugees and asylum seekers arriving in the UK? What steps will her Government take towards proactive peace-building initiatives and the restoration of overseas humanitarian aid, which could address the root causes of displacement and reduce the long-term pressures on our asylum system?
Shabana Mahmood
The Government always play their full part in peace processes wherever we can, and we have put our shoulder to the wheel on the delicate diplomatic efforts required to bring conflicts to an end, but that is not relevant to what we are discussing today. We have a broken system today. We have thousands of people stuck in the system today, and thousands of people coming on boats through the north of France, for reasons that have nothing to do with the British Government. We still fulfil our international obligations, and will do so going forward as well, but I make no apology for wanting to move to a system in which we incentivise safe and legal routes instead.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I agree with the Government that we desperately need to tackle illegal migration. I hear that on the doorsteps, and I see it in my mail each week in Birmingham Erdington. How quickly after the changes come into force will the Government ensure that safe and legal routes are in place? That will be key to stopping the boats. How will the Government deal with those who claim to be minors but are clearly not? That is another massive issue.
Shabana Mahmood
We are moving to a system of age verification, based on artificial intelligence modelling, which we believe is effective in verifying someone’s true age. Let me assure my hon. Friend that we will move to consult and legislate on these measures as quickly as possible. I am seized of the need to move quickly to restore public confidence. As we get order and control into the system, we will start opening up the safe and legal routes. They will be modest to begin with, but they will grow and be more generous over time, as we restore order and control.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
The Daresbury asylum hotel in Runcorn has been emptied, thanks to my by-election campaign. What assurances can the Secretary of State give my constituents that the many houses in multiple occupation in Runcorn will be emptied of illegal migrants and criminals under her Government, and that they will be deported without delay, never to be allowed legal entry into the UK?
Shabana Mahmood
It is this Government who are exiting hotels. We will do so—it is a manifesto commitment —by the end of the Parliament, and I intend to bring that forward as much as possible. Let me say to the hon. Member that we will always fulfil our international obligations, but I make no apology for wanting to privilege safe and legal routes over illegal entry into the country.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
Every single day that I campaigned in South Derbyshire while a candidate and since becoming an MP last July, immigration has been the No. 1 issue dividing my communities. They—we are talking about Labour voters—have been pushed either to apathy or towards Reform. I cannot thank the Home Secretary enough for the statement, because finally my constituents feel heard. How frequently can they expect an update, so that they can see that the promises being made today will result in delivery sooner, rather than later?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and her question. Let me assure her that I know that the way to build public confidence in the new system is not just to announce the reforms here, but to get on with legislating, and with implementing the reforms, so that her constituents and mine, and people across the country, can see the impact. and how we can fix the system. Then public confidence in having an asylum system at all can be retained.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
Stripping people of the very few belongings that they have left after fleeing war and persecution runs contrary to the very principle of asylum, which is rooted in protection and compassion. How do such measures help address the real root causes of displacement and the refugee crisis, which are war, destabilisation and persecution, and dangerous crossings?
Shabana Mahmood
I should not be surprised to see the hon. Gentleman indulging in misinformation. In my statement I gave the example of somebody who has £800 a month from their family, has enough money to acquire an Audi and is not expected to contribute to the cost of his asylum support at all. It is right that we change that. British citizens have to give account of their assets before they access benefit support. I do not think that the individuals we are talking about should be in a privileged position if they have such access to money, or assets of high value. I made it clear that this is not about taking jewellery—wedding rings and so on—off people at the border; that will never happen, but it is right that those who have assets be asked to contribute to the cost of their asylum accommodation.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Under the previous Government, we had hostile policy after hostile policy, from the “go home” vans to the Windrush scandal and Rwanda, all of which failed to deter people from making dangerous crossings and failed to fix the asylum system. What is dividing communities is the constant anti-refugee rhetoric pumped into our politics. That has resulted in the vile racism that the Home Secretary, I and my mother have been subjected to. Let us be clear: some people will never be appeased, and will constantly stir up hatred in our communities.
The new proposals that will force refugees to reapply every two years will just add huge costs and pressure to an already overstretched system. Has the Home Secretary assessed the cost to the Home Office of processing thousands of repeated applications? This is an area of law in which I used to practise. How that will impact an already overstretched system facing huge backlogs?
Shabana Mahmood
What I think is dividing our country, and communities all over it, is an unfair, out-of-control system that is putting pressure on communities across the whole nation. It is incumbent on me as Home Secretary and on this Government to fix that system, and to retain public consent for having an asylum system. It is also my job to make sure that we have the administration capacity and the funding to enact these reforms, which we will.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
If we look at a heat map of asylum dispersals, we see that they tend to be in inner-city London, and then the towns and cities of the midlands and the north-west, which have the least resources to help them. Thankfully, in Stoke-on-Trent, organisations such as our citizens advice bureau and Asha are doing what they can. When the Secretary of State looks at this policy in the round, as she will, will she look at that dispersal mechanism to ensure that everyone is giving the support that they should? Also, the national referral mechanism for modern slavery is one of the most difficult things to access for somebody who has been trafficked into this country, because they need to be referred by a national first responder, through a third party. What will her changes be, and can she give an assurance that those national first responders will not be removed from the process, because they do a very good job in vetting people before they get access?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for his two questions. Let me assure him that we already run a dispersal model that is designed to ensure that the burden is spread out across the country, and we will carry on doing so. We have already consulted on modern slavery legislation, and that consultation has closed. I will look carefully at the responses. It is well-intentioned and much-needed legislation, and it is important that we crack down on modern slavery in our country, but it is being used to frustrate the legitimate removal of people from this country. I saw that within my first few days as Home Secretary; I had to change policy very quickly to prevent people from thwarting their removal to France under the “one in, one out” deal. That is what I have in mind, and those are the changes that we will make.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and for taking the bold action necessary to tackle the chaos and lack of control that we inherited in our asylum system. Does she agree that these changes are as much about incentivising the right behaviour by creating capped legal routes to asylum as they are about taking tough action to break the status quo, which sees thousands of people crossing the channel in a dangerous, uncontrolled and unfair way?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I endorse every word that he said.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
What measures is the Home Secretary taking to dismantle the criminal gangs that are exploiting both legitimate and illegitimate businesses to facilitate illegal channel crossings? Can she give us details of the regulatory action that is being taken to prevent the use of assets such as shops on our high streets, and to prevent the supply of life jackets, boats and other components needed for dangerous crossings by illegal immigrants and criminal gangs?
Shabana Mahmood
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are engaging in intense law enforcement work through the National Crime Agency, and we are working collaboratively with our partners in Europe, especially in France. There have already been 350 disruptions of organised immigration crime activity. We have confiscated numerous small boats ourselves, and we are also working with our European partners to do that. The sum total of all those efforts has been to prevent 20,000 illegal crossings across the channel already, and we will grow this work, because we know that it is an important part of how we deal with the problem of small boats.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
This is about fairness. My constituents across Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove are good, kind and compassionate people, and we have a proud tradition of supporting those who need our help the most, yet they know, as we all do, that the immigration system is broken. Does the Secretary of State agree that, unlike the previous Government, who were more concerned about campaigning on the matter, we must take action to bring back the fundamental British value of fairness, so that we can resolve these issues at our borders?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with every word my hon. Friend said. Fairness and contribution are Labour values and British values, and they underpin the totality of these reforms.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and particularly for the commitment to new, safe, legal routes. There has been a lot of talk of morality, and there absolutely should be. This is too important to get wrong, so does she agree that tolerating a system where men, women and children are encouraged on to flimsy rubber boats to risk their life in the English channel, when they are already safe where they are, is not a moral choice?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Fixing this broken system is a moral mission for me, because I do not believe that we can look the other way and pretend that it is just talking points from our political enemies that are driving division in our country. The broken system is what is driving division in our country. I am determined to put that right to make sure that we do not divide our country and that we retain public consent for having an asylum system.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement on controlling our borders, which I know will be welcomed by the majority of constituents across Bexleyheath and Crayford. In recent months, we have seen our police and enforcement officers, particularly in Crayford, carrying out raids and working to arrest people working here illegally. Can the Home Secretary set out how the measures announced today will continue that work to tackle people who are working here illegally?
Shabana Mahmood
Cracking down on illegal working is crucial to all these reforms, and to ensuring that we can retain public consent not just for our asylum system but for our legal migration system. We have already seen a record number of raids—over 11,000 since this Government took office—leading to 8,000 arrests and over 1,000 removals of those with no right to be in this country. We will build on all that work.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
Warrington has one of the largest communities of Hongkongers in the country, many of whom I met this weekend when they reiterated their profound concern that the British national overseas 5+1 scheme was at risk as a result of the Government’s wider agenda on tackling issues in the asylum and immigration system. Will the Home Secretary give a clear commitment to Hongkongers that the UK is their home, that the British state will keep its promise to BNOs and Hongkonger refugees, and that the 5+1 scheme is safe?
Shabana Mahmood
We are committed to, and have always supported, the repatriation of Hongkongers. The consultation on earned settlement will be announced to this House very shortly—later this week, I believe—and I look forward to discussing that in detail with my hon. Friend.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
As a delegate to the Council of Europe, I will always defend the European convention on human rights and its institution and treaties, and that is why it is important to talk about it in the correct context. In the last 45 years, the Strasbourg Court has ruled against the UK on immigration rules only three times, and in the latest year for which figures are available, the number of successful human rights-based appeals represented 0.73% of all sentenced foreign national offenders. The last time article 8 was successfully applied to block a deportation was in 2020, so why does the Home Secretary believe that articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR are blocking the UK from controlling its borders, when the data simply does not back that up?
Shabana Mahmood
I do not think the data relating to the Strasbourg Court is necessarily reflective of what we are seeing in our own courts here at home. My hon. Friend knows that article 8 is a qualified right, and it is absolutely appropriate for Governments to dictate how that right is applied in their individual countries. We will do that by bringing forward second Session legislation. There is a case for reform of article 8, and there is absolutely a case for continuing the discussions with our European partners at the Council of Europe on article 3, because we are not the only country that is seeing the expansion of article 3 having implications for the deportation of, in particular, foreign national offenders. The case for reform is strong and we have the right solutions, but we are signatories to the ECHR and we will always be so under this Government.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement. I was really proud of how my Beckenham and Penge constituency came together to welcome Ukrainian families after the conflict there, through schemes such as Homes for Ukraine. I am pleased that the Government have announced today that they will expand such safe and legal routes, recognising the UK’s responsibility and desire to support those in need, and removing the need for refugees to make dangerous journeys. Can the Home Secretary set out how quickly we can expect these safe and legal routes to start operating?
Shabana Mahmood
I would hope that we can move very quickly indeed. As I have said, though, we will do so as we restore order and control to the broken system that we have. To be candid with the House, the safe and legal routes will be modest to start with, but they will grow over time. As we restore order and control to the system, we will see those routes grow. We will work with partners from across the philanthropy sector, the UN Refugee Agency and other stakeholders as we design the new community sponsorship models that will in future bear the load of helping to bring refugees into this country, to settle them and, ultimately, to integrate them successfully into this country.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I acknowledge the gargantuan task that the Home Secretary has to regain public confidence in our asylum system. We must ensure that reflected in our asylum system is not only fairness and contribution, but compassion, which is also a quintessentially British value and is reflected in the work of charities like Napier Friends in my constituency, which supports those staying at Napier barracks.
My question is about the appeal reforms. What is the rationale for the professionally trained adjudicators when we already have a specialist judiciary with expertise to decide these cases? What is it about the adjudicator model that will mean that adjudicators are in a better position to decide these cases than those under the current system?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. and learned Friend mentions compassion. The compassion of our reforms will be reflected in the safe and legal routes, through which we will accept refugees into our country under a community sponsorship model and resettle and integrate them successfully; that is what will bear the load of fulfilling our international obligations. I know that people across our country will be proud to do so because, as he rightly says, compassion is a fundamental value of all our people, along with fairness and contribution. Taken together, these reforms strike the right balance.
The appeal system is completely shot to pieces at the moment. It is riven with backlogs and even increasing judicial sitting days will not make the difference. It is absolutely appropriate that we design a new appeal system that is independent and has early legal advice available right at the start, and it is proper for the Government to set the framework for the speed at which cases can be heard, including fast-tracking claims that have no chance of success or are from countries with low grant rates in the first place. My hon. and learned Friend knows that listing within the current system is a matter for the independent judiciary, and we would never seek to interfere with that. With a new appeal system, the Government will be able to set the framework for the speed at which cases are heard, as well as providing legal advice at the start so that we have one claim, one appeal and certainty at the end of the process.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I welcome this statement and can say clearly to the Home Secretary that she will have my complete support in implementing the measures within it and in doing whatever it takes to fix our broken asylum system and secure our borders. One of the consequences of the broken system is what can only be described as the targeting of deprived communities like Hartlepool by private companies charged with providing asylum accommodation. We have started to bring the numbers down. Does the Home Secretary agree that that process must continue to put fairness back into our system?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to bring fairness back into the system and to resolve the problems with supported asylum accommodation. Taken together, these reforms and this Government’s plans on exiting hotels and getting into large sites instead will relieve the pressure in my hon. Friend’s community and across the country.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I take great pride in our country’s track record of offering sanctuary to people fleeing conflict and persecution, and I know Afghans, Syrians, Ukrainians and many others who are now settled here and making great contributions to our economy and society in our hospitals, schools and businesses. I therefore welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to getting the proposed safe and legal routes working urgently. Will she ensure that the right incentives and support are in place so that people arriving in this way can integrate successfully?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with my hon. Friend. As I have set out, we will seek to encourage those on the core protection route to move on to the protection work and study route so that they can start to contribute and integrate more effectively into this country. That will also get them to a slightly earlier settlement period. The bulk of these reforms will focus on safe and legal routes, which will be the most privileged route to settlement in this country. It is right that that is the case; it is the best way to integrate people into this country. The community sponsorship model is the way forward. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and others in the House as we design that and move forward.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
South Norfolk expects to have a robust and compassionate asylum process. I welcome this statement. One of the aspects that I am most interested in is the penultimate paragraph on page 28 of the document, which states:
“The new model will give greater say to communities and support refugees”
to settle and become self-sufficient. Will the Home Secretary expand on the mechanisms that could be put in place to ensure that that happens?
Shabana Mahmood
In designing the new system, we will take into account all the learnings from the Homes for Ukraine scheme and other models. We will work closely with the UN Refugee Agency and other international partners, as well as philanthropist and community organisations, local councils, universities, businesses and others here in this country. We know that there are people who want to be able to sponsor refugees and play their part in offering sanctuary to those most in need. People recognise that the current system is broken. As we get to grips with the broken system, we will be able to increase the number of people who come here on safe and legal routes in the medium and long term, which is the right future and the right compassionate answer, and will enable us to fulfil our international obligations.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has outlined common-sense measures to ensure that the British public are no longer asked to fund or accommodate foreign national offenders. At the same time, she is right that our country has a proud, long-standing tradition of offering sanctuary to those fleeing persecution. Can she therefore confirm that the United Kingdom will send no individual back to a place where they may be tortured, killed or persecuted?
Shabana Mahmood
We will never send someone back to a country where they will be tortured—we will always abide by our international obligations in that regard. We believe that the totality of the reforms I have set out today strikes the right balance between ensuring that we continue to fulfil our international obligations and having an asylum system that retains public support for having an asylum system at all.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Exeter is a proud city of sanctuary and has welcomed communities of Hongkongers, Ukrainians and Afghans over recent years. Many of my residents will be pleased with and welcome this re-establishment of safe and legal routes for refugees, which were long forgotten by the Conservatives. Does the Home Secretary agree that safe and legal routes are an element of a system that has control and order, and can she set out how the system will be flexible when geopolitical factors change?
Shabana Mahmood
We will always retain the flexibility to respond to particular crises, as we have done in the past, which we supported even when the previous Government were in power. We will design these routes alongside international and domestic partners to ensure that the community sponsorship model learns all the best lessons from previous schemes and is a world-class system, so that we can play our full part in offering sanctuary to those who need it most.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement on how the Government will make our asylum policy fit for this country. The broken immigration and asylum system under the Conservatives created an unprecedented backlog, which hindered the Home Office’s ability to process legitimate cases, including those of nurses and care workers working in the NHS and care homes who were seeking to extend their work visas. How will the Home Secretary ensure that the measures she has announced will be properly enforced so that we can restore order to our borders?
Shabana Mahmood
I can assure my hon. Friend that it will fall to me to ensure that the system we have is capable of implementing all these reforms. We will consult and legislate as quickly as possible, and it will be on me to ensure that the Home Office can handle the work that is coming its way. I assure him that getting the administration right is part of the picture, but getting these reforms passed and implemented across the country is the most important thing that we can do.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The measures that the Home Secretary has set out to restore order and fairness will be very welcome in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, but the overriding sentiment will be that we will believe it when we see it, I am afraid—trust is so low after years of broken promises. What assurances can the Home Secretary give that she will not only talk the talk, but walk the walk?
Shabana Mahmood
I can assure my hon. Friend that I do not believe in doing anything other than walking the walk. I totally hear what his constituents will tell him. It is what I hear from my constituents, too—we will believe it when we see it. It is a low-trust environment; over many years, trust in the immigration system overall has been degraded, which is why it is causing such division today. It is on me to ensure that this package of reforms is implemented and that the Home Office is able to implement them effectively. I ask my hon. Friend’s constituents and people all over our country to judge us on what we deliver through these reforms.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
The proposal to raise the threshold for indefinite leave to remain from five years to 20 years is deeply concerning. At a time when far-right groups are exploiting fear and spreading misinformation, our Government should lead with compassion and fairness, instead of forcing some of the most vulnerable in our society to live in limbo for two decades. Will the Minister explain how denying people security and rights for two decades reflects the British values of justice and humanity, and what access to services will look like for people during that time?
Shabana Mahmood
I tell my hon. Friend not to defend a status quo that sees people paying a ton of money—thousands of pounds—to people smugglers in order to get on a boat and make a dangerous crossing of the channel, putting at risk their own lives and those of others. I urge him not to defend a broken status quo, but to engage with the detail of the proposals, which reflect a new protection, work and study route that will be open to those offered core protection in this country. We will also open new safe and legal routes.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary share my concern that the scrutiny from the Conservative Benches is somewhat sparse this evening? On a more serious note, can she reassure my constituents that one of the key outcomes of this statement is that we will finally bring down the taxpayers’ bill for asylum accommodation? Time and again, this concern is raised with me by constituents. Reducing that bill will help many feel that there is far greater fairness in our asylum system.
Shabana Mahmood
I suspect that the lower numbers on the Conservative side are down to the fact that there are not that many of them any more. My hon. Friend is absolutely right on the cost. Fairness and contribution are the principles that underpin this asylum policy statement, and I hope that as we bring costs down, we can retain public support for the asylum system overall.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Quite a few things in this statement need to be challenged. First, there is the suggestion that Britain has always been a welcoming, generous and warm place for immigrants and people seeking asylum. There will be many people from an Irish background whose ancestors faced prejudice, as will there be many Jews and Muslims who have been victims of antisemitism and Islamophobia, and let us not forget about the Windrush scandal. With what we have heard today, I am afraid that the Government have surrendered to past discriminations and the vile rhetoric of Reform that we hear today. Does the Home Secretary not see that removing the legal obligation to support asylum seekers who would be otherwise destitute is as far away from Labour party principles and values as we can get?
Shabana Mahmood
Again, I would urge my hon. Friend not to defend a broken status quo and people who commit crimes and are funded by the British taxpayer while they do so.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
Having gangsters control who comes into our country is intolerable. It is not fair, humane or socialist. My constituents say to me that they just want control. They want the politicians they send to this Chamber to make the decisions on who comes into this country, not the gangsters. Can the Home Secretary reassure my constituents that she will not rest until every migrant, refugee or otherwise, comes to this country through a safe and legal route?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is nothing humane or socialist—or, indeed, any other group that people might want to put themselves into—about paying people smugglers a lot of money to get into a boat in the channel. It is a dangerous thing to do. It fuels further crime. It is not the way that people should seek to come to this country, and I will not rest until the way that people come to this country to seek refuge and be granted refugee status is through a safe and legal route instead.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I fully support the Home Secretary’s statement and the need to get the balance right. In Portsmouth North, we have seen how quickly immigration misinformation can spread on our high streets and local forums. It has even forced businesses to put up signs on developments to say who will be living there. This chaos took hold because the Tories never got a grip, gave up on governing and allowed division to reign across our country. Does the Home Secretary agree that our new enforcement plans and streamlined appeals system are essential not only to enabling much-needed action, but to restoring trust and giving clarity to stop refuelling misinformation and division in our communities?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with my hon. Friend and endorse every word she said.
Carla Denyer
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State accused one of my Green colleagues of hypocrisy when in fact she had been objecting to the warehousing of asylum seekers in military barracks, which is a position in line with Greens in the Chamber and, in fact, all major refugee rights organisations. I wonder whether the Secretary of State would like to withdraw her grossly misleading remarks and baseless accusation of hypocrisy.
Mr Adnan Hussain
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. After my earlier intervention, the Home Secretary stated that she “should not be surprised to see the hon. Gentleman indulging in misinformation” in here. I take my responsibilities in this House extremely seriously. I am confident that every point I have raised was made in good faith, based on publicly available information, and was neither misleading nor inaccurate. May I therefore seek your guidance on how a Member may respond, or have the record clarified, when a Minister makes such characterisation without providing any evidence, clarification or correction, in particular where it risks implying dishonesty on the part of a Member who had no opportunity to respond further at that moment?
Shabana Mahmood
I am happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that it was not misleading; it was just wrong, so I can clarify that for the record.
I say to the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) that I think it is a fair point of debate to point out that the Green party often indulges in hypocrisy. I shall look carefully at what her colleague has said in relation to the large military sites, but I say to her that the Green party never seems to offer any solution, only commentary that does not work.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank both Members for their points of order. Their comments are now on the record.
Huntingdon Train Attack
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the horrific events that took place on the east coast main line on Saturday evening. I am sure that I speak for everyone in this House when I say that my thoughts today are first and foremost with the victims, their families and their friends, and all those who experienced this terrifying attack.
My deepest thanks go to the emergency services: the British Transport police, Cambridgeshire police, Cambridgeshire fire and rescue service, and the East of England ambulance service. The speed of their response, as well as their skill and professionalism, was exemplary.
I also pay tribute to the breathtaking bravery of those on the train itself, including the heroic acts of the passengers and train crew who intercepted the attacker. I draw particular attention to one member of the onboard crew who ran towards danger, confronting the attacker for a sustained period of time, and stopped his advance through the train. He put himself in harm’s way, suffered grievous injuries as a result, and remains in hospital today in a critical but stable condition. On Saturday, he went to work to do his job—today, he is a hero and forever will be. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
There is now a live investigation into what happened on Saturday night and the events that led up to it. I am therefore limited in what I can say today without putting a successful prosecution at risk. I am sure that all here agree there must be one priority right now: bringing the person who committed this horrific crime to justice. However, I will share what facts I can.
At 7.42 pm on Saturday evening, police were contacted about an incident on a train travelling from Doncaster to London, with reports of several stabbings onboard. The quick thinking of the driver saw the train diverted to Huntingdon station. Within eight minutes of the first 999 call, police had boarded the train and brought the attack to an end. Ten people were taken to hospital by the ambulance services, eight of whom had life-threatening injuries, and a further individual later self-presented at the hospital. Three have now been discharged, while eight remain in hospital. I know that everyone in this House wishes them the swiftest and fullest recoveries possible, and I would like to thank the staff at Cambridge University hospitals NHS foundation trust for their lifesaving care.
I can confirm, as was reported over the weekend, that Operation Plato, the national police identifier for a terrorist attack, was declared; however, it was rescinded once the incident had been contained. The British Transport police remains the lead force in this investigation. It stated yesterday that while Counter Terrorism Policing was initially involved, it has found “nothing to suggest” this was “a terrorist incident”.
At the scene, the police made two arrests. Since then, one man has been released who we now know was not involved. As of this morning, the other—one Anthony Williams—has been charged. In relation to the events in Huntingdon, he has been charged with 10 counts of attempted murder, one count of possession of a knife, and one of actual bodily harm. He has also been charged with a further count of attempted murder and possession of a bladed article in relation to events on a docklands light railway train in the early hours of Saturday morning, at London’s Pontoon Dock. Cambridgeshire police has, in the last few hours, reported additional earlier sightings and possible further offences. As is standard practice in these cases, it has now referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct for independent scrutiny of its handling of these reports.
For now, there is little I can say about this man and his past, beyond confirming that he is a British national and was born in this country, and that he was not known to the security services, Counter Terrorism Policing or Prevent. I know that this House, and the public, will have many unanswered questions today about who this attacker was and about the events that led up to the attack. Those questions will be answered, but it will take time—the police and prosecutors must be allowed to do their work.
Since Saturday’s attack, the British Transport police has increased its presence at key points in the transport network. It should be noted, however, that its operational assessment of the risk posed on our trains has not changed, as this was an isolated attack.
This was also, of course, a knife crime. This Government are committed to halving knife crime within a decade, and progress has been made this year. We have taken 60,000 knives off our streets, banned zombie knives and ninja swords and seen a 5% fall in all knife crimes, including an 18% reduction in homicides by knife.
I know that ideas have already been suggested as to how policing should change in response to this event and, once the facts are known, we must examine what more might have been done to stop this horrific attack ever occurring and whether there are measures we must now take to better protect the public on our streets and on our trains. However, that must be done when all the facts are available to us.
The thoughts of the whole House today are with the victims of this horrific crime, their families and friends, and all affected by what happened on Saturday night. The sickening act of the man who committed this crime was the very worst of humanity, but the actions of those who responded and who ran towards danger to save the lives of people they did not know were the very best of us. I know that we all share in paying tribute to their extraordinary bravery today. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement.
Our thoughts are with the victims of this appalling attack and their families, as the Home Secretary rightly says. I join her in paying tribute to the emergency services who responded so fast and the brave interventions by members of the public and the train staff that prevented an even worse tragedy from occurring. They are truly heroes.
This attack has horrified and shocked the whole nation. People simply travelling by train were indiscriminately attacked. The horror the passengers experienced will likely stay with them forever.
Anthony Williams has now been charged. As the Home Secretary says, he had been involved in previous incidents in Peterborough and, in the early hours of Saturday morning, was also allegedly involved in an attack on the docklands light railway in London. Will the Home Secretary confirm that, as I have been told, police in London knew Williams’s identity following that attack, and if so, whether Cambridgeshire police were informed so that they could track him down? In essence, I am asking whether there were any opportunities to prevent this attack from occurring.
The Home Secretary says that Williams was not previously known to the security services, Counter Terrorism Policing or Prevent. Can she tell the House whether Williams was previously known to the police more widely or to mental health services?
This all comes just weeks after a murderous Islamist terror attack on a Manchester synagogue and just days after the horrendous murder of Wayne Broadhurst by an Afghan asylum seeker, both using knives. Although homicide has thankfully fallen by about 15% since 2010 and, as the Home Secretary said, knife crime has fallen in recent years, every homicide and every knife attack is one too many. The Minister for Policing and I saw the grief it causes at the funeral of 15-year-old Elianne Andam, who was murdered in Croydon just over two years ago.
Speaking in general—not in relation to this incident—does the Home Secretary agree that knife crime and knife homicide figures are still too high, and that we must do yet more? Does she agree that more knife crime offenders should go to jail? This is important because when offenders are in jail, they cannot attack the public. Does she agree that we must ensure that more people who carry knives, especially where they use them to threaten others, are jailed? Of course, there is pressure on prison places, but by deporting more of the 10,000 foreign nationals in prison, we could create more space.
We also need to take more knives off our streets, which means we have to dramatically increase the use of stop and search. A study this year by Professor Lawrence Sherman, the Met’s former chief scientific officer, found that raising stop and search levels in London to 2011 levels would lead to a one-third reduction in knife homicide. Some complain that stop and search is used disproportionately in relation to some groups, but, when measured in relation to the offending population, the disproportionality disappears, as was set out in a recent Policy Exchange study. We should triple the use of stop and search to get knives off our streets, and we should introduce year-round surge policing in the top 5% of high crime hotspots, which will include many train stations.
We must also use technology more. I know that there is work under way at the Home Office on scanning for knives at a distance, and it is hoped that it can distinguish knives from keys or mobile phones. This could help police rapidly identify those carrying a knife in a public place. I wonder if the Home Secretary could provide an update on the development of that work, either straightaway or in writing later if she would prefer. I really do think that it could make a big difference.
Finally, retrospective and live facial recognition can identify wanted criminals, including those involved in knife crime. In Croydon town centre—the borough that the Minister for Policing and I represent—in the last couple of years around 200 wanted criminals were arrested using live facial recognition, including two wanted rapists and others guilty of knife crime who would not otherwise have been caught. Crime in Croydon town centre, including knife crime, has gone down as a result. The images of innocent passers-by are immediately and automatically deleted, which addresses civil liberties concerns. I really hope that the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing agree that rolling out this technology nationally would make a dramatic improvement to public safety, and they will certainly have my full support if they choose to roll it out.
I know that everyone in the House wants to see knife crime eradicated—today more than ever before, I am sure—so I hope the House will also support the tough steps needed to eradicate knife crime. We owe the victims of these appalling crimes actions as well as words.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks, in particular his opening remarks; I know that the bravery of all those who faced this attack on Saturday has unanimous support across the House, and I thank him for the spirit in which he reflected that.
As I said in my statement, the events in Peterborough are now the subject of an IOPC investigation. It is important that I do not say anything that seeks to get ahead of that, but I am sure all those questions will be answered in the fullness of time. It is standard practice where there has been contact with police in the run-up to an event like this that those matters are referred to the IOPC to investigate and consider.
The shadow Home Secretary will know that I also cannot say anything that relates to the suspect who has been charged and any prior history, or indeed mental health issues. They would be facts that are material to any future court proceedings, so it would be inappropriate for me, or indeed anybody else in this House, to comment or speculate on those matters today. I would ask that Mr Speaker’s words at the opening of the statement be remembered as questions are posed today.
I agree with the shadow Home Secretary that knife crime is far too high. This Government are impatient to do everything we can to eliminate knife crime. It is why we have set ourselves an ambitious target. We are pleased to have made some progress, though I agree that there is much more to be done. Instead of playing politics across the House, I hope that where there is consensus we are all able to work together to bring down the scourge of knife crime in our country. As I say, the numbers have gone in a positive direction. I hope the shadow Home Secretary will welcome that and work with us as we seek to make more progress.
The shadow Home Secretary referred to sentencing. I have to say that it is disappointing when Conservative Members do not reckon with the scale of the crisis in our prison system. This Government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse, and it has meant difficult decisions ever since we entered office in order to prevent the country from running out of prison places entirely. This Government have deported more foreign national offenders since entering office than the previous Government did.
Despite deporting record numbers of foreign national offenders, the scale of the crisis in the prison system means that there are still more prisoners coming into the system than there have been places. It is important that the sentencing reforms are seen in that context. The majority of those who have been in possession of a knife and used it in a threatening manner do attract reasonably lengthy prison sentences. When we know more about the circumstances of this particular case, we will know if there are other lessons for us to draw and other areas of policy for us to consider.
The shadow Home Secretary referenced stop and search, and I think—I hope that I am not putting too much of a spin on his remarks—lamented issues about disproportionality. I gently remind him that it was a former Tory Home Secretary in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament who first started speaking about the disproportionate use of stop-and-search powers and changed the rules to reflect the disproportionate use of that power. That was the record of the previous Government. I hope he will recognise that the police already have the power to use stop and search indiscriminately, where the intelligence suggests that that is required. That is an operational decision for police chiefs. Of course, the decision as to whether to stop and search someone, when there are reasonable grounds and suspicion, is an individual operational decision for police officers. This is a well used and well understood power. It is an important power in our arsenal for tackling criminality, and the Government fully support its lawful use.
The Government will soon consult on a new legal framework to underpin the use of live facial recognition. The shadow Home Secretary will know that when his party was in power, that was left to individual police forces. I believe that South Wales and the Met were the first to roll it out, and they faced lots of legal challenges as a result thereof. The Government then did not change their policy, but this Government will consult on a legal framework so that all police forces across the country can use live facial recognition technology, confident that they will not find themselves defending those decisions in courts in the future. I have also supported the roll-out of 10 specific live facial recognition units across the country, and we will look to do more in the coming months.
In relation to scans for knives, there is much more that we can do to use new and emerging technology to help us tackle this type of criminality. I am happy to write to the shadow Home Secretary about our current plans, but I will set out more on our broader position in the coming weeks.
Knife crime is a terrible crime that claims far too many lives in our country. It is important that we keep doing everything we can to bear down on the damage that it causes and to provide pathways for those who get caught up in the carrying of knives. That is an important bit of policy that we will continue to work on. However, in relation to the attack that we are primarily talking about, I urge the House to wait until more of the facts are known before drawing broader policy conclusions.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for all her remarks and the Secretary of State for Transport, who is also in her place, for her comments in the media this morning. I share, as all hon. Members of the House do, their concern for the victims and their families and the recognition of the heroism of so many in the tragedy on Saturday.
On behalf of my colleagues on the Transport Committee, I pay particular tribute to all the staff of Avanti West Coast and Network Rail, who responded so quickly, and in particular to the train driver who reacted so promptly to get the train to Huntingdon in order that the emergency services could meet it and the on-board staff member who is in hospital after protecting passengers.
I know that people may be nervous of travelling by train now. I thank the Government and the police services for their work to ensure additional police presence at rail stations, as I saw at Waterloo on my way here earlier. As the Home Secretary said, British Transport police has said that its operational assessment of the risk posed on our trains has not changed, given that this was an isolated attack, so will she assure me that any long-term changes to security on our rail services will be considered very carefully once the full facts of this incident are known and that there will not be a rush into changes without considering potential downsides that may impact on the ease of travel by train?
Shabana Mahmood
It is always about balance between ease of travel for millions of people every single day and making sure that people are safe, and of course the Transport Secretary and the rest of the Government will ensure that any arrangements—whether we remain with the current arrangements or make any changes—always strike the right balance. That is the most important thing. For now, based on our current understanding of this attack, the risk assessment has not changed, and although we are providing more reassurance to people so that they feel safe getting on trains in the aftermath of this attack, there are no proposals to go further at this point. We will of course review that once more when the facts are known.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
This attack has left 11 people in hospital, one of them a member of the train staff, who is in a critical but stable condition. My party’s thoughts are with all those affected: the victims, their loved ones and everyone who witnessed such a shocking event. We also want to thank the emergency services and rail staff for their swift response, as well as the passengers who intervened to prevent further harm.
After this sort of incident, it is vital that the police are given the time and space they need to establish the full facts. That is ever more difficult due to the rapid spread of disinformation online in the immediate aftermath of such attacks. Within hours, social media was flooded with speculation over the ethnicity and race of the perpetrator, inciting racist and Islamophobic comments. While communities were still reeling from the horror of the attack, certain political figures on the hard right, including members of the Reform party, were already seeking to exploit the incident for political gain. Desperate to involve themselves in the tragedy, they reached for their dog whistles. They threw around baseless opinions on levels of crime when facts were available, shamelessly trying to turn this tragedy into yet another excuse to whip up fear and sow division.
The shadow Home Secretary’s comments today also veered into that realm. Never is an opportunity to blame foreigners missed—that is beneath contempt. At moments like this, those who aspire to leadership must calm fears and attempt to unite, not to inflame tensions. Does the Home Secretary share my view that while knife crime must be tackled forcefully, it is important that all of us must respond with arguments grounded in fact rather than trying to stoke fear?
Can the Home Secretary confirm whether the Government hold data on violent incidents involving knives or sharp instruments where three or more victims were harmed in a single incident? If so, what is the trend over the past two years, or over any other timeframe the Home Secretary has data for? Finally, she has said that the individual was not known to anti-terror police or Prevent, but when the facts are known, will she confirm that proper lessons will be learned about individuals who may pose a risk, be it as a result of mental health issues, an obsession with extreme violence or other relevant factors?
Shabana Mahmood
I deplore the ease with which so many armchair warriors feel the need to speculate and spread misinformation on social media. It is important that the police and all our emergency services are able to proceed with their investigations not only at pace but transparently, so as to calm any tensions that might arise as a result of misinformation that spreads, particularly across social media. In terms of how other people may or may not have reacted, I tend to think that at moments of such crisis people normally reveal their true colours. I will leave my remarks about other individuals there.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that knife crime must be tackled forcefully. As I said earlier, we have seen an 18% decrease in murders by knife, and I will make sure he receives the further stats that he mentioned. As I have said, the data in relation to knife crime is going in a better direction, but like others in this House, I am impatient to see more change happen more quickly. I hope he will work with us on a cross-party basis on all the measures needed to achieve that. Of course, when all the facts around this case are known and understood, I will ensure that any lessons that there are to be learned will be learned and acted upon.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
May I take this opportunity to put on the record my thanks to the first responders, the police and everyone on the train who put their lives at risk to protect others? So many people from the communities I represent in both Peterborough and Huntingdonshire have written to me today in absolute fear, shock and confusion at how this could have happened so close to home, particularly after we found out this morning that the charged individual is from my constituency. Constituents have also been worried and alarmed about reports over the last few hours that the offender may have been involved in further incidents in Peterborough and London. Will the Home Secretary join me in calling for community cohesion following this incident, and ensure that a full investigation takes place into those possible other offences?
Shabana Mahmood
I can only imagine how terrifying it must have been for my hon. Friend’s constituents and those in neighbouring areas to hear news of this horrifying attack. He will know that I cannot say any more at the moment about other potential incidents—they are the subject of further investigation. As more facts are confirmed by the police, we will be able to say more and, of course, the IOPC must be allowed to do its work.
When we know more about the facts of this case, we will know whether it relates to community cohesion or to wider community issues. I encourage Members to wait until more facts are known before we draw those broader conclusions, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is necessary that we reassure communities in his constituency and across the country. That is why there is an increased police presence across the transport network and why this Government will ensure that, as we know more, where there are lessons to be learned, they will be learned and acted upon.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
This has been a difficult and challenging weekend for Huntingdon. My thoughts are with the victims of this terrible tragedy; with the LNER crew member whose heroic and selfless actions, placing himself in harm’s way, saved lives at the cost of his own safety, and who remains in a critical but stable condition; with the other four victims who remain in hospital with stab wounds; and with the four who were discharged yesterday, as well as those who bore witness to the attacks and will still be processing their own experiences.
I would like to place on the record my praise for the emergency services’ response: to Cambridgeshire constabulary, whose unarmed response officers and firearms officers were able to place Anthony Williams in custody within eight minutes of receiving the 999 call; and to Cambridgeshire fire and rescue service, our air ambulance services, and the East of England ambulance trust for their incident response and for getting the casualties to Addenbrooke’s hospital. I also praise the train driver, Andrew Johnson, and the signalling staff, whose speed of thought in moving the train on to the suburban line from the high-speed line meant that the train could make the unscheduled stop at Huntingdon—a decision that curtailed the attack by several crucial minutes, that allowed the police to apprehend the suspect and that undoubtedly saved lives.
The swift action of all those involved prevented a horrific attack from being far, far worse. I am sure that the Home Secretary, and indeed the whole House, would wish to share in my sympathies for those impacted by this horrific attack, and in my pride in the conduct, leadership and professionalism of the responders and railway staff.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the hon. Member for both his question and for his own work over the weekend. He was very quick to arrive at the scene. I thought that he handled himself with great honour and that he responded in a measured way to such a horrifying incident in his constituency. The way he has handled himself is a credit to him and to the people he represents. Of course, I agree with his remarks about the bravery of all those who were responding, the speed of the response and the bravery of those inside the train. Let me assure him that myself and my officials stand ready to work with him and others locally on the ground to ensure that all lessons are learned as we move forward.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the comments about sympathy and empathy for the victims of this attack? The names of Peterborough and the town of the constituency of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) have flashed across the news here and around the world this weekend because of the terrible events of Saturday night. I do not want my constituency to be known just because of the acts of a single perpetrator, so may I put on record my tribute to the police, the train staff, the first responders and others who stepped forward when actions were needed? I pay particular tribute to my constituent, train driver Andrew Johnson, and his ASLEF and RMT colleagues on LNER, who went beyond the call of duty on that evening.
They showed the best of British values, and the true face of the county I represent and its people.
We do not know all the information yet, but there is great anxiety in Huntingdon and Peterborough, and this is also a national issue. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that we will go the extra mile to tackle knife crime and ensure that our streets and public transport remain safe for everyone for years to come?
Shabana Mahmood
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. He made contact with me and my officials very quickly after the attack came to light, and, like other Members, he is an assiduous constituency Member of Parliament. I am sure that he will do everything he can to stand up for the people he represents and ensure that the wider area is not tainted by the actions of the attacker. He is absolutely right to remind the House that we should remember the acts not of the attacker, but of those who responded; they put themselves in harm’s way to protect people they had never met before, and they are the very best of us. I pay tribute to all the staff on the train, because they were faced with something utterly horrifying, reacted with immense bravery, and undoubtedly saved countless lives.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and associate myself with the tributes to the emergency services and the train crew. Our thoughts are with the victims.
When we have more information, I am sure that my Home Affairs Committee will want to consider what happened and learn lessons from it. I draw the Home Secretary’s attention to our inquiry on new forms of radicalisation. If things come out of the investigation that are relevant to my Committee’s inquiry, I ask that we ensure that we learn from them, and ensure that they are included in the inquiry as soon as possible.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee for those points. I look forward to working closely with her as we learn more lessons, once all the facts of the case are known. She is right that, more broadly, we are seeing many new forms of radicalisation in this country and across Europe and North America. It is important that we always stress-test and challenge the Government response to those new forms of radicalisation. Longer term, we will need a change in our understanding of what motivates serious violent behaviour. I am sure that she and her Committee will continue their work, and I pledge to work with them as we try to tease out more answers to these problems.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I associate myself with the powerful tributes to the train driver, staff and members of the public. The incident demonstrates the importance of having more than one staff member on trains. The train guards play a vital role in protecting passengers.
My constituency is home to Vauxhall and Waterloo—busy mainline stations. In under six weeks, millions of people will travel home for Christmas on the public network. They need to be reassured that train travel is an efficient and good way to travel across the country. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned that there will be additional resources across the network for the next few weeks. Will that go on into the busy Christmas period?
This issue is also covered by the Department for Transport. As transport geeks will know, the British Transport police has a strange funding mechanism: it is funded by the industry, not by the Home Office. As we take on more control of the public network and train services, responsibility for funding will fall to the Government. Will the Home Secretary and Transport Secretary consider that, and ensure that the British Transport police is fully funded to protect people on public transport?
Shabana Mahmood
Thankfully, incidents like the one on Saturday are very rare, and our train system is generally very safe—millions of people use it every day without incident—so we have a strong base to build on. Of course, given what has happened—the horrifying nature of the attack, and the indiscriminate way in which victims were stabbed—the British Transport police’s decision to increase the police presence across the railway network is important. How extensive that increase is, and how long it goes on, is an operational decision for British Transport police, but we have a good working relationship with it, and I have been impressed with its response to this attack. We have been working closely with it over the weekend, and I pay tribute to it and all its officers. I will be led by British Transport police on the operational decisions that it is making. On the wider policy questions raised by my hon. Friend, as more of the network is nationalised, I will of course pick up those conversations with the Transport Secretary.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
More generally on knife crime and on magistrates, is there a disconnect between the fact that under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, someone can be given a custodial sentence of 51 weeks, and the presumption under the Sentencing Bill that a 12-month custodial sentence will not be required? What might the Home Secretary do to get around that and ensure that magistrates have more sentencing powers? Possession of a knife is not use of a knife, but sadly one so often leads to the other. There is clearly a legislative disconnect, and I hope the Home Secretary will look at that.
Shabana Mahmood
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the average sentence for threatening with a knife is more than a year—it is around 15 months—and it would not be caught by the presumption in the Sentencing Bill. Also, the Bill creates a presumption against, not a blanket ban on, sentences of under 12 months; there is still discretion for judges in all cases. The Bill sets out the circumstances in which that presumption can be overridden, and that will always be a matter for the independent judiciary, based on the facts of the case in front of them.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
I join other Members in expressing sympathy to all those who have been affected, and in thanking the emergency services, members of the public who got involved, and of course the train crew, who acted heroically to protect their passengers. Given the developments today, and the Home Secretary’s statement on the incident in east London and Pontoon Dock in my constituency, there is a great deal of anxiety and fear among my constituents in West Ham and Beckton, and I place on record my thanks to the police for their engagement with me this afternoon. What assurances can the Home Secretary give my constituents about safety on public transport, particularly in east London, where there are a lot of smaller, unstaffed, open-access docklands light railway stations, which are essential to the daily life of my constituents?
Shabana Mahmood
As my hon. Friend will know, I am limited in what I can say, given that this is a live police investigation. The police have obviously confirmed some of the facts, but their investigation must be allowed to continue without further speculation. He makes a good point, and I well understand why people in his constituency, or those who regularly use that station, will feel concerned. That is why BTP has increased patrols to provide additional reassurance to the community. Nothing at this point suggests that this was a particular location of interest, and I hope that reassures my hon. Friend’s constituents.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I echo tributes to the train staff and emergency services, and to the Home Secretary and her team, who I am sure were working flat out all weekend. The case is being investigated, but given the events of Saturday and in the run-up to Saturday night, can I urge her to bring together police chiefs to talk about information sharing and any further resource that they require? I am happy to admit that we should not have diluted stop and search, but can I urge her to look again at that? Northern Ireland is much more permissive, and section 60 needs to be reviewed.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. My experience over the weekend regarding the different police forces and emergency services who responded to this attack is that they work together very well, and I was pleased to see that level of co-ordination, especially when different forces are responsible for different things. At the start of this incident, counter-terror police were supporting the investigation. They were stood down, but if they had needed to be stood up again, that would have happened almost instantaneously—as soon as the request was made. My initial experience and impression of the collaborative working has been positive, and I pay tribute to everyone involved in it over the weekend.
I will take away the right hon. Gentleman’s comments on information sharing and reflect on what he said. When such a huge incident takes place, with lots of information going out in different forms, it is important that we ensure complete co-ordination. If he has any specific concerns in relation to this incident, I will be happy for him to write to me, and I will respond, but I will pick up that conservation with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and others as well.
I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that I think that stop and search is a very valuable tool for the police. I will always want to see it used, wherever that is appropriate. My understanding from my conversations with the police so far is that their powers work quite well from an operational perspective, but I will always be open-minded and willing to look again at any of these issues, should there be a change in the advice from police or in our experience of how the powers are used.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I associate myself with the many tributes given to those people on the train who tried to prevent the attack, the staff and the responders. As the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, I use the Doncaster to King’s Cross service most weeks. Many of my constituents and people across Doncaster are deeply shaken by this appalling attack, but that service is an indispensable part of our lives. Will the Home Secretary set out the immediate steps that she has taken to reassure passengers who use that line, and the best way for us to communicate that message, so that passengers have peace of mind as they travel on the trains over the next few days?
Shabana Mahmood
We should all take confidence from the speed of the emergency services’ response to the attack, which has drawn justified wide praise from across the House. The speed of the response meant that the attack was brought to an end as quickly as possible, and many lives, I believe, were saved as a result of that response. While the incident is deeply shocking, and I can fully understand that people who use the service regularly will feel shaken by the news, we should all take confidence and pride in the fact that our emergency services were able to respond so quickly. The British Transport police has increased the police presence across the network to provide more reassurance to people. Thankfully, in this country, incidents of this nature across our transport network are very rare, and everyone in this House will want to work together to ensure that remains the case.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I join the Home Secretary and my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), in sending my thoughts to the victims and their families. I pay tribute to Cambridgeshire police, Cambridgeshire fire and rescue service, the East of England ambulance service, the staff at Addenbrooke’s hospital, the train crew and the passengers for their response on Saturday evening. While respecting the ongoing investigation and the Independent Office for Police Conduct process, will she assure the House that the extraordinary bravery and professionalism demonstrated by all those involved in containing the incident and providing lifesaving care will be properly recognised in due course?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with everything that the hon. Member said in praise of all those who responded to the attack. Once we are through the court proceedings and the full facts of the incident are known, I will ensure that there will be a moment to thank all our emergency services and the brave passengers in an appropriate way, when the time is right.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I pay tribute to all the LNER train crew and the train driver for their bravery. Their swift action and their extensive training in responding to emergencies was undoubtedly critical to saving many lives. Railway staff will be deeply concerned that this terrible incident has taken place against a backdrop of year-on-year increases in violent assaults on rail staff. What conversations is the Home Secretary having with colleagues at the Department for Transport about the resources and support needed to keep rail staff and passengers safe on our railways?
Shabana Mahmood
I know from my conversations with the Transport Secretary over the weekend that these issues are very much on her mind. There is crossover with those of us in the Home Office, but the responsibility sits primarily with the Transport Secretary. I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a fuller response to her question, but she should rest assured that this Government recognise that assaults on any of our public sector workers are unacceptable, and the Government will do everything they can to stamp them out.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
May I join in with the tributes of my fellow Cambridgeshire MPs? In her statement, the Home Secretary indicated that she was receptive to the deployment of facial recognition at railway stations. Can she clarify, on the current timeline, the earliest date on which that would be deployed more widely? Given some of the early lessons coming out of this case, what scope is there for the Government to accelerate that timeline?
Shabana Mahmood
The consultation I referred to in my earlier remarks around the legal framework for much wider use of live facial recognition will be in the next few weeks—it is all but upon us. I referred to the funding for 10 new mobile units that has been made available. The British Transport police is preparing a pilot of live facial recognition technology at selected railway stations in London, which will run for a period of six months. The exact dates will be public in due course, and I will ensure that we write to the right hon. Gentleman with them when they are decided.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
With LNER headquartered in my constituency, I have written to David Horne, the managing director, to offer my support to him and pass on my best wishes to his crew. I put on record my thanks to the signallers, also based in my constituency, who made it possible to shift the train on to the other line. Last summer, I sought to amend the Crime and Policing Bill with an amendment to provide greater protections for transport staff in the light of the increased risks they face. With the Bill about to enter Committee in the House of Lords, will the Home Secretary look again at my amendments and ensure that we provide those protections for transport staff?
Shabana Mahmood
I will happily discuss with my hon. Friend the content of her earlier amendment. Even if it is not acceptable for that Bill, I will ensure that the policy question she raises is picked up by our colleagues in the Department for Transport.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
May I put on record our best wishes to the victims and our thanks to the emergency services and railway staff, who did a remarkable job? I know that the Home Secretary cannot comment on this particular case, but one concern I have is around the speculation and disinformation that is rife on social media. Can she make it her job to have a conversation with the social media companies? That kind of speculation does no service to the victims or to the police pursuing this issue.
Shabana Mahmood
The most important thing is that official sources of information are able to be transparent as quickly as possible so that the vast majority of this country that does not just get its news from social media knows what is happening. There will be a role for the Online Safety Act 2023 in the future as well.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for bringing it to us so promptly. I use LNER every week to come to this place; I always knew that the staff were great, but I did not realise that they were heroes. The response we saw from both the staff and the public on the train really was the best of Britain, but the response on social media was absolutely shameful, if I am honest—it shames us as a country. LNER connects Edinburgh South West to destinations north and south, and I am sure my residents will be really pleased to hear that we are looking at facial recognition on the transport network. That is incredibly important, but I will talk about knife crime more generally. In June, the Government gave a commitment to look at the manufacture and sale of round-tip knives and hopefully mandating them. Is the Home Secretary able to give us an update on that? I am sorry for putting her on the spot.
Shabana Mahmood
We will publish a knife crime strategy very soon. I understand the reason why some people think that round-tip knives are part of the solution, and I will consider all the evidence, but in the end millions of normal kitchen knives are available. We have to do a much better job on all the other areas, such as prevention.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I will be very brief. When the Home Secretary undertakes lessons learned and recommendations for the future, will she look into the question of whether there is any protective equipment, or even disabling equipment of a non-lethal nature, that could be issued to staff for use in such an emergency?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman will know that tasers were deployed on Saturday to bring this incident to a close. However, I can assure him that even if that is not part of the wider lessons learned from this case once all the facts are known, I will take his points into consideration.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
My thoughts and prayers are with the victims of this brutal attack, and of course I pay tribute to the amazing courage and bravery of the train crew, as well as the first responders. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), I have serious concerns about the funding arrangements for the British Transport police. Can I encourage my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to work with the Secretary of State for Transport and her Department to make sure that BTP’s funding arrangements are good going forward?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with my hon. Friend about the BTP’s hugely important role. Its funding for this year is actually 6% higher than previously, and I am sure the Transport Secretary will do everything she can on the funding front.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
My thoughts and those of my Plaid Cymru colleagues are with everyone affected by this appalling attack. They are also with the train driver, the crew and the staff, whose quick thinking and decisive action helped protect many from the worst of outcomes. Will the Secretary of State join me in expressing gratitude for their bravery, and for showing us all how crucial the presence of officers and sufficient staffing are to our public safety? Surveillance can help catch criminals, but staff on the ground save lives.
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Lady makes a very good point, and it is undoubtedly the case that the staff on the ground during this incident saved lives.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Ind)
I echo the Home Secretary’s comments and the tributes that have already been paid in the House. She will know, though, that the British Transport police is facing an unprecedented funding deficit that threatens safety on our railways. There is currently a shortfall of £8.5 million and a threat to nearly 300 jobs. Will the Home Secretary therefore meet the Transport Secretary to discuss how we can fully fund the BTP as a matter of urgency?
Shabana Mahmood
I repeat that the BTP has been awarded £415 million for the year 2025-26, which is an increase of almost 6% on the previous year. I am sure that the Transport Secretary is considering the wider funding issues.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I also pay tribute to those who were on the train, the staff and the first responders, as well as members of the public. Can I ask the Home Secretary to consider the comments made by the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) about the new methods of radicalisation? The previous Home Secretary referenced them at the Dispatch Box, and I would be very keen to hear the current Home Secretary’s views on them.
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the issue of the wider forms of radicalisation that we are now starting to see in this country. She should rest assured that even if they are not relevant to the specific lessons that are drawn from this case, they are very much on the minds of all of us in the Government as we seek to meet the scale of the new challenge we face.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
I fully support the remarks made by Stuart Cundy, deputy chief constable of the British Transport police, that the “heroic” actions of the LNER staff member undoubtedly saved lives. At a recent meeting with representatives of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, they raised concerns about policing budgets and the unique pressures facing the British Transport police. What discussions has the Minister had with the Treasury to ensure a fair funding settlement, one that safeguards the BTP’s operational capacity and ensures the continued safety of passengers across our network?
Shabana Mahmood
I repeat the earlier answers I have given in relation to funding. My hon. Friend should rest assured that we are discussing these matters with the Department for Transport.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
In the review, will the Home Secretary undertake to look at the very serious problems of some trains operating without any staff on them at all, some very busy trains having insufficient staff, and hundreds of stations all over the country having no staff at all, particularly in the evenings, when the travelling public are obviously vulnerable and at risk? Can we pause driver-only operated trains and look at the issue of safety for the public as a whole?
Shabana Mahmood
We will be led by the operational assessment made by the British Transport police as to what is required. The right hon. Gentleman should rest assured that where the Government have a role to play in keeping people safe on the transport network, we will do so.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Of course, my first thoughts are with the victims of this horrific attack. The RMT union has called for urgent meetings with the Government, police and the industry to ensure that we have the strongest resources and procedures in place to protect staff and passengers. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the Department for Transport and the Home Office will facilitate those meetings as soon as possible?
Shabana Mahmood
I can assure my hon. Friend that the Transport Secretary and I will be discussing all and any lessons to be drawn from this incident, and there will be a cross-Government response that meets the scale of the challenge that we face.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Does the Home Secretary share my deep concern that when incidents such as this occur, certain political commentators and, sadly, certain politicians race to set the narrative behind such attacks as ethnicity-based, faith-based or, ideally, both, rather than focusing on the key crime indicators, such as socioeconomic deprivation, the disintegration of youth services, addiction issues, lack of funding for our police forces and lack of mental health support facilities? Does she agree that those factors matter much more than ethnicity, faith or the migration status of the perpetrator?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Member is getting rather ahead of the facts that are currently known about what lay behind this particular attack, so he will understand if I refrain from making broader conclusions about the motivations. I think it is important, learning the lessons of what happened after the Southport attacks, that the Government and the police move quickly to make all shareable information available to prevent the spread of disinformation and potential public disorder.
Several hon. Members rose—
Police Accountability Rapid Review
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(1 month 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 publishing the police accountability rapid review, an independent report commissioned by the Government in October 2024. The review was conducted by Timothy Godwin OBE QPM and the right hon. Sir Adrian Fulford between November 2024 and May 2025. The review will be available on gov.uk.
The review examined two key legal issues:
Whether the legal test for use of force in police misconduct cases should be raised from the civil to the criminal standard; and
Whether the threshold for determining a short-form conclusion of unlawful killing in inquests should revert from the civil to the criminal standard of proof.
The review concludes that the current legal framework has created confusion, inconsistency, and a chilling effect on police morale, particularly among firearms officers. It recommends the Government the criminal law test for use of force in misconduct cases and carries out a public consultation on the standard of proof in inquests.
I am pleased to confirm that the Government accept both recommendations. Police officers have an exceptionally demanding role. They have to run towards danger, tackle dangerous criminals and put their lives on the line to keep the public safe. We are determined to ensure both that officers are supported in making difficult decisions in the line of duty and that we have robust and transparent systems of accountability. We are committed to a policing system that commands public confidence and protects those who serve with integrity and professionalism.
Police officers need to be confident they can act decisively in challenging situations. Anything that undermines this confidence affects their ability to protect the public. This uncertainty is neither fair on them, nor in the public’s interest. That is why we have accepted the recommendation to raise the legal test for use of force in police misconduct cases from the civil to the criminal standard. This will not water down standards or make officers less accountable. Any officer falling below the standards we expect has no place in policing, and we have brought in measures to ensure they are swiftly dismissed. Hesitation and second-guessing can cost lives, and this Government will do everything we can to make our streets safer.
Making this change will require amendments to the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020. I will consult the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales, as required by statute, before making the necessary changes. Subject to that process, my intention is that those changes will come into force by spring 2026.
The report also highlights the need for greater consistency and fairness across criminal, disciplinary, and coronial proceedings. It finds that the current framework where different legal standards apply to the same set of facts can lead to confusion, reputational harm, and a loss of confidence among police officers and the public alike.
The Deputy Prime Minister welcomes the recommendation that the Government should undertake a full public consultation on the standard of proof for unlawful killing in inquests. This is a matter of significant legal and constitutional importance, with implications beyond policing, including in prisons, healthcare, and workplace safety. The Ministry of Justice will publish a consultation paper in due course.
These issues go to the heart of public confidence in the police accountability system. We must ensure that our legal standards are coherent, proportionate, and uphold the rule of law, while also supporting those who serve the public in challenging circumstances.
This Government have set out bold plans to ensure that the police have the confidence of the communities they serve, and that officers have the confidence that they need to do their vital and often extremely difficult job of keeping us all safe.
Since Parliament was last updated in April, we have made considerable progress in implementing the wider measures we committed to in the accountability review. This includes:
The Crime and Policing Bill is progressing through Parliament and will make changes to: provide for a presumption of anonymity for firearms officers who are subject to a criminal trial following a shooting, align the threshold for police and Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) referrals of police officers to the CPS with the threshold used by the police when referring cases involving members of the public, allow the IOPC to send cases to the CPS where there is sufficient evidence prior to their final investigation report, and put the IOPC’s victims’ right to review policy on a statutory footing. The Bill is currently in the Lords.
To help ensure consistency and clarity, the IOPC and National Police Chiefs’ Council have introduced two new protocols, the first regarding the investigation of deaths or serious injuries on the roads involving police officers, and the second protocol is in regard to the expectations and arrangements for the use of subject matter experts in IOPC independent investigations concerning the use of force by police officers.
New police vetting regulations and changes to police misconduct, performance and complaints regulations came into force in May, followed by the publication of operational vetting guidance in July.
The development of phase one of a national database of lessons learned when death or serious injury take place after police contact or pursuits is now complete. This is being developed by the College of Policing, and phase 2, the development of a fuller featured national database including a wider range of data sources, will commence shortly.
This builds on the progress we had already made, including the Director of Public Prosecution’s review of CPS guidance and processes in relation to charging police officers for offences committed in the course of their duties, which was completed in January 2025.
We will launch a wider review to address systemic barriers to timeliness in the police misconduct system to improve public and police confidence shortly.
I remain committed to build on the strong progress we have already made.
[HCWS987]
Manchester Terrorism Attack
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(1 month, 1 week 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 about the terrorist attack on 2 October and the action that the Government are taking in response. Let me start by calling this attack what it was: an evil act of antisemitic terrorism that targeted innocent worshippers on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, which was carried out by a terrorist pledging his allegiance to the warped ideology of Islamism. I pay tribute to the two men who were killed on that day, Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby. Their bravery saved countless lives. On behalf of the whole House, I offer my deepest sympathies to their families and their friends. May their memory be a blessing.
A further three men were seriously injured in the attack. I know that all our thoughts are with them, and with all those who were caught up in these terrible events. I also wish to thank those whose bravery saved lives: worshippers, staff and volunteers from the Community Security Trust, and the emergency services, who acted with speed and the utmost professionalism. This is a moment of profound national sorrow. An attack on our Jewish community is an attack on this entire nation, and it calls on us to assert, once more, our determination to tackle extremism, antisemitism and hatred wherever they appear.
Although the events of that day are painful to recount, it is important that we do so. On the morning of Thursday 2 October, a terrorist drove a car at worshippers outside the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation synagogue in Crumpsall, Manchester. The driver then left his vehicle, armed with a knife, and resumed his attack. He was wearing what was later determined to be a fake explosive device, although it should be remembered that all present had every reason to believe that that bomb was real. When the first call to the emergency services came in, Greater Manchester police declared a major incident and firearms officers were deployed. Within seven minutes of that call, the attacker had been intercepted and shot dead. Melvin Cravitz was killed by the attacker. Tragically, initial findings now indicate that Adrian Daulby sustained a gunshot wound during the armed police response.
As is standard in such cases, an investigation is being carried out by the Independent Office of Police Conduct, but there are two things that I can say. First, it is important to note that the IOPC has confirmed that the officers involved in the response are being treated as witnesses. Secondly, it must be remembered that the police acted in a situation in which they believed a terrorist was likely to detonate an explosive device. The necessary processes must now take their course, and I expect the IOPC to complete them as quickly as possible.
There is no ambiguity around who is responsible for the deaths and injuries that took place on that day. Members will be aware that the attack was carried out by Jihad al-Shamie, a 35-year-old British citizen of Syrian descent. We know that he came to this country as a child and was registered as a British citizen while still a minor. He was never referred to the Prevent programme, nor was he known to counter-terrorism policing or the security services. He had, however, recently been arrested on rape charges, for which he was on bail at the time of the attack.
Investigators believe the attacker was influenced by extreme Islamist ideology, evident in a 999 call that he made during the incident in which he pledged allegiance to Islamic State. Six people were arrested following the attack and were released without charge; one was subsequently re-arrested and has been bailed. I know that there are many questions that the public rightly demand answers to, as do Members of this House. Those answers will come, but for now the investigation is ongoing, and we must allow that work to take its course.
We know that voices in the Jewish community had long been warning that this day would come, and that Jews who had long felt safe in this country—in their country—now no longer do. Now that this awful day has come to pass, we must learn from it so that we do everything within our power to ensure that it does not happen again.
Our immediate priority was to enhance security. Visible officer patrols have been stepped up at synagogues and other sites in Manchester and across the country. Additional support has been made available to more than 500 locations, and although there have been long-standing security arrangements in place, with £18 million of funding each year for the Community Security Trust, it is clear that more must be done. We will provide our Jewish community with the protection they deserve, because no one should be forced to live a smaller Jewish life in their country because of the events of 2 October.
Our posture at religious sites is one of maximum vigilance. That applies to the Jewish community, and it also applies to British Muslims. I know that Members from across the House will have been disturbed by a suspected arson attack that took place at a mosque in Peacehaven, East Sussex, last week. The Policing Minister visited the mosque and met those who were forced to flee for their lives in terrifying circumstances, and we have discussed this with my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward), who I know also visited the mosque on Friday.
Let me be clear: violence directed at any community—be they Jewish or Muslim, and of all faiths or none—is an attack on our entire country. I know this country is united in our condemnation of those who seek to divide us, because one of the greatest achievements of this country has been our tolerance, our ability to accept and embrace difference, and our generosity towards those who may not look the same but are encompassed comfortably within a single national identity. It was for that reason that I was so affronted by the protests that took place in the days after the attack. These were a clear source of fear to the Jewish community, who were grieving just days after an unspeakable tragedy. The same was true on the anniversary of the 7 October attacks. I described those protests as “un-British” and I stand by that, because those protesters showed none of the generosity of spirit that I love about this country, and they most certainly did their cause no good whatsoever.
The right to protest is a fundamental freedom, but it must be balanced against the right the public have to their safety and security. In my conversations with community leaders and the police in recent days, it is clear that balance has not been struck. For that reason, I can confirm to the House today that we will amend sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. The police will be able to take account of the cumulative impact of frequent protests when considering whether to impose conditions. This will mean that protests that follow the same routes time and again can be forced to change their route or the time of a protest. I am also reviewing all existing legislation to ensure our public order powers are fit for purpose and are being consistently applied.
The right to protest must and will be protected, but of all the freedoms we enjoy none is more precious than the right to live in safety. The Government’s first responsibility is to keep the public safe. Since 2017, the Security Service and the police have disrupted more than 40 plots, and this work has saved countless lives. Through our counter-terrorism strategy Contest, we continue to tackle threats to this country, including those posed by Islamist terrorism, which remains our primary domestic threat. Through programmes such as Prevent, we seek to stop the slide into extremism that is drawing in far too many young people today.
Once the investigation into this attack is complete, we will know much more about how it took place, but the reality is we now face a domestic terrorist threat in this country that is more complex, less predictable and harder to detect than ever before. That threat will never be defeated unless we address the hate that fuels it. That means acting on the rising tide of antisemitism in this country. I am horrified when I hear our Jewish community talking about their fear in a country that once offered a rare island of sanctuary in an all-too-often hostile world. We have, in the days since the attack, stepped up our efforts to tackle antisemitism wherever it is found—challenging misinformation and hatred in schools, calling on vice-chancellors to do more to protect Jewish students at universities and calling on local authorities to use their powers to protect the community, as well as reviewing the clearly inadequate regulations that protect Jewish staff and patients in the national health service.
While these are important steps, more must be done. Antisemitism is the oldest hatred, and we must now redouble our efforts to fight it once more. Terrorists seek one thing: to divide us. They hate a society like ours where different communities live together in harmony, united by a common identity that transcends the colour of our skin or the nature of our faith. This attack has raised questions that must be answered about the security that we provide to our Jewish community, about how we address a rising tide of antisemitism and about how we bring communities together, rather than allowing some individuals to separate off into dark corners, including how we tackle the continuing threat of Islamist extremism and those who are pulled towards its warped ideology.
However, at the same time we must not let this attack defeat us, nor forget who we really are, because the real face of this country was not that of the vile monster who conducted this attack. It was those who stood up to him and saved their fellow worshippers, and the emergency services who sprinted towards danger to bring the attack to an end. The real face of this country was not those who took to the streets and protested the very next day, but rather those who were horrified by the attack, stood with their Jewish neighbours and chose the path of solidarity over division. The antisemitic terrorist attack of 2 October was a horrifying act. In response to it, I hope the whole House can be united in a simple message: those who seek to divide us by pitting one against another will fail. No act of terror will ever defeat us. I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement.
At 9.31 am on the morning of Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, we saw the sickening terrorist attack on worshippers at Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester by an Islamist extremist. The brutal attack left two men dead, Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby, and three more injured. Our thoughts and prayers remain with the victims and their families whose lives were so wickedly torn apart on that holy morning.
I want to thank Greater Manchester police and others in the security and emergency services for responding so quickly, and the brave worshippers inside the synagogue who stopped the attacker from entering. I join the Home Secretary in saying that I hope the IOPC completes its work quickly and that its conclusions reflect the fact that the police officers acted with courage in what was a very dangerous, unpredictable and fast-moving situation.
Sadly, we know that antisemitism is at record highs in the UK. The Community Security Trust recorded over 1,500 antisemitic incidents across the UK in the first half of this year, the second-highest level ever, and Jewish people in our country, tragically, face far higher rates of hate crime than any other community. We must stand with this country’s Jewish community and fight with all our resolve and energy the ancient evil of antisemitism wherever it is found. It has no place on these shores—not ever.
To be clear, attacks based on race or religion are totally unacceptable. The recent attack on a mosque in Peacehaven was appalling, and I know that we all unreservedly condemn it. Everyone in this country in all communities, including the Muslim community, must have the courage to stand up to extremism wherever we see it. Standing by and saying nothing when encountering extremism is complicity. That is why the antisemitism that is rife on university campuses must also be fought. The Home Secretary mentioned that in her statement, but will she work with her colleagues in Government to withdraw funding from universities that do not do enough to fight antisemitism?
We must do more than just call out extremism. Anyone espousing extremist views or who expresses support for terrorism, or racial or religious hatred of any kind, including antisemitism, who is not a British citizen should be removed from this country. Will the Home Secretary commit today to using her powers under the Immigration Act 1971 to remove from this country any foreign national who expresses extremist views or sympathy for political violence, terrorism, antisemitism or any other form of religious hatred, whether or not the criminal threshold is met? She could make that commitment now. Will she show that she is serious about fighting extremism by doing so?
I agree with the Home Secretary that the protests on 7 October this year, the anniversary of the terrorist murders by Hamas and just days after the Manchester attack, were appalling—“un-British”, in her words, which I agree with. The protests have continued even after the recent peace agreement relating to Gaza was signed, and, of course, they started before Israel’s military action in Gaza. In principle, I support her proposed introduction of a new cumulative impact test to sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act, but will she also consider expanding that test to also account for intimidation felt by other communities as a result of protest? Does the Home Secretary also agree that anyone expressing support for a proscribed terrorist organisation or who incites violence, for example by calling for jihad or intifada, should be arrested and prosecuted?
Since the attack, the police confirmed the attacker pledged allegiance to Islamic State and was influenced by extreme Islamist ideology, as the Home Secretary acknowledged. Islamist extremism is sadly a threat we know all too well in the United Kingdom. In July, we remembered the 52 people murdered by Islamist terrorists in the 7/7 bombings, which took place 20 years ago—the deadliest terrorist attack committed on British soil. We also remember Sir David Amess, also murdered by an Islamist extremist, and the 22 victims of the Manchester Arena attack, also murdered by an Islamist extremist.
We should not be afraid to call out this extremist ideology wherever we see it. It has no place in this country. Will the Home Secretary pledge to drop any definition of Islamophobia that would make calling out Islamist extremism any harder? The fact is that 75% of MI5’s terrorism-related caseload is related to Islamist extremism, and the vast majority of terrorist murders in the past 25 years were perpetrated by Islamists, yet only 13% of the Prevent caseload is Islamist related. What does the Home Secretary propose to do about that?
Britain gave perpetrator Jihad al-Shamie a home when he arrived here from Syria. He then carried out a brutal attack on a synagogue, deliberately targeted at Jewish people, on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. We need to reflect very deeply on the implications of that.
Today, we must all stand together and fight the hatred of extremism and terror. Attacks like this one are an attack on our whole nation. We will never change our way of life, and we will never allow our fellow citizens to be threatened or attacked simply because of their background. I know that the whole House will want to send out that message today.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his response and for the way in which he made it. I look forward to working with him and with all Members across the House as we deal with what I hope will always be a shared issue and a shared problem. Where there is agreement and consensus in this House on the measures that we should take, I hope we will be able to progress those matters quickly.
The shadow Home Secretary asked specifically about universities. He will, I hope, have seen the comments made by my colleague and right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, who has made clear to universities what their responsibilities are. It is important that she does that engagement before considering what measures to take if universities fail to take all steps to protect Jewish students on campus. This Government are very clear that universities already have responsibilities and they need to demonstrate that they are reflecting those responsibilities and taking appropriate action.
The shadow Home Secretary asked a range of questions on other crimes that are being committed. He will, I hope, recognise that this Government have worked very closely with policing, despite lots of disquiet in some quarters, to ensure that we have absolutely no tail-off in our response to those who support a proscribed terror organisation. He will have seen that there have been many hundreds of arrests. As long as people continue to show support for a proscribed organisation, they will face the full force of the law every time they do so.
On immigration powers, I am considering all immigration issues. The shadow Home Secretary will know that this Government have quite significantly increased the deportations of foreign offenders who have been found guilty of committing a crime in this country, compared to the situation we inherited. I note his points on the wider powers of the Immigration Act 1971, which I am reviewing. I will say more to the House on that in due course.
The right hon. Gentleman also made a number of points on our proposed amendments to sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. I hope that when we bring those measures forward, they will receive support in this House. I am happy to write to him on any further details about the Public Order Act. I am going to review the wider landscape of public order legislation, particularly in relation to the cumulative impact of repeat protests; we are already going to take steps on imposing further conditions and making explicit that cumulative impact is something that the police should take into account, but I am also going to look at the wider framework. Again, I will return to the House in due course with further updates on that legislation.
The shadow Home Secretary rightly noted that the protests have continued both before and after the peace agreement in the middle east. I think we can conclude that not all those protesting truly wish to see peace in the middle east, but it is for them to answer on what their motivations really are. We are very clear that although the right to protest is a fundamental freedom in our country enjoyed by people of all backgrounds, it is often the cause of grave offence to other people who live in this country, and it must be balanced against the right of all people to be able to live in safety.
The shadow Home Secretary mentioned Islamist extremism in particular. Let me be clear to him and to the House that this Government, and I as Home Secretary, have a clear-eyed view of where the threats that face this country are coming from. It is true that within our domestic extremism landscape the largest cohort of work that keeps our security services and counter-terror policing busy is related to Islamist extremism. We will not shy away from confronting those issues and dealing with them in the appropriate way.
What happened in Manchester on 2 October asks a bigger question of all of us. This threat is something that we have been living with for some time, and we have not yet defeated it. I commit myself and the Government to doing everything in our power to stand up to this particular threat without fear or favour, and to destroy it for good. I also note that the first people that Islamists often suppress, hurt and damage are their fellow Muslims. It is in everyone’s interest to fight Islamist extremism wherever it is found.
As the shadow Home Secretary noted, there is a wider and more complex domestic extremism picture in relation to extreme right-wing terrorism, and the emerging threat of those who do not have a fixed ideology but who are fixated on violence. It is important that all of our response is measured and follows where the risks are coming from and that we are always asking ourselves what action will ultimately be effective in dealing with the threats. We will redouble our efforts to interrogate the assumptions that have been made in the past and to assess whether they need to be changed and what new effective action must be pursued. I hope that in that task we will have support from Members across the House.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and I am sure that the people of Crumpsall, where this atrocity took place, will welcome it. The only point I would add is that while these acts of antisemitism and violence are un-British, they are also inhuman—I think that is a better way to describe them, rather than “un-British.”
I thank the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister for coming to Manchester on the day of the attack, which was much appreciated. The Home Secretary had a chance to meet the heroes, because while there was violence and tragedy, there were certainly heroes, not least the members of the congregation—two of whom lost their lives—who protected other members of the congregation from what would undoubtedly have been more deaths. The Home Secretary also met the Community Security Trust, the police and the fire brigade, who all played an excellent role in getting to the site of the violence as quickly as they could.
I have lived in this community, within a stone’s throw of the synagogue, for most of my adult life, and I have no doubt that the community will remain resilient. It has always been resilient. The film crews who thronged about the area after the violence were amazed that Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Christians and people of no religion were all consoling each other. There was no hostility at all on the street.
The final points I want to make are not as heartwarming. There is hurt and anger within the local Jewish community. They had known for some time that an attack like this was coming. Obviously they did not know when or where, but it has arrived. They feel that there has developed a hierarchy of racism—that somehow Jew hatred is not as important as other kinds of racism. They feel that not enough has been done to protect them. The extra security that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have announced is welcome, but what the community are looking for is extra action to deal with religious extremists who are involved in illegal activity, to get to the heart of the violent activities against the Jewish community.
The final point I will make is that, in one sense, taking action against illegal activities is the easier part. But partly because of what has happened in Gaza, many people now think it is okay in casual dinner party conversation—we have probably all heard it and witnessed it—to make antisemitic comments. It is not okay. It is also not okay, although it is not against the law, for artists—if I can use that word—like Bob Vylan to be operating and spreading their hate on campuses like Manchester University. Will the Home Secretary look forward with me to a future not only free of antisemitism but where I do not have to walk or drive past Jewish schools with security guards outside them?
Shabana Mahmood
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is an assiduous constituency Member of Parliament. I saw for myself at first hand his deep links in the community that he represents in the House and how he has been a source of real strength in bringing people together in that part of Manchester.
As a member of an ethnic and faith minority myself, one of the things that I most hate about our political discourse and national conversation is the hierarchy of racism. I hate how minority communities feel like we are pitted against one another in a fight for attention and recognition of the difficulties that we might face as individual groups. Racism in all its forms is abhorrent, and I will be as assiduous in fighting the scourge of antisemitism in this country as people might expect me, as a Muslim, to be in fighting Islamophobia in this country. We are all safe when we are all safe, and I will not stand by and watch our communities being forced to compete with one another and forced to explain again and again why they are suffering and why they do not feel safe. To me, that is unacceptable in 21st-century Britain. I will not stand for it, and it will not be the policy position of this Government.
The person who bears responsibility for what happened on 2 October was the terrorist attacker himself—I will not name him again today—but there is no doubt that events in the middle east have caused tensions here at home, and some have sought to exploit those tensions. It is incredibly important that we are clear-eyed in holding the line between what could be a legitimate critique of the Israeli Government’s actions in the war in the middle east and antisemitism: you can be a critic of policy in the middle east without becoming antisemitic, hating Jews and holding Jews in this country to account for things happening in a country elsewhere that are nothing to do with them. It is incumbent on all of us to hold that line and to be clear where that line is, so that we speak with one voice and give confidence to our minority communities here at home.
One of the most devastating things that I heard when I was in Manchester on the day and in the aftermath of the attack was our Jewish community expressing how they now feel unsafe in their own country and that they might never see a time when their children do not have to have security when they go to school. Although it is important that in the immediate aftermath of the attack we consider security matters, enhancing the police presence and deepening our work with the Community Security Trust, I will not stop until people in this country can go to a synagogue or Jewish school without first having to go through a security cordon.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. This is my first duty as my party’s home affairs spokesperson; I only wish that it was not in response to such a tragedy. My party’s thoughts are with the families of Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz, who were tragically killed. Our thoughts are also with those who were injured, the congregation, and the wider Jewish community, which was the target of a vicious attack on its holiest day, Yom Kippur.
We must all be clear that the attack did not happen in a vacuum. Antisemitism is widespread on Britain’s streets, and British Jews have been living in fear, particularly since Hamas’s horrific terror attacks of 7 October 2023. The Liberal Democrats are committed to ensuring that our Jewish friends and neighbours feel safe walking the streets and worshipping in their synagogues. Those who spread antisemitic hatred or incite violence against Jews, whether online, at marches or elsewhere, must be stopped. That is never acceptable.
I thank the Community Security Trust, as the shadow Home Secretary did, for the incredible job that it does, working with the police, to protect the Jewish community across our country. I praise its collaboration with organisations such as Tell MAMA, with which it shares best practice so that both the Jewish community and the Muslim community can be better protected. I look forward to visiting the CST’s headquarters in the near future as one of my first duties in this role.
We cannot ignore the issue of protests. The right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy, and it is a right that the Liberal Democrats will always protect, but we are also acutely aware of the fear felt by the Jewish community and the harassment that they have felt at some marches. Too often we have seen marches hijacked by people spreading antisemitism and inciting violence against Jews; we saw it even on the night of this appalling attack. My party is unequivocal in its view that those who incite antisemitism and carry it out must be met with the full force of the law.
I say this advisedly, Mr Speaker: unfortunately, the Government’s recent decisions have led to police arresting pensioners for holding up cardboard signs when they should be protecting all communities, including the Jewish community, from those who would cause harm. This undermines the right to protest and, crucially, means that the police are using their time and resources on other things when they should be protecting people. The British Jewish community should not have to suffer violence or live in fear simply because of their identity. We need less “thoughts and prayers” and more action. Will the Home Secretary confirm what additional physical security the Home Office has provided for the Jewish community since the attack?
We must also tackle the underlying root of modern-day antisemitism in this country. If the conversations we have make us feel squeamish and lead us to ask questions that prompt discomforting answers—as questions that I have asked recently have done—that is all the more reason to have them, and to have them more often. Will the Home Secretary, with the Prime Minister, convene a summit of interfaith leaders, communal bodies, education heads and the security services to really get a grip of the ever-growing crisis of antisemitism? Antisemitism, terrorism and hatred can be defeated, but only if we stand united against them and stand for the values that we as British people hold so dear.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesman for his response. Where we agree, I hope we will be able to work closely, in particular on issues relating to protests and rebuilding interfaith work in this country. I think everybody who has been involved in interfaith work in the last two years, myself included, will acknowledge that there have been real challenges and difficulties there. We have to think more creatively and redouble our efforts to rebuild relationships that have been deeply strained.
However, I cannot accept and leave unchallenged what the hon. Member had to say about the protests, led primarily by the group Defend Our Juries, in relation to the proscription of the group Palestine Action. I think the Liberal Democrats have to ask themselves some serious questions. Are they going to stand up for the rule of law in this country? In this House and outside it, anyone is free to challenge our terror laws—to say that they should be changed and to suggest that the thresholds are in the wrong place and need updating. That is fair and legitimate comment. We may disagree, but it is perfectly legitimate to debate that in this House and outside it. What is not acceptable, and what is a crime under the law of our land, is to support a proscribed organisation. Members of this House should not feel that they can do anything other than support the law of our land. It does not matter whether someone thinks proscription was the wrong thing to do: supporting a proscribed organisation is an offence under our terror laws, and it will always be met with the full force of the law.
I do say to the Liberal Democrats that they really have to decide whether they are going to stand up for the rule of law in this country. If they have things to say —suggestions or amendments—about our terror laws, they should raise them in the normal and legitimate way in the House, but do not break the rule of law in our country. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), who is speaking from a sedentary position, is suggesting that he thinks that policing the protests where support for a proscribed organisation is shown is somehow a waste of time; I call it standing up for the rule of law in this country.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
I am sure the whole House will share my joy at the release of the hostages in the middle east today, but as the shocking attack in Manchester last week showed, and as the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) made absolutely clear, antisemitism is rife and increasing on our own doorstep. I therefore ask the Home Secretary to increase funding for police and security not only at synagogues but at Jewish schools like Brodetsky primary and Leeds Jewish free school, as well as at the Zone youth club in my Leeds North East constituency. Will she also consider funding essential and crucial community organisations, such as the Leeds Jewish Representative Council, that are fundamental to community cohesion in Leeds and other cities?
Shabana Mahmood
I am sure that the whole House shares the relief at the release of the hostages after such a long period in captivity, having seen their families go through so much. I am sure that we all hope and pray that the peace process in the middle east properly gets under way and that we will see a longer-term resolution as quickly as possible.
We have already increased the police presence at synagogues and other sites of interest and community institutions for the Jewish community all across the country. We are in discussion with the Community Security Trust and other community organisations about what the future looks like in terms of security and other issues. We will report to the House in due course.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for advance sight of it. While I am very supportive of the work that is being done to increase security at Jewish synagogues and other venues, the answer cannot be constantly more security for the Jewish community. The Jewish community need to be able to live their lives fully, as the Home Secretary said, so what steps is she taking to address the extremist ideology of the perpetrator? It is present online, in schools and in mosques; it is addling brains and making people do utterly horrendous things, such as those we saw last week.
Shabana Mahmood
The Chair of the Select Committee is absolutely right: the answer cannot just be more funding for more security. As I said in response to an earlier question, I do not want it to be forever the case that in order for Jewish children to go to their local Jewish school, they have to walk through a security cordon. I think it is right that in our initial response to the attack, we are focused on security, because it is important that we give confidence to the community, who have seen such a horrific terror attack take place, but the future has to look different from the present and the past. That is why the Government are going to step up our action on tackling antisemitism, working closely with the independent adviser, Lord Mann. We have set up an antisemitism working group, which will make wider societal recommendations in due course. It is why the Secretary of State for Education has written to universities in particular to remind them of their responsibilities to students. Action is already taking place based on our current arrangements, but there is a question for us to ask about the wider picture and how we really deal with the scourge of antisemitism. It has gone on for far too long, it is rising, and as a society we need to think more carefully and more deeply about how we tackle that hatred and how we bring all our communities together.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The perpetrator of the hideous antisemitic terror attack on the Jewish community at the Heaton Park shul was on police bail for rape at the time of the attack, joining a long line of terrorists and violent extremists with a documented history of violence against women and girls. I welcome the measures that the Home Secretary has outlined today to provide greater protection for our Jewish communities in the wake of the attack. Alongside that, will the Home Secretary outline whether any work is taking place into misogyny as a risk factor for, or nexus into, other forms of extremism within our anti-terrorism framework, and what plans the Government have to publish an extremism strategy and hate crime action plan?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right—the attacker was, at the time of the attack, on police bail for two different charges of rape. All previous contact he had with the police is subject to an IOPC investigation. There are two planks to the IOPC investigation. The first is the shooting itself, but then there is the attacker’s previous contact with the police. Once we have that part of the IOPC’s work completed, I will be able to give much more detail about the exact nature of those alleged offences, why he was dealt with in the way that he was, and if there are any wider lessons to be drawn from that. I assure her that the nexus of misogyny with extremism is something that this Government take very seriously. I am joined on the Front Bench by the Minister for Victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), from the Ministry of Justice, with whom we work closely on these matters. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) that our next publications will focus, if possible—if the investigations have taken place—on the lessons that have been learned from this case.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Of course, we all agree with the Home Secretary, but can we dig a little deeper? There is a reason why the Jewish community is by far our most successful immigrant community, dating from the end of the 19th century. They were determined, and are determined, to integrate into our society in every single way. But let us be realistic: there are some parts of some communities who do not integrate. Will the Government say unequivocally that if someone wants to come and live here, they must think of themselves primarily as British? It does not matter what their colour or faith is—they are British. However strongly they feel about Gaza or anything else, they must approach all issues with our traditional sense of good humour and tolerance.
Shabana Mahmood
I think everyone across the House can agree and unite around the idea that it is important that everybody who comes to this country, makes it their home and chooses to raise their family here commits themselves to being the best of British. That is certainly my own experience as somebody whose parents came to this country in the late ’60s and then in the ’70s. Actually, the vast majority of our minority communities are very proud of being British. Every survey I have ever seen of minority communities that asks them to describe their Britishness finds a huge pride in Britishness and also in our Union Jack—our flag and symbol of our nation.
There are obviously, though, some issues that we have to confront. There is a question to be asked here about this attacker who had all of the benefits. He came here as a small child and became a naturalised British citizen. He was still a minor when he became British, and he committed these attacks in his mid-30s. There is a question to ask about what went wrong in that period of his life, in those formative years, that made him do such an act. I will ensure that those wider lessons are learned, and I will never shy away from honest conversations about either integration or community cohesion in our country. But I also do not want it to be the case that we allow the actions of a minority to make us believe that our majority are not proud of being British, because my own experience and all the data show that the exact opposite is true.
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and her visit to Manchester immediately following the attack. In the Jewish community in my constituency in south Manchester, there is a real sense of anxiety and fear, and she is right to identify that. The message that needs to go out today, and that has gone out across Manchester, is that the people of Manchester are shocked and appalled by this attack and stand with our Jewish neighbours against antisemitism and extremism. A number of my constituents in Manchester Withington have asked me to press the Home Secretary to ensure that the Community Security Trust and other community organisations get the full support they need—not just security, which is obviously important, but trauma services and mental health support. Could she say a little more about that and give them that reassurance?
Shabana Mahmood
The volunteers of the Community Security Trust are absolute heroes and do vital work every single day. They were there at the site of the attack, and the actions of those volunteers and worshippers at the synagogue in Manchester on 2 October saved many, many lives. So many people were cowering behind the door to the synagogue, keeping it shut and preventing the attacker from entering. I cannot imagine what must they have gone through while they did so, but they did so to keep others safe. They are all heroes. I have been very struck by the conversations that I have had with those volunteers.
I assure my hon. Friend that I and the Prime Minister have had constant contact with the Community Security Trust and other Jewish community organisations. We will say more in the coming days and weeks about how we intend to move forward on matters of security, and about the wider picture of giving reassurance to this country’s Jewish community, so that they can go about their business safely.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
First, on behalf of the Scottish National party, I join the Home Secretary in expressing our solidarity with the Jewish community after the horror of the appalling events at the Heaton Park synagogue. Such antisemitic hate must never be allowed to prevail or divide us. In Scotland, the police have increased security in our centres of faith, and have asked the public to remain vigilant following the attack. However, does the Home Secretary not see that by cracking down on our legitimate right to protest, she is simply giving succour to the haters, allowing them to dictate our approach to protest, and to alter basic freedoms that we have always enjoyed? Surely that cannot be the Government’s intention.
Shabana Mahmood
The Government’s intention is to ensure that the right balance is struck between our fundamental right to protest and ensuring that our communities can go about their business without living in fear of weekly protests on their doorstep. Through amendments to sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act, we are suggesting making it explicit that the police can take cumulative impact into account when imposing conditions. That is not a removal of the right to protest; it is just saying that there are conditions. The protest can carry on, but not in a way that prevents other communities from being able to go about their business in safety and security. I am surprised—well, I am not surprised, because the hon. Gentleman is from the Scottish National party, but I hope that Members across the House understand that getting the balance right is delicate and difficult, and that this measure will put us back toward something that looks and feels much more like a balanced situation. Protests can go ahead, but with some conditions. I would be surprised if that did not get backing from across the House. I hope that it does.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
During my time in and around public life, Manchester has faced a number of terrorist atrocities: the ’92 and ’96 IRA bombs, the death of Detective Constable Stephen Oake in 2003 at the hands of an Islamic extremist, the 2017 Manchester Arena terror attack, and now this vile attack on Manchester’s Jewish community. Is the Home Secretary confident that we have fully implemented the recommendations on tackling the failings identified after the arena attack, and that there is an equitable distribution of counter-terrorism resources in the United Kingdom?
Shabana Mahmood
When I visited soon after the attack, I was very clear that the main findings from the arena attack related to the ability of the emergency services to respond in a timely way and therefore save lives. I can tell my hon. Friend that between them, the emergency services—the fire service, the police, the ambulance service and everybody else—took on board the direct learnings from what happened in the arena attack. Only seven minutes passed between moment the first call came in and the moment the attacker was shot dead, so I pay direct tribute to all those emergency services. A role was played not just by armed police, but by the ambulance service and the fire service—fire services happened to be going to a different fire, but they re-routed to deal with the aftermath of the attack. I pay tribute to them. Those are direct learnings from the arena attack.
On the wider picture, we will know more about the preparation and planning of the attack once all the facts are in. I will inform my hon. Friend and others in the House if I think there are wider lessons to be drawn, but it is a little early in the investigation to say whether there are.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As in the case of the attack on Parliament in 2017, this attack was a combination of the use of a vehicle as a deadly weapon and an attempt to break into premises to kill people indiscriminately. On both occasions, brave men had to sacrifice their life to prevent access. Would it not be a sensible first step for all vulnerable premises to have doors that can be easily locked, so that people do not have to put themselves at risk physically holding them closed? I congratulate the Home Secretary on an excellent statement.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and comment. He is right: there are wider learnings here. That is why the Government are implementing Martyn’s law, which is about making premises safe from attack and draws on lessons from the Manchester arena attack. That is due to be implemented. I know there is some concern in the House and elsewhere—in the Jewish and other communities—about the length of time for implementation, which is up to 24 months. I will make sure that we interrogate whether that implementation can occur more quickly; if it can, I will ensure that it does.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
As a Greater Manchester Member of Parliament proudly representing a significant Jewish community, I know how much fear and anguish there already was in the community, even before the horrific attack in Crumpsall, as Manchester colleagues have said. As the Home Secretary has outlined, we need actions, not words, to tackle the scourge of rising antisemitism. Can the Government update the House on the development of our counter-extremism strategy? Have we responded to previous findings in this regard—for instance, the review conducted by Dame Sara Khan?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right. He will have noted my earlier comments about immediate actions that the Government are taking, as well as the wider message to partners across the public sector—at universities, in the NHS and so on: that we all need to do more to tackle the scourge of antisemitism in our country.
On counter-terror policy more broadly, I am myself reviewing all the previous findings made by experts following earlier attacks, under the previous Government and our own, to make sure that we have implemented all relevant recommendations and that our response is alive to the scale of the challenge.
I am very clear that this attack has asked a bigger question of all of us—of the country, and the Government specifically—about the response to antisemitism, and integration and community cohesion. Those issues will be subject to further lively debate in this House in the weeks and months to come.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
May I take this rare opportunity to praise the Home Secretary for what she has done with Palestine Action, and for taking steps to preserve the ability of some to protest, while stopping hate speech and other actions from other protesters? Does she agree that there is a correlation between the rise of antisemitism and these protests?
The Jewish community in London—but also, I am sure, across Manchester and the rest of the UK—are afraid to be comfortable in their religion. They feel afraid even to wear a yarmulke or to identify as Jewish. That is a national disgrace, and I hope that the Home Secretary will move forward to tackle it, with not just words but action.
Shabana Mahmood
I have been clear that I do not want people in our country—our own citizens—to feel that they have to live a smaller life and hide away who they really are because they are afraid of attack, be it verbal or physical, or scared that their children will be abused. That is not the future that I want for anyone in our country—not in our Jewish community or any other community. That is why I have taken steps on protests, and am reviewing the wider legislation on protests and the thresholds for hate crime.
I have been hearing clearly in the last few days that there are particular phrases that may not be liable for prosecution under our legislation, but that create huge amounts of fear. I want to review all that properly in the round, to make sure that we have the most robust legal framework—a framework that allows people in our country their effective precious freedoms, and accepts that people sometimes say offensive things, but provides a clear line between what is offensive and what is criminal. Once I have completed that review, I will report to the House.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her excellent statement. I pay tribute to the men who were killed and I send my condolences to their family and friends, and the wider Jewish community. As the Home Secretary has said, there is no place whatsoever in the UK for hate crime of any sort, directed at any group or any individual, and those who propagate hate must be held to account. The Home Secretary proposes changes to the regulations in the Public Order Act 2023; in addition, will she undertake a review of the Online Safety Act 2023? Use of the online space is a key way in which messages of hate are propagated, and not enough is being done to stop that.
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right to point out that hatred against minority communities runs riot in the online space. We do not need to look that deeply at many of the groups that proliferate online to see that whatever other hatred they say they profess, underneath there is usually a cesspit of antisemitism. That is a huge problem for us. The Online Safety Act has measures that are designed to begin to address some of those problems, but I am sure that there will be more work for us to do in the future. We must first ensure that our legal framework is robust enough to tackle the threats that we see daily in our real-world space, and then review to ensure that there is action much earlier in the online space. I will talk to colleagues across Government to ensure that we do everything that we can.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and I join her in expressing solidarity with the Jewish community following the horrific attack. Does the Home Secretary agree that we must urgently address online spaces where hatred is radicalised and amplified? Will she work with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to review Ofcom’s guidance, and the categorisation set out in the Online Safety Act, to ensure that small, high-harm platforms are properly regulated to prevent the radicalisation that leads to such devastating attacks?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Lady will understand that I will not make new policy at the Dispatch Box, but I confirm that I will be talking about those matters to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology. I recognise that the online space poses a specific challenge when it comes to all forms of hatred, particularly antisemitism, which proliferates across the political spectrum—on the left, on the right and everywhere in between—and I will talk to colleagues in Government about that.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Tonight, Jews around the world begin the festival of Simchat Torah. On Simchat Torah two years ago, we witnessed the worst attack on Jews since world war two. Today, we express joy at the hostage release, but also great sorrow at the massive loss of life during this terrible war. As we have heard, antisemitism is widespread. There is often only one Jewish child at a rural school in, say, Norfolk or Suffolk—indeed, my brother and I were the only Jewish children at our school. What can be done to support our teachers, so that they have the skills, knowledge and curriculum to educate all our children on the terrible scourge of antisemitism?
Shabana Mahmood
The Department for Education and the Secretary of State for Education have already made funding available to schools to tackle antisemitism in the classroom, and to educate teachers about the best way to handle conversations on the subject. I am sure that she will say more about that when she is next before the House for oral questions. My hon. Friend should rest assured that we recognise that antisemitism is a society-wide problem. Colleagues in the Department of Health are taking action, particularly around the regulation of doctors, to ensure that our national health service is a safe space for patients of every background, including Jewish patients. There has been work not just in the Department for Education, but in other Departments; there needs to be a whole-Government response, because this is a whole-society problem.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
In the wake of the terrorist attack in Heaton Park, I am very proud to say that Belmont shul, in my constituency, hosted a Shabbat service following a meeting of the Harrow Interfaith council at which representatives of all religions stood together with the Jewish community to say that hatred will not be allowed to win.
On the previous Friday, however, I was horrified to receive frantic phone calls, just before Shabbat started, saying that none of the synagogues had had contact from the police about what would happen the following day. After some frantic phone calls, the police said, “We can do drive-bys and various other things, but we can’t have a permanent presence at the shuls on Shabbat.” The reason was the Palestine Action demonstration in central London, at which the police knew they would have to arrest perpetrators supporting proscribed organisations.
My constituents, and those across London, are fed up with paying for these hate marches and hate demonstrations to take place. In addition to changing the routes, the meeting places and the times that these demonstrations can take place, how about another suggestion? If people want to organise these hate demonstrations, let them have the bill for the policing.
Shabana Mahmood
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am considering all the recommendations made by advisers to both our Administration and the previous Conservative Administration. I understand the call for protesters to pay. One of the difficulties is with implementation, rather than a disagreement on the substance of that issue. It is one of the things I will be looking at in the wider review I am doing.
It is important that whatever action we take does not create more work for policing, which is why I have already had discussions with senior police officers across the country about what we should do going forward. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will review those measures very carefully, bearing in mind all the previous reports that have been written. I will ensure that the framework we are left with is robust and capable of being policed properly, and has the confidence of both the police and communities. It is important that, whatever we do, we have the resources to meet that.
If the hon. Gentleman writes to me on the specifics of what happened with synagogues in his constituency, I will ensure that he gets a proper response.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I pass on my sincere condolences to the families and friends of Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby, some of whom were in the Gallery earlier. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) said, it is important to mention how Jews, Muslims and Christians came together, united in their revulsion and mourning in the wake of the attack.
A few days before the attack, the punk band Bob Vylan told a concert in Holland:
“F*** the Zionists, get out there and fight…get out there and meet them in the streets.”
I and other Members from Greater Manchester have urged Manchester Academy to cancel the Bob Vylan concert that is due next month because the band is a direct threat to the Jewish community of Manchester. Does the Home Secretary agree that the concert should be cancelled?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend will understand that decisions on whether specific concerts or other cultural events go ahead are made independently by safety advisory groups in those particular locations, informed by evidence on the operational requirements. It would be quite wrong for me, as the Home Secretary, either to pre-empt those decisions or to call into question their legal basis by commenting on them from the Dispatch Box.
It is important that safety advisory groups, wherever they are, take into account all the factors around these cultural events and ensure that they take the measures required to keep our communities safe. That is the job they are supposed to do, and it is the job that I hope they will do.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
While the Prime Minister is swanning around Egypt, shamelessly trying to claim credit for the Gaza-Israel peace deal, we have the Mayor of London stating that the chant “From the river to the sea” is not antisemitic. I think it is antisemitic. Does the Home Secretary agree with me or with the Mayor of London?
Shabana Mahmood
I really do not think the hon. Member should lower the tone in that way. These are very serious matters, and we should all be united in this House in supporting the peace process in the middle east, which has undoubtedly made progress in the last few days because of the actions of the American President and other partners in the region.
One reason I am reviewing the wider legislation in this area, including the thresholds for what constitutes a hate crime, is precisely that we have many contested phrases that, based on context, currently fall foul of being prosecuted. I want to ensure that we have the most robust legal mechanisms so that hate speech and hate crimes are always prosecuted in our country, and that those who propagate them face the full force of the law.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I begin by praising Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby, who lost their lives defending the lives of others. In my constituency, we have five universities with 1,500 Jewish students—more than any other constituency in the country. We also have a Hillel house, which was attacked in 2024 after a social media post by a senior politician. What will the Home Secretary do to protect Hillel houses on campuses up and down the country, and will she write to all Hillel houses to reassure them of their safety on campus?
Shabana Mahmood
I am of course happy to provide support and to write in the way that my hon. Friend suggests. In doing so, I will be backing the work of the Secretary of State for Education, who has direct responsibility for universities. As some Members will have seen, the universities regulator said on Friday that the Office for Students has powers to fine universities and, ultimately, cut off public funding if those universities fail to uphold their responsibilities to keep students safe, including our Jewish students on campuses. It is important that there is a whole-society response. The university sector needs to step up, and I will work closely with the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that is the case.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Clearly, how antisemitism is tackled by the police in our communities is key, so I would be interested to hear from the Home Secretary what specialist training our police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service—I appreciate that this is a bit off-piste; maybe she might put on her Justice hat for a moment—are receiving to help them understand the complexity of investigating, charging and prosecuting those exhibiting antisemitic views early on. There is a belief among members of the Jewish community who live near my constituency that far too many cases are dropped due to being labelled as having mitigating issues around concerns for Israel.
Shabana Mahmood
Having discussed these matters with senior police officers across the country, I know that they often take independent legal advice, both on the decisions that the police have to make and in testing with the Crown Prosecution Service whether a prosecution is likely to result in a conviction. These are contested areas of public and political debate, which is why I want to review for myself the legislation that is in place. I will report to the House in due course.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I join colleagues in expressing my condolences to the families of those who lost a loved one in last week’s attack. I also put on record—I think this whole House will agree—our support for the Community Security Trust, not just for the tireless work it does every week at shul, but for its cross-community work. So many in our country right now want to divide people by finding points that pit people against each other. That cross-community work is critical to keeping everybody in our communities safe.
On that thread, one common theme that is coming out—I allude to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols)—is a concern about misogyny, and about the record of violence against women that many of those involved in violent offences have. I know that the Home Secretary’s predecessor was pulling together a counter-terrorism strategy that was going to include that theme in looking at antisemitism, Islamophobia and radical Islam. Can she update us on where that review has got to, so that we can be confident that we will get all these people off our streets and improve our understanding?
Shabana Mahmood
I can reassure my hon. Friend that the nexus between misogyny and other serious offences, including offences relating to extremism and terrorism, is something we take very seriously. If she will forgive me, having been in the job for only a few weeks, I have not yet reviewed all of the counter-terrorism strategy. Our strategy will now need to take account of the things that have happened in Manchester, but I can reassure my hon. Friend that it will be published in the usual way, and we will of course consider the wider lessons about misogyny and violence against women and girls that can be drawn.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
First, I congratulate the Secretary of State on the forthrightness and clarity of the message she has sent from this House today. People in Northern Ireland appreciate the deep hurt experienced by those who went to worship and found that they were victims of terrorism. We have had people machine-gunned while praying, people shot dead as they came out of church, and people’s churches bombed over 30 years of IRA violence, and we understand that. Will she join me in expressing disgust at those in Northern Ireland who, in the very same week that this attack occurred, blocked roads and held protests celebrating Hamas terrorists who had carried out the atrocity two years previously? That kind of anti-Jewish hate drove the action we saw in Manchester. Does she agree that we cannot allow, under the cloud of free speech, people to use the language that drives sectarianism, which is causing hatred, division and the loss of safety in the United Kingdom?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman is right that this country has had to learn painful lessons on sectarianism in the past, and it seems we have to learn them again in a slightly different context today. That cannot be our reality in the future, and I hope that all of us across this House can unite around that work. Let me also be clear for anybody celebrating and supporting Hamas that it is a proscribed terror organisation in this country. To support that organisation is to break the law of our land, and whenever anybody does so, they should face the full force of the law.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
After the vile attack in Manchester, many of us in this House will have spent time with Jewish friends last week celebrating the festival of Sukkot. It was particularly emotional for me to do that with friends and to realise that for the sukkah—that temporary shelter where we eat that meal—you have to have sight of the sky, because the Jewish community needs to be ready always to leave. That sense of insecurity is pervading the Jewish community now, and the Home Secretary must most importantly address that. Jews’ Free School in my constituency, the largest Jewish school in Europe, had a huge police presence outside it in the Friday afternoon after that attack, but as many have said, that reassurance should not be necessary. We have to address the fundamental insecurity that the community is facing.
Shabana Mahmood
Let me assure my hon. Friend that while in the initial aftermath of the attack it is important that we focus on reassurance measures and security measures, we are clear that in the medium to long term, the only way to make sure that all our Jewish community is safe and that Jewish life in Britain can thrive—as it has every right to do—is to ensure that we tackle the scourge of antisemitism across our country and deal with those wider questions of integration and community cohesion.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate the Home Secretary on an excellent statement, in which she said early on that the police officers involved are being treated as witnesses. That is absolutely right, but does she understand that many members of the security forces involved in this kind of work fear that they will be hung out to dry? Many of them will not have their fears assuaged by the written ministerial statement today on the legacy of the troubles, on which more anon. Will she reassure me that everything is being done by the Greater Manchester police to put an arm around those officers who were directly involved in this incident, and that they will be given every support necessary?
Shabana Mahmood
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that those officers are being supported. That is why I wanted to make it clear to the House that they are being treated as witnesses. It is why I have asked the Independent Office for Police Conduct to ensure that it concludes that part of its investigation as quickly as possible. There are wider issues about firearms officers in our country having the confidence to do their job. We will soon publish our police accountability review, which is designed to ensure that we meet the scale of the challenge in giving our officers the confidence they need to put themselves in danger for the rest of us. There are sometimes questions that have to be answered, and I think we can all accept that to be the case, but we should do that in a framework that commands public support as well as the support of the professionals, with things done in a timely way, so that we can get answers as quickly as possible and not have a debilitating impact on policing confidence in the long term.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I commend my right hon. Friend for her statement and also for her prompt response, which I know was appreciated by people in Manchester on the very day.
I believe that people should be able to pursue all religions, or none, without intimidation or fear of being attacked. I also believe in freedom of speech and the freedom to protest, but does my right hon. Friend agree that people cannot use that right to promote hate and promote violence against those with any other religions or beliefs? Does she agree that we need to keep that under review to ensure that we do not allow such people to continue to promote these messages of hate?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right: protest is a fundamental and precious freedom and should be protected, but it must be balanced against the need for all our communities to be able to live in safety and security. That is why I am carrying out a review of the wider legislation, particularly in relation to hate crimes and associated issues. I am doing that to ensure that we know exactly where the line is, and to ensure that that line and the careful balance that must be struck are policed properly and prosecutions follow when the line is crossed.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I recently visited a synagogue in my constituency to celebrate Sukkot, but this year our celebration was drowned in sadness as we paid our respects following the terrorist attacks on two very brave men. We all condemn those attacks because, as the Home Secretary said, an attack on our Jewish community is an attack against us all and we are indeed stronger together. However, does she agree that acts of terrorism should not be used to pit communities against each other, and that by conflating the right to peaceful protest with the actions of a crazed terrorist we are in danger of doing just that? What steps is she taking to ensure that there is greater community cohesion which will build bridges and not wars?
Shabana Mahmood
I have to say that I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I was very clear that the protests that took place immediately after this terror attack, especially in Manchester itself, were fundamentally un-British. I hope the hon. Gentleman would agree that sometimes imagining that it was ourselves who had suffered, and extending the hand of friendship, love and solidarity to a community that is suffering, is the kind thing to do, the right thing to do and the British thing to do. I would have liked to have seen the organisers of those protests in Manchester in the immediate aftermath of the attack, and across the country, show some of that very British solidarity. That does not mean that people are not allowed to protest—they are, they have been and I am sure they will continue to do so—but sometimes a little bit of solidarity and kindness can go an awfully long way.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I wish to extend my condolences to the friends and families of Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz, and to the people of Manchester and the wider Jewish community across the United Kingdom, following the appalling terrorist attack at the synagogue in Heaton Park. Many in the Jewish community felt that this attack was a matter of not if, but when. According to the Community Security Trust, 76 of the 1,521 antisemitic incidents that occurred in the first six months of the year were violent assaults that were so severe as to be recorded as extreme violence, which meant that they involved gross bodily harm or a threat to life. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about what she is doing personally to tackle the scourge of antisemitism in our nation?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me first say, as I said throughout my statement, that antisemitism is at unacceptable levels. It is rising and has been rising for some time, and it demands a different and new answer from all of us in government and across society if we are to tackle it effectively. That means, in the immediate aftermath of the terror attack in Manchester, that we provide reassurance to the community for their safety and security, but in the longer term it means that we must work across Government to tackle antisemitism wherever we find it, whether in the national health service, on our university campuses or in protests and marches. We must hold the line between action that might be offensive but is lawful, and that which is a hate crime and must be prosecuted under the law.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Section 12 of the Public Order Act already allows a senior police officer to place conditions on a protest march, for instance by rerouting it if the march will be noisy, disruptive or intimidating, so can the Home Secretary clarify her comments about section 12? When she talks about addressing the cumulative impact of the marches, is she still talking about allowing the rolling anti-Israel marches to go ahead, just using different routes, or does she want to give herself the power to stop them altogether?
Shabana Mahmood
The measure that I have announced will be about placing conditions on marches under both section 12 and section 14 of the Public Order Act. What became very clear to me in the immediate aftermath of the terror attack in Manchester was that there was inconsistency of practice across police forces in the country as to whether cumulative impact could be taken into account when they make decisions about whether to place conditions on a march or a protest. The legislation I propose will make it explicit that cumulative impact is, in and of itself, a feature that policing can take into account in order to put conditions on a march. It will not need to meet any other threshold before conditions can be placed on a march or a protest.
On the wider question, I am reviewing the broader legislative framework. I will have more to say about potential bans, although the hon. Gentleman will know from his time at the Home Office that the policing and banning of protests has consequences, as does allowing them to go ahead with conditions. Again, it is one of those areas where a careful balance needs to be struck. I hope there might be cross-party agreement on how we get that careful balance, and on how we hold it and ensure that the police are able to police effectively, whatever we may decide in the future.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and agree with her that anyone seeking to divide us will only unite us. I join hon. Members in paying tribute to both Melvin and Adrian’s families.
I refer the Home Secretary to the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) about looking at the issues in policing across the country. Sadly, the Home Secretary will be aware of the recent exposé on the Met police, who are responsible for some of the major counter-terrorism operations across the country. Those seeking to protect people who report hate crime should not be the perpetrators of hate crime, and we saw some disgraceful behaviour in that exposé.
This week is National Hate Crime Awareness Week. Every community should feel confident about reporting crime to the police, but we know that for every hate crime reported, many more go unreported, because people do not feel safe or have confidence in the police. Will the Home Secretary look at some of the issues across our police forces?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend refers to the BBC “Panorama” exposé into the Met police, and this is the first time I have been able to place on the record my views on that matter. Like everybody else, I was horrified, particularly at the situation at Charing Cross police station, which had been the focus of previous exposés and promises of change. I have discussed these matters with both the Mayor of London and the chief of the Met police, and I am reassured that they are absolutely clear-eyed about the need to tackle the issues that were exposed in that programme. We are all united in our desire to root out from our police forces all individuals who hold horrible attitudes and we cannot trust to police our communities safely. They have no place in our police service and I am confident that, through the work of the Met police going forward and through the Mayor of London and other partners working together, we will get to a place where we can be confident in our police forces. I hope to work closely with Members from across the House on that issue as well.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to CST and Greater Manchester emergency services for their response on the day, and particularly to those brave members of the congregation who protected their fellow members. I thank the Home Secretary for her quick response in coming to Greater Manchester. As a Greater Manchester MP myself, I know it meant a great deal to our community.
I am proud to have the Yeshurun Hebrew congregation in my constituency, as well as North Cheshire Jewish primary school. I met the rabbi on the Monday before this horrendous attack and we talked about the genuine fear in our community about the rise in antisemitism, which was a horrendous foreshadowing of what would happen at Heaton Park. I completely agree with the Home Secretary that more security should not be the answer, but we are in a situation in which more security is currently needed. Will she assure the House and the Jewish community that greater resources will be given to CST, the police and local authorities to ensure greater visible protection around our synagogues and our local Jewish schools—not just in the immediate term but for as long as necessary, to reassure the community that they are safe?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me assure the hon. Gentleman and the whole House that we are discussing these matters closely with the Community Security Trust and other representatives of the Jewish community. The Prime Minister and I will have more to say in the coming days about the medium-term picture on security and funding for places of worship in our country. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that we take this very seriously. I know he will agree that, in the long term, we need not only simply to provide protective security but to know with confidence that all our communities can go about their business without having to go through a security cordon before they do so.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Eighty-nine years ago this month, the British Union of Fascists, led by Oswald Mosley, tried to march through the largely Jewish east end of London. They were marched off by people of Jewish, Irish and working-class backgrounds in what became known as the battle of Cable Street, uniting in protest against antisemitism. Following this month’s horrific antisemitic attack, and amid a surge in the far right’s targeting of minorities and the attack at Peacehaven mosque, does the Home Secretary agree with me that we must tirelessly oppose fascism, antisemitism, Islamophobia and racism, and also protect the hard-worn democratic right to protest, which was crucial to defeating fascists in Cable Street in my area in a historic act of solidarity and unity in British history?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right that acts of solidarity among communities to protect each other reflect the absolute best of our country. As I have said, there is a careful balance to be struck in relation to the fundamental freedom and right to protest—sometimes for causes we can all believe in and sometimes for causes that are much more politically contested. It is a fundamental freedom and one of the things that makes this country such a strong and free place to be, but there must be a balance between that and the right for all of our communities to go about their business with safety and security, which is why I have made the announcement about the Public Order Act. I think the balance struck at the moment is in the wrong place, and we need to take some steps to correct that.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for the statement, and I thank her and her team for dealing very promptly with an issue I have raised over the last couple of weeks.
My thoughts and prayers go out to the Jewish community, and I thank those from the Jewish community who have reached out to me to speak about their concerns. I visited a Jewish school with the CST, and it was awful to see children—young British children— in 21st-century Britain having to do drills on protecting themselves from a lone wolf attack. We are clearly not in the right place on this. In the sentiment of dealing with the root causes, does the Home Secretary agree with me that inter-faith work has fallen off a cliff, and that that needs to be dealt with? I am also concerned about the raising of Palestinian flags in the centre Birmingham—closer to home—and Preston council’s hosting of a known Palestinian terrorist. All of these things contribute to the feeling I am getting from the Jewish community, which is that they do not feel safe in this country.
Shabana Mahmood
This attack has shone a light on the burden that British Jews bear every single day just to live an ordinary Jewish life. There is nothing worse than imagining little children in our country having to go through drills every day at school to keep themselves safe. I would hope that everyone across this House could commit ourselves collectively to doing everything we can to root out the evil of antisemitism, because no child should have to do what has become ordinary and normal for British Jewish children in our country. That is a disgrace for us all, it shames us all and we absolutely need to work together to fix it.
On inter-faith work, the hon. Member is right. In the last two years, people who have done inter-faith work for 20 or 30 years have told me many times that it has fallen off a cliff. There are no easy answers for how we get it up and running again. I think it will take careful, delicate work to bring people together again and rebuild some trust between communities—between our Muslim and our Jewish communities. Let me be frank about that. With enough good will and British generosity of spirit, it is possible for us to get that work up and running. I see it as crucial in tackling the scourge of antisemitism and other forms of hatred, and in making sure that our country is a safe place for people of all different communities. I hope the whole House will support that.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I share with Members the joy at the hostages being released today, and the sorrow at the loss of Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby, and I send my condolences to their families.
I join the Home Secretary in condemning this attack and condemning antisemitism and racism. I met our local rabbi last week to share my solidarity, and I am so pleased that the congregation have received so many messages of support from across the community and other faith groups—the mosque, churches and other groups—and that there is real support from the local police, for which they are very grateful. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is vital that we continue to send a united message that we support the Jewish community and their right to live and worship in safety, and that we all have a role—here in this place, and in workplaces, schools and streets across this country—in taking action against this?
Shabana Mahmood
It is natural after a terror attack that we might focus on the actions of those who still wish to cause pain and do damage to our communities, but my hon. Friend is right. Since the attack, millions of Brits have come together in the spirit of solidarity towards one another, whether in our churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship, or in places that are community institutions open to all faiths and none. It is those acts of solidarity that will ensure we can be a strong country going forward.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
When we allow Islamist hate preachers such as Sheikh Alafasy to do speaking tours, it is no wonder British Jews in the UK no longer feel safe. In January, he had a platform at the Bridgewater Hall in Manchester, despite the Jewish Representative Council raising its concerns. They were ignored. In the follow-up meeting, described as an appalling “tick-box exercise”, the chief executive could not have cared less. It now turns out that this Sheikh was one of only 10 people that the terrorist perpetrator of this attack followed on Twitter. There was a chance that he was at the event in January. Can the Home Secretary advise what her Department is doing to hold the chief executive Andrew Bolt and the trustees of Bridgewater Hall to account for completely failing to take the concerns of Manchester’s Jewish community into consideration? It is not just the hate marches.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Forgive me, I do not know the specifics of that particular case. If he writes to me, I will discuss it with the Security Minister and ensure he gets an appropriate response.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
First, I welcome the move to consider cumulative impact when it comes to policing the issues discussed today. It is a hugely positive move, and I hope it can be applied to static protests as well as marches. In the aftermath of the horrific attack on the synagogue earlier this month, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate undertook research that showed the shocking, but these days sadly not surprising, number of calls for further violence against Jews on the X social media platform. Does the Home Secretary agree that those advocating online for the death of Jews and for synagogues to be burnt down are exactly the sort of content that the Online Safety Act 2023 is supposed to address? Does she also agree that it is utterly reprehensible for anyone to give positive publicity to those on social media calling for people to be killed and for buildings to be burnt down?
Shabana Mahmood
On the measures on cumulative impact, yes, they do apply to both static protest and marches. That is why they are measures aimed at both sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act. As I said earlier in my statement, I am very clear that the online space is not going to be a free space for antisemitism, which presents itself both on the left and the right and everything in between of the political spectrum. I will discuss these matters with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I echo comments across the House and extend Plaid Cymru’s sympathies to the families of everyone affected. We as MPs and other commentators in the public sphere need to be vigilant and alert to the potential consequences of inflammatory language as we recall what happened on 2 October. I thank the Antisemitism Policy Trust for its work showing how utterly unacceptable it is that antisemitic tropes place Jewish people in peril. Does the Home Secretary agree that with free speech, which we rightly treasure, comes responsibility?
Shabana Mahmood
Yes, I do. That is why I described the protests in the immediate aftermath of the attacks as un-British. We have our rights and we can choose when to use them. We can choose whether we wish to cause pain to people or not. I wish that those individuals who were involved in the protests in the immediate aftermath had chosen to show a sense of British generosity of spirit, rather than go on those marches that day.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I share the Home Secretary’s condemnation of this terrorist attack. I was pleased to join my Jewish constituents in solidarity at an event to mark Sukkot this weekend. It was particularly touching that we were joined by people of all faiths, including Hindus and Muslims. They were there in solidarity, but also with anxieties of their own. One Hindu community representative said to me, “This incident makes us nervous that this could happen to us as well.” Does the Home Secretary agree that the Government’s protections must extend to people of all faiths? Can she say more about what she will do to ensure that people of all faiths can meet, celebrate and worship without fear?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government’s places of worship protective security scheme is open not just to synagogues but to mosques and other places of worship, and already makes significant sums available for the protection of mosques and other temples. We are working closely with representatives from the community on what we might need to do going forward.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I associate myself with the tributes paid to those who were killed in Manchester and to the invaluable work of the Community Security Trust, whose headquarters I have visited. I pay tribute to my constituents, who have sent a wall of love and support in messages to our local synagogue, showing how they absolutely reject antisemitism.
The Manchester attacker was wielding a knife. My local police force has stressed to me the ease with which someone—even with a pattern of criminal behaviour—can obtain a lethal knife. We do not know what kind of knife was used or how the attacker obtained it, but we do know that the Southport attacker purchased a 16-inch machete from Knife Warehouse, a retailer which, in the words of the inquiry chair, showed “no curiosity” at all about whom it was selling to. It is clear that those who intend to commit violence can arm themselves with alarming ease by exploiting online loopholes that treat lethal weapons as ordinary products. Does the Secretary of State agree that we now need a far stronger and clearer approach to tackle the online sale and circulation of these knives and to close the gaps that allow sellers to profit from them?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Lady will know that we are already taking action in the Crime and Policing Bill to ban the sale of those knives. It is a little too early to draw wider lessons about exactly what happened in this case, but I am sure we will return to these matters in due course once more of the facts are in.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
I commend the Home Secretary for her statement and join her in both condemning this despicable attack and sending condolences to the families of Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby. They are heroes—may their memory be a blessing.
Hendon has one of the largest Jewish communities in the country. Many of my constituents are scared; I must tell the House in all candour that more than a few are asking whether there is a future for them and their families in this country. One of the sources of concern is the fear of bias towards Jewish patients in the NHS. Can the Home Secretary expand on the action the Government are taking to ensure that all may be treated in the NHS without fear and stamp out antisemitism in our health system?
Shabana Mahmood
It is an absolute outrage that any patient in our country might be afraid of seeking treatment in our national health service because of the expressed views of the person who is treating them. We are determined to ensure that that is not something that anyone in our country, including in our Jewish community, has to go through. That is why the Health Secretary has already announced that he will be overhauling the regulatory system for medical practitioners, and I am sure he will come to the House in due course to give more details.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Green party stands shoulder to shoulder in cross-party solidarity with the victims and survivors of the horrific attack on the Heaton Park synagogue. I pay particular tribute to those who put their lives at risk to bring the attack to a swift stop.
The Home Secretary has today spoken passionately and personally about the fight against the scourge of antisemitism being the same as the fight against any form of prejudice, and I very much welcome that. I am sure she will agree that it is essential to say loudly, clearly and unequivocally that prejudice, hatred or violence against Jewish people is totally unacceptable in our country, and will not be tolerated.
The Home Secretary has used this opportunity—this moment—to announce further restrictions on protest, which, I confess, do concern me. Important points have been raised in the Chamber today regarding radicalisation within online spaces. Will the Home Secretary ensure that every policy measure she takes is focused on building solidarity between communities and countering division in our country?
Shabana Mahmood
I agreed with everything the hon. Lady said until she got to restriction on protests. Let me be clear: there is a balance to be struck between these freedoms. I think it is in the wrong place, so I am taking measures to bring it back into balance. I repeat the points I have made about the online environment, which is something I will discuss with colleagues across Government.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
My condolences and solidarity and those of my constituents are with the Jewish community in Manchester in the wake of this terrible terrorist attack. The Home Secretary mentioned regulators. Regulators such as Ofcom have a hugely important role in tackling antisemitism, not least online harm and hatred, as raised by the Antisemitism Policy Trust. Can she give an assurance that the Government have a plan to ensure that regulators are playing their full role in addressing the poison of antisemitism?
Shabana Mahmood
Yes, I can. My colleagues in the Cabinet have written to the different regulators that report directly to them, and they will all come before this House to set out further measures and how we will hold people accountable for their powers.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Does the Home Secretary agree that the murderous attack on the Jewish community in Manchester was the product of the rampant Islamic radicalisation that we have seen across our country—something which chimes with the antisemitism that has been evidenced in the bitter hate marches in our capital city? In that context, is enough being done to deal with the radicalisers? Do we not need to strike the axe at the root of this problem? Much of that root is those who are radicalising young people to carry out awful acts such as this.
Shabana Mahmood
I repeat to the hon. and learned Gentleman my earlier comments on dealing with the domestic threats we face, the largest of which is Islamist extremism. We will know more about the specific journey that this attacker took before he carried out his attack when more of the facts are in, but I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that whatever wider lessons are to be drawn from this attack, I will make sure that they are understood and learned from and that we have the measures in place to be effective in dealing with radicalisation wherever it takes place, including with Islamist extremism.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the Leeds Jewish Representative Council and the Jewish Leadership Council for organising moving tributes in memory of the victims of the Manchester attack. I also thank CST for its tireless work to keep the community safe. I am sorry to say that a few weeks ago a speaker on the streets of Leeds during one of the protests called for all synagogues and all Jewish schools to be held to account for the crime of, as they say, harbouring Zionists. This was the thinnest of veils draped over an excuse to legitimise targeting the Jewish community. Does the Home Secretary agree that there is absolutely no place for such calls on the streets of Leeds or anywhere in the UK? Will she do everything in her power to enable the police to ensure that it does not happen again to keep the Jewish community safe?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with my hon. Friend; those comments are despicable and utterly unacceptable. It is why I am reviewing the wider legislative framework in relation to protest and hate crime.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I give my condolences to those who lost their lives as a result of the Manchester synagogue attack and to those who suffered the trauma of the loss of a family member. I thank the Home Secretary for her strong and emphatic statement. She speaks for everyone in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with her words of strong condemnation. I was sickened and shocked to hear of the attack in Manchester on Yom Kippur and the loss of life that ensued. It is an established fact that antisemitism in the UK is once again on the rise, to such an extent that there are security details at all religious events.
I can well remember after the Darkley hall massacre that many, probably all, churches across Northern Ireland had extra security details on their doors. Those dark days are behind us in Northern Ireland, but they are not behind our Jewish friends, and we have witnessed that in recent times. They require actions, not words, and above all honesty about the threat level against them. Just how will the Home Secretary provide assurances to the Jewish community that are not just media soundbites but promises of safety that can be trusted?
Shabana Mahmood
I assure the hon. Member and the House that the Government will take action—we have already taken action, and there will be more to come. I know that will be debated in the House over the coming weeks and months, but this is not a moment for warm words; it is a moment for strong action, and that is what the Government will deliver.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I agree with the Home Secretary that violence directed at any community, be they Jewish, Muslim, of all faiths or none are attacks on our entire country and we are united in condemnation of those who seek to divide us. In Luton, we have strong cohesion because we have worked for many years to build it, yet recent events, combined with increasingly open far-right and racist rhetoric, have left many feeling scared and vulnerable. Bedfordshire Police has stepped up patrols around different places of worship, but its resources are limited. I welcome the Home Secretary’s comments on looking at that. What cross-Government work is being done on the community cohesion building of our voluntary and community sector, and what support will there be for that?
Shabana Mahmood
Community cohesion will be vital and is an important element of the work we have to take forward in the light of the attack. I am happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend and ensure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to feed in the experience of those in Luton.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I join the Home Secretary and all Members across the House in my unequivocal condemnation of the heinous terrorist and antisemitic attack against Jewish worshippers in Manchester, and I express my heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Mr Daulby and Mr Cravitz. As a proud British Muslim, I remind the House and those listening that the actions of these so-called Islamist terrorists were vile and unacceptable. They have nothing to do with the religion of Islam and are actually in total contradiction to the teachings of Islam and the obligations of all Muslims.
In my constituency and across the country, Muslims have joined the Jewish community in being saddened and angered by the terrorist attack in Manchester, and by any and all hatred and violence expressed against any community. We stand in full solidarity with them. The Home Secretary said that the terrorist was not known to the police or to the Prevent programme, so will she advise the House what steps are being taken to address any gaps identified in our preventive measures so that such acts of terrorism cannot happen again?
Shabana Mahmood
The attacker was not known to counter-terror policing and had not been referred to the Prevent programme. Once all the facts are in, we will be able to draw wider lessons. As we did not know him, the question will be: should he have been on our radar? That is a question that I and others in our security services will take seriously. He was, of course, known to the police in the context of those two charges for rape, and the IOPC will now investigate all his history with the police in a non-terror context so that we can draw those wider lessons.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and pay tribute to everyone who helped defeat the attack last week. I also pay tribute to the Home Secretary for the leadership she has shown so early in post, which has been fantastic. In an earlier reply, she lamented the decline in interfaith work across the UK. In Edinburgh, it has never been going stronger. The Edinburgh Interfaith Association does fantastic work to ensure that Edinburgh is an inclusive city. I formally invite her to meet it to learn about its work.
None the less, the Jewish community in Edinburgh are concerned about the rise in antisemitism. I met them last weekend, and I spoke to a young man who is proud to be Jewish but said he could not live his life openly—the phrase he used was that he was “Jewish in the closet”, and I felt ashamed. I welcome the Home Secretary looking at the threshold for hate crime, but will she reassure us that she will be speaking to the devolved Administrations to ensure that we get this right across the UK?
Shabana Mahmood
I will be speaking to all our colleagues in the devolved Administrations. I am happy to discuss with my hon. Friend the wider lessons on interfaith work to be drawn from his own experience.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The horrific terrorist attack at Heaton Park follows a decade during which antisemitism has increased nearly every year, and the CST has confirmed that antisemitism is increasing on university campuses. In York we have two fantastic universities where antisemitism has no place. Will my right hon. Friend commit to working with the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that universities across the country have all they need to root out antisemitism for good?
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
On an inspiring visit this weekend to Bromley Reform synagogue, which serves my constituents in Dartford alongside those of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) and the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), I was moved by the strong views of the congregation rejecting hatred across all religions and communities in our country. Following the Home Secretary’s excellent statement, does she agree that it is vital that we send a message to the Jewish community and every other community in this country that they will be safe and that the Government stand with them?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with my hon. Friend and I hope that that message has been heard today. There is obviously much work for us to do, but the Government will not shy away from doing it.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her powerful statement and send my condolences to those grieving for their loved ones following the horrific terrorist attack, which realised the fears of those in our Jewish community across the country. A Stevenage constituent wrote to me straight after the attack to say how scared she was for her husband, who had gone to do security at Yom Kippur that evening. She also told me that classmates of her son’s had wished he had died in the Holocaust, and that other classmates had talked about antisemitic comments during lessons on the second world war. She also told me about not disclosing the fact that a party for her daughter was for her bat mitzvah because she was scared of the response. These are the fears that our Jewish community are facing. While I welcome all that the Government are doing in their deeds, in law and with resources, the harder thing is how we call out these so-called small acts of antisemitism. They start that way, but where do they end? How can we encourage everyone—all of us—to call them out?
Shabana Mahmood
No act of antisemitism, big or small, is acceptable, and we must all call it out and challenge it wherever we see it. The Government will act. We are already taking measures, and we will take more, to strengthen the response to rising antisemitism in our country. Let me assure my hon. Friend that the testimony from his constituent is devastating for all of us. It is a source of national shame that our fellow citizens feel that they have to hide who they are in this way. We must all commit ourselves to doing everything in our collective power to ensure that our Jewish community can live a full Jewish life here in Britain in the 21st century.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Does she agree that slogans such as “Glory to our martyrs”, “Globalise the intifada” and “Zionists off our streets” are unacceptable and likely to encourage unstable individuals to carry out horrific actions and attacks on the Jewish people such as the one we saw so recently?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me reassure my hon. Friend that I am carrying out a review of the wider legislation on protest and thresholds for hate crime legislation, to ensure that our whole legal framework is as robust as it needs to be, so that we can strike the careful balance between our freedom of protest and freedom of speech, and keeping all our communities safe.
Oral Answers to Questions
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Under this Government, the National Crime Agency has led 347 disruptions of immigration crime networks—its highest level on record, and a 40% increase on the previous year. We are passing legislation to give both the National Crime Agency and law enforcement more powers to arrest those suspected of facilitating people smuggling at a much earlier stage. I was very sorry to see that the hon. Member did not match his rhetoric with real action by voting for those measures when they were before the House.
Lee Anderson
I have it on good authority that the people smugglers in northern Europe are absolutely delighted with Labour’s new Front-Bench team, and especially with the promotion of the hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp), because they know we will get more of the same from this Labour Government. The boats will keep coming, the boats will get bigger and the people smugglers will make more money. What difference is this Home Secretary going to make that the last Home Secretary could not?
Shabana Mahmood
I think the hon. Member has just admitted to having a hotline to a bunch of people smugglers. Perhaps he would like to contact the National Crime Agency and tell it that he is in touch with a bunch of criminals, so that they can be appropriately dealt with. All he and his party have is a bunch of rhetoric and no answers to the problems that the previous Government left behind. It is this Government who will clean up the mess and secure our borders.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Illegal immigration is, by definition, an international crime. That is why it is so important that we work with our allies, such as France, in targeting this issue, which affects our communities. I welcome the Government’s “one in, one out” deal with France, which has the potential to be the most game-changing step in British migration policy in decades. Can the Minister give us an update on how the “one in, one out” deal is going, and has she spoken to her counterparts in France in her new role?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that international co-operation is the key to us securing our borders here at home and assisting our international partners to do the same with theirs. I am already in touch with my French counterparts. That was a landmark agreement, which the Conservatives tried to achieve for many years, but they were all words and no action. It is this Government who struck that landmark deal, and we are working with our partners in France to get the first flights off the ground as soon as possible.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her appointment and I wish her every success. It is in the national interest and the national security interest that this issue is tackled, but her Front-Bench colleagues and the Prime Minister are absolutely wrong to get rid of a deterrent. Notwithstanding all the new policies, all the new Bills, and all the new relabelling and rebadging of organisations, unless there is a deterrent the illegal migrants will continue to cross the channel, as they have done since this Government came to power. When is a deterrent going to be put in place, and what will it look like?
Shabana Mahmood
I welcome the tone of the first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question. It is in our collective national interest that we secure our borders, and I look forward to working with Members from across the House as we get on with that important task. It is important not just to prevent criminality, but to hold our own country together, which is why I have always said I will do whatever it takes.
The Rwanda agreement, which is what the right hon. Gentleman referred to as a deterrent, was nothing of the sort. From the day that agreement was signed to the day it was cancelled, 84,000 people crossed into this country. That shows it was not a deterrent that was ever going to work. I am clear that I will do whatever it takes. I am already considering other measures that will deter people from making that crossing in the first place, and I will update the House in due course.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
Immigration is still a big issue for my constituents—they email about it and it comes up when I am in the pub—but people’s frustration is turning to direct action, and Northampton is now filled with flags. Does the Home Secretary agree that flags are a symbol of our pride in our country, and they should not be hijacked by plastic patriots and those who do not work in our country’s interest?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me be very clear: I understand the strength of feeling across communities in this country about the use of hotels, in particular—the right to protest is an ancient right in this country, and we will protect it—but it is important that we do not slip into rhetoric that incites violence or hatred towards other communities. I love the St George’s flag and I love the Union Jack. Those flags belong to me as much as they do to anybody else, and we must never allow any of our flags to become symbols of division.
Shabana Mahmood
Coming from one of the Conservative Members who, frankly, did nothing across their period in office and who are responsible for the mess I am having to clear up, I think that is a little bit rich. This Government have been absolutely transparent. We will carry on being so, and we will publish all the relevant data at the appropriate time. I am very clear that nobody who tries to game our system will get away with it. We will strengthen our rules, rather than weaken them, which is what we saw under the Conservative party.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Many of those who come to this country by crossing the channel go on to be granted refugee status. Earlier this month, the Government backtracked on their promise to continue with the 56-day move-on period for those granted refugee status, barely weeks after a Home Office Minister assured this House that the policy would last until the end of the year. The move-on period extension was working, in that it was giving refugees time to secure work and housing while shielding local councils from sudden surges in homelessness caused by people being forced out of asylum accommodation too quickly. Halving the move-on period is worse for refugees who want to support themselves, worse for the communities supporting them until they can get on their feet and certainly worse for already stretched council budgets. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is better to do what works, both for refugees and for communities welcoming them, and will she look again at reinstating a policy that worked, rather than chasing headlines?
Shabana Mahmood
I say to the hon. Lady that we are following what is working. Rather than having an arbitrary time period, we are working with local authorities to make sure we have the appropriate move-on period. It is in nobody’s interest that people remain in hotels for longer than is absolutely necessary, and of course this Government will end the use of asylum hotels.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Every day the police make us safer, but the public are rightly concerned that there are crimes that blight their communities and too often go unpunished. We are focusing police on the crimes that matter to local communities. We have delivered the neighbourhood policing guarantee, including a dedicated named officer in each neighbourhood, guaranteed response times and 3,000 more officers by April 2026.
Perran Moon
The Devon-based Devon and Cornwall police and crime commissioner announced months ago, with great fanfare, that Camborne in my constituency would be a focus for her. There has been very little evidence of that increased focus since. She also said that Redruth would not be a focus because it was not a business improvement district. Neighbourhood policing performance in the towns of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle are inextricably linked. Will the Home Secretary meet me and Cornish colleagues to discuss neighbourhood policing across Cornwall?
Shabana Mahmood
I am very sorry to hear about those issues with the police and crime commissioner in my hon. Friend’s local area. It is important that those concerns are listened to. I would be very happy for him to meet the Minister for Policing and Crime, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones).
Mrs Brackenridge
I welcome the action the Government are taking to strengthen neighbourhood policing in Wolverhampton, with 27 additional roles and officers newly allocated or moved back into neighbourhood roles. Fourteen years of cuts have left west midlands police with around 700 fewer officers than in 2010 and a funding formula that short-changes our region by £40 million every year. Will my right hon. Friend commit to reviewing the Tories’ funding formula so my constituency can have the same level of neighbourhood policing and security as other parts of the country?
Shabana Mahmood
As a fellow west midlands Member of Parliament, I of course hear my hon. Friend’s concerns, but she will understand that, as with previous years, decisions on police force funding allocations will be made via the police funding settlement, which is taking place later in the year.
Kevin Bonavia
I commend the Government for their commitment to neighbourhood policing, not least the proposed powers in the Crime and Policing Bill that will empower officers to stop antisocial and illegal e-scooter riding, which has been a dangerous blight across Stevenage town centre. However, does my right hon. Friend not agree that we should be giving police the legislation and guidance they need to keep our local neighbourhoods safe, rather than arresting individuals for posting on social media views that, while considered offensive by some, are nowhere near the bar for inciting criminal behaviour?
Shabana Mahmood
On the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, he is absolutely right about strengthening neighbourhood policing to deal with the concerns he raises. That is why we have brought forward new powers in the Crime and Policing Bill. I agree that it is important that the line between that which is perfectly legal fair comment, even if offensive, and that which is illegal is maintained as strongly as possible. I have already had conversations with senior police officers on this matter, and I am pleased to see statements from, for example, the chief of the Met police. I will be meeting them in more detail to make sure that that line is not crossed, so we can maintain confidence in our police.
Mr Morrison
The Prime Minister promised there would be a summer blitz on antisocial behaviour, with more funding and more community police officers promised for our constituencies, yet this summer in Cheadle village we have seen even more antisocial behaviour in the community. Throughout the summer I was contacted by residents about crime in the area, including police officers attacked, a local school broken into and neighbours threatened for simply asking gangs not to throw rocks at their houses. One of my constituents, Adam, told me it is the worst he has ever seen it. Why did the summer blitz on antisocial behaviour not include Cheadle?
Shabana Mahmood
More than 500 town centres across England and Wales have seen the benefits of that summer initiative. I will ask my officials questions about the hon. Gentleman’s area in particular, but it is an important model that we have trialled this year. We look forward to building on it as we ensure we have the local responses and neighbourhood policing to deal with local concerns, building confidence so that people can enjoy our town centres as they used to do.
Lorraine Beavers
I welcome the Government’s commitment to the neighbourhood policing guarantee to restore bobbies on the beat in our town centres, following 14 years of Conservative cuts that have left our towns and villages at the mercy of shoplifters and antisocial behaviour. Will the Home Secretary outline how Lancashire, and in particular my constituency of Blackpool North and Fleetwood, will benefit from that guarantee?
Shabana Mahmood
The neighbourhood policing guarantee is absolutely critical to dealing with the issues that my hon. Friend raises and to raising confidence more generally. The guarantee will ensure that all areas, including her constituency, will have a named, dedicated officer, guaranteed patrols and reliable response times, and will give communities absolute clarity about local policing priorities.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
How can persistent shoplifters be deterred if short sentences are abolished?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman is asking me a question relating to my previous brief, but he will be pleased to know that I expect the new Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor to set out proposals for dealing with prolific shoplifters in particular, based on some of the conversations and exchanges he and I have had. I know it is a big problem, but the Government will have a response to tackle the scourge of prolific shoplifting.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
I was contacted by constituents yesterday from the Pound Street mosque and Riverside Community Centre mosque who had heard comments from the Unite the Kingdom rally about Islam not being welcome in this country or in Europe. How can neighbourhood policing help to reassure my constituents and the 3.9 million practising Muslims in this country that they have the right to practise their faith without fear?
Shabana Mahmood
Freedom of conscience, religion and belief is a protected freedom in this country; it is part of the rights and responsibilities that we have as citizens of this great nation, and nothing should get in the way of that. Freedom of speech is also protected in this country. There will always be some crossover between those freedoms, but, as I said in answer to a previous question, I am absolutely clear that there is a line between content that is offensive, rude or ill-mannered and incitement, whether to violence or hatred, which is a crime. It is important that we police the line between those types of comments effectively so that everybody in this country can have confidence in our policing system, as well as confidence in exercising their rights under the law of our land.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Last week was Rural Crime Action Week. I recently had an opportunity to join Cambridgeshire constabulary’s rural crime action team to see the work that it does, despite having to cover a huge county of eight constituencies with just 14 officers. Those officers have recently been reallocated from being designated operational support unit officers to neighbourhood policing officers, thus bolstering the number of officers the Government will classify as neighbourhood police and helping them to reach the target of 3,000 officers. However, those officers are neither new nor dedicated neighbourhood police. Can the Home Secretary explain why she is artificially inflating neighbourhood policing numbers by reclassifying those in specialist roles?
Shabana Mahmood
The Government’s policy position is to ensure that the policing resource that we have focuses on neighbourhood policing, because we know that visible neighbourhood policing increases the confidence that communities have in going about their business and helps us to take back our town centres from those who indulge in low-level criminality—which is not low level, because it harms people and their confidence in their own communities. That is why we make no secret and are not ashamed of our neighbourhood policing guarantee.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Very simple question: why are police numbers coming down under a Labour Government?
Shabana Mahmood
This Government are focusing on delivering neighbourhood policing. We are going to have 3,000 neighbourhood police officers by April 2026, with 13,000—as we committed in our manifesto—by the end of the Parliament.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Clearly the balance between the human rights of illegal migrants and the wider public interest is out of kilter. This Government will legislate to limit the application of article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which covers the right to a family life. This will mean that we can deport and remove more illegal migrants, and we will pursue international reform, too. In my previous role, I was already involved in conversations with other member states of the Council of Europe, and this Government will continue that work.
Mr Snowden
I welcome the Home Secretary to her position. Every new appointment comes with an opportunity to take a fresh look at these matters. Clearly, since the 1950s, when the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights were first written, the world has changed significantly. Successive Governments have tweaked various bits, working with partners, but does she agree that if we are to stop the small boats that are crossing the channel and illegal migration, the Government will need a more wholesale change?
Shabana Mahmood
I hope the hon. Gentleman will take a bit of time to look at the speech I made to the Council of Europe just before the summer recess, in which I made a very similar argument to the one he is making. For those of us who are supporters of the convention and who want to see it stand the test of time, we have to recognise that it is a treaty formed many decades ago in a different reality and we should have a conversation about whether it is still fit for purpose. It is a conversation that others in Europe are having, and we are taking a leading role in those discussions. We will pursue international reform and also reform of our domestic legislation.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
By leaving the EU, the Tories tore up our returns agreement with the EU, and they completely failed to negotiate a new one, but this Government have now rectified that. Does the Home Secretary agree that the Tories and Reform are in cloud cuckoo land if they think that the French would have signed a returns deal with us if we had left the European convention on human rights?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right to point out that the fact that we are signed up to the European convention underpins other international agreements that we have with partners. It underpins the Good Friday agreement. It also underpins our treaty with the French on the France returns pilot. That is why we should be responsible in taking forward a conversation on reform of the convention, and that is the approach we are taking. I was taking that approach in my previous role, and I will carry on doing so as Home Secretary.
Mr Speaker
Order. You know the score; you know we have to get through questions. When colleagues do not get in, they will blame the shadow Home Secretary. Please try to help others.
Shabana Mahmood
After that performance, I have to confess that I find myself rather missing the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). The shadow Minister says that we are tinkering at the edges. He could not be more wrong; we have a proper plan for looking at legislative reform. But tinkering at the edges would have been fantastic under the Conservatives, because their track record is that they did nothing—sod all—in 14 years. Suddenly, they have found their reforming instincts now that they are in opposition. This Government will take forward domestic as well as international reform.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
I would like to use this statement to address the subject of this weekend’s events. On Saturday, well over 100,000 protesters marched in London. Many were exercising the ancient right to peaceful protest,—but not everyone did. Some turned on the brave police officers who were there to keep the peace; 26 officers were injured and 24 protesters were arrested. Those violent thugs will face the full force of the law. Those who turned to violence on Saturday do not represent what this country really is. When a foreign billionaire calls on our citizens to fight against our ancient democracy, I know that is met by the vast majority with a shake of the head. That is because we are in truth a tolerant country, and, yes, a diverse one, too. You can be English and have roots here that stretch back 1,000 years, but you can also be English and look like me. The St George’s cross and the Union Jack belong to us all. They are symbols of unity—a kingdom united—and must never be used to divide us.
Bradley Thomas
I welcome the Home Secretary to her position. Does she have plans to introduce a statutory cap on in-bound migration?
Shabana Mahmood
I have one job, and it is to secure our borders. I will do whatever it takes, but what I will never do is take the approach of the previous Government, who were led by gimmicks and false promises that were never met.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary accept that her predecessor was moved because this Government are failing on immigration? Indeed, 75% of the public think that the Government are failing. Illegal migration is up 38%, making this the worst year in history. Let me try again: will the Home Secretary take this opportunity to commit to real action, back our plans to disapply the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to all immigration matters, and immediately remove every illegal immigrant upon arrival?
Shabana Mahmood
I will take no lessons from anyone sitting on the Conservative Benches. Their Government utterly failed on both legal and illegal migration. This Government, and this Home Secretary, will clean up their mess.
Chris Philp
The Home Secretary has some brass neck. This has been the worst year in history, with illegal migration up by 38%. Press reports this week suggest that a handful of illegal migrants might be removed to France—she has been silent about that so far—but that amounts to only 5% of people crossing. Does she accept that allowing 95% of illegal immigrants to stay will be no deterrent, and will she commit to publishing full data on a weekly basis?
Shabana Mahmood
On the subject of brass neck, I will have to buy the shadow Home Secretary a mirror, so that he can stare at one. As I said, I will not take any lessons from him or any Conservative. This Government have got removals up to 35,000, got asylum decisions moving again, and struck an historic agreement with France. We are working with our partners in France to get flights off the ground.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
This weekend, as the Home Secretary said, Elon Musk used a rally to call—alongside convicted criminal, so-called Tommy Robinson—for the Dissolution of Parliament, and to incite violence on our streets. Given the seriousness of a high-profile figure apparently urging attacks on our democracy, what assessment has the Home Office made of these statements, and what steps are being taken across Government to respond to them, and to protect our democracy?
Shabana Mahmood
There is both a legal question here and a political question. On the legal question, in all cases, including the one that the hon. Lady raises, it is for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to decide independently whether the law has been broken and charges should be brought. We would never expect a Minister to comment on that; it would be improper to do so. On the political question, let me say this: the words that were used at the weekend are abhorrent, and I know that the vast majority of people in this country will feel the same way. Whether you are a hostile state or a hostile foreign billionaire, no one gets to mess with British democracy.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Shabana Mahmood
That definition sought to give context to patterns of behaviour. Let me be clear for the hon. Gentleman and the whole House: there is absolutely no excuse for, or hiding of, the criminality of those who engage in heinous crimes such as those involving rape or grooming gangs. That is why the Government will take forward the Casey recommendations and have that national inquiry. He knows that the Government are working with a working group on a definition of Islamophobia. We have been absolutely clear that we will not pursue any measures that would impinge on our ancient right of freedom of speech.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
Ensuring that our town centres are safe, vibrant and welcoming is hugely important in Clwyd North. I warmly welcome the Government’s safer streets summer initiative in Rhyl and Colwyn Bay. From walkabouts I have done recently with local police, it is clear that a strong community police presence is crucial to tackling antisocial behaviour where it arises. Will the Home Secretary ensure that North Wales police have all the resources they need all year around in Rhyl, Denbigh, Abergele and Colwyn Bay to help build back our town centres?
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Home Secretary and her team to their places. The Home Secretary will be aware of the recent horrific attack and rape of a Sikh woman in Oldbury, in my constituency, who reportedly had racist abuse directed at her. The case is being treated as a hate crime and a suspect is under arrest. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to support West Midlands police in securing justice in the case, and to address the wider concerns of the Sikh and other ethnic minority communities regarding the increase of racism in the public discourse, which can lead to targeted violence and damage community safety?
Shabana Mahmood
The horror of a sexual assault motivated by race or ethnicity is absolutely appalling. I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning such crimes in the strongest possible terms. On the specifics of the case, it is an ongoing criminal investigation and it is imperative that we allow the justice system to do its work. I urge anyone with any further information about the case to get in touch with West Midlands police as soon as possible. I hope that my hon. Friend and Members across the House will have heard my comments earlier, when I said that this Government will not stand for any incitement to racial hatred or violence. It is imperative and incumbent on all Members of the House to ensure that we all jointly and collectively hold that line.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
In an earlier answer, the Minister referred to the increasing use by police of live facial recognition. While that may well have some effect on tackling crime, it is being used without any legal framework and no national instructions. Will she say when those will be put in place?