Hate Crime Law: Misogyny

Wera Hobhouse 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.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on introducing the debate. I am grateful to the petitioners for bringing this important issue before the House, and to the more than 114,000 people who signed the petition, including over 100 from my constituency. Might I say, as a former sabbatical officer myself, that this is yet more evidence that the phrase “student politics” should be seen as a compliment in this place, rather than a criticism?

Misogyny and violence against women and girls are not inevitable, and they should not be dismissed as something that women and girls simply have to put up with, whether on the street, in the workplace, in school or, increasingly, as the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) said, online. I have spoken in this place before about the scourge of deepfakes and AI-enabled abuse. In the spirit of cross-party collaboration, I also commend the work of Baroness Owen in this regard.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to tackle violence against women and girls and halve it within a decade. Prevention, early intervention, relentless pursuit of the perpetrators and proper support for victims are the foundations that we absolutely need. We need to deal with the attitudes and behaviours that allow violence and abuse to develop in the first place.

That is particularly important when we consider the growth of misogynistic material online. Young people can now be exposed very quickly to content that presents contempt for women as normal, glorifies control and abuse, and can draw boys and young men into increasingly extreme communities. That is why the Government are right to put prevention at the heart of their strategy, including through schools, colleges and universities, and to recognise the particular challenge posed by online misogyny. However, there is much more to do, and the petitioners are right to ask us to recognise misogyny as a hate crime.

The fact is that our hate crime framework has developed unevenly, although we have seen some progress. As we heard from the hon. Member for Bath and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, the Crime and Policing Act added sex to the characteristics covered by aggravated offences, which is a significant step forward. But the petition raises the wider question of consistency, and I hope the Minister will look carefully at whether hostility on the basis of sex or gender should be reflected consistently across the wider sentencing framework. There is also the question of stirring up hatred. The Law Commission has previously recommended extending such offences to cover sex or gender, in part because of the growth of extremist misogynistic ideologies and their potential to contribute to serious offending.

I heard today from organisations working on the frontline in my constituency, and what they told me should be part of this debate as well. My Sister’s Place supports women experiencing domestic abuse across Teesside. We have had some progress recently in the form of domestic abuse specialists now embedded in the 999 control centre at Cleveland police—something that the Government promised in their manifesto and are now starting to deliver. That is a positive step forward, but one issue that My Sister’s Place raised with me is that there are simply not enough refuge spaces or suitable move-on housing locally in Middlesbrough, so a woman who makes the extraordinarily difficult decision to leave an abusive relationship faces the question, “Where is it safe to go?” I would welcome the Minister’s saying a little about how the Government intend to improve the availability of safe accommodation and, crucially, the route from emergency refuge provision to decent and permanent housing.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the hon. Member for mentioning women fleeing domestic abuse. Their recovery should be subject to a longer-term strategy; it is not just about finding crisis accommodation. Often, women face their abusers for many years and do not get any support. Does he agree that we need to look at the longer-term effects, too?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I want to thank everybody who signed the petition, as a number of Members have thanked those in their constituencies who signed it; it is incredibly important that we hear from them in this manner. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for opening the debate and setting out so clearly the breadth of this issue and why it is so important.

The Government’s landmark violence against women and girls strategy was published last December. It stressed a whole-of-society approach to prevention, in which all of us have a responsibility to call out harmful behaviours and to role-model positive behaviours. That responsibility cuts right across the public sphere: our shared spaces, our workplaces, our institutions and, of course, online.

Online influencers hold a unique position in the public sphere, and their reach often goes further than that of our newspapers and broadcasters, yet their content is far less regulated. That is concerning given how social media platforms work: influencers profit financially from engagement, incentivising content that amplifies shocking images, awful videos and abuse, and that shapes the attitudes of impressionable young people. The platforms profit, too; they make huge sums of money from this.

According to Government figures, in 2025, 95% of young people had heard of Andrew Tate. Ninety-five per cent—that is unbelievable. It gets worse, though, because 40% of the young men in that figure had a positive impression of this individual. This is somebody with allegations against him of sex trafficking and all manner of horrendous crimes. It is deeply concerning that the online sphere has given those young people the impression that this is a good thing and that this person is somebody to emulate or look up to.

Exposure to content driven by that toxic masculinity starts very early, with 83% of teachers reporting concerns about their students holding extreme views on gender and a quarter reporting instances of misogynistic abuse in their own classrooms. I have heard from my teachers in Tamworth about how worried they are, how difficult this is to deal with, and how much the phones that many young people carry with them and have in the classroom are impacting their ability to see the world as many of us wish it really was, rather than as they are seeing it through this lens. This content is harming women and girls by normalising harmful rhetoric and behaviours, and it is harming boys by distorting their view of the world and their perception of what constitutes a healthy relationship with women and girls. As a female MP, I can attest to the sheer avalanche of abuse that I and many colleagues receive on a daily basis.

Children are not born with misogynistic views; these views are learned through socialisation. Sadly, sometimes they come from parents, and sometimes from peers, but increasingly—and as we all fear—they come through exposure to the manosphere, which happens to a great extent online.

[Wera Hobhouse]

It is pretty clear that young people fall into all sorts of traps, and we do not want our prisons to be full of young offenders who have displayed misogynistic behaviours and attitudes, but sometimes the law can act as a regulator of this type of behaviour. Does the hon. Member agree, therefore, that changing the law is a powerful tool in our toolkit for changing behaviour altogether?

[Sarah Edwards]

I absolutely agree, and I will go on to extol the virtues of what many people are calling for. It is imperative that there is real clarity on this, so that people take it more seriously than I think they do, and so that we are extremely clear about what is and is not accepted. There is this creep right across society whereby, as soon as you hear something online, it becomes okay, and therefore the more it is repeated. We really do have to make sure that the law reinforces that it is not okay and that we have to stop it happening.

Many parents hope to instil in their children the values of a good society, but they cannot do that if they are constantly being undermined by all these posts and by individuals such as Andrew Tate. The law must recognise that disproportionate influence; if an individual or organisation profits from the engagement of a larger audience, they must fulfil a duty to that audience by making sure that their content is fully reflective of the law. I hope that when we change the law, content will have to change as a result.

Classifying misogyny as a hate crime, as many Members might agree, would raise the degree of legal and social scrutiny of these influencers. To support that new framework, scrutiny must be proportionate to the size of somebody’s following, with influencers who have tens of thousands of followers given an enshrined duty of care for their audience. I advocate that even those with 500 or more followers are influential, and they need to recognise that. We need this to be supported by legislation that tackles online individuals and the way they communicate with their audiences.

What I am suggesting would bring regulation of the new media more in line with that of traditional sources. Social media outlets must be held responsible for the algorithms they push and the weighting they give to the information they are ultimately distributing. More than 20 years ago, Ofcom was created in recognition of the power that our broadcasters had over the culture and norms of our country. In the 2020s, Parliament must bring forward a new framework fit for this new media landscape. I hope that the Minister has some good news about how we will be able to tackle these new outlets and platforms, where a huge number of people now get their so-called news.

I also agree with the calls to make binding codes of practice rather than simple guidance. That is really important, and I hope that the Minister can outline some of the thinking behind and trajectory for that, as well as how we will scale up our efforts to protect women and girls from violence and hatred. I support calls for the Government to amend the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 to record crimes motivated by misogyny as hate crimes; to introduce tougher laws for online abuse—as I have already stated, that should apply to the individual and to the platform much more forcefully; and, as has been mentioned, to fund the training of police officers and prosecutors so that they are better able to handle this and understand their response. The future of our country depends on a much tougher stance being taken, particularly on this subject. I really fear for the future if we do not do this.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Satvir Kaur)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for opening this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

I pay tribute to the organisers of the petition, including several student unions, whose commitment and hard work have helped to ensure that this important issue receives the attention it deserves. Sadly, their report, which highlights the scale of the problem, is only reinforced by other surveys and research. We know that people aged between 16 and 24 are more likely to be victims of sexual assault, and that those aged 16 to 19 experience higher levels of harassment than any other age group. As has been mentioned, we also know that non-contact abuse strongly leads to contact abuse. In addition, we know that behind every statistic is a daughter, a niece, a friend, a colleague or another loved one.

To the petition organisers, to those who have signed the petition, and to the women and girls whose experiences lie behind it, I want to be clear that misogyny, harassment and violence against women and girls have no place in our homes, on our streets, where we study, where we work or anywhere in our society, and that tackling this is and will remain a Government priority. My hon. and learned Friend has my personal commitment to the violence against women and girls strategy, and everything that it seeks to deliver. For me, it has a particular focus on prevention.

The petition calls for misogyny to be considered within the hate crime legislative framework, alongside wider action against harassment, assault and online abuse of women and girls. I recognise that for many people who signed this petition, this debate is about so much more than legislative frameworks; for them, it is about whether women and girls feel safe, whether their experiences are taken seriously, and whether the law adequately recognises the harm caused by misogynistic behaviour and abuse. Like too many women, I have personally experienced it, and I am determined to do all I can to ensure that my daughter does not grow up in a world where feeling unsafe or being harassed purely because you are a woman is the norm.

As Members know, the Government have already legislated to recognise sex-based hostility within the aggravated offences framework, and we are taking action to tackle violence against women and girls. I will take each of those points in turn before addressing the petition’s calls directly, and I will respond to questions asked throughout the debate.

As Members know, when talking about hate crime legislation in England and Wales, we are referring not to a single Act, but to a framework. Therefore, calls to recognise misogyny as a hate crime may refer to different parts of the framework, each of which covers different protected characteristics and serves a distinct legal purpose. Broadly speaking, the framework operates through three main mechanisms: aggravated offences, enhanced sentencing provision and offences that criminalise the stirring of hatred against particular groups.

As mentioned throughout the debate, through the Crime and Policing Act, the Government legislated to extend the aggravated offences framework part to cover sex and presumed sex, alongside disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity. Under the Act, offences motivated by hostility towards those characteristics will be treated on the same basis as those involving race or religion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) said, it is all interconnected. That means that for the first time, the courts will be able to recognise hostility based on sex and reflect the additional harm caused when someone is targeted because of their sex.

The new legislation also targets nudification tools, which several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), raised. Such tools use artificial intelligence to generate intimate images of individuals without their consent. The legislation criminalises making, adapting, supplying or offering to supply such tools, and helps to tackle a growing form of online abuse that disproportionately affects women and girls, as mentioned throughout the debate. Those measures build on wider action to combat image-based abuse and ensure that those who create or facilitate such harmful content can be held to account. In addition, the Government have commenced the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023, which has already seen perpetrators brought to justice.

In response to the question about the commencement of the Crime and Policing Act, I assure Members that the Government are going as quickly as possible. We are working across Government, particularly with the Ministry of Justice, and hopefully we can get that through as quickly as possible.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The Minister is listing a series of measures, which we all welcome, but I do not hear her actually committing to making misogyny a hate crime. It does not sound like the Government are really considering that. Could she explain why?

[Satvir Kaur]

As I said earlier, it is useful for Members to understand the context—what is already happening and how we built to that—before I directly address the call from the petition.

To further support our collective efforts, our cross-Government violence against women and girls strategy was published in December 2025. Actions include making the UK one of the hardest places for children to access harmful online content and misogynistic influences. We are doing that through our online safety regime and by banning under-16s from major social media platforms, backed by one of the toughest enforcement regimes in the world. We will always seek to go further where we can, with a focus on preventing rather than just reacting.

The Ministry of Justice will launch a call for evidence to better understand online misogynistic image-based abuse. In addition, the Department for Education has updated relationships, sex and health education curriculums, which now include teaching on online safety and awareness, healthy relationships and positive role models. Hon. Members talked about a whole societal shift. It is important that we focus on prevention, so I welcome that. Guidance and resources will be provided to support hard-working teachers to recognise the signs of ideologies so that we can intervene swiftly and effectively.

The higher education regulator has introduced strict new requirements that will ensure that every university works to prevent, address and investigate any incidents of sexual harassment and abuse affecting its students. To help address the issue that many people who engage in harmful behaviour do not always recognise their actions as abusive, we have developed a cross-Government behaviour change campaign called Enough. A few Members mentioned people not recognising what is not okay, and also the evidence gap and lack of reporting. It is really important that this campaign explicitly helps people in all walks of life—both victims and perpetrators—to recognise what is and is not acceptable.

I will directly address the petition’s call for misogyny to be recognised more broadly in the hate crime framework beyond the changes already made through the Crime and Policing Act. Although I cannot commit the Government to such changes today, we must always ensure that the hate crime framework is fit for purpose. It is right to mention alternative views, such as those from the Law Commission’s 2021 review, which concluded that adding sex or gender to the existing hate crime framework would not necessarily provide the most effective response in tackling violence against women and girls, and cautioned that reform in this area could have unintended consequences.

Hon. Members will be aware that the Home Secretary commissioned Lord Macdonald in October 2025 to undertake an independent review to consider whether public order and hate crime legislation remains effective. The review engaged extensively with stakeholders from across civil society, academia and community organisations to ensure that a wide range of perspectives informed its conclusions. Lord Macdonald has submitted his final report, which the Government is currently considering, and a response will follow in due course. It is right and fitting that the review’s conclusions help to underpin decision making on any further changes to the hate crime framework and how best to protect women and girls.

On the broader calls from petitioners about tackling violence against women and girls, we know that legislation is an important part, but only one part, of the solution, and cannot tackle violence against women and girls on its own. We must also prevent offending, challenge harmful attitudes, support victims and improve criminal justice responses. We want women and girls to have the confidence to come forward and report crimes while knowing that they will be taken seriously, treated with respect and supported to secure justice. This Government are meeting the petition’s request to fund support for victims and the training to support it. A few Members mentioned training and funding, and I reassure them that training is being expanded and that specialist VAWG teams are being rolled out to all local police forces. The deadline for that was brought forward by the Prime Minister only a couple of weeks ago.

This year, the Home Office is investing more than £13.9 million in the national centre for VAWG and public protection to help ensure that all victims receive the right response. That is part of the Government’s wider investment of over £1 billion to support victims of VAWG, including nearly £500 million for local authorities to provide support in safe accommodation to victims of domestic abuse in Middlesbrough and across the country—I thank the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) for raising that issue. More than £550 million will be invested across justice to pay for counselling, court guidance and children’s services to support victims. Up to £50 million will also be invested in therapeutic support for child victims of sexual abuse, alongside a further £5 million to support victims of VAWG.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I recognise the strength of feeling across the House and I feel it myself as a constituency Member of Parliament. When such premises open up, everyone in the local community knows that they are dodgy, that they are involved in all sorts of other criminality and that they are front businesses. That is why I have announced this crackdown, which will apply across the country. The NCA will take the lead, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman’s force to think about how it might benefit from the funding that has been made available.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The high street organised crime unit is a welcome step to take illegal vapes off our high street, but organised crime gangs are then moving with impunity online, where enforcement is a lot less rigid. What is the Home Office doing to stop making it so easy to move from illegal trading on our high street to illegal trading online?

[Shabana Mahmood]

First, the hon. Lady raises an important point about online illegality. The Home Office has an interest in that, as do other Departments. We will continue to work with partners across Government to ensure we are doing everything we can to clamp down on the platforms that enable illegality. She will recognise that the physical presence of these many thousands of businesses across our country on our high streets has had a very damaging impact on local communities. In that context, it is right that this Home Office and this Government are focused very specifically on the physical locations of those businesses to make sure we are driving out the criminality and the antisocial behaviour that has left too many of our high streets no-go areas for local communities.

Abuse of Customer-facing Workers

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Chris Evans]

My hon. Friend should not apologise for making an intervention like that. He is absolutely on the point there. We forget about the economic and the human costs of this. It is costing the economy billions of pounds, which could be saved if we nipped it in the bud right now. I hope the Minister will address that when she winds up the debate. If the Department deems the stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker successful, will it extend that provision to encompass all other customer-facing roles? If an answer cannot be given currently, will she set out a timetable for a review process?

We are on the brink of real, tangible change. Vital protections for people in customer-facing roles are within reach, thanks to the efforts of the Co-operative party, USDAW, the British Retail Consortium, the RMT and the Institute of Customer Service, among others. Extending the stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker to all sectors would be transformative, vastly improving the lives of millions across the country, but that will be achieved only if this Labour Government continue to stick by the side of the workers and trade unions. These groups are the backbone of our economy and the heart of our communities. They must be protected with the full force of the law. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I know that she is level-headed and will come up with some good ideas. I thank her for listening.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. I also remind Members that they must always talk through the Chair. I know it is a little strange, but you have to address each other as “he” and “she”. I think I heard “you” three times.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) on securing the debate.

As others have noted, the abuse faced by many people working in customer-facing roles is deeply distressing. We should all be concerned by the rise in abuse, threats and physical assault against people just trying to do their jobs. The trend cannot be divorced from the rise in so-called petty crime, including shoplifting, as several hon. Members have highlighted. According to a survey conducted by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, in cases where retail staff faced abuse, 70% of incidents had been triggered by shoplifting. Of those incidents, two thirds were related to drug addiction or suspected drug addiction.

Failing to clamp down on crimes such as shoplifting is not cost-free. It does not just make life terrible for the businesses that are the direct victims of the theft; it puts retail workers and the public at risk. The kind of people who are engaged in habitual shoplifting are often involved in other types of crime, and they represent a very real danger to us all. Unfortunately, under this Government’s Sentencing Act 2026, up to 12,000 of this country’s most prolific shoplifters will avoid jail altogether, leaving them free to not just continue stealing but abuse and harass retail workers.

While prolific offenders walk free, law-abiding people face ever more rules and restrictions, and ever greater suspicion from the authorities. Instead of going after the hyper-prolific offenders who drive such a disproportionate amount of crime in this country, the state responds by making life harder for ordinary people. Is it any wonder that so many people now feel that they are living under something called anarcho-tyranny? In such circumstances, the state is either unable or unwilling to control violent crime, theft and genuine disorder. While failing to enforce the law against genuine criminals, the state vigorously and inflexibly enforces a mountain of complex, often seemingly arbitrary rules on ordinary people who work hard, pay their taxes and do the right thing.

That can produce infuriating and ludicrous outcomes. Shop Around the Clock, a fabulous store in St Michaels in my constituency, is plagued by shoplifting. Suki, who manages the business, very kindly had me in for a morning shift last Friday. He told me that, despite years of reporting regular shoplifting to the police, the only time they had visited was to let him know that the pictures he had put up of regular thieves violated GDPR. He also walked me through his report to the police of the latest shoplifting incident he had suffered that Tuesday. The process was slow and repetitive—easily 10 times as long as it needed to be. For small business owners like Suki, who are already doing a million things at once, it is often hard to justify that wasted time. Especially given advances in technology, this seems a crazy way to insist that people record crimes.

This is the experience of far too many people in Britain today. They feel their own behaviour is restricted, and they meet with resistance and hassle when they engage with the authorities, yet they see crime and disorder go unpunished. If they try to do something to stop the crime themselves, they are crushed. The rise in attacks against retail workers is one terrible manifestation of this, but there are many.

This is clearly completely unfair but, fortunately, there is a solution. Speak to any member of the British public and they will be able to tell you exactly what to do: spend less time on policing speech and filling out paperwork and more time on catching thieves; give police forces the tools they need to tackle these crimes; and, when we catch a career criminal, make sure that they serve a proper prison sentence. Put simply, we can fix this problem by pursuing criminals, enforcing the law and letting law-abiding people get on with their lives. Given that so much of this abuse is triggered by shoplifting, and given how onerous the process of reporting it is, my main, specific question to the Minister is this: what kind of conversations has she had about changing the online reporting system, particularly in the light of technology innovations that could make it so much simpler and faster?

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister. You have until about 5.30 pm; please leave a little time for the Member in charge to wind up.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

By the end of this month, there will be 3,000 extra officers across our communities in our neighbourhoods and 13,000 by the end of Parliament. An extra £2 billion has gone into policing in the last two Budgets, including over £700 million extra this year that our police forces can use. That is a 4.5% cash increase and a 2.3% real-terms increase. We will invest, but we will also reform, because the problem with policing is that it has been unproductive. We need to make sure our officers are not behind desks, like they were under the last Government, but in our neighbourhoods fighting crime.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

9. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of existing legal frameworks in relation to the non-consensual filming of women in public.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

Sadly, as technology becomes entwined in our day-to-day lives, we recognise the threat that tech-enabled harm poses, which is why the violence against women and girls strategy sets out how we are seeking to tackle it. I am pleased to say that, from 1 April, measures under the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 will come into force, making it an offence to film where the intent is to cause harassment, alarm or distress because of the victim’s sex.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Secretly filmed videos of women on nights out have been viewed more than 3 billion times over the last three years, and the videos are often accompanied by vile, degrading comments. These videos have real victims, but they sit in a legal grey area between voyeurism and harassment, so there is very little that the police can currently do. Will the Minister discuss this legal grey area with me, and possibly look at strengthening the law?

[Jess Phillips]

I am more than happy to discuss the issue with the hon. Lady. I spent this morning in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology with the violence against women and girls sector and Ofcom to look at some of those gaps that she has identified. We will do whatever we can, but absolutely, where it is harassment and is in the public realm, it should be covered by the public sex-based harassment law, but I am more than happy to meet her.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

The hon. Lady’s constituent’s experience is not unfamiliar to any Member of Parliament who has ever had to deal with the Child Maintenance Agency. That is why child maintenance was included in the violence against women and girls strategy. We will ensure that the abuse of women through child maintenance can no longer happen. Like always, I am more than happy to meet the hon. Lady and her constituents.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Around one in eight women were victims of sexual assault, domestic abuse and stalking in the year to March 2025. Victim Support is concerned that there is not enough focus in the strategy and, in particular, that funding is not matching increasing demand. What assurances can the Minister give victims of stalking in Bath that there will be enough resources and funding for those services?

[Jess Phillips]

I give credit to the stalking victims and stalking organisations that took out a super-complaint against the previous Government, I think, on the many different areas where stalking legislation needed to change. This Government are acting on every single one of those recommendations. The violence against women and girls strategy had more than £1 billion of investment, of which £550 million will go into victim services. I can assure the hon. Member that as a victim of stalking myself, I take the issue very seriously.

Digital Exploitation of Women and Girls

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) on securing this very important debate. In 2018, I introduced the upskirting Bill, the Voyeurism (Offences) Bill. At the time, an alarming number of men did not consider it harassment or an offence to upskirt a female. Too often, behaviours such as upskirting are dismissed as a laugh or as not that serious. I reject that entirely.

These are not victimless acts. We know that these kinds of violations often cause long-lasting psychological harm to the victims. We must also recognise the strong link between online and offline abuse. After all, it was the offence of upskirting that first led to Dominique Pelicot’s horrific crimes being brought to light in 2020. We know that if perpetrators get away with lower-level offences, they move on to more serious crime.

The law must move as fast as technology does, but it feels as if we are constantly on the back foot in reacting to novel uses of technology that harm women and girls, for example the recent rise of AI-generated indecent images and deepfakes. We must develop more proactive measures, because by the time we legislate against one form of technology-facilitated abuse, another seems to emerge.

It is for Ofcom to hold social media companies to account, but in my view it is currently failing to treat the digital exploitation of women and girls with the seriousness that it deserves. That is why we Liberal Democrats are calling for a dedicated online crime agency to effectively tackle illegal content and activity online. I hope that the Government will take that seriously.

Another example of technology developing faster than regulation is the rise of covert filming using smart glasses. Across social media, footage is being uploaded of women who have been filmed without their consent. Often, it has been taken outside nightclubs and gyms, when women are out walking or running—as we heard in the earlier debate—or on beaches, violating the privacy of women without their even being aware that they are being filmed.

The Government must send a clear message to the tech sector that women’s safety is not optional. If they are serious about tackling the epidemic of violence against women and girls, we must create a safer online environment, backed up by strong legislation and enforcement.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

As others have said, it is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) for securing the debate, and to all Members who have spoken.

From the get-go, I want to set out my stall and talk about exactly how I feel about this issue. If someone makes their money through harming women, and if part of their business model is sharing terrible, sexualised, faked images of people like me—well, I am not really allowed to say what I think about that, but I want to make it completely clear that it is totally and utterly unacceptable. Discussions like this are essential, especially as we know that the technology is developing more quickly than we can write legislation.

The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) asked why we cannot ban these things now. I remember the Online Safety Act going through Parliament, and I have to say that it is a triumph of hope over experience to think that I could just say, “Ban it now,” and that by tomorrow it would be banned. If only I wielded such a great ban hammer, I would be banning stuff all over the shop—no one would be listening to their phone out loud on the train any more. But that pace of change is not one that legislation easily keeps up with, and I say to other hon. Members who have spoken that we need to find backstops and ways to make our legislation more agile, so that it can change without having to go through some of the processes we have—I gave 10 years of my life to the Online Safety Act.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Is it not enforcement that is really lacking? Should legislation make enforcement the prime tool?

[Jess Phillips]

The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point. She is absolutely right that we need to make sure these things are enforced. To Members who spoke about pornography, I would say that there are reasons to be cheerful about the enforcement by Ofcom. I could dance a jig because Pornhub has reported a 77% reduction in traffic since age verification stopped young people being able to access it so easily. We are in the foothills of what that legislation can do. Where pornography companies have not been undertaking age verification, Ofcom has issued £1 million fines, and changes have been made to companies’ roles in the UK, so that they meet our laws. So there are reasons to think that there is some enforcement, but I absolutely agree that we need to grapple with the agility, scale and scope of that enforcement.

I must come to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston. Before I came to the debate, my colleague the Minister for victims was telling me how amazing my hon. Friend and his office have been in Preston in handling online abuse. People in our constituency offices often do not get praised for these things, but I hear that my hon. Friend has a legend working in his office.

My hon. Friend talked about the importance of education in this space, and about this being a country-wide push for change, and I could not agree more. The Government have invested in this issue, and it will be an absolutely fundamental part of the violence against women and girls strategy.

The National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection will do exactly what my hon. Friend talked about, so that the good standards, for example, in Cheshire—it is not far from him, and the anti-stalking practices are amazing and world-leading—are the same for people in the west midlands and everywhere else. My hon. Friend used the example of stalking legislation and making sure there are standardised systems and standards that police forces have to live by, which will absolutely include upskilling, when policing the digital elements of these crimes, whether it is domestic abuse or online. Stalking online is as illegal as stalking in real life—just to be clear, they are the same crime.

My hon. Friend talked about the richest man in the world. I am not sure there are many people in this building who have quite such a claim against the richest man in the world as me. What happened is unacceptable, and anyone who has existed online will know about the Grok outcry.

Some hon. Members mentioned Meta glasses. If I had been in the meeting where they floated the idea of making Meta glasses, the very first thing I would have said would have been, “These are going to be used to abuse women.” Why is that not being baked into the design of such products?

One of the things the violence against women and girls strategy has absolutely committed to is working on safety by design. In the car industry, we now take safety features for granted. If we are talking about what it was like when we were kids versus now, my dad used to put us in the back of the car and purposefully go round the corners fast so that we would smack into the window. These things are not acceptable now.

We have to go on a journey with this technology. To me, a Ring doorbell is such an obvious way to stalk somebody, as is an AirTag. I see cases again and again. It does not matter what the new technologies are; perpetrators of these abuses will find a way to use them for that purpose, so we need to design in safety functions. On the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) about planning, I will take that away and work with him.

The Government obviously took a strong stance—I felt pleased about this—against Grok. We can see that when we stand together and people speak up, we can make change in this area, but we need to make sustainable change. We absolutely are always looking at legislative changes. As people have said, there have been a number of those. There is the issue of Grok being added into the Online Safety Act, so that there can be accountability on that basis.

In the Crime and Policing Bill, we are also banning nudification apps. I have also had it shown to me that they do not work on men and boys, which I am glad about for men’s and boys’ sake, but if you are designing something that will nudify only women, you have a problem. I do not know who I can talk to, but there is something wrong with you. Have a word with yourself; otherwise, we will have a word with you. The ban will target firms and individuals providing and supplying tools that use AI to turn images of real people into fake nudes.

There is a raft of other legislation that we are putting through and that we hope will shift the dial. Obviously, in the violence against women and girls strategy, we have made a very clear commitment to ensuring that we make it impossible for children to take and share naked images of themselves—we will make it impossible for them to do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) and others talked about children being taken from social media and on to other platforms. I have to say that encrypted spaces are the most dangerous for child abuse imagery. But to the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire, who was talking about that, I say this: 91% of all child sexual abuse images are self-made; they are made by children themselves. People have groomed them—exploited them—to make those images. It may be their peers.

We will not stop this just by looking at the issue of new AI. There is an issue with where our children can go and who has access to them. I agree with the hon. Lady’s sentiment. We have to make sure that we get this right. Even with the 10 years of work on the Online Safety Act, and with the level of detail and, I have to say, the arguments that went into it, it still has all the gaps that we are talking about, so we need to make sure we get this right and legislate in a way that can be agile for the future. That is why I think the Government need to take the time—not too much time, I agree—to make sure we do that.

Others talked about accountability and whether anyone ever actually gets punished for these things. As part of the work we are doing in the Home Office, we are expanding the use of covert officers to address violence against women and girls, and improving the capabilities to counter and reduce the highest harms. We operate a similar system with regard to child abuse online. We are now doing that also for women and girls online, recognising the level of organised crime that is behind this. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) talked about people who are asleep and being filmed, like Gisèle Pelicot. These issues deserve a police force specifically looking at the covert aspect, and that is what this Government are doing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mike Tapp]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important concern. Ukrainians in Monmouthshire and across the UK have full access to work, healthcare and education, and this Government acted swiftly to introduce a further extension of three and a half years to provide certainty. Ukrainian visa applications are processed swiftly, and e-visas can be easily accessed online to prove status. The Department for Education is working closely with higher education providers to ensure that they support Ukrainians in maintaining stable access to their studies. We have to be clear that this bespoke route offers temporary sanctuary; it balances the immediate needs of Ukrainians with the future needs of Ukraine as it rebuilds.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Happy new year, Mr Speaker.

Bath Welcomes Refugees has supported more than 800 refugees to integrate and access vital services such as housing—indeed, Bath is another place where Ukrainian refugees have received a very warm welcome. The Public and Commercial Services Union report “Welcoming Growth” highlights the importance of employment support and English language provision in enabling refugees to contribute to society. What consideration has the Department given to these recommendations to support Ukrainian refugees in Bath?

[Mike Tapp]

As I said earlier, those here on these bespoke routes have access to full work, healthcare and education, but I will take the hon. Lady’s point away to my team after this session.

Violence against Women and Girls Strategy

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

The new curriculum is for children aged four to 16. It is compulsory in schools and should be done in an age-appropriate way. Through the new funding, we will create a series of interventions, so that, if there are worries that a kid is sharing images, or young people are disclosing abuses in their relationships, for example, schools can send people for interventions. I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend—mother of a son as she is—that that provision will be age-appropriate across the board.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I was a secondary school language teacher before I came to this place, and I had to deliver lessons on relationships. I have also raised two women and two men, so I was not exactly uncomfortable around young people, but I felt uncomfortable teaching those lessons, and it seems that I am not alone. About half of secondary school teachers do not feel comfortable delivering those lessons. I know that the strategy includes training for teachers, but, with busy school days and lots of other stuff going on, is it realistic to expect yet another bit of training to result in positive outcomes? Should we not have a professional in each school to deliver those lessons?

[Jess Phillips]

As somebody who was one of those professionals who went into schools, I could not agree more with the hon. Lady. I attended the same school as the Home Secretary, so when we were building the strategy, we kept talking about which of our teachers we would not have wanted to talk to about these issues, which was quite amusing. No offence to the teachers at our school in the ‘90s, but not many of them came out well when we were thinking about talking to them about consent, pornography or other things. What is being announced today is the use of specialists, but the point is that eventually teachers have to comfortable with talking about these matters. I think that my kids’ teachers are more comfortable than mine were, but there has to be development towards that.

Violence against Women and Girls Strategy

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

The strategy, like much of the work, applies to England and Wales, but I have met my counterparts in Scotland on a number of occasions to ensure that we are working together. Some areas of this issue are to do with immigration and parts of welfare, which are not devolved. I have also met lots of Scottish organisations, and we will continue to make sure that there is synthesis and learning from both sides.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

For many, Christmas is the season of joy and connection. But for victims of domestic abuse, it can be the most dangerous time of the year. Reports of domestic violence typically rise by around 20% over the festive period. How is the Department working with employers to ensure that staff are proactively informed about domestic abuse services and other support in the run-up to Christmas?

[Jess Phillips]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. When I say that the strategy has to be for everybody, I truly mean that. It has to be for employers as well. It is for businesses, charities—everybody in society. The hon. Lady is right to raise the point about employers. Thinking back to Rachel Williams, whose case has been cited, she was at work when she was harmed. There is a huge job of work for employers to do, and I urge the hon. Lady to wait for the strategy.

Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on his strong advocacy on this topic.

I welcome the Government’s confirmation last week that people with BNO visas will continue to qualify for permanent residence in the UK after five years. That is the right and fair thing to do for people with such unique attachments to this country. However, the Government’s new consultation has left many of my constituents in Bath concerned about their future, particularly our valuable Hong Kong community. As has already been said, BNOs are not economic migrants; many made an irreversible decision to come to the UK to flee political persecution and repression. For many, returning to Hong Kong is not an option. Changes to indefinite leave to remain requirements could put BNOs in an impossible position: unable to settle in the UK and unable to return to Hong Kong.

One of my constituents is a self-funded PhD student on a BNO visa. He is concerned about the proposed income requirement for ILR. Since any part-time work during his studies could be under the taxable income threshold, it is likely that he will not meet the income requirement during that period. He feels that the UK Government are, in effect, encouraging him either to abandon his PhD in favour of entering the job market or to leave the UK after his PhD studies are complete.

BNO families came to the UK seeking safety, stability and the shared values of freedom and democracy. Retrospective changes risk undermining the spirit of the BNO pathway altogether. The potential for a sudden increase to the B2 English language test is particularly concerning to some of my constituents. Thousands of BNOs are due to become eligible for settlement in 2026. They have been planning and preparing—as we have already heard—for the current B1 English requirement. A sudden mandatory increase to the B2 level, which requires near-fluent conversation and complex argument, is a significant step up from B1 and would be difficult to achieve, especially for many older applicants. For my constituents who have begun the process of settlement while contributing to society, it now feels like the Government are throwing additional barriers in their way.

The Government must look at providing flexibility through a transitional period if they are to press ahead with any of these changes. At the very least, the major wave of applicants in April 2026 should be left unaffected by any of those new rules. I urge the Government to listen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I thank you for chairing the debate, Sir Edward, and the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for allowing Members the opportunity to discuss the impact of the reforms on humanitarian visa routes. I also congratulate him on his recent appointment as patron of Hong Kong Watch, an organisation that has done a great deal to scrutinise successive Governments and to help to communicate essential information to those from Hong Kong who have sought refuge. He joins an illustrious collection of individuals, including current and former elected officials from across the House.

The humanitarian visa route set up under the previous Government sought to recognise the scale of the crisis we experienced at the onset of this decade, whether that be the reprehensible invasion of Ukraine or the complete mistreatment of the existing rights of Hongkongers, which breached commitments enshrined in international agreements and law. I think Members from all parties would almost unanimously agree that it was right that such schemes were set up, and that it was necessary to put forward an offer to ensure that those in great danger, and to whom we have a historic responsibility, received protection.

When we reflect on the context of such schemes, it is right that the immigration reforms appreciate the context. As such, I reiterate that the Conservative proposals on the change to settlement, which were made months before the Government’s own, always stated that they would have no impact on BNO visas and those from Ukraine, given the unique nature of those routes. Many constituents have reached out to me in fear that this Government would not continue that position.

As mentioned, the Government announced last week that those on BNO routes would not be impacted by the changes to settlement. That finally gives them and many others the clarity they have been asking for. It also raises the question of why the Government could not have offered sufficient clarity earlier. Despite the unnecessary delay, I welcome the Government’s decision, and I echo the sentiment expressed by those in the community who are very pleased to see it.

As we consider settlement, it is worth acknowledging the work done on the BNO visa. The previous Government not only instituted a scheme that has seen thousands of people come to this country—with over 166,000 people having arrived in the UK as of June 2025—but brought forward support for those who came. That included funding for 12 welcome hubs across the UK and demand-led funding for local authorities to provide English language and destitution support in England. That work underscores the seriousness with which the Conservative party viewed the integration of this community.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Bool]

I think we would like to hear from the Minister, so I will push on.

Although it is unsurprising, given the continuing restrictions on freedom, the fact that the Government assume that those who arrive on the BNO route will settle after five years, and that those who switch on to the route will also settle after five years, demonstrates that the route has been broadly successful. A qualitative study of the visa route for MHCLG showed that participant responses overall suggested they felt supported by the UK Government, and people with BNO visas were grateful for the existence of the route.

I appreciate that specific challenges and difficulties remain, such as the need for greater engagement with programmes to improve integration. Nevertheless, we can already see some of the immense contributions that those who came through the pathway are making both to this country and to the Hong Kong diaspora. For example, only recently Chloe Cheung won the 2025 Magnitsky award for outstanding young human rights activist. She is one of the numerous people, including young individuals, who have had bounties placed on their heads by the Chinese Government for exercising their democratic rights. The complete undermining of the safety of those individuals and of the UK’s sovereignty is wholly unacceptable, but it is welcome that those individuals are resolutely fighting for the values that underpin the necessity of the visa.

However, as has been expressed in the debate, questions still remain about what the Government’s broader changes will mean for this community. What will BNO visa holders and their dependants need to demonstrate in respect of new income or economic contribution requirements? Will the current English language standard for settlement on the BNO route be maintained at B1, or will it be B2? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that those born after 1997 have protection? I appreciate that those questions do not necessarily have simple answers but, given the concerns about the lack of clarity expressed recently by the community, it would be helpful if the Minister could outline answers to those matters.

Ultimately, we believe there is a great deal more to do to reduce levels of legal migration, so changes to settlement are appropriate. However, as is the case with many such changes, there will be an impact, and transparency about the precise impact will always be welcome. I hope the Minister will agree that the Government should do as much as possible to express clearly the impact of the changes on people who have come to the UK through humanitarian routes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate, and I thank all Members for their considered contributions. I know this topic is of significant interest and concern to my hon. Friend, and that has come through clearly in his and others’ contributions, for which I am grateful.

A fair amount of ground has been covered, and I will address as many of the points raised in the debate as possible, but first I want to set the discussion in its wider context. That means acknowledging that the immigration and asylum systems that this Government inherited were not working as they should. After years of chaos and dysfunction, the British people had lost confidence in the state’s ability to fulfil one of its most basic functions: deciding who can come to our country and who must leave. It has fallen to this Government to put that right, and that is what we have been working to do ever since the general election.

We have taken decisive and important steps to stabilise the systems. The foundations are much stronger thanks to those efforts, but now we have to go further. That is why we published our immigration White Paper earlier this year, and why last week we brought forward the most significant asylum reform package in modern times. Through those plans, we are determined to restore order and control. We cannot go on as we have with systems that are failing or broken. Change is urgently needed, but I assure hon. Members that we pursue these reforms with a keen sense of our international and historical responsibilities, and a recognition that this is a fair and tolerant country that welcomes those who come here legally to contribute and that is compassionate to the plight of those fleeing peril.

Last week the Home Secretary announced a fairer pathway to settlement and launched a public consultation on the proposed new earned settlement model, and earlier this year the immigration White Paper set out an increase to the default qualifying period from five years to 10 years. That, in general, is not open to consultation, and individuals will need to meet certain requirements to be granted settlement. They must have a clean criminal record, speak English to the higher A-level standard, have made national insurance contributions for at least three to five years, and have no debt in this country.

Individuals will have the opportunity to reduce the length of the qualifying period to settlement based on their contribution to the UK’s economy and society. Those who make a sustained and measurable contribution to this country will be rewarded with a shorter path to settlement. A reduction in years may also be earned by speaking English at an advanced level, known as C1.

We propose that settlement is delayed for those who contribute less to our public life, including those who have claimed benefit payments. A long penalty would also be applied to those who have entered the country illegally, which aims to strongly discourage entering the country via those routes. That follows the announcement of a new 20-year settlement path for refugees who remain on the new core protection route.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) did not let me ask this question earlier, but is it not true that the safe and legal routes have been all but destroyed except for BNO and for Ukrainians? It is really important that the Government restore safe and legal routes to this country to make sure that everybody can actually benefit from our safety and our respect for human rights.

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for that good point. Safe and legal routes are part of the solution. We are not making these changes to the immigration system to please any part of the political spectrum; they are about solutions, such as safe and legal routes and harsher penalties for those arriving illegally. I will talk more about safe and legal routes shortly.