Immigration: Earned Settlement
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(3 days, 17 hours 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 would like to make a statement on this Government’s policy of earned settlement.
A little over a month ago, at the Labour party conference, I promised that we would adopt a policy on this issue that is guided above all by fairness—fairness towards those who come here legally and play their part, and fairness towards British citizens, already here, who should not be asked to bear a greater burden. Fairness matters to me, because it matters to my family. Over 50 years ago, my parents came to this country from rural Kashmir. They came here knowing one thing above all else: that they would be treated fairly here. They came from a place where power was often arbitrary, and where the dice were always loaded. They came to this country because they knew that we do things differently here, and that we value, above all else, fair play. It is my responsibility to ensure that our migration system lives up to that ideal, and I believe that doing so depends on a contract between those who come, and those already here. This country welcomes those who seek a new and better life within it, but there is an expectation on those who do, which is that they will play their part, contribute to their community, and become a part of our national life. That is what I think, not despite being a Labour politician, but because I am a Labour politician. If we are to ask our fellow citizens to buy into a system of shared taxation and universal public services, they must know that everyone is playing their part. Solidarity is the precondition for social justice.
Creating a fair migration system demands reform to settlement—the ability to live in this country forever. Settlement confers some of the most valuable rights that this country can offer. At settlement, a migrant receives the right to free education and use of our NHS, and, should they need to fall back on it, the welfare state. Until now, settlement rights have come at five years, almost exclusively as a result of time spent in this country. It has therefore been a right accrued with little expectation of responsibility. I do not believe that this represents true fairness. Instead, I believe those considerable rights should come after responsibilities have been met and a contribution has been made. Settlement should not be automatic; it should be earned.
Today the Government publish a policy called “earned settlement”. It ensures that the period for which someone must live in this country before they settle is determined by the contribution that they have made. It starts by setting out clearly what we consider to be disqualifying criteria: first, a criminal record; secondly, a failure to speak English to a high standard; thirdly, any unpaid debt to the British taxpayer; and finally, a failure to have made three years of national insurance contributions. This is the foundation of settlement—our non-negotiable expectations of anyone who seeks to live here permanently. For those who clear those bars, settlement then varies, based on contribution made, rather than simply time served. This contribution is judged, crucially, not just financially, but also in terms of public service.
A five-year path will remain open to all higher earners on salaries of over £50,000, and those who have contributed to healthcare and education, in professions such as doctor, nurse and teacher. For those who make an exceptional contribution, even faster routes are available. The highest-rate taxpayers, earning over £125,000, will, over the course of their lifetime, contribute £1.5 million. This funds the critical services that many, including the poorest in this country, rely on, so under these reforms, they will be able to apply for settlement after three years, as will those who arrive on our highest talent schemes. Everyone else will be placed on a 10-year path, including all those earning less than £50,000. Settlement will still be available to them; they will simply have to show a sustained contribution to this country, and they will be able to renew their existing temporary visas until that point.
Conditionality runs both ways. Those who commit an immigration breach will see settlement pushed back to 20 years, while those who have claimed benefits must have had five continuous years without falling back on the state before they make their application. A number of groups will see their path to settlement remain as it is today. These include Hong Kong British nationals overseas, members of our armed forces, those with a British connection and those on legacy routes, such as Windrush.
Before we finalised this policy, we first took it to the country through a consultation. Over 200,000 people responded, and I thank them for doing so. Many of the responses were focused on one particular group: social care workers. Between 2022 and 2025, 250,000 people and their dependants arrived on, or switched into, the social care route. They came at a time when the sector was under considerable pressure, following the covid-19 pandemic and the unique challenge of that moment.
It is also the case, however, that this route was abused. The last Conservative Government may have talked of restoring control to our borders, but, in truth, they lost control entirely. Never was this more obvious than when the shadow Home Secretary was an immigration Minister in the Home Office. Delegations were sent across the country to encourage ever more businesses to sponsor foreign workers, with little apparent interest in their suitability to do so. As a result, there was significant abuse of the care route, sometimes because of fraudulent and exploitative companies, and sometimes because individuals came here knowing that there was no job that they could fill.
A fair solution must address both sides of this issue by recognising the service of those who cared for our sick and elderly at a time of immense national need, and also addressing the abuse that was present on this route. The Government’s solution does so in two ways—first, by providing a five-year path to settlement for care workers who lived up to the promise that they made on coming to this country, worked hard and answered our call when we needed them. Those who earned £25,000 a year working in the social care sector, which was the condition of their visa, will therefore be able to settle on their existing five-year path.
The second group, who have not fulfilled the conditions of their visa, represent around a quarter of those who came between 2022 and 2025, or who switched into this route. We will offer them a second chance to make the contribution that they came to this country to make. They will be able to apply for another five-year care visa, and they will not be tied to their old employer, allowing those with rogue sponsors to break away from them. The Government have already stripped around 1,800 exploitative employers of their licences, and we are lifting standards in care with our fair pay agreement across the sector. The Government will help workers to find a new position with a legitimate provider, and we will give them a longer period to do so before their existing visa is curtailed.
There remain tens of thousands of legitimate vacancies in the care sector today, so those who seek a new job in care and have the requisite skills should be able to find one. At the completion of their new five-year visa, those workers will be able to apply for settlement once more. Everyone will have a fair shot at making their contribution, and no one will be punished for the sins of their employer, but we will also preserve the critical element of this reform: settlement must be linked to contribution. The same transitional arrangement will be applied to public sector workers in roles identified by the Migration Advisory Committee in healthcare and education, such as auxiliary nurses. This country has been highly dependent on them, and their contribution will be recognised.
These transitional arrangements apply only to those who joined before this Government published the immigration White Paper in May 2025. After that point, as our consultation shows, the Government’s position of a 10-year path to settlement was widely understood. These are exceptional exclusions for exceptional circumstances, and it remains the case that the rules around settlement are determined when a settlement decision is made, not at the point when someone arrives. That is a long-established position in this country, and it has been tested conclusively in our courts.
The responses to our consultation focused also on settlement rights for refugees. I know that the people of this country wish to continue welcoming genuine refugees; however, I also know that there is nothing fair about allowing unsafe and illegal entry to this country. It is not fair that our borders are run by people smugglers. It is not fair that women and children are dying in the channel. It is not fair that, after historic levels of illegal arrivals, British citizens are paying £4 billion a year to fund asylum support. As we open new safe and legal routes for genuine refugees, we must also discourage dangerous, unsafe and illegal crossings, and settlement plays a key part in that.
We will place those who come to this country on one of our new safe and legal routes on a five-year path to settlement. That is as fast a path as the path for higher earners entering Britain today. At the same time, we will discourage the use of unsafe and illegal routes; the standard qualifying period for all refugees who have not come by a safe and legal route will become 20 years. A further 10 years will be added for those who entered the country by an illegal method, such as by small boat.
We want to promote integration into this country for all those who are here. For that reason, those who enter work or study will be able to earn settlement 10 years earlier. That means that a refugee who did not arrive by small boat and who is working or studying could qualify for settlement after 10 years. Let us not forget that, regardless of the question of settlement, for as long as a genuine refugee requires protection in this country, we will provide it. The British people’s sense of fair play means that they welcome refugees and those who seek to contribute to our society once they are here, but there is nothing fair about incentivising unsafe and illegal routes into this country, and I will not do that.
These reforms are the right thing to do, both morally and financially. A full impact assessment will be completed and published as we implement the reforms. Our changes ensure that those who are net contributors are encouraged to come to this country and stay here. Meanwhile, the cohort who are most likely to impose a cost at settlement must instead seek work and meet the conditions of their visa before they can apply. The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that our reforms will reduce the benefits bill by billions of pounds. This solution is fair for those who come here legally and play their part, and it is fair to British citizens already here, who should not be asked to bear a greater burden.
Earned settlement institutes a new paradigm in our migration system that is long overdue. One of the greatest rights that we can offer now depends on a contribution made and responsibilities met. The right to live in this country forever must now be earned; it will no longer be automatic. That is a fair settlement for all, and I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement.
It took a year for the Home Secretary to build her reputation as tough on immigration, but what took a year to build she has just dismantled in 12 short minutes. I do not judge her by the actions we think she should take; I judge her by what she herself has previously said. She made announcements from the Government Dispatch Box on 20 November last year, and doubled down in a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research on 5 March this year. She repeatedly singled out social care workers as a particular problem. She said on 5 March that fraud in the social care sector was “rife”, with bogus sponsors. She said from the Government Dispatch Box that it was right that “more stringent” restrictions should be applied to social care workers. Now, she stands there and says the exact opposite.
A Home Office document that the Home Secretary published on 5 March said that social care workers alone, because they work on low wages and have brought in many dependants, will cost the taxpayer £10 billion. Those are her figures about social care workers that she specifically chose to publish. She went on to say on 5 March that failing to implement her plans would be
“an affront to the idea of fairness”
in our society. That is exactly what she has done in the changes she has announced today. The Home Secretary now proposes to allow every single care worker and their dependants who arrived prior to May 2025—a number running into hundreds of thousands—to stay in this country beyond the expiry of their visa and, in the case of 75% of them, to stay permanently, even though she acknowledges that many of them arrived fraudulently. How can she justify allowing people who she acknowledges arrived in this country fraudulently to stay forever, at a cost that she herself has admitted is £10 billion? That is the cost of today’s U-turn: £10 billion.
Outside of care workers, many of the so-called highly skilled workers who have arrived recently are not highly skilled at all. The Home Secretary did not mention this in her statement, but in her document she proposes to extend the soft terms on which those workers can stay until 2035, extending the previous sunset by five years. Her own document published today, which she did not refer to, forecasts that a staggering 1.9 million permanent settlement rights will be granted between now and 2030, and a freedom of information request has revealed where some of those people work. German Doner Kebab, a chain of kebab shops, sponsored 106 skilled worker visas. Khans middle eastern restaurant sponsored 28 high-skilled visas. A Domino’s Pizza franchise in South Yorkshire sponsored 78 high-skilled visas—Members get the picture.
Just a year after getting ILR, someone can easily get full citizenship, and we know what that means: benefits, social housing, and free NHS treatment. [Interruption.] When the Home Secretary said in March that failing to implement her changes would be an affront, she was right, but now she has done exactly that. She also plans to give illegal immigrants who have arrived on small boats ILR and citizenship. We disagree with that.
Why has the Home Secretary made those changes? It is because the Housing Secretary—who I notice has run out of the Chamber—the Energy Secretary and the Labour open-borders left oppose what she previously announced. The Home Secretary is no longer running the Government’s immigration policy—the Housing Secretary is—and her position is looking increasingly untenable. The Home Secretary has done no better with her announcements last year than Keir Starmer did with his welfare announcements, and we know what happened to him.
We would go a lot further than the Home Secretary’s previous announcements, although they were a good start. If she wants to implement them in full, we will vote for them, because mass low-skilled migration must end. Those people who came here on a temporary visa and are working in low-skilled, low-wage jobs must leave when their temporary visa expires. We cannot allow them to stay forever, claiming benefits and social housing, yet that is what the proposals today will allow to happen. Ten billion pounds—that is the cost of today’s U-turn.
To those who ask where we will find the workers, I say there are 9 million economically inactive adults in this country. Thanks to this Labour Government’s high-tax, high-regulation policies, there are now a million young people not in education, employment or training. If the Government had the courage to toughen up the welfare system, we would get some of those people into work, instead of relying on mass low-skill migration. If the Home Secretary wants to face down her nemesis, the Communities Secretary, and implement her own plans, we will vote for them. However, if she capitulates to the open borders left, her credibility as Home Secretary will not recover.
Shabana Mahmood
I tell you what is an affront, Mr Speaker, and that is the shadow Home Secretary’s response. He might have amnesia, but given the muted response from those on his Back Benches, they clearly still remember what happened on their watch when they were in government, as does the country. When he was immigration Minister, it was his Government who ran around the country signing up people to become sponsors of foreign workers. He might have complaints about the companies on the register, but it was his Government who signed them up. Perhaps an apology for that would have been appropriate. His Government were responsible for a number of arrivals in four years that we had previously seen in four decades. Before he starts trying to lecture anybody about being tough on immigration, perhaps an apology for his Government’s abject track record would be appropriate.
It is this Government who have cut net migration by 82%, and it is this Government, with me as Home Secretary, who have found a fair solution to the mess left behind by the shadow Home Secretary and his colleagues. He talks about the cost of those who will be settling. If he had been paying attention to my fair solution and the detail in the response to the consultation document, he would know that the cohort most likely to impose a cost will now, as a result of my measures, wait longer for settlement. That is why the DWP says that these measures will save billions in the benefits bill. Half a million people will settle later as a result of these reforms. That is a fair solution to the mess I inherited from the Conservatives.
The shadow Home Secretary talked about the arrangements for those workers on low pay who were allowed by previous Conservative Governments to extend their visas up to 2030. That was in order to allow them to attain settlement in 2030. To honour the promise made by the previous Government, I have extended that period to 2035, reflecting the changes in the earned settlement consultation. Again, that is a fair solution, honouring promises made previously—there are also exceptional cohorts and exceptional circumstances—in order to clean up the mess left behind by the Conservatives.
I could answer more detailed questions, but apart from political rhetoric, the shadow Home Secretary had nothing else to say, so I have nothing more to say to him.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
It is extraordinary that the Opposition see migration issues as some kind of political football. We are talking about people’s lives, and whatever idea one has about policy and programmes, I think people’s lives deserve more seriousness. It is right that care workers are exempted from the new arrangements for ILR, but for the rest of the workforce, the retrospective nature of those new arrangements still seems unfair. People can come in legally and work legally, and then have their residency rights turned upside down. How can that be fair? May I ask the Home Secretary whether she has read the 276-page “lessons learned review” on the Windrush scandal, published by the Home Office in 2018? If she had read it, she would realise that she is in danger of finding herself in the same position as Home Secretaries who were in office at the time of that scandal.
I have heard Members of this House talk about people coming here just to claim welfare. I have heard Members of this House say that people are not making a contribution. I have heard Members of this House say that we have to look at the rights of British nationals as opposed to migrants, as if many British nationals were not themselves immigrants. My parents were immigrants. My mother was a nurse. She was one of that generation who came to this country to build the NHS after the war, and it remains the case that immigrants play a very important role in our NHS. I say to the Home Secretary, and I say to the House, that we should always remember the contribution that immigrants made and continue to make to our society.
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with my right hon. Friend about the contribution made by immigrants. As she knows, and as I said in my statement, I too was a child of migrants, and that experience informs the way in which I think about policy and how to strike the right balance between all the different communities in our country, which is what I have sought to do. As for indefinite leave to remain and what she calls the “retrospective nature” of the changes, she will know that I do not agree with that characterisation. Any Government must be able to make changes in immigration rules to reflect things that are happening, to reflect abuses that we can see in the system, and must also be able to make additional changes based on assessment of numbers and costs. As I said in my statement, that has always been the case. These matters have been litigated before in our courts, and the courts have upheld the principle that the rules that apply to settlement applications are those that apply at the point of application and decision, not the point at which a person entered the country. That is an important principle that will be upheld, and is upheld by the changes that we are making.
I have heard a number of people try to suggest that these settlement changes are akin to what we saw during the Windrush scandal. Again, respectfully, I disagree with my right hon. Friend on that. The issue relating to the people who were caught up in the Windrush scandal made it a scandal precisely because the country already had obligations to those people relating to their right to be in this country, and failed to honour the obligation that we already had. That is different from the position of workers arriving in this country on temporary work visas, and the rules that apply to them for settlement itself. The two are not the same. Let me, however, assure my right hon. Friend that I will always be mindful of the lessons that were revealed during the Windrush scandal, and I will make sure that those lessons are learnt.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a year since the Home Secretary’s initial statement on her immigration reforms, and we still disagree with the Government and with the official Opposition. Just as we predicted, the Government’s immigration reforms are unravelling. By prioritising tough rhetoric rather than a system that works, the Home Secretary has apparently split her party and the Cabinet, and has alienated people on all sides. Viewing immigration simply as a matter of raw numbers and images of small boat arrivals is degrading the nation’s ability to engage in the informed national discussion that we need. Immigration reforms must of course bring greater control, and they must prevent small boat crossings too, but, crucially, they must also serve our economy and public services.
The Home Secretary previously claimed that ILR for care workers will cost us £10 billion. The shadow Home Secretary made much of that today, yet the IPPR, using the same methodology, estimates that the net benefit of skilled migrants settling in the UK under the current rules is £115 billion. Will the Home Secretary publish the full economic impact of the changes that she is suggesting?
As the Prime Minister has acknowledged, being an EU member brought more order to our migration system. It prevented small boat crossings, and it meant that many who came to work here went home again in due course. This is not all down to the Government; they simply would not be considering today’s changes to ILR if it was not for the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal and the record levels of immigration that they allowed while promising lower numbers. It is no wonder so many people in this country are confused. Now that the Conservatives are the official Opposition, their No. 1 policy on immigration is leaving the European convention on human rights.
But something does not add up. The Conservatives tell us also that their Brexit deal is settled and must never be reviewed. The fact is that the Brexit deal they negotiated with the EU would be ended if this country left the European convention on human rights, which would send the UK into further chaos. [Interruption.] They look confused and are disputing this, but perhaps that is because Conservative MPs have no idea what they are actually arguing for. Either they are misinformed, or they are misleading the public.
I turn back to this Government. Today I have two further questions for the Home Secretary. First, why does she think that so many of her Back Benchers disagree with her about immigration? My second question relates to Europe. Our future clearly lies closer to Europe, which will bring opportunities to fix our migration system, so why does the Home Secretary disagree so strongly with the Prime Minister about this?
Shabana Mahmood
That was a classic Lib Dem response: all very “I agree that this is a problem, this is a problem and this is a problem, but, but, but—”, which leads to no solutions whatsoever. Again, I am not going to engage with ridiculous political rhetoric. We consulted, and I have presented the House with a fair solution that does right by all the different cohorts—those who came to this country and those who are already here—recognising the exceptionality of care workers in particular, given that they arrived at a very specific post-covid moment when they were needed for gaps in our care sector. I think that is a fair settlement, and it has taken place after a genuine consultation. Usually, the Lib Dems are so in favour of consultations. They should be applauding the fact that this was a genuine one. We asked questions, we have considered the responses, and we have formulated the policy as a result of those responses.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the recent IPPR report. He is right to say that it uses the same methodology that I have used before, but he failed to say that the report looks at a totally different cohort of people in order to talk about the numbers. Perhaps he would like to go back and look at the detail. I am happy to engage with him once he has acknowledged the difference in cohorts.
The hon. Gentleman made some points about the EU. It is another classic Lib Dem thing to assume that all these matters relate only to our post-Brexit reality, but settlement is a policy of this Government and all our predecessor Governments. It is a right conferred on people, who then obtain the right to live in this country permanently. It is right that this Government consider what the rules should be, just as every previous Government have done. He will know that after we left the European Union, over 5 million European citizens settled in this country under the EU settlement scheme. That is another of our post-Brexit consequences. I am always happy to discuss with him the position in relation to the EU, but I do not think that has anything to do with settlement.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I welcome this statement and its greatly imaginative measures. I particularly welcome the fact that care workers will have a second opportunity to apply for indefinite leave to remain. Does the Home Secretary agree that the care workers whom we welcome to this country are every bit as valuable as the highly paid doctors, entrepreneurs and industrialists who come here with high salaries?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with my hon. Friend. In acknowledgement of the very specific circumstances of the care worker cohort and their unique position in relation to the covid-19 pandemic, we have the transitional arrangement for care workers who arrived before May 2025. He is right to say that it is appropriate to give a second chance to those who have been unable to meet the requirements of their visa, who would normally be expected to leave the country. They now have a second chance at gaining employment in the care sector with a legitimate employer and a chance to meet the visa conditions, so that they can once again consider settlement in another five years’ time.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Home Secretary is right to say that government is about a social contract, and I can see where she is coming from. Some of us do not have amnesia. Many of us were putting this to our then Government in that period in 2023, and anybody who was serving as a Home Office Minister at that time should wear sackcloth and ashes. Frankly, as a party, we will never move on until we accept that—although there was a very difficult situation after covid.
I still worry about a couple of things. I am still not entirely clear why, apart from political pressure, the Home Secretary is watering down her proposals from last time, if she is. I can see what she is trying to get at with care workers earning their right, but surely we should establish the firm principle that people have to have come here honestly to work in the care system and go on working. My last point is that I agree with her that, if people come here illegally, they should not be allowed to claim an indefinite right to stay until after 20 years, but are we going to have people in hotels for 20 years? Surely this underlines the fact that we have to arrest people, detain them and return them, otherwise there is no deterrent.
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with the Father of the House: it is high time that his Front Benchers took responsibility for the reality of their Government’s time in office—something that the shadow Home Secretary once again failed to do today.
On care workers in particular, this reflects the consultation responses and the recognition of the unique circumstances of that cohort—not just with what they were asked to do in the post-pandemic period, but that this route was subject to a huge amount of abuse. The Home Office has revoked the sponsor licences of over 1,800 employers, primarily from the care sector. Recognising that, if there are people in this country today who came in on this visa and have fulfilled its terms—they have their £25,000 a year earnings and are with an employer in the care sector—they will be able to settle. That is also why we are providing a second chance to make that contribution to those who have not been able to meet the terms of their visa. I think that is a fair settlement; it gives a second chance to those who were exploited, but does not create a new immediate right to settle for those who were not able to fulfil the terms of their visa.
On those who have arrived in this country illegally, the Father of the House will know that, in addition to the new core protection model, which means that people cannot settle before 20 years, we will be creating the work and study route, which will allow those integrating into this country by working or studying to settle earlier. Again, I think that is the right thing to do.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s focus on fairness. People know that this country has a set of rules, and we all should adhere to them, whether we arrive in this country or are born here.
The Home Secretary raised the matter of English language. Many people have settled already, and some have come in as spouses, without good English. This is a very gendered issue, with many women in particular trapped because they do not have access to English. Is she working with colleagues across Government and society generally to make sure that better English language teaching is available, so that people are not excluded and are able to participate fully?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point, and she is right to talk about the gendered nature of those who are able to access English learning in this country. This Government have raised the English level expected of most migrants coming into this country, including refugees, apart from those on the UK resettlement route, precisely because we believe a good standard of English is absolutely critical to the ability of people to integrate fully into this country. Let me assure her that those cross-Government conversations are happening, and I would be happy to meet her in order to provide her with an update in due course.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The Home Secretary will know that the Committee conducted a piece of deliberative democracy work, in which we worked with the public to find out their attitudes to people who are coming in on work visas. It was very clear that the public want skills training so that those in the domestic population can take vacancies. Can she confirm what work she is doing across Government to make sure there is appropriate skills training for those who are here to take the jobs available, and can she confirm when she expects the new provisions to start?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the Chair and the Home Affairs Committee for their work in this area. I will be responding officially to their recent report on settlement. She will know that I have waited until this policy was settled, but I will set out the Government’s full response to the Committee’s very good work in this area, for which I thank it.
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right about the need to make sure that domestic workers can access the skills they need to get jobs that are available in this country. She will know that I am flanked by many members of the Government, including the Secretary of State for Education, who is very alive to the issues of skills and training, as are my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions and elsewhere. That will be an important piece of work, especially in the care sector where the Government have already recognised that there is a need for an improvement in pay and conditions for care workers, with our fair pay agreement expected by 2028; that is a recognition that things need to change in that sector to make it more attractive to domestic workers as well. So let me assure the right hon. Lady on that point.
The changes that have been announced will begin to be laid from the December immigration rules. They will be implemented over the course of 2027. I will be providing impact assessments and other detailed guidance as the changes are rolled out.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
A large number of people from Hong Kong have chosen to make Stockport and Greater Manchester their home, and they make an invaluable contribution to our town and city region. Many of them have been worried over the last couple years about potential upcoming changes to indefinite leave to remain. I have met many of them over the last few months. What more can the Secretary of State say to reassure the people from the Hong Kong community who have used the British national overseas visa scheme that they are welcome in this country and that they will have a fair shot in terms of ILR?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me confirm to my hon. Friend that those who arrived on the BNO route are exempt from these changes. He knows that they have to meet the minimum requirements for English language, as well as no criminality and so on, but he should also know that the over-65s are exempt from the change in relation to English, which I think also provides a fair resolution for those who arrived on that route.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
A Home Secretary clearing up the mess of her immediate predecessor—who would have thought it? When I brought through changes to the visa regime, the chorus of disapproval from the then Opposition, who now sit on the Government Benches, was deafening. She has already conceded that her proposals are not as robust as the announcement she made this time last year, so what confidence can the House or the country have that she will not further water down the proposals she has announced today as they go through the legislative process?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me say to one of my many predecessors as Home Secretary that the proposals I have announced today are far, far more robust than everything he and his Government left behind. It is their mess that this Government have been cleaning up. The right hon. Gentleman will know that both myself and my immediate predecessor as Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), are responsible for a number of changes, including: closing the care worker route to overseas workers; the requirement for sponsors to be Care Quality Commission rated; suspending family reunion for refugees while we settle family migration policy as we go into next year; and raising salary thresholds. This Government —both myself and my predecessor—have been taking the action that is needed and that is why net migration is down 82%.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
Those who come to our country and genuinely work in our care sector, looking after our elderly and vulnerable, do our country a great service. However, some are unfortunately working in poor conditions. They are exploited and underpaid partly due to the current sponsorship system. Will the Home Secretary seriously consider looking at an umbrella sponsor system, working with the Department of Health and Social Care?
Shabana Mahmood
I have had discussions with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. She is also very clear that conditions for employers in the care sector must improve and that there should be minimum standards in future. She is undertaking that work, and it will be part of the wider reforms to the care sector that the Government are undertaking. What I have undertaken to ensure that the immigration system reflects any changes made to improve standards in the care sector and that we will follow those changes. It would be in appropriate for us, as an immigration Department, to change licensed routes ourselves without the wider work required, which the Health Secretary is undertaking, to improve the functioning of the care sector. Once that work is complete, I will make the relevant changes.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I proposed an amendment to our recent report on earned settlement that included a plea to only make changes to indefinite leave to remain for those not already embarked on the pathway to settlement. While my amendment was defeated, only three Labour MPs on the Committee voted against it, with four other Labour colleagues voting with me or abstaining. In the statement, which I applaud and welcome, the Home Secretary rightly lauds the UK’s reputation for playing fairly, so will she join the Liberal Democrats in agreeing not to make any retrospective changes to the time required to achieve indefinite leave to remain for all those already on pathways to settlement, not only care workers—or do other contributions not count?
Shabana Mahmood
I will repeat for the hon. Member an answer that I have given many times, including to the Home Affairs Committee. I profoundly disagree with the hon. Member’s point: it is a long-established principle that the rules that apply to an application are those that are in place at the point of decision, not at the point when somebody arrived in the country. I am afraid that to go down that road would render this and all future Governments unable to manage the migration system effectively. It would be the wrong step. It is not a step required of us by our legal system and courts, and we will not be taking it.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Because of the nature of my constituency, I work with a large number of people who come here—often on the boats—and their families as well, and the years of waiting for security have an impact on their mental health. I would like some clarity on the third paragraph of page 4 of the Home Secretary’s statement, where she says:
“The standard qualifying period for all refugees who have not come by a safe and legal route will become 20 years. A further 10 years will be added for those who entered the country by an illegal method, such as by small boat.”
I have not misread that. Does it meant that earned settlement could take 30 years for some people?
Shabana Mahmood
Yes, that is right. We consulted on whether an additional period should apply to those who arrive in the country through unlawful means, such as by boat or on the back of a lorry, and there was an overwhelmingly positive response. My right hon. Friend will know that the Government wish to incentivise people to enter the country through safe and legal means. As I said in my statement, there is nothing fair about our border system being run by people smugglers.
Several hon. Members rose—
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
One of the criteria to gain long-term settlement rights that the Home Secretary set out was no debt being owed to the state. What does that look like in reality? I have advocated for a student loan-style system for debts to be repaid. Will the Home Secretary address what steps she is taking to abolish the impact of rogue sponsors, namely chicken shops, Turkish barbers and vape shops, which all exist in plain sight and are an acute problem in the illegal immigration web?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Member is right to acknowledge that there is a huge explosion in the number of people on the sponsorship register—that happened under the previous Government—and I will set out policy for how we resolve issues within the register. The hon. Member will already know that we are revoking licences where appropriate and where somebody should not be able to bring workers into this country. The debt the hon. Member references will include NHS, tax and litigation debt. For refugees, it will also include asylum support—either the payment of asylum support costs or at least for someone to be complying with a payment plan.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham Yardley) (Lab)
Victims of domestic abuse who have come over as dependants can currently apply for settlement immediately. Will that change under the new rules?
Shabana Mahmood
It will not change. Victims of domestic abuse will still be able to obtain immediate settlement.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Like the Home Secretary, I come from an immigrant family that came here legally, but I fail to understand why she thinks not being able to get settled status for 20 or even 30 years will deter people from coming here illegally, provided that there is no prospect of them being removed from the country because of laws like the European convention on human rights?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman and I disagree on the ECHR—a debate we have had many times. The time period in which someone attains settlement should both reflect the means by which they came to the country and incentivise the behaviour that we want to see, which is people working or studying, contributing to society, and taking steps to integrate. That will have an impact on the behaviour of everyone who comes to this country, whether they have come on a work visa or are in the asylum system. It is a fair solution for everyone.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. She will be aware of my ongoing concerns with regard to Turkish businesspeople who have made their life in the UK after entering under the European communities association agreement, also known as the Ankara agreement. Will she set out how today’s announcement affects that group?
Shabana Mahmood
I can confirm that those who arrived under the ECAA, which is a closed route that reflects the particular agreement that we were part of then, will face no changes to their settlement—they are outside the scope of earned settlement.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I have constituents who are waiting on the five-year route to ILR, who have brought their spouses and children with them to this country and taken on high-skilled, high-paying roles. Their spouses will now have to apply separately and will be on a 10-year scheme. If their children reach adulthood before both spouses have achieved ILR, they will not be eligible to remain in this country, despite having been here since childhood. Can the Home Secretary give any reassurance to those families in my constituency who are deeply worried about their children being left without citizenship?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Member has probably not yet had the opportunity to look at the chapter on dependants within the consultation response, so let me reassure her that we have confirmed that the position on children is largely unchanged. Spouses will normally settle at the same time as the main applicant if they arrive at the same time; if they arrive after the main applicant, they will do the same time period. Looking at income—we consulted specifically on this point—we have also said that for those on lower incomes, or to reflect the fact that one partner might take time out for caring responsibilities, combined household income can be used rather than individual income.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for the changes she has announced today, but questions remain about the impact of these changes on children in particular. Children are not responsible for the choices of their parents, and we must ensure that they do not face greater poverty or instability as a consequence of any changes. The Home Secretary did not say much about children in her statement today. I have had a brief look through the consultation response, but I have a few specific questions. First, will she publish a child rights impact assessment ahead of implementation? Secondly, will she provide greater clarity on the situation for children, including whether the existing private—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Marvellous. I call the Home Secretary.
Shabana Mahmood
Again, I appreciate the fact that not everybody will have had a chance yet to look at the whole consultation response, so I say to my hon. Friend that the position on children is largely unchanged. The rules about whether applicants have been here for seven years or the majority of their life in order to be able to settle still apply, and children will normally settle when both of their parents get ILR, which is the same position as today.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
What a missed opportunity to strengthen the rules, strengthen the illegal immigration policy and strengthen our borders. How can the Home Secretary reasonably think this is fair to the British people?
Shabana Mahmood
I think that was actually a missed opportunity to apologise, which nobody on the Opposition Benches has done.
Ms Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. As she knows, I have written to her about this matter, and I have met migrant workers in my constituency. She has mentioned that the Health Secretary will be carrying out a review looking particularly at fraudulent and exploitative companies, and I urge the Home Secretary to ensure that strong, robust action is taken against these companies to deter their behaviour. I would also like reassurance that the Home Secretary will meet migrant workers as part of this consultation and this review to ensure that their concerns are addressed.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I think I have covered the immigration aspects in today’s statement, but it is the case that exploitative and rogue employers have had their licences revoked. My colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade have agreed that the Fair Work Agency will look specifically at the care sector and the behaviour of employers within it. My colleagues in the Health Department are looking at the wider reforms that are needed for the care sector, and the Minister for Social Care and Mental Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), has kindly agreed to meet my hon. Friend on that.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I was hoping when I turned up today that I would hear the Home Secretary say that she was abandoning all the proposals around ILR. While it is positive that she has responded to the cross-party campaign on social care workers, she still has a long way to go to address the unfairness at the heart of these proposals. The un-British retrospectivity is still in place, and those who thought they had a contract with the UK will still be let down. When is she going to be positive about immigration, including its economic benefits and the value that it brings to our communities?
Shabana Mahmood
I have literally been talking about the positive impacts of migration, including for me personally—I would not be in this country were it not for migration into this country. As for what the hon. Gentleman has to say about the ability of the Government to change the rules, no Government would be able to run an effective migration system if they followed his approach. We will not be doing that. This is a long-settled position that has been upheld by the courts, so we are fully compliant with our legal obligations. The Government have set out a fair policy for all.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I would like to ask a question on behalf of a constituent of mine who has been in touch today. He came across the world from Pakistan to Islington to work as a care worker nearly five years ago, so he is greatly relieved that he will be able to get his ILR quickly and that his family will get some security. But that family has now been joined by a little boy with a rare genetic condition. Can the Home Secretary confirm whether the family will be able to apply for additional support once dad has got his ILR, or will it be necessary for them to wait until he is actually a citizen?
Shabana Mahmood
If my right hon. Friend’s constituent has met the terms of his visa, as I set out in my statement he will be able to apply for indefinite leave to remain at five years. At the point of settlement, people are able to access the benefits system.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Restricting access to public funds to those with settlement rights will most likely require primary legislation. When will such a Bill be brought forward?
Shabana Mahmood
The Government are not restricting benefits for those with settlement rights. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that not only does that require primarily legislation, but it would create two-tier settlement rights. The rules on no access to public funds apply before somebody can achieve settlement to make sure that those who have had to fall on the state to seek assistance are still working for a period before they apply for settlement.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is heartening to hear the Home Secretary dispel the lump of labour fallacy that people who come to this country simply take jobs. She is talking about the benefits of people coming to this country through immigration, and that is welcome, but if we are to help our constituents understand the new scheme that she is proposing, we do need some clarity. If I understand rightly, around 200,000 people who are working but do not earn more than £50,000, do not have a British spousal connection and are not working in the care sector or public sector—scientists, researchers or skilled technicians, for example—will now face a 10-year wait to get settlement in this country. She says that there is going to be an economic impact assessment. Does she expect these proposals to have a positive or negative impact on our economy?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend mentions number of different professions. It will depend on entry levels and whether they fall within a transitional arrangement, but the default period for settlement has moved from five years to 10 years. I do expect there to be economic benefits, not least the billions saved to the Department for Work and Pensions from people waiting longer before they are able to access benefits.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
By allowing those with more money to jump the queue and receive earned settlement status faster, these changes amount to an attack on lower-paid workers and, by extension, lower-paid British-born people too. Time and again the working classes, whatever their nationality or migration status, have been looked down on and left behind. Does the Home Secretary agree that her changes send a clear message to people who have come here or people who have been born here that they are worth less if they do not earn enough?
Shabana Mahmood
I reject that entirely. First of all, lower-paid British workers are already British; they do not need settlement in their own country. In this policy, including with all its transitional arrangements, the Government have recognised public service alongside earnings for faster pathways to settlement. I ask her to bear in mind that the highest earners pay the highest in tax, and it is our taxpayers’ money that funds the public services that we all rely on. We have found a solution that is fair for everybody, rewarding those who make the biggest contribution, including in public service roles.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I welcome the fair solution for existing migrant care workers, because they did nothing but respond to a need for their labour that was caused by our care recruitment crisis, which was caused by low wages and inadequate training. What are the Government doing cross-departmentally to prevent future care recruitment crises? How will the contribution of care workers be weighted in the framework in future for those who have arrived or will arrive after May 2025?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for that. The Health Secretary and her team are working hard on all the reforms needed to ensure that the care sector is functioning properly, including a workforce plan, which I believe is due before Christmas, and the fair pay agreement that will be in place in 2028. My hon. Friend knows that the Government also have the wider Louise Casey review on the country’s care needs and how they can be met. Taken together, all that work means a fundamental change to how the care sector works in this country.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
It is weeks since I wrote to the immigration Minister, but I have not had a response—out of generosity of spirit, I will say that the Government have been busy—so I will take this opportunity to invite the Home Secretary to come to the proposed site in Linton-on-Ouse. It is an integrated village. If the Home Secretary were to come and see it for herself, I think she would be quite shocked. I do so in the full, open spirit of working co-operatively—I do not even mind if I cannot be there on the day. I really want the Home Secretary to come to site with the Linton-on-Ouse action group and to see for herself just how inappropriate it is.
Shabana Mahmood
I hear the passionate point that the right hon. Member makes as a constituency Member of Parliament. He will know that no decision has yet been made, and I will ensure that his letter is responded to promptly. He will also know that the Government have saved a billion pounds a year by closing asylum hotels and that we will go further to close all asylum hotels in this Parliament. As we do so, it is important that we move to a new model of providing asylum accommodation that includes more use of military sites. However, as I said in relation to the specific site he mentioned, no decision has yet been made.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
This country owes those in the Gurkha regiment a debt of thanks for their continued service. Will the Secretary of State outline what will happen to them and their dependants with these changes?
Shabana Mahmood
I can confirm that the position for Gurkhas is the same as for all of those in our armed forces—they have their own bespoke route to settlement, which is usually four years after service—and they are exempt from the changes we have made today.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Does the Home Secretary believe that it is fair to change the rules retrospectively for people who are not earning in excess of £50,000 but nevertheless have built careers, raised families and paid taxes based on the settlement pathway that existed when they arrived? Does this not violate the British value of fairness and risk real damage to our economy and our social fabric?
Shabana Mahmood
I absolutely disagree. I simply repeat the point that I have made to many hon. Members on the Lib Dem Benches: a Government need to be able to change the immigration system rules to reflect emerging circumstances. If they had their way, the immigration system would be in absolute chaos. The resolution that we have found between the different cohorts, including those who will now be eligible for a transitional arrangement, represents a fair solution for everyone.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I commend my right hon. Friend for consulting so widely in developing the earned settlement proposals and for listening to the representations of care workers in particular. I must express my astonishment at the refusal of Conservative Members to accept moral, social, financial or political responsibility for their failed immigration policies.
These proposals will nevertheless adversely affect many. May I raise in particular early career researchers—postdocs and so on—who will not be earning £50,000 a year but will be contributing to our scientific understanding? Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss the impact on our science base?
Shabana Mahmood
I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend and will happily discuss those issues with her, but with the proposals that the Government have set out—including the transitional arrangements for those cohorts in health and education, given our reliance on foreign labour in those two sectors and the Migration Advisory Committee’s specific treatment of them—I think that we have found a fair resolution for everyone.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The list of public sector jobs eligible to apply for the five-year settlement route does not appear to include prison officers. What assessment has the Home Secretary made of the effect that these changes will have on the crisis-hit Prison Service?
Shabana Mahmood
The list does not include prison officers, because the transitional arrangements apply to those cohorts of workers that the Migration Advisory Committee recognises on national pay scales in health and education for the purposes of the immigration rules. The right hon. Lady will know that it is a very small number of prison officers who will settle at 10 years, but let me confirm to her and the House that I have been discussing these measures with the Secretary of State for Justice and I will do everything I can to make sure that the Prison Service has the labour it needs in the future.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. The previous Conservative Government’s approach to net migration can at best be described as marrying in haste and repenting at leisure, so will the Home Secretary please assure my Carlisle constituents that the new settlement rules will ensure that future immigration is built on a long-term commitment and not on impulsive short-term fixes?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let me also say that “repent at leisure” would apply if there was, in fact, any repentance from the Conservatives.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The Home Secretary has said that anyone exploiting or abusing the system must be penalised, and I suspect the whole House would agree with that. Prestige Dental Services has more than 500,000 patients across the west midlands region and sponsors more than 40 skilled dental workers. Last week, it had its licence revoked, not because of exploitation or abuse but because of an admin error in relation to three of the 40 employees. Will the Home Secretary please look into this matter urgently, so that those 500,000 patients are not put at risk?
Shabana Mahmood
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me about that specific case, he is welcome to do so. I would caution anybody about making assumptions on why a licence is revoked. I am sure that if it was a mere admin error, that will be looked at, but licence revocations have happened in record numbers because, under the approach taken by the previous Government, there was a desire to sign people up without much expectation of what standards they should meet.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
I supported the Home Secretary’s original proposals and the tougher measures she has been taking since she came into post. I am also pleased that she made the point clearly about disqualification because of a criminal record. Has any assessment been made by the Department of how many of these care workers will remain in the care sector after the qualifying period?
Shabana Mahmood
The majority of visa holders who responded to the consultation were care workers, and roughly 50% of them said that once they had achieved settlement, they would look to leave the care sector. I think that that is down to a recognition that they would be able to get higher-paid jobs elsewhere. That is why colleagues across Government, including in the Department of Health and Social Care, are looking carefully at lifting standards in the care sector in such a way that people will wish to remain in the sector and we will be able to recruit other workers into the sector.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Will migrants who come to this country and set up legitimate small businesses that employ people who pay taxes be advantaged under the scheme that the Home Secretary has announced for earned settlement, or will they be excluded because they are not working people, according to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s definition announced this weekend?
Shabana Mahmood
They will need to meet the terms of their visa, which is the most important measure in ensuring that people who have come here on certain terms fulfil the contribution they were supposed to make.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
There was a certain irony in the shadow Home Secretary lecturing the House on who should be defined as highly skilled. He was certainly highly skilled at opening asylum hotels, including the one in my constituency. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the proposals she has made today, along with the other work she is doing in the Department, will mean that that hotel is closed by the end of this Parliament?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me assure my hon. Friend that the Government have already closed a number of asylum hotels. We have made £1 billion-worth of savings in asylum accommodation, and we will fulfil our manifesto commitment to close all hotels in this Parliament.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
I respect the Home Secretary, but these are not the reforms that she wanted. When she said that the Boris wave was destabilising and unprecedented, and that it would cause incalculable damage, she was absolutely right. The Boris wave was the worst public policy failure of the 21st century, and now she risks locking it in for generations to come. When the last Conservative Prime Minister—my Prime Minister—ignored my advice on immigration, I resigned. Her Prime Minister has ignored her advice on immigration, and the damage is going to be disastrous for this country. Why has she not considered her position?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman could also do with more honesty and contrition about his track record, including on the difference between some of the positions he took when he was a Minister in the Tory Government and those that he takes now. I simply say to him that the package of reforms I have announced today, as set out in the consultation document, represent a fair solution for all the cohorts that are caught by the new earned settlement proposals. We have made targeted exemptions where the circumstances justify them. It is this Government that are cleaning up the mess we inherited from the previous lot.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
The Home Secretary is right to set out fairness as the guiding principle for her reforms. Does she accept that contribution and integration, which will be taken into account as a means of reducing the wait time, are subjective criteria on which caseworkers might come to different conclusions, and that that would not be fair? Does she agree that the unfairness for the British people comes from the gradual erosion of the difference between settlement and citizenship, such that all the benefits come with settlement and the only thing people get with citizenship is a blue passport and the right to return to the country after two years?
Shabana Mahmood
Many rights do accrue at the point of settlement, and that has been the policy under successive Governments over many decades. I do not wish to create a new system with a two-tier approach to what settlement means—one for historical cohorts and a new one for future cohorts—not least because some in this country, including some on the Opposition Benches, wish to rip up the status of indefinite leave to remain altogether. That would be the wrong thing to do. It would be unconscionable to throw into chaos the long-term residency arrangements of millions of people in this country, and this Government will not do that. On contribution and integration, the tests that need to be met are made clear in the consultation document. They are not subjective criteria, but detailed criteria that will be applied by caseworkers in the future.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Home Secretary did not address the issue of the dependants of armed forces personnel. In June, the majority of Government Members voted down my amendment to the Armed Forces Bill, which included the waiving of visa fees. That has now been overturned in the House of Lords, and the Bill will be coming back here, but will she clarify exactly what will happen to the spouses and children of armed forces personnel? Will their visa fees be waived? If they earn less than £50,000 and do not work in healthcare or a professional job, will they have to find themselves—sorry, I have lost my train of thought.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I think you made your point. Well done.
Shabana Mahmood
I know what the hon. Gentleman means. Let me assure him that the situation in relation to all members of the armed forces is unchanged by the package of earned settlement measures. They have their own bespoke regime. I will meet him to discuss the matter of fee waivers.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Home Secretary set out what internal changes she will make in the Home Office? One complaint I often get from people waiting for their ILR decision is about the length of time it takes to get that outcome from the point of application. As part of this new package to improve the system, what will happen to reduce the waiting time for applicants?
Shabana Mahmood
We have already made significant progress in improving Home Office processes, as evidenced by the fact that the backlog for initial decisions after an asylum application has decreased considerably. Since this Government have been in power, we have got removals up to over 80,000, alongside many other changes. Let me assure my hon. Friend that as these changes are rolled out—they will be rolled out over a period of time, so that the systems are ready for each of the changes as they are made—I will ensure that the Home Office is equipped to make timely decisions under the new rules.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)
Where is the fairness in prioritising very wealthy people and very high earners over much lower-paid care workers who are obviously doing a valuable job and helping all our communities?
Shabana Mahmood
Perhaps the right hon. Member missed the bit of my statement where I set out transitional arrangements for care workers.
Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)
The Home Secretary will be well aware that the need for migrant workers varies throughout the country. What assessment has the Home Office made of the impact that these rule changes will make on areas such as mine in Lanarkshire, where the gap between the numbers of healthy working-age people and retirees is widening exponentially?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend will know that immigration policy is a reserved matter and applies UK-wide, so the rules that we have announced today apply to everyone everywhere. The Government will publish an impact assessment in the normal way, around the same time as when the immigration rules are laid.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Although I welcome the earned progression model, it is disappointing that the Home Secretary has watered down her original proposals under pressure from Cabinet colleagues. Her plan to make illegal migrants wait 30 years for permission to remain will not deter any small boat crossings. Does she agree that the only way to stop the boats is to deport all those who arrive illegally?
Shabana Mahmood
First, it was a genuine consultation and we have listened to the unique circumstances of those who came to work in the care sector. I think it is right that we have arrangements recognising those unique circumstances. On illegal migrants, it is this Government who this year have overseen a 40% decrease in the number of people arriving by small boat. We have made a huge amount of progress, especially through our deal with the French Government and the law enforcement response, trying to go after the gangs that, in the end, put people in those boats. We will not rest until we have stopped people arriving in this country by boat in that way. I think that the settlement offer that people get when they arrive does make a material difference.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
I just want to say something that I think everybody in this House recognises, which is that the Home Secretary is probably the first person in this job for two decades or more who has really got to grips with this system, and she has achieved a great deal. She also puts up with people projecting on to her what they think her views about immigration should be. Will she say why rebuilding public confidence in the immigration system is so important for social cohesion?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. He is absolutely right: there is quite a lot of projection that happens when you are a brown Muslim woman in the world of politics, but I am, alas, used to it. On rebuilding public trust, as I said in my statement, solidarity is a precondition of social justice. If we are to have a system based on taxation for universal public services, people need to know that everyone is contributing into the same collective pot that we can all then rely upon when we need to. That is how we maintain social cohesion in this country. A managed system where the Government are in control—where it is not people smugglers who decide who gets to come into our country, but the Government who make that choice, with the consent of the British people—is absolutely the way to ensure that we have social cohesion and strong communities all over our country.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I am aware that businesses not offering high-quality employment, such as mini-marts, barber shops, vape shops and nail bars, are still able to get sponsorship licences. Will the Home Secretary commit to reviewing the types of businesses that can access those licences and stop these people being able to exploit people who are not high-quality employees?
Shabana Mahmood
I am already reviewing the way in which the sponsorship register works and the conditions required of companies before they can sponsor workers coming into this country, and I will report to the House on that.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I will read the detail in the consultation, but I am concerned about retrospective changes because our word should be our bond to people coming here. Also, in an economy where skills and contribution do not correlate with wages, I find the Home Secretary’s proposals prejudicial on that basis. Will she look at that again in the light of the consultation, so that we can put fairness at the heart of this?
Shabana Mahmood
I disagree with my hon. Friend, as she knows from my statement today, which has listened to the consultation responses in detail. As I have set out in answer to other hon. Members, the position for settlement applications is that the rules apply at the point at which the decision is made, not when someone has come into the country. That has been settled law and settled policy for a very long time, and it will not change.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
In her statement, the Home Secretary used the word “fair”, or different iterations of it, 20 times. She said that her own parents left a place where “power was often arbitrary,” and the “dice were always loaded”, and they came here because they would be “treated fairly.” Now, a worker earning £40,000, who came here legally, paid their taxes and played their part, has been moved from five to 10 years, halfway through. Is changing the rules mid-game fair, or is that exactly what loaded dice look like?
Shabana Mahmood
It is absolutely fair. The hon. Gentleman will know that for people who arrived around the time my parents and grandad did, the rules often changed regularly. As I said, it has been settled policy that the rules that apply to an application are those at the point of decision, not the point when someone arrives in the country, and it is made clear to people arriving on a temporary work visa that that does not necessarily indicate that settlement rights will follow. In my statement, and in our document responding to the consultation we carried out, there is a fair resolution for all the different cohorts that are affected by earned settlement, reflecting unique circumstances where appropriate, and ensuring that the default period moves to 10 years, which has been settled policy since last summer.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I welcome the change for care workers, but may I ask more about those whose five years have not worked out, for one reason or another? The Home Secretary says there will be another five-year route, but I met a care worker the other day who has injured her back because her employer did not respect health and safety rules, and she now cannot do that job. She has a master’s degree in financial management and is a specialist in AI. She knows that she has to work as a care worker, but will she really have to start again once her back has healed?
Shabana Mahmood
The position for those who arrived on the care visa was that they needed to work within the care sector, and I think it is fair to expect those who were unable to meet the terms of that visa to have a second shot at working in the care sector again. A number of jobs are available in the care sector, not all of which require heavy lifting, and I am sure that can be taken into account. The Government will assist care workers who have been unable to meet the terms of their visa to have that second chance at finding appropriate work with a legitimate provider.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The 2009 Gurkha justice campaign, spearheaded by Joanna Lumley, achieved settlement rights for British Army Gurkha veterans, and my understanding is that many progressed to settlement here by virtue of the access to indefinite leave to remain. Will the Home Secretary reassure the House that none of these changes will adversely affect the ability of those heroes to settle in the UK when they retire?
Shabana Mahmood
Yes, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone), Gurkhas will have settlement under the armed forces rules, which are entirely exempt and different from earned settlement.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I welcome the principle of earned settlement, whereby contribution to our society is rewarded, and it is right that we reward our care workers. In our schools, our teachers need the support of their assistants. Will the Home Secretary say what support there will be for our teaching assistants?
Shabana Mahmood
Those in the health and education sectors on below degree-level jobs with national pay scales, such as teaching assistants, will be subject to the same transitional arrangements that I have set out for care workers who have met the terms of their visa.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
In August last year the Government admitted that they had no idea how many people who came in on care worker visas were still working in the care sector. How can the Home Secretary make an informed decision on their earned settlement when she has no idea whether they are still here doing the jobs they came in to do?
Shabana Mahmood
When applying for settlement, people will need to provide evidence that they have been working and earning within the care sector. Based on analysis of HM Revenue and Customs data, we expect that three quarters of care workers will meet the test and conditions of their visa and will be able to settle at five years.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, particularly the provision for care workers to obtain settlement on their existing five-year route. What support and provision are being offered to those who came here on a care visa and are tied to exploitative sponsors, or those who have been unable to continue working as care workers because of exploitative sponsors?
Shabana Mahmood
The individuals my hon. Friend refers to will have a second chance, as they will be able to apply for a new five-year visa in the care sector. The Government will double the amount of time normally allowed so that those people can find another job with a legitimate employer, and the Government will help those individuals to be matched with legitimate employers so that they can work in the care sector.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Everybody I have met and spoken to in my constituency opposes any kind of illegal immigration into our country. However, many people are in desperate need of help and they are forced to come via illegal routes. Just as there is a workaround providing a dispensation for care workers who have been exploited to have a second chance at getting earned status, will genuine refugees who came here in the absence of safe and legal routes be offered the same?
Shabana Mahmood
No, the position in relation to those who enter the country unlawfully is different, not least because those who are arriving on a boat are doing so from the north of France, which is a safe country underpinned by the European convention on human rights. It is right to treat those different cohorts differently because their method of entry into the country is different, and it is right that the Government are able to incentivise the behaviour we wish to see and disincentivise those who pay people smugglers and who risk their lives in the channel. I would have hoped that we could agree on that.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
We continue to have acute workforce pressures in social care in Scotland, which often leaves people stranded in hospital when they are fit to go home. What conversations has the Home Secretary had with the Scottish Government about the need for robust workforce planning, which has been absent for so long, to ensure that existing skills gaps are not exacerbated by these changes?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend raises an important point. She will know that the Home Office is not responsible for workforce planning, but Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care are working carefully on a workforce response, and I am sure that they are discussing these matters with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I broadly welcome the principle that permanent residency in our United Kingdom must be properly earned. The Home Secretary has rightly drawn a differential between those who immigrate, pay their taxes and national insurance and make a contribution, and those usually very healthy economic migrants who jump in a rubber raft at Calais and come across. Our public services, particularly the health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland, rely heavily on dedicated international workers who pay their taxes and play by the rules. Will she reassure my constituents that the policy will firmly reward legal, working contribution, while cracking down on those who jump the queue?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The point of earned settlement is to reflect and provide settlement for those who contribute to this country and who meet the new minimum requirements, which include no criminality and no debt. That is a fair deal for all concerned, not least the taxpayer, whose money underpins all the public services that we rely on.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I look forward to chewing through the details of what the Home Secretary has published today, but it is good to hear her talk about the role of societal contribution as a route to residency and about the allowances for care workers. Some 4.2 million economic migrants came to this country under the previous Government, while we have hundreds of thousands of British young people not in education, employment or training. What conversations is she having across Government so that our immigration intake marries up to what we need in our labour market and economy?
Shabana Mahmood
It is absolutely right that while we should be able to bring in workers from abroad when we need to in order to fill market gaps in this country, of course we have to ensure that we are always providing opportunities for domestic workers, not least the 1 million young people who are not in education, employment or training. We have an obligation to them too and it is important that we strike the right balance. I believe the earned settlement reforms strike the right balance for migrant workers and British taxpayers. I assure my hon. Friend that I am talking to colleagues across Government. Immigration is not the only part of the answer—skills and training here at home are also necessary.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s recognition of the crucial work done by overseas care workers. Does she agree not only that this approach is needed not just practically, but that it is the right thing to do in principle to ensure that those who contribute the most in the most under-served professions in our country are rewarded?
Shabana Mahmood
It was clear from the response to the consultation that the position of care workers was unique. They came at a specific moment post-covid, when there were very real challenges in the care sector, and it is right to reflect that and provide a five-year path to settlement for those who met the terms of their visa.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her leadership on this issue. In the Lake district, due to housing shortages, there is a long-established policy of social housing being subject to local occupancy restrictions; only those with a local link—for example, local employment—are eligible for housing. Looking beyond the Home Office, does she agree that her Cabinet colleagues—not least those responsible for the fairness of housing policy—also have the power and a responsibility to reduce immigration pull factors?
Shabana Mahmood
I was not aware of those arrangements in the Lake district. My hon. Friend is right about the broader point; it is incumbent on all Government Departments to think about these issues in the round and to strike a fair balance. All the conversations that I have had with my colleagues in Cabinet reflect that, as the Government position.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. Could she consider the disparity that sometimes arises across the UK in salaries? I point her to information published by the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland just last month, which indicated that those in Scotland were likely to be earning up to 9% less than their counterparts in the rest of the UK. We clearly would not want people in the immigration system to be caught out by that anomaly, too.
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes an important point. She will know that those who are already in the country on lower salaries were given an exemption by the previous Government, and so can extend their visa on the same salary. We have agreed that we will extend that further to 2035, to enable those people to achieve settlement. More broadly, she will know that some of the changes in the Budget reflect advice from the Migration Advisory Committee on regional pay.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Given that those earning more than £50,000 will have a five-year route to settled status, while those earning less than £50,000 will have a 10-year route, how will we assess whether a lawyer offers more value to our society than a teaching assistant, setting aside how much they earn?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend will know that there is a specific transitional arrangement for teaching assistants, because they are defined by the Migration Advisory Committee as being in the health and education sector, on national pay scales. They will have a five-year path if they arrived before May 2025.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and her distinction between illegal migrants and those who came legally to work and contribute. We must confront the mess left by the Conservatives, whose failure to manage our immigration system is nothing short of a national scandal. Settlement should be earned through contribution, and in Portsmouth, I have seen that at first hand from our care workers, who look after our most vulnerable. Will the Home Secretary reassure those who have already contributed so much that their contributions will be recognised, and that those who have not contributed and have tried to play the system will need to contribute to remain?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me reiterate to my hon. Friend that the transitional arrangement agreed for care workers reflects the unique circumstances of that cohort. Those who have met the terms of their visa will be able to settle at five years, and those who have not will get a second chance to make the contribution that they originally came to make.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
I welcome the changes announced today, and thank the Home Secretary for the way that she reached out during the consultation. In particular, when it comes to our responsibility to BNO visa holders, she has listened. In the past, one of the challenges in seeking to move towards a contributory system has been that the Office for Budget Responsibility has struggled to model correctly the importance of contribution in our welfare system. It has made some changes, but that change should continue. Will the Home Secretary call on the OBR to continue to improve the way that it models the economics of migration?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend tempts me, but he knows that the OBR is independent. I am sure that it has heard his point about how the contribution of migrants is measured, for the purposes of its forecasts and the scoring decisions that it makes ahead of fiscal events. He will know that the Home Office’s approach is to look at settlement as a lifetime benefit, so we have considered lifetime cost, as well as unique circumstances of particular cohorts. He mentions the BNOs; he will know that they are exempt from any of these income changes. That reflects our long-standing commitment to them, but they have to meet the new minimum requirements.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
I welcome the retention of the five-year pathway for indefinite leave to remain. I have met Nigerian and Zimbabwean social care workers in Newtown and the Dee valley who will be greatly reassured and relieved by today’s statement. Will my right hon. Friend join me in celebrating the huge contribution that these workers make to our health and social care system every day?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These workers have been making a contribution. Given their unique circumstances, and the fact that many of them have met the terms of their visas, they will be able to settle at five years.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Home Secretary is absolutely right to talk about the British people’s sense of fairness; I heard about exactly that on the doorstep in Cannock Chase just this weekend. Not only did the Conservatives let millions into Britain over just a few years, but they left indefinite leave to remain at five years, regardless of someone’s contribution. Does the Home Secretary agree that these changes will introduce fairness, and that those who want to settle here will have to make a fair and positive contribution?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Fairness to all is what underpins these reforms—not just to those who arrived here lawfully to work, but to those who are already here, and who pay for the systems we all depend on.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Almost everyone in my constituency who speaks to me about immigration says that they welcome those who come to work hard in our country and play by the rules. As the Home Secretary knows, though, many of those workers across multiple sectors of the economy face significant exploitation from their visa sponsors. She referred to helping workers break away from rogue employers; will she meet those of us who are interested in introducing a certificate of common sponsorship to resolve this problem?
Shabana Mahmood
As I have said, the Government will assist people who have been with a rogue employer in the care sector to get legitimate work in that sector for the renewal of their five-year care visa. The Home Office will, of course, amend sponsorship regimes, following changes made by the Health Secretary and her team. They are looking carefully at what the minimum conditions and standards in this sector should be, and I have already undertaken that we will follow those changes, once they are made.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Framing today’s statement is the fact that under this Labour Government and this Home Secretary, net migration is down 82% from its peak under the previous Conservative Government. However, can she confirm that alongside the changes that she is making to legal migration, there will be serious consequences for settlement for those entering our country by dangerous and illegal means?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right that migration is down under this Government, and we are taking steps to make sure that we bring coherence and rationality to the migration system and fix the mess left behind by the previous Government. On his point about illegal migration, that is why there is an additional waiting period of 10 years for those who enter illegally; we consulted on this matter, and there was a plurality of support for that measure. It reflects the fact that in the end, the Government and their people have to be in control of our migration system, not people-smuggling gangs.
Bill Presented
Animal Shelters (Licensing) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Richard Holden, supported by Rebecca Harris, Mr Mark Francois, John Lamont, Dan Carden, Dame Caroline Dinenage, Simon Hoare, Dr Peter Prinsley, John Glen, Mims Davies, Greg Smith and Dr Neil Hudson, presented a Bill to make provision for the licensing of animal shelters; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 168).
Henry Nowak Independent Review
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
On 3 December 2025, Henry Nowak’s life was cut short in a horrific and senseless act of violence. My thoughts remain with his family and friends, and all those whom this dreadful incident has affected.
In response to the wide-ranging issues arising from this case, I have appointed the right hon. Alex Chalk KC to undertake an independent review of the circumstances surrounding Henry’s murder and the Nowak family’s subsequent experience of the criminal justice system.
The Henry Nowak independent review terms of reference are attached and have been published on gov.uk, which can be found here:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2026-10-27/HCWS422/
[HCWS422]
Oral Answers to Questions
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Small boat returns under this Government are at a record high, and our Immigration and Asylum Bill will help us to remove people faster than ever before. This Government are dealing with the small boats crisis left by the previous Government. Small boat crossings are down, and removals are at record highs.
Greg Smith
If small boat crossings were down by enough, the Government would not have to stand up asylum camps at places such as Ministry of Defence Bicester site A, which is just over the Oxfordshire border from my constituency. With 85,000 small boat crossings since the general election, the situation is at crisis point. MOD Bicester site A does not even offer value to the taxpayer; new modelling shows that over three years, the cost would come in at £385 per person per night—nearly double that of the equivalent asylum hotels. Will the Home Secretary actually get on and deport those who have come to our country illegally, rather than using sites like MOD Bicester site A?
Shabana Mahmood
Under this Government, small boat returns have increased. This is a crisis that began on the Conservative Government’s watch and got worse under the Conservative party; this Government are fixing the mess that they left behind.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
We inherited a situation in which gangs were profiting from our out-of-control borders and hotel operators were ripping us off, making the most of a backlog that had built up far too high. We have taken some welcome steps, but it is clear that more needs to be done. Returning people with no right to be here is a crucial part of that. How can we step up the processing of cases, and form closer links with other countries, so that we get strong returns agreements and finally get the costs of this out-of-control system down?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right that we need to maximise the numbers we are returning from this country. He will know that asylum-related returns are at their highest level since 2010. This Government have made excellent progress on getting returns up and back to levels seen in previous years, and we will make more progress.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Some people, including the Prime Minister, argue that the small boats crisis was caused by our leaving the EU. It started in 2018. In the two years before Brexit, only 289 small boat people were sent back under agreements. What is the solution? The only solution, surely, is to detain and deport. As the Home Secretary will not leave the European convention on human rights, will she at least consider creating return hubs in a distant Council of Europe country, so that we can have a genuine deterrent?
Shabana Mahmood
The Father of the House will know that there is a distinction between the rules of the European Union and the European convention on human rights. The ECHR is not an EU instrument, although most EU countries are signed up to it. We have discussed the ECHR across the Dispatch Boxes before, and he knows our view, which I think is the right view, about simply leaving the ECHR, as his party has suggested it would. That is not something his party ever did when it was in office, and that is because it would put at risk all sorts of other agreements that we have with other countries—agreements that we depend on. We have been able to make more progress on returns as a Government while remaining within the ECHR, and we will continue that going forward.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
As a Portsmouth MP, I know how important it is that people living in ports along the south coast have confidence in our border security. Will the Minister outline the progress this Government are making in tackling dangerous small boat crossings and the criminal gangs behind them, and reassure my constituents that we will continue to take action? Will she also thank all the emergency services that have helped in this situation?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to all our partners in Portsmouth—the local authority, the police and all others—for their co-operation in dealing with the crossings launched from further west in France, which are coming into Portsmouth and seeking to come elsewhere, too. We are seeing a displacement of activity; the gangs have seen that the law enforcement response in the north of France has been stepped up, so they are now trying other routes and tactics. I assure my hon. Friend, the people of Portsmouth and everybody else that this Government will chase down those gang members, using every sinew, and will ensure that we get the number of crossings down further. I fully recognise the pressures in her community.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
We heard the Home Secretary make the claim that her changes to indefinite leave to remain would somehow act as a disincentive to people who sought to arrive in the UK on small boats, but she has failed to convince her Back Benchers and some of her Cabinet colleagues. Who has the upper hand on this in Cabinet, and would changes to ILR make a scintilla of a difference to people coming on small boats?
Shabana Mahmood
It is absolutely right for a Government seeking a system based on order, control and the principles of fairness and contribution to look at both the legal and illegal migration systems. We inherited an almighty mess from the Conservatives, and we are resolving all the issues. As the hon. Member well knows, the policy on indefinite leave to remain will be settled in due course. We had a consultation, we have considered the responses, and the Government will have more to say on this in the not-too-distant future.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Up to June this year, the returns rate was 35% higher than it had been in the 12 months previously. Does the Home Secretary agree that this is in part due to the improved co-operative relationships that this Government have managed to forge with other countries around the world? Should that not give our constituents greater confidence that this Government take the issue of small boat crossings seriously?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right: not only are small boat returns up and asylum-related returns at their highest level since 2010, but in our first two years in office, this Government have managed to get returns of foreign offenders up 41% from the last two years of the Conservative Government. That is because, in addition to all the other work we are doing, we are also unlocking greater returns co-operation with countries of origin, so that we can more smoothly return people from this country. Appeals reform is also absolutely crucial, and is something that this Government are pursuing.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Ministers tell us that small boat arrivals are vetted, so we need not worry, but Mohammed Yaseen—who, as we all know, joined al-Qaeda at 16, was convicted as a Daesh terrorist in Germany, and, a British court was told, was a danger to the British people—was put by the Home Office not in a detention centre ready to be deported to Iraq, where the Iraqi people deserve to see him face trial and justice, but instead in a hostel in Windsor. He was free to roam British streets during daylight hours, along with too many of the 95% not yet deported. He is now back in prison, thanks to the newspapers. How can we have any confidence in the Government, when they allow a convicted Daesh member to be released on to our streets while his deportation is pending, and will the Home Secretary today give the commitment that he will be held in detention until he is on a plane, and that his ticket has been ordered?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Lady knows that given that there are outstanding issues to be considered in this case, I cannot comment on the facts. She should know that, as a principle, anyone who receives a sentence of 12 months or more and is a danger to our community will have their asylum claim rejected.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
I have an excellent working relationship with EU partners, particularly with France, which has helped prevent over 50,000 crossings since the election. The EU asylum pact has yet to resolve the challenges of returns within Europe, and currently those returns are not happening at scale, so the pact is not a silver bullet.
Mr Reynolds
The Prime Minister has said that he wants access to the Eurodac database. How does the Government propose to negotiate that without breaching their EU red lines?
Shabana Mahmood
I am not going to conduct a negotiation with the European Union from this Dispatch Box. The hon. Member will know, as I have said to Liberal Democrat Members before, that we are of course always thinking about how we can work more collaboratively with our partners in Europe on law enforcement co-operation and data sharing. I am sure that will be the subject of much discussion at the UK-EU summit.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Illegal immigration is by definition a cross-border phenomenon, which is why we are required to work with our friends and partners across borders. The Home Secretary has already talked about the 50,000-person reduction from France; we increasingly hear reports that for those in the camps in northern Calais, smugglers are hard to find. That is a far cry from the situation under the previous Government, who could not even decide if France was a friend or a foe. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is by working with our allies on international challenges that we can address the problems of illegal immigration, which is what the public are asking for?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right. That is why this Government have been working to reset our relationship with the European Union. Of course, our co-operation with France is central to our being able to deal with the challenge of the small boats, and I was pleased to make the recent deal with the French—the successor to the Sandhurst agreement. We have set aside money that we will spend only on measures that we know have an impact on small boat numbers, which are down by 43%.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and we are indeed flattered to see the Prime Minister discussing improved relations with the EU as a way to solve issues in the asylum system, but when the Government say that they will negotiate access to various agreements, including Eurodac, without dropping their red lines, they are engaging in Brexit delusion of the type we saw under the Conservatives. If we want useful co-operation on asylum and a good deal for taxpayers—because it will cost less if we are in the pact—we will have to join the EU migration and asylum pact, and that means dropping the Government’s red lines, doesn’t it?
Shabana Mahmood
The delusion here is the hon. Member assuming that the EU asylum pact is up and running, and that it is a silver bullet. He will know that across Europe, while there is greater co-operation on data sharing and so on, everyone wants to remove people from their country, but nobody wants to receive them. On returns under the pact for the countries that are in it, those returns are not happening at scale. He knows that was also the case under the Dublin regulation, of which we were part; in our last five years in it, we did not deport as many people as we managed to under our agreement with France.
Max Wilkinson
We await more on the agreement with France, and perhaps with Belgium and many other countries. It might just be simpler to have an agreement with the entire EU.
It grieves me to say this, but internal difficulties have arisen within the Labour party over migration. Cabinet members seem to be struggling to defend the Home Secretary’s position, and Government Back Benchers have a wide range of opinions. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has called for an “honest discussion” about EU freedom of movement. Will the Home Secretary back down and get behind the Prime Minister, who is open to freedom of movement, or will she stay loyal to her Back-Bench allies in the blue Labour faction, who are so hostile to it?
Shabana Mahmood
Honestly, what absolute piffle from the hon. Gentleman. He will know that the Prime Minister has been discussing having an open debate; that is not the same as settled policy, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware. The Prime Minister has also observed that there were very significant issues with freedom of movement when we were in the EU. Having an honest debate means actually being honest about all aspects of the issue, not cherry-picking, as the Liberal Democrats so often do.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Since the general election, knife crime is down by 11%, knife homicides are down by 25% and knife-enabled robberies are down by 18%. That is huge progress, but we must do more. That is why I recently launched crackdowns in more than 230 of the areas most affected by knife crime. We will be tough on knife crime, through increased patrols, but also tough on the causes of knife crime, by undertaking prevention work to prevent these crimes.
John Grady
I am concerned about young people and knife crime in my home city of Glasgow. Victim Support Scotland has asked the Scottish Government to carry out a comprehensive review of why young people become involved in knife crime and how effective Scottish programmes are at preventing it. This is backed by my constituent, Neil McCrimmon, and his family. Their beloved son Kory was stabbed to death, and the family has campaigned with great courage against knife crime. I fully support Victim Support Scotland’s call for a comprehensive review. Will the Home Secretary confirm that she would support the Scottish Government, were they to carry out such a review?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend has told me how much he admires the family for their campaigning efforts. We know from our own work how powerful it is when those who have suffered because of knife crime join in the effort to tackle it. As he knows, policing is a devolved matter and the question of a review is therefore one for the Scottish Government, but this Government stand ready to support them where we can.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Home Secretary for her answers and for her commitment to trying to stop knife crime. One of the greatest ways of stopping knife crime across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is to ensure that people cannot buy knives. What is she doing to ensure that access to knives, whether through sections of the media or industry, is stopped? If we stop the knives, we stop the crime.
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is imperative that we get knives off our streets, and he will know that we have already taken 63,000 knives off our streets and banned ninja swords. We will make more progress, including on a consultation that we have recently carried out looking at a wider regime for the sale of knives, and we will update the House on that in due course.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Last December, Henry Nowak’s life was cut short in a horrific and senseless act of violence. My thoughts today are with Henry’s family and friends, who have shown extraordinary courage and dignity. Today I can announce an independent review, led by a former Lord Chancellor, the right hon. Alex Chalk KC. It will investigate what was known about the perpetrator, including any missed opportunities to intervene. It will look at the Nowak family’s experience of the criminal justice system and whether they were supported in the manner they should have been.
Once the Independent Office for Police Conduct has concluded its investigation into the police response, the review will also consider the actions of the IOPC and, if necessary, the police. The full terms of reference have been published today, and an initial report will be submitted to me within five months. We must get to the truth of what happened before, during and after that awful night, and we must do everything in our power to ensure that no family suffers the same fate. We owe that to Henry and to all who loved him. They deserve answers, and this review will provide them.
Tom Rutland
Many of my constituents have raised the issue of antisocial behaviour and dangerous riding by people on e-bikes, particularly in Southwick, Shoreham and Lancing. What is the Secretary of State’s Department doing to crack down on such behaviour, which is blighting the lives of many people in my constituency?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend will know that we have made it easier for the police to seize e-bikes on the spot, and we have cut the timeframe for disposal to just seven days. Police forces are already making use of these powers so that dangerous and illegally used bikes can be taken off our streets. Where appropriate, they can also be destroyed.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
In a speech in March, which I thought was rather good, the Home Secretary said that failure to implement her proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain in full would be “an affront” to British citizens, and would cost hard-working taxpayers £10 billion for care workers alone. Given how strongly she clearly feels about her policy, will she confirm to the House that she will implement her own plans in full, or are the Housing Secretary and the Energy Secretary now in charge of immigration policy?
Shabana Mahmood
I do not need notes from the shadow Home Secretary on any of my speeches; he can keep them to himself. Let me confirm for the House that settlement will be earned, not be automatic. He knows we have conducted a consultation on those proposals, and we will set out our policy in due course.
Chris Philp
The Home Secretary is clearly not standing by her own plans.
Several times this year, the Home Secretary has used her power to prevent entry into the United Kingdom on the basis of individuals’ views, including people opposing mass migration. I recently asked her to prevent entry by Randa Abdel-Fattah, who planned talks around the anniversary of the 7 October massacre. Abdel-Fattah has glorified terrorism and said that massacre was “exhilarating”. Is it not shameful that the Home Secretary allowed this antisemitic supporter of terrorism into our country, where she likely radicalised our citizens?
Shabana Mahmood
As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, it is long-standing policy not to comment on individual cases. He often brings such individual cases to the Dispatch Box, so he should know that we cannot always go into all the specifics. He knows that all individuals who seek entry to the United Kingdom must meet the requirements of the immigration rules, and I will always enforce them as strongly as possible.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
When the Minister announced new refugee pathways in September, we were told that Afghan women and girls would be prioritised. I have since received correspondence that says there will be no prioritisation. Can we get clarity on what is correct?
Shabana Mahmood
I am surprised by the correspondence that the hon. Member has received. She is welcome to share that with me. That is absolutely not the case for the announcements made in September.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
In Stoke-on-Trent, whether it is Kidsgrove or Tunstall, residents tell me that they are fed up with being terrorised by off-road bikes that tear through our parks and our streets. Will the Minister please reassure me that Staffordshire police will have the neighbourhood officers, the funding and the powers available to them to deal with those who are making life a misery for others?
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Sally Rooney is a writer, not a terrorist, yet her books are being withdrawn from shelves up and down the country. Under a new Prime Minister, will this Government reverse course, or does the Home Secretary see any author she disagrees with as a terrorist?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman should be much more responsible about the way in which he makes his point in this Chamber. He will know that there is a world of difference between someone selling books and enjoying the fruits of their labour and saying that they will use that money to fund a proscribed organisation. The organisation was proscribed through a vote in this House; it is the subject of a legal case at the moment, but all of the appropriate legal safeguards and thresholds in law were followed.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Government give consideration to supporting police forces and integrated care boards to restore 24/7 independent domestic violence advisers across police stations, and perhaps emergency departments, too? Will they also consider mandatory trauma-informed training and supervision for Devon and Cornwall police?
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
There is wide consensus across the House on the need to tackle modern slavery. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 went a long way towards doing that, but fails to have any real teeth to stop slave-produced goods being sold in this country. The Immigration and Asylum Bill presents this House with an opportunity to give that Act some real teeth. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister sit down with me to discuss the options to give that Act teeth?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising such an important point. As he will know, our modern slavery arrangements are subject to strengthening in the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which is currently going through this House. I would be happy to ensure that he can speak to either myself or one of my Ministers to discuss whether further changes need to be made.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s progress in reducing those perilous and often exploitative small boat crossings, but aside from the misplaced idea that asylum seekers have significant recourse to public funds or mainstream benefits, we must still be honest that a lot of human behaviour ultimately boils down to incentives. What consideration have Home Office Ministers given to the Danish model in terms of narrowing any incentive gap for migrants between coming here for work and doing so by other, irregular means?
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Home Secretary talked positively about reducing the number of illegal migrants coming in by small boats. Could I ask her, though, what actual steps the Government are taking to thwart illegal migration to the United Kingdom across the open border from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that I discuss this issue regularly with my counterparts in the Republic of Ireland. We are committed to working closely together to ensure that we do not allow any illegal entry, either from the United Kingdom into the Republic or vice versa.
National Security
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on national security. Since the House last sat, we have received a reminder of the threats ranged against this country. That has included the danger posed not only by extremists and terrorists, but by foreign powers seeking to undermine our nation’s security. Those threats have targeted people, businesses and critical infrastructure, but above all else, they are attacks on our values and way of life. The first duty of Government is the security of the nation, so I will update the House on our response to those threats, and how we are acting to keep our country and citizens safe.
I start with the threat posed by terrorists and extremists, and I know one case will be on the minds of many in this House today. It is now three months since the murder of Ann Widdecombe at her home in Devon. We continue to mourn her loss. On 2 October, the suspect was charged with a terrorism offence, including preparing an act of terror against the leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). I know that this news will have been deeply distressing for the hon. Member, so I say to him and his family that they have my profoundest sympathies at what must be an awful time. As I have said before, an attack on any one of us is an attack on us all.
I know other Members, as well as people outside of this House, have recently been contacted by the police in connection with that case. To all those affected, I offer the same sympathies and solidarity as I do to the hon. Member for Clacton. At times like these, we must stand together as one House. For those who serve, politics is a calling. Robust debate and criticism are part of this job; threats, abuse and violence are not.
Today, as on so many other days, we remember Ann Widdecombe, Sir David Amess and Jo Cox—three beloved colleagues, and three champions of our democracy. We owe it to them, and to everyone who believes in a fair and open country, to ensure that those who serve, at all levels, receive the protection they deserve.
We must first ensure that every opportunity was taken in this particular case to stop the attacker. The Independent Office for Police Conduct is investigating the response to an attempted break-in at the hon. Member for Clacton’s home last year. I have asked it to conduct that investigation both thoroughly and swiftly, and we expect it to conclude early next year. I would caution everyone not to pre-empt that investigation.
Regardless of the outcome, it is clear that there is insufficient protection for those who serve. I can therefore announce that I will expand, with immediate effect, police support to political figures who are not currently Members of Parliament. This will include former Members of Parliament, peers and party spokespeople, giving them access to a named police officer, as well as help with wider security measures.
However, we must go further. Today, I also announce an independent, root-and-branch review of the protective security provided by the state to those in public life. The review will be led by Sir Stephen Lovegrove, the former National Security Adviser. It will examine protective security from every angle, including physical threats, online risks, and the dangers posed within our more polarised society. It will hear directly from Ministers, Members of Parliament and other high-profile people in public life, and it will report within six months. It will complement Sir Robert Buckland’s ongoing review into the killing of Sir David Amess. It is rightly an independent review, but my commitment is that its findings must and will lead to tangible change, and that the state’s resources will be rebalanced to protect those people and places that need it most.
The terrorist threat is not only ranged at those who serve in public life. In recent days, we marked the first anniversary of the terror attack at the Heaton Park synagogue. On that awful day in October last year, as our Jewish community celebrated Yom Kippur, two brave men, Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby, lost their lives and three others were seriously injured. What happened that day must be fully understood so, as requested by the coroner, I can today announce a public inquiry into the deaths of Mr Cravitz and Mr Daulby. This will ensure that all evidence can be heard, including any sensitive national security material that could not otherwise be fully heard in the coroner’s court.
Tragically, Heaton Park is just one of a series of attacks on our Jewish community that, in the year since, have included: the stabbing of two Jewish men in Golders Green, north London, with a trial now set for March 2027; a failed attack on the Israeli embassy, for which the attacker was jailed last week for 20 years; a spate of arson attacks across north London; and last month, just hours before Yom Kippur began, a foiled but potentially lethal plot on the Jewish community in Manchester. In that case, two men, both Iranian nationals, have now been charged with terrorism offences. I pay tribute to the police and the security services for what was a long-running investigation conducted with their customary professionalism and skill.
Faced with the threat posed to our Jewish community, we have increased funding to the police by an additional £250 million to boost police presence in key Jewish areas and to tackle antisemitism on our streets, but I know we cannot simply build higher walls around our Jewish community and expect them to live in fear. We must root out the evil of antisemitism wherever it lurks in society, and this Government are committed to that effort and are tackling antisemitism wherever it is found, be it online, in our schools and universities, in our public services or on our streets.
The threat posed to our Jewish community shows us how the lines are increasingly blurring between extremism and state threats. We know that the Iranian state is targeting our Jewish community. Earlier this year, the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right claimed responsibility for the arson attacks in north London. We know that members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps were behind that group and most certainly directed its other attacks across Europe. This speaks to a wider trend. States like Iran are using proxies to conduct hostile activity here in Britain. They pay criminals or exploit naive volunteers to attack our country and its citizens while maintaining an air of plausible deniability.
It is a brazen threat, but it is one that we are alert to and will not tolerate. That is why, this summer, we fast-tracked the National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 through Parliament, which created stronger powers and tougher punishments to deal with state-backed threats to domestic security. Under these new powers, we have designated both the IMCR and the IRGC.
That brings us to the recent events at RAF Fairford. As the Prime Minister has said, our assessment is that it is highly likely to have been co-ordinated by a known individual based in Iran, and almost certainly directed by Iran’s IRGC. The Foreign Secretary has today summoned the Iranian ambassador, and he will condemn Iran’s continued attempts to undermine our safety. We are also sanctioning two individuals involved in conducting espionage and attacks in Europe and the US on behalf of the Government of Iran, and we will not hesitate to take further action to restrict Iran’s capacity to threaten international security.
The threat is not contained to Iran, of course. As the invasion of Ukraine enters its fifth winter, the Kremlin continues to lash out at European countries. Together with the EU, we attributed to Russia an attack on Poland’s energy grid last December that could have caused half a million citizens to lose electricity. Similarly, we are acting against the threat on our shores. Last month, a British man was charged under the National Security Act 2023 over alleged contact with Russia’s military intelligence agency, and in recent days a Royal Navy sailor, accused of spying on behalf of Russia, has been charged under the same Act.
We remain vigilant to the threats posed by China, too. MI5 recently warned universities and academics to cut ties with the China General Technology Research Institute, which had been funding research in the UK with the “primary purpose” of improving China’s espionage operations. Those who continue to work with this group will face criminal charges for aiding a foreign state, and lengthy prison sentences as a result.
The threats we face today are complex and often interconnected. They target communities and citizens, the critical infrastructure that we depend on, and the institutions and individuals that make up our democracy. Our response to this growing threat is rightly multifaceted. We are tackling extremism in our communities and in the online world. In “Protecting What Matters”, our social cohesion plan, we set out a range of measures to tackle this threat, including banning those who seek to come to this country to spread hatred, and committing to publishing an annual “State of Extremism” report, which will identify the threats we face and, crucially, equip frontline professionals to counter them.
We are also adapting to the changing nature of the violent threats we face. Following the horrors of Southport, we have taken action to curb the threat posed by individuals fixated on violence. This has included strengthening the handling of repeat Prevent referrals, and making it clear that referrals can be made to Prevent without a clearly identifiable ideology. The Online Safety Act 2023 has also ensured that thousands of services now have stronger age checks and safety measures.
In addressing the threat posed by states, make no mistake: our police and security services are on permanent watch. Since 2023, more than 23 people have been charged under the National Security Act, leading to five convictions and sentences totalling more than 48 years’ imprisonment so far, including 18 years for two men convicted of spying for China. We have imposed more than 4,000 sanctions linked to Russia and Iran, and we have placed both on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, which means that anyone conducting activity on their behalf must register it or face the prospect of prison. But more is required, and as I have noted already, the National Security (State Threats) Act has given us powerful new tools to tackle state threats. We are also building a specialist mission in Counter Terrorism Policing to disrupt state threats, and we are tightening security around military bases.
Of course, resilience is about more than our physical defences. We are also establishing a national centre for information defence to tackle disinformation from states. Our Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill will protect everyday services by strengthening national defences against cyber-attacks. We will go further with our upcoming national security Bill and give intelligence agencies and the police stronger powers to bear down on cyber-criminals.
Mr Speaker, let me say this to the public: if you are ever worried about someone you know, tell a teacher, a doctor or someone else you trust. Institutions like Prevent exist to stop people following a dark path from which there may be no return. If ever you see something suspicious, report it immediately to the police or a relevant authority. To businesses, in an increasingly online world, consider the cyber-threats that you face and strengthen your defences. Finally, to those responsible for some part of our critical infrastructure, we will work with you. The National Protective Security Authority and the National Cyber Security Centre stand ready to help. We can defeat those who mean us harm, but we are strongest when we act together.
In a more dangerous world, we are faced by threats from without and within that target our democracy and our way of life. In response, we are adapting and strengthening our defences. As ever, I commend the work of the police and our security services who labour in silence to keep us safe, and I am sure the whole House joins me in offering thanks to them for that vital, lifesaving work.
This Government are taking action in support of that effort, but as I have set out in this statement, I know there is more that we must do to protect this country, to protect our citizens and to protect our democracy. I hope the whole House can join together in that vital work, which is so much greater than any of our differences, because I know that those of us who choose to serve all share a belief: we will never be defeated by those who mean us harm.
Mr Speaker, with my thanks to you for allowing it to run a little longer than would usually be the case, I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp
I was quoting what the prosecutor said, Mr Speaker, but I will of course take your advice, as always. I was going to ask whether the Home Secretary shares my concern, which she alluded to in her statement, that the cancellation of the earlier investigation may have meant that opportunities to prevent the later tragedy were missed.
I understand that a number of current and former MPs have very recently been contacted to be told that they appeared on a list made by Kerry. Kerry was arrested on 11 July, but it was not until last week—nearly three months later—that some on that list, including current and former MPs, were notified. Can the Home Secretary tell the House when she knew about that list? Does she agree that it would be wrong if those on it had had that information withheld from them for a period of time, potentially as long as three months?
Threats to democratically elected representatives are threats to democracy itself, so I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement on protective security, including for those outside Parliament—recognising, of course, that it is Mr Speaker who plays the leading role in protecting Members of Parliament.
I would also like to mark the anniversary of the terrible deaths of Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby at Heaton Park synagogue in an antisemitic attack perpetrated by an Islamist extremist. In the year since, I have twice visited Golders Green in the aftermath of antisemitic attacks. As the Home Secretary said, in the last 10 days two Iranian small boat illegal immigrants have been charged with plotting a further antisemitic terror attack in Manchester. It is more important than ever that we redouble our efforts to fight antisemitism and Islamist extremism with all our might.
On that topic, I wrote to the Home Secretary on 27 September asking her to deny an entry visa to Randa Abdel-Fattah, who praised the appalling terrorist massacre on 7 October as “exhilarating”. But the Home Secretary allowed her into our country anyway. Why did the Home Secretary do that, given the obvious risk that Abdel-Fattah might radicalise others with her antisemitic and pro-terror views? I really think that demands a specific answer.
There are clearly a wide range of serious threats to the safety of our country, political leaders across the political spectrum and our Jewish community. I know that the whole House will be united in wanting to fight those threats. I thank again those serving in the security services and the police, who work tirelessly to keep us safe. The whole House supports them in their vital work.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his comments and questions, though much of what he has asked, as I believe he knows full well, relates to ongoing investigations. As such, there are limits to what I can share with the House today. I also observe that there are limits to what is appropriate to be said publicly while investigations are ongoing. That is not just a restriction that we impose on ourselves for the sake of it; it is an important part of ensuring the integrity of our criminal justice system and the independence of police investigations.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will therefore understand, even if his questions do not suggest so, that in relation to RAF Fairford and the decision to bail suspects, that was entirely an operational decision for the police, who are solely responsible for that investigation. I have full confidence in the police as they carry out that investigation. Because it is ongoing, more facts will be established, and I am sure that the police will take appropriate action when they come to light.
Those suspects are bailed under strict conditions, and no one—certainly no one in our legal jurisdiction—should be commenting on the rightness or wrongness of that, because it is in our jurisdiction and we have a responsibility to ensure that the investigation has full integrity. If there are criminal proceedings to follow, those proceedings must not be prejudiced by commentary beforehand. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman understands why I will not go further than what I have said in my statement on that point. I think that a more responsible approach from all Members of this House on this matter is required.
I would not comment on intelligence briefings, and nor have other Home Secretaries. I will not compromise an ongoing investigation. As more facts are established, they will be public when it is appropriate for them to be made so.
The right hon. Gentleman made a point about action taken by the previous Government after the Salisbury attack and laid out his suggested actions against the Iranians at this stage. I set out the actions that the Foreign Secretary is already taking, but we will not take anything off the table as the investigation matures, more facts are established, and more detail is known on exactly what happened. The Government will always keep under review all the methods we have at our disposal for responding to any hostile state carrying out activity in our country.
On RAF Molesworth, again, I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman knows this, but the police have said that their investigation is at a very early stage. At the moment, there is nothing to suggest that this incident is connected to the events at RAF Fairford. The police are continuing to investigate. It would not be appropriate to provide a wider running commentary on that investigation while it is still in its early stages.
The shadow Home Secretary moved on to the circumstances relating to the murder of Ann Widdecombe and the recent charging decisions against Joshua Kerry on terror charges. Again, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on conversations between me and counter-terror policing, but I do not believe that information has been withheld from anybody at any point in an inappropriate manner. This is a thorough investigation whereby the police have been checking devices and other material at the property of that individual to establish a fuller picture. As that fuller picture has emerged, they have been sharing information; they have sought to do so appropriately, in my view.
I know that people have been contacted by the police. That is a matter for the police to pursue. I think the implication of the shadow Home Secretary’s questions was that potentially there was a withholding of information or that it had taken too long for it to be shared with individuals—both Members of Parliament and former Members of Parliament. I do not believe that anything has happened in this investigation that is inappropriate; that is how I will respond.
The shadow Home Secretary went on to ask questions relating to attacks on our Jewish community. In relation to the Home Secretary’s powers for excluding individuals from entering our country—we have had these exchanges on a number of occasions across the Dispatch Box—I will always use my powers appropriately by looking at both threat and risk as well as the wider impact on communities. I have used those powers in some instances where that threshold has been met. I have not used them in every single one—it would not be appropriate to do so—but let me tell him that I take a robust approach to the exercise of my powers and will always use them in an appropriate way to limit the threat to our communities here at home.
I think that I have covered everything that the shadow Home Secretary said. I will ensure that I respond to his letter as soon as I finish the statement.
Mr Speaker
I gently say to the Home Secretary that it is much harder to read in a newspaper about which MPs have been targeted and named when we have no knowledge of that. That puts us all at a disadvantage, especially as we give health and wellbeing support as well as security. I think there is a gap that has not been closed.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and recognise the dignified way in which she, as a woman of colour, carries out her duties in trying to help and support all of us, having been at the receiving end of quite a lot of this stuff herself over many years. I say that because in the two years that I have been back here, I have lost count of how many times we have stood here to discuss the activities and antics of people in this country who want to come after MPs, peers and minority communities. Whether those are the so-called patriots who do their patrols around the streets targeting migrant communities or the virulent antisemites who go after the Jewish community, they do so seemingly because they fear very little. I agree with the Home Secretary that we can put up walls to protect those communities—but at some point the state is going to have to say: “Enough of this; we are coming after them.” As well as all the welcome protections that the Home Secretary is putting in place for the victims, what more can we all do collectively to bring the perpetrators to the place they deserve to be, which is probably in front of a judge and then in jail?
Shabana Mahmood
Mr Speaker, before I answer my hon. Friend’s question, may I say that, on sharing of information, you will know that that is a matter for counter-terror policing? They are in charge of the investigation and they have got to ensure that all their actions can survive future contact with a court of law. Nobody wants to do anything that might be prejudicial in any way.
I hear the case made by you, Mr Speaker, and by other Members of the House. Let me assure you that I will pick up those conversations with counter-terror policing and wider criminal justice system partners to ensure that we have stress-tested the robustness of our arrangements in such cases. I will come back to you directly, Mr Speaker, as well as updating the House in the future.
Shabana Mahmood
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will also ensure that I update the Lord Speaker.
My hon. Friend will know that the Government have announced substantial new additional funding for the protection of our Jewish community: about £250 million of additional money committed over a three-year period to ensure an enhanced policing posture in key Jewish community sites. That is an important step forward and a recognition of the ongoing nature of the threat that our community faces.
My hon. Friend is right on the issue of putting up ever higher walls: we have got to ensure that the security system is robust and can respond effectively. Let me say again to him that, as we can see from the sheer number of cases now appearing before the courts, the police and our security services are working around the clock to bring people to justice and to foil plots—they have done so on many occasions and will continue to do so—but we must have a wider national conversation about the cultural changes we have seen. We need a wider societal response against antisemitism, because we cannot simply put security guards everywhere. We need our citizens to be able to live together in harmony and respect, for the betterment of everyone.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I start by sharing my support for the police and security services. As the MP for GCHQ, that means a great deal to me, given that so many of my constituents work there.
The murder of Ann Widdecombe shocked us all, and the revelations about the suspect’s plans apparently to attack other MPs are deeply concerning to all of us in the House. Those of us who want protection for politicians must demand it for all, no matter the political persuasion of those politicians; that needs to be said on the record. In return, we must hope that all politicians on all sides moderate their language when necessary to lower the temperature of debate and reduce the threat against us all. That is an important part of the debate that must not be lost.
Those who target politicians must not be allowed to impose their intended chilling effect on our democracy. My thoughts remain with Ann’s family, including my constituent Rev. Roger Widdecombe who leads the congregation at St Paul’s in Cheltenham.
Sadly, the public discourse aimed at politicians has coarsened in the last decade, which has resulted in increased hatred, abuse and offences against politicians and retired politicians at all levels, and politically motivated killings. We must never forget what happened to Sir David Amess and Jo Cox. It is important that we can all do our jobs without intimidation, fear or worse. I know that the Speaker takes that seriously. We therefore welcome the review into the protective security provided to those in public life. It is right that it will be done swiftly.
On another of the many elements of the statement, we must be clearly ever more mindful of the threat to this country from our enemies on the global stage—and those at home, too. We must do all we can to prevent those threats: especially, as we have seen in recent months, those that have wickedly targeted the Jewish community in this country. It is right that today we remember Melvin Kravitz and Adrian Daulby. We welcome the Home Secretary’s comments on an inquiry for the Heaton Park attacks. Let us all remain vigilant to antisemitism and supportive of our Jewish communities—that goes for all political parties.
In April, I wrote to Ministers seeking additional support for the police to account for the added strain on their resources in areas around military bases. Ministers told me that the police should work within their existing budgets without extra support, but given what has recently happened will Ministers look again at how they can support the police forces responsible for the areas around RAF Fairford and other bases? Will the Home Secretary push Ministers to accelerate the previously announced security review and set out what she will do to strengthen the security of all bases in general?
Earlier, the Prime Minister stated that Iran and the IRGC were “highly likely” to have been behind the incident at RAF Fairford. So, finally, what action is being taken against Iranian operatives involved in that activity? Is the expulsion of diplomats being considered?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the hon. Member for his comments and questions. On the issues relating to the murder of Ann Widdecombe, he made a point about our responsibility to lower the temperature. I observe that it is possible to have very robust debate and a thorough contest of ideas without having to cross a line and call into question our collective security. I urge all Members as ever to reflect on their own behaviour to ensure that we are modelling the right behaviour, which we expect our citizens to see. We lead the national discourse and we should seek to do it in an appropriate way without losing all of the political contestation that is a hallmark of a thriving democracy.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments on remaining vigilant on antisemitism as a collective, whole of society response. All political parties have a responsibility to ensure that they are active partners in the fight against antisemitism, which is a pernicious form of hatred. We know that it has increased substantially in recent years, and we all have a responsibility there.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the issue of military bases is primarily one for the Ministry of Defence, but of course it works closely with the police and with us at the Home Office. Let me assure him that I am in good discussions with the Defence Secretary to ensure that all appropriate measures are being taken at our military bases, that we are aware of all the risks and that there are good security measures. It is my belief that there are, but of course we are never going to be complacent on that matter and will always review and ensure that our response is appropriate. I would be happy to discuss that with the hon. Gentleman as well, if needed. If he writes to me again, I can make sure that he gets an updated response that reflects the current and recent events.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
British Jews like me find the vote by the Greens to declare Zionism racism deeply disturbing. Perhaps some Greens were misled, for Zionism is simply the belief that Jewish people have a right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. So I am a Zionist, and who here is not a Zionist? British Jews, some of whom live in areas controlled by Green councils, are worried. How can they be reassured that they will not be the subject of political prejudice?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The policies of another political party are a matter primarily for that political party, and I would expect it to have to explain the impact of its motion on the safety and security of Jews. I believe that there are questions for the Green party leadership to look at and to answer. On the issue of Green councils, every council, regardless of which political party is running it, has to follow the law, and the law will not allow any prejudicial treatment of any of our citizens based on their protected characteristics, whether that is their race or their religion. That applies with as much fervour to the Jewish community as it does to any other community in this country, and I would expect all councils to ensure that they comply with the law. Nobody has the right to freelance on equality policy. It is set by the Government. There is a clear legal framework and every council has to follow it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I cannot be alone in having had many colleagues over the years report to me instances where they have received threats and the police have simply not taken them seriously. It is only when those threats have escalated and further action has been taken that the police have finally intervened, and that is simply not good enough. We have also seen in this recent case that the police communications are not appropriate and that Mr Speaker and Mr Lord Speaker are unable to offer the necessary support to those Members who have been victims. What conversation is the Home Secretary having with the police about their attitude to threats to Members of Parliament? These threats need to be taken seriously. We do not want to see another plaque put up in this Chamber for another murdered colleague.
Shabana Mahmood
I absolutely agree with the final remarks of the Chair of the Select Committee. None of us wants to be mourning another of our colleagues, either current or former, and that is why I believe that change is needed. The right hon. Lady will know that the responsibilities for the protective security system as it stands today are shared across multiple Departments, including the Parliamentary Security Department, individual local police forces, the Home Office and RAVEC—the Royal and VIP Executive Committee. It is a fragmented system and I am acknowledging today that, while everybody works hard within that system to provide a good security response for individuals in public life, it needs to be looked at again because of the range of threats that we now see, and the complexity of the changing environment.
When the system was first set up, nobody had in mind that we would have high-profile political leaders who were not in Parliament. That was not how our political culture used to work, but things have changed and the system has not been able to keep up in the way that it needs to do so. That is why I have announced the expansion of Operation Ford to cover more people, so that at least they have some contact with police, can access advice and, where necessary, can have an assessment of their risk with other security measures attached to it. However, the system needs an overhaul, and that is why the review is an important step forward. I will be finalising official terms of reference with Stephen Lovegrove, the independent reviewer, and I will obviously ensure that the House is updated. As I say, I want this done within six months because I recognise the urgency of the situation.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
Faith matters in this country, and nothing strikes our shared British values more than attacks on places of worship. It is absolutely right that this Government call out the attacks on synagogues and other Jewish communal organisations, and it is right that Members of this House push the Government to do more to tackle antisemitism and make the resources available. There is also a wider hatred against other faiths in this country, and I am aware that in my gurdwaras, mosques and places of other religious faiths, people are worried about attacks on their communal spaces and their sacred ability to worship freely as part of modern Britain. What more can my right hon. Friend do to focus not just on antisemitism, which it is right to do, but on what support and funding are available to other places of worship, to ensure that modern Britain is a place where all our faiths have a place and are represented and protected?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a sacred ability of all our citizens who have a faith to practise their faith freely in their places of worship—a freedom that I have availed myself of on many occasions—but I understand people’s fear whenever they hear of an attack, whether on a synagogue, a mosque, a gurdwara or any other place of worship. My hon. Friend might be aware that the Government have already allocated record funding of over £70 million for the protective security schemes for faith communities. That includes all faith communities. Of that money, £40 million is for the protective security for mosques scheme. I have already updated Members on the money made available to the Jewish community, given the particular range of threats to our Jewish community, but there is funding for which other faith groups can apply, for assistance with security measures.
At the Home Office, we are obviously downstream of many of these issues. We are involved when things are about to go wrong or have gone wrong, and what we can offer in terms of policy are things like security measures. My hon. Friend is right to say that we need a wider societal conversation on how we change our culture, so that we can stop the descent into a more polarised society that we have seen in recent years, and do more to build a cohesive society that is confident and whose citizens can live freely alongside one another.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. My colleagues will ask questions about MPs’ security, but I want to touch on RAF Fairford. The Government’s own terrorism tsar, Jonathan Hall KC, has said that in incidents of serious terrorism, more information should be put out faster, sooner and in more detail to prevent misinformation. I asked the Prime Minister earlier whether there was any truth in the suggestion that some of those arrested and then bailed had Iranian diplomatic immunity. He gave the hospital pass to the Home Secretary, so let me repeat the question. Can any more be said about that, and about whether those arrested could be not only British nationals but dual Iranian-British nationals?
Shabana Mahmood
No one had or has diplomatic immunity—I can put that on the record immediately. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the Jonathan Hall recommendations that followed the horrific attacks in Southport. We always seek to work with partners in the criminal justice system to make sure that information is shared as quickly as possible in order to prevent disinformation from spreading and to prevent people from succeeding in sowing fear in our communities. The hon. Gentleman will also understand, I hope, that the investigation is live, and how an investigation starts is not always how it ultimately ends. There are many developments along the way. If we think that the police should always have an open mind about an investigation, and if we want to protect the integrity of future court proceedings, it is important that we proceed with care. Let me assure him that I will always ensure that we put accurate information into the public domain as soon as we are able to do so, in a way that does not compromise an investigation. This investigation is still at an early stage.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement. Recently, constituents have been contacting me with concerns about self-appointed uniformed groups, sometimes masked, patrolling our local area. This is becoming a nationwide phenomenon. They tell me that it is frightening and that it is stopping them going about their daily lives. Does the Home Secretary feel that the national guidance and legislation around these self-appointed patrol groups is sufficient, given that such behaviour falls outside normal protest?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the behaviour of some of these groups, and particularly of masked individuals, is causing fear across communities. It is designed to do that. We expect the police to use all the powers at their disposal, including, where appropriate, powers to require the removal of face coverings. I assure her that as groups develop their approach to protest-like activity, I will always keep these matters under review.
It is important that we respect the right to protest and to political dissent, and that we take an active approach to allowing people to show their political dissent, which is a key hallmark of our democracy, but it is important that it does not happen in a way that has a chilling effect on the freedoms of others. I am committed to ensuring that this Government get that balance right. I am happy to discuss with my hon. Friend the experiences in her constituency and region to ensure that our response is appropriate.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
RAF Fairford is in my constituency. On the night of the incident, the residents of Whelford, a nearby village, were woken in the wee small hours by police hammering at the door and were given just a few minutes to leave their home, in many cases, leaving behind pets and medication. That was obviously a very unsettling experience, and many of them still feel quite deep anxiety. What assessment has been made of the ongoing risks? Will the Home Secretary meet me and local parish councils to discuss lessons learned, and to ensure that residents’ concerns are addressed before US bombers return to RAF Fairford?
Shabana Mahmood
Of course, I recognise the deep anxiety that will have been felt by the residents of Whelford; it must have been a terrifying experience for them. The hon. Lady will understand that the police have to act quickly to safeguard life and have to take every risk seriously, and I am sure that that is what they sought to do in this case, but there is no getting away from the fact that, although they were doing their jobs, this would still have been unsettling for residents. I am happy to ensure that residents’ concerns are listened to. I will arrange a meeting for her with the Security Minister, in the first instance, to go through those concerns, and will ensure that I am also kept updated.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Adults in the UK seeking to access pornographic material online are now required to upload identification to pass age verification checks, yet those choosing to share extremist material or incite hate and terrorism on social media can enjoy anonymity. What consideration has the Home Office given to ensuring that social media users can be identified? My constituents, some of whom have been victims of online harassment, simply do not understand why anonymity is allowed.
Shabana Mahmood
I understand the concern raised by my hon. Friend. He will know that this is a matter of policy for colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and the Secretary of State has made it clear that she believes there is further work to do on ensuring online safety for everyone. More generally, age verification has had a good impact in relation to the viewing of pornographic material. When it comes to material that is in the more contested space of cultural issues, we would still have the issue of where we draw the line between content that, although it might be horrible, is lawful; content that is lawful but harmful; and content that slips into illegality. Those questions remain, regardless of whether we have age verification.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I put on record my thanks to Counter Terrorism Policing West Midlands and West Mercia police’s special branch for all they are doing in their regions and areas for all Members, across parties. In reply to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), who is no longer in her place, the Home Secretary mentioned that the system was “fragmented”. In her statement, she also said, “We are also building a specialist mission in Counter Terrorism Policing to disrupt state threats”. The Home Secretary will know that the Security Service—she knows what branch—plays a major part in counter-espionage and counter-terrorism. We also have counter-terror police and the National Crime Agency. Given that, as she said, more deniable proxy attacks are happening through criminal gangs, is this not creating another silo, at a time when we need to break down the silos and have all these agencies and forces working together?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments on supporting the work of counter-terror police. So much of that work is not public, but it is crucial to the safety and security of our nation; it is right that we place on record our thanks to them. He makes a good point about silos. That is one of the reasons why I am setting up the national police service, which will bring together the National Crime Agency and Counter Terrorism Policing into one service. I am doing so because I recognise that placing those two agencies together puts us in the best possible place to face these growing and complex threats, which are changing all the time.
I believe that the National Crime Agency and Counter Terrorism Policing work very effectively together. They have built up good arrangements over the years to ensure that when allegedly criminal activity strays across the boundaries into what their organisations look at, they work closely together. I meet all of them, alongside other partners, weekly, as does the Security Minister. We work very hard to ensure that there are not silos.
The reason for setting up the new state threats mission is that the nature of state threats has changed so significantly. We see this, and other Five Eyes partner countries see the same trend. It is important to be at the cutting edge of understanding how our enemies want to do us harm, so that we can meet that challenge. I commit to the right hon. Gentleman that I will not allow any silos to exist. The national police service will have a key role in ensuring that that never happens.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I join the House in expressing my sympathies to the family of Ann Widdecombe, as a fellow Devon resident.
The number of antisemitic and other hate crimes has risen in recent years. When I talk to young Jewish people in my constituency, they are fearful and unable to live their full Jewish lives freely. I am particularly worried about new self-appointed groups who are door-knocking in Jewish communities under the guise of, for example, being anti-apartheid. That strikes me as being a bit closer to harassment than anything else. Is the Home Secretary satisfied that she, the security services and the police have the right tools to combat this new activity, which is increasing across the country?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend, who raises a similar point to that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham). The self-appointed groups are showing a new form of protest-type activity, which is not quite the same as traditional protest. Whether they come from the far right or the far left, no one is allowed to break the law of our land, harass people, threaten or intimidate. Wherever a crime has taken place, I expect the police to respond robustly and to ensure that communities and individuals are not living in fear. I reassure him that I am discussing the emerging picture of this type of activity with all appropriate partners. I am happy to discuss with him the experience in his area, and to work with hon. Members to ensure that the legitimate expression of the freedom to protest, freedom of conscience, freedom of political speech and so on does not chill the freedoms, or indeed the safety, of anyone else.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is not always the most high-profile or senior politicians who are targeted; we know that in this House, to our cost. The Speaker’s Conference on security looked at the views of Members and candidates from all parts of these islands, and it specifically sought evidence from Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh candidates and MPs, who may not have the same jurisdictional or geographical issues as English MPs. Can the Home Secretary reassure me that Sir Stephen Lovegrove will listen to a range of voices and experiences, from different jurisdictions and geographies, so that appropriate recommendations can be made?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me give that assurance immediately to the hon. Lady. The Government already recognise that there is a different picture for devolved Administrations. Op Ford is extended to all devolved Administrations, and the review will take into account the many different ways in which democracy is expressed in our country, whether in metro mayoralties or devolved Administrations, including by current and former Members of those Administrations and local councillors, of whom there are many thousands across the country. I can give her that reassurance. The review will be a full, end-to-end look at the whole picture of protective security for those in public life.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
This follows on from hon. Friends’ questions. We are seeing more masked gangs and people who seek to intimidate our communities, but often following them are the new self-proclaimed auditors, who are there to film them, and who often fund these gangs. Unfortunately, this trend has grown dramatically in Blackpool. People recently entered the council chamber during a full council meeting to intimidate councillors of all parties, screaming and demanding that councillors identified what political party they were from. During the recent by-election campaign in Claremont, people harassed and intimidated local activists of all parties as they went about. What measures are in place to allow councils to ban these “auditors” from certain areas of towns, and especially town centres? We also see this trend growing in the night-time economy; these people often prey on vulnerable individuals. This is becoming a real problem, and it has been highlighted by the leader of Blackpool council as well. What more can we do, or what new powers need to be implemented, to stop this wave of “auditors”?
Shabana Mahmood
I am sorry to hear of the experiences of people in my hon. Friend’s local community. I restate that we expect the police to use the full range of their powers. People have the right to show their political dissent in this country—that is an important freedom that everybody has—but nobody has the right to break the law, threaten or harass individuals, or otherwise engage in criminal acts. I encourage his local council leaders to work with their local police, but I will also meet all colleagues who have raised similar concerns to talk through the current policy environment, and to ensure, as I said in response to previous questions, that we get the balance right, and maintain the freedoms that make our country great without chilling the freedoms of others in our society.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
RAF Molesworth is in my constituency, and the break-in last week has caused concern locally, it being next to a very small village. People are rightly concerned that the base is vulnerable, whether this was criminal activity or a foreign actor intervening. We have three bases in my constituency, two for US visiting forces, and one UK base. Two of them are among the most strategically sensitive sites in western Europe, and we have a small and quite underfunded police force. I appreciate that the situation is complicated, because it mixes Cambridgeshire constabulary, Ministry of Defence police, Counter Terrorism Policing and US visiting forces. I went out with Ministry of Defence police the other day on Project Servator, which acts as a deterrent locally, but it was not something that I had heard of, and it certainly is not something that local people are aware of. There is a real opportunity for briefings or encouragement in areas like mine, to make people more vigilant about this type of activity and the vulnerability of those military bases.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the hon. Member and, if he is amenable, I would be happy to ensure that he can meet the Security Minister. I will also personally pick up those issues with the Defence Secretary. The hon. Member is right to note that many different organisations are involved in the security of bases across the country and in his constituency. I will follow up to ensure that everything is happening as it should in his constituency, and to ensure better sharing of information, where that is appropriate.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
The Government have reported that there are 20 active terror plots, just recently two Iranians have been arrested, and now the Prime Minister is telling us that there are Iranian links to the Fairford incident. I think it is safe to say that there is a systematic Iranian campaign on British soil. The measures that the Home Secretary has announced today and recently are really welcome, but they are largely defensive in nature. Sometimes offence is the best form of defence. Has the Home Secretary considered whether we perhaps need to increase the costs on the Iranians for their actions? Has she considered signalling that fact to the Iranians to deter them from future activity?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me simply say to the hon. Member that we work very closely with all our allies. These are threats that are shared and are felt by many of our allies and colleagues in other countries. We will always ensure that we take both collective action to deal with the threats we all face, but also ensure that we are always protecting the British national interest. I will not give a running commentary on wider discussions, but let me say that this Government will always take every appropriate measure to keep our people safe.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Last week I got a telephone call from Nottinghamshire police to tell me that I was on a kill list of 100 MPs, former MPs and VIPs. I strongly believe that it took a leak to the press before the police actually contacted me and my Reform colleagues sitting here. Can the Home Secretary tell me when she first became aware of that list?
Shabana Mahmood
I do not believe, as I said in answer to previous questions, that anything inappropriate has happened in relation to the list. I am not going to give a running commentary on intelligence discussions, but nothing inappropriate has happened, in my view. I will ensure that I am able to share more information with the House, as I referenced in my earlier answer to Mr Speaker, and the concerns that have been raised about who has knowledge of those names, but the investigation is led by the police—I do not get a running commentary or an update, and it would be inappropriate for that to happen. The police are operationally independent, they must go where the evidence takes them, and no politician should ever have a directive hand in such proceedings.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement of the independent review of protective security provided by the state to those in public life. The statement mentions former MPs and party spokespeople, and I am glad that she said from the Dispatch Box that it will also include elected councillors, because it cannot be the case that good people are being put off from standing to represent their community because of a fear of violence, intimidation and abuse. The reality for too many councillors, though, is that Operation Ford is inconsistent and is not rising to the moment. I welcome her widening the scope of Operation Ford, but could she explain how she plans to strengthen the operation itself, so that elected councillors and candidates get the support and protection they deserve?
Shabana Mahmood
I am happy to pick up any specific concerns that the hon. Lady has, or with councillors whom she has been discussing the problems of Operation Ford with, to ensure that those are dealt with. I would observe that when Operation Bridger first started—I say this as a Member of Parliament rather than as the Home Secretary—it maybe was not as effective. Each time it has done anything, Members have been able to shape how it works based on their own lived experience. That engagement between Members, the parliamentary authorities and the police themselves has been crucial in improving Operation Bridger. It has been an iterative process. The nature of these threats is very complex—it varies from place to place, from person to person—so it is right that it adapts as circumstances change and that it is responsive. I expect Operation Ford to respond in the same way to the threats faced by other elected officials. I say to the hon. Lady that I will ensure that is the case and that there is good learning across all the Operation Ford network to ensure that there is a consistent standard. It is not unusual for MPs still to say that Operation Bridger can be inconsistent, so it is a work in progress, but I do believe that the wider review gives us the best opportunity to have a single system with a clear approach, based on threat and risk management, which is crucial for everyone.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
On the National Protective Security Authority and the national centre for information defence, may I seek an assurance from the Home Secretary that infrastructure in Northern Ireland and the misinformation that is portrayed into Northern Ireland politics are also a focus of this Government’s work?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that infrastructure in Northern Ireland is just as important as infrastructure in any other part of the United Kingdom, and, whether the work we do is through the new national centre or our current arrangements, there will be no discrepancy in the way the Government approach the safety and security of the people of Northern Ireland, or indeed critical national infrastructure in Northern Ireland, compared with any other part of the United Kingdom.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
One of the greatest strengths of British democracy is that constituents can meet their Member of Parliament face to face. Does the Secretary of State agree that although we must keep elected representatives safe from violence, the basic right of people to speak to their Member of Parliament must always be championed?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree that it is a really important way in which this country and our democracy function. I do not think of it as a right so much, but it is part of our political culture. It has always been the case that people can freely turn up to this, the nation’s House, themselves and that they can meet their local Member of Parliament and also their councillors. It is also normal in our country for MPs to offer advice surgeries and to go out door-knocking. Those are important parts of our political culture that I do not wish to see change. But we must also be mindful of the new risks posed to elected officials. As a Member noted earlier, we do not want people to be put off from entering public life, so it is important that our arrangements adapt in a way that protects our political culture.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The Home Secretary rightly asks that the public play their part in national security, but we have no serious national framework for civilian resilience. Finland and other countries have demonstrated the value of preparing the civilian population before a crisis. So will the Government seriously consider the Liberal Democrat proposal to establish a dedicated civil defence office and civil volunteer reserve, which would bring together volunteers trained in cyber-security, emergency response and protection of critical national infrastructure?
Shabana Mahmood
The Government take very seriously the need to be prepared for all the threats we face across a whole range of public policy concerns, whether national security matters or those related to the environment, and other issues as well. I am sure that I and colleagues across government will always look at all proposals designed to help us be more resilient as a nation, and I know the Prime Minister will have more to say on this in due course.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
It is abundantly clear to me that if the attack on the home of my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) had been properly investigated, instead of brushed aside in some combination of incompetence and political bias, Ann Widdecombe would still be alive today. Instead, she was brutally murdered because of two-tier Britain. Let that sink in to everyone in this place. Why did it take the death of Ann Widdecombe for people to begin at least to wake up to what is happening in this country?
Shabana Mahmood
I appreciate that the circumstances of Ann Widdecombe’s murder and also the additional information that has come to light are very distressing, and I have offered sympathy and support from this Dispatch Box before, and I do so again. But I do not think that the distressing nature of these events justifies the charge that the right hon. Member makes, and I do reject that charge. He, as a former Minister, knows how these things work. The Independent Office for Police Conduct is investigating. It is independent of Government and of the police. It will go where the facts take it on the additional incident that is being investigated in relation to the property of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), and it is important that it is able to get on with the job. It is also important that we do not pre-empt the findings of that IOPC investigation. It is working swiftly and will have answers for us quickly, and I know those answers will be debated in this Chamber, but it is important that we do not make findings of fact before the facts are known.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The RAF Fairford plot was reported in the press as having been foiled by a local resident. She described parked vans as having “strange signage” on them. She said: “I looked at it and thought, ‘That is not real.’” Will the Home Secretary credit this alertness from a member of the public, and will the Government be doing more to encourage this whole-of-society approach to security?
Shabana Mahmood
I repeat what I said to all members of the public in my statement: if they see anything suspicious, they should contact the police, as residents did in relation to the incident at RAF Fairford. The hon. Gentleman will know that, as the Defence Secretary has said, there is more to the investigation and how the incident unfolded than is known or said publicly at the moment. That is because the investigation has to be able to continue in the normal way—so there is more to those circumstances. But let me commend the resident in question and all others for doing their civic duty in spotting something suspicious and making sure they call the police. I would urge everybody else, if the same ever happens again, to do the same.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. My constituents are deeply proud of Northern Ireland’s unmatched cyber-security and resilience, but they are also deeply worried about the modern, multi-layered threats confronting our nation. We are seeing unprecedented levels of foreign interference, state-sponsored cyber-warfare, and trans-national repression from hostile states such as China, Iran and Russia, targeting democratic institutions and communities on our own soil. At a time when global instability is worsening, will the Home Secretary reassure the House that this Government will stand firmly behind our intelligence-sharing networks with key democratic allies such as Israel, rather than risking them through short-sighted, one-sided trade or diplomatic restrictions, such as those against Israel?
Shabana Mahmood
I assure the hon. Member, as I assured the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) earlier, that the Government approach in relation to our people and our places in Northern Ireland is no different from our approach anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Let me also say that the Government value our defence and security and intelligence relationships with all of our allies and partners, and those relationships are important and strong, and they continue. That is also the case in relation to Israel, and we will continue working with our allies and partners to make sure that we are collectively doing everything we can to keep our people safe.
Policing in Cleveland
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about the fatal crash near Middlesbrough on 22 August, and the death of two brave police officers that day: Police Constable Matthew Blades and Police Constable Tom Clough. It is the most humbling duty of any Home Secretary to oversee the work of our police forces and the thousands who serve in them, and that is never more true than on a day like today, when we honour those who have fallen in the line of duty—those who lost their lives as they sought to protect us all.
The detail of what happened will by now be well known to most in the House and beyond it, but it is right to begin by recounting the facts. At 3.39 on the morning of Saturday 22 August, a Volkswagen Passat containing five young men, travelling the wrong way down the A66, collided with a marked Cleveland police armed response vehicle. The police car was, I should add, travelling on the correct side of the road. A significant emergency response was deployed. I must pay tribute to all the first responders who attended the scene and worked in extremely difficult circumstances. Despite their best efforts, PC Blades and PC Clough both died as a result of the collision, as did the five individuals who were driving on the wrong side of the road.
Following such an incident, it is mandatory that a referral is made to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. That has happened in this case, and the IOPC has begun an independent investigation. On 23 August, it issued an update, which I will now summarise. Prior to the crash, Cleveland police received intelligence regarding numerous incidents linked to a Volkswagen Passat. The Passat was later sighted and an armed response vehicle began a pursuit. The pursuit lasted just under seven minutes before the Passat crossed over to the wrong side of the A66. At that point, the pursuit was aborted by officers, who continued to travel on the correct side of the carriageway. However, about 10 seconds later, the Passat collided with a police vehicle that was not involved in the pursuit but was in the area to assist in the search. That car contained police constables Blades and Clough. This is an ongoing investigation, so we must heed the request of those best placed to examine the circumstances of this awful incident by avoiding speculation and giving them the time and space they need to carry out their vital work.
Significant police activity has followed the crash. Some 27 arrests have been made as part of a wide-scale investigation into suspected serious and organised crime. There are limits on what can be said publicly at this stage, but both the IOPC and Cleveland police have my full backing in their respective tasks.
Members may be aware that Cleveland police has also been investigating a house fire in Grangetown in which two people died, including, tragically, a child. It should be noted that the force is not treating that as connected in any way to the A66 crash. However, it has undoubtedly added to the sense of disquiet in a community already reeling from that earlier tragedy.
Many in the House and across the country will have also been troubled by the scenes in County Durham, where a number of vehicles were set on fire at a memorial for one of the occupants of the Passat. I recognise how unnerving it will have been for law-abiding citizens in both the affected areas and beyond to see a spate of incidents in close proximity and in quick succession. Let me therefore assert once more that lawlessness of any kind will never be tolerated, and the Government stand squarely behind the police as they face down criminality and disorder on our streets.
The Government are supporting the police in word and deed. Cleveland police, like all forces, is receiving a real-terms uplift this year, taking its total funding to £197.8 million—an increase of £7 million compared to 2025-26. Clearly, the events of recent days have placed exceptional pressure on Cleveland police, and I can confirm today that the force has received additional resource under mutual aid arrangements, which have seen officers deployed to Cleveland from around the region. I thank those forces and personnel who have stepped up and taken on this additional work.
I can also announce today that in the light of the situation Cleveland police has faced, we will allocate an additional £2 million to the force to tackle serious crime in the area. That will build on existing operations, including the “clear, hold, build” approach, which is tough both on serious crime and on the causes of serious crime, and has been shown to work across the country.
In addition, as I have said, we are committed to a wider review of the police funding formula to ensure that force funding is fair and keeps the public safe. A new approach to allocating funding will be brought in as part of our reforms to police structures. In the meantime, the Government will continue to work closely with Cleveland police to ensure that it has all the support it needs as it faces these challenging circumstances and grieves the loss of two of its own.
Let me end by paying tribute to those two men. PC Blades and PC Clough devoted their lives to the noblest form of public service, protecting their fellow citizens. In remembering them, we hold in our hearts those they leave behind—above all, their family and all those who love them. I think also of their colleagues in uniform, not just in Cleveland but across policing, who have lost friends, colleagues and fellow members of the policing family.
This tragedy speaks to an enduring truth: policing is not just a profession; it is a calling answered only by those who are willing to place themselves in harm’s way to protect us all. PC Blades and PC Clough epitomise that courage. At 37 and 38, they were no age at all, but in their all too brief lives they gave so much. An extraordinary number of tributes have poured in, but I think we must leave the final words to their families, who knew them best and loved them most. PC Blades’s wife remembers a “beloved husband” and “the most devoted father” to their two young boys. She said:
“He was loved beyond words by all his family and friends, and his loss has left a space that can never be filled. He gave his life in the line of duty, protecting and serving others with courage, dedication and selflessness.”
PC Clough’s family describe him as their “hero”. They remember his “fantastic sense of humour” and pay tribute to a man who
“jumped into action whenever needed”
and who was
“always on public duty throughout his short life.”
A death in the line of duty is a moment of profound national sorrow, but our public loss is a fraction of the private and personal tragedy for these two families, so, across the House, let us offer them our love, support and prayers. Let us never forget who those two brave men were and how much they meant to those who loved them. For all they did and all they gave, PC Blades and PC Clough were the very best of us. Today, we remember them. I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I know that the whole House will join the Home Secretary and me in paying tribute to those brave officers tragically killed in the crash on the A66 in the early hours of 22 August. Our thoughts are with the families of PCs Matthew Blades and Tom Clough, whose lives were cut short by a car recklessly driven on the wrong side of the road by criminals. Those brave officers made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. They will never be forgotten.
Every day, police officers up and down the country risk their lives to keep us safe. We owe them all a deep debt of gratitude. This tragedy has sent shockwaves through Cleveland police and the public more widely. The Home Secretary has set out some of the steps being taken to support local police, but will she confirm that every request for extra assistance made by Cleveland police has been met?
In the aftermath of 22 August, I was shocked to see so-called tributes staged for some of the men directly responsible for PCs Blades and Clough’s deaths that included cars being driven dangerously and set on fire. Criminal activity of that kind is wrong in principle and deeply offensive in these circumstances. Will the Home Secretary join me in condemning that activity and calling on the police to ensure it does not happen again?
Organised crime was allowed to take hold in whole parts of Middlesbrough. Criminal gangs ran rampant and engaged in retaliatory attacks on one another. Homes and properties were attacked with no consequence, and that escalated even further in the days after 22 August. Although it is welcome that 27 people have finally been arrested, such lawless gang chaos should never have been allowed to take root in the first place. The police need proper resources to stop that. Many campaigners, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), the shadow police Minister, who I see in his place, have raised concerns for some time that there is a multi-million pound shortfall in funding for Cleveland police in the current financial year. Even the local Labour police and crime commissioner, Matt Storey, said this Government’s financial settlement this year
“completely fails to deliver the resources required to meet the demand faced by Cleveland Police and falls far short of what is needed.”
Does the Home Secretary accept her own police and crime commissioner’s assessment that the funding she put in place for Cleveland police this year is inadequate? Lawless chaos followed that underfunding, and I think the Home Secretary should apologise for that. The £2 million just referred to is only 0.5% of Cleveland’s budget and is clearly wholly inadequate in the circumstances.
I am afraid that that reflects a wider national trend that goes beyond Cleveland. The last Government left behind record ever police numbers, but there are now 1,800 fewer police officers under this Government. As a result, crime has increased by 10% and antisocial behaviour has gone up by 15% in just the last year. The Home Secretary must accept that cutting overall police numbers was a mistake. Will she take steps to reverse that decline? The truth is that only zero tolerance of crime and disorder will ensure that criminals are the ones who are afraid, and not the law-abiding public. We have seen the consequences, with the rampant gangs going unchallenged in Middlesbrough, and it is clear now that a zero-tolerance approach is required to keep the public safe.
Shabana Mahmood
Let me start by saying that I appreciate that, at the beginning of his statement, the shadow Home Secretary paid tribute and gave his condolences to the families of PC Blades and PC Clough. There is, at least, agreement across this House on their enormous sacrifice, and the need to support their family and friends as they face that loss. On the wider matters that he raises, he has absolutely no credibility when it comes to police numbers. It was his Government who cut police numbers, not by a few thousand here and there, or a few hundred, but by 20,000 police officers. They then decided to replace the 20,000 that they cut, but did so in a distorted way that meant that we have warranted police officers working in admin jobs and behind desks across police forces in this country.
The truth is that the Tory Government made an absolute mess of policing over their time in government. I have said this many times to the shadow Home Secretary, and though it falls on deaf ears, it remains true and I will keep saying it: he would have more credibility entering this debate if he fronted up on what went wrong under the Tory Government and apologised for it. I notice that he has the shadow Justice Secretary sitting next to him; he was a special adviser to a former Tory Home Secretary. Until there is humility about the mess that the Tories made of our public services and our policing in particular, they have no credibility, and I will take no lessons from them, especially given that his party oversaw the loss of over 200 officers in Cleveland.
This Government are righting those wrongs. We have increased funding for policing by £2 billion since being elected, and all forces will receive a real-terms uplift in their funding this year as part of an overall £18.5 billion package. Funding to Cleveland has increased by £18.3 million since 2024, and that is a real-terms increase of 4.4% over two years. That is the truth of what we have had to deal with as an incoming Labour Government, and we will not stop until we have our police service functioning exactly as the public would expect.
Let me also say to the right hon. Gentleman that, on the issue of criminal gangs and the efforts made by Cleveland police, I do not think it is a fair characterisation of that police force to suggest that they have done nothing for all this time and have only sprung into action since this horrifying incident took place. They are responding to the incident, arrests have been made and they will continue, and this Government will stand shoulder to shoulder with them as they get control of the matter and of the streets in Cleveland. That is why we have announced the additional funding today and that is why there are mutual aid arrangements in place to assist them.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the unlawful activity that has been taking place in relation to tributes and memorials for some of those who lost their lives in the crash. I of course condemn all unlawful activity and all attempts to breed public disorder as a result of what has happened. Again, we stand four-square behind the police as they respond to those incidents. People should be in no doubt that any attempt to instigate public disorder or to break our laws will be met with the full force of the law, and the Government will support the police as they carry out that incredibly important work.
There will be questions about the ability of the police to respond effectively and to ensure that we are able to give confidence to all the public about the standard of service that they can expect from their policing. Members of this House should have absolutely no doubt that this is a Government who have increased funding for policing and who are going to make sure that we reform policing so that the police are capable of dealing with every type of challenge that a modern force faces and we have a police service that we can all be absolutely proud of and can rely on in our time of need. I hope that all Members across this House, acting reasonably, can unite around that.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough. I also pay tribute to all the officers of Cleveland police who, while grieving the loss of their two colleagues, have continued to serve with extraordinary professionalism, remaining visible in our communities, pursuing offenders and making arrests. My thoughts, those of my Middlesbrough and Thornaby East constituents and those of everyone across Teesside remain with the families of the officers, their friends and colleagues. That has been magnificently demonstrated by the overwhelming generosity shown in donations to the fund established to support the families of Matthew and Tom, and at the outpouring of love and solidarity at the Riverside stadium on Saturday, which reflect the decency of the overwhelming majority of people in our communities.
We must, however, confront the reality of crime honestly. The latest figures show around 123 recorded crimes per 1,000 people across the Cleveland police force area—the highest rate of any police force in England and Wales. Yet Cleveland has experienced the largest percentage reduction in full-time equivalent officers since 2010, losing around 13% of its officers. Police numbers are not the only factor, but a force facing the highest demand in the country needs the resources to respond. I am truly grateful to the Home Secretary for the financial assistance she has announced for Cleveland today, and that will address the mutual aid bill and some. Will she meet me and my colleagues to discuss how that deficit in resources can be urgently and permanently corrected?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I know how deeply affected he and other parliamentarians who represent the local area have been by what has happened, and I pay tribute to their ability to give voice to what their communities are experiencing. I particularly agree with him on thanking the officers who are still on duty, who have lost one of their own. They are showing incredible bravery in very difficult circumstances.
I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and colleagues from neighbouring constituencies to discuss these matters in more detail. I hope he will take comfort from the additional resourcing that has been announced today. We believe that is important to get on top of the serious and organised crime issues in the area, but of course we will want to ensure that the force has everything it needs in order to respond. More widely, I would like to discuss with him how this matter makes the case for wider police system reform, so that we can ensure we have a service that can not only respond to local need but, at regional level, surge resources into areas that are experiencing particularly high levels of crime.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I want to join others in extending my sympathies and those of my party to the families and colleagues of PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough. My thoughts are with their loved ones at this extremely difficult time. By virtue of my in-laws, I am from a policing family, so I know the shock and grief that is being felt in the wider policing community, too. That should be acknowledged today in the Chamber.
At least one of those killed in the Middlesbrough crash is in multiple videos posted on TikTok depicting dangerous driving. This is part of a concerning wider trend on social media platforms, where lives are being risked in the pursuit of clicks, and we must ask: who is benefiting from this? It is some of the world’s richest people. They are getting richer off the back of these platforms, which are currently under-regulated, while communities suffer the consequences. Can the Home Secretary explain why, despite her Government’s intention to force platforms to remove dangerous content that leads to dangerous activities and deaths, such platforms still have no legal obligation to do so? Events in America have shown that these companies can be brought to heel, so will the Home Secretary work with the Culture Secretary to strengthen the Online Safety Act 2023, so that the glorification of dangerous driving is brought into scope?
It is, as others have said, deeply worrying to see the scenes of unrest that have followed this incident. We know that there are national pressures on police resources, so can the Home Secretary tell the House how long mutual aid will continue, and can she say something about the support given to the other forces that are losing resource under mutual aid arrangements? Given the apparent links, is she confident that her reforms will give the police and the National Crime Agency the resources and powers they need to tackle the scourge of organised crime that impacts not only Middlesbrough but so many communities across our country?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the Lib Dem spokesman for his comments and questions. Let me assure him that I am already discussing with colleagues across Government the wider issues of social media platforms and the content that is posted on them. He will know that this Government have been implementing various elements of the Online Safety Act and that from the middle of next year the wider measures within the Act will come online. That will mean that the larger social media platforms, including TikTok, will be under a legal duty to act against harmful content that breaches their terms of service. That will include content of this nature. In the meantime, most of the platforms are taking this content down. It is a reactive process, in the sense that they are responding to content being flagged—it has then, for the most part, been removed from their platforms—but from the middle of next year there will be a duty on those platforms to act proactively, not just reactively.
However, as I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, there are wider questions about the efficacy of the Online Safety Act and whether we need to revisit the measures in that Act and go further, given the unique pressures that some of the content on those platforms poses for law and order, and for criminal justice more broadly. Those are matters that the Government are considering, and other Government colleagues will come to the House to update Members in due course. Let me assure him that I work closely with colleagues on the specific matters raised by this case.
On the hon. Gentleman’s question on mutual aid, that will continue as long as it is needed by the chief constable in Cleveland, but I think this case shows the need for wider police structural reform. Cleveland is a relatively small force, and we can see the pressures on a small force that is having to do local neighbourhood policing as well as the much more specialist investigations that go with organised crime and public order-related issues. As I have made clear before, moving to a three-tier system with local forces, regional forces and also the new national police service will put us in the best possible position to provide a policing service that is able to respond to local issues in the way that local people expect, with a very visible local policing presence, as well as giving us the flexibility to respond to cases across a larger area, such as those we have seen in Cleveland, with the capacity and numbers needed to deal with public order risk, for example, without having to rely on mutual aid to get through and survive day by day, and having a national police service that can take up the types of crime that are prevalent nationally and also have an international dimension. We will bring forward our proposals on reform later this year, and I look forward to debating those with the hon. Gentleman and others across this House.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The whole of Teesside has been shaken by the tragic deaths of PC Tom Clough and PC Matthew Blades last week, and the real Teesside—the one not depicted in the media—is the one that filled up the Riverside with a standing ovation for those two brave officers on Saturday, that has raised over £1 million for their families and that stands with our emergency services every single day. However, those services need their Government to stand with them, too. I am grateful for the £2 million extra funding that has been announced today, and for the 300 extra officers who have been deployed from across the country to keep our streets safe in the short term, but what we need in the long term is funding formula reform, so will the Home Secretary bring that forward at pace and ensure that we get the fair funding settlement that Cleveland so desperately needs?
Shabana Mahmood
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way that he has responded to this incident on behalf of his constituents, who I know have been deeply affected, as he has himself. The outpouring of support for the families of PC Blades and PC Clough is a real testament to the people he represents. Let me assure him, on ensuring that the Government proceed with their planned review of the funding formula, that as we change police force structures, the case for the necessity of changing the formula is also made out. We could not keep the same funding formula with a new policing system in any case. I say that to assure him that both reviewing and reforming the police funding formula are absolutely critical to the programme of police reform. We know that on many occasions over 14 years the previous Government promised reform of the funding formula but then ducked that reform at every opportunity. The move to a new structure for policing in this country provides the best opportunity to relook at funding, and let me reassure him that that is absolutely on the agenda. We will be updating the House on the timetable for that, once the independent review on police force structures has been completed and presented to the House.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
As a local Member, I pay tribute to PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough, and to every police officer who has worked tirelessly throughout these horrific and tragic events. Our thoughts remain with their families and colleagues. Despite having the highest crime rate in the country, Cleveland received the lowest increase in funding, with our local Labour police and crime commissioner warning of a £2.4 million shortfall. I very much welcome the mutual aid and the funding that has been announced, but will the Home Secretary guarantee that the new funding formula will properly reflect the pressures of serious and organised crime faced by Cleveland, so that this funding does not prove to be merely a sticking plaster?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is a local Member, and he is taking the opportunity to ask a question from the Back Benches to reflect his local interest; I pay tribute to him for his response to this incident and the wider pressures in his local area. I assure him that, when we begin the work on reforming the funding formula, we will start with a first-principles approach to what we are seeking to achieve. That will include broader issues of demand for policing and will reflect the reality of what policing different areas looks like.
The new police force structure—a new regional force model that is big enough to surge capacity to local areas when required—will give the flexibility to ensure that forces are not condemned to permanently relying on mutual aid. It is to the credit of the policing system that people step up and do what is required to keep their areas safe, but nobody could argue that that is the right way to run policing in our country in the 21st century. It desperately needs reform. Most of the policing system leaders recognise that the structure needs reform. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that funding reform will flow as a result of that. The first phase of consulting on funding reform will relate to the first principles of what the funding is for and how to reflect the needs of different areas.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I join the Home Secretary and the whole House in paying tribute to PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough, and in sending our heartfelt condolences to their families and loved ones. Matthew was a coach at my son’s football club, FC Hartlepool, and at Seaton Carew FC. The teams played each other last Saturday, when I was proud to join so many other Poolies in paying tribute to a remarkable man who was so loved by everyone who knew him. I also pay tribute to our police and all emergency services personnel, who are getting up every single day grief-stricken at the loss of their two colleagues, but are still doing their jobs to an amazing extent.
These tragic events did not materialise out of the blue. The lawlessness that we are seeing in certain parts of our communities did not happen overnight. It is the consequence of systemic underfunding of our police and our fire service. I welcome the £2 million announced by the Home Secretary today, but does she agree—I join my colleagues in saying this—that we need a long-term solution to fix the funding formula, for both our police and our fire service, if we are to protect all of our communities? I hope that she is sincere about ensuring that that happens.
Shabana Mahmood
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in providing reassurance to his local community. It is particularly difficult when you have a personal connection to somebody who has lost their lives in these circumstances, so I pay tribute to him for the work he is doing in what are very difficult circumstances for local representatives and all members of our emergency services in the area. I reassure him that the work that we will do on police funding is a very real part of the wider police reform programme. I hope that when we discuss these matters, as we will when I meet local Members of Parliament for the area, we can see how this fits in with the wider programme of police reform.
This incident shows, in a very horrifying way, why we need to reform policing structures so that we have the right level of policing in each of our areas, such that we can respond to shop theft and antisocial behaviour on our high streets, ensure that we can deal with local organised and serious crime, and ensure that specialist investigation and public order are not left to be looked after by mutual aid arrangements. The case for reform is made out; as a necessary part of that reform, we will of course look at the funding formula. I look forward to discussing that with my hon. Friend very soon.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The deaths of PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough have, of course, been felt acutely in Cleveland, but they have also been felt more widely across the whole north-east and the policing family. I pay tribute to colleagues across the House, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), who has spoken with dignity as a local representative in the light of those terrible events.
As the Home Secretary said, some of the officers stepping forward to provide mutual aid are from neighbouring forces, such as Northumbria, Durham and others. Unfortunately, the sad reality is that three of the four forces that have had the highest fallen officer numbers from 2015 are north-east forces. That makes the Home Secretary’s point about the need for fundamental change in the funding formula. Those officers are, despite the cuts, putting themselves back into duty and providing mutual aid at enormous personal cost. As she reviews the funding formula, will she ensure that officers have ongoing access to wellbeing and mental health support to help them respond to communities as they have been?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I assure him that the usual arrangements on the engagement of the national police wellbeing service have been activated and support is being provided. We will obviously monitor that to ensure that it is adequate and can rise to the challenge of what we are seeing in Cleveland. His point is incredibly important because, at the end of the day, police officers are human beings; they are still running towards danger, working very long hours and helping people in their local community, but they do need support. When you have lost two of your own in such terrible, terrible circumstances, the case for that support is more than made out. That is being provided, but the Policing Minister will continue to talk to the chief constable and others to ensure that our officers are being supported and looked after.
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on the need for fundamental change in the way that we do the funding formula for policing. That is also tied to the fundamental change that we need on police force structures as well. He will know that Cleveland is a force of about 1,500 officers. Even before the cuts under the Conservative Government, it was around 1,700. That is very different from a force such as mine in the west midlands, which has 6,000 officers, or Greater Manchester, which has around 8,000 officers. We have a system that is very lopsided when it comes to police force sizes and, more importantly, the number of officers in each force. That sometimes limits what smaller forces can do without needing mutual aid to support them.
There is a case for structural reform, but it needs to be done in a way that ensures that the public have absolute confidence that their local forces will be highly focused on local issues and that regional forces can handle these specialist investigations and public order issues—and then there is the National Police Service on top of that. I look forward to discussing these issues with my hon. Friend; I know we will do so, because he is a member of the Home Affairs Committee.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. I echo her words about the two brave police officers who lost their lives in this collision incident on the A66. My constituency has experienced similar deeply antisocial and incredibly dangerous experiences of racing and speeding on our roads. Groups of predominantly young men gather along our main roads, watching cars speeding down those busy roads as content is filmed to be posted on social media. We had a particularly bad spike and hotspot over the weekend in a stretch of road called Bob Dunn Way, next to the Bridge estate. I thank local people who have raised this matter with me and BBC South East, which has highlighted the problem. This activity is clearly dangerous for other road users and is really disruptive for local residents. Does the Home Secretary agree that we must do absolutely everything we can to tackle this lawlessness on our roads and the social media trends that appear to be driving it?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter in his constituency, which faces some of the same issues as we have seen in Cleveland; I see the same in parts of Birmingham as well. He is absolutely right that we have to do everything we can to clamp down on the emerging pattern of behaviour that glorifies this type of activity, which can lead to incredibly dangerous situations on our roads. As I said in response to an earlier question, social media platforms—admittedly, in a reactive way—are taking down the content flagged with them. I urge him to ensure that he shares any local examples he has with those platforms directly, but also with the Home Office, so that we can ensure that they are taken down. As the wider measures in the Online Safety Act are implemented, we can expect the platforms to take a much more proactive position, so that we can stop this trend in its tracks.
Bills Presented
Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes Order 2023 (Revocation) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Richard Holden, supported by Claire Coutinho, Andrew Bowie, Sir Gavin Williamson, Richard Fuller, Jerome Mayhew, Greg Smith, Mr Gagan Mohindra, Katie Lam, Rebecca Paul, Rebecca Smith and Joe Robertson, presented a Bill to revoke the Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes Order 2023; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 134).
Greyhound Racing Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Lisa Smart, supported by Liz Jarvis, Anna Sabine, Tom Gordon, Will Stone, Neil Duncan-Jordan, Cat Eccles, Dr Simon Opher, Hannah Spencer, Alison Hume, Irene Campbell, presented a Bill to prohibit the racing of greyhounds on racetracks in England; to create offences in connection with the organising of, and the keeping, breeding or training of greyhounds for, such racing; to make provision about the welfare and rehoming of greyhounds retired from racing; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 135).
Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office Report
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
This statement updates the House on the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s investigation into how MI5 came to provide false evidence to the courts on whether or not it had confirmed the status of “Agent X” as a covert human intelligence source. This follows the then Home Secretary’s written ministerial statement https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-07-03/hcws775 of 3 July 2025 and the Prime Minister’s written ministerial statement https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-09-16/hcws928 of 16 September 2025.
Following the direction provided by the Prime Minister in September 2025, Sir John Goldring, the Deputy Investigatory Powers Commissioner, has conducted a comprehensive investigation into how MI5 came to fall short of its high standards, ultimately misleading the High Court, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and associated special advocates. This investigation has now concluded, and Sir John Goldring’s report is complete. Its findings have been submitted to the Prime Minister and the courts.
I would like to thank Sir Brian Leveson, Sir John Goldring and the wider team at IPCO for the hard work that they have undertaken over recent months. I am grateful for their willingness to complete this investigation at the behest of the courts, which is outside the usual remit of IPCO’s work.
Sir John’s conclusions make stark reading. His report outlines a series of failings both individually and organisationally within MI5 that led to false evidence being included in its witness statements. The High Court and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal will now consider their next steps, and we will need to await the outcome of those judicial proceedings.
Nevertheless, I am taking decisive action to ensure that MI5 is held accountable for the failings identified in Sir John’s report and to strengthen the assurance mechanisms by which I hold the director general to account for the actions of the Security Service. This includes a package of measures to enhance accountability, increase independent challenge, review key operational policies, and improve scrutiny of MI5’s litigation strategy and practice. Specifically, I will:
Strengthen current structures where I hold the director general of MI5 to account. This will continue to sit alongside extensive wider assurance and oversight across Government, Parliament and the judiciary;
Increase independent senior-level challenge and external leadership and accountability of MI5’s internal reform and improvement programmes;
Enhance work across legal teams to better understand and scrutinise MI5’s approaches to litigation cases.
MI5 plays a critical role in keeping our country, and the public, safe. I am deeply grateful for the commitment and dedication of its staff. However, given the significance of its responsibilities, it is imperative that the service maintains the highest standards of integrity, accountability and rigour, particularly in its engagement with the courts. This case demonstrates the damage to public, parliamentary and judicial confidence in our security services when MI5 gets it wrong.
Over the last 12 months, MI5 has undertaken a comprehensive programme of work to learn from and rectify the errors exposed by Sir John’s report, as well as previous independent reviews into this case, as has been recognised in the IPCO report. This work has made significant progress, but there is more to do, and MI5 must continue to learn and to hold itself fully to account. I believe the new measures this Government are taking to strengthen oversight will ensure it does.
A copy of the IPCO report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be available on IPCO’s website https://www.ipco.org.uk/
[HCWS285]
Border Security Commander Annual Report 2025-26
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Today I can announce that the first border security commander’s annual report, for the period 2025 to 2026, is being laid before Parliament.
In our manifesto, this Government promised to create a new border security command to tackle the organised criminal gangs behind illegal channel crossings, with the ability to deliver a response befitting the scale and urgency of this challenge. As this report shows, it has had a significant impact since becoming operational in July 2024. In 2025 alone, we have invested an additional £100 million into the system through the BSC, with a commitment to invest an additional £280 million per year by 2028.
Over the past year, investments across the system have enabled a substantial uplift for National Crime Agency officers tackling OIC, as well as building and enhancing operational capabilities. The NCA has made tackling OIC its main effort and has heavily pivoted resource and capability to tackle the facilitators and enablers of people smuggling, leading to a 55% rise in OIC-related arrests. UK law enforcement has collectively delivered 46% more disruptions—29% of those major disruptions with a long-term impact—74% more arrests and the seizure of hundreds of boats and engines. This has been supported by the passing of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, which introduced new counter-terror-style powers and new offences to investigate and deter offending.
The BSAI Act also requires the border security commander to report on how they have exercised their functions over the previous financial year and set out their assessment of the performance of the border security system. This report outlines how the commander has strengthened, aligned and driven the system to deliver against clear strategic priorities to counter the threat we face.
The report also includes an evaluation of the collective contributions to outcomes and highlights the positive impact of the border security system in tackling illegal migration and reducing dangerous crossings, including increased investment in the border security command and across the system, strengthened co-operation with international and domestic partners, and a renewed international effort to disrupt organised immigration crime.
The public rightly expect us to control who and what enter this country. It is one of the most fundamental duties of the state and remains a top priority for me and the Government I serve in. This report sets out significant achievements which amount to a major upscaling of the UK’s border security system. It has been a strong start, but further work is needed. We know that illegal migration remains one of the defining issues of our time. The BSC will be at the forefront of our continued efforts to meet that challenge.
I thank all partners and agencies, both domestically and internationally, for their continued efforts to tackle this threat and protect the United Kingdom.
Copies of the report will be available in the Vote Office, and it will also be published on gov.uk.
[HCWS290]
Undercover Policing Inquiry: Consultation
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Today I am launching a consultation on the future of the undercover policing inquiry (UCPI). This Government are committed to delivering justice and to ensuring that public inquiries are able to provide answers, accountability and recommendations within a reasonable timeframe.
The UCPI was established in 2015 to examine undercover policing in England and Wales since 1968. Sir John Mitting, the current chair of the inquiry, will retire in 2027. His retirement provides an opportunity to consult those affected, core participants and others with an interest in the inquiry on how its remaining work should best be taken forward. I am grateful to him for his work on the inquiry.
The terms of reference of the inquiry are broad. In addition to examining the role of undercover policing in the prevention and detection of crime, the inquiry is required to examine the motivation for and scope of undercover police operations, their effect on individuals and the public, the extent of Government awareness of such operations, and the adequacy of the legal, policy and judicial framework governing undercover policing. The inquiry is also tasked with reviewing the extent of the duty of disclosure in criminal proceedings involving undercover police operations and the scope for miscarriages of justice where disclosure was inadequate.
The terms of reference envisaged the inquiry concluding within three years. It has made real progress in investigating the Metropolitan police’s special demonstration squad and produced an interim report on tranche 1 of its work (relating to 1968-82) and will publish an interim report concluding its work on the special demonstration squad next year. More than a decade after it was established, the inquiry remains ongoing. As at the end of March 2026, the inquiry has spent £137 million. Ministers remain concerned about the length and cost of the inquiry and the delay in providing outcomes to those affected.
The consultation will seek views on the future structure, scope and format of the work needed to bring to a conclusion the remaining matters that the inquiry is set to investigate. It is not a re-opening of evidence, nor a call for new factual material about undercover policing or individual cases. Respondents will be invited to focus on how the inquiry’s remaining areas of work should be prioritised and delivered.
Respondents to the consultation might wish to share their views on alternative ways the inquiry might discharge its remaining areas of work. They might wish to consider fairness to victims and those who were affected by undercover policing, bearing in mind transparency and public confidence, proportionality of cost and duration as well as the ability of different approaches to deliver meaningful recommendations. The consultation has been published on the gov.uk website https://www.homeofficesurveys.homeoffice.gov.uk/s/UCPI-consultation and will close on Thursday 20 August 2026.
We plan to announce our decision on the future of the inquiry, informed by this consultation in autumn 2026.
[HCWS278]
National Crime Agency Workforce: Pay and Allowances
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
The 12th report of the National Crime Agency Remuneration Review Body is being laid before Parliament and published today. The NCARRB report advises the Government on the pay and allowances for National Crime Agency officers with operational powers and considers the whole NCA workforce.
I would like to thank the Chair and members of the review body for their work on gathering evidence from the NCA, the Home Office, His Majesty’s Treasury and the trade unions, resulting in their detailed, comprehensive report. The Government value the independent expertise and insight of NCARRB and take on board the useful advice and principles set out in response to our remit letter of 27 October 2025.
The NCA is a leader in the fight against serious and organised crime, supporting law enforcement partners with its specialist capabilities and focusing on the highest harm offenders, groups and networks which pose the greatest threat to our society. It is a key operational partner in delivering our priorities for organised immigration crime, working in support of the Border Security Command. It is providing national leadership in tackling grooming gangs, making our streets safer and protecting the economy by tackling money laundering and fraud.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the NCA continues to develop and evolve in response to the rapidly evolving and complex nature of serious and organised crime. Part of this transformation includes empowering the agency’s ability to attract, recruit and retain the skilled workforce it needs.
The NCARRB’s 12th report made the following recommendations:
A consolidated pay award of 4.7% for all NCA officers within our remit group. The spot rates for grades 1 to 5 and the minima and maxima of the standard pay ranges for grades 1 to 6 should be raised by 4.7%.
An increase of 4.7%, in line with the pay award, to the London Weighting Allowance and South-East Allowance for all NCA officers within our remit group.
The NCA undertakes a review of the purpose, design and uprating mechanisms of the London Weighting Allowance and the South-East Allowance. In parallel, the NCA should work with policing partners and trade unions to consider the long-term future of these allowances in the light of the wider reforms set out in the Police Reform White Paper and the NCA’s transition to the National Police Service.
An increase of 4.7%, in line with the pay award, to the International Liaison Officer Allowance and the Diplomatic Compensation Allowance for officers in our remit group.
After careful consideration, I have decided to take the following approach:
Fully accept recommendation 3, which will deliver increases to NCA allowances.
An increase of 3.8%, in line with the proposed pay award for the NCA, to the London Weighting Allowance and South-East Allowance for all NCA officers within our remit group.
An increase of 3.8%, in line with the proposed pay award for the NCA, to the International Liaison Officer Allowance and Diplomatic Compensation Allowance for officers in our remit group.
A pay award of 3.8% is proposed for the NCA. This baseline award will be complemented with the approval of pay and contract reforms that the NCA will be able to take forward, including pay progression for its officers. Taken together this is an excellent outcome for the agency and is consistent with the NCARRB’s report. In particular, this step supports progressing the NCA’s transition to the future National Police Service as announced in the Government’s White Paper “From local to national: a new model for policing”.
In reaching these decisions, I have given due consideration to a number of factors including the value NCA officers give to the public by protecting them against the threat of serious and organised crime, affordability, and delivering value for the tax-paying public.
This award represents a significant increase, with this year’s 3.8% award building on last year’s increase of 4.5%. The award will be funded within the NCA’s existing budget, and I am confident it will greatly support the agency’s efforts to eradicate the most dangerous organised crime groups operating within and against the UK.
Alongside the pay award, the Government are approving the NCA’s pay and contract reform package. This will support the NCA’s transition towards the National Police Service by introducing conditional pay progression, further helping to narrow differences with policing.
[HCWS266]
Police Workforce Pay and Conditions
Shabana Mahmood Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
The 12th report of the Police Remuneration Review Body is being laid before Parliament and published today. The body considered the pay and allowances for police officers in the federated and superintending ranks in England and Wales. The supplement to the 48th annual report of the Senior Salaries Review Body, which made recommendations on the pay and allowances for the chief police officer ranks in England and Wales, is also being laid before Parliament and published. I would like to thank the chairs and members for their reports and detailed considerations.
Police officers perform one of the most challenging and important roles in public service. Every day, they put themselves in harm’s way to keep our communities safe, protect vulnerable people, and uphold the rule of law. Through our police reform programme, we are committed to ensuring that officers have the support they need to carry out this vital role and to meet the demands of modern policing.
The PRRB recommended a consolidated increase of 3.9% for all ranks and pay points, up to and including chief superintendent. The SSRB recommended a consolidated increase of 3.7% for the chief officer ranks. The Government have given very careful consideration to the recommendations and have decided to award a consolidated increase of 3.5% to all ranks and pay points. This is the highest award that is manageable within existing police force and Home Office budgets, while enabling the continued delivery of the Government’s crime and policing priorities, and considering the evidence and findings of the PRRB and SSRB. This increase will take effect from 1 September 2026.
To support forces with the additional costs of the award, the Home Office will provide additional funding of £84 million in 2026-27; £144 million in 2027-28; and £145 million in 2028-29. I have always been clear that I will prioritise crucial frontline services and this funding has been made available through contingency budgets created by rigorous reprioritisation, difficult decisions and savings exercises undertaken during and after the spending review 2025. The funding will be allocated using police funding formula shares.
London weighting will be increased by 3.5% in line with the pay award. The maximum rates of London allowance and the south-east allowance will also be increased by 3.5%. All protection allowance rates will be increased by £8. These increases will take effect from 1 September 2026.
The PRRB recommended that the 10-day qualifying period for acting up allowance should be abolished from 1 September 2026. This recommendation has been accepted but will instead be implemented following consultation on amendments to determinations made under the Police Regulations 2003.
The PRRB further recommended that maternity support leave entitlements should be increased to two weeks with full pay from 1 September 2026. The second week of full pay will be available to those officers meeting the current service requirements to receive statutory paternity pay, as set out in determinations made under the Police Regulations 2003. The recommendation will also be applied to adoption support leave entitlements. Both changes will be implemented following consultation on amendments to the determinations.
The PRRB recommended that rate three of the protection allowance should be applied for each day an officer is deployed to a qualifying country. This recommendation will be subject to further discussion with all relevant stakeholders to fully understand the impact.
Further recommendations were also made on how statutory employment rights should be applied in the Police Regulations 2003. The Government note these recommendations but emphasise that the PRRB and SSRB will continue to have a role in advising on any enhancements beyond statutory minimum employment rights. In addition, the PRRB made recommendations on timescales for implementing outstanding changes required to the Police Regulations 2003 and determinations made under them. The Home Office will work with policing stakeholders to develop a realistic timetable for progressing these amendments.
The SSRB recommended that the Home Office and the National Police Chiefs’ Council work with policing stakeholders to develop a solution at pace to address chief officer retention through all stages of policing reform. The Home Office will consider how best to take this forward with the NPCC.
[HCWS264]