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.

Prostitution and Sex Trafficking: Demand

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

The convention for 30-minute debates is that the lead Member makes a speech, to which the Minister responds, and only with prior permission can another Member make a speech. More and more, it has become the norm that Members intervene quite a lot. That is not really the point of a 30-minute debate, but I remind Members of the convention that the Chair should be informed by any Member who wishes to intervene.