Immigration and Asylum Bill

Gareth Snell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I will give way again, but I want to make a bit of progress first. There will be plenty of other opportunities later.

I will briefly touch on indefinite leave to remain, which is conspicuous by its absence from the Bill. We heard the policy proposal when it was announced last November, but we still do not have any of the details laid out. I agree with the thrust of the Home Secretary’s proposal to increase the period to 10 years, because otherwise a large number of people—about 2 million—who entered in the past four or five years will get a permanent right to stay, including a full right to benefits. That includes people who came in on skilled worker visas sponsored by, among others, kebab shops and fried chicken shops.

I am keen to make sure that the Home Secretary sticks to her previous pledge that these rules would apply to people who are in the country already, and does not give in to pressure from her Back Benchers. I remind the House that the Home Secretary said to the Institute for Public Policy Research on 5 March this year that the change to a 10-year qualification period means

“applying any rule changes to those who are in the UK today, but have not yet received settled status.”

I hope she stands by her commitment. If she does, we Opposition Members will vote for it. She has our support on that.

While we are speaking about legal migration, let me urge the Home Secretary to reconsider her plan to introduce remote language tests, which are open to enormous fraud and abuse. Australia and Canada rejected them for that reason, and some domestic professional bodies, including the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, have stopped carrying them out because they are so open to fraud. I know that this testing is more efficient and I know that it will save money, but it is massively open to fraud.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is quite something to listen to a shadow Secretary of State whose party oversaw a net migration increase of 2.5 million in four years, and who has the brass neck to lecture the party in government on how to clear up his mess. Does he think he has any credibility at all on this matter, or is this just about the Facebook clip that he will undoubtedly be pumping out on his social media this evening?

[Chris Philp]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows nothing about Facebook clips, but let me be honest: mistakes were made in the past, and the policies that we have now developed, under new leadership, will fix those issues. In fact, this indefinite leave to remain policy was first proposed by us about a year ago, and then, very wisely, the Home Secretary adopted it.

Let me come to the commitment that the Home Secretary made on Shabir Ahmed, the vile gang rapist who should be deported back to Pakistan. We support the amendment to section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971, although section 33 of the UK Borders Act 2007—I think it is subsection (1)(b)—might need some attention as well. I would only ask the Home Secretary not to do that by amending this Bill, which will probably take a year or so to reach the statute book. I hope that she will consider doing it instead through emergency legislation in September, which could be completed in a couple of weeks; we took the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020 through Parliament in, I believe, 15 days in February of that year. There is not a moment to lose, and this can be fixed quite quickly.

As for the substance of the Bill, I agree with some of the Home Secretary’s analyses of where the problems lie. She is right to say that the immigration appeal system, modern slavery laws and human rights laws are being abused on an industrial scale by foreign criminals, and also by people with no legal right to be here, including people who came here illegally in small boats. These illegal immigrants and foreign criminals do make repeated claims, time after time.

The Home Secretary gave the example of a foreign criminal whom it took four years to deport. I was aware of the case of a Somali man who entered the country illegally and participated in the violent gang rape of a 16-year-old girl. On his release from prison, it took eight years to deport that man back to Somalia, because he made two or three different claims on sometimes contradictory grounds. I think that he made two modern slavery claims, and a number of human rights claims as well. There have been other cases in which foreign criminals have avoided being deported. For example, an armed robber avoided being deported back to Nigeria on the grounds that his mental health needs would not be taken care of perfectly there. Another man, a drug dealer, was not sent back to Iraq on ECHR grounds because, apparently, he had become too westernised. There was not a single thought for the safety of British children and the need for them to be protected from paedophiles. A Zimbabwean paedophile was not deported to Zimbabwe because he might get treated with hostility there. The judge gave no thought to protecting British children, and no thought to protecting our citizens from criminals.

In another case, a man was taken off a charter flight to Jamaica, again on human rights grounds—I think it was article 8—and about six months after being removed from that flight, he murdered someone on the streets of south London. That happened because of the supposed human rights of a criminal who went on to commit murder. I agree with the analysis that our immigration legal system, our modern slavery system and the human rights system are being abused on an industrial scale, and that has to end.

Southport Inquiry

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that the report of the inquiry makes for horrifying reading. The recommendations are incredibly important. The Government will respond in full by the summer, and we will take forward practical work to ensure that we strengthen all our systems so that this cannot occur again. I repeat that the only thing that matters—the only relevant factor—when we have a person who is violence-fixated and has a fascination with extreme violence is the risk they pose, the assessment of that risk, and the steps to mitigate that risk. No other factor should be taken into account by any agencies. The most important thing is that we keep people safe and that we do not allow other irrelevant considerations to play any part. The inquiry made findings in relation to Mrs Hodson, the headteacher, and I agree with and endorse Sir Adrian Fulford’s findings.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the Home Secretary will be aware, there are 28 Prevent priority areas across the country—there used to be 40, and Stoke-on-Trent was one of them until 2023, when the last Government changed the criteria. She will also know that for an area to become a Prevent priority area, the local authority normally has to demonstrate that it is a hotspot for either right-wing extremism or Islamist activity—or, in the chequered past of my own city, both. If Jonathan Hall’s legislative suggestions come into force and there is a new offence of non-ideologically based fixation with violence, how does the Home Secretary see that playing into the Prevent priority areas, given that the locality will be much more difficult to consider? Following the events of August 2024, when there were riots in Stoke-on-Trent, has she given any thought to whether any recommendations for where new funding should go to help deal with some of these issues should take account of the places where there was rioting at that time—particularly places, such as Stoke-on-Trent, that do not currently qualify for Prevent priority funding?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Once phase 2 of the inquiry has concluded—especially when it comes to the proper mechanism by which we deal with some of these violence-fixated individuals—there will of course be knock-on consequences for the wider counter-extremism system. It would not be right for me to get ahead of that, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I am well aware that both the current and the future work of the inquiry will require further clarity on exactly where responsibilities sit. I believe that the Prevent programme will continue to play an incredibly important role and will remain our main tool for countering extremism, although I am sure there will be more we can do to strengthen its ability in that regard. However, as I have said, there will be knock-on consequences in other parts of the system, including funding consequences. I will be able to set out more of the Government’s response on that when we respond fully to the inquiry’s recommendations, but I think that as phase 2 gets under way, some of the real meat of the new policy responses that are needed for violence-fixated children will emerge.

Immigration Policy

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

That route is paused for now. The hon. Lady will know that over the last four or five years, we have seen a huge increase—fivefold, I think—in the use of that route. Given the significant changes, it is right that the Government ensure that the system is effective. We are looking at it closely and we appreciate the importance of family reunion. She will have heard what I said about safe and legal means.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given these changes, what changes to the national referral mechanism in relation to modern slavery does the Minister expect to see? What does the switch from a duty to a power for housing people waiting for asylum mean for the national dispersal method, including for places that have routinely had more people than was agreed, such as Stoke-on-Trent—and, if there are no changes, will he look at funding integration work in those places?

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend will know about my work on modern slavery over my years in this place. We know that is a constantly moving picture. We want to make sure that the protections for victims of slavery are robust—I think there is a consensus here on that—and that the system is being used properly. I also take his point on dispersal. The Department’s view is that there should be full dispersal, meaning that communities share the challenge across their means. With regard to payments, we pay £1,200 per head to help that integration work.

Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2026

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 General Committees

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The explanatory notes suggest that the increases are linked in part to the consumer prices index rate of 3.5%, plus a 6.5% tariff to compensate for other areas. But according to the figures in the statutory instrument, the range for some increases is as low as 1%; for others, it is 25%. Can the Minister set out why there is such variation in the percentage increase, and why there is a deviation from the explanatory notes, and the CPI 3.5% plus 6.5%, in the order?

[Mike Tapp]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I cannot set out the exact details right now, but I can say that this is to ensure that we are recouping the costs of individual routes and that each individual route will have different costs to it. I can come back to him with further detail and break that down after the debate.

We are increasing the fee maxima for nationality-related services by 6.5% to support a subsequent increase in relevant fees to the new maxima level. The changes will facilitate the generation of additional income for the migration and borders system, which will in turn support the broader funding of the system, reducing reliance on the general taxpayer while supporting delivery of the Government’s priorities. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.

Police Grant Report

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I will make a little bit of progress, if that is okay.

Let me say a little more about policing reform. Last month, as I said, we released the White Paper, which sets out how we will create a policing system fit for the future. Taken together, our plans amount to the biggest reforms for almost 200 years. They will see improvements to police governance, forced mergers to unlock greater efficiencies, and the creation of a national police service, capable of fighting sophisticated criminals at a national level. Those reforms are overdue. They will not be easy, but they are necessary. Our overarching aim is clear: to establish a new policing model, in which local forces protect their communities and a national police protects us all.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

One of the challenges that we have always had in Staffordshire is that, because of a manufacturing site in Tamworth and because of the politics of Stoke-on-Trent, we have often had to deal with complex national issues around far-right activism and Hizb ut-Tahrir activism. With the increases for police forces, and given their national responsibilities, how will the Minister ensure that the local specialisms that we have built up in Staffordshire will continue to be deployable there? Sometimes, our neighbourhood policing is the first barrier—the first way of dealing with problems that can escalate further down the line. How will that knowledge transfer carry on?

[Sarah Jones]

Several people have raised similar concerns. My answer is that creating a much simpler system will make the movement of information, resources, people and specialisms easier, and that will be easier to maintain. We will be bringing together lots of different national bodies. We have the regional organised crime units, which do not have a legislative basis and are funded in a range of different, slightly peculiar ways. We have specialist units sitting in different forces across the country looking at different things, whether that is modern slavery or funding helicopters. We have this peculiar system that does not make much sense. By streamlining things, so that we have a national service, a regional service and local police areas, we can enable that flow of information and specialisms to be clearer. I understand my hon. Friend’s point, which has been raised by several people. We will certainly be mindful of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me—

[Gareth Snell]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Philp]

Go on. This will be good.

[Gareth Snell]

I just wanted to say this before the right hon. Gentleman got into his speech. In 2010 the number of police officers in Staffordshire was about 1,000, and it only returned to that level this year. We have never had a police and crime commissioner who was not a Conservative, and we have only ever had a Conservative council and a Conservative Government during that period. Is the right hon. Gentleman able to tell me whom I should hold accountable for that decimation of neighbourhood policing under the last Government?

[Chris Philp]

The last Government left office with record police numbers. In March 2024, at the time of the last recruitment intake, there were 149,769 officers by headcount, the highest number in history and 3,000 higher than the number in 2010. The Minister asked about outcomes. According to the crime survey for England and Wales, overall crime fell by about 50% under the last Government.

I was about to say, before I, perhaps foolishly—

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Andy McDonald]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

My right hon. Friend puts it brilliantly. He has articulated exactly why the forced creation of regional mega-forces is likely to be a backwards step.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Philp]

I am almost done. The hon. Gentleman may find that a matter of considerable relief.

In conclusion—sometimes “in conclusion” are the most popular words I utter in a speech—

Police Reform White Paper

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The right hon. Gentleman is a Birmingham neighbour of mine; I always take what he has to say seriously. I agree with him on everything he said about neighbourhood policing and its responsiveness to the local communities that it serves. The Blunkett review will shortly report. It has been looking at leadership in policing, and I am sure that those recommendations will touch on some of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The litany of failures under the Conservatives of Staffordshire police is too long to mention in the short time that I have for this question. The Home Secretary mentioned local accountability being done through mayors and police and crime boards. Where we will have mayors in areas smaller than those of the likely police forces, can she say more about how she anticipates that accountability working? Can she also say what accountability there will be for local policing areas? In Stoke-on-Trent, we have a really good police service that works well with local partners, but that accountability could be lost if it is moved to big, regional figureheads.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me assure my hon. Friend that accountability at both national and local level is critical to these reforms. Once the review has reported on what the shape of those new regional forces should be, we will be able to say more on the exact relationship between areas where there is a crossover of mayoralties, as well as for local policing and crime boards. It is absolutely the intention that, at every level, there will be obvious accountability for local responsiveness and performance. That goes right up to the national level, where the Home Secretary will have new powers going forward.

Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I was in Birmingham last week to launch our winter of action: police working in our town centres and closely with retailers and other organisations to stamp down on and prevent crime. I was with the police and crime commissioner, who is doing a good job in the policing of the community. For the 4 million people who go through the Birmingham Christmas market, it will be a lovely experience. I will not condemn anybody in this place. There are questions to answer, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman’s community, like everybody here, wants answers. We want to get to a point where we can celebrate the fact that Villa won at the weekend. That should be the only story in town, but unfortunately it is not because of this situation. We need to get to the bottom of it, and the Government will do so and respond appropriately.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

When making these sorts of decisions, it is important to have several points of information. Can the Minister confirm whether UEFA was present at the safety advisory group meeting when the decision to ban Maccabi fans was taken, and, if so, what was its advice? More broadly, can she say what UEFA’s general advice is on banning any fans from any match?

[Sarah Jones]

As far as I am aware, UEFA was not in the SAG meeting. Of course, there would have been conversations with Villa, which ultimately had to make the decisions. It is a complicated decision-making process, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) said. The SAG sits to consider advice. The police give their evidence and opinion. The right hon. Member was right to say that, on the whole, the SAG will take the police advice, but there are other views in the room. It is then for the local authority to decide whether to allow the event to have the correct licence, and for Villa, in this case, to decide what that means and whether to allow fans to come. It is quite a complex picture. UEFA’s oversight of the whole league is important, but the decision about whether the event should go ahead was taken locally. We are trying to get to the heart of whether that is the right model for events of such national significance, or whether we should have a different model.

Asylum Policy

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

What I think is dividing our country, and communities all over it, is an unfair, out-of-control system that is putting pressure on communities across the whole nation. It is incumbent on me as Home Secretary and on this Government to fix that system, and to retain public consent for having an asylum system. It is also my job to make sure that we have the administration capacity and the funding to enact these reforms, which we will.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

If we look at a heat map of asylum dispersals, we see that they tend to be in inner-city London, and then the towns and cities of the midlands and the north-west, which have the least resources to help them. Thankfully, in Stoke-on-Trent, organisations such as our citizens advice bureau and Asha are doing what they can. When the Secretary of State looks at this policy in the round, as she will, will she look at that dispersal mechanism to ensure that everyone is giving the support that they should? Also, the national referral mechanism for modern slavery is one of the most difficult things to access for somebody who has been trafficked into this country, because they need to be referred by a national first responder, through a third party. What will her changes be, and can she give an assurance that those national first responders will not be removed from the process, because they do a very good job in vetting people before they get access?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his two questions. Let me assure him that we already run a dispersal model that is designed to ensure that the burden is spread out across the country, and we will carry on doing so. We have already consulted on modern slavery legislation, and that consultation has closed. I will look carefully at the responses. It is well-intentioned and much-needed legislation, and it is important that we crack down on modern slavery in our country, but it is being used to frustrate the legitimate removal of people from this country. I saw that within my first few days as Home Secretary; I had to change policy very quickly to prevent people from thwarting their removal to France under the “one in, one out” deal. That is what I have in mind, and those are the changes that we will make.

Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

When violent disorder erupted on the streets of my constituency last summer, the police put themselves between two groups of people who had been wound up and were looking to see how much damage they could do to each other. Chief Constable Chris Noble, alongside Chief Inspectors David Barrow and Laura Davies, ensured that communities came together after the event to realise that neighbours can live in peace. My constituents expect everybody who has committed sexual offences or other crimes to be prosecuted, but what work is the Minister doing across Government to ensure that, once such events have taken place, communities can come together again and live in peace? Nobody wants to walk around on eggshells, fearful of their neighbours.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. After the disorder last summer we did see communities spontaneously coming together and wanting to say that what had happened in their local area was done not by the majority but by a very small number of people. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has been working with local authorities on rebuilding community cohesion—which for many years under the last Administration was not seen as important at all—because it is so important that all parts of our society feel safe and valued. Through community cohesion, we stop those who wish to divide and pit people against each other, and recognise the valuable role that all parts of society and our communities play.

Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill

Gareth Snell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Of all the duties of Government, none matters more than keeping our country safe. It is an awesome task, and one to which we attach the utmost significance, as this House and the public would expect. For people to flourish, they must have confidence that they are safe as they go about their lives. For a society to excel, its values must be protected from harm and its laws upheld. For a nation to thrive, its leaders must be unrelenting in the pursuit of these critical aims. That is why the Prime Minister has made national security a foundation of the plan for change, and it is why we work around the clock with our partners in policing and the security services to keep the United Kingdom and its people safe.

In the face of a complex and evolving threat picture, it is essential that we keep the powers, tools and measures available to us under constant review. Where steps are needed to maintain the safety and security of our country, this Government will not hesitate to act. It is with that intention that we have brought forward this Bill, which, although narrow in its scope and intent, is vital to our ongoing efforts to protect the United Kingdom.

Before I come to the detail of the Bill, I will provide a little bit of background. The British Nationality Act 1981 provides for the removal of an individual’s British citizenship. This is also known as a deprivation of citizenship. Deprivation is an important and effective tool to maintain public safety and preserve national security. It is used in two different situations: where citizenship has been obtained by fraud, or where deprivation is conducive to the public good, which means that it is in the public interest to deprive a person of British citizenship because of their conduct and/or the threat that they pose to the United Kingdom.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I accept the Minister’s point that this is a very narrow Bill, but is he able to tell the House how many individuals who currently have an appeal that has not yet been heard, and to whom this Bill will ultimately apply, have been deprived of their citizenship?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am happy to do that. If my hon. Friend bears with me for just a couple of moments, I will provide him with the information that he has requested.

In the latter category especially—where deprivation is conducive to the public good—deprivation is used against some of the most dangerous individuals, including terrorists, extremists, and serious and organised criminals. Someone in the UK who has been deprived of their British citizenship no longer has any immigration status, steps may be taken to remove them from the UK, and they may be held in an immigration detention in the interim. If they are overseas, they cannot re-enter the UK using a British passport. In both circumstances, this is clearly an effective way to disrupt the threat posed by dangerous individuals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I am going to make a little bit of progress, if I may. I will give way in a moment, but I want to address the point that has been raised.

There are very good reasons why the Government may wish to stop citizenship being regained until all appeals are determined, withdrawn or abandoned. These include to prevent someone who is outside the UK and who poses a risk to our national security from returning when a further appeal may be upheld pending the Home Secretary’s decision, or to prevent a person from renouncing their other nationality and putting themselves in a position where, if further appeals are successful, a further deprivation order would not be possible as it would unlawfully render them stateless.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the Minister for that explanation, but hypothetically there exists a circumstance in which the Home Secretary could deprive an individual of their citizenship, that individual could go for an appeal and have it reinstated, and this law would prevent them from retaining that citizenship and the Department could simply choose not to appeal further. How does the Department ensure that the individual is then allowed to access future appeals to try to regularise their citizenship status?

[Dan Jarvis]

For reasons that I do not understand, my hon. Friend is progressing a hypothetical scenario; I do not know whether it is based on a particular case that he has in mind. I have not personally dealt with such a set of circumstances, but I am happy to look at the matter he has raised.