Immigration Reforms

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. Members who wish to speak should bob. I have taken a rough count of those who have, and we will start with a four-minute limit, which I might have to reduce later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

Not the Minister, of course—I except him from that general description. It is time that the political establishment faced up to the fact that what they have perpetuated for too long is at odds with the intuition, experience and will of the British people. We need to cut migration of all kinds, and we need to cut it now, or they will dispense with us and elect people who will.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members of two things: first, interventions should be brief; and secondly, if you say “you”, you are referring to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I am going to reduce the time for speeches to three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iqbal Mohamed]

The reasons why Spain introduced the policy also apply to our country. Whether we address the challenges that both Spain and the UK have in the same way or differently is a question for the House. It is for the Government to make proposals and for the House to contribute to a fair, compassionate, productive and ethical policy. We do not want mass illegal or uncontrolled migration without benefits to our nation.

Spain requires 2.4 million workers in the next 10 years to maintain productivity and to support the pensions system. My question to the Government is, what estimate have they made of how many new workers will be needed in the UK over the next 10 years to maintain productivity and to deliver the Government’s mission for growth, and how will that requirement be fulfilled?

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I am going to have to reduce the time limit to two minutes. That speech lasted longer than I expected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing this vital debate. I am well-known for believing in immigration for those who need it, those who have a desire to assimilate and those who wish to make a new life for their families and become part of the fabric of British life. I believe in asylum for the few who are persecuted for their faith. They should be given an opportunity to apply for immigration status and to work and raise their families.

I think of those who come to the Ulster hospital, the Royal Victoria hospital and the Belfast City hospital—those who have emigrated here, pay their national insurance and their tax here and keep the A&Es in all those hospitals going. That is really important. But I do not believe in an unrestricted flow of immigration for those who jump in a plastic or rubber boat in Calais and come across—economic migrants who are fit and well.

In the very short time I have, I want to make a point about the fishing fleet, which faces what I believe is unnecessary immigration reform. The new English language thresholds being introduced in 2026 create a huge barrier to bringing new crew into the industry from overseas. The phasing-out of the temporary shortage list for the end of 2026 means that we will no longer be able to bring in foreign crew to Northern Ireland to work on fishing vessels and will only be able to renew the visas of those who already work here. That means that in 12 months we stand to lose 70% of our workers, which will tie up close to 100% of our fleet.

I ask the Minister, who is a decent person and always replies very positively: can we have a meeting to discuss the bespoke visa system for fishing roles in the short and medium term? We need a mechanism to ensure that the industry does not fall during that period, while we do the necessary work to achieve more domestic recruitment. I ask the Minister to ensure that we have that meeting to prevent the implosion of the fishing industry due to the pressure on crews and vessels. Immigration is the lifeblood of our nation, but it must be controlled and in the national interest. We need to find that balance and find it soon—indeed, we need to find it before it is too late.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. The flurry of interventions that we have had over the last three speeches has meant that we have gone two or three minutes over time. I will reduce the time available to the spokespeople for the three parties by a minute each, and ask each of them to take nine minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I do not entirely share that view. I have seen the challenges that the French police face, with something like 1,000 members of their constabulary covering 10,000 km of coastline. The traffickers will sometimes send 50 or 100 boats to sea simultaneously, knowing that there is no way that the French police can possibly deter them. Each of those boats is worth €70,000 to €80,000-worth of revenue to their criminal enterprise, so they have a big incentive.

The Minister is here in an honourable tradition of Labour Governments taking robust action on our borders. The first immigration controls that our country ever had were introduced by the post-war Labour Government in response to concerns about the exit from empire. No recourse to public funds, the first time that asylum seekers were taken out of the standard benefits system and eligibility for council housing, was introduced by the Blair Government. The asylum dispersal system was introduced by the now Mayor of Greater Manchester when he was the Immigration Minister in those years.

On the Conservative side of the Chamber, we are broadly supportive of the measures based on the Danish model that are being brought forward by the Home Secretary. We remain very concerned, however, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire have highlighted, that many of those measures will still fall short and that our constituents’ concerns will remain.

In the spirit of a constructive approach, may I ask the Minister whether he has given any further consideration to the idea of an asylum visa, going beyond the simple prospect of safe and legal routes? If people wish to study, work, come to get married or live in the United Kingdom for any other reason, they have to apply for a visa, but we do not have any such measures in place for asylum seekers, and that is helping to drive the illegal traffic across the channel.

What discussions is the Minister having across Government about avoiding cost shunts, which are an increasing concern and a consequence of speeding up asylum decision making—in particular, the rapid rise in the cost of temporary accommodation for local authorities as asylum seekers get status and turn up at the town hall seeking help or are left destitute in local communities? What consideration will the Minister give to using protocol 16 of the European convention on human rights, since it is clear that UK tribunals go well beyond the provisions of that protocol in many cases, to ensure that we are not doing more than we should be doing?

Even with all those questions, I can assure the Minister that as the official Opposition we will be providing support in the Lobbies to ensure that those measures are implemented, even if we remain of the view that they should go further.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

We have little time, Minister, so please try to leave a minute or two at the end of your speech for the winding-up speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I wish I had more than a few seconds to sum up what has been an important and significant debate. There are a couple of things that I thought would happen: first, that most of his Back Benchers would be totally against what the Minister said, and secondly, that the Tories would totally agree with this Labour Government on all things immigration and asylum. Those are the friends that the Minister keeps. This is an important debate that is shaping the new dynamic in this country. Profound change is happening. The Minister is on the wrong side of this. Conservative Members are quite content to support this Labour Government. I urge the Minister: review where you are. It is not working. You will continue to get hammered in subsequent by-elections—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. We must move on to the next debate.

[Jim Shannon]

On a point of order, Mr Stringer. This is not a criticism of yourself, but when the list of speakers is presented to the Chair for consideration, I understood that the protocol and rules of the House were that if those on the list intervened, they would go to the bottom of the list, while those whose names were on the list but had not intervened would be brought to the top. Can you clarify that that is the rule? That is how I and others understand it, but today, that rule was not followed.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

It is guidance, as opposed to a rule. With the exception of yourself, I did put to the end of the list those people who had intervened.

[Jim Shannon]

I ask the Clerk to check that, because my understanding is that that did not happen.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. We must start the next debate.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

West Midlands Police

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

You would think that the hon. Member, who I believe used to be a barrister, might be more cognisant of the actual facts in this matter. I am responding to findings made by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services—that is, the independent inspector of policing. It is a sad day for all those who believe that policing should occur without fear or favour. I would encourage him to read the letter from Sir Andy Cooke, published today, in detail and reflect on whether he believes that we as a country should be able to rely on and trust all information put out by the police. The hon. Member purports to speak for every Brummie in the city, but I think other Brummies in this Chamber know that is simply not the case. I will tell him what every Brummie, and indeed every citizen of our great country, needs and deserves: that when the police carry out a risk assessment, we can trust it and rely on it, and that they will always be open and frank about what is really going on. That is not what happened in this case, but it is what we all should expect and deserve, whichever community we belong to. It is what we all need for our collective safety and for the cohesion of our country.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

It is absolutely clear that, by lies and conspiracy, the chief constable of the West Midlands created a no-go area for Jews in one of our major cities. He cannot, by whatever mechanism, continue in office, but will the Home Secretary consider prosecuting him for malfeasance in public office, or in some other way, because we cannot let such an appalling activity by a public servant continue in this way by just sacking him?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend will know that it is not for me to make decisions on prosecutions. I am sure that the IOPC will consider all the findings made by Sir Andy Cooke and act upon them, once it has had a chance to make that assessment. The IOPC is independent and it would be inappropriate for me to say anything further from the Dispatch Box about what it, or indeed any other prosecutorial authority, might do. That is not a power that the Home Secretary has.

Violence against Women and Girls: London

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that even if they are on the list, those who are able to should bob at the end of speeches if they want to catch my eye.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I commend the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for leading today’s debate and for her strength of character as well. I have had talks with the hon. Lady and I understand there are things in her own life that she has dealt with. She shows a character and a courage that I admire and that many others in this House admire as well, so I thank her for bringing the debate forward.

This problem is a huge issue across the world, particularly in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so I am pleased to take part in the debate, first to support the hon. Lady in highlighting the issues and, secondly, to represent the people of Northern Ireland, in solidarity, about the problems that we have back home. I listened intently to the hon. Lady’s comments. The statistics and stories are shocking and saddening. She has undertaken great work on the APPG on domestic violence and abuse, and I am aware that she has opened up previously on her own experiences of that—things that we really need to take note of. We must do more, of course.

It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. None of us will be disappointed with her response at the end of this debate, because she has lived all of these stories. Many moons ago, way back when we first got to know each other in the House, she brought all those personal stories from her own constituency—they were raw stories, I remember. I used to get quite upset sometimes when she told us about things that had happened. I am pleased to see her in her place, because I am sure she will be able to speak out for every woman and girl not just in London, but further afield. As the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse outlined, this occurs not just in London but across the world, and she gave examples as well.

The Met police conclude that the crime of violence against women and girls in London has increased significantly; it rose by 37% between 2018 and 2023. According to the London Assembly, in the year up to January 2025, recorded sexual offences rose by 7.4% compared with the previous year, so we are unfortunately seeing a trend—I suspect that it is a trend in society. I am going to give some of the stats for the Northern Ireland; the Minister will know them. They are incredibly worrying and disturb me greatly. We should note that that figure of 7.4% is only what is recorded. We know that often women do not feel confident to come forward for numerous reasons, so that figure could be the tip of the iceberg.

Although the debate is centred on London, I would not feel right if I did not mention Northern Ireland, and others would think it wrong of me, especially since the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse mentioned problems elsewhere. I want to give some stats about Northern Ireland just to put things into perspective. I raise this subject continually and will continue to do so to increase awareness of the dire situation. According to a report by our own Ulster University, almost 98% of women in Northern Ireland report experiencing at least one form of violence or abuse in their lifetime. Can Members imagine that? Of every 100 women we see in Northern Ireland, 98 have experienced abuse of some sort.

Domestic abuse instances are very high. For example, in the year ending 31 March 2025, almost 30,000 domestic abuse incidents were recorded by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Furthermore, in the 12 months to this date, there were six domestic abuse homicides in which all victims were females. Since 2019, PSNI data indicates that some 30 women and girls have been murdered by men. We have the worst stats in the whole of the United Kingdom. The Minister has spoken about that and has answered questions in the Chamber. I have asked her questions and she has responded. The figures are shocking, but this is a reality for thousands of women on a daily basis. Violence against women and girls is not rare; it is about walking with keys between the fingers, checking a friend gets home safe, or hearing a bang next door and thinking, “Should I intervene? Should I go and see if everything’s all right?” It is worrying, but unfortunately, the experience of so many has become normalised—and it can never be normal.

Everyone in this place has a role to play, and we must ensure that our services are approachable so that women feel they can come forward and, more importantly, be believed. When they go to report such behaviour, they should know that someone is there with a listening ear, prepared to take their story on board and do something. Behind every story that has been heard today or in the past stands a brave individual who, perhaps at one time, was not sure that she would escape and seek help. Those stories are testament to what support is available.

To conclude, we do not talk about this topic lightly. It is heavy—it is supposed to be, to help people understand the seriousness and scale of the problem. Statistically, the situation has gotten worse, and I want to do more to encourage people to be part of the conversation. We all need to praise those strong and brave women and girls who have told their story. Let us remind those who are afraid to speak out that they are not alone, and that we will all do our best in this place to ensure that they can safely access the help they need. I look to the Minister, as I always do, to commit to that. I understand that she will give us a response on London and the mainland, but I know that she has an interest in Northern Ireland because of what is happening there, so I look forward to her response. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse again for sharing her story.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

There are seven people bobbing and 38 minutes left, so the arithmetic is relatively simple: just over five minutes each. I will not impose a time limit, unless somebody abuses the situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this debate. I admire her courage and her continued fight for a better future when it comes to tackling violence against women and girls. I support her quest to make the lives of women and girls safer.

In 2023, the Metropolitan police recorded 8,800 cases of rape, which translates to a staggering 24 reported rapes per day. However, when we consider that recorded rapes make up only about 20% of cases of sexual violence, we realise that the true extent of this crime is—shamefully—much larger. Nearly every woman in London has a story to tell. Hundreds of thousands of women carry around the hurt and trauma of sexual violence, even if their stories never make it on to the front pages.

Since becoming an MP, I have received many distressing emails from constituents, some as young as 14, who have recounted their experience of sexual violence and harassment: women and girls who told me that this time they had escaped, but they dreaded to think what might have happened if they had not. Women and girls should not have to live their lives as a series of lucky escapes, constantly feeling relieved that on this occasion they were not assaulted. To be able to walk around safely without fear is a bare minimum—it is a basic human right. Yet the lived reality of so many women and girls in London and across the UK is a cycle of fear and relief, with their terror assuaged only by a sense of gratitude that they are safe—this time, at least.

Women and girls who do experience sexual harassment or violence are blamed for it: blamed for walking alone at night, for wearing the wrong item of clothing or for sending the wrong signal. In my constituency of Ilford South, a young woman called Zara Aleena was walking home. CCTV footage showed another young woman running into a shop because she saw the horrible monster who was following her; she felt threatened and went into the shop for safety. A second woman on the same journey, on the same fateful night, ran to her home. She was on the main road, Cranbrook Road, and she lived very close. She ran home, and she too was safe. That meant that the monster moved on to Zara, who was tragically killed. She was only walking home—that was her crime; she was simply walking home. What gives anybody the right to sexually assault, rape and then kill somebody simply walking home? A young law graduate with a career in front of her was taken in her prime.

Sadly, there is a new form of sexual violence that shows these rape myths for the empty victim-blaming narratives that they are. The growing prevalence of technology facilitates the creation of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfakes. Recently, there have been growing reports of boys as young as 12 using nudification apps to create deepfake nudes of their classmates and teachers. Girls are seeing realistic images of their faces superimposed on to a naked body that they do not recognise. Such images are then often sent to their friends, classmates and even family members, shattering girls’ self-esteem, body confidence and trust in others for years to come.

This debate is about sexual violence in London, but this type of technology-facilitated abuse transcends borders and regions. With these technologies, the perpetrators do not even need to be in the presence of those who they choose to victimise. Ten years ago, we could not have conceived of this type of crime; now teachers have to tackle a crime that did not even exist when they were growing up, unequipped with guidance to support pupils, parents or themselves. That scares me. I think about the constituents who have written to me. This is a new type of crime that they will have to hope that they are safe from. This is a new way in which men can assert power, control and entitlement over women and women’s bodies.

I know that the Government are working hard to tackle the growing prevalence of such gender-based abuse, including by criminalising the creation and sharing of intimate images and deepfakes through the Online Safety Act, but we must do more. First, we need a joined-up approach between the Home Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to ensure that women and girls are protected from technology-facilitated abuse and that the advancement of AI technology does not come at the cost of women. I desperately urge the Government to enforce an outright ban on nudification apps, as recommended in Baroness Bertin’s pornography review. Many such nudification apps are widely available and advertised specifically to appeal to young men and boys, operating on a premium business model and encouraging users to share the app with others. A few weeks ago, the Government announced an updated curriculum—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I draw the hon. Member’s attention to the time. He is beginning to run into that allotted to other hon. Members. I assume he will draw his remarks to a conclusion.

[Jas Athwal]

My questions to the Minister are: why do the majority of women not report crime? Why is the prosecution rate so low? Why do men feel it is okay to inflict pain on women and girls?

Bike Theft: Loughborough

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I will call Dr Jeevun Sandher to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of bike theft in Loughborough.

Thank you for allowing me to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I raised the important issue of bike theft in the main Chamber a few weeks ago, when the Minister kindly provided me with an overview of what her Department is doing to address this incredibly important issue. I thank her and the House for allowing me the opportunity to speak and ask more about it today.

Motorbike theft is a scourge of my constituency, threatening the basic sense of security that people should enjoy. People worry that one day they will wake up unable to get to work, and their concern and frustration is on the rise as criminals act with impunity. Every person in our community and across the country deserves to feel safe, and that starts with giving the police more powers to tackle crime, getting more officers on the street to prevent antisocial behaviour, and working with the local community to stop bike theft for good.

Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

There were a series of different interactions and communications between the different groups in that period, as Members would expect. There is a balance to be struck with the operational independence question, and we need to get that right; it is not for the Home Secretary to march in and demand that the police say a certain thing or act a certain way. There were communications—I am sure we could help by outlining them—between the period of 2 October, when the Home Office first asked the question of the United Kingdom football policing unit, and 16 October, when the decision was made. To be clear, the Department found out about the decision when it broke on the news; we were not told in advance.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

Our police forces in this country have dealt with violent fans from other countries for a long time. I do not expect my hon. Friend to be familiar with the Bad Blue Boys of Dinamo Zagreb—probably the worst fans in Europe, responsible for deaths and imprisonments—or the ultras of Roma, Inter Milan or Lazio, but they have been dealt with. The only conclusion I can draw from the information before us is that the West Midlands police and the local authorities in Birmingham, following fictions about the fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv, created a no-go zone for Jews in one of our major cities. Is she, like me, ashamed of that?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he did supporting colleagues and his constituents after the Manchester attack. He is right to point to the 1980s, when we had a completely different era of huge violence in football. We are very glad that that has, in the main, subsided. He says that there should be no no-go areas for Jews. That is absolutely right; I completely agree with him.

Asylum Policy

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I think we all appreciate that, but I urge Members to keep their language acceptable in the House.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

I fully support the Home Secretary and her statement. It is a fundamental duty of Government to protect our borders and to know who is coming into this country—something that we have not known for some time. She has set herself a difficult task. Will she agree to publish targets for all the areas that she outlined in her statement, and particularly for a reduction in the number of undocumented and illegal entrants to the country, so that we can check whether the plan is working? If it is not, she may need to alter some of the policies.

[Shabana Mahmood]

What we will not do is set arbitrary targets or caps. We have learned the lessons from previous Governments, and setting a number in that way actually costs public confidence. The better thing to do is to get on with passing the necessary legislation in this House, to deliver the reforms out there in the country, and to assess them as they go. I have no doubt that there will be much debate and scrutiny in this place and others about the success of these reforms, and I look forward to answering questions over the coming months and years.

Manchester Terrorism Attack

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his response and for the way in which he made it. I look forward to working with him and with all Members across the House as we deal with what I hope will always be a shared issue and a shared problem. Where there is agreement and consensus in this House on the measures that we should take, I hope we will be able to progress those matters quickly.

The shadow Home Secretary asked specifically about universities. He will, I hope, have seen the comments made by my colleague and right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, who has made clear to universities what their responsibilities are. It is important that she does that engagement before considering what measures to take if universities fail to take all steps to protect Jewish students on campus. This Government are very clear that universities already have responsibilities and they need to demonstrate that they are reflecting those responsibilities and taking appropriate action.

The shadow Home Secretary asked a range of questions on other crimes that are being committed. He will, I hope, recognise that this Government have worked very closely with policing, despite lots of disquiet in some quarters, to ensure that we have absolutely no tail-off in our response to those who support a proscribed terror organisation. He will have seen that there have been many hundreds of arrests. As long as people continue to show support for a proscribed organisation, they will face the full force of the law every time they do so.

On immigration powers, I am considering all immigration issues. The shadow Home Secretary will know that this Government have quite significantly increased the deportations of foreign offenders who have been found guilty of committing a crime in this country, compared to the situation we inherited. I note his points on the wider powers of the Immigration Act 1971, which I am reviewing. I will say more to the House on that in due course.

The right hon. Gentleman also made a number of points on our proposed amendments to sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. I hope that when we bring those measures forward, they will receive support in this House. I am happy to write to him on any further details about the Public Order Act. I am going to review the wider landscape of public order legislation, particularly in relation to the cumulative impact of repeat protests; we are already going to take steps on imposing further conditions and making explicit that cumulative impact is something that the police should take into account, but I am also going to look at the wider framework. Again, I will return to the House in due course with further updates on that legislation.

The shadow Home Secretary rightly noted that the protests have continued both before and after the peace agreement in the middle east. I think we can conclude that not all those protesting truly wish to see peace in the middle east, but it is for them to answer on what their motivations really are. We are very clear that although the right to protest is a fundamental freedom in our country enjoyed by people of all backgrounds, it is often the cause of grave offence to other people who live in this country, and it must be balanced against the right of all people to be able to live in safety.

The shadow Home Secretary mentioned Islamist extremism in particular. Let me be clear to him and to the House that this Government, and I as Home Secretary, have a clear-eyed view of where the threats that face this country are coming from. It is true that within our domestic extremism landscape the largest cohort of work that keeps our security services and counter-terror policing busy is related to Islamist extremism. We will not shy away from confronting those issues and dealing with them in the appropriate way.

What happened in Manchester on 2 October asks a bigger question of all of us. This threat is something that we have been living with for some time, and we have not yet defeated it. I commit myself and the Government to doing everything in our power to stand up to this particular threat without fear or favour, and to destroy it for good. I also note that the first people that Islamists often suppress, hurt and damage are their fellow Muslims. It is in everyone’s interest to fight Islamist extremism wherever it is found.

As the shadow Home Secretary noted, there is a wider and more complex domestic extremism picture in relation to extreme right-wing terrorism, and the emerging threat of those who do not have a fixed ideology but who are fixated on violence. It is important that all of our response is measured and follows where the risks are coming from and that we are always asking ourselves what action will ultimately be effective in dealing with the threats. We will redouble our efforts to interrogate the assumptions that have been made in the past and to assess whether they need to be changed and what new effective action must be pursued. I hope that in that task we will have support from Members across the House.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and I am sure that the people of Crumpsall, where this atrocity took place, will welcome it. The only point I would add is that while these acts of antisemitism and violence are un-British, they are also inhuman—I think that is a better way to describe them, rather than “un-British.”

I thank the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister for coming to Manchester on the day of the attack, which was much appreciated. The Home Secretary had a chance to meet the heroes, because while there was violence and tragedy, there were certainly heroes, not least the members of the congregation—two of whom lost their lives—who protected other members of the congregation from what would undoubtedly have been more deaths. The Home Secretary also met the Community Security Trust, the police and the fire brigade, who all played an excellent role in getting to the site of the violence as quickly as they could.

I have lived in this community, within a stone’s throw of the synagogue, for most of my adult life, and I have no doubt that the community will remain resilient. It has always been resilient. The film crews who thronged about the area after the violence were amazed that Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Christians and people of no religion were all consoling each other. There was no hostility at all on the street.

The final points I want to make are not as heartwarming. There is hurt and anger within the local Jewish community. They had known for some time that an attack like this was coming. Obviously they did not know when or where, but it has arrived. They feel that there has developed a hierarchy of racism—that somehow Jew hatred is not as important as other kinds of racism. They feel that not enough has been done to protect them. The extra security that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have announced is welcome, but what the community are looking for is extra action to deal with religious extremists who are involved in illegal activity, to get to the heart of the violent activities against the Jewish community.

The final point I will make is that, in one sense, taking action against illegal activities is the easier part. But partly because of what has happened in Gaza, many people now think it is okay in casual dinner party conversation—we have probably all heard it and witnessed it—to make antisemitic comments. It is not okay. It is also not okay, although it is not against the law, for artists—if I can use that word—like Bob Vylan to be operating and spreading their hate on campuses like Manchester University. Will the Home Secretary look forward with me to a future not only free of antisemitism but where I do not have to walk or drive past Jewish schools with security guards outside them?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is an assiduous constituency Member of Parliament. I saw for myself at first hand his deep links in the community that he represents in the House and how he has been a source of real strength in bringing people together in that part of Manchester.

As a member of an ethnic and faith minority myself, one of the things that I most hate about our political discourse and national conversation is the hierarchy of racism. I hate how minority communities feel like we are pitted against one another in a fight for attention and recognition of the difficulties that we might face as individual groups. Racism in all its forms is abhorrent, and I will be as assiduous in fighting the scourge of antisemitism in this country as people might expect me, as a Muslim, to be in fighting Islamophobia in this country. We are all safe when we are all safe, and I will not stand by and watch our communities being forced to compete with one another and forced to explain again and again why they are suffering and why they do not feel safe. To me, that is unacceptable in 21st-century Britain. I will not stand for it, and it will not be the policy position of this Government.

The person who bears responsibility for what happened on 2 October was the terrorist attacker himself—I will not name him again today—but there is no doubt that events in the middle east have caused tensions here at home, and some have sought to exploit those tensions. It is incredibly important that we are clear-eyed in holding the line between what could be a legitimate critique of the Israeli Government’s actions in the war in the middle east and antisemitism: you can be a critic of policy in the middle east without becoming antisemitic, hating Jews and holding Jews in this country to account for things happening in a country elsewhere that are nothing to do with them. It is incumbent on all of us to hold that line and to be clear where that line is, so that we speak with one voice and give confidence to our minority communities here at home.

One of the most devastating things that I heard when I was in Manchester on the day and in the aftermath of the attack was our Jewish community expressing how they now feel unsafe in their own country and that they might never see a time when their children do not have to have security when they go to school. Although it is important that in the immediate aftermath of the attack we consider security matters, enhancing the police presence and deepening our work with the Community Security Trust, I will not stop until people in this country can go to a synagogue or Jewish school without first having to go through a security cordon.

Borders and Asylum

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

Yes, we need to strengthen our border security. That is why the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is currently passing through the other place, includes the ability to use counter-terrorism powers against criminal smuggler gangs. Those powers are crucial—we need to strengthen the work of the National Crime Agency in going after those gangs, because they are pursuing a vile trade in human lives.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

I do not envy the Home Secretary trying to clear up the mess that the last Government left on migration. I doubt, however, that the measures she is currently putting before the House will be as successful as she and I wish them to be. They do not really deal with the fact that many migrants are not coming from war-torn countries; they are coming from France, which is not persecuting them in any recognisable form. The reason is demand pull from this country—migrants believe they will have a better and an easier time, and get through the system more easily, in this country than they would in France or in other European countries. Denmark has been successful in reducing the demand pull. If the Home Secretary’s measures are to be as successful as she wishes them to be, will she look more closely at what Denmark has done to improve the situation?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to say that obviously, small boats are mainly setting off from France—people have travelled through France. That is exactly why we have negotiated the pilot agreement with France to be able to return people there. It is the first time this has happened; it is something that previous Governments tried and completely failed to do. It is important that we do that and build on it, but we also need to tackle some of those pull factors, particularly illegal working. That is why we have had a 50% increase in illegal work raids and arrests. We also need to recognise that family reunion is being used by some criminal gangs. One thing Denmark has done is increase the time before refugees can apply for family reunion, so that they are more likely to be working and supporting their families and to prevent criminal gangs from being able to use family reunion as a pull factor.