Migration: Settlement Pathway
Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Caroline Nokes(5 days, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on a fairer pathway to settlement for migrants.
The story of migration in this country is woven through my own. My father came here in the early ’70s, my mother a little less than a decade later. Both came to seek a better life, and they found one here. In time, while always proud Kashmiris, they became British citizens themselves—Brummies, too—and brought up four children just as proud as them to be a part of this country and that great city. This is not just my story; it is the story of many of my constituents in Birmingham Ladywood, and of many millions more across this country.
Like so many others like me, I am a patriot. Mine is a love of a country that is forever changing, while something essential about us always endures. It is a patriotism that finds room for those who trace their roots back many generations and for those who, like me, do not. However, I worry that for some, that broad patriotism is narrowing, and that a vision of a greater Britain is giving way to that of a littler England, as anger turns to hate. Some will choose to scorn this analysis; they would rather that we simply wished it away, but those who look like me do not have that luxury. Our lives and those of our families are more dangerous in a country that turns inwards, so we have no choice but to ask what the cause of our division is, and how this country might be united.
As I said earlier this week, the pace and scale of migration in this country has been destabilising. I spoke on Monday of the 400,000 people who have claimed asylum since 2021, but that figure pales in comparison with the net migration figure for the same period. In that time, 2.6 million more people moved to Britain than left. To place that in perspective, around one in every 30 people in this country arrived in those four years. This is the result of the extraordinary open-border experiment conducted by the last Conservative Government.
In that period, now sometimes called the Boriswave, immigration controls were drastically lifted. This was most notable in the case of the health and care visa, for which minimum salary requirements were dropped. An attempt to fill between 6,000 and 40,000 jobs led to the arrival of 616,000 individuals between 2022 and 2024. Over half of those individuals were not even filling jobs in the sector—rather, they were dependants of those who were—and as any Member of Parliament could tell us, abuse was rife.
I would have thought that my support for migration did not need to be stated, but after some of the questions I faced on Monday, I think I had better do so. Migrant communities have been woven into the tapestry of British life for generations. While I will never believe in assimilating communities, we have achieved cohesion because different communities have integrated, retaining their distinction within a single, pluralistic whole. This makes demands of those who are already here to remain open to new arrivals, but more than that, it demands something of those arriving. To settle in this country forever is not a right, but a privilege, and it must be earned. Today, that is not the case; settlement, or indefinite leave to remain, comes almost automatically after five years’ residence in this country. At that point, a migrant gains access to many of the rights of a British citizen, including to benefits.
As a result of the unprecedented levels of migration in recent years, 1.6 million people are now forecast to settle between 2026 and 2030, with a peak of 450,000 in 2028—around four times higher than the recent average. That will now change. As this Government announced in their immigration White Paper, the starting point for settlement will move from five years to 10. To ensure that this is earned, new criteria will be added, which will act as a disqualifying bar for those who do not meet them. First, the applicant must have a clean criminal record; secondly, they must speak English to A-level standard; thirdly, they must have made sustained national insurance contributions; and finally, they must have no debt in this country.
While these criteria set the bar that everyone must meet, there are a series of other tests, which today have been published for consultation. These either add to, or subtract from, the 10-year qualifying period. To recognise the particular value to society they play, the Government propose that those who speak English to a degree-level standard could qualify for a nine-year path to settlement; those paying the higher rate of tax could qualify at five years; and those on the top rate could qualify after three, the same as those on global talent visas. Those who work in a public service, including doctors, teachers and nurses, would qualify after five years, while those who volunteer—subject to this consultation—could qualify at between five and seven years. Not subject to consultation, the partners of British citizens will continue to qualify at five years, as is the case today. This is also true of British nationals overseas from Hong Kong, who will qualify at five years in honour of our unique responsibilities to them. All grants under the Windrush and EU settlement schemes will also remain unchanged.
While some people will be able to qualify for settlement earlier than 10 years, others will be forced to wait longer. Once again, these proposals are subject to consultation, but the Government propose that those who have received benefits for less than 12 months would not qualify for settlement until 15 years after arrival. For those who have claimed benefits for more than 12 months, the duration would rise to 20 years, and to encourage the use of legal routes into this country, those who arrive illegally could see settlement take up to 30 years. As has already been set out, refugees on core protection will qualify for settlement after 20 years, although those who move to a work and study visa could earn settlement earlier, and those arriving by a safe and legal route would earn settlement at 10 years. This consultation is open regarding settlement rights for some cohorts of special interest, including children, members of the armed forces and victims of certain crimes.
As well as considering the responsibilities that are expected of those who seek a permanent life in this country, the consultation also raises the question of the rights that will be provided. Specifically, it proposes that benefits might not be available to those who have settled status, reserving them instead for those who have earned British citizenship. Finally, the consultation addresses the question of the so-called Boriswave, specifically the cohort of lower-qualified workers who—along with their dependants—entered the country through the health and care visa, and some of whom are never expected to be net economic contributors. It is right that we apply more stringent controls for this group. For that reason, we propose they should wait 15 years before they can earn settlement. Crucially, for these people and for every other group mentioned, we propose that these changes apply to everyone in the country today who has not yet received indefinite leave to remain, although we are seeking views on whether some transitional arrangements should be available.
May I make one thing absolutely clear, though? We will not change the rules for those with settled status today. These are people who have been in our country for years, or even decades. They have families here— wives, husbands and children. They have worked in our hospitals and taught in our schools, and have been contributing to our society for years. Fairness is the most fundamental of British values. We made a promise when we gave those people settlement, and we do not break our promises.
The Reform party—whose Members, I note, are not in the Chamber today—has said that it will do this most un-British of things. The Tories have said that they will, but then said that they will not; I am left in as much of a muddle about their policy as they are, although perhaps the shadow Home Secretary might enlighten the House today. But I can be clear that this Government will not change the rules for those with settled status.
As this consultation shows, we listen to the British public, and I encourage all those interested to make their voices heard. Today I have set out what we propose and, perhaps more importantly, why. I love this country, which opened its arms to my parents around 50 years ago, but I am concerned by the division I see now, fuelled by a pace and scale of change that is placing immense pressure on local communities. For those who believe that migration is part of modern Britain’s story and should always continue to be, we must prove that it can still work, with those who come here contributing, playing their part and enriching our national life. While each will always retain something of who they were and where they came from, they become a part of the greatest multi-ethnic, multi-faith democracy in the world. I commend this statement to the House.
Asylum Policy
Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Caroline Nokes(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about how we restore order and control to our borders. I do so as this Government publish the most significant reform to our migration system in modern times.
This country will always offer sanctuary to those fleeing danger, but we must also acknowledge that the world has changed and our asylum system has not changed with it. Our world is a more volatile and more mobile place. Huge numbers are on the move. While some are refugees, others are economic migrants seeking to use and abuse our asylum system. Even genuine refugees are passing through other safe countries, searching for the most attractive place to seek refuge.
The burden that has fallen on this country has been heavy: 400,000 have sought asylum here in the past four years. Over 100,000 people now live in asylum accommodation, and over half of refugees remain on benefits eight years after they have arrived. To the British public, who foot the bill, the system feels out of control and unfair. It feels that way because it is. The pace and scale of change have destabilised communities. It is making our country a more divided place. There will never be a justification for the violence and racism of a minority, but if we fail to deal with this crisis, we will draw more people down a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred.
I have no doubt about who we really are in this country: we are open, tolerant and generous. But the public rightly expect that we can determine who enters this country and who must leave. To maintain the generosity that allows us to provide sanctuary, we must restore order and control.
Rather than deal substantively with this problem, the last Conservative Government wasted precious years and £700 million on their failed Rwanda plan, with the lamentable result of just four volunteers removed from the country. As a result, they left us with the grotesque chaos of asylum seekers housed in hotels and shuttled around in taxis, with the taxpayer footing the bill.
My predecessor as Home Secretary picked up this dreadful inheritance and rebuilt the foundations of a collapsed asylum system. Decision making has been restored, with a backlog now 18% lower than when we entered office. Removals have increased, reaching nearly 50,000 under this Government. Immigration enforcement has hit record levels, with over 8,000 arrests in the last year. The Border Security Bill is progressing through Parliament, and my predecessor struck an historic agreement with the French so that small boat arrivals can now be sent back to France.
Those are vital steps, but we must go further. Today, we have published “Restoring Order and Control”, a new statement on our asylum policy. Its goals are twofold: first, to reduce illegal arrivals into this country, and secondly, to increase removals of those with no right to be here. It starts by accepting an uncomfortable truth: while asylum claims fall across Europe, they are rising here, and that is because of the comparative generosity of our asylum offer compared with many of our European neighbours. That generosity is a factor that draws people to these shores, on a path that runs through other safe countries. Nearly 40% come on small boats and over perilous channel crossings, but a roughly equal proportion come legally, via visitor, work or study visas, and then go on to claim asylum. They do so because refugee status is the most generous route into this country. An initial grant lasts five years and is then converted, almost automatically, into permanent settled status.
In other European countries, things are done differently. In Denmark, refugee status is temporary, and they provide safety and sanctuary until it is possible for a refugee to return home. In recent years, asylum claims in Denmark have hit a 40-year low, and now countries across Europe are tightening their systems in similar ways. We must act too. We will do so by making refugee status temporary, not permanent. A grant of refugee status will last for two and a half years, not five years. It will be renewed only if it is impossible for a refugee to return home. Permanent settlement will now come at 20 years, not five years.
I know that this country welcomes people who contribute. For those who want to stay, and who are willing and able to, we will create a new work and study visa route solely for refugees, with a quicker path to permanent settlement. To encourage refugees into work, we will also consult on removing benefits for those who are able to work but choose not to. Outside the most exceptional circumstances, family reunion will not be possible, with a refugee able to bring family over only if they have joined a work and study route, and if qualifying tests are met.
Although over 50,000 claimants have been granted refugee status in the past year, more than 100,000 claimants and failed asylum seekers remain in taxpayer-funded accommodation. We know that criminal gangs use the prospect of free bed and board to promote their small boat crossings. We have already announced that we will empty asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament, and we are exploring a number of large military sites as an alternative. We will now also remove the 2005 legislation that created a duty to support asylum seekers, reverting to a legal power to do so instead. We will continue to support those who play by the rules, but those who do not—be that through criminality or antisocial behaviour—can have their support removed.
We will also remove our duty to support those who have a right to work. It is right that those who receive support pay for it if they can, so those with income or assets will have to contribute to the cost of their stay. That will end the absurdity that we currently experience, in which an asylum seeker receiving £800 each month from his family, and who had recently acquired an Audi, was receiving free housing at the taxpayer’s expense, and the courts judged that we could do nothing about it.
The measures are designed to tackle the pull factors that draw people to this country, but reducing the number of arrivals is just half of the story. We must also enforce our rules and remove those who have no right to be here. That will mean restarting removals to countries where they have been paused. In recent months, we have begun the voluntary removal of failed asylum seekers to Syria once again. However, many failed asylum seekers from Syria are still here, most of whom fled a regime that has since been toppled. Other countries are planning to enforce removals, and we will follow suit. Where a failed asylum seeker cannot be returned home, we will also continue to explore the possibility of return hubs, with negotiations ongoing.
We must remove those who have failed asylum claims, regardless of who they are. Today, we are not removing family groups, even when we know that their home country is perfectly safe. There are, for instance, around 700 Albanian families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation having failed their asylum claims—despite an existing returns agreement, and Albania being a signatory to the European convention on human rights. So we will now begin the removal of families. Where possible, we will encourage a voluntary return, but where an enforced return is necessary, that is what we will do.
Where the barrier to a return is not the individual, nor the UK Government, but the receiving country, we will take action. I can announce that we have told Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Namibia that if they do not comply with international rules and norms, we will impose visa penalties on them. I am sending a wider message here: unless other countries heed this lesson, further sanctions will follow.
Much of the delay in our removals, however, comes from the sclerotic nature of our own system. In March of this year, the appeals backlog stood at 51,000 cases. This Government have already increased judicial sitting days, but reform is required, so we will create a new appeals body, staffed by professional independent adjudicators, and we will ensure that early legal representation is available to advise claimants and ensure their issues are properly considered. Cases with a low chance of success will be fast-tracked, and claimants will have just one opportunity to claim and one to appeal, ending the merry-go-round of claims and appeals that frustrate so many removals.
While some barriers to removal are the result of process, others are substantive issues related to the law itself. There is no doubt that the expanded interpretation of parts of the European convention on human rights has contributed. This is particularly true of article 8: the right to a family life. The courts have adopted an ever-expanding interpretation of that right. As a result, many people have been allowed to come to this country when they would otherwise have had no right to, and we have been unable to remove others when the case for doing so seems overwhelming. That includes cases like an arsonist, sentenced to five years in prison, whose deportation was blocked on the grounds that his relationship with his sibling may suffer. More than half of those detained are now delaying or blocking their removal by raising a last-minute rights claim.
Article 8 is a qualified right, which means we are not prevented from removing individuals or refusing an application to move to the UK if it is in the public interest. To narrow article 8 rights, we will therefore make three important changes, in both domestic law and to our immigration rules. First, we will define what, exactly, a family is—narrowing it down to parents and their children. Secondly, we will define the public interest test so that the default becomes a removal or refusal, with article 8 rights only permissible in the most exceptional circumstances. Thirdly, we will tighten where article 8 claims can be heard, ensuring only those who are living in the UK can lodge a claim, rather than their family members overseas, and that all claims are heard first by the Home Office and not in a courtroom.
We will also pursue international reform of a second element of the convention: the application of article 3, and the prohibition on torture and inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment. We will never return anyone to be tortured in their home country, but the definition of “degrading treatment” has expanded into the realm of the ridiculous. Today we have criminals who we seek to deport, but we discover we cannot because the prisons in their home country have cells that are deemed too small, or even mental health provision that is not as good as our own. As article 3 is an absolute right, a public interest test cannot be applied. For that reason, we are seeking reform at the Council of Europe, and we do so alongside international partners who have raised similar concerns.
It is not just international law that binds us. According to data from 2022, over 40% of those detained for removal claimed that they were modern-day slaves. That well-intentioned law is being abused by those who seek to frustrate a legitimate removal, so I will bring forward legislation that tightens the modern slavery system, to ensure that it protects those it was designed for, and not those who seek to abuse it. Taken together, these are significant reforms. They are designed to ensure that our asylum system is fit for the modern world, and that we retain public consent for the very idea of providing refuge.
We will always be a country that offers protection to those fleeing peril, just as we did in recent years when Ukraine was invaded, when Afghanistan was evacuated, and when we repatriated Hongkongers. For that reason, as order and control are restored, we will open new, capped, safe and legal routes into this country. These will make sponsorship the primary means by which we resettle refugees, with voluntary and community organisations given greater involvement to both receive refugees and support them, working within caps set by Government. We will also create a new route for displaced students to study in the UK, and another for skilled refugees to work here. Of course, we will always remain flexible to new crises across the world, as they happen.
I know that the British people do not want to close the doors, but until we restore order and control, those who seek to divide us will grow stronger. It is our job as a Labour Government to unite where there is division, so we must now build an asylum system for the world as it is—one that restores order and control, that opens safe and legal routes to those fleeing danger across the world, and that sustains our commitment to providing refuge for this generation, and those to come. I know the country we are. We are open, tolerant, and generous. We are the greater Britain that those on this side of the House believe in, not the littler England that some wish we would become. These reforms are designed to bring unity where others seek to divide, and I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I was very generous with the time I allowed the Leader of the Opposition. I call the Home Secretary.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her response to the statement. I see that the shadow Home Secretary has been subbed out after his performance at Home Office oral questions, but whether it is the shadow Home Secretary or the Leader of the Opposition herself, I am very happy to take on the Conservative party any day of the week.
Let me start by saying that we will not take any lessons from the Opposition on how to run an effective migration or asylum system. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, when the Conservatives were in Government, they gave up on governing altogether. They gave up on making asylum decisions, creating the huge backlog that this Government were left to start to deal with. In our first 18 months in office, removals are up 23% compared with the last 18 months that the Conservatives were in office, so I will take no lessons from anyone on the Conservative Benches on anything to do with our asylum system. They simply gave up and went for an expensive gimmick that cost £700 million to return four volunteers and was doomed to failure from the start.
The Leader of the Opposition had a lot to say about the European convention on human rights, but I do not recall the Conservatives ever bringing forward any legislation to deal with the application of article 8, the qualified right to a private life. A Bill that sought to clarify the way that article 8 should apply in our domestic legislation or in our immigration rules was never introduced, so I am not going to take any lessons from the people who never bothered to do that in the first place. This Government are rolling up our sleeves, dealing with the detailed, substantive issues that we face, and thinking of proper, workable solutions to those matters.
The position on article 3 has changed across Europe. In my previous role as Lord Chancellor, I was at the Council of Europe just before the summer recess earlier this year, and I was struck by the sheer range of European partners who want to have this conversation. It is important that the British Government lean into that conversation and seek to work in collaboration with our European partners. The one thing that will not work is simply saying that we are going to come out of the European convention altogether. That is not and will never be the policy of this Government because we believe that reform can be pursued and that this is an important convention, not least because it underpins some of our own returns agreements, including the one with France. The right hon. Lady talked about how many years it would take for us to think about reform of the convention, but as she well knows, it would take just as many years to start renegotiating lots of international agreements that would be affected by us coming out of the convention, so I am afraid that, once again, her solution will not work.
I am always up for working in the national interest because nothing matters more to me than holding our country together and uniting it, but if the Conservatives really wanted to work together in the national interest, they could have started by voting for the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, currently going through the House, that they have voted against at every opportunity. Forgive me if I do not take this newfound conversion to working together in the national interest with much seriousness, but the Conservative party’s track record suggests that it should not be taken seriously.
To not be taken seriously sums up the position of the Conservatives: these are the people that left this Government an abject mess to clear up. They gave up on governing, they gave up on running an effective asylum system, and now they turn up without so much as an apology to the British public, thinking that they have got anything to say that anyone wants to hear.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the first Back-Bench contribution, may I remind Members that in order to expect to be called to speak in response to a statement, they should have been here from the start of the Home Secretary’s statement? There may be Members bobbing quite unnecessarily.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
The reality is that we need an asylum and immigration system based on fairness and consistency. My constituency of Vauxhall and Camberwell Green is a testament to that, as it is a place that has been made richer because of the people who have come there from all over the world. Some of them have fled persecution and have made a home in my constituency over many years. I meet these people every week in the community, including in schools, where I see those children excited about their future. When this Government came into office last year, they were right to say that their priority was to tackle the huge backlog of unprocessed asylum claims left by their predecessor. Clearing that backlog is a big task, but it is right that we identify who has the right to be here, although introducing more assessments of those who have been here for many years and making new judgments about the safety of a country, will take considerable resources. Is the Home Secretary confident that these changes will not have the unintentional consequence of making it harder to achieve her goal?
Shabana Mahmood
I assure my hon. Friend that there will be both the administrative system and the resources needed to underpin the asylum changes that we are making. At the end of the five-year leave to remain period, there is already meant to be an assessment about whether the country of origin remains a safe country or not, but in practice there has ended up being an almost automatic pathway to permanent settlement, and that it what we are changing. I would ask her to look carefully at our protection work and study route, because we will be encouraging those who have sought asylum here and been granted refugee status to go into work or to study. That supports their integration and means that they are making a contribution that will retain public support for the system overall.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is right that the Government are looking for ways to bring order to the asylum system, which was left in total disarray by the Conservatives. Sadly, the Government have been too slow to act.
Britain has a long and proud history of responding with compassion to people fleeing unimaginable horrors. That should continue in a way that is fair and sustainable, so we welcome some of what the Home Secretary has said on that score. However, it is not helpful for the Home Secretary to claim that the country is being torn apart by immigration. Acknowledging the challenges facing our nation is one thing, but stoking division by using immoderate language is quite another.
I welcome the news about safe and legal routes. The Liberal Democrats have called for such routes since they were scrapped by the Conservatives, leading to more small boat crossings, but we have some concerns about the far-reaching detail behind the proposals, which seems to be missing.
The Home Secretary is revoking the legal duty to provide asylum seekers with accommodation, and says that asylum seekers should support themselves and contribute to our society, yet she is still banning them from working so that they can support themselves and contribute to our society, which makes no sense. The Home Secretary relies a lot on Denmark as an example. Denmark lets asylum seekers work after six months, so will she? Can she guarantee that the burden to house asylum seekers will not fall on already struggling local councils? Can she also guarantee that we will not see a wholesale transfer of asylum seekers from hotels to the streets?
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum has announced to the media that asylum seekers could have jewellery confiscated. Is the Home Secretary doing that to raise money or to deter people? Either way, does she acknowledge that many British people will see it as unnecessary and cruel? State-sponsored robbery will certainly not fix a system that costs taxpayers £6 million every day in hotel bills.
If the Government plan to keep their promise to end hotel use, they must process the claims of the 90,000 asylum seekers in the backlog. The Liberal Democrats have a plan to do that within six months using Nightingale-style processing centres. Does the Home Secretary seriously believe that an overstretched Home Office that is yet to clear the existing backlog can also undertake reviews of every refugee’s status every two-and-a-half years?
The UK must continue to lead international efforts to manage large migratory flows. Because the flow of people comes from Europe, the Home Secretary will need to work with the EU on a solution. The Oxford Migration Observatory has identified a clear Brexit effect. That means that people refused asylum in the EU make a second attempt here—a consequence of the Brexit delivered by the Conservatives and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). The Minister for Border Security and Asylum refused earlier to answer whether Brexit has harmed our immigration and asylum system, so I will ask the Home Secretary now. Does she think that Brexit has made it easier or more difficult for this country to control its borders and asylum system? Does she think that reductions in overseas development spending will reduce or increase migratory flows?
We have already made it very clear that we think leaving the ECHR will make no difference to securing our borders and will tear hard-won rights away from British people. It is encouraging that the Home Secretary has said that that is not part of the Government’s plan. We urge the Government to tread carefully and act with fairness, efficiency and compassion for local communities in the UK who want this issue resolved, but also for asylum seekers.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The Home Secretary should know that language that is not acceptable in this House does not become acceptable if it is attributed to others. She might like to apologise for the language that she used.
Shabana Mahmood
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not mean any discourtesy; I was merely reflecting the truth of words that are used to me.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I think we all appreciate that, but I urge Members to keep their language acceptable in the House.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
I fully support the Home Secretary and her statement. It is a fundamental duty of Government to protect our borders and to know who is coming into this country—something that we have not known for some time. She has set herself a difficult task. Will she agree to publish targets for all the areas that she outlined in her statement, and particularly for a reduction in the number of undocumented and illegal entrants to the country, so that we can check whether the plan is working? If it is not, she may need to alter some of the policies.
Shabana Mahmood
What we will not do is set arbitrary targets or caps. We have learned the lessons from previous Governments, and setting a number in that way actually costs public confidence. The better thing to do is to get on with passing the necessary legislation in this House, to deliver the reforms out there in the country, and to assess them as they go. I have no doubt that there will be much debate and scrutiny in this place and others about the success of these reforms, and I look forward to answering questions over the coming months and years.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I am sure that my Committee will want to look closely at the very significant number of announcements that the Home Secretary has made today. She referred on a number of occasions to asylum seekers contributing when they are given support. Has she given any consideration to setting up a deferred payment scheme, much akin to the student loan scheme, so that when people are granted asylum and are in work, they can start to pay back the generosity that they have received?
Shabana Mahmood
We will bring forward legislation in the next Session on the specific ways that we will deal with the application of article 8 to immigration cases, and on updating our immigration rules. I am happy to discuss with her how that legislation will be developed over the coming weeks, but the intention is to do exactly as I said in my statement. In particular, we will define “family”; set out how the public interest test is to be used, and that it is to be used only in the most exceptional circumstances; and tighten the “who” and “where” of how article 8 claims can be made. Taken together, we believe that those measures will ensure that article 8 is applied exactly as was intended when the European convention on human rights was first agreed to.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We Conservative Members genuinely wish the Home Secretary well, because otherwise, in her own words, the country will start falling apart. It is a good effort—seven out of 10. She clearly has strong conservative instincts, but does she fear that the misery in many of these countries is such that asylum seekers are not really worried about how long they have to wait for their claim to be processed? Does she fear that unless we arrest, detain and deport people very quickly, this problem will just go on and on? The Home Secretary mentioned return hubs; could she say a bit more about those, and will she have an open mind about schemes such as Rwanda?
Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill
Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Caroline NokesTuesday 22nd April 2025
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Act 2025 View all Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will make more progress. I think I have been more than generous.
That brings me to the Bill before us today. While the updated Sentencing Council guidelines are currently paused, if we do not act they will come into force— [Interruption.] Well, there was a lot to say, gentlemen, about the previous Government’s track record and it needed to be said. And I do not think the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) should mind me taking interventions from people on his own side. That is a novel approach for the shadow Front Bench.
Let me turn to the specifics of the Bill. It is tightly focused, containing just two clauses. Clause 1 amends section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which brought the Sentencing Council into existence. It dictates that the guidelines the council produces may not include references to personal characteristics, including race, religion or belief, or cultural background. Clause 2 relates to how the Bill will be enacted: that it will apply only to England and Wales, and that its measures will come into force on the day after it passes.
It is also important to be clear about what the Bill does not do. It does not stop the Sentencing Council from issuing broader guidance concerning requests for pre-sentence reports in those cases where it is helpful for the court to understand more about an offender’s history and personal circumstances. The Bill does not interfere with the courts’ duties to obtain a pre-sentence report in appropriate cases, for example those involving primary carers and victims of domestic abuse. And, as detailed in the Bill’s explanatory notes, it does not change existing precedent where the courts have determined that pre-sentence reports are necessary or desirable, in cases such as: Thompson, where the Court of Appeal recently emphasised their importance in sentencing pregnant women or women who have recently given birth; Meanley, in which the court referenced the value of pre-sentence reports for young defendants; or Kurmekaj, where the defendant had a traumatic upbringing, vulnerability, and was a victim of modern slavery. Instead, the Bill narrowly focuses on the issue at hand, putting beyond doubt a principle which finds its ancient origins in Magna Carta and has developed over the centuries to serve the interests of justice not just here but in jurisdictions around the world: that each of us, no matter who we are, where we come from or what we believe, stand equal before the law of the land.
Wider questions remain about the role and the powers of the Sentencing Council, as I have noted. The council does important work, bringing consistency to judicial decision making, but it is clear in this instance that it went beyond its original remit. It sought to set policy, which stood out of step with the Government of the day. Therefore, it raises the question: who should set sentencing policy? Today’s legislation only addresses this question in the narrowest terms, considering the guidance on pre-sentence reports. It does not give us a definitive resolution as to whether it is Government Ministers or members of the Sentencing Council who should decide policy in the future. As I noted, that leaves us with a democratic deficit.
As I told the House on 1 April, the question of the role and powers of the Sentencing Council must therefore be considered further. That work is already under way in my Department. Should a further change be required, the Government will include it in upcoming legislation. The Sentencing Council plays an important role in our justice system, and any changes to it must be made carefully and with the consideration it deserves. I am sure they will be discussed more in this House in the months ahead, and I welcome the opportunity to debate them.
The Bill we are debating today is small, but the issues it contains could not be of greater significance. I know the majority of right hon. and hon. Members in this House would agree that the Sentencing Council’s intentions on this issue were noble, but in trying to reach for equality of outcome, they sacrificed too much, undermining the sacred principle of equality before the law. It is right that we, as policymakers, stop the updated guidelines from coming into force. We must stand up for the idea that no matter our race or religion, no person should receive preferential treatment as they stand in the dock before a judge, so I beg to move that the Bill now be read a second time.
Sentencing Council Guidelines
Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Caroline Nokes(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
Dear, dear, dear me. It seems that the right hon. Gentleman’s amnesia is as bad as ever: 14 whole years appear to have disappeared entirely from his memory. He talks about parliamentary sovereignty, but when his party was in government and he was a Secretary of State or a Minister, he appeared never to know what on earth parliamentary sovereignty was or how to exercise power.
I think the right hon. Gentleman is rather distressed that my approach has led to a pause in the guidelines, that I will introduce a Bill that will deal with the offending bit of this guideline, and that I will consider the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council ahead of the sentencing Bill later this year. I understand that it must be very disappointing for him that he has been exposed as someone who is all talk and no action, and that I get the job done. I can see that that annoys him greatly.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to begin by apologising to the country, as I often invite him to do when we have our exchanges across the Dispatch Box. In 14 years, he never appeared to discover any of the things that he now discusses regularly from the Opposition Benches. He did nothing about those matters when he was a member of the Government that ran the country. Perhaps that is the problem: the Conservatives never really ran the country; they gave up on the job. He never rolled up his sleeves and put in the hard work to get the job done. That is why we inherited prisons on the brink of collapse, and why I am now unwinding all the mistakes that his party made and the guidance that he and his party welcomed.
The right hon. Gentleman did not tell me what discussions he has had with the shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon). Before the Conservatives explain why they are so het up about things now, they should explain why they welcomed those things when they were in office. There was no answer to those questions. I do not believe that there were many questions in that diatribe from the shadow Justice Secretary.
On sentencing, the pause in the guideline was communicated—that is a matter for the Sentencing Council. I will, of course, engage with the judiciary to ensure that all is understood regarding the pause. Nothing has changed in relation to the ordering of pre-sentencing reports by judges in all the circumstances in which they would ordinarily do so. The guideline is what has been paused, and it will now not come into effect until Parliament has had its say. The right hon. Gentleman references two individuals. That is the difference between me and him: I do not make it personal. I just focus on the job, and I get the job done.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I realise that this is not a popular view in the House, but the Justice Secretary will be aware that some of us are astonished that she thinks our judges are so weak-minded as to be affected by what are guidelines in relation to how they sentence black and brown defendants.
The Justice Secretary will be aware that report after report and repeated statistical analysis have demonstrated what some of us consider to be unfairness in relation to black and brown people and the criminal justice system. She will also be aware that the reason the Sentencing Council was made a statutory independent body was to avoid even the appearance of ministerial interference in sentencing. This is not the United States; our political and judicial systems are entirely separate. Can she explain why she is so triumphant about not just interfering in sentencing, but passing a piece of legislation to cut across what the Sentencing Council is saying?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my right hon. Friend for her questions—at least she asks some proper questions. She says that her view on the policy might be an unpopular one, but this is the place where views on policy, popular or unpopular, can and should be debated. That is at the heart of my disagreement with the Sentencing Council on the guideline.
I think that the matters that my right hon. Friend raises in relation to race and the disparities in the criminal justice system are the proper preserve of politicians. The answer to how we deal with those issues will be a policy answer, and it is for the Government, the Opposition and other Members to debate that policy answer and pursue it through Parliament. That is why I reject entirely the suggestion that anything I have done impinges upon the independence of the judiciary or calls into question the separation of powers in this country.
The Sentencing Council is itself a creature of statute; it is only 15 years old. It is entirely proper for a politician—a Government Minister, the Lord Chancellor—to assert that there is a boundary between that which is policy and a matter for Parliament and that which is judicial practice and consistency in judicial cases. I have sought to reassert that boundary. I look forward to working with Members with differing views from across the House in considering the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council. As I have said, I will return to those matters in the coming months.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
There is only one group in this House that lost control of our justice system: the decimated former Government on the Opposition Benches. Overcrowded prisons, reoffending through the roof, victims waiting for justice—what a disgrace. That disgrace continues today through the downplaying of the impact of intergenerational trauma—of which child abuse is a form—by the shadow Justice Secretary.
I thank the Lord Chancellor for engaging with me on this issue in advance of her statement. Our criminal justice system’s ability to take someone’s freedom away is one of the most humbling powers that it holds, which is why sentencing decisions must include all available information. Pre-sentence reports are a critical part of that process. She mentioned pregnant women, survivors of domestic abuse and survivors of modern slavery as important examples of where that is considered. However, because everybody has a context, the Liberal Democrats believe that such reports should consistently be made available whenever anyone’s liberty is at stake. We will therefore scrutinise the legislation through that lens of equality before the law.
It is rich of the Conservatives to complain about inequality in our justice system when it was they who presided over a state of affairs in which someone from one our country’s most deprived areas is 10 times more likely to be in prison than someone from the least deprived, someone who looks like me is four times more likely to be stopped and searched than others, and people with special educational needs represent half the prison population compared to a fifth of the general population. Will the Justice Secretary outline how she will fairly tackle those disparities to restore confidence in the justice system, which was so shattered by the Conservative party?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesman for his questions. He is right: as I said in my statement, pre-sentence reports are an incredibly vital tool for judges. In fact, the requirement is that they should ask for a pre-sentence report unless the court considers it unnecessary to do so. There is a strong push towards obtaining pre-sentence reports in the vast majority of cases. The Probation Service that I inherited from the previous Administration has struggled under increased workloads. It was a service that the Conservative party privatised and then partly renationalised—our Probation Service officers, who do vital work every single day, have been through the mill.
I have been making changes to the focus of the Probation Service in the last few months to pivot its work to focus on high and medium-risk offenders and free up probation capacity, so that more time can be spent doing vital work such as the preparation of pre-sentence reports. I will carry on working with the Probation Service to ensure it is ready to do what is asked of it, to a very high and consistent standard, which I know will be important to all Members. I have already announced 1,300 extra probation officers in the financial year that has just passed and another 1,000 in the coming financial year. Probation remains vital to the preparation of pre-sentence reports, and we will ensure it is in a position to meet the asks that are made of it.
On the hon. Gentleman’s wider points about disparities across the criminal justice system, I thank him for the spirit in which he has engaged with me on those matters. I have the same concerns as him, but I believe we should understand what the latest data is showing us. That is why I have asked for a review of all the current data, and we should test any solutions we come up with. They are policy solutions, so they would have to be debated and passed in this House, and politicians are ultimately responsible at the ballot box for the choices they make, but those solutions have to work—they have to yield a change in these disparities. That is what I want to test.
In my engagement with the Sentencing Council on this particular guideline, it has accepted that the causes of the disparities are unclear, and no one is sure whether the changes to pre-sentence reports would make a difference anyway. I am not willing to sacrifice public confidence in the criminal justice system or chip away at the idea of equality before the law for solutions that are appropriate for debate in this place and that we are not even sure would work. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman closely in the coming weeks and months on these issues.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The Sentencing Council is a judicial body whose president is the Lady Chief Justice and whose chair is a distinguished Court of Appeal judge. Its function was previously executed by the Court of Appeal. It is fully independent but is linked to Parliament, not least because the Justice Committee is a statutory consultee for all its guidelines, including those under discussion today. Its judicial leadership, independence and democratic accountability are its strength and a primary reason it is held in high esteem in the criminal justice system. Will the Lord Chancellor reassure me that those attributes will remain integral to the council, whatever changes are proposed in the current legislation, sentencing review and sentencing Bill?
Shabana Mahmood
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he gives me an opportunity at the conclusion of my statement to support the Probation Service. In all of the Tory party’s terrible legacy in the criminal justice system, including prisons on the point of collapse, what it did to the Probation Service was unconscionable. This Government are putting things right. I have already made changes to the Probation Service, and I will ensure that it is on the strongest possible footing going into the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Lord Chancellor for her statement.