Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. That is why the drafting of clause 19 has been very clear and specific, which I will say more about later.

It is important that we comply with our international obligations. We have a proud history of doing so—we helped to devise, draft and create these obligations—but we also have a history of overinterpreting them. It is not a free-for-all, but it is important that we act within the requirements we are obliged to meet and do not go beyond them. That is what the provisions in the Bill seek to achieve.

That includes a clarification that judges must consider the economic impact on the taxpayer of allowing people to remain in the UK, including by considering whether they can support themselves and their family. It is only fair to all those who work hard in this country to be financially independent and to house themselves, and who are not overly reliant on public services, that they do not see others who otherwise have no right to be here imposing avoidable burdens on society and public services.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

Will the financial independence test be individualised, will it be evidence-based in its assessment, and will it recognise barriers such as credit history, references and guarantors? Furthermore, will a survivor’s use of refuge or public funds to escape abuse count against them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend raises a critical issue that is, of course, dear to all of our hearts. Again, I will say more about it later, but these reforms absolutely do not remove protections for children. The best interests of children will continue to remain a primary consideration in immigration decision making, as they should be. The reforms in clause 19 ensure that children’s interests are considered alongside other important factors, including compliance with immigration law and the wider public interest in maintaining an effective immigration system.

[Tom Gordon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Turley]

Forgive me, but I have not addressed these issues yet, so if the hon. Gentleman can be patient for a little longer—I am sure he will have more questions afterwards—I would like to make some progress, if I may.

The clause also introduces character and conduct as a factor in the public interest test. This will require judges to have regard to harmful conduct, including criminality below the deportation threshold and outside the mandatory suitability refusals. This is an important element of tackling abuse and takes us one step towards a fairer system that the public can have confidence in.

The clause further reduces avenues for abuse by requiring that no weight—instead of little weight, as now—should be given to an article 8 claim established when someone is here illegally, or legally but only by deceiving the Home Office, or if they have seriously breached the conditions of their permission to be in the UK. That will enable us to more effectively enforce our immigration rules and prevent people from unfairly benefiting from time spent in the UK in violation of our rules, and will avoid the creation of perverse incentives for people who are here unlawfully to try to deliberately establish article 8 claims.

Although it is right that essential protections for children are retained, it is not right that adults who abuse our immigration system are almost guaranteed to be allowed to stay if they can prove a parental relationship with a child in the UK. Currently, there is no need to carry out a full balancing exercise if there is a child. This is the main source of successful article 8 claims, two thirds of which result in residence rights being granted.

The clause clarifies which factors should be considered when determining whether it is in the public interest to remove the parent of a qualifying child from the UK, and introduces a provision to assess the impact of removing a parent where a child remains in the UK.

I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for amendment 61, which sets out a new public interest consideration, under which specific regard would be given to the circumstances of victims of violence against women and girls when assessing whether interference with an individual’s article 8 right is justified. Of course, we absolutely recognise and take seriously the importance of tackling violence against women and girls, and the devastating impact that it has on victims. However, the Government do not consider the amendment to be necessary.

Clause 19 already preserves a case-specific assessment in which courts and tribunals can consider all relevant facts and evidence, including experiences of domestic abuse, violence and exploitation, and the safeguarding concerns that the hon. Lady mentioned in her case studies. The holistic article 8 assessment that the clause retains ensures that protections exist for vulnerable people and that support remains available for those who genuinely need it. In addition, existing provisions in the immigration rules, including “Appendix Victim of Domestic Abuse” and the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession, provide specific protections. Those safeguards are there to ensure that victims’ experiences are properly recognised and taken into account.

I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire for tabling amendment 104. I understand the intention behind it, but I am afraid that the Government do not consider the amendment to be helpful. I agree that good character is an important consideration in article 8 cases. Including that factor in the public interest test ensures that protections are focused on those who have acted responsibly. That is an important element of creating a fair system that the public have confidence in and that is not open to abuse. The clause establishes that and requires the courts and tribunals to have regard to harmful conduct, including that below the deportation threshold and outside mandatory suitability refusals. We will set out further detail on that in published guidance and the immigration rules.

Let me be clear that the existing guidance, including the guidance mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, will be a useful comparator and will play an important role in shaping this. We do not want to be tied exclusively to the 1981 guidance, but want to develop ours further. Our approach will therefore reflect that already taken in nationality legislation, where good character is not exhaustively defined on the face of the Bill but is addressed through the guidance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s attempts to define this, but it is important to say that we are keen not to include specific definitions in the Bill, as we are worried that they could result in disproportionate outcomes. Our approach is to be robust, targeted and, crucially, legally sustainable. We do not want to allow ourselves to be open to challenge.

[Tom Gordon]

The Minister talks about not wanting to include specific definitions in the Bill, but some stakeholder groups are concerned that the Bill does not rule out British children being subject to the child test. Would she not consider including such a provision in the Bill to ensure that it does not end up forcing a British child out of the country?

[Anna Turley]

Again, we have to look at each case on its individual merits, and we cannot bind the court’s hands in such a situation; the family rules will be taken in their entirety.

[Tom Gordon]

Can I press the Minister a little further on that point? To give a direct quote, can the Minister guarantee that no British child will be expected to leave the country of which they are a citizen as a result of this clause?

[Anna Turley]

I am not going to rule that out here in the Committee, but I can come back and clarify that point for the hon. Gentleman. My expectation is that if someone is deported, and they wish to take their child with them, they are perfectly entitled to do so. It is not for the Government to say that the child has to stay in this country, rather than moving with their family. I will not rule that out here in the Committee.

In conclusion, clause 19 tightly defines the public interest test to ensure that individual rights are properly balanced against the public interest in effective immigration control, and to eradicate the abuse that has crept into our system.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eighth sitting)

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Siân Berry]

It is great to have you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Barker.

Amendment 75 was tabled to the original clause 21. The Government published amendments on 13 October that removed clause 21 and added new clauses 35 and 36, a new schedule and some additional amendments linked to the new core protection status. However, the issues raised in my amendments 75 and 74—as well as in amendments 51 to 54 tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough—continue to be relevant to this debate.

Amendments 75 and 74 are focused on the broad nature of the powers in relation to conferring rights and obligations or requirements on someone with or claiming protection status. That was set out in clause 21(3)(c) and is retained in subsection (3)(c) of Government new clause 36. My concerns remain relevant, as I said. I will not press my amendments to a vote, but the Government need to consider those issues seriously and respond to my points.

Government new clause 35 will remove clause 21(6)—the sunset clause—which limited the time period for regulations to be made under the clause to one year after the Bill comes into force. New regulations can therefore be made indefinitely under that new clause, and I would like the Government to justify that change.

Amendment 75, which was tabled to the Bill as introduced, sought to ensure that regulations must have regard to the best interests of a child. No child rights impact assessment has been produced on any aspect of this corporate action model, despite the fact that the shortening of refugee leave to 30 months already applies to children and families seeking asylum for over six months.

The amendment would make sure that, before making regulations, the Government look properly at the impact of corporate action, including the short periods of leave and the long route to settlement in this—I think downgraded—protection status. I am particularly worried about this in relation to the ability to settle, make family life and all the kinds of rights that children have. When the Government do this, they need to pay particular attention to the Home Office’s legal duties under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. Applied to children and young people, corporate action and the 20-year route will undermine children’s well-established need for stability, particularly refugee children as they recover and rebuild their lives following what is probably life-changing trauma and distress.

In addition, repeated immigration status reviews and uncertainty around long-term residence will drive avoidable school and college moves as families are forced to relocate at short notice or potentially lose housing as a result of insecure employment status and other impacts of this shorter period of leave and the resulting uncertainty. For children, each move disrupts attendance and their ability to get pastoral or potentially special educational support. It can set back attainment or harm social integration, particularly at a stage when continuity is most important for children and young people. Temporary leave cycles and renewal windows are inevitably going to risk coinciding with exams, including GCSEs, highers, A-levels and vocational assessments. Anxiety about imminent status decisions could undermine revision and therefore exam performance, and in some cases, young people facing disruption will miss exams completely. This must be looked at very closely.

I also want the Government to think about children who are getting ready for higher education; they are just about to become adults and are potentially looking to study in this country. Unstable status also makes it harder for young people to secure home fees and student financing. Short grants of leave could push refugees into the overseas fee category for a long time or leave them ineligible for maintenance support. The rights of children growing up in this country would be impacted because they would have university access and progression closed off to them. They might be forced to defer going to university, which might stall their integration into the community or harm their earnings potential.

I do not think that any of those impacts are in the public interest, and I want Government to at least commit today to conducting a child rights impact assessment that will look at all of these things in part 3 of the Bill before Third Reading—and certainly before any of the regulations in this part are made.

Amendment 74 would ensure that there was no regression of rights and entitlements. It is needed because the broad regulation-making powers contained in clause 21 currently have very few limitations on scope. The delegated powers memorandum says that the powers will not be used to reduce the entitlements of refugees, and this amendment would seek to reflect that by requiring that they do not reduce rights and entitlements below what was in place on the day that the Bill was introduced. The amendment merely reflects what the Government have said their intentions are: in part 48 of the delegated powers memorandum, the Government state that the measure will not be used to reduce

“the entitlements currently held by refugees”

or persons with humanitarian protection.

The amendment seeks to reflect this commitment in the Bill: that people who have already been granted protection status before the Bill is introduced retain the rights, entitlements and protections that currently exist. That would include family reunion with no additional eligibility criteria and a five-way pathway to settlement, if interpreted correctly according to what the Government have said. That clarity is very much needed for refugees who are currently in the UK and need certainty of their situation so that they can focus on developing their life in this country—integrating, earning and all the things that will help their family life and their children.

I have a question about a particular part of new clause 35. I welcome the detail in schedule 1 and I appreciate having it at this stage so that we can scrutinise the Bill. However, part 7 of new clause 35 gives the Secretary of State the power to

“revoke a person’s protection status.”

That is literally all it says. While a whole section of the immigration rules covers the situations where a person’s refugee status and humanitarian protection can be revoked, on the face of this Bill, the Government are creating a very broad ability to revoke that status, which is currently unconstrained. Why are the Government not listing suitable uses of that power on the face of the Bill?

This issue is particularly relevant because in the last few weeks other parties—not represented on this Committee—have announced their desire to revoke the right to asylum and revoke refugee status for some who have already found protection in the UK. The Government rightly stood up for the right to asylum and stood against those proposals. It would be good to have that on the face of the Bill, so that we have better protections against the risk of the power being taken over by another party or future Home Secretary who would abuse it. I would like the Government to clarify that.

Finally, it would be useful to hear how the Minister believes the change in new clause 35 will simplify decision-making processes since we have heard in oral evidence that the convention grounds cannot be done away with. Merging them with what had previously been known as the humanitarian protection grounds is potentially complex and confusing for people. Will the Government clarify how people will be told on what grounds they have been granted protection, in order to make sure that the Bill is very clear?

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I will speak to my amendments 51 to 54. I have a number of questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer and give more clarity and certainty on.

On amendment 51, part 3 gives the Home Secretary a very broad power to make regulations introducing core protection. The delegated powers memorandum says it is to bring the statute book in line with the new definition of protected status, but clause 21(3)(c) lets regulations confer rights and impose obligations on those claiming or holding protection, and clause 21(3)(e) lets them treat convention and humanitarian grants differently. In my view, that goes well beyond updating definitions. Could the Minister explain that?

If the powers are to deliver entitlements in restoring order and control statements, which is obviously the 30-month protection, 20-year route to settlement, no family reunion, new work and study route, then Parliament should see them during the passage of the Bill. Changing refugees’ entitlements matters for how they rebuild their lives and integrate, and for the wider points around the economy and social cohesion. That needs proper scrutiny, not a negative procedure SI.

In reference to amendments 51 and 52, if regulations will change entitlements and obligations, can the Minister set out what exactly those changes will be? If not now, will they be set out before the Bill leaves the Commons? How will those changes meet the desired outcomes and will there be further impact assessments to understand the implications of them?

Amendment 53 is about the five-year leave and settlement. Since March 2026, refugees have been granted 2.5 years instead of five. The Home Secretary insists on a minimum 20-year route to settlement, up from five. Amendment 53 would restore an initial grant of at least five years and eligibility for settlement after five years. Reviews every 30 months and a settlement route that feels out of reach makes it harder to focus on learning English, training and work. People invest in their future when they know that they have one here. The Refugee Council estimates there will be up to 1.1 million reviews in the first decade, at a cost of up to £725 million. That would add additional pressure to the Home Office, which cannot yet decide claims well the first time. The Government say that they were inspired by Denmark, but in some ways it is far more restrictive. Most of Europe grants around five years and then settlement, but Denmark allows settlement after eight years for restricted conditions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s question. The reason is that immigration rules are not normally put on the face of primary legislation. It would be unusual to do that on the face of the Bill. I can clarify that shortly with the hon. Lady, but that is my understanding of why this is not on the face of the Bill—because it is done through the usual route of immigration rules.

The hon. Lady asked what applicants will be told and how this will support those going through the process in simplifying their decision making. The decision-making process will be simplified in all decisions that would not currently be a grant of refugee status, because they will no longer refuse refugee status and then go on to separately consider serious harm. Instead, a single decision on risk on return will be made. Officials are already working with non-governmental organisations in the sector to identify the precise wording most appropriate in a new grant letter.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough asked what the 30-month renewal will involve. We are committed to ensuring that our policies are sustainable and do not place unnecessary burdens on the taxpayer, and this policy is no different. In terms of resources and processing, only those who do remain on core protection will have their protection needs regularly reviewed. Reviews will be targeted based on objective country information and any other new information that comes to light, allowing us to make the most efficient use of resources. We will continue to monitor staffing levels and will deploy our workforce flexibly, subject to business needs, as we have done in the past. The approach to reviewing status will be efficient and targeted, and we will reassess where country conditions or personal circumstances change.

[Tom Gordon]

I understand the point the Minister is making about targeting resource efficiently, but can she elaborate on exactly what that looks like in practice? There are lots of nice words about efficiency, but until we know what that entails, it is quite hard to believe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Gordon]

I welcome the fact that the Minister says details will be set out in future immigration regulation, but there is no clarity in the Bill for people now. I asked her a number of questions about eligibility, whether the family would move on to that route together and what that actually looks like. Can she say anything about that at this stage?

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the provision we are debating gives power to the Secretary of State to make changes to immigration rules. We will make changes to the immigration rules through the usual process, so he will have the opportunity to debate them when they come before the House for affirmative resolution, but this debate is about the power. I am sure that debate will continue in the weeks and months ahead, and I look forward to engaging with the hon. Gentleman on it.

For the people who claim asylum and are granted protection in the UK, our new regime providing support for refugees will be entirely in accordance with our international obligations, but it does not exceed them. These are significant reforms. They are designed to ensure that our asylum system is fit for the modern world and, crucially, that public consent for having an asylum system at all remains. Genuine refugees will receive the protection they need. We therefore oppose the amendments.

Amendments 51 and 52, tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, set out to limit the power to make regulations about protection status and claims. Due to the drafting of clause 21(3), the amendments would not prevent the Home Secretary from making such regulations about protection status and claims because the power in clause 21(1) is a broad one. However, without this explicit provision, such regulations would be more vulnerable to challenge on grounds that they were ultra vires. Government new clauses 35 and 36 will replace clause 21. They aim to set out on the face of the Bill the provision that would otherwise have been made under the power in clause 21. They also give the Secretary of State the power to make further consequential and related amendments, including to primary legislation. The amendments are therefore unnecessary.

The Government new clauses ensure that the key consequential amendments to primary legislation are made on the face of the Bill. However, as I am sure hon. Members will agree, many references to asylum and humanitarian protection legislation require simplification following the introduction of the single concept of protection. The narrow power here is considered the most efficient way to bring the rest of the statute book in line with that change. Regulations amending primary legislation must be made by affirmative procedure, which allows an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny because any legal challenges can be debated and authorised by Parliament.

Amendments 74 and 75, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, also seek to limit the power by preventing regulations from restricting the rights and entitlements available to those with protection status and by requiring the Home Secretary to take into account the best interests of children when making regulations. The Government have tabled their own amendments to replace clause 21 and define the single concept of protection on the face of the Bill. The purpose of the single concept of protection is to create a single definition of protection claim and a single form of protection status. It will replace and amalgamate the two separate forms of protection: refugee status and humanitarian protection.

Anyone at risk of persecution or serious harm due to third-party actors on return to their home country will be granted protection status and all the associated entitlements. We recognise that all those who face persecution for a specific reason in the 1951 convention, as well as those who are at risk of torture or indiscriminate violence due to war, should receive protection and the same entitlements. To the extent that we retain a power to make amendments, many references to asylum and humanitarian protection legislation require simplification following the change. The power is the simplest and most efficient way to bring the rest of the statute book in line with that change. Regulations amending primary legislation must be made by affirmative procedure, which allows the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny.

As I have mentioned, the Government have already committed in the delegated powers memorandum that the power will not be used to reduce the entitlements currently held by refugees, and the Home Secretary is already under a duty to have regard to the need to safeguard the welfare of children in the UK under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. The Government consider that there are ample safeguards on the exercise of the power, and the amendments are therefore unnecessary.

Amendments 137 and 138, taken together, set out to add additional requirements to clarify the powers in clause 21. In order to respond, it may be helpful to set out the purpose of clause 21 and the Government amendments I am introducing at this stage. The Government are introducing amendments to replace clause 21. These new clauses aim to set out on the face of the Bill the provision that would otherwise have been made under the power in clause 21. They also give a power to the Secretary of State to make further consequential and related amendments, including to primary legislation.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not think many members of the public understand how our appeals process works. They see, particularly in the public domain, many cases that have been strung out with tentative evidence and means to do so, and that has led to a huge crisis of confidence. The Home Secretary set out very clearly that she is keen to restore order and control in our immigration service. That is crucial to the public confidence that we need in this country and for us to have a system that protects people from genuine war and persecution. It is vital that we maintain public confidence. Having regard to public interest is a key part of the system; the public would expect nothing less.

Today, asylum and protection appeals take 72 weeks to be determined on average. As we set out in the “Restoring Order and Control” announcement, that extended period can lead to people bouncing around the systems for years—that is neither fair on them nor, given its cost, acceptable to the public—and, in turn, accruing new, additional reasons for delay. The objectives make it clear not only that justice will be done, but that to have an effective immigration and asylum system, the end-to-end decision making and the enforcement regime must be aligned. Importantly, the decision making is still independent, but it cannot operate in a vacuum. The body must be a key part of the country’s immigration and asylum system; as I say, the public would expect nothing less.

New clause 12 seeks to require the Secretary of State to provide a report on the authority’s operations prior to commencement under clause 52(1). In our view, producing such a report prior to commencement is both unnecessary and, given the requirement on the IIAA to operate independently, inappropriate. Decisions on recruitment and training, which will ultimately inform capacity, timeframes and productivity, are for the authority alone; the Home Office should not pre-empt them in a parliamentary report. The Bill contains plenty of parliamentary reporting and accounting measures, which I am sure we will come to—

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

The Minister mentions other scrutiny measures, but the Bill in its entirety relies heavily on Henry VIII powers. Additionally, the impact assessment repeatedly admits uncertainty, and we do not know the deterrent impact. How does she make the case that there will be better scrutiny and accountability? Does she not agree that having a full understanding of the implementation of the Bill up front would be a good thing?

[Anna Turley]

I hope the hon. Gentleman has seen the revised impact assessment, which now has a green flag.

Let me set out some of the reporting avenues that are already in the Bill. At the end of each financial year, the authority must produce an annual report on the exercise of its functions and any other information as directed by the Secretary of State. The chief inspector of UK Border Agency will also produce a report once a year, and at other times if requested by the Secretary of State. The chief executive of the authority has a statutory duty to respond to that report and to send that response to the Secretary of State, who must lay it before Parliament alongside the report. The chief executive may also lay written representations on matters they consider to be of importance through the Secretary of State. There is a wide range of provisions in the Bill to ensure proper accountability to Parliament.

Let me pick up the questions asked by the hon. Member for Stockton West about the costs of the IIAA. Detailed plans are currently being developed, and full costs and affordability will be developed through the business case; I undertake to keep Parliament completely updated throughout the process. As I say, we will be developing that, and I will make sure that Parliament is able to scrutinise it in the fullness of time, but in terms of operational capacity and productivity, we should not be pre-empting this. A report prior to commencement is not appropriate; it is for the IIAA, once established, to undertake its reporting duties.

Amendment 87 seeks to narrow the scope of the public interest considerations to those that concern just effective immigration control and the “prompt removal” of those with no right to remain in the United Kingdom. While I have some sympathy with the objectives of the amendment, I am afraid that it cannot be accepted because it is far too narrow in its definition. The authority is an independent body—we have established that very clearly in the Bill—and one crucial part of the immigration and asylum system, not just an extended branch of immigration enforcement. The public interest spans the entire spectrum, and could include things that are not included in the amendment, such as public safety, operational impact and value for money. We do not want to lose those other factors by limiting the definition to effective immigration control and removal. It is important that we keep the scope broad.

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes a really good comparison with the police. The police are to some extent accountable to the Home Secretary, but she does not get involved in operational decision making. Our approach to the IIAA is similar: it is vital that we ensure that we have the wider public interest at the heart of it, because it will be a key part of the country’s nationality, immigration and asylum process.

[Tom Gordon]

One of my concerns is that the public interest is quite subjective; we are, in effect, giving a statutory steer on what any Government at any given point decide is in the public interest. Does the Minister not have concerns about how that could be applied by future Governments?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, we know that things ebb and flow in the immigration system, and it is important that the Home Secretary has a system that commands the confidence of the general public, does not operate in a vacuum and considers the wider public interest.

For the reasons that I have outlined, the Government cannot accept the amendments, and I invite hon. Members to withdraw them.

[Tom Gordon]

I want to press the point that I made to the Minister a moment ago about how one defines public interest. It concerns me that the appeals body that will be deciding on these cases of law will end up with a challenge when different Ministers of the day provide a different steer as to what is in the public interest. Stemming from that, how does Parliament hold the relevant Ministers to account when we are introducing subjective terms and concepts around public interest? For that reason, we will be pressing amendments 48 and 49.

Amendment 48 would make the provision about the IIAA’s exercise of its functions affirmative: as amended, the clause would say that the IIAA must be accessible, fair and independent, not just “aim” to be. What really concerns me and my colleagues is that the element of flexibility, as the Minister calls it, might lead to unfair application and due process throughout the entirety of the process. I would like to know more about what is meant by “aim to”, as opposed to it being actually accessible, fair and independent.

I will oppose amendment 87, because the IIAA should be independent. The amendment would require the authority to give effect to prompt removals and turn an independent adjudicator into an arm of enforcement, and I am concerned that the public and courts would have no confidence in its decisions.

I welcome the fact that the impact assessments have been updated, but there are lingering questions about the scale and timing of the benefits, and the costs are unclear. We are being asked in effect to abolish a working tribunal jurisdiction without a price tag at this point. I would appreciate clarity on those issues as we move forward.

[Anna Turley]

A lot of these issues will be addressed during the course of the day’s discussion, so I look forward to responding to the hon. Gentleman further on those points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Gordon]

The Government have already increased the first-tier tribunal sitting days by 19% and set a 24-week target. Is there a reason why the Minister does not want to see those measures work before dismantling the judge-led system? Could she elaborate on that?

[Anna Turley]

We have put in substantial investment. I mentioned at the beginning that we have increased the judicial workforce by 21% to 311 judges, with 61 new fee-paid judges and 25 salaried judges starting between January and March this year, but we cannot continue to increase the judicial workforce at the rate that we need to deal with the ever-burgeoning appeals process—it is simply not sustainable. We need a system in which we can recruit people far more quickly and flexibly to make important decisions. I will come on to this later in our discussions, but we trust all sorts of people with important decisions, whether magistrates or planning inspectorates. We are building a workforce that will be making serious and consequential decisions, and we are doing so in a way that is not reliant on a slow process to increase the judicial workforce, which simply cannot cope with the increase in volumes of appeals.

[Tom Gordon]

I appreciate the Minister being generous with her time. Is she able to rule out this model becoming something that other tribunals, such as benefits or property, might end up seeing, with Departments gaining greater statutory powers over the tribunal hearing appeals against them?

[Anna Turley]

I think we have been clear, and the Bill is clear, about the safeguards—not least the statutory requirement for Ministers to respect the independence of the authority. Those important safeguards are on the face of the Bill, and we are very clear about that.

To continue responding to the questions from the hon. Member for Stockton West, we are establishing the authority to offer increased and more flexible capacity and an enhanced ability to prioritise cases in the public interest. We expect a significant period of dual running, where the first-tier tribunal will continue to hear the existing appeals. That will run in parallel to the new Independent Immigration Appeals Authority, and will ensure continuity and that backlogs are addressed as quickly as possible.

On costs, implementations and benefits, as I mentioned earlier, we will bring forward detailed plans for the new authority, which will include the costs. Work is continuing across the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to refine those costs and establish comparable current costs for the first-tier tribunal immigration and asylum chamber. Those are not yet agreed or publishable for either comparison, but throughout the business case we will develop the full programme costs, affordability and benefits.

In terms of when we will start to make decisions, the authority will be introduced through a phased transition. The first-tier tribunal will continue to hear existing appeals in parallel, as I said, while the new authority begins to take on specific cohorts of new cases. We know that the new system will be quicker. The current system is taking too long to deliver decisions. The Bill creates a scalable appeals system with greater capacity and faster processes, while retaining independent scrutiny and fairness on individual decision making.

I have hopefully answered most of the questions that have been raised so far, so I will conclude by summarising the Government amendments in this group. Although technical, they will allow for the full operation of the IIAA when it begins its important work of determining cases. Therefore, I commend them to the Committee.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Gordon]

The Committee has heard from several stakeholders, including UNHCR, which stated:

“Lowering professional requirements in response to capacity pressures risks undermining the quality of decision-making and may ultimately prove counterproductive.”

Will the Minister address that point?

[Anna Turley]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s challenge, but I am not sure how that is lowering standards. Just because they are not legally qualified does not necessarily demean the professional standards by which people will be making these decisions. I will explain more about our expectations of people in those roles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to our incredible army of magistrates, who are volunteers. We are talking about professionals who will have a whole process of support, qualification and assessment. It is wrong to say that legal qualifications should be the only prerequisite for that kind of judgment.

[Tom Gordon]

I want to press the Minister a little further. While our magistrates do incredible work, they often hear cases concerning relatively low-level crimes. Does she think that is comparable to understanding immigration and asylum claims, which might be really complex, from people fleeing political violence overseas?

[Anna Turley]

I am afraid I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The decisions that we ask our magistrates to take, which may result in restrictions on liberty, are life-changing. I think they are just as important as the decisions that we are discussing.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

I turn to amendment 68. A review power is important to allow the authority to identify and correct errors without requiring parties to pursue what might be longer and more resource-intensive onward appeals. That can allow cases to be resolved more quickly and reduce unnecessary appeals to the upper tribunal, but it does not remove or replace the right of onward appeal.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I support amendment 68. My concern, which I am sure many people outside this place share, is that in effect it means people marking their own homework. Is there not a basic principle of fairness involved here? If we wish to see a genuine review in which all the information can be summed up and weighed, there might be issues of internal bias if the person who has already made the initial decision is reviewing it.

[Anna Turley]

The ultimate decisions on how this will be set up are for the procedure rules board. I am sure that its members will be watching and listening to these proceedings, and I am sure that they will be very careful to ensure, when they set up the procedures, that there can be no accusations of any duplication or of people marking their own homework in the process. I hope that the safeguards I have set out will ensure that, but it is not for us to propose that in the Bill; it is for the board to do so as it undertakes the whole assessment and development of the procedure rules.

[Tom Gordon]

May I press the Minister a little further on that point? What really concerns me is that a lot of this will be done using the negative procedure, as she has referred to. Our ability to influence and to resolve the issue down the line if the board does get it wrong, which I hope it does not, will be further constrained and our hands will be tied. Does the Minister share that concern?

[Anna Turley]

We are putting a huge amount into ensuring the quality and the expertise on the board that is setting up these rules. As I say, we have the legal expertise of the chief appeals officer and the professional standards officer. They will be reporting to Parliament in a whole range of ways, so we will be able to monitor the process throughout. The amendment would simply tie the hands of the procedure rules board. It is not for us to dictate how it undertakes the review process. It is important that it be independent of Government and be able to establish its own process, which will ultimately be accountable to Parliament.

It is also important to flag the equality and impartiality. There will be training, legal support, professional standards, decision quality oversight, internal review and onwards appeal rights, so there are a whole range of factors to ensure that the quality of adjudicators’ decisions is high. The chief appeals officer will oversee that. They will have to develop a quality assurance mechanism as well, and the professional standards officer will be setting and maintaining professional standards. We are putting a range of things in place to ensure the highest standards in the decision-making process.

On new clause 2, the shadow Minister asked about costs, about access and about when people will be able to have advice and representation during the process. We will ensure that all those who lodge an appeal to be heard in the new IIAA can access advice and representation, with access to legal aid where the eligibility tests are met. On the bail process, we are also ensuring that when we ask people to state whether they have advice and arrangements in place for representation, we encourage the uptake of suitably regulated advice and representation. That will help us to reduce delays, avoid disruption and provide fairness throughout the process.

I think I have answered most of the questions that hon. Members have raised, but if there are any further points that I have missed, I will come back to the Committee.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Blake Stephenson]

Q The same question, briefly, Will. Do you also have any international experience that it might be worth us hearing about, maybe from Australia and so on?

Dr Prescott: Building on what the others have said, there are obviously bits in the Bill that are very positive. The expansion of the reporting requirements—again, you have learned a bit from the Australian experience and the Canadian experience—into public sector organisations is obviously very positive. But, to build on the earlier point, the ultimate way to improve confidence is to improve processes in the system. It is about making sure that organisations have a dedicated point of contact so that there is someone who is directly responsible for modern slavery in first responder organisations. It is about improving and standardising training so that people know what signs to look for when they are dealing with potential victims. That is the best way to stop the last-minute claims, which, though small in number—I think Eleanor said they are less than 2%—have a disproportionate psychological effect. That will also be much better for victims. A lot more attention needs to be on improving the processes, improving the training and making sure someone is actually responsible in first responder organisations.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

Q We have already mentioned the European convention on human rights, and other articles are involved too. Ms Tennant and Ms Lyons, can you comment on the fact that clause 36 would place an additional burden of proof and onus on the victim to self-identify? We know that the state has a duty under the ECHR and other obligations, such as the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings. What is the interplay between making it a harder barrier for people to self-identify and realise that they are a victim of modern-day slavery, and the other articles that are engaged?

Eleanor Lyons: Most of the survivors I have spoken to—I have a summit that draws together 15 lived experience advisory panels from across the UK—did not realise they were being exploited; it took them years of help and support to understand what was happening to them and to feel comfortable talking about it. That is why the premise is there that it should be the state’s responsibility to identify victims of modern slavery and offer them support in their recovery journey. That also has a very practical implication in terms of trying to stop re-trafficking and re-exploitation taking place, and to stop harm increasing.

Clause 36, on the credibility assessment, is problematic because it says to safeguarding professionals, and it puts into law, that it is okay to question victims’ credibility if time has passed before they have come forward, if there are inconsistencies in what they have said or if they are exploited in the same way as someone else. That is an issue across all victim cohorts who have gone through horrific experiences. It is completely unacceptable that we are putting that into primary legislation. That part of the Bill should absolutely be removed completely.

[Tom Gordon]

Vicky, do you have anything to add?

Vicky Tennant: I have nothing to add.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

Q Good morning, everyone. My question is to Eleanor. I think we can all agree that prevention is better than cure. In a passing comment just now, you mentioned transparency in supply chains being added into the Bill. As it stands right now, and if no action were taken, are we in a good enough position on transparency to tackle modern slavery in our supply chains?

Eleanor Lyons: The UK imports more than £20 billion-worth of goods every year that are at risk of being produced using forced labour. That is tomatoes you see in a supermarket that say they are from Italy but that are from China, or fish from North Korea. All our G7 partners have either introduced mandatory human rights due diligence or forced labour import bans into their legislation. The requirement in the Bill will ask businesses to report on forced labour in their supply chains, not to take action to prevent the harm from happening. We are hugely behind international partners in this space and we are at risk of becoming a dumping ground for the world’s goods that have been made with forced labour.

There is an opportunity to hugely enhance the measures in clauses 44 to 49 in part 5 of the Bill to turn it more towards mandatory human rights due diligence and to ask businesses to actually take steps to prevent harm from happening in their supply chains. That is something that businesses have been calling for. I worked with FTSE 100 partners last year and submitted work to the Office for Responsible Business Conduct. Businesses want this change, because they are being asked to do these things in other jurisdictions. When it comes to their supply chains, us being hugely behind in what we are asking them to do does not work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

Q Do you see it having any effect on where migrants might enter the UK and be received and intercepted by law enforcement? I ask because we see boat crossings now stretching as far down as Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. From your position, does anything in the Bill address the expanded geography of where organisations such as yours have to operate?

Helen Rance: There is nothing in this Bill that addresses the geography of where crossings leave from or arrive to.

[Tom Gordon]

Q I want to follow up on line of questioning of my colleague Siân Berry. When previous Governments removed safe routes from overseas, did the NCA see an impact on illegal activity by those exploiting vulnerable people? Do you feel confident that the Bill will reverse that?

Helen Rance: I understand the question, but I do not have the statistical figures over the last—

[Tom Gordon]

Q I am not asking for a set of statistics; I am asking whether the NCA saw an increase in trafficking and criminal activity as a result of changes to the routes that asylum seekers, refugees and others could undertake.

Helen Rance: Our work is on serious and organised immigration crime networks. I cannot be led to saying that they have increased due to specific measures, because a whole raft of factors make that happen. I am just not in a position to answer that.

[Ben Goldsborough]

Q The Bill seeks to dramatically increase the reporting by companies and individuals. At the National Crime Agency, you work with a plethora of different organisations across the United Kingdom. Do you believe that that increase in reporting will help you to find the illegal routes that are being used in the United Kingdom?

Helen Rance: Any increase in intelligence will certainly help the intelligence picture. It will allow us to identify vulnerable victims and help with the intelligence on organised crime networks.

[Tom Gordon]

Q Has the NCA ever received any evidence or intelligence? Has information been gathered from these gangs about their seeking to exploit the Government’s having previously changed the system and removed those overseas routes?

Helen Rance: I am sorry, but I just do not have that sort of information. You can rephrase the question again, but I am not clear that that is a matter for the NCA.

[Mr Foster]

Q I will be brief. We have discussed the gangs a lot and the NCA is obviously investigating. Is the NCA investigating a lot of the criminal activity around the gangs and immigration in the United Kingdom itself—not just gangs over in Europe and elsewhere? Also, are there indications that funding for that activity has come through cryptocurrency?

Helen Rance: Yes, we would investigate the gangs facilitating illegal immigration within the United Kingdom as well as those outside. Cryptocurrency is one of many methods of funding, which is why we are doing a specific amount of work on the criminal finances used. I am not going to comment specifically on how much is cryptocurrency, but there are many methods, of which cryptocurrency is one.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I ask Members to be brief so that we can get everyone in, because we are running very short of time.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

Q I have a quite technical question. I sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and when we were dealing with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, one of the issues I asked the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), about was its compatibility with the EU victims’ directive. As part of the Windsor framework, which was negotiated by the previous Conservative Government, there was a requirement for Northern Ireland to maintain compatibility with EU law. Does the Bill have any issues with compatibility in Northern Ireland?

My other question is about the Good Friday agreement requiring the European convention on human rights to be embedded in Northern Ireland. Are there any concerns about the applicability of those issues and how they have been engaged in the Bill, or how it could be challenged in the courts in Northern Ireland? The last thing anyone wants is more Bills being dragged through the courts.

Dan Hobbs: This has been the subject of litigation already, which I think has concluded that it does not relate in respect of people who do not have lawful status in the United Kingdom; it related to citizens of the Republic of Ireland, Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As I say, I think there is case law on this, as a case was brought against previous legislation. The courts found that it was consistent and that the alignment issues you talked about did not directly relate to immigration law. We can write to you with full details, but the immigration legislation applies right across the United Kingdom.

[The Chair]

This will have to be the last question, as we are running very short on time.

Hate Crime Law: Misogyny

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on introducing the debate so thoughtfully.

For months, I have been campaigning for legislation to combat the alarming trend of nightlife filming. Women are being filmed in public without their knowledge or consent, with the footage then shared online for millions to view. Collectively, such content has been viewed more than 3 billion times in just three years. Algorithms are not neutral; they elevate what captures attention, which is often what is extreme, polarising or degrading. Nightlife videos are accompanied by misogynistic comments and abuse, driving engagement and generating profits for the video creator. That means that misogynistic content is not just present; it is incentivised and rewarded.

For victims, the impact is devastating. They are ridiculed and humiliated, they face reputational damage, and they are left fearing for their safety in public. Yet, once again, the law is scrambling to catch up with emerging forms of misogynistic abuse. I saw this during my campaign to make the disgusting act of upskirting a criminal offence, which led to the Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019. At the time, there was a clear gap in the law and an urgent need to act, but even then it was obvious that we were responding to one manifestation of a much wider problem.

Today, we are seeing increasingly sophisticated forms of online abuse, from artificial intelligence-generated deepfake imagery to co-ordinated harassment campaigns.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

My hon. Friend talks about co-ordinated campaigns and harassment. Over the weekend, I, like many people, saw the manhandling of a female protestor at the Reform conference and the horrendous comments made about that individual on social media. Does she agree that that was completely unacceptable, that we should condemn it and that it is shameful that Members from some other political parties are not here to talk about violence against women and girls and misogyny is all its forms?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that disgusting footage and the events that led up to the video being made. All of that reinforces the message that people act with impunity because they think that is the way they can behave towards women. Making misogyny a hate crime would ultimately, at its root, stop that. It will not change everything, but it will at least challenge the attitudes that some members of the public still display towards women or minority groups. On sex-based harassment and violence, my hon. Friend is right, and I thank him for raising the matter.

This is happening at a pace and scale that we have not seen before. Technology has made it easier to commit these acts, and social media platforms have made it easier for them to spread. However, the underlying issue has not changed: violence against women and girls is an epidemic in the UK and, to be honest, not just in the UK—it spans other countries and continents. One in four women in England and Wales will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime and one in four have been raped or sexually assaulted since the age of 16. Those are not isolated crimes; they are part of a wider pattern. We always use these numbers, but each instance is a tragedy—it is something that ruins a life.

In December, the Government published their new violence against women and girls strategy. Its focus on prevention, education and early intervention is welcome and long overdue. The strategy must remain a priority for the new Government. The Government’s amendment to the Crime and Policing Act to recognise misogyny as an aggravating factor in some crimes is a welcome step in the right direction, but they must go further. That means amending the Sentencing Act 2020 so that all crimes motivated by misogyny are classed as hate crimes. Not long ago, following the rape and murder of Sarah Everard, there was strong political momentum behind doing exactly that. The Labour party itself committed to making misogyny a hate crime, yet now it is in government, it has gone quiet. Instead, we are left legislating against each new form of technology-facilitated abuse as it emerges, without addressing the hostility towards women that underpins them all.

Misogyny must be recognised in hate crime legislation. This matters for three reasons. First, it would help us properly understand the scale of the problem. Without consistent recording, misogyny remains largely invisible in official data, despite being a common factor in many forms of abuse. Secondly, it would improve accountability. Where crimes are motivated by hostility towards women, that should be reflected in how they are investigated and prosecuted, just as it is for other forms of hate crime. Thirdly, it would recognise what many women already know: that these experiences are not random; they are rooted in attitudes towards women that continue to shape behaviour both offline and online.

Recognising misogyny as a hate crime would not on its own end violence against women and girls, but it would be an important step towards treating this as a connected problem rather than a series of unrelated offences. If we are serious about prevention, we cannot ignore the role that misogyny plays. If we continue to avoid naming it, we will remain stuck in a cycle of reacting to harm rather than preventing it.

Abuse of Customer-facing Workers

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) for telling us the stories of this issue with passion, belief and conviction, as he so often does. He brought them to our attention capably today. It is always a pleasure to come along and support him. Indeed, I always do because he brings issues to the Chamber that are pertinent to me, which I will explain in relation to my constituency. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place—she is back as well. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), is also here again. It is almost like “Groundhog Day”, only with a different subject. We wake up at 6 o’clock when the alarm goes off, but I digress.

I always give a Northern Ireland perspective, as that is my duty here on behalf of my constituents in Strangford. When we talk about the rise of retail crime and abuse against customer-facing workers in Northern Ireland, we are talking not about isolated incidents but about a systematic, daily onslaught against our high streets. I am sad to say it is at that level in my constituency.

The latest figures from Retailers Against Crime expose the terrifying scale of the problem. Shoplifting in Northern Ireland has surged by a staggering 33% year on year. Let us be clear: this is not petty theft, but highly organised, aggressive criminal behaviour that has caused retail financial losses to skyrocket by some 45%. Far worse, it is not just a financial toll; there is a devastating human cost, as the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) said. That cost is the people who never thought that they would ever be threatened at their place of work, who probably know everybody in the community and who suddenly find themselves being threatened, traumatised and unable to cope. They never envisaged that as part of their job.

The retail union USDAW has revealed the deeply alarming statistic that 18% of shop workers in Northern Ireland suffered a direct physical attack over a single 12-month period. That means that nearly one in five workers went to do their job and ended up being physically assaulted. That is why this debate is incredibly helpful for our constituents and for those who want change and protection for shop workers.

My son Jamie, my eldest boy, was the manager of Shop 4 U on Newtownards High Street. He left that job some five years ago, but at that time he was the manager. It is a very big shop with an off-licence at the end of it. One night, as so often happened at that time, a guy came in, probably high on drugs. He had a knife in his hand and threatened Jamie. Jamie was right to step back and say, “Look, you go ahead.” Why would someone throw themselves in front of somebody with a knife who is perhaps unable to understand their pleas, or who is aggressive enough to ignore those pleas, whatever they may be? Why would someone do that if it is only for a bottle of whisky or gin or a dozen beers? A life is worth more than that. On that occasion they had CCTV in the shop, so they were able to chase up the individual and see where they came from.

My point is that the traumatic effect that that has on people will differ from person to person, character to character and personality to personality. Jamie was probably able to get over it because he is a strong young man. Somebody else who is threatened by a person with a knife may not be able to get over it. What about the ladies in the shop, for instance? What if Jamie had not been there as the manager of the store? I often think of how they would have responded. We look back at those things.

Furthermore, some 60% of all violent incidents, threats and verbal tirades directed at local shop staff are triggered by confronting shoplifters. Physical abuse is one thing, but verbal abuse can be almost as terrifying because of the aggression behind it. Our retail staff have been forced on to the frontline. It used to be a case of, “Let’s go and do me six hours, four hours, eight hours in the shop and fill the shelves, speak to the people, look after the customers.” But now they get threatened and, all of a sudden, their job is not the job they signed up for. They face everything from physical intimidation to the terrifying threat of ammonia and acid attacks. Bleach is used against them as well.

Our official Police Service of Northern Ireland data shows an overall decrease of 2.3% in standard police logs, which tells us a dangerous truth. It is one that the hon. Member for Caerphilly mentioned and he is right. That is also my perception in my constituency. It proves there is a massive under-reporting gap: every verbal or physical attack on a shop worker might not be reported to the police. If it is reported to the police, is there a reaction? That is what the hon. Gentleman referred to. Shop workers endure verbal abuse and threats every single day, but they do not report it because they feel the system has abandoned them. If they feel the system has abandoned them, the system has to change.

We cannot look at the numbers and do nothing. Our independent shops have been forced to absorb a massive crime tax just to pay for security. I am the oldest person in this Chamber—I suspect by far—and I can remember going to the shops down the road and there was not a security man in the shop. There was never any need to have a security person in the shop. There was no need for CCTV cameras. A police van was always available, by the way. It was never too far away. It was always on the beat, but things have changed.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will join me in commending the work that organisations such as the Harrogate business improvement district do to support the town centre in Harrogate. It has recently hired a business crime officer who has 30 years’ experience in policing. Having organisations that connect the shops, the town centre, the police and the council, keeping everyone looped together, adds real value to our communities. It helps keep them safe and reduces crime and threats to shop workers.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman always brings something pertinent to the debate, so I thank him for that. That is a positive step forward and probably one of the things that the Minister will respond to when she concludes.

We are talking about absorbing a crime tax just to pay for security when staff live in fear. They need to know that abuse is not acceptable, whether they are paid a minimum wage or £1 million a year. A job should never determine the abuse that someone has. We need to make that point very clear today.

Again, I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly for securing the debate. I look forward to the Minister’s contribution and to the contributions of the two shadow spokespersons and the speakers who follow me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention and for all his work. He speaks so powerfully for the victims of domestic abuse, and I thank him for taking this opportunity to raise the issue. I hope that the Minister has heard what he said, because it is an extremely serious point. We should have the victims of domestic abuse at the front of our minds when we think about this issue and the particular risk that it creates for them.

Shoplifting not only causes shops to lose out on sales, with the costs then passed on to paying customers, but means that staff members, often young people, are met with the possible threat of violence. Shoplifting has risen by a staggering 48% in England and Wales over the past five years. Every time I meet the owner of a local store, I am told that shoplifting has effectively become decriminalised. Thieves do not feel the threat of reprisal, and staff do not feel protected by law enforcement. It is incredibly frustrating that the Government have not connected the dots between increased fear and crime and the stripping back of our police forces’ ability to do their jobs.

That is why the Liberal Democrats have been calling for more money for CCTV through loans of up to £6,500 to small independent convenience stores so that they can install modern CCTV to deter shoplifting and make our high streets safer. The installation of CCTV would act as a deterrent against shoplifting and abuse against staff, save money for police forces by preventing such crimes in the first place, and allow them to conclude investigations more quickly because of a stronger evidence base.

Shop owners and staff members are often told by the police that it is not a cost-effective use of resources to follow up on relatively minor thefts, but to every local business and paying customer it is. I urge the Government to recognise the detrimental impact that shoplifting is having on our society and to take this issue seriously.

[Tom Gordon]

Does my hon. Friend agree that police powers could be beefed up through the use of public spaces protection orders? People in customer-facing roles often end up with abuse from people who might have been drinking. Does she agree that we should look at how those powers could be better used, given that communities, organisations, councils and businesses want them to be enforced?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Members might be pleased to know that I probably will not take all the time available to me—perhaps I will give them a few minutes of their life back to do something else.

I want to start by saying what an important debate this is. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) is absolutely right to bring the issue of the abuse of shop workers to this place. It is enormously important, and many Members of Parliament have campaigned for many years for the legislation that we have just passed, alongside the incredible work of the Co-op, USDAW and others. When I was shadow Policing Minister, I remember introducing a similar amendment to Government legislation and debating it with the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who was the Policing Minister at the time. He argued that there was no need for these measures, because abuse of a shop worker is an aggravating factor, and that the evidence did not support their introduction. That argument was wrong, and I am really pleased that we have passed this law.

It was the right thing to do for a number of reasons. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly said throughout his speech, we need to make sure we are implementing the legislation and seeing results, and that we use it now that we have it. It sends a powerful message that we in this place see and understand this behaviour, and that we will not tolerate it any more. It is important that we say that loud and clear.

The speeches made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) were really important and spoke to the nub of the problem. The hon. Member for Strangford said that people feel that the system has abandoned them, and that is right. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), also spoke about the way in which people who live by the rules feel that everybody else seems to be getting away with not living by the rules. That has wider consequences for our society than just the problem of retail crime and the abuse of shop workers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter spoke of a very serious case in which somebody was doused with liquid and then threatened with being set on fire. That is horrific. The abuse that shop workers receive, which was mentioned by the spokesperson for the Lib Dems, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), ranges from those very extreme cases to the abuse that people get every day. I remember talking to shop workers at my local Co-op about the abuse they faced. Someone said, “Well, it’s just part of the job.” No, it is not. It needs to stop and we need to make sure we are doing all the right things.

[Tom Gordon]

The Minister does fantastic work in her area. Will she join me in commending the work that organisations and charities such as Victim Support do to help people who find themselves in the horrendous situation that she outlined and that we have heard about from Members across the Chamber? Will she elaborate on the support she and her colleagues in other Departments give to people who work in shops and other customer-facing roles?

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Member is right that Victim Support and other organisations give really important support to people in such situations. Across different Departments, we all have a role to play in trying to stop this abuse and the retail crime that goes alongside so much of it. I will go into that in more detail.

First, I will set out the statistics on shop theft, which drives a lot of the abuse that we see and is often perpetrated by prolific offenders. In the year before we came to power, there was a 30% rise in shop theft, and in the past year there has been a 1% fall. A 1% fall does not sound great, but when we compare it with a 30% rise, it shows that we are completely turning the tide. I know that members of the public will say, “Well, that’s just statistics; that’s not my experience,” and it will take us a while to make people feel safer and tackle the huge problem that we still have. I want to reassure Members that—my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly asked about this—because of the policing interventions that we have done and because of what a lot of shops have done, we are beginning to turn the tide on shop theft. That is important.

A lot of the larger retailers admittedly have more funds to do this, but the Co-operative Group, for example, has done incredible things to design out crime in its shops, and it has seen the biggest fall compared with other retailers. Lots of others are doing interesting things, whether that is having live facial recognition; designing out the ability for people to get behind the shop counter and steal some of the alcohol that might be there; having cameras on shop workers; or having security people. All those things are undoubtedly making a difference, and so is the ability of our police to respond.

We have been clear with our wonderful police that we want them in our neighbourhoods tackling this type of crime. We have already seen over 3,000 more police in our neighbourhoods, and we have committed to having 13,000. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson talked about police numbers. The previous Government cut 20,000 police and then recruited 20,000 police, but they put 12,000 of them behind desks. Our measure is not about exact numbers—we want 13,000 more police in our communities, and we want outcomes. That is what we are driving towards. There are other things that we can do and that we are doing in this space that will also make a difference, and we will keep striving to do more.

The hon. Member for Weald of Kent talked about technology, databases and wanting to cut bureaucracy for our police. I 100% agree with that. Last week, we launched PoliceAI with £75 million of funding to use AI to take away some of the nonsense bureaucracy that our police have to do. I have given it two first tasks in relation to outward-facing technology: one is to tackle tool theft and the other is to tackle retail crime. There are lots of quite good systems that different parts of the country are using to more easily record shop theft and upload imagery and CCTV. We want to design AI that can read across all of those so that the police can easily see and bring together who the prolific offenders are.

There was talk of prolific offenders in this debate, and it is true that a small cohort of people are responsible for a large amount of retail crime and abuse against shop workers. They are often people with very complex needs—they will have an addiction; they will be drug addicts or alcoholics—and we in the Home Office are designing a programme to target those prolific offenders.

Some areas do that already, and people have been doing it increasingly, but there are things that we can put in place to help us really target that prolific cohort, whether that is providing the support they need to get into treatment or more interventions to make sure they cannot do what they want to. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) said that we should be doing more to use things like orders to stop people coming into a community, or tagging. I think we need to be using all of those more, and we are designing a programme of work to do exactly that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly asked if I would meet USDAW, and I am always very happy to do that. I have done so many times, but it is probably timely that I meet it again now that the Crime and Policing Act has been passed. He also asked how we would measure progress. We will measure what happens with the absolute numbers and the reporting of these issues, and whether people are reporting—whether that is through USDAW or our links in the retail sector. We will measure it through the crime statistics and what is happening as a result.

My hon. Friend also asked, importantly, why the provision is defined as being just about shop workers and why we did not make it wider to include transport workers or people who work in banks, for example. We deliberately kept it narrow to avoid any ambiguity in the courts. I know people disagree with that, but we just have to agree to disagree; that is what we have done in the legislation. However, if the legislation makes a marked difference, which we hope it will, of course we will need to look at whether the provision should apply elsewhere.

I have met representatives from banks, and I have had conversations about the particular challenges they have. They face the problem of abuse—I do not want to deny that—but the frequent protests they are increasingly experiencing are a slightly different issue, and one that we are talking to them about to try to support them through.

With the number of police in our communities going up; with the new rule that all thefts under £200 have to be investigated; with the new tech, IT and AI that can help us read across all these different systems; with the law in place; with the police giving a strong message that we want to see people punished for abusing shop workers; and with the work that we are beginning to do on prolific offenders, hopefully we will increasingly see results. The fundamental point that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly and everybody here has made is that we cannot accept this as normal behaviour—it is not. We will not tolerate it, and we will keep working until we tackle it.

[Tom Gordon]

I thank the Minister for being generous with her time. Will she comment on something that I have witnessed on social media: the filming of shop workers in customer-facing roles to generate content and clicks? That is pervasive and nasty in nature. Does the Minister have any thoughts on what the Government could do to tackle that issue?

[Sarah Jones]

There is a wider question about social media and how it sometimes drives these kinds of behaviours. People are almost goading each other to do more extreme activities—I have heard about that in a number of areas. This week, I was told about a new trend that I find utterly extraordinary: people are breaking into houses, filming someone asleep, and then leaving and putting that on social media. That is horrific. They do not take anything or do anything, but they are basically competing with each other to do that. Clearly, we are having a national debate, and the Government have taken action, about the issue of under-16s, but there is a much bigger debate still to have about social media and how it is driving these kinds of behaviours.

Having said that I would be brief, I seem not to have been as brief as I expected. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly on his powerful speech and on securing this really good debate. He should be assured that the Government are on the side of people who just want to do their job, and who should not be abused while they are doing that job. That is not acceptable, and we will keep doing what we can.

Headingley Incident

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

In just a few sentences, the right hon. Gentleman has made a compelling case for why change is needed in this regard. I cannot go any further today, but I hear what he says, and I share his concern about the fact that people can go online and, with a few clicks, buy one of these items.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

A number of people have mentioned to me that they have been to university in Leeds, or have kids who live in “Below Clarey” in Harrogate and go to university in Leeds. There is quite a high-density student population in the area. What conversations have the Government had with local authorities and other partners to ensure that university students and parents feel supported and reassured? May I also echo the sentiments of Members on both sides of the House who have thanked the emergency services?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman has made an important point about reassurance for the public, so that they can feel confident about going out in local communities. I know that West Yorkshire police is ensuring that through the extra police presence, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) will be working with community groups and the university. Also, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Minister for Security were properly briefed about the incident over the weekend. There is engagement across the board, and all the key stakeholders are part of those conversations.

Child Rape Gangs

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

Absolutely, and I say with the voice of the victims I have worked with over the years and have spoken to even today that the fundamental that they want is that children who come forward today—to their teacher, their social worker or whoever it is—do not suffer as they did. Keeping our eye on making sure that people are held accountable for the past will deliver justice only if we also look at the now.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

The Minister has outlined money for local inquiries. Is she able to comment on what resources will be made available for people who might come forward as a result of those local inquiries? Obviously, there is a backlog in provision of mental health support, talking therapies and all sorts of resources that people who have been through these horrific experiences may require, which are often provided by local authorities, health bodies and charities whose funding is under pressure. Will she elaborate on that and how she will make sure that victims are at its heart?

[Jess Phillips]

I absolutely agree. I remember working in a Rape Crisis centre when the Jimmy Savile scandal was revealed and it was like being hit by a tsunami—the phone lines lit up. As I said before Easter in response to the Jay inquiry, making sure that we have robust mental health support for children who are victims is really important. I also announced that the Home Office would double the amount of money it provides for adult historic rape victims, in recognition that we may bring more people forward and therefore need to improve access to support.