(1 week, 4 days ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing this important debate. It has been a powerful morning in this Chamber, in terms of both the challenges but also the stories of hope on this difficult issue. I want to start by expressing my solidarity with Jewish communities across the country and with everyone who is experiencing antisemitic abuse, intimidation or violence.
Tom Hayes
On a point of order, Sir Christopher. I was under the impression that there was no time limit. I was not warned in advance of the need to reduce the length of my speech. I have deliberately solicited the views of my constituents, which I want to put on the official parliamentary record, about an issue that affects them very deeply, which is their feeling of insecurity and discontent in our country because of antisemitism. I am concerned that they have been unrepresented on the parliamentary record because you, as Chair, have artificially circumscribed the time limit. I ask that I be given the chance to speak fully and represent my constituents’ views in their entirety.
No, I am not going to accept a further point of order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will learn from what has happened this morning.
Zöe Franklin
The latest Home Office figures show that there were 106 religious hate crimes targeting Jewish people per 10,000 of the Jewish population—by far the highest rate, sadly, for any religious group. Behind these shocking figures are people who are changing the way they live, as we have heard in this morning’s debate, because they are frightened—frightened of being attacked, abused or intimidated simply for practising their faith.
I see that in my own constituency of Guildford, which has a relatively small but growing Jewish community of around 450 residents, which rises to 600 during university term time. Members of the community have told me clearly that since the horrific attacks of 7 October, the tone has noticeably shifted in the community. Our local rabbi has received death threats and has even been physically assaulted in public. Jewish residents have faced verbal abuse, a swastika has been drawn at a local golf course, and a single Jewish mother had a rotten chicken thrown through her open window while she was with her five-year-old child, and those are not isolated incidents.
What has stayed with me the most, though, is hearing that some local Jewish families have moved their mezuzah from the outside of their front door to the inside because they are frightened of being identified as Jewish. That is an extraordinary thing for anyone to feel they must do in Britain in 2026 to keep their family safe. It is why I believe our response must be about much more than simply reacting when another terrible thing happens. We need to step up, as community leaders and as Parliament. We need to ensure that Jewish communities are protected now, but we also need to tackle the hatred that makes that protection necessary in the first place.
I welcome the Government’s additional £25 million for security following the attacks in Golders Green, bringing the total available to £58 million. I have seen how much that investment matters. The Guildford synagogue has had to spend thousands of pounds upgrading security, and our rabbi has had to spend money improving his own personal security. I refuse to accept that this is simply the way society is turning—that violence and intimidation is now being normalised. Will the Minister explain what long-term certainty the Government will provide for the Community Security Trust and for the security funding relied upon by synagogues, Jewish schools and community organisations? Protecting buildings is necessary, but it is not enough.
We also have to ensure that our police and prosecutors can identify antisemitism and act when the law is broken. I want to be really clear on protest. The right to peaceful protest is fundamental in a liberal democracy, but there is no right to intimidate Jewish people, to glorify terrorism or to use protest as a cover for antisemitic hatred or incitement to violence. It should not be a difficult distinction for us to make as a society.
We Liberal Democrats have called for mandatory antisemitism training for police officers policing demonstrations, as part of a statutory code for the policing of protests. That would also include stronger protections around places of worship, and place responsibilities on protest organisers to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment and intimidation. I really do think that those are practical steps that the Government should take seriously. Will the Minister consider introducing consistent antisemitism training for officers policing protests across the country?
Will the Government also consider again how we protect synagogues and other places of worship from intimidating protests immediately outside them? The same applies when cases reach the justice system. I could go on, and I know that colleagues across this Chamber have raised a number of issues in relation to that point.
I also want to note the gap between the official statistics and what Jewish residents say that they experience. I hear it in my own constituency of Guilford, and I am sure that colleagues hear the same. Many incidents are never reported to the police. Others happen in schools, universities and workplaces and are dealt with internally, which means that they simply disappear from the national picture. If we do not understand the scale of antisemitism, we cannot properly respond to it.
We have talked this morning about the crucial issue of educating people to understand what is and what is not acceptable in our language. We have also heard about Sir David Bell’s review of antisemitism in schools. I have, sadly, heard too many stories in my own constituency and in neighbouring ones of children and young people facing antisemitism within their education setting. I am glad that Sir David Bell’s review is coming. Will the Minister commit to responding quickly to the review and its recommendations when it comes out?
I want to end by sharing something positive, as many colleagues have done at the end of their speeches, too. I want to share the genuinely positive work happening in Guildford. I am glad that Surrey police have developed a stronger liaison relationship with our Jewish community. Guildford and Waverley councils, Surrey police, Jewish residents and local faith leaders have worked together on a hate-crime pledge. We have growing relationships between the Jewish community, the Reform Jewish community in Weybridge, and Woking mosque. Those relationships are crucial. They show that even at times of terrible conflict and division internationally, Jewish and Muslim communities here can continue to talk to one another, support one another and refuse to allow events overseas to divide neighbours at home.
I was proud to stand with local faith leaders and civic leaders with the Guildford declaration of freedom of religion and belief. That work is crucial, and it brings me to the issue of inter-faith initiatives. Sadly, inter-faith funding has largely disappeared. Will the Government consider reinstating the crucial grassroots inter-faith funding, which is at the core of enabling positive cross-faith work?
Ultimately, I do not want the measure of success for how the Jewish community is being protected to be about how many security guards we have funded or how many hate crimes have been recorded. I want Jewish families to feel comfortable putting their mezuzah back outside their front door. I want Jewish children to be able to talk about their faith openly, without worrying how other pupils will react. I want the Jewish community in my constituency of Guildford to be able to light the menorah on the high street without the need for armed police to make that possible. That requires proper security funding now, but it also requires better policing, better education, stronger enforcement online and investment in relationships that prevent hatred from growing in the first place.
I think that everyone in this Chamber agrees that antisemitism has no place in our society. We should not accept Jewish people having to change how visibly Jewish they are in order to feel safe. I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity to set out more on the practical steps that the Government will take to help ensure that that is the reality.
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberThe right hon. Gentleman will know that it is an independent process within the Home Office that deals with the risk assessment and risk management of those in public life. I am not going to compromise the integrity of those arrangements by commenting in any detail on specific instances. Let me simply observe that, in the 10 months I have been in the Home Office, I have seen media reports in relation to various suggested risk assessments and risk mitigations. I have never commented to say whether something is true or false, simply because I believe that the principle of not commenting should not be breached, so as to protect the integrity of the system. The meeting has been offered.
Let me assure him that RAVEC is and will always be fiercely independent. It must be, because the protection offered to people, and the level of protection and the tactics of protection that are offered, must never be based on a political assessment of who needs it, but on an independent operational assessment of what risk is and how it is best managed. That operational independence is incredibly important. I will always maintain it and protect it, and I know the Government as a whole will do so as well.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
The death of Ann Widdecombe is shocking. I did not know her as an MP, but it has been wonderful listening to colleagues from across the House share some of their memories. She was clearly a formidable political leader. Of course, we will also remember her as an entertainer. My thoughts are with her family and friends at this incredibly difficult time.
Her death is a devastating reminder of the problem that all of us elected Members and councillors face on a day-to-day basis while we try to serve the communities we love and have been elected to serve. It has come across very clearly in the Chamber that we all want and need to do more to protect each other and our democracy. I speak a lot to my councillors in Guildford and, as the Liberal Democrat local government spokesperson, to councillors across the country. The stories I hear are horrendous, whether it is parish council leaders or council leaders telling me about death threats. This is a democracy and elected representatives should not be experiencing that.
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for what she has already set out, but could she also set out what actions the Government are taking to protect elected officials at all levels, in particular councillors and those who are served by Operation Ford? Can she confirm that more resources will be made available to Operation Ford, so that a consistent level of support can be provided across the country? I know that police officers and forces across the country want to do that, but I hear about varying levels of support.
I join the hon. Lady in saying that it has been a very moving afternoon, hearing tributes to Ann Widdecombe from across the House, particularly from her former colleagues in the Conservative party and her colleagues in Reform UK, who are obviously personally affected. Once again, I offer my condolences to all of them on the loss of their friend and colleague.
I take very seriously the wider risks to our democracy, including for local councillors. The hon. Lady has already referenced some of the steps that the Government have taken through our defending democracy taskforce and Operation Ford. I am sure that there will be further developments in this space. We are learning lessons from the taskforce’s work in relation to the most recent local elections, and the developing nature of the threats must be reflected in new arrangements as we move forward.
We are very alive to the risks to those of us in this place, given what has happened to Jo Cox, to Sir David Amess and now to Ann Widdecombe. The security of parliamentarians gets a lot of attention, and this is perhaps the most high-profile Chamber—we are often referred to as “the mother of Parliaments”, so that is understandable—but this country also cannot do without the work of its local councillors, parish councillors and all the people who put in the hours to make their local area better, and this Government will stand by them too.
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons Chamber
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
I am pleased to speak today in support of the motion and my constituent, Andrew Barr, who is in the Gallery. Andrew served in the Metropolitan police as a detective constable from 2003 to 2019, and also volunteered with a search and rescue unit while off duty. He is among the many great servicepeople we are discussing today who have had their careers cut short by severe injuries sustained while protecting the public. He now lives with complex PTSD after years of assaults, road traffic fatalities and traumatic incidents—injuries that will remain with him for life—and yet, because those very injuries cut his career short, he was denied the long service and good conduct medal. At official events, he stands as a spectator beside former colleagues as they proudly wear their medals, while he has nothing to show for his committed years of service and for the health, career and identity he lost in the line of duty.
The creation of a dedicated injury in service medal would give men and women from the emergency services like Andrew the simple but powerful and important thanks and acknowledgment they deserve. To him and to all those injured in service, I say: thank you for your service. Like colleagues who have spoken today, I urge the Government to commit to creating this award. We must show men and women who have been injured in service that they will no longer be overlooked.
(1 year ago)
Commons Chamber
Ben Maguire
I completely agree we must hold our police officer to the highest standards, particularly when it comes to complaints. If those standards do not meet the threshold that we all rightly expect, we need to have a robust complaints system, in which we can have proper trust and confidence.
I will quickly mention one more constituent case—that of another teenage girl, who was sexually assaulted by a close neighbour and has had to move away from the family home while the investigation continues for months and months, without any updates at all from the police. I am afraid that the list goes on.
I am sure that other Members will agree that one of the greatest privileges of being a Member in this place is meeting some really inspiring constituents. The bravery of those young girls, and Lisa’s relentless campaigning on behalf of her son, have inspired me. I am proud to bring their cases before this House.
To conclude, I ask the Minister to please clarify some of the following questions. What can my constituents do when they have legitimate concerns that have not been properly addressed by the complaints process? Clearly, a judicial review is completely out of reach for most of our constituents.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for his passionate speech on behalf of his constituents on this difficult issue. As other Members have, I pay tribute to my police force, Surrey police. They do great work, but sadly things sometimes do go wrong. I have had to deal with a number of cases in my constituency office where the process has not worked in the way we would all like it to. People have gone to the police with complaints, only to find themselves in distress and unable to trust the outcomes because, in effect, the local force—although also in another case with the Met—has marked its own homework. The complaint has stayed with that force, which does not fill people with the confidence they need for their case. Does my hon. Friend agree that serious consideration is needed? If we want people to trust our fantastic police forces up and down the country, we need to look seriously at the current situation so that we can move to one where other forces review some of the most serious complaints.
Ben Maguire
I hope that the Minister heard that suggestion of complaints about one police force potentially being reviewed by another. That seems like a sensible suggestion that, importantly, would give a much-needed sense of independence in our complaints system.
Will the Minister consider introducing a statutory time limit for a response to such complaints, given the long delays faced by my constituents and by myself, when I have inquired on behalf of my constituents—almost a year, in the case I mentioned? The guidance of the Independent Office for Police Conduct is to give complainants 28-day, regular updates on their complaint. That guidance clearly was not followed in any of the cases I mentioned. What can our constituents do to ensure that those 28-day updates happen? Also, what is the current backlog of complaints? Will it be brought back to an acceptable level? How many extra staff have been recruited or are in the process of being recruited to bring it down? Importantly, have frontline officers been drafted away from their duties on the frontline to help reduce the backlog?
Finally, as I said at the start, confidence and trust in our police force are so important. Many people know of the soap opera at Devon and Cornwall police. We have had three chief constables under police and crime commissioner Alison Hernandez. We eagerly await the Government’s rural crime strategy—something that my private Member’s Bill, the Rural Crime (Strategy) Bill, also called for earlier this year. I urge the Minister to act quickly to restore that trust and confidence in the professional standards of our police.
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberI rise to speak in support of the Bill and the Government’s new clauses, as this issue matters deeply. When we talk about immigration and border control, we are not just talking about policies made in Westminster, but about real-life consequences for those seeking refuge. This Bill is a major step forward in building an immigration system that is both firm and fair, both robust and compassionate. Since the general election, this Government have already taken bold action. Over 24,000 people with no legal right to remain have been processed—the most in years. In just one month, enforcement teams raided over 800 businesses, arresting more than 600 people for allowing illegal working practices—a 73% increase on the same period last year.
However, this is not just about numbers; it is about confronting a criminal underworld that preys on human suffering. People-smuggling gangs are profiting from desperation. They are putting lives at risk in the channel and undermining the values of fairness and order that we all believe in. With this Bill, and with new clauses 6 to 8, we can now go even further. We are introducing real criminal penalties for those who supply boat parts—up to 14 years in prison. We are making it a crime to endanger life at sea during illegal crossings, modernising how we process asylum claims by using artificial intelligence to speed up decisions, banning sex offenders from ever claiming refugee status in this country, and putting tough restrictions on bogus immigration lawyers.
Let me be clear: being tough does not mean being cruel. True compassion means creating a system that works for everyone. That includes the people who are coming here, because there is nothing humane about placing vulnerable people from around the world in the most deprived communities in the country, with poor housing, overstretched services, and no opportunity to rebuild their lives.
In Leigh, we have seen that at first hand. This does not relate to the Bill, but I need to mention it: Serco has acquired many properties in my constituency and in the Greater Manchester area generally. Our town has lost its industry. We have fewer job opportunities and a housing crisis of our own, and yet we are being asked to carry a disproportionate burden simply because our homes are cheaper. That is not compassion; it is neglect. People are being housed in failing conditions and no one benefits—not the asylum seekers and not our local residents.
This Government are delivering real results—results that we are seeing for the first time. This is what we need to see. We need to see a fairer system that protects lives, upholds the law and restores order without losing sight of basic human dignity.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I should start by mentioning that I am the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on refugees.
I rise to speak in favour of new clause 21, which would allow asylum seekers the right to work after three months of waiting for a decision. I back this measure for three key reasons: common sense, economic rationale and human dignity. In my constituency, I work closely with a charity called Big Leaf, an outstanding organisation that supports more than 200 displaced young people. Through it, I met Mohi—a young woman who, on arriving in the UK, lived in a hotel for 20 consecutive months. Her husband had nursing experience, and Mohi herself dreamed of becoming a nurse. She told me, “I want to give back to the country that has given me safety. We are here to be useful. We don’t want to rely on benefits. We just want a normal life.” Big Leaf, her peers, her mentors, her colleagues and her employers all recognised what Mohi could become. Everyone saw her potential, except the system. Today she works as a healthcare assistant, and this September she is excited about beginning training at the University of Surrey to become a nurse.
Zöe Franklin
I absolutely agree. I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to vote for new 21 for all four reasons that, between us, my hon. Friend and I have stated.
Tom Hayes
So late in the day, with so much said, I am going to take a direction that differs from that taken by some of my colleagues. I want to talk about what border security means for us as a country.
The playwright James Graham says that our country is only the story that we tell about ourselves. With the Conservatives, we were told a story of hopelessness, despair and scapegoating. People were left to believe that we should be frightened by the challenges we face, frightened by our inability to meet them, and frightened by the setbacks that we face and what they say about who we are and where we are going. That is why it is so important for this Labour Government to be correcting that narrative. Getting a grip on our borders, closing asylum hotels, bringing the asylum bill down: those are the basics that people expect. They are what make people feel confident, not frightened—secure, not susceptible to those on the Opposition Benches who would peddle empty promises and, ultimately, let the British people down.