Police Accountability

James Cleverly Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement, and for the recent Privy Council briefing that I received from her.

I very much welcome what the Home Secretary has set out. I agree with almost all of it and disagree with almost none of it. As a society, we demand that our firearms officers put themselves in dangerous and difficult situations to protect others. Every firearms officer in the UK is a volunteer, and although we rightly value having have a predominantly unarmed police force, we do of course need a cadre of armed police officers across the country.

I have had the privilege of visiting the police firearms training centre in Gravesend, and I have seen at first hand just how rigorous that firearms training regime is—not just in marksmanship, but in the use of judgment. Split-second life-or-death decisions must be made, often in circumstances in which the risk picture is incomplete and the cost of not acting is considerably more severe than the cost of acting. In all our debate and conversation about the use of force by police, that fundamental truth should be at the forefront of our minds.

As the right hon. Lady said, we rightly expect that all officers will act with restraint and professionalism at all times, but we cannot allow circumstances to be created in which officers are disincentivised from being decisive, or become unwilling to take the right action for fear of trial by media or a long period of suspension under investigation.

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for acknowledging in her statement that when my party was in government—under my predecessors and led predominantly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) —we initiated a review of the use of force by police officers and the accountability regime. I am genuinely grateful that, under the Home Secretary’s leadership, the review is continuing. As she says, giving confidence to police officers, so that they can act in accordance with their training and not be penalised for those actions, is absolutely key. Simultaneously ensuring that the public have confidence that police officers still have an appropriate accountability framework is equally important. She made the point that both those aims are being pursued in the accountability review that she is taking forward.

The commitment that such investigations will be more speedy is key. Specifically, it is important that the Home Secretary continues with the Conservatives’ proposal to allow the IOPC to refer cases to the CPS earlier. Prolonged periods of uncertainty undermine the confidence of both police officers and the public they serve. I am pleased to see that the Government are continuing with our reforms to ensure that when police officers act in accordance with their training, and in the line of duty, they are not subject to a lower threshold for prosecutions than members of the general public. I ask the Home Secretary to seriously consider ensuring that training in those roles forms a legitimate part of the defence of officers if and when criminal prosecutions are brought forward.

I particularly welcome the move to introduce a presumption of anonymity for firearms officers subject to criminal trial following a shooting. We now know that Chris Kaba was involved with a violent gang, and that Sergeant Blake and his family had—and still have—a well founded fear of violent reprisals. That fear was amplified when Sergeant Blake’s name was put in the public domain.

In the light of the review by Dr Gillian Fairfield, what further recommendations is the Home Secretary minded to take forward? Does she recognise that in the era of social media, all people of public profile, including Members of this House, should be very thoughtful and careful about making public statements when facts are unknown or contested? The police should know instinctively that they will have the backing of both their chain of command and the politicians involved in their governance, at all levels, when they do the right thing at our behest, and that they will be backed by their chain of command even if those actions are not popular or convenient. We have too often seen police leadership bend to inappropriate levels of public pressure.

In conclusion, I welcome the statement from the Home Secretary, and her commitment to taking forward the reforms of the police accountability review. Conservative Members will work constructively with her to ensure that the appropriate balance is struck to reinforce confidence in policing, and the confidence of police.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his response. I hope that there will be widespread agreement on both sides of the House on the importance of these issues, which go to the heart of the British tradition of policing by consent. All of us want to know that there is proper accountability for decisions that police forces and officers make, but also that the police have the confidence to take what are sometimes the most difficult decisions of all to keep the rest of us safe.

The shadow Home Secretary is right that firearms officers have to deal with some of the most difficult parts of policing, sometimes having to make split-second decisions in fast-moving and difficult circumstances that none of us would want to be in. Frankly, if any of us were in those situations, we would want to know that there were firearms police officers there to protect and support us.

In the UK, police officers discharging firearms is very rare, particularly compared with other countries. That reflects the nature of our unarmed policing tradition, as well as the professionalism and training of the police, and the different ways in which they manage often very difficult situations, but of course they need to know that when they follow their training and operate within the law, they will have our support for the difficult decisions that they have to take, and will not find their lives upturned as a result. The anonymity provisions are important, and I hope that they will have support from the whole House. The Government want to bring in the presumption of anonymity in the forthcoming crime and policing Bill.

The shadow Home Secretary also raised the issue of training. I want that to be looked at when the investigative guidance is updated; that way, it can be addressed relatively quickly to ensure that issues around police driving and training more widely are taken into account in early investigative decisions before cases are pursued.

On the Fairfield review, we are taking forward further measures, and will look, in wider policing reforms, at how the IOPC needs to work. It is important that we continue to have an independent process. That has to be set against the backdrop of the wider policing reforms that are needed to ensure that we strengthen confidence for both officers and communities. That is how we will maintain for the new generation the proud British tradition of policing by consent.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cleverly Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

The operational independence of the police goes to the heart of public confidence in policing. As Foreign Secretary, I saw where political interference in policing is rife, and that is not a direction that the UK should travel in, so does the Home Secretary believe that it is right for Ministers to overrule the threat assessment of the police and security services, does she believe that some free concert tickets are the appropriate price for scrapping police independence, and after the appalling results of recent negotiations with the British Medical Association, the RMT and Mauritius, has she considered recruiting Taylor Swift’s mum as a Government negotiator?

[Jess Phillips]

As it falls to me to answer this, let me say that the right hon. Gentleman knows fine well that operational decisions for policing fall to the police, in this situation and in every other. I would certainly welcome it if Taylor Swift’s mother stood for the leadership of the Conservative party; she would really offer something that is not currently available. The substantive question was about confidence. The confidence of women in policing, and its ability to keep women in our country secure, dived under the previous Government, so confidence definitely needs to be restored.

[Mr Cleverly]

That does not answer the question at all.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We do not want squabbles afterwards. I call James Cleverly to ask his second question.

[Mr Cleverly]

When I was Home Secretary, on numerous occasions I had to deal with foreign VIPs demanding, or requesting, a level of protection that we did not feel was appropriate. Does the Home Secretary recognise the difficult position that she has put her own Foreign Secretary in when such future requests come in and they have to be denied, as those individuals will pray in aid the protection package put in place for a rockstar?

[Jess Phillips]

I remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House that concerts were cancelled in Vienna because of a terror threat that the CIA identified could harm tens of thousands of people. I sat in this very Chamber last week in front of Figen Murray—the mother of Martyn, who was killed at an event in Manchester. The idea that we should not take that security seriously is, I am afraid, something that I simply do not agree with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the shadow Home Secretary.

[Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

In her statement to the House on 29 July, the Chancellor said that asylum accommodation costs being drawn down from Treasury reserves were “unfunded and undisclosed”—a description that I reject. Can the Home Secretary now confirm to the House that asylum accommodation costs will be disclosed and, more importantly, funded from her departmental budget, and that she will not be drawing down from Treasury reserves to pay for asylum accommodation costs? Will she reject the Chancellor’s description and say that she will fund those costs in the same way that I did?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to the Home Secretary that I expect short answers. These are topicals. If there are questions where she wants to go long, she should do so early. Otherwise, it is not fair to the Back Benchers I represent on both sides of the House. We will now be staying here longer than she probably expected. James Cleverly, let us have a good example of a short topical.

[Mr Cleverly]

Will she be drawing down from Treasury reserves—yes or no?

[Yvette Cooper]

This Government have already been putting in place the funding to try to make good the total chaos that the right hon. Member’s Government left us with. They spent £700 million to send four volunteers to Rwanda—and how much did he spend on a flight?

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

James Cleverly Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 14th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for bringing the Bill forward with such pace and alacrity. I pay tribute to Figen Murray for her tireless campaigning; I know that she, her husband and other campaigners join us in the Chamber. It is also appropriate that we pay tribute to her son, Martyn Hett, who was murdered, alongside 21 other innocent victims, while going to the Manchester Arena in 2017 to watch a concert. It is of course in that tragic context that we find ourselves considering this legislation.

As the Home Secretary said, the Bill enjoys cross-party support, and the Opposition support its aims and aspirations. I am grateful to her for recognising at the Dispatch Box the work that was done, particularly in pre-legislative scrutiny, to ensure that the Bill has the best chance of navigating its parliamentary stages and concluding in a manner that achieves the dual purpose of keeping people safe while supporting the music and entertainment industry, of which we are so proud.

When I met Ms Murray ahead of the general election, I said, perhaps rashly, that I was confident that, irrespective of the outcome of the election, the Bill would be brought forward. I am glad that the Home Secretary did not put me in an awkward position having made such a commitment. I felt confident at the time that I would be proved right, and I am pleased that, on this one occasion thus far, she and her Ministers have done so. Martyn’s law was in both our parties’ manifestos at the last general election, and it is important that this measured and well thought through piece of legislation is properly scrutinised legislation and makes it through the House.

As the Home Secretary said, the threat picture is complex, evolving and enduring, and terrorists choose to attack a broad range of locations. As she also stated, they choose to attack in a manner and in locations that maximise the detrimental impact on our way of life. The protection of our way of life is in many ways just as important as the protection of life itself. As there is a range of potential targets, it is right that the Bill proposes that a range of premises be better protected and ready to respond in the event of a terrorist attack. At the same time, the Government have to think very carefully when regulating in this way, to ensure that we recognise that we cannot regulate away all risks. We should regulate when and where it provides greater safety to the public, ensuring that we do not create a false sense of security or impose a cost so high that venues are unable to comply and therefore fail to reduce the risk.

It is appropriate that we look at the impact assessment produced by the Government, and recognise that the new regulations will affect an estimated 155,000 small businesses with a venue capacity of between 200 and 799 people. That will impose an average cost on them of around £330 a year. The regulations will also impact around 24,000 larger venues with a capacity of 800 and above, imposing an average cost of around £5,000 each year. When I was the Home Secretary, I looked at ways of reducing the burden on the industry as much as possible, while ensuring that those with the broadest shoulders, as it were, could bear the largest load, protecting smaller venues. I therefore welcome the lighter-touch approach that has been put forward, particularly in the standard tier.

While in government, we also looked at the case for raising the standard threshold beyond 200 to around 300. I see in the Bill that a capacity of 200 was settled on. Clearly, as the Bill goes through the scrutiny process, questions will be asked about whether 200, 300, or a lower or higher figure is appropriate. It is right that those questions are asked, and Members across the House should feel at liberty to probe the Government on the rationale, because this is about balance, and ensuring that people are safe and venues stay viable.

In recognition of the important but novel approach that is being taken, what thought have the Government given to a feedback process whereby the implementation could be assessed and thresholds adjusted if needs be? The Government might consider implementing the enhanced tier in a staged process and learn lessons before implementing the standard tier fully. I would certainly be more than happy to discuss that with the Home Secretary across the Dispatch Box, in Committee, or elsewhere.

Turning to the establishment of the new regulator, I welcome the Government’s intention that the regulatory function of Martyn’s law will be delivered as a new function of the Security Industry Authority, but what assurances has the right hon. Lady had from the SIA regarding its readiness for this? As I said, including the standard tier, we are looking at nearly 200,000 venues. We want to ensure that the legislation is effective, and not just on the statute book gathering dust.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am mindful of my right hon. Friend’s earlier point about how small businesses can cope with the new requirements. Part of that involves increasing their staff’s awareness and understanding of the threat. The training that the Home Secretary spoke about will be vital in that respect. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of minimising costs will be for umbrella organisations to co-ordinate some of that training, in organisations big and small, to improve staff understanding of the risk and how it can be countered?

[Mr Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Given that so much legislation of this nature enjoys cross-party support, there are opportunities to discuss the most effective way of implementing our universal desire to get good and effective, but not overly onerous, legislation on the books. Members may feel a bit reticent about asking challenging questions for fear of coming across as seeking to undermine the work of legislation, but I know from the conversations that he and I have had that the opposite is true here. There are opportunities to do as he suggests, for example with the requirement for the enhanced tier venues to get their house in order. That could be done in close co-ordination with local venues in the standard tier, and the relevant training could be done hand in hand without the full financial, time or other burden falling on smaller venues. That kind of detail could make a fundamentally sound Bill increasingly effective.

We need to look at what else can be done to ensure that the plans for premises cannot be used against them, and that if those plans are disclosed, they cannot be utilised by would-be attackers as part of their preparation. Of course, there is a balancing act between having best practice made public—something that would benefit smaller venues—and ensuring that we do not give advantage to those who would do harm.

I also ask that Ministers ensure that the regulator is supportive and constructive. The Home Secretary made that point, and it is important to say it at the Dispatch Box, but making sure that it is really embedded in the organisation is key. The regulator’s desire should be to help venues to stay safe and viable, rather than looking for opportunities to rush in with fining powers, which could either put businesses out of business or introduce such a fear of fines that they decide to take the easy option and close their doors. That is not something that Members on either side of the House want.

Organisations will, of course, need time to adapt and familiarise themselves with the new guidance. On that point, I note that the new legislation is unlikely to be implemented for around 24 months after Royal Assent. If that is the case, will the Home Secretary commit to engage with the industry via the Federation of Small Businesses, Live music Industry Venues and Entertainment, the Greater London Authority and other bodies to ensure that we do not have a one-size-fits-all approach that might, perhaps inadvertently, squeeze sensible changes that could increase compliance without increasing risk?

What mitigations or exemptions will the Home Secretary consider to protect voluntary and community venues, such as churches or places of worship, particularly those that have already said that the new regulations will be burdensome for them? It is vital to keep the thresholds and guidance under review as the legislation is implemented. Fear of regulation often incentivises owners and organisers to take the most cautious point of view rather than the most appropriate one, and that would be counterproductive.

As the Home Secretary said, terror threats are constantly evolving, and we must evolve with them. In doing so, we must be alive to the threat that new regulations and protections have on our everyday lives—on gatherings, on places of worship and on business—and we should keep proportionality at the forefront of our minds. She has made a commitment to do that, and I am grateful that she has done so. In that spirit, I offer the Opposition’s support in ensuring that the legislation passes promptly through the House and is implemented in the best form possible, and that we do what we can to ensure that tragedies such as we saw in the Manchester Arena never happen again.

Violent Disorder

James Cleverly Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of her statement.

I wish, once again, to pay my respects to the victims of the Southport attacks. The murder of three young girls in Southport was horrific, and our thoughts are with them, their families and friends, and of course the local community.

My thoughts are also with the families and friends of those who were killed at the Notting Hill carnival. The Government and the Mayor of London must do more to end the criminality and violence that too regularly mar this event, and they must bring forward credible plans to improve safety well ahead of next year’s carnival.

I pay tribute to the bravery of our police officers across the country who put themselves in harm’s way to deal with the violence perpetrated by thugs this summer. There is not, and never can be, any excuse, justification or rationale for the violent disorder that we have seen. We cannot and will not let rioting thugs or extremists win. The Government must always back our police officers to do what is necessary to maintain law and order. Attacks on the police by any group must not be tolerated, and intimidation of the public or the media cannot be allowed.

Does the Home Secretary now see that the comments made by one of her Ministers at the time of the riots, seemingly making excuses for armed thugs who intimidated the media, undermines the Government’s credibility, reinforces the accusations of bias, and puts people, including police officers, at increased risk?

Does the Home Secretary now also recognise that the Labour leadership kneeling in the immediate aftermath of the Black Lives Matter disorder, when violent protestors attacked police officers, makes it look like her party takes some forms of violence less seriously than others? Does she accept that any perception whatsoever of treating the same crime differently, based on the race, religion or community of the perpetrator, increases tension rather than reduces it? Does she accept that, at times of heightened tension, Ministers must be, and must be seen to be, even-handed and demand even-handedness of others?

Does the Home Secretary also recognise that the delay in holding a Cobra meeting until almost a week after these events started was a mistake, that it created a vacuum and that it delayed the actions that could have brought this disorder to an end more quickly? At the time of the disorder, the Prime Minister claimed that he would create a “standing army” of public order police officers. What progress has been made in the intervening weeks to make that claim a reality?

After the murder of the three young girls in Southport, the right hon. Lady and I discussed across the Dispatch Box the impact of misinformation and disinformation online. When I was Home Secretary, I travelled to the United States to deliver this message directly to the leadership of the tech firms and to make clear what the British Government expected from them in this regard. Has the Home Secretary had any similar conversations with the social media platforms about their responsibilities? And can she inform the House whether her Department will continue the review into police use of force, instituted by the Conservative Government of which I was a member, to ensure that the police are able to take firm action and clamp down on crime with all the force that the law allows, without fear of being strung up for years in endless investigations?

In government, we recruited 20,000 new police officers, but their work will be hampered if they do not feel supported by the Government when they take the firm action needed to keep the people of this country safe. Violence has absolutely no place on our streets. Anyone who engages in violent disorder or commits violent crime must face the full force of the law, no matter who they are. We will continue to hold the Government to account to ensure that they deal with disorder swiftly, effectively, fairly and even-handedly.

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s words of support for the Southport families and his reassertion that there can be no excuse for violent disorder, but I have to say that the rest of his response sounded an awful lot more like a pitch to Tory party members in the middle of a leadership election than a serious response to the scale of the disorder we saw and the need for a serious policing response.

He asked about the strategic reserve—the “standing army”. We set up the strategic reserve and it was in place for the second weekend; we had thousands of police officers who were ready. We did not use the old arrangements that we inherited from him, where mutual aid had to be on call and stood up in a rush when it was called for. We got the police public order officers ready and deployed at strategic locations around the country, so they could move fast and be where they were needed.

That goes to the heart of the problems we inherited from the shadow Home Secretary and his predecessor. The central co-ordination that he had left in place was far too weak. The chief officers involved in trying to get mutual aid in place and to co-ordinate intelligence had very weak infrastructure and systems in place. They had not been supported over very many years. In fact, some of his predecessors had tried to get rid of a lot of the work of the National Police Coordination Centre. Instead, our approach is to strengthen it. We believe that we should strengthen central co-ordination and we will work with the police to do so, which is why I have asked the inspectorate to operate.

Secondly, the shadow Home Secretary referred to the issues around social media. Seriously—his party delayed the Online Safety Act 2023 for years. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle), has already been working closely on putting more pressure on the social media companies, but the shadow Home Secretary’s party did nothing for years. It is far too late for Members of his party to try to call for action. And the review into police use of force is important and will continue.

Finally, I have to say that the shadow Home Secretary is playing games, undermining the credibility of the police. He is trying to blame the Prime Minister for something that happened four years ago—saying he is somehow responsible for the violent disorder on our streets this summer—and undermining the credibility of police officers. Each individual officer takes an oath to operate without fear or favour. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that his predecessor as Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), tried to undermine and attack the credibility of the police in the run up to Armistice Day? That is why we ended up with a bunch of thugs trying to get to the Cenotaph to disrupt the service and launching violent attacks on the police. The only reason the right hon. Gentleman got the job of Home Secretary in the first place was because everyone condemned his predecessor for her behaviour. I am so sorry that he has decided, in a leadership election, to follow her example—I really thought he was better than that.

Southport Incident

James Cleverly Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of her statement.

This was a heinous attack on innocent children and those caring for them at the start of the summer holidays. It has no doubt left families broken and a community scarred. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for coming to the House to update us on the situation, and I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing flexibility on the Order Paper so that this event could be discussed.

The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have, of course, done the right thing by going to Southport today to offer the Government’s condolences, and I echo their sentiment. All our thoughts are with the victims of this appalling attack, their families and the people of Southport at this incredibly difficult time. Our thoughts are especially with those who have lost their lives and those who are currently being treated in hospital, some of whom are in a critical condition. We think of their families at this time.

I want to thank our emergency services who responded to this horrific attack. We should never take the bravery of the people who serve us for granted, and it is a reminder that when they run towards danger and unknown circumstances, we are duty-bound to give them our support so that they can act decisively and with confidence, and do everything they can to save lives. Of course, our ongoing thanks go to the staff of the national health service who are currently caring for the victims who are receiving hospital treatment. Particular thanks go to the members of the public who intervened to help, despite the significant danger to them. Their bravery cannot be overstated.

We still know little about the details of what happened yesterday, and the right hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that we should give the police the time to do a proper and thorough investigation. She is also right to highlight the impact of misinformation and disinformation online; enough people are already distressed without their distress being amplified by speculation and gossip online. I would ask that she follow up on the conversations that I had in the United States of America with the social media platforms about their responsibility in this regard. This is also a reminder to all of us that we have a personal responsibility to check before we share, and that we should not feel the need to get involved in the grief of others.

There will, of course, be a time when we must ask how this happened, so that we can take the right steps to ensure that no child, no family and no community has to face the anguish that the people of Southport are feeling today. It is too early for us to know the full picture, but an attack on innocent children enjoying their summer holiday strikes to the hearts of us all. No matter what drove this individual to commit this appalling crime, we stand together in solidarity with the people of Southport today.

I want to finish by saying that our hearts go out to the three young girls who have lost their lives: Bebe, Elsie and Alice. We cannot imagine what their families are going through now, and I know the whole House will join the Home Secretary and me in expressing our condolences to them. I thank the Home Secretary for her statement.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his words, and for his support for the families and whole community in Southport. I particularly thank him for his tribute to the emergency service workers. He will know from all his past experience the heroism they show, but that was strained beyond anything we could have imagined by what they had to deal with yesterday. I also thank him for his recognition of the bravery of the passers-by who came forward to help.

I agree with the shadow Home Secretary about the responsibility on every one of us; the police need to be able to pursue their investigation. There will be wider questions for other days, but the most important thing is that every one of us supports the police in their investigation. I also agree with him about the responsibility on social media companies; we need to recognise that things are taking place on social media that go against their terms and conditions and their commitments. They need to take some responsibility for that.

Above all, this is about young children and their families, who will be grieving, and there will be many other children who were involved yesterday who will be facing great trauma as well. This is a moment when it is not just the people of Southport who will be desperately wanting to come together to support their own; this is about all of us, not just across this House but across the whole country, being there for the people of Southport and the families who have lost loved ones.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cleverly Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Once again, I welcome the right hon. Lady to her place. I welcome her Government’s commitment to halving violence against women and girls. It is an incredibly important agenda, and it builds on the work that the previous Government —my Government—did in this area. This issue remains a long-standing priority for me. I am very proud that, as Foreign Secretary, I led the international women and girls strategy, which meant that this issue was addressed internationally, not just domestically. Her desire to halve incidents of violence against women and girls fits neatly with my aspiration at the time to make the United Kingdom the safest place in the world to be a woman or girl.

We have seen an increase in arrest rates for violence against women and girls—they went up by 25% between 2019-20 and 2022-23—and a 38% increase in charge rates for rape over a year, but we recognise that there is significant and regular under-reporting of violence against women and girls. I want to make sure the right hon. Lady’s agenda does not inadvertently dissuade women from coming forward, so what specifically will be the metric by which we measure the halving of violence against women and girls?

[Yvette Cooper]

The shadow Home Secretary has made the important point that we need to be addressing the prevalence of violence against women and girls, not simply the reporting. We know that there are many areas in which reporting needs to increase because there is often under-reporting, and we have work under way at the moment in order to ensure that that can be measured.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the increase in charge rates. If a very small number increases by just a little bit, it is still a very small number. The charge rate is still far too low, and the number of prosecutions and convictions for domestic abuse is more than 40% lower than it was eight years ago. This requires a major overhaul of the system, and I look forward to working with the right hon. Gentleman’s party and with all parties in order to do that, but we must be very honest with ourselves about the damage that has been done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

The scrutiny of Government can work properly only when Ministers are open, honest and transparent. It is therefore disappointing that the Home Secretary has still failed to respond to my letter of 10 July—[Interruption.] Well, if Ministers on the Treasury Bench do not believe that responding to letters from the Opposition Front Bench matters, that is probably something that they might like to take up with you, Mr Speaker.

On the right hon. Lady’s first outing at the Dispatch Box, her statement was late and, in that statement, she used unpublished figures—almost a week later, she has still not provided any published evidence for the figures she used. My question today is simple. I have raised it with her previously but she has still not given me an answer. Where is she going to send failed asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Syria and Iran?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are on topical questions, which are meant to be short and quick. Members on both sides of the House will be unable to get in, so please, look to those on the Front Bench and others who have held us up.

Immigration and Home Affairs

James Cleverly Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment l, at the end of the Question to add:

“but respectfully regret that the Gracious Speech does not commit to boosting defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030 with a fully funded plan, fails to include measures that provide an adequate deterrent to migrants crossing the channel illegally, fails to mention rural communities, farming and fishing, does not include a legally binding target to enhance the UK’s food security or a commitment to increase the UK-wide agriculture budget by £1 billion over the course of the Parliament, introduces new burdens on businesses without sufficient measures to support them, fails to set out a concrete plan to tackle the unsustainable post-covid rise in the welfare bill, does not adequately protect family finances and the UK’s energy security in the move to net zero, and fails to provide adequate protections for pensioners and working people to keep more of the money they have worked hard for.”

Yesterday, at the Dispatch Box, I welcomed the Home Secretary to her role, and I now take the opportunity to congratulate the wider ministerial team who work with her. They will have inherited a hard-working team of civil servants dedicated to the protection of this country and the people within it. However, I am sad that the hon. Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock) has not made the transition from shadow immigration Minister to immigration Minister. His contributions are a great loss to the Conservative party.

With the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) in her new ministerial role, I am sure the Clerks of the Home Affairs Committee will be looking forward to arranging her first session promptly and will, like me, be closely monitoring how quickly her new boss fully implements all the recommendations of the Committee she formerly chaired.

While I do not have time to mention each of the new ministerial team individually, I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). She knows I planned to single her out and I do not apologise for doing so; I think that it is a very good appointment and she is well suited to her role as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for victims and safeguarding. She knows that tackling violence against women and girls was a priority for me. We have previously shared the stage at events in the House discussing that subject. I genuinely look forward to working with her and contributing in any way I can to her success in this incredibly important area of public policy. She has highlighted some of the crucial work that this place can do in bringing to the attention of the country and the wider world the continued plight of too many women.

The election highlighted the important work of the Home Office in defending democracy. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), the former security Minister, for his work with the defending democracy taskforce. Again, that is an area where we will seek to be a constructive Opposition. I was disgusted to see how the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley and many other, mostly female, colleagues and candidates were treated during the general election campaign. No one who cares for democracy, irrespective of their party affiliation, should be willing to tolerate that. The defending democracy taskforce continues to have incredibly important and urgent work to do. We should continue to work together, as we did when our roles were reversed, to root out violence and intimidation, and to ensure that candidates and Members can vote with their conscience and campaign with their hearts, free from intimidation or threats.

While the Prime Minister has been enjoying his honeymoon period at NATO and welcoming visitors to the European Political Community event at Blenheim Palace, which was very well organised by this Government’s predecessors in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the same honeymoon period has sadly not been afforded to the Home Secretary. Members will all be familiar with the seven days of creation; the new Home Secretary has managed seven days of destruction. On day one, she cancelled the partnership with Rwanda, taking away the deterrent that the National Crime Agency said we needed in order to break the business model of people smuggling gangs. In doing so, on day two, she created a diplomatic row with Rwanda, whose Ministers sadly had to read about the Government’s decision in the British media, rather than receiving direct communication from the Government. That was a level of diplomatic indecency that will cast a shadow over the relationship not just with that country, but with many others.

On day three, the Home Secretary announced an effective amnesty for tens of thousands of people who arrived here illegally. We said that the incoming Labour Government would do that. They promised that they would not, yet that is exactly what they did. On day four, she started work on getting back into the EU through the back door by negotiating to take more migrants from the continent. On day five, a Labour Government Minister went on national radio to advocate the relaxing of visa rules from the EU, before being slapped down for saying the quiet bit out loud.

On day six, Home Office figures released by the Government showed that the visa curbs that I put in place when I became Home Secretary have cut migration by 48% since last June—she can thank me for that later. On the seventh day, the Home Secretary probably tried to get some rest, but she will now know what I have long known, which is that, as Home Secretary, there is not the luxury of that day of rest.

Therefore, despite a terrible first week of weather to bring in the new Labour Government, we saw almost 500 asylum seekers arrive on small boats. As of today—

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Cleverly]

The Home Secretary will be making a speech in due course.

As I say, almost 500 asylum seekers arrived in the first week, and, as of today, more than 2,000 asylum seekers have arrived in small boats since Labour took office. The second week at work was not much better.

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Cleverly]

The right hon. Member has the opportunity to speak in a moment. We have seen riots in her back garden, on the streets of Leeds, and police officers, clearly not confident that they will enjoy her support, having to take a backseat. Like so much of what was said ahead of this general election, “Take back our streets” was clearly just a Labour slogan.

We then saw Neil Basu, a very highly respected former police officer, with whom I worked when I was on the Metropolitan Police Authority, and General Stuart Skeates, a senior official at the Home Office, with whom I worked in a former life as well as when I was Home Secretary, ruling themselves out of leadership of the new so-called border security command. They did so, I am sure, because they know what we know, which is that that is little more than a fig leaf to hide the fact that the Labour Government are doing less on migration and hoping to achieve more. The reality, as everybody including the people smugglers know, is that the small boats problem is only going to get worse under Labour.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for giving way. It is a shame to puncture his fantasy and bring him down to the real world in which he and his party trebled net migration and left us with the highest level of spring boat crossings on record. Perhaps he can answer just one factual question. He has spent £700 million over two and a half years running the Rwanda scheme; can he tell us how many asylum seekers he has sent?

[Mr Cleverly]

As I said on the radio this morning, if the right hon. Lady is going to pluck figures out of the air, she should avoid nice round numbers, because it is a bit of a giveaway. She will know that we brought people into detention and that we had chartered flights. The fact that the new Government scrapped the scheme and, with a degree of diplomatic discourtesy, did not even—[Interruption.] Labour Members can groan from their Benches, but they will get used to the fact that we cannot treat international partners in this way.

Our relationship with Rwanda was entered into in good faith by both parties. The Rwandans discovered that the incoming Government were tearing up that bilateral relationship in the pages of the British media. The Home Secretary should learn that her new Foreign Secretary should have had the diplomatic courtesy at least to pick up the phone to his opposite number in Rwanda to explain what was going to happen before they read about it in the British press. She and I both know that her Government would not have acted with that level of vile discourtesy had that partner been a European country. [Interruption.] Labour Members can groan all they like, but we all know that is true.

The simple fact of the matter is that the new border security command replicates in all respects the work of the small boats operational command. It took almost the whole general election campaign before the right hon. Lady attempted to clarify the roles. We still have very little clarity on the division of labour between the so-called new border security command and the small boats operational command. Yesterday, at the Dispatch Box, she tried to imply that there had been no returns under the Conservative Government, but let me put some facts and figures on the record. Last year, we returned more than 25,000 people to their home countries, including almost 4,000 foreign national offenders, in order to keep ourselves safe—foreign national offenders for whom, I would remind the House, her Prime Minister in his former guise fought tooth and nail to prevent being deported. Voluntary and enforced returns were both up by more than two thirds, at their highest level for five years—operations done by our immigration enforcement officials, which sounds a lot like a returns unit to me.

I am not sure what the right hon. Lady was doing while in opposition, but she might be surprised to learn that we were indeed smashing the gangs, and we were making sure that people were arrested and incarcerated. Last year, we smashed almost 100 criminal gangs through our law enforcement agencies. I remind the House that Labour Members voted against the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which is the legislation that we have been using to incarcerate those people smugglers. They voted against that legislation. Labour, in government, are now so worried about their continuing reputation for being and for looking weak on immigration that they felt the need to announce a raft of things to sound tough which basically already existed. They announced the border security command, even though there is already a small boats operational command. They announced a returns unit, even though immigration enforcement already does that. What will they announce next? What will they invent—the RAF? I look forward to seeing what functions are to be replicated.

We will look at legislation when it comes forward but, as I have discussed, the Government already have the tools they need, and as long as they do not undermine their own efforts by scrapping more things, we might see an opportunity for them to reduce numbers, in large part because we passed the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. The right hon. Lady has tools at her disposal.

On legal migration, I remember coming to the Government Dispatch Box in December last year and presenting to the House a series of visa curbs to cut net migration. With our measures, 300,000 people who came here last year would no longer have the right to come, reducing migration by a record amount. Already the data is showing that, because of the actions I took as Home Secretary, visa applications are down by 48% compared with June last. On the current trajectory, net migration is set to halve in the next 12 months, thanks to the actions that I took—actions opposed by the Labour party at the time.

The Labour manifesto said that net migration would come down, but not by how much. As I said, the first 50% of that reduction is because of actions I took. Perhaps, in her speech, the right hon. Lady can confirm how much further than that 50% she envisages bringing net migration down. Labour talked tough ahead of the election about clamping down on employers bringing in foreign workers, but those plans have apparently now been shelved, as we saw nothing of them in the King’s Speech and have not heard anything more about them.

On policing and crime, I am delighted to have my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) as shadow Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime. There are many brilliant things about Stockton, a place I have visited and enjoyed, and he is of course one of those wonderful things. I welcome the plans set out in the King’s Speech for a crime and policing Bill to tackle issues such as antisocial behaviour, retail crime and knife crime and to drive up standards in the police force. Of course I welcome them, because those are issues that I put forward when I was Home Secretary. The Government can therefore count on our general support for these measures, if they bring forward detailed proposals that properly address the issues. I really hope that the right hon. Lady has more success than I had getting her colleague, the Mayor of London, to focus on bringing down violent crime in our capital city. We will of course scrutinise the legislation alongside the victims, courts and public protection Bill.

Over the previous Parliament, it was the Conservative party that put 20,000 new police officers on the streets. At the election, we promised to hire an additional 8,000 full-time, fully warranted police officers to protect our neighbourhoods. During the general election campaign, the Labour party made no such commitment, limiting their aspirations to only 3,000 full-time, fully warranted officers. I hope that they will match our commitment to 8,000.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

The shadow Secretary of State should also remember that the Labour party opposed our measures for bringing in 20,000 extra police, and during the general election campaign it committed to having 13,000 extra neighbourhood officers, which many police and crime commissioners have said cannot be funded, because they are not clear how they are to be funded. Is it not the case that the Conservative party has a track record of delivering on more policing, and the Government have no idea whatsoever?

[Mr Cleverly]

I am very proud of the fact that in many parts of the country, including my county of Essex, there are now more warranted police officers than at any time in the force’s history—in sharp contrast to Labour-run London, where the Conservative Government put money on the table to recruit extra Metropolitan police officers and the Labour Mayor of London has spectacularly failed to recruit those officers, has not backed officers when they said they needed to do more stop and search, and has seen knife crime accelerate, distorting the whole national picture. I really hope that the right hon. Lady takes this seriously. She can chuckle all she likes, but this is about kids getting stabbed on the streets of London, and she should take this more seriously. [Interruption.] She should recognise that we introduced tougher sentences under the Public Order Act 2023 to clamp down on disruptive protests—the benefit of which we have already seen this week with the jailing of Just Stop Oil protesters—in addition to plans to grant the police further powers to clamp down on protests that go too far and disrupt the lives of people around this country.

[Yvette Cooper]

The shadow Home Secretary knows he should not make such disgraceful, unfounded allegations about my response to knife crime. He knows that I have met families right across the country who are devastated by knife crime, including in towns and smaller communities and suburbs where this terrible crime is going up. His party, when in government, repeatedly failed to ban serious weapons on our streets. Will he now support this party and this Government when we bring in the bans on ninja swords and dangerous machetes that he should have brought in long ago?

[Mr Cleverly]

I made the observation that, while I was talking about young people getting stabbed, the right hon. Lady was chatting and chuckling with her colleagues on the Front Bench. That was a statement of fact. The point is that we have got a grip of crime, but in the parts of the country controlled by Labour police and crime commissioners, including London, that is sadly not the case.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but he will know from his tenure as Home Secretary that those sorts of crimes—stabbings and shootings—are happening all across the country, and not just in cities; they are happening in towns such as Warwick and Leamington, where we have had someone shot dead through drug dealing, many people stabbed maliciously and some killed. The reality is that under his watch over the last 14 years we have seen a degradation of the numbers of police officers on our streets and rising knife crime. Does he not accept that?

[Mr Cleverly]

The figures speak for themselves. People will be able to see the levels of crime, including violent crime, in Conservative-run parts of the country, and compare them with those in Labour-run parts of the country. The figures are in the public domain. Anyone can check them.

Unfortunately, it appears that the Government have not seen fit to lay out their plans to address the issue of violent, aggressive, intimidatory or disruptive protest. For the safety of our streets, and for the confidence of the officers who need to police protests, I hope that the Government do the right thing and change that vacuum where policy should be.

Under Conservative leadership, we announced a raft of changes to support victims of domestic abuse, putting more abusers under management of the police and under increasingly strict arrangements by designating violence against women and girls as a national policing priority—a national threat on a par with the threat of terrorism. As I have said, the Home Secretary and her Front-Bench colleagues should know that I will always give my wholehearted support to actions they take to protect women and girls. We have made improvements through Operation Soteria, changing the way the investigatory system operates to ensure that victims of rape and serious sexual assaults can get justice and providing specialist training for officers.

We were committed to ensuring that rape victims felt confident to come forward to report, because we know the sad truth that, even with the good work of Operation Soteria, far too few people come forward. We want to encourage them to do so, and we will support the Government in any action they take in this area.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for giving way on that important point. He will recognise that one issue we have all campaigned on is the fact that many of those women do not come forward because they have no trust in the police. A key issue we have been working on is getting senior officers to suspend those police officers who are found guilty of wrongdoing. Does he agree that we need to make sure that that works now, so that those women can have the confidence to come forward, including where those allegations are against other police officers?

[Mr Cleverly]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right; although it did not make its way through all its parliamentary stages, the proposals that we put in the Criminal Justice Bill strengthened the accountability framework for officers and strengthened police leadership to take action. Again, I hope that the Government will continue that incredibly important work, and once again I put on record my willingness to support them in ensuring that the disciplinary practices within policing give women the confidence to come forward.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

Is it not true that the net number of police is lower after 14 years of Tory Government? There has been a net loss to policing. Does the shadow Home Secretary agree that the reason we have not hit our numbers in London for the Met Police is that we are in special measures, and there needs to be caution over the police who are recruited? We need to ensure there are good police officers, so it is about quality, not just quantity.

[Mr Cleverly]

I disagree with the hon. Lady’s assessment of police numbers. That does not accord with the figures that I have seen. Police numbers are up, and we had plans to recruit even more. I get the party loyalty towards the Mayor of London, but the simple fact of the matter is that all police forces have to ensure that there are vetting procedures in place. The vetting procedures for the Metropolitan Police are no more onerous than for other forces around the country, yet many other police forces, including my own, have record numbers of police officers. The Metropolitan Police is the best-funded police force per capita in the country, and yet, with all the freedoms that the Mayor of London has and with all the money that was put on the table, he has failed to recruit the police officers that the capital city needs. That has an impact not just on people who live and work in London, but on visitors and people who travel through it.

In a constantly evolving criminal landscape, we delivered the online fraud charter. It was a world-first agreement, with 12 of the biggest tech companies as signatories, proactively to block and remove fraudulent content from their platforms. Facebook, Instagram and Amazon were among those key signatories. We introduced the National Security Act 2023 and the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, and we proscribed Hizb ut-Tahrir, Terrorgram and the Wagner Group, to make promotion and membership of those organisations illegal.

To conclude, the right hon. Lady has a tough job. Home Secretary will always be a tough job. However, during our time in government we ensured that she has more police officers at her disposal, an effective small boats operational command, an effective immigration enforcement command and a suite of legislation to allow her to match the rhetoric of the campaign to her action in government.

The Home Secretary has inherited falling met migration figures, a growing economy and a large parliamentary majority to ensure she gets her business through the House. While we will be critical when the Government make mistakes and will seek to ensure that they do the right thing, we all have a desire for her Department to succeed and indeed an interest in its doing so. On that point, I wish her the very best of luck.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)]

I welcome everybody to the final day of the King's Speech debate. I also welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s words about the excellent ministerial team that we now have in the Home Office, and his continued support for the defending democracy taskforce, which I know he and his shadow Security Minister, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), took immensely seriously when they were in government. I can tell the House that we will be meeting later this week, our first meeting after the election, to review some of the issues that I know have affected Members right across the country. We are extremely serious about what happened during the election and how we all need to respond and to stand up for our democracy.

To listen to the shadow Home Secretary, no one would think he had just spectacularly lost a general election; apparently under the Conservatives we have just all had it so good for such a long period of time. However, I am glad to see him enjoying opposition so much. Long may it continue!

This may be the final day of the King’s Speech debate, but of course it is only the beginning of the Tory leadership hustings. The shadow Home Secretary’s name is on the list, and we look forward to his launch, maybe late this week—it is very exciting. As someone who has unsuccessfully stood for their party’s leadership in the past, I do have some sympathy with his predicament. It is not just that he is only the bookies’ fifth favourite; he is not even the leading candidate from Essex, or even the leading candidate from his shadow Home Office team.

I have some bad news for both the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Security Minister, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge. Their chances have been dealt a hammer blow by that strategic brain and deputy leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), who was elected at the same time as them in 2015. When asked who the stars of his generation are, he said:

“There’s only two people from my generation that I could see leading the Conservative party: Rishi Sunak or Vicky Atkins.”

How disappointing is that? Discounted by the great election guru of the Conservative party before they have even started.

[Mr Cleverly]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way on that subject.

[Mr Cleverly]

Just for expectation management, may I ask when the Home Secretary will start talking about her portfolio?

[Yvette Cooper]

The shadow Home Secretary spent his entire speech not talking about any of the challenges that the country faces but simply playing to the Conservative Back Benches with a fantasy leadership application speech.

What is it about these former Home Secretaries and Ministers? Apparently, of the last seven Home Office Ministers in Cabinet, six of them are running. We have the previous Home Secretary, the Home Secretary before that and the Home Secretary but one before that—the same person, strangely, because, never forget, it is possible to be sacked from the same job twice—plus the Home Secretary before that, the former Security Minister and the former Immigration Minister.

They have quite a record between them: they have trebled net migration, let boat crossings hit a record high this spring, decimated neighbourhood policing—there are 10,00 fewer neighbourhood police and police community support officers on our streets—let record numbers of crimes go unsolved, bust the Home Office budget by billions, and, yes, spent £700 million sending just four volunteers to Rwanda. If they are now lining up to do to the Tory party what they have already done to the Home Office and the country, well, frankly, they deserve each other. Every one of them championed that policy on Rwanda—although the shadow Home Secretary, to be fair to him, did notoriously describe it as “batshit” crazy. Well, maybe that is what someone needs to be to stand for Tory leader right now. [Interruption.]

We have heard that the Conservatives are going to run this contest until November. We have five months—[Interruption.] Oh, does the shadow Home Secretary want to deny having ever described the Rwanda programme and development partnership as “batshit”? I will give way to him if he would like to respond.

[Mr Cleverly]

If the right hon. Lady can say when, where and to whom that was said, carry on.

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Gentleman was the one who said it, so he is the one who will know. If he wants to deny that he ever said it, I will not say it again—honestly—but I think that he protests a little too much with this sort of wriggling. He would not do very well under interrogation.

We have heard today that the leadership contest will run until November. We have five months of this. There are hardly any Tory MPs here because they are all off doing their little chats and meetings. It is like a cross between “Love Island” and the jungle. Rob and Suella have broken up, and now John has gone off with Kemi. Everyone is looking over their shoulder for snakes and rats. Apparently somebody has had a nervous breakdown, and that is probably all of their Back Benchers, dreading getting a little text saying that another candidate wants a chat. We can see it. Look at them all. They are all saying, “I am a Tory MP. Get me out of here.” That is exactly what our Labour MPs have just done: they have got a lot of Tory MPs out of here because the country is crying out for change—for what the Prime Minister has described as a decade of national renewal on our economy, our public services and our relationship with the world, and in politics itself, by bringing politics back into public service again.

I say to all hon. Members, on my side and on the Opposition Benches, that I will work with everyone to restore Britain’s sense of security, public safety on our streets, secure borders, and confidence in our police and criminal justice system. Yes, I will repeatedly challenge the Conservatives on the legacy that they have left us, because the damage is serious, and I think that they have been hugely reckless with the safety of our country. Yes, the approach and values of our parties may be different, but I think that there are important areas where we should be able to come together to bring change in the interests of our country, our communities and our security, because that is what public service means. That is what this Labour Government are determined to do. We have set out in the King’s Speech three Home Office Bills on crime and policing, borders and asylum, and security. I will cover each issue in turn, starting with safety on our streets and confidence in the police and the criminal justice system.

Everyone will have, fresh in their minds, the concerns raised by constituents during the election campaign. I fear that, at a time when we have 10,000 fewer neighbourhood police and PCSOs, confidence in policing has dropped. Street crime and knife crime are surging in towns and suburbs—not just in our cities—and shoplifting has become an epidemic. Those are the kinds of crimes that really affect how people live in their own communities, yet too little is being done.

Border Security and Asylum

James Cleverly Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I welcome you back to your place, on my first opportunity to do so. In my time as Home Secretary and, before that, Foreign Secretary, you were very kind about my minor indiscretions at the Dispatch Box, my late deployment of statements and my slight overruns. You have always been very kind to my family in sometimes quite trying circumstances, which I very much appreciate.

I also take this opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper) on her appointment as Home Secretary. It is a challenging but incredibly rewarding job and, because the nation’s security is now very much in her and her Ministers’ hands, I genuinely wish her all success in everything she is looking to do.

The right hon. Lady inherits a dedicated team of Home Office civil servants who will help her to keep the country safe and secure. They helped me when I was in her position and, although it is disorderly to recognise their presence, if I were to wave my hand vaguely in their direction, I might take the opportunity to thank my previous private office civil servants.

My notes say that I want to thank the Home Secretary and her team for advance sight of her statement, but I will put a line through that.

The Labour party, and indeed the Home Secretary, likes to talk tough on border security, but today’s statement, despite all the hyperbole and the made-up numbers, is basically an admission of what we knew all along, which is that the Labour party has scrapped the Rwanda partnership on ideological grounds, removing a deterrent that the National Crime Agency said we needed.

The level of discourtesy directed towards the people and Government of Rwanda is quite breathtaking. To have them read about this decision in the papers before anyone from the UK Government had the good grace to formally notify them is an error, and no one in this House believes for a moment that this level of discourtesy would have happened had the partnership been with a European country.

Labour has given an effective amnesty to thousands of asylum seekers who were banned under Conservative plans. Labour’s plans amount to doing less than the Conservatives were doing when we were in government, merely changing the signs above a few desks in the Home Office with its so-called border security command and returns unit. Before the election, the right hon. Lady said that she would create a returns unit, and now the narrative is that she will redeploy some staff—not increase the number of staff, but redeploy some staff—which shows that the returns function already exists.

There is no safe third country to which to return people who cannot be returned home, so where will the right hon. Lady send people who come here from countries like Afghanistan, Iran and Syria? Has she started negotiating returns agreements with the Taliban, the ayatollahs of Iran or Assad in Syria? If she is not going to send to Rwanda anyone who arrives here on a small boat, to which local authorities will she send them? We were closing hotels when I was in government, so I wonder which local authorities will receive those asylum seekers. If not Rwanda, will it be Rochdale, Romford or Richmond? Most importantly, can the right hon. Lady now confirm that people who arrive here illegally in a small boat will be able to claim asylum? Finally, how long after the right hon. Lady briefed the media that she is scrapping the Rwanda partnership did she have the courtesy to speak directly with the Rwandan Government?

It is because we now have no deterrent that nobody wants to head her new so-called border security command. Neil Basu, a former senior police officer for whom I have huge respect, was Labour’s No. 1 choice, and he has ruled himself out. We now learn that General Stuart Skeates, a highly respected former general in the British Army, who was, in large part, responsible for delivering the Albania deal, which cut small boat arrivals from that country by 90%, has resigned from his position as director general for strategic operations. To misquote Oscar Wilde, “to lose one border commander could be seen as a misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness”—perhaps even incompetence. I notice that the new job advert—it is available online for those who are thinking of applying—for Labour’s border security command says that the role is not located in Kent, where the channel is, but is flexible from Belfast, Bristol, Cardiff, Durham, Glasgow, Liverpool or Manchester, none of which, the last time I checked, are anywhere near the English channel.

The reality is that everybody knows, including the people smugglers, that the small boat problem is going to get worse—indeed, has already got worse under Labour—because there is no deterrent. People are being sold a lie when they are being smuggled into this country, across one of the busiest shipping lanes. We need to stop them. Too many lives have already been lost. Sadly, six more have been lost in the channel in the last few weeks, and our hearts go out to them and their loved ones. We disagree on many things, but we can agree that we need to put an end to this evil trade. Sadly, the initial decisions made by her Government have made the problem worse, not better.

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s words about the dedication of Home Office officials and about the importance of work on national security. As he knows, when I was shadow Secretary of State, I always worked with him and supported him around national security issues. I know he will do the same and I welcome him to his shadow post. I presume what we heard was the first of the Conservative leadership contest speeches.

I will respond to some of the things the shadow Home Secretary said. We need to be clear about what we have inherited from him and his party. Under his party, we have had the highest level of spring crossings ever. Gangs have been left to wreak havoc, not just along the French coast but across our border, through our country and back through Europe. Asylum support costs are set to rise to £30 billion to £40 billion over the next four years as a result of his and his party’s decisions.

As for the idea of deterrence, I am sorry but four volunteers being sent to Rwanda is not a deterrent to anyone for anything at all. The idea that he would spend £10 billion on this fantasy, this fiction, this gimmick rather than ever do the hard graft—£700 million has already been spent on sending just four volunteers in two and a half years. We have often warned that, frankly, it would be cheaper to put them up in the Paris Ritz. As it turns out, it would have been cheaper to buy the Paris Ritz.

As for the amnesty, I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman has ever understood the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which he voted for and he inherited from his predecessors. He asks if people who arrive illegally can claim asylum—that is exactly what happens under section 9 of that Act. They can all claim asylum, enter the asylum system and be entitled to asylum support. That is what happens in the system, which we have inherited, that he has presided over and run since he became Home Secretary. The problem is that people enter the asylum system but never leave. He did not bring in operational arrangements to try to take decisions properly. His Home Office effectively stopped taking the majority of asylum decisions in May. Perhaps he did not know that, but that is what happened in his Home Office. This party and this Government do not believe in amnesties. We think that the rules need to be respected and enforced. His party is the one that has given an effective amnesty to people who can end up staying in the asylum system forever. We believe that the rules should be enforced. The problem is that that is what the shadow Home Secretary believes too. He does not believe any of the stuff that he has just said. He is only saying it for his Tory leadership contest; he is just too weak to tell his party the truth. He thought that the whole policy on Rwanda was “batshit” and then he went out to bat for it. It is just not serious.

Lord Walney’s Report into Political Violence and Disruption

James Cleverly Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)]

The Government appointed Lord Walney in 2019 to advise the Government on political violence and extremism. During his review, he has engaged Government, public bodies, international partners, academia, civil society and those personally affected by violent disruption and extremism, and has thoroughly explored the evidence. The report he has provided to Government is extensive and compelling.

The report has been laid before Parliament today and it will also be available on www.gov.uk.

Lord Walney’s timely report identifies a rising extremist trend in this country. Its central finding is that political intimidation and the incitement of hatred by extremist groups and individuals are inhibiting the essential rights and freedoms of the general public and their representatives in politics. In recent months in particular, we have too often seen intimidatory and aggressive protest activity, with frequent disruption to our peaceful democratic process: be that protests outside MP’s home addresses, council meetings interrupted, or speaking events shut down.

Unfortunately, this has a very real impact on the elected representatives who choose to serve in public life. Lord Walney highlights a 2023 Local Government Association survey finding that 70% of local councillors

“felt at risk at least some of the time while fulfilling their role”.

We must be prepared to stand up for our shared values in all circumstances, no matter how difficult.

As Home Secretary, I will take every possible step to safeguard the people and institutions upon which our democracy depends. The Government recently committed an additional £31 million to bolstering the protection of elected representatives and our democratic processes, an investment which will be used to enhance police capabilities, increase private security support for those facing a higher risk, and expand cyber-security advice. This investment is underpinned by the defending democracy policing protocol, agreed with police chiefs, to ensure a robust policing response to disruptive activity, including the provision of dedicated, named police contacts for all elected representatives and candidates to liaise with on security matters.

As Lord Walney sets out, it is vital that we take action to manage and limit the impact of protests that descend into violence and disruption. In recent months, we have seen too often vile displays of antisemitism on our streets and aggressive, disruptive tactics deployed by some protesters. That’s why, over the coming weeks, the Government will look at Lord Walney’s recommendations on public order and changing the thresholds for imposing conditions on protests and the way in which they are applied. This includes amending the threshold to prevent protests from going ahead on account of the cumulative impact of serious disruption, or where there is the threat of intimidating or abusive conduct based on the persistence of previous arrests. In addition, we will consider his recommendation for greater responsibilities being put on the organisers of protests to limit disruption, and to allow the police to account for demands on their resource in setting conditions to ensure wider public safety in their jurisdictions beyond protests. I will be considering the merits of these suggestions across the coming weeks.

I am already introducing measures through the Criminal Justice Bill that will crack down on dangerous disorder, many of which were inspired by close working with Lord Walney over recent months, as well as ensuring that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and Public Order Act 2023 are implemented at pace. The Government have also introduced serious disruption prevention orders to allow courts to place requirements or prohibitions on an individual aged 18 or over which they consider necessary and proportionate to prevent that individual from causing serious disruption.

We must go further in tackling the root causes. In this vein, the Government have updated the definition of extremism to be used by Departments and officials, alongside a set of engagement principles. This is to ensure they do not—inadvertently or otherwise—provide a platform, funding, or legitimacy to groups or individuals who attempt to advance extremist ideologies that would deny our fundamental rights and freedoms.

I thank Lord Walney for his tireless effort in bringing the report together and will continue to work with him to ensure his report informs ongoing policy development. I will update Parliament on the Government’s progress on the issues raised in Lord Walney’s report in due course.

[HCWS492]

Russia

James Cleverly Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement to the House regarding measures that His Majesty’s Government will take in response to the reckless and dangerous activities of the Russian Government across Europe and now suspected here in the UK.

As was reported on Friday 26 April, five individuals have been charged in connection with an investigation into alleged offences under the National Security Act 2023, as part of a counter-terrorism policing investigation. The offences relate to what was widely reported by the media as a suspected arson attack on a Ukraine-linked business in the UK. The Crown Prosecution Service has confirmed that the charges relate to alleged

“hostile activity in the UK in order to benefit a foreign state—namely Russia.”

I pay tribute to our law enforcement agencies for their quick and professional work to ensure these charges were brought. They are the first charges to be brought under the new National Security Act. Measures that this Government brought forward and this House passed are already being used to keep our country safe.

I thank the emergency services who responded to the fire at a commercial property in London where the suspected activity took place. The charges are serious and it is only through good fortune that nobody was hurt. I reassure the House that public safety is of the utmost importance, which is why the law enforcement response has been quick and decisive.

As Members will appreciate, I must not say anything further on this specific case, or any related case, to avoid prejudicing the outcome of ongoing criminal proceedings. I ask the House to respect that and to avoid using the debate to add to speculation about the incident. It is vital that justice runs its course.

However, I wish to highlight to the House a pattern of suspected Russian activity that we are seeing across Europe. This is not the first time that we have uncovered malign activity in the UK that is seemingly linked to Russia in the past year. In September, five Bulgarian nationals were charged with conspiring to commit espionage activities in the UK on behalf of Russia. A sixth individual was later charged and legal proceedings against all six are ongoing.

There is a much broader pattern of Russian malign activities across Europe. These include: plans for sabotage activities against military aid for Ukraine in Germany and in Poland; espionage in Bulgaria and in Italy; cyber-attacks and disinformation activities; air space violations; and GPS jamming with impact on civil aviation.

Over a number of years, we have witnessed Russia and its intelligence services engage in yet more open and brazen attempts to undermine our security, harm our people and interfere in our democracies. Such attempts involve Litvinenko, Georgia, Crimea, Salisbury, Ukraine and activities across Europe. Since the illegal invasion of Ukraine, the rhetoric, threats and accusations from Russia have only increased, as Putin seeks to justify the death and destruction that he has brought to the Ukrainian people. These activities bear all the hallmarks of a deliberate campaign by Russia designed to “to bring the war home” across Europe, and to undermine our collective resolve to support Ukraine in its fight. It will not work.

As the Prime Minister said in Poland last month, we are at a turning point for European security. With our allies, we will stand firm in the face of Russian threats to the UK and to our way of life. It is why, after Salisbury, we took measures with our partners to make Europe a harder operating environment for Russian intelligence services, including the expulsion of 23 undeclared Russian intelligence officers from the UK. It is also why the UK has announced the biggest strengthening of the UK’s national defence in a generation, with a fully funded plan to grow the defence budget to 2.5% of GDP by 2030.

The UK and our allies will not falter in our support for Ukraine, because it is existential to the security of Europe. This is why the Prime Minister has also announced an uplift in UK military aid to Ukraine, bringing it to £3 billion this year, and has committed to that level of support every year until the end of the decade, or longer if it is sadly still required. We have sanctioned more than 1,700 individuals, over 90% of the Russian banking sector, and more than 130 oligarchs and family members, with a combined net worth of £147 billion at the time of the invasion.

As of October, over £22 billion-worth of Russian assets were reported frozen as a result of UK sanctions. These assets can no longer be taken back to Russia to fund Putin’s war machine. We consider Russia’s campaign to undermine our support for Ukraine as unacceptable and it is destined to fail. We must wait for the ongoing criminal cases across Europe, including here in the UK, to conclude, but given these allegations, the Government will not wait to take further action to send a strong deterrence message to Russia and to further reduce the ability of the Russian intelligence services to threaten the UK. That is why today, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, I am announcing a package of measures to make it clear to Russia that we will not tolerate such apparent escalations.

I can tell the House that we will: expel the Russian defence attaché, an undeclared military intelligence officer; remove diplomatic premises status from several Russian-owned properties in the UK, including Seacox House, a Russia-owned property in Sussex, and the trade and defence section in Highgate, which we believe have been used for intelligence purposes; and impose new restrictions on Russian diplomatic visas, including capping the length of time that Russian diplomats can spend in the UK.

The measures that we and our international partners have taken in recent years have already made the UK an extremely challenging operating environment for the Russian intelligence services. These further measures will serve only to strengthen our resilience to the Russian threat.

Our NATO allies share our view of Russia’s alleged behaviour, as seen in the North Atlantic Council statement of last week. Russia has failed to provide any explanation of these events. In the coming days, we should expect accusations of Russophobia, conspiracy theories, and hysteria from the Russian Government. That is not new and the British people and the British Government will not fall for it and will not be taken for fools by Putin’s bots, trolls and lackeys.

Russia’s explanation was totally inadequate; our response will be resolute and firm.

Our message to Russia is clear: stop this illegal war; withdraw your troops from Ukraine; and cease your malign activities. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

As the Secretary of State himself noted at the beginning of his statement, he has referred to a live case. This case is sub judice and I ask other Members not to refer to it in their questions. I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of the statement.

It is the first job of any Government to keep our country safe from those who wish to do us harm, not least those who wish to undermine our democracy and everything that we stand for. We pay tribute to the remarkable work of our intelligence and security services and our law enforcement agencies—at home and abroad—which strain every sinew to keep us safe. We will always work with the Government on those national security issues.

The arson attack that the Home Secretary describes was a very serious one. The charges now laid are important. We support the work of law enforcement in this case, and it is immensely important that nothing is done to cut across that criminal justice case. I simply ask for the Home Secretary’s reassurance that a investigation is under way not just into the specific offences, but into the wider context and any wider threats to our national security that might be linked with this incident.

The Home Secretary has been clear in linking these charges to Russia and we echo his strong condemnation of Russian interference and hostile activity here in the UK and throughout Europe. Repeatedly, we have seen a brazen disregard by Russia for the rule of law, for the UK, for our allies and for our domestic security. As my right hon. Friends, the shadow Secretaries of State for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and for Defence have made clear, we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government in our support for Ukraine. Any change in Government will not change that strong cross-party support, as we stand with our allies. Putin must be defeated in Ukraine, and Britain must stand four-square behind our Ukrainian friends.

Russia under Putin is a long-term, generational threat to the security of Europe, which requires a long-term response. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Defence Secretary said just yesterday, the defence of the UK starts in Ukraine, but as the Home Secretary has made clear, these challenges are also to our homeland security, which is why we support wholeheartedly the measures that the Home Secretary set out today. Just as we worked on a cross-party basis with the Government to pass the National Security Act 2023, so we will work closely with them in going further. May I ask the Home Secretary a few further questions about these and any further measures that the Government may be able to take and ask him whether he expects there to be a diplomatic response from Russia?

As we saw in Salisbury to an appalling extent, there is a willingness of Russian-sponsored actors to put the safety of British citizens and British residents at risk through cyber-threats—threats to undermine our democracy and our economy. I am concerned that we have known about the scale of these threats for some time, and that, in some areas, we have been too slow to respond. The Home Secretary has been too slow to rid the UK of illicit finance. He will know that concerns have been raised about prohibited imports of Russian-origin oil through third countries making their way to UK shores. Can he tell me what action is being taken to ensure that sanctions are being enforced?

The Home Secretary will know that there is real concern that the UK is still too easy for lawyers and accountants and for the laundering of Russian money through the UK that potentially aids and abets Putin’s war. The US has seized huge amounts of Russian-related assets as part of the sanctions evasion and charged more than 70 individuals in that regard. Can he confirm that no one has yet been charged with sanctions evasion in the US and set out what is being done to address the issue?

The Government said that in principle they support the seizing of Russian assets to fund the reconstruction of Ukraine, but there have been no proposals to take that forward. Will the Home Secretary tell us what is happening there? We have also still not had a full account of the scale of risk from golden visas. He will know, too, that there are threats to our democracy. The work of the defending democracy taskforce is far too limited. While the Security Minister is working on that, what engagement has the Home Secretary had, and has it been discussed at the National Security Council?

Finally, the update to the Government’s integrated review warned in March last year that

“the transition into a multipolar, fragmented and contested world has happened more quickly and definitively than anticipated.”

From the Iranian-sponsored kidnap and kill threats on UK soil to the repression of Hong Kong protesters outside the Chinese consulate in Manchester, the UK has undergone, because of behaviour not just from Russia but more widely, a fundamental shift in the threat landscape, as increasingly aggressive state actors feel emboldened to target the UK, often in co-operation with serious and organised crime. I urge the Home Secretary to look at the work that was done after the huge shift in the terror threat that we faced following 9/11 and 7/7 to draw up the Contest strategy. We do not have a similar strategy for state actors and state-sponsored threats. The work is far too fragmented. The Labour party would like to see a comprehensive equivalent to Contest. I urge him to look again at that. We will work with him on that too.

[James Cleverly]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her party’s commitment to the ongoing support for Ukraine’s self-defence. She was right to read that into the record. There is no doubt about her commitment among Government Members. I reassure her that we do look at the wider threats emanating from Russia. We liaise closely with our international partners. We suspect that other countries in the coalition of support for Ukraine are being targeted by Russia. Those countries will take discrete, domestic actions, but I draw the House’s attention to the shared commitment set out in the North Atlantic Council statement. I do not have the precise quote in front of me, but from memory it said that nations will take both individual and collective action.

Our response is calibrated. It is designed to send a very clear message, as well as hampering Russia’s ability to conduct espionage here in the UK. We will look closely at Russia’s response and whether it seeks to escalate matters. We will always ensure that we protect our ability to have lines of communication with Russia, even during these most challenging of times. Routes for de-escalation, error avoidance and the avoidance of miscalculation are very important. We recognise that, and I believe that Putin’s regime in Moscow recognises that. We will seek to maintain lines of communication, even while we take these decisive actions.

With regard to the extensive sanctions, we moved quickly, in concert with our international friends and allies. Those sanctions are having an effect. Of course Russia seeks to evade sanctions where it can. While sanctions enforcement is primarily the responsibility of the Treasury, it is a cross-Government piece of work. All parts of Government—this was very much the case when I was Foreign Secretary, speaking with our international counterparts and interlocutors—try to close off opportunities for sanctions evasion.

The defending democracy taskforce is incredibly important, particularly as we head towards a general election. We will of course adapt, and seek to work cross-party, because it is in all our interests that we defend democracy. I will continue to ensure that both the Security Minister and I work closely with the shadow Front Bench and other Opposition parties’ Front-Bench teams to protect something that is incredibly valuable.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I welcome the update from the Secretary of State. The United Kingdom has led the world in supporting Ukraine—militarily, economically and diplomatically. Our key ally, the United States, has introduced legislation, put forward by Congressman French Hill, my counterpart in the British-American parliamentary group, on seizing Russian assets and using them to rebuild Ukraine. I introduced a similar Bill in Parliament, which is due for a Second Reading on 17 May, and I have written to the Foreign Secretary about that. Will the Home Secretary clarify whether the United Kingdom will support the measures that the United States has introduced? It is crucial that we do everything that we can to cut off Putin’s finances and ensure that he pays for the reconstruction of Ukraine.

[James Cleverly]

We work very closely with our international allies to put pressure on the Russian regime. We will look closely at the detail of the proposals going through the United States system. There is a very big difference between freezing and seizing of assets. Going from one to the other would need close international co-operation and co-ordination to ensure that we always act within the rule of law. We do not want to inadvertently find ourselves on the receiving end of criticism from a regime such as Putin’s that we are stepping outside the bounds of international law, but we have made it clear that we will be incredibly imaginative and will work hard to ensure that the regime and people who have funded the brutal attack on Ukraine are also those who fund the rebuilding of Ukraine. We will work with our international partners to ensure that is the reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Like him, I pay tribute to those in law enforcement who work so diligently to counter these types of threats, which are extremely well known, and understood right across Europe. Disinformation and other types of hybrid threat are now a feature of democratic life in this country and elsewhere. We need a comprehensive sea change in how we approach that threat—a new whole-of-society approach to dealing with hybrid threats. I am fine to support the Government’s increase in defence spending, but what we really need is new thinking, new doctrines and new institutions in order to compete against threats that are ever evolving, becoming more sophisticated, more aggressive, and extremely well funded.

I will focus in particular on the threat of disinformation, especially because we are in an election year. The Government used to provide Parliament—I cannot quite recall when this stopped—with a six-monthly update on the threat posed by Daesh. Can we have a similar type of statement on hostile disinformation—a written statement to Parliament on a regular basis, informing Members of where the threat is and what is being done to meet it? I echo the comments about pressing the Government to ensure that sanctioned money is converted into Ukrainian hryvnia to allow that country to rebuild. I will not press the Home Secretary on that any further—he knows our views—but while I welcome the seizure of the assets that he mentioned and the expulsion of the defence attaché, I can tell him that there are tons of assets in Scotland, including land, estates and much else, that could also be seized. If he chooses to look into that any further, he will certainly have our support.

[James Cleverly]

It is important that we are precise in our use of language. The Russian assets have been sanctioned and frozen, and there is an important difference between freezing and seizing. As far as I am aware, no one has seized or liquidated Russian assets. However, of course we abide by our commitment to ensure that the people who funded the brutality fund the reconstruction. We are absolutely committed to that.

I have taken note of the hon. Gentleman’s point about regular updates, particularly as disinformation and distortions of our democracy and society have a more direct and immediate effect in the UK than perhaps the activities of Daesh do. I will take on board the practicalities of how much detail we might be able to put in the public domain, but the Government have set aside significant amounts of money to the Defending Democracy Taskforce and the workstreams that flow out from that, to help parliamentarians and candidates at the forthcoming election to defend themselves both physically and digitally against assaults that might come for them. We are looking at ways to ensure that that is as effective as possible. With regard to the point he made about international co-operation, of course we will continue to work closely with our allies; our self-defence has to be collective if it is to be fully effective.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly support every word the Home Secretary has said today. He is right that Putin has been engaged now for at least 10 years—arguably longer—in a sustained, hostile and malign set of actions against the UK and our allies. On occasions where we have not been as overt in our opposition, I think he has taken advantage, so I am glad that the Home Secretary has taken this action. He knows all the things I will ask about: why is there still Russian oil coming into the UK? Why is Russia still exporting the same amount of oil as it did before sanctions were introduced? Why have we still not gone as far as the Americans and Canadians in seeking not just to freeze, but to seize Russian state assets so that they can be used for the development of Ukraine? Why has the Abramovich money still not gone to Ukraine? That would be more than £3 billion, more than the amount the UK has so far devoted. Finally, can he say a word about Vladimir Kara-Murza, a man many of us have met? He is very brave and we want to make sure that the UK Government are doing everything in their power to ensure that he is protected in Russia.

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions, some of which fall within the remit of the Foreign Secretary; the Deputy Foreign Secretary will answer in this House on the Foreign Secretary’s behalf, but I can let the hon. Gentleman know that the answers that I and the Foreign Office have previously given him remain unchanged. We work with our international partners, because both sanctions evasion and the fight against it are by nature international acts. As I say, enforcement is predominantly a Treasury competency and the international co-operation falls within the remit of the FCDO, but we all work to ensure that sanctions evasion does not happen.

I have to correct the hon. Gentleman. Although a number of countries are investigating what a regime for the seizure and liquidation of Russian assets might look like, and we will continue to work with our international partners to explore ways of ensuring that the people who paid for the brutality pay for the rebuilding, it is not accurate to say that other countries have seized and liquidated Russian assets.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to see that we are taking this seriously? The words of the Home Secretary filled me with renewed optimism, because we need both optimism and action. Does he agree that we can never underrate the Russians and Vladimir Putin? The fact is that they are very clever; they are using both financial strategies and dupes in Europe and other places to channel their influence. We must be wary at every level.

Does the Home Secretary think our intelligence services are equipped to cope with the real challenge that we now face from Russia, and indeed from China? Has he been picking up what I am picking up from a lot of my old friends in Washington? Not only are they very disturbed about Russian influence on American elections, but I have heard very strong information that they believe that some of the influence is coming from Russia via London and from the United Kingdom. That is a real problem.

The Home Secretary knows I have a bee in my bonnet about this, but there are people in this Parliament who have been named as very close to Russia. We had a member of the House of Lords featured in a main article in The Times only two weeks ago. Surely we must make our House and our Parliament as clean and above board as possible, and if there are such groups or individuals in this place, we should know about it.

[Mr Speaker]

I presume there was a question?

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with great knowledge and passion about these important issues. He will of course understand that I will not go into detail about intelligence and security matters, but I can reassure him and the House that our intelligence services, the external-facing services and our security services, are incredibly effective. They are without doubt amongst the best in the world, and I would—perhaps rather arrogantly—suggest that they are the best in the world. In my experience both as Home Secretary and in my former role as Foreign Secretary, I have seen the positive diplomatic influence that our agencies exert on our behalf; they are regarded very highly by our allies and international partners. Without going into detail, I hope that he and the House can feel reassured that we are in good hands.

However, we must recognise that, as the hon. Gentleman has said, Russia takes pride in its long history of disinformation, propaganda and kompromat. It wears that history as a badge of honour and it is constantly evolving its threats towards us, so we have to constantly evolve our defences. I can reassure him that we are doing that; the National Security Act 2023 is part of that, but that we reserve the right to take further action, were Russia to be foolish enough to escalate or to attempt once again the actions that we believe it has taken in our country.

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

Neither prosecutions nor penalties have been applied to those importing Russian oil that is refined in, and branded as coming from, India and other countries. At the same time, the threat of closure hangs over Grangemouth refinery. The world knows that this activity is ongoing, and Grangemouth is aware of the threat facing it and industrialisation in Scotland. Is it not time the Minister spoke to colleagues to ensure that not just state security, but energy security is considered, that our refinery capacity remains in Scotland and that, at the same time, those profiting from bringing in Russian oil are prosecuted?

[James Cleverly]

This Government are committed to ensuring security. While they have not been universally applauded, the licences that we have awarded to ensure that there is a vibrant hydrocarbons industry in Scotland are important for jobs, for the Scottish economy, for the UK economy and for our energy security. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that energy security will remain at the forefront of our minds. On sanctions evasion—particularly oil and gas sanctions—I assure him that my noble friend Lord Cameron, as I did when I was Foreign Secretary, raises these issues internationally with those countries still trading with Russia, at every opportunity.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and very much welcome his clear commitment, which encourages all of us in this House and across this great nation. Bearing in mind the overnight raid on Ukraine’s energy facilities and the continued aggression carried out while our eyes are turned towards the middle east, does he not believe that we must send the swift and strong message to Putin that we are approaching the point when decisive action must be taken by the allies, and that we have both the capacity and the will to intervene against the despicable war being waged against the Ukrainian people?

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point that I want to reinforce. It was quite clear that Vladimir Putin thought that the UK and our wider allies would be either distracted or dissuaded from supporting Ukraine when he initiated his full-scale invasion. Nothing could have been further from the truth. If he thought that the evolving situation in Gaza—the terrorist attack against Israel and Israel’s military action to defend itself—would distract us from our support for Ukraine or our self-defence against Russian malign activity, he was again mistaken. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that, although of course we are very focused on the situation in Gaza, south-west Israel and the wider middle east region, we will not lose sight of our commitment to the Ukrainians in their self-defence and to re-establishing the fact that national borders cannot be redrawn by force.