Police Reform White Paper
Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Judith Cummins(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right to say that too many of our police forces are distracted from being able to police their local communities because they are dealing with national level issues, including national issues relating to public order. All those functions will ultimately sit within the new National Police Service, but in the interim I will appoint a special command to deal with public order policing in particular, to ensure consistency of approach across the country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
After a busy weekend policing Labour leadership rows, the Home Secretary is today in the House to announce reforms to policing. I think we all agree that we hope she is more successful with the latter than she was with the former.
This Government came to power with a pledge to increase police numbers, but instead of 13,000 more neighbourhood police, the latest stats tell us that we have 4,000 fewer frontline police. Numbers are down, and so is public trust. The police are stretched, and too many crimes are going unchecked. After years of Conservative chaos, people are crying out for a visible police presence in their communities. That is why we welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to focus on restoring proper community policing; we hope that is more than simple words. As well as getting more police on our streets, the Home Secretary must also address the horrifying decline in police counters and stations, which began under the Conservative but sadly continues under Labour in London today. Will she commit to ensuring a police counter in every community that needs one?
Policing must be fit for the modern era. It must be able to tackle organised crime, which too often presents itself in our communities through mobile phone theft, drug dealing, car crime and bike theft. Can the Home Secretary reassure the House that the new national force will be properly resourced and integrated with local forces, so that counter-terrorism and intelligence work are not undermined? As local forces are abolished and merged, we must not see vital links lost to local communities. For example, Gloucestershire police is one of the smallest forces, with urban and rural policing teams. If its leadership is placed under the control of a Bristol-based force, how will people in Cheltenham, Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds be reassured of that local focus?
Is placing the power to hire and fire chief constables in the hands of the Home Secretary the right approach? Does it not further politicise policing, particularly with the prospect of the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) as a future Home Secretary in a Farage-led coalition of chaos between the Tories and Reform?
Rural communities have long been neglected. Will the Home Secretary commit to placing dedicated rural crime teams in every force?
Finally, the Home Secretary mentioned facial recognition. Will she ensure that proper safeguards are put in place to ensure that the technology is not biased, and that those from ethnic minorities can be reassured that they will not be wrongfully criminalised?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before I call the Home Secretary, I remind Members that a lot of people are on their feet to ask a question, and I want to finish this statement at around 5.30 pm. Will you answer one of those questions, Home Secretary?
Shabana Mahmood
I think that is me being told to go faster. Let me assure the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) that we are consulting on the safeguards for the use of AI in technology and live facial recognition. I assure him that I will always make sure that robust safeguards are in place, and I am sure that we will debate these issues in the House many times over the months to come.
Shabana Mahmood
I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s views, but it is precisely because I understand the difference, which he raises, between areas such as those he represents and those I represent that I am bringing in this new model for policing. I believe this is the right model to ensure that it does not much matter where people are in the country—whether Shropshire or inner-city Birmingham —because they will always have excellent, high-quality neighbourhood policing, with a local force entirely committed to policing their local area day in, day out, and dealing with all the crimes that we know are tearing at the fabric of our communities; a regional force, which can do the specialist investigations at scale, so that they do not get a different standard of service depending on which part of the country they are in; and a National Police Service that I believe will bring in the NCA and counter-terrorism policing in a way that will make sure we are all kept safe. We are the only major country that does not have those two functionalities together, and I think it is the right change to make.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
To ask a nice short question, with a nice short answer, I call Mohammad Yasin.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the Government’s reform agenda in support of our mission for safer streets. In Bedfordshire, Operations Boson and Costello—tackling guns, gangs and organised drugs crime—have driven major arrests and a 15% fall in antisocial behaviour in Bedford town centre, backed by £7.3 million in special grants. Will the Home Secretary commit to maintaining these grants or to integrating them into core police funding to ensure that effective, evidence-based, local crime reduction programmes continue to protect our communities?
West Midlands Police
Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Judith Cummins(2 weeks, 5 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, I will make a statement on the decision to ban the travelling fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv from attending a game at Villa Park in November last year. The decision was taken by Birmingham city council, following the advice of the safety advisory group, which acted on a recommendation by West Midlands police.
The House will be familiar with much of the detail, not least as the Home Affairs Committee has applied itself to the matter with its customary forensic focus, but it is important to begin this statement by laying out the facts. On 8 October, at a meeting with a number of chief constables from across the country, I was informed that West Midlands police force was considering its options to ensure the game could be conducted safely. As the minutes of the meeting show, a ban on fans was one of the options under consideration.
Such policing decisions are subject to operational independence. Politicians cannot dictate how the police choose to manage risk, so although my Department sought information thereafter on what decision was to be taken, I did not seek to influence it. I did not because I could not while a range of options were still under consideration. All options remained on the table until a decision was eventually taken by the safety advisory group on 16 October. The decision taken that day to ban the travelling fans was clearly of considerable national and even international importance. Maccabi Tel Aviv fans who sought to travel to this country to enjoy a football match were told that they could not, because the game’s safety could not be guaranteed. This came, lest we ever forget, just two weeks after the most horrific antisemitic terrorist attack this country has ever known. On 16 October, the day the decision was taken, the Prime Minister and I both voiced our considerable concern, setting out our belief that the game should go ahead with all fans present.
The Government sought further information from West Midlands police and offered the resources required to ensure that the game could go ahead. A subsequent meeting of the safety advisory group was then arranged, on 24 October. At that moment, its chair requested
“a wholly fresh consideration of the issue”,
at which point the intelligence provided by West Midlands police hardened, and the recommendation to ban fans was upheld.
In the days that followed, it was clear to me that an external review of the decision was required, as well as a review of wider questions around safety advisory groups. On 31 October, I commissioned a rapid review by His Majesty’s inspector of constabulary and fire and rescue services, Sir Andy Cooke, and on 27 November, as the intelligence that the force provided was called into doubt, I asked him to look specifically at that issue.
Today, I have received Sir Andy’s interim report, and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Sir Andy’s findings are damning—there is no other way to describe them. The force, we now discover, conducted little engagement with the Jewish community, and none with the Jewish community in Birmingham, before a decision was taken. As Sir Andy says, it is no excuse to claim, as the force now does, that high holy days during the relevant time prevented engagement.
Most concerningly, Sir Andy describes, in the approach taken by West Midlands police, what he characterises as “confirmation bias”. This means that rather than following the evidence, the force sought only evidence to support their desired position, which was to ban the fans. This saw West Midlands police speaking to Dutch police following a game in which there had been fan violence, while failing to speak to police in other countries—Greece, Ukraine and Denmark—where Maccabi Tel Aviv had played more recently, and where things had gone more peacefully.
The West Midlands police engagement with the Dutch police is one of the most disquieting elements of Sir Andy’s report. The summary provided as evidence to the safety advisory group ahead of its crucial meeting on 24 October was inaccurate. Claims including those about the number of police officers deployed, the links between fans and the Israel Defence Forces, the targeting of Muslim communities, the mass tearing down of Palestinian flags, and attacks on police officers and taxi drivers were all either exaggerated or simply untrue.
In his report, Sir Andy is clear that the force’s validation of intelligence was a cause for “significant concern”, and that record keeping within the force was “poor”. He was “especially concerned” about the handling of sensitive information that should never have been shared without redaction. Sir Andy also points to a series of public statements from West Midlands police that we now know to have been misleading. He shows that the police overstated the threat posed by the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, while understating the risk posed to Israeli fans if they travelled to the area. The term “misleading communications” also extends to the words of the chief constable himself at his appearance in front of the Home Affairs Committee; he claimed that artificial intelligence tools were not used to prepare intelligence reports—a claim since refuted by one of his own officers, who blames incorrect evidence on “an AI hallucination”.
I know better than most that West Midlands police officers do their duty bravely, day in and day out. Sir Andy’s report does not argue that the entire force is failing, but it is clear from the report that on an issue of huge significance to the Jewish community in this country, and to us all, we have witnessed a failure of leadership that has harmed the reputation of and eroded public confidence in West Midlands police, and policing more broadly.
Faced with a game of such importance, the chief constable of the force, Craig Guildford, should have ensured that more professional and thorough work was done. As Sir Andy says, the shortcomings detailed in his report are
“symptomatic of a force not applying the necessary strategic oversight and not paying enough attention to important matters of detail, including at the most senior levels.”
The ultimate responsibility for the force’s failure to discharge its duties on a matter of such national importance rests with the chief constable. It is for that reason that I must declare today that the chief constable of West Midlands police no longer has my confidence. It has been, as I understand it, over 20 years since a Home Secretary last made such a statement, but on the evidence provided by Sir Andy Cooke, the chief inspector of policing, that is now the case.
Until 2011, the Home Secretary had the authority to dismiss a chief constable, but the power was removed by the previous Conservative Government. Today, only police and crime commissioners hold that power, so the chief constable’s future rests with the local police and crime commissioner, and not with me. I am sure that Simon Foster will now follow all due process as he considers the question for himself. However, I believe that this case illustrates that Home Secretaries should, in future, have that power restored to them. When a chief constable is responsible for a damaging failure of leadership, the public rightly expect the Home Secretary to act, and I intend to restore their ability to do so. I can announce today that the Government will soon reintroduce the Home Secretary’s power to dismiss chief constables in the light of significant or persistent failings, and that this will be part of the Government’s upcoming White Paper on wider police reform, with legislation to follow. I do not expect the power to be used often, but it must be available at those rare moments when it is warranted.
Sir Andy Cooke’s report is devastating. It catalogues failures that did not just affect the travelling fans but let down our entire Jewish community in the west midlands and across the country. I speak today not just as Home Secretary, but as a Member of Parliament for a Birmingham constituency. In his report, Sir Andy says that he believes that the police acted in an attempt to avoid long-term damage to local community relations; if that is the case, what a grossly misguided effort it was.
Peaceful, harmonious communities rely on a police service that, above all else, pursues the truth. We live in a world where misinformation flows freely and dangerously; in this case, the police added further misinformation to the public debate, when they could and should have provided the truth, which could have allayed fears. In doing what it did, West Midlands police force did not support community relations; instead, it inadvertently made things worse. This must serve as a lesson to police forces throughout the country—a reminder that they are called to their profession to serve truth and the law, and to police our streets without fear or favour, and that community trust and cohesion depend on them doing that above all else. With that, I commend this statement to the House.
Shabana Mahmood
Ultimately, the final decision on the West Midlands police’s recommendation to the safety advisory group was from the chief constable.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The recommendation by West Midlands police to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans was clearly an incredibly serious mistake. That has been shown in evidence by Sir Andy Cooke’s damning report. Not just the decision but how it was made and the fact that misleading statements were covered up is damning. The latest examples of how artificial intelligence was used in coming to the decision, after multiple denials, beggar belief and risk seriously undermining public trust in the police, and not only in the west midlands but across the whole country.
The chief constable of West Midlands police does not have the Home Secretary’s confidence. He does not have mine, and I assume that he does not have that of most of the House. He needs to consider his position and go now. I am pleased that the Home Secretary went to quite unprecedented levels to say that he should go, and I am pleased that she has spoken to the House first. Will she meet the police and crime commissioner later today to call for the chief constable to go?
We need the Independent Office for Police Conduct to investigate what has gone on in West Midlands police. Will the Home Secretary ensure that takes place? We have already seen delays to the Hillsborough law and its duty of candour, including just this week. Does the Home Secretary agree that this incident shows the need to put the Hillsborough law on to the statute book as soon as possible? Finally, we need urgent transparency and clarity on the use of AI by police forces. Does the Home Secretary agree, and what plans does she have to ensure that guidance is given to police forces?
Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry
Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Judith Cummins(1 month, 3 weeks 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 the independent inquiry into grooming gangs, the appointment of its chair and panel, and the inquiry’s terms of reference.
I know that, for many, this day is long overdue. For years, the victims of these awful crimes were ignored. First abused by vile predators, they then found themselves belittled and even blamed, when it was justice they were owed.
In January, my predecessor asked Baroness Casey of Blackstock, who is here with us today, to conduct a national audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse. With devastating clarity, Baroness Casey revealed the horror that lies behind that jargonistic term. It is vital that we, too, call these crimes what they were: multiple sexual assaults, committed by multiple men, on multiple occasions.
Children were submitted to beatings and gang rapes. Many contracted sexually transmitted infections. Some were forced to have abortions. Others had their children taken from them. But it was not just these awful crimes that now shame us. There was also an abject failure by the state, in its many forms, to fulfil its most basic duty: protecting the young and vulnerable.
Worse still, some in positions of power turned a blind eye to the horror, or even covered it up. Despite a shameful lack of national data, Baroness Casey was clear that in some local areas where data was available
“disproportionate numbers of men from Asian ethnic backgrounds”
were “amongst the suspects”. Like every member of my community who I know, I am horrified by these acts. We must root out this evil, once and for all. The sickening acts of a minority of evil men, as well as those in positions of authority who looked the other way, must not be allowed to marginalise or demonise entire communities of law-abiding citizens.
What is required now is a moment of reckoning. We must cast fresh light on this darkness. In her audit, Baroness Casey called for a national inquiry. In June, the Government accepted that recommendation. Today, I can announce the chair and panel that will form the leadership of the inquiry, and a draft of the inquiry’s terms of reference.
The inquiry will be chaired by Baroness Anne Longfield. As many in this place will know, Baroness Longfield was the Children’s Commissioner from 2015 to 2021. She has devoted her life to children’s rights, including running a charity supporting and protecting young people, and working for Prime Ministers of different political parties. In recognition of her service, Baroness Longfield was elevated to the Lords earlier this year. At that point, she took the Labour Whip, which she will now resign on taking up this appointment.
Alongside her, I can also announce her two fellow panellists. The first is Zoë Billingham CBE. Zoë is a former inspector at His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, and currently serves as chair of Norfolk and Suffolk NHS foundation trust. She brings deep expertise in safeguarding and policing, specifically in holding forces to account. The second panellist is Eleanor Kelly CBE. Eleanor is the former chief executive of Southwark council. In 2017, she supported the survivors of the London Bridge terrorist attacks, and the victims of the Grenfell Tower fire of the same year. Together, the chair and panel bring deep experience of championing children’s rights, knowledge of policing and local government, and, crucially, a proven track record of holding powerful institutions to account. Each individual was recommended by Baroness Casey, and her recommendation follows recent engagement with victims. The first thing the chair and panel will do, alongside Baroness Casey, is meet victims later this week.
Today, we also publish the draft terms of reference, which I will place in the House of Commons Library. Baroness Casey was clear this inquiry must be time-limited to ensure justice is swift for those who have already waited too long. For that reason, it will be completed within three years, supported by a £65 million budget. The inquiry will be a series of local investigations, overseen by a national panel with full statutory powers. Baroness Longfield has confirmed that Oldham will have a local investigation. The chair and panel will determine the other locations in due course. No area will be able to resist a local investigation.
These terms of reference are clear on a number of vital issues. The inquiry is focused, specifically, on child sexual abuse committed by grooming gangs. It will consider, explicitly, the background of offenders, including their ethnicity and religion, and whether the authorities failed to properly investigate what happened out of a misplaced desire to protect community cohesion.
The inquiry will act without fear or favour, identifying individual, institutional and systemic failure, inadequate organisational responses, and failures of leadership. It will also work hand in hand with the police where new criminality comes to light, be that by the perpetrators or those who covered up their crimes. The inquiry will pass evidence to law enforcement, so they can take forward any further prosecutions and put more of these evil men behind bars.
The inquiry must, and will, place victims and survivors at the forefront, with a charter setting out how they will participate and how their views, experiences and testimony will shape the inquiry’s work. As I have said already, the terms are in draft form. The chair will now consult on them with victims and other stakeholders. They will be confirmed no later than March, when the inquiry can begin its work in earnest.
Alongside launching this inquiry, Baroness Casey's audit contained a number of other recommendations, which the Government accepted in full. As the inquiry begins its work, we continue righting these wrongs. I can announce today that I have commissioned new research from UK Research and Innovation to rectify the unacceptable gaps in our understanding of perpetrators’ backgrounds and motivations, including their ethnicity and religion. My predecessor wrote to all police forces calling on them to improve the collection of ethnicity data, and while the Home Secretary does not currently have the power to mandate that it is collected, I will rectify that by legislating at the earliest possible opportunity.
The Department for Education is currently interrogating gaps in “children in need” data identified in the audit, which seem to under-report the scale of this crisis. The Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), will soon publish the findings of an urgent review of that data conducted by her Department. Across Government, the audit identified that poor data sharing continues to put children at risk. As a result, we are introducing a legal duty for information sharing between safeguarding partners. We are creating a unique identifier for every child, linking all data across Government, and we are upgrading police technology to ensure data can be shared across agencies.
The audit also identified an absurdity in our legal system, which saw some child rapists convicted of lesser crimes. As a result, we are now changing the law to make clear that children cannot consent when they have been raped by an adult, so perpetrators are charged for the hideous crime they have, in fact, committed.
While the law has protected abusers from the consequences of their crimes, it has too often punished victims. Some survivors were convicted for crimes they had been coerced into, continuing their trauma to this day. We are already legislating in the Crime and Policing Bill to disregard offences related to prostitution, and the Ministry of Justice is now working with the Criminal Cases Review Commission to ensure that it is resourced to review applications from individuals who believe they were wrongly criminalised.
The national audit identified further weaknesses in relation to taxi licensing. Abusers were applying for licences in areas where controls were lax to circumvent protections put in place by local councils to tackle abuse. My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will soon be legislating to close that dangerous loophole in the regulation of taxis.
The audit was clear that justice has not been done. Baroness Casey requested a new national police investigation to bring offenders to justice. Last month, the National Crime Agency launched Operation Beaconport to review previously closed cases of child sexual exploitation. It has already flagged more than 1,200 cases for potential reinvestigation, more than 200 of which are high-priority cases of rape. The evil men who committed those crimes, and thought that they got away with them, will find they have nowhere to hide.
Finally, the audit called on the Government to fund the delivery of its recommendations. Alongside investment in the inquiry itself, I can announce today that a further £3.65 million will be committed this year to the policing operation, survivor support and research into grooming gangs.
That work is essential, but there can be no justice without truth. Today, I have announced the chair and panel of an inquiry that will shine a bright light on this dark moment in our history. They will do so alongside the victims of these awful crimes, who have waited too long to see justice done. This inquiry is theirs, not ours, so I call on all those present to put politics aside for a moment and to support the chair and her panel in the pursuit of truth and justice. I commend this statement to the House.
Shabana Mahmood
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her long work exposing many of the issues herself in her area, which will now be the subject of the national inquiry. She is right: it is utterly shocking and defies comprehension that people whose only job was to look after vulnerable children failed in their duty to those children. The inquiry will ensure that those people face ultimate accountability for their failures.
I hear my hon. Friend’s point about the inquiry covering every single area, and there is no doubt that child abuse occurs in every part of the country. One of Baroness Casey’s recommendations was that the inquiry be time-limited, because so many of the victims and survivors have waited so long for a proper measure of justice in their cases. She recognised that there is a necessary trade-off between the inquiry being time-limited and it being able to go to every single area. I am sure, though, that the inquiry, the chair and the panel will engage constructively with Members across this House to ensure that they get to the right areas and can draw the lessons that will then lead to national recommendations. Even if the lessons come from a smaller cohort of areas, all the recommendations will apply absolutely everywhere.
The Government have invested billions in child protection measures already in this Parliament, but I recognise the call that my hon. Friend has made. I am sure that when the recommendations are made, the Government will respond on money in due course.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The despicable, sickening crimes that we have heard about today were first reported in the press more than 20 years ago, and the victims have already waited far too long for justice, so we welcome today’s announcement. We also welcome other details in the statement, including reforms to ensure that children cannot be considered to have consented to sexual activity with adults—the fact that that was the case is a shame on our nation—and moves to close loopholes in taxi licensing, as well as the points about data collection.
Some questions remain about the process. How will the Government ensure that the inquiry remains fully independent and free from political influence and pressures regardless of the strong pressures it will face, including from in this House, and that it runs to timetable? Are Ministers still in touch with the women who recently resigned from the previous panel to offer them the chance to rejoin the process now that it is gaining some pace? What steps will the inquiry take to maintain the trust of the victims and their families? Will the Home Secretary commit to implementing all the previous recommendations from the previous Casey and Jay reviews?
The national audit highlighted the incompleteness of data, but it was suggestive of concerning trends related to the modes of organisation and how they relate to ethnicity, particularly in the areas where police were recording appropriate data. The Home Secretary rightly mentioned cohesion in her statement. How will this inquiry avoid stigmatising entire communities and undermining efforts to improve cohesion in this subject and in others adjacent while thoroughly investigating the matter and ensuring that victims get the justice they deserve?
Migration: Settlement Pathway
Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Judith Cummins(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend brings a huge amount of personal experience to this discussion, having been a Minister herself, and she has a very august track record as a Select Committee Chair, so I will always take seriously any suggestions that she makes. I will discuss with my ministerial team the detail of what she suggests. Our principled position is that it is right that people pay fees for visa extensions, and that we move from a five-year to a 10-year qualifying period for settlement. We are not consulting on whether we move from five years to 10 years, which is already decided policy. What is set out in the consultation are some of the other questions that sit underneath that. I will happily discuss that with her, because I know she has much experience in the area of Home Office capacity and how we build a system that can work effectively, not only in being delivered by the state but in providing certainty for the people who ultimately want to make their lives in this country.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before I begin, I beg your forgiveness for taking a few extra seconds to reflect on the exchanges in this Chamber on Monday. I would like to use this opportunity to put on the record my utter contempt for those who abuse the Home Secretary and anybody else who is abused based on the colour of their skin or their religion. That is not what Britain stands for.
The Home Secretary will, of course, choose the language that she wants to use in this debate, and I will choose my language too. The constructive and moderate tone of voice that I and the Liberal Democrats will use in discussions about immigration will remain, as will our attempts to help offer feedback as and when the Government bring forward proposals. The number of Liberal Democrats present today shows that we are not ignoring this issue; indeed, we have as many in the Chamber as there are Reform Members—and none of them is here.
Like others, we are aware of the issues facing communities up and down the country, and immigrants who live here too. We agree with the Home Secretary that faith must be restored in the immigration and asylum system, as I stated on Monday, and we agree that that requires changes to policy. Of course, most of what we are discussing today is distinct from some of the discussions we had on Monday about desperate refugees and asylum seekers.
We also believe that it must be acknowledged that prior to Brexit and the removal of nearly all safe and legal routes, this country had a more rational and controlled approach to immigration and asylum. The Conservative party is responsible. We think it is regrettable that the Government have not made quicker progress towards building stronger links with Europe in their work on getting control of our immigration policy, and we believe that discussions about regaining control must also come with a proper discussion about the opportunities that that provides and the potential risks.
Changes to pathways to settlement must be done with regard to the economy and public services, and with fairness to individuals. We are concerned about the chilling effect that some changes could have on the economy. The UK is fast becoming a less competitive place for science and innovation, not least because of Brexit. The cost of a five-year global talent visa to Britain is £6,000 per person—around 20 times more expensive than comparable visas in our competitor countries, where similar schemes typically cost a few hundred pounds. It is no surprise that so few researchers come to Britain on these visas every year. Cancer Research UK alone spends £900,000 annually—money that could be better spent on setting up research labs instead.
The Government must also be careful about the effect that their rhetoric and policy will have on our public services. The NHS is heavily reliant on nurses and staff who are not British nationals. Has the Home Secretary made an assessment of the risk that some will leave, and what steps are this Government taking to develop domestic talent in the health and care sector?
Shabana Mahmood
It is immoral if we stand by and watch people make dangerous crossings, pay thousands of pounds to criminals, and put their lives and those of others at risk, while we do nothing. That would be a total dereliction of duty. It would also be a dereliction of duty for a Labour Government to continue to preside over a broken system, or to not have the mettle to go ahead and reform that system, and then watch as we lose public consent for having an asylum system at all. I think it is existential for us to have public consent for the asylum system, which is why all the changes are so necessary.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Bobby Dean, with a very short question.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank the Home Secretary for her confirmation about the five-year pathway for Hongkongers—that is a promise kept to them. The statement was otherwise a series of push measures. I am always fascinated by how much more difficult it gets, when it comes to the individual decisions made within the system. To push the Home Secretary on the Boriswave, which she has criticised, the vast majority of those figures were made up of Hongkongers arriving here under the BNO scheme, Ukrainian refugees, and deferred student visas after the covid pandemic. Which of those measures does she think was a mistake?
Asylum Policy
Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Judith Cummins(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
I welcome the rhetoric in the Home Secretary’s announcement. In fact, I recognise her rhetoric. We have our plan for restoring justice, and she has announced a plan to restore order and control. However, before she puts in her application to join Reform UK—and I would very much welcome her doing so—may I just draw out the difference between our parties?
Unlike the Government, we do not propose to give illegal immigrants the right to stay here for two and a half years after arriving; we do not propose to give them the right to study and work here; we do not propose to allow them to bring their families here; and, crucially, we are not going to contort our law to comply with and fit into the European convention on human rights. The derogations announced by the Home Secretary will not work to stop the lawfare, just as the derogations announced in the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 would not have stopped the lawfare, which is why I opposed that Bill as well. She talks about—
Shabana Mahmood
I do not think there was a question in there, Madam Deputy Speaker. As for the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to join his party—hardly any of whose Members appear to be present—let me say to him, “Over my dead body.”
Shabana Mahmood
I urge my hon. Friend to look at the proposals on protection work and study and on safe and legal routes. It is right that we try to pivot to a more humane system that privileges those who come not via paying people smugglers a lot of money. On family reunification, British citizens at the moment have to meet thresholds and various qualifying tests before they can apply for family reunion. I think it is right that we bring the position in relation to refugees through the protection work and study route to the same level.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Members will have seen how many Members are on their feet. I will need to finish this statement by 8 pm, so please bear that in mind, because I want to get everybody in.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I welcome a sizeable amount of what the Home Secretary has said and is trying to do. Earlier this year the immigration and asylum chamber of the upper tribunal in the case of IX reiterated the established administrative law requirements that Government decision making in asylum cases be proportionate and reasonable and not expose individuals to prolonged or indefinite uncertainty—something that the Home Office used to criticise, under the Tories in fact, as a lengthy limbo period. Can the Home Secretary clarify how her proposal to require a 20-year period before someone granted asylum may obtain a permanent right to remain complies with these fundamental principles?
Shabana Mahmood
I will clarify a point of fact. The hon. Member said that I describe myself as a child of immigrants. It is not a description; it is just a statement of fact. Everything else she said is beneath contempt.
Shabana Mahmood
I am happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that it was not misleading; it was just wrong, so I can clarify that for the record.
I say to the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) that I think it is a fair point of debate to point out that the Green party often indulges in hypocrisy. I shall look carefully at what her colleague has said in relation to the large military sites, but I say to her that the Green party never seems to offer any solution, only commentary that does not work.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank both Members for their points of order. Their comments are now on the record.
Independent Sentencing Review
Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Judith Cummins(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right. We have to cut crime, have fewer victims and make sure that our streets are safe. That is why we have to make sure that we never run out of prison places, that we never see the breakdown in law and order that would ensue were that to happen, and that we take forward a package of measures that I have announced today. We work on the legislation in the coming weeks and months, which will be designed to make sure that we do not run out of prison places, that we put victims first, and that we cut crime in this country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Tristan Osborne for the last question on this statement.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Leaving the best until last, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As a former police officer, I can say that community payback works. Does the Lord Chancellor agree with me and many of my colleagues in the criminal justice system that rehabilitation of offenders, including filling potholes and clearing fly tipping, is popular, not only in Chatham and Aylesford but in Newark and across the country?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I am determined that we toughen community punishment and make sure that unpaid work truly pays back to the communities that have been harmed by crime. That is why I work with businesses and local authorities, so we can all have a system that drives down reoffending—a system where reparations are made to the communities that have been harmed by crime, whether they are in Newark, Birmingham Ladywood or indeed anywhere else.
Sentencing Review and Prison Capacity
Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Judith Cummins(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
I know that the shadow Lord Chancellor followed it closely. I am setting up a women’s justice board, which will report with a strategy in the spring. We need to do more with female offenders, especially given the impact that the incarceration of women and the breaking up of family homes has on their children, particularly as two thirds of women in prison are there for non-violent offences. I hope there is cross-party consensus in this House on dealing with women offenders differently.
On prison capacity, I say gently to the shadow Lord Chancellor that we can trade numbers across this Dispatch Box about things that the last Labour Government did before 2010, or he might want to acknowledge the failure that took place over his Government’s 14 years in power. He knows that only 500 net prison places were added by his Government over those 14 years, and that the crisis that faced me when I walked into the Department was acute—he knows that, because he had walked out of that same Department only a few days before. The previous Government ran our prisons boiling hot for far too long, so my inheritance when I took over was dire, leaving me with no option other than the emergency release of prisoners.
I note the shadow Lord Chancellor’s point about domestic abuse and domestic violence cases, but I remind him that his own early release scheme that his Government implemented for many months before the last general election—the so-called end of custody supervised licence scheme—contained none of the SDS40 exclusions. He knows that; he also knows that we pulled every lever available to us within the law to exclude the offences that are most closely connected to domestic abuse and domestic violence. As a matter of law, it is only possible to exclude offence types, rather than offenders. I have had to pull that emergency lever; I have sought to do so in the safest way possible, to make as many exclusions as possible, and to give the Probation Service the time it needs to prepare for this measure and to make sure victims are notified under victim notification schemes in the usual way.
I will be publishing the data in relation to tranche 1 and 2 releases in two ad hoc statistical releases before Christmas, so that data will be in the public domain. As the shadow Lord Chancellor will know from his time in the Department, the recall rate usually hovers between 6% and 10%—it can vary quite a bit between those numbers. Our current information is that the SDS40 releases are not showing a higher recall rate than we would expect compared with normal releases, but those statistics will of course be published in the usual way in due course.
On hotels, I made provision to allow the emergency use of hotel accommodation for prisoners released under the SDS40 scheme to prevent any homelessness that might lead to higher rates of recall. Fewer than 20 prisoners have been housed in hotels, and at a very low cost. This is a temporary measure, and I do not anticipate that it will be used any more extensively than it has been already. On foreign national offenders, I will return to this House on that matter, but work is under way across Government and I am working closely with my colleagues in the Home Office.
I will be publishing for the House, and will return to the House with, the detail of the further measures on the home detention curfew. The shadow Lord Chancellor rightly says that not everybody is automatically eligible for a home detention curfew. There is still a risk assessment, and safeguarding concerns are the No. 1 way in which domestic abuse issues show up as a red flag for a particular prisoner. I would not imagine that those previous and current arrangements will change very much with the measures we will take.
I thank the shadow Lord Chancellor for the contract concluded with Serco to deliver the tagging. It may not have been him directly and personally, but it was his Government. The performance of Serco has been unacceptable. Let me be very clear with the House: there is no shortage of tags in this country. It has failed to make sure that it has enough staff in place to tag everybody who needs a tag. Its progress has been monitored daily by me, my Ministers and officials in the Department, and we will continue to hold its feet to the fire. We will levy financial penalties, and all options remain on the table. Performance has improved a little—it has made progress—but all options are on the table if that falls back in any way.
The shadow Lord Chancellor will know that I am not going to comment on anything relating to the Budget. The Chancellor will make her statement in due course. I gently remind him that the budgets of the Ministry of Justice under the Tory party left a lot to be desired.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I welcome the approach the Lord Chancellor is taking to the management of the prison system, and the appointment of David Gauke to head the sentencing review. Given that the initiatives she has announced today to relieve pressure on prisons will create additional work for already overstretched probation officers, will she make a further statement when she has decided what operational changes she is going to make to the Probation Service? The additional 14,000 prison places she has promised to build will take prison capacity to above 100,000. Is that desirable in the long term? Given her intention to expand punishment outside prison, will she make it her aim in time to close some of the worst of our existing prisons, built two or three centuries ago, which warehouse crime and, despite the best efforts of prison staff, do little or nothing to reform or rehabilitate their inmates?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his questions. On probation, I recognise the very high workloads that probation officers are working under. We committed in our manifesto to a strategic review of probation governance. I have made sure that we have brought forward the recruitment of an extra 1,000 probation officers by March next year. We are working closely with probation unions and probation staff on the frontline to manage the situation. I am very conscious that we do not want to take the pressure out of the prisons and just leave it with the Probation Service instead. This is a whole-system response, and the whole system needs to be stabilised and able to face the pressures we see in it.
On the prison population, make no mistake: the number of prison places will increase in this country. We will deliver the 14,000 the previous Government did not deliver, and the prison population will therefore rise. However, as I have said, we cannot build our way out of this crisis, and we do have to do things differently. We are a very long way away from any of the changes the Chair of the Select Committee may want to see, but fundamentally we must make sure, and the review must make sure, that we never ever run out of prison places in this country again.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement.
Having myself grown up in a home of domestic violence at the hands of my mum’s former partner, I share the concerns of the Victims’ Commissioner and survivors of domestic abuse that loopholes in the early release scheme’s criteria could mean that some of their abusers, who have been convicted of violent offences but not of domestic violence-specific offences, may have been released early today. I know the Secretary of State attempted to provide some reassurances, but I can say to her that I have received communications from affected people outside this Chamber who are not satisfied with those assurances yet. Domestic abuse survivors deserve to be safe. Can she address these concerns today?
We welcome the Government’s determination to fix the mess that the Conservatives made of our criminal justice system through the evidence-led, independent sentencing review. The former Lord Chancellor chairing it and I have a track record of fixing things together. In my past life, I used to run a social enterprise phone repair company staffed by ex-offenders, and we ran pop-up repair shops in the MOJ, at one of which the then Lord Chancellor David Gauke eagerly presented his phone for repair. I hope this Lord Chancellor shares that collaborative fixing spirit when it comes to engaging with the Liberal Democrats and me on this review—and I will happily sort the Secretary of State out with a phone repair if she needs one.
While empirical evidence will be critical to this review, some of the most valuable insights on this matter are held by victims and survivors themselves. I was therefore disappointed not to find the words “victim” or “survivor” mentioned once anywhere in the terms of reference, although I have heard the Secretary of State say them today. Will she put that right, and outline specifically how victims and survivors will be represented and formally consulted in the sentencing review?
Finally, even though the Secretary of State has said there will be no constraints and no constrictions, something else missing from the review is the injustice of indeterminate imprisonment for public protection sentences, under which almost 3,000 people remain imprisoned with no release date. What is more, people are serving IPP sentences who have committed lesser offences than those being released today under the Government’s early release scheme. Reforming these sentences could help address prison overcrowding and the safety crisis, so why have the Government explicitly excluded IPP sentences from this review, and will she reconsider that decision?