Huntingdon Train Attack

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before the Home Secretary makes her statement, I must advise the House that charges have been brought against a named individual and the matter is now sub judice. Members should take care not to say anything in the House that might prejudice a criminal trial. I therefore urge Members to avoid speculating about the guilt or innocence of an individual, or the motive for the attacks. The Home Secretary may wish to make factual statements for the record. Members may wish to ask about the emergency services, the response to the attacks, the support for victims and families, and connected matters. However, I urge the utmost caution in avoiding any remarks that might prejudice a future trial.

Points of Order

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I invite you to examine column 652 from yesterday’s Hansard, during the exchange about Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters travelling to Aston Villa. In reply to my question, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said she agreed with me about the safety of everyone walking the streets, but she went on to say:

“Perhaps he might make that point to the people he now associates with on his left and right, because that is not what we have heard from them in the last few weeks.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 652.]

There is a suggestion in that that my colleagues have done something other than say that everyone should be able to walk the streets safely in our society. They were concerned about the danger from football supporters acting in a hooliganistic way at the Aston Villa game. I think the Secretary of State should correct what she said—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Jeremy—come on. You have certainly put your view on the record, but what we will not do is continue the debate. You know that as a long-standing Member of this House who has great respect. I will leave it at that, because you have certainly ensured that we are all aware of that correction.

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), despite the Safeguarding Minister’s best efforts to explain whether she is involved concerning the response to the urgent question that you have granted, Mr Speaker, I am genuinely more confused and think that many constituents will be too. Despite the Minister saying that she is not looking to provide a running commentary, May I ask that she update the House clearly to assist on these matters, so that we can avoid urgent questions such as this one?

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Minister.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sure what the hon. Member is confused about. A victims panel was set up to look at both the terms of reference and the appointment of a chair. There is a variety of different groups of people. Some of them have done both; some of them have taken part in just one or the other, usually depending on time and logistics, as she might imagine. That has been managed by an organisation called NWG. I have not taken part in those sessions, other than to feedback on chairs. The feedback on the chair’s appointment comes to me. I do not have to go to that, but I go and sit and listen. Usually, that is the first time I know who has been on the panel, when they have been interviewing chairs. The process is entirely managed. Because of my years of experience, I happen to know quite a lot of the people, and so I do speak to some of the people who are on the panel because I have personal relationships with them and have supported them over the years. I hope that clears that up.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Minister for that.

Rape Gangs: National Statutory Inquiry

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

I will not be chairing the inquiry, so I can only say to my hon. Friend that the terms of reference—I am not sure this is usual—will be consulted on in public. That is because of the issue of bad faith and the concern about transparency. The remit of the inquiry will be decided by the chair, living within those terms of reference. Having been part of various different inquiries or watched them from a distance, I know that no stone will be left unturned. Whoever chairs the inquiry will feel empowered to do what they think is best.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It has been four months and longer since the Home Office announced the national statutory inquiry into group-based child sexual exploitation. I know that Ministers will have wanted quicker progress. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches do, too. We still have no chair, no terms of reference and, most importantly, no justice for the victims who have already waited years. Now, two members of the victims and survivors liaison panel have stepped down after raising concerns about shortlisted chairs. They seem to have lost confidence in the process before it has begun.

The Home Office must listen to and act on the concerns of victims—I know that the Minister will agree—and get the inquiry off the ground. That is the only way to ensure that it proceeds with integrity and the trust of those it is meant to serve.

Now is the time to prioritise justice and prevention over political point scoring—I know that the Minister will agree with me on that, too—because this is an extremely sensitive matter, particularly for the victims. Will the Minister commit to publishing the terms of reference along with full details of the inquiry’s budget and staffing and a timeline by the end of the month? If not to that deadline, when will that be published?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

Absolutely—100%. Far be it from me to speculate about where I would like the inquiry to go, but if I had my way and I was the chair, I would have grave concerns about the area where I live—Members will not be surprised to hear—because that is where I worked. The fact that it has a Labour council would not stop me from wanting to look there. In fact, if the House will excuse my unparliamentary language, I could not give a toss about—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry the Minister felt she had to push it. She is doing an excellent job. She does not need to push it; she is better than that. I call Alison Hume.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister both for her statement and for the passion and rigour that she brings to her role. Even if sometimes she might say things that she has to apologise for, we greatly appreciate her dedication to the role.

[Mr Speaker]

Actually, I granted the urgent question—that is why we are here.

[Alison Hume]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Every survivor’s experience of abuse is unique. Does the Minister agree that taking the time to find the right chair will enable them to ensure that every story will be fully told?

Manchester Terrorism Attack

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about the terrorist attack on 2 October and the action that the Government are taking in response. Let me start by calling this attack what it was: an evil act of antisemitic terrorism that targeted innocent worshippers on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, which was carried out by a terrorist pledging his allegiance to the warped ideology of Islamism. I pay tribute to the two men who were killed on that day, Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby. Their bravery saved countless lives. On behalf of the whole House, I offer my deepest sympathies to their families and their friends. May their memory be a blessing.

A further three men were seriously injured in the attack. I know that all our thoughts are with them, and with all those who were caught up in these terrible events. I also wish to thank those whose bravery saved lives: worshippers, staff and volunteers from the Community Security Trust, and the emergency services, who acted with speed and the utmost professionalism. This is a moment of profound national sorrow. An attack on our Jewish community is an attack on this entire nation, and it calls on us to assert, once more, our determination to tackle extremism, antisemitism and hatred wherever they appear.

Although the events of that day are painful to recount, it is important that we do so. On the morning of Thursday 2 October, a terrorist drove a car at worshippers outside the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation synagogue in Crumpsall, Manchester. The driver then left his vehicle, armed with a knife, and resumed his attack. He was wearing what was later determined to be a fake explosive device, although it should be remembered that all present had every reason to believe that that bomb was real. When the first call to the emergency services came in, Greater Manchester police declared a major incident and firearms officers were deployed. Within seven minutes of that call, the attacker had been intercepted and shot dead. Melvin Cravitz was killed by the attacker. Tragically, initial findings now indicate that Adrian Daulby sustained a gunshot wound during the armed police response.

As is standard in such cases, an investigation is being carried out by the Independent Office of Police Conduct, but there are two things that I can say. First, it is important to note that the IOPC has confirmed that the officers involved in the response are being treated as witnesses. Secondly, it must be remembered that the police acted in a situation in which they believed a terrorist was likely to detonate an explosive device. The necessary processes must now take their course, and I expect the IOPC to complete them as quickly as possible.

There is no ambiguity around who is responsible for the deaths and injuries that took place on that day. Members will be aware that the attack was carried out by Jihad al-Shamie, a 35-year-old British citizen of Syrian descent. We know that he came to this country as a child and was registered as a British citizen while still a minor. He was never referred to the Prevent programme, nor was he known to counter-terrorism policing or the security services. He had, however, recently been arrested on rape charges, for which he was on bail at the time of the attack.

Investigators believe the attacker was influenced by extreme Islamist ideology, evident in a 999 call that he made during the incident in which he pledged allegiance to Islamic State. Six people were arrested following the attack and were released without charge; one was subsequently re-arrested and has been bailed. I know that there are many questions that the public rightly demand answers to, as do Members of this House. Those answers will come, but for now the investigation is ongoing, and we must allow that work to take its course.

We know that voices in the Jewish community had long been warning that this day would come, and that Jews who had long felt safe in this country—in their country—now no longer do. Now that this awful day has come to pass, we must learn from it so that we do everything within our power to ensure that it does not happen again.

Our immediate priority was to enhance security. Visible officer patrols have been stepped up at synagogues and other sites in Manchester and across the country. Additional support has been made available to more than 500 locations, and although there have been long-standing security arrangements in place, with £18 million of funding each year for the Community Security Trust, it is clear that more must be done. We will provide our Jewish community with the protection they deserve, because no one should be forced to live a smaller Jewish life in their country because of the events of 2 October.

Our posture at religious sites is one of maximum vigilance. That applies to the Jewish community, and it also applies to British Muslims. I know that Members from across the House will have been disturbed by a suspected arson attack that took place at a mosque in Peacehaven, East Sussex, last week. The Policing Minister visited the mosque and met those who were forced to flee for their lives in terrifying circumstances, and we have discussed this with my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward), who I know also visited the mosque on Friday.

Let me be clear: violence directed at any community—be they Jewish or Muslim, and of all faiths or none—is an attack on our entire country. I know this country is united in our condemnation of those who seek to divide us, because one of the greatest achievements of this country has been our tolerance, our ability to accept and embrace difference, and our generosity towards those who may not look the same but are encompassed comfortably within a single national identity. It was for that reason that I was so affronted by the protests that took place in the days after the attack. These were a clear source of fear to the Jewish community, who were grieving just days after an unspeakable tragedy. The same was true on the anniversary of the 7 October attacks. I described those protests as “un-British” and I stand by that, because those protesters showed none of the generosity of spirit that I love about this country, and they most certainly did their cause no good whatsoever.

The right to protest is a fundamental freedom, but it must be balanced against the right the public have to their safety and security. In my conversations with community leaders and the police in recent days, it is clear that balance has not been struck. For that reason, I can confirm to the House today that we will amend sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. The police will be able to take account of the cumulative impact of frequent protests when considering whether to impose conditions. This will mean that protests that follow the same routes time and again can be forced to change their route or the time of a protest. I am also reviewing all existing legislation to ensure our public order powers are fit for purpose and are being consistently applied.

The right to protest must and will be protected, but of all the freedoms we enjoy none is more precious than the right to live in safety. The Government’s first responsibility is to keep the public safe. Since 2017, the Security Service and the police have disrupted more than 40 plots, and this work has saved countless lives. Through our counter-terrorism strategy Contest, we continue to tackle threats to this country, including those posed by Islamist terrorism, which remains our primary domestic threat. Through programmes such as Prevent, we seek to stop the slide into extremism that is drawing in far too many young people today.

Once the investigation into this attack is complete, we will know much more about how it took place, but the reality is we now face a domestic terrorist threat in this country that is more complex, less predictable and harder to detect than ever before. That threat will never be defeated unless we address the hate that fuels it. That means acting on the rising tide of antisemitism in this country. I am horrified when I hear our Jewish community talking about their fear in a country that once offered a rare island of sanctuary in an all-too-often hostile world. We have, in the days since the attack, stepped up our efforts to tackle antisemitism wherever it is found—challenging misinformation and hatred in schools, calling on vice-chancellors to do more to protect Jewish students at universities and calling on local authorities to use their powers to protect the community, as well as reviewing the clearly inadequate regulations that protect Jewish staff and patients in the national health service.

While these are important steps, more must be done. Antisemitism is the oldest hatred, and we must now redouble our efforts to fight it once more. Terrorists seek one thing: to divide us. They hate a society like ours where different communities live together in harmony, united by a common identity that transcends the colour of our skin or the nature of our faith. This attack has raised questions that must be answered about the security that we provide to our Jewish community, about how we address a rising tide of antisemitism and about how we bring communities together, rather than allowing some individuals to separate off into dark corners, including how we tackle the continuing threat of Islamist extremism and those who are pulled towards its warped ideology.

However, at the same time we must not let this attack defeat us, nor forget who we really are, because the real face of this country was not that of the vile monster who conducted this attack. It was those who stood up to him and saved their fellow worshippers, and the emergency services who sprinted towards danger to bring the attack to an end. The real face of this country was not those who took to the streets and protested the very next day, but rather those who were horrified by the attack, stood with their Jewish neighbours and chose the path of solidarity over division. The antisemitic terrorist attack of 2 October was a horrifying act. In response to it, I hope the whole House can be united in a simple message: those who seek to divide us by pitting one against another will fail. No act of terror will ever defeat us. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

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

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. This is my first duty as my party’s home affairs spokesperson; I only wish that it was not in response to such a tragedy. My party’s thoughts are with the families of Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz, who were tragically killed. Our thoughts are also with those who were injured, the congregation, and the wider Jewish community, which was the target of a vicious attack on its holiest day, Yom Kippur.

We must all be clear that the attack did not happen in a vacuum. Antisemitism is widespread on Britain’s streets, and British Jews have been living in fear, particularly since Hamas’s horrific terror attacks of 7 October 2023. The Liberal Democrats are committed to ensuring that our Jewish friends and neighbours feel safe walking the streets and worshipping in their synagogues. Those who spread antisemitic hatred or incite violence against Jews, whether online, at marches or elsewhere, must be stopped. That is never acceptable.

I thank the Community Security Trust, as the shadow Home Secretary did, for the incredible job that it does, working with the police, to protect the Jewish community across our country. I praise its collaboration with organisations such as Tell MAMA, with which it shares best practice so that both the Jewish community and the Muslim community can be better protected. I look forward to visiting the CST’s headquarters in the near future as one of my first duties in this role.

We cannot ignore the issue of protests. The right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy, and it is a right that the Liberal Democrats will always protect, but we are also acutely aware of the fear felt by the Jewish community and the harassment that they have felt at some marches. Too often we have seen marches hijacked by people spreading antisemitism and inciting violence against Jews; we saw it even on the night of this appalling attack. My party is unequivocal in its view that those who incite antisemitism and carry it out must be met with the full force of the law.

I say this advisedly, Mr Speaker: unfortunately, the Government’s recent decisions have led to police arresting pensioners for holding up cardboard signs when they should be protecting all communities, including the Jewish community, from those who would cause harm. This undermines the right to protest and, crucially, means that the police are using their time and resources on other things when they should be protecting people. The British Jewish community should not have to suffer violence or live in fear simply because of their identity. We need less “thoughts and prayers” and more action. Will the Home Secretary confirm what additional physical security the Home Office has provided for the Jewish community since the attack?

We must also tackle the underlying root of modern-day antisemitism in this country. If the conversations we have make us feel squeamish and lead us to ask questions that prompt discomforting answers—as questions that I have asked recently have done—that is all the more reason to have them, and to have them more often. Will the Home Secretary, with the Prime Minister, convene a summit of interfaith leaders, communal bodies, education heads and the security services to really get a grip of the ever-growing crisis of antisemitism? Antisemitism, terrorism and hatred can be defeated, but only if we stand united against them and stand for the values that we as British people hold so dear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am sure that the whole House shares the relief at the release of the hostages after such a long period in captivity, having seen their families go through so much. I am sure that we all hope and pray that the peace process in the middle east properly gets under way and that we will see a longer-term resolution as quickly as possible.

We have already increased the police presence at synagogues and other sites of interest and community institutions for the Jewish community all across the country. We are in discussion with the Community Security Trust and other community organisations about what the future looks like in terms of security and other issues. We will report to the House in due course.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for advance sight of it. While I am very supportive of the work that is being done to increase security at Jewish synagogues and other venues, the answer cannot be constantly more security for the Jewish community. The Jewish community need to be able to live their lives fully, as the Home Secretary said, so what steps is she taking to address the extremist ideology of the perpetrator? It is present online, in schools and in mosques; it is addling brains and making people do utterly horrendous things, such as those we saw last week.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is right—the attacker was, at the time of the attack, on police bail for two different charges of rape. All previous contact he had with the police is subject to an IOPC investigation. There are two planks to the IOPC investigation. The first is the shooting itself, but then there is the attacker’s previous contact with the police. Once we have that part of the IOPC’s work completed, I will be able to give much more detail about the exact nature of those alleged offences, why he was dealt with in the way that he was, and if there are any wider lessons to be drawn from that. I assure her that the nexus of misogyny with extremism is something that this Government take very seriously. I am joined on the Front Bench by the Minister for Victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), from the Ministry of Justice, with whom we work closely on these matters. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) that our next publications will focus, if possible—if the investigations have taken place—on the lessons that have been learned from this case.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Of course, we all agree with the Home Secretary, but can we dig a little deeper? There is a reason why the Jewish community is by far our most successful immigrant community, dating from the end of the 19th century. They were determined, and are determined, to integrate into our society in every single way. But let us be realistic: there are some parts of some communities who do not integrate. Will the Government say unequivocally that if someone wants to come and live here, they must think of themselves primarily as British? It does not matter what their colour or faith is—they are British. However strongly they feel about Gaza or anything else, they must approach all issues with our traditional sense of good humour and tolerance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

A constituent of mine tried to act as a good samaritan by handing in a handbag that they had found in the town centre, but they could not do so because Hemel Hempstead police station’s front desk had been closed under the last Government. They were told that they would have to travel to Hatfield police station, which is half an hour away. Does the Minister—I welcome her to her place—agree that the Hemel Hempstead front desk should be reopened so that the police can be even more accessible to our constituents?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am not sure that the Minister has responsibility for matters such as this.

[Sarah Jones]

I am of course happy to talk to my hon. Friend about the situation in his local community so we can ensure that the police are doing all they can to tackle all the crimes that were not considered a priority under the last Government, from antisocial behaviour to low-level threat. That is extremely important to our communities.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Let me begin by welcoming the new Ministers to their places.

The last Conservative Government recruited a record number of police officers, but earlier this year we discovered that despite Labour’s promise of more police, the headcount had already fallen by 1,316 since it came to office. Both the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner have warned that we will lose even more officers. When will the Minister restore police numbers to the levels they were at under the last Conservative Government?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my opposite number for his welcome. Let me also use this opportunity to thank the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), who did a brilliant job as Policing Minister over the past year.

Under the last couple of years of the Conservative Government, shoplifting soared: we saw a 70% increase. Street theft rose by 60% in two years, and the Conservatives ignored antisocial behaviour. Violence and abuse against shop workers was at epidemic levels, and the yo-yoing of the police numbers did not help; the hon. Gentleman may remember that the Conservatives cut them by 20,000. We are prioritising neighbourhood policing. We will ensure that the police have the resources that they need, and we will use new technology to ensure that we are tackling crime as much as we can. Those 3,000 neighbourhood police officers will be in place by next year, and the 13,000 police officers that we have pledged in our manifesto will make a real difference to people’s lives.

[Mr Speaker]

May I gently say that the question is about the Mayor of London and police closures? We have allowed a little bit of leeway. Let us see how we go from here and try to stick to the questions before us.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Ind)]

2. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her Department's policies of the approval under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 between April and June 2025 of the use of 1,656,930 animals over the next five years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me be very clear: I understand the strength of feeling across communities in this country about the use of hotels, in particular—the right to protest is an ancient right in this country, and we will protect it—but it is important that we do not slip into rhetoric that incites violence or hatred towards other communities. I love the St George’s flag and I love the Union Jack. Those flags belong to me as much as they do to anybody else, and we must never allow any of our flags to become symbols of division.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Lots of people know that under this Government, the number of people arriving illegally has hit a record high. What many do not know is that this Labour Government are repealing the power to scientifically test the age of those arriving and are hiding the data on the number making false claims about their age. Why are the Government doing away with powers that could prevent adult migrants from getting into classrooms with children, and why are they hiding this data from the British people?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Coming from one of the Conservative Members who, frankly, did nothing across their period in office and who are responsible for the mess I am having to clear up, I think that is a little bit rich. This Government have been absolutely transparent. We will carry on being so, and we will publish all the relevant data at the appropriate time. I am very clear that nobody who tries to game our system will get away with it. We will strengthen our rules, rather than weaken them, which is what we saw under the Conservative party.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Many of those who come to this country by crossing the channel go on to be granted refugee status. Earlier this month, the Government backtracked on their promise to continue with the 56-day move-on period for those granted refugee status, barely weeks after a Home Office Minister assured this House that the policy would last until the end of the year. The move-on period extension was working, in that it was giving refugees time to secure work and housing while shielding local councils from sudden surges in homelessness caused by people being forced out of asylum accommodation too quickly. Halving the move-on period is worse for refugees who want to support themselves, worse for the communities supporting them until they can get on their feet and certainly worse for already stretched council budgets. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is better to do what works, both for refugees and for communities welcoming them, and will she look again at reinstating a policy that worked, rather than chasing headlines?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Minister—welcome.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

This Government remain committed to supporting Ukraine following Russia’s vile, illegal invasion. I acknowledge the warmth and generosity shown by so many local communities in supporting Ukrainians in the UK. Since the conflict began, more than 300,000 Ukrainians have been offered temporary sanctuary through the dedicated Ukraine schemes. Ukrainians can still apply to the Homes for Ukraine scheme with a UK sponsor and, once here, extend their stay to a total of 3.5 years, as recently announced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the fact that we are signed up to the European convention underpins other international agreements that we have with partners. It underpins the Good Friday agreement. It also underpins our treaty with the French on the France returns pilot. That is why we should be responsible in taking forward a conversation on reform of the convention, and that is the approach we are taking. I was taking that approach in my previous role, and I will carry on doing so as Home Secretary.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Home Secretary to her place. I very much look forward to the exchanges that we will have, so long as the Prime Minister leaves her in post. When it comes to human rights, does she not accept that tinkering around the edges simply will not work? She said in her answer a second ago that she wants to see the ECHR reformed, but her own Government’s Attorney General Lord Hermer said just four days ago that ECHR reform is a “political trick”. Perhaps she and the Attorney General should get themselves on the same page. Given that the Attorney General says that reform is not possible, does she not agree that more fundamental changes are needed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) said a moment ago? This year has been the worst in history for illegal immigrants crossing the channel—the number is up 38%, compared with last year. Only radical change will fix this mess, so will the Home Secretary back the Conservative plans to completely disapply the Human Rights Act 1998 and ensure that all illegal immigrants are immediately removed upon arrival?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. You know the score; you know we have to get through questions. When colleagues do not get in, they will blame the shadow Home Secretary. Please try to help others.

[Shabana Mahmood]

After that performance, I have to confess that I find myself rather missing the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). The shadow Minister says that we are tinkering at the edges. He could not be more wrong; we have a proper plan for looking at legislative reform. But tinkering at the edges would have been fantastic under the Conservatives, because their track record is that they did nothing—sod all—in 14 years. Suddenly, they have found their reforming instincts now that they are in opposition. This Government will take forward domestic as well as international reform.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

For the sake of the victims, who we all think about today, we must ensure that we get this right. There were multiple issues with the chair at the start of Baroness Jay’s inquiry, which took many years. We want to do what Baroness Casey has recommended, do this right and properly, and do this alongside the victims, whom we are talking to. We must, of course, lead the way on this. We will ensure that we get the right strategy; it is for Scotland and the Scottish Government to decide on whether to have a similar strategy. It is important to say that, alongside having this important national strategy, we are putting in place lots of other policies to tackle this kind of crime.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

The Conservatives raised the issue of a national statutory inquiry in January. The Government attempted to block our calls for an inquiry until they were forced into a U-turn in June. On 2 September, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), said,

“this Government will not lose any more time in pursuing truth and justice for victims and survivors,” —[Official Report, 2 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 160.]

yet here we stand today—no start date, no chair announced, and no terms of reference agreed. The victims need actions, not words, so will the Minister please tell the victims of these abhorrent crimes when the national inquiry will begin—or will this Secretary of State have to be forced into action, just like the last?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

This year, £200 million has been made available to forces to kick-start the delivery of 13,000 more neighbourhood officers across England and Wales. I would be very happy to talk to my hon. Friend about the issues that he is facing. We must tackle antisocial behaviour.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary accept that her predecessor was moved because this Government are failing on immigration? Indeed, 75% of the public think that the Government are failing. Illegal migration is up 38%, making this the worst year in history. Let me try again: will the Home Secretary take this opportunity to commit to real action, back our plans to disapply the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to all immigration matters, and immediately remove every illegal immigrant upon arrival?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the question, because the targeted intimidation and harassment of elected representatives is completely unacceptable. The defending democracy taskforce works to ensure the safety and security of all electoral processes and democratic institutions, and to strengthen democratic society. We are conducting a review of the harassment and intimidation faced by elected representatives. The taskforce has also concluded a review of transnational repression, and we have updated Parliament on that. I hope this will be a shared endeavour, right across the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

This weekend, as the Home Secretary said, Elon Musk used a rally to call—alongside convicted criminal, so-called Tommy Robinson—for the Dissolution of Parliament, and to incite violence on our streets. Given the seriousness of a high-profile figure apparently urging attacks on our democracy, what assessment has the Home Office made of these statements, and what steps are being taken across Government to respond to them, and to protect our democracy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

I share my hon. Friend’s important interest in that issue. I would never miss a chance to meet her and I would be very glad to do so.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to the urgent question, I should remind hon. Members to avoid referring directly to criminal cases that are currently before the courts. There is also an active application for judicial review relating to the proscription of Palestine Action. I have decided to grant a waiver in relation to that case, as it concerns a matter of public order in which there is significant public interest. Members may therefore refer to that case.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

Anyone who wishes to demonstrate about the humanitarian situation in Gaza or the actions of any Government, including our own, has the absolute freedom to gather with others and voice their views, provided that they do so within the law, but supporting Palestine and supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation are not the same thing. The vitally important issue of Palestinian rights should not be co-opted by one organisation that has shown that it is willing to use violence in pursuit of its cause. The clear advice and intelligence given to the then Home Secretary earlier this year was that Palestine Action satisfied the relevant tests in the Terrorism Act 2000 and should be proscribed.

Some of those holding placards in support of Palestine Action may not know the extent of its activities. It has conducted an escalating campaign involving intimidation and sustained criminal damage, including to Britain’s national security infrastructure. Some of its attacks have involved the use of weapons, resulting in alleged violence and serious injuries to individuals. Palestine Action’s members have been charged with violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent, actual bodily harm, criminal damage and aggravated burglary—charges that include, in the assessment of the independent Crown Prosecution Service, a terrorism connection.

These are not the actions of a legitimate protest group, and for a Government to ignore expert security assessments, advice and recommendations would be highly irresponsible. Were there to be further serious attacks or injuries, questions would rightly be asked about why action had not been taken.

The Metropolitan police has confirmed that a total of 890 arrests were made at a demonstration in central London on Saturday. Most of those were under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 for displaying articles in support of Palestine Action. Thirty-three people were arrested for other offences, including 17 assaults on police officers. As the Metropolitan police has pointed out, that was in stark contrast to the 20,000 people who peacefully marched and attended the Palestine Solidarity Campaign demonstration.

Demonstrations of this scale require a significant policing response. The new Home Secretary joined the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police on Saturday to observe the force’s operations and express her backing for the officers working tirelessly to enforce our laws and to maintain order. The fact that some officers were subjected to violence and abuse is utterly shameful.

It is completely understandable that people rightly feel very strongly about the situation in Gaza. But supporting or being a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation is a criminal offence and will never be acceptable, regardless of the wider context. We all want the suffering in Gaza to end and the remaining hostages to be returned. We all want to see peace. I say to the House that we must keep our focus squarely on achieving those aims and not on one harmful group that refuses to abide by our laws and threatens our public safety.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not know who is doing the speeches, but I am going to crack down on Ministers and shadow Ministers if they do not keep to three minutes. I have to get Back Benchers in. Does the Minister agree to stick to the time in the future?

[Dan Jarvis]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you—I am glad that there is some acknowledgment.

[Ms Creasy]

Nearly 1,500 people have now been arrested because of concerns about proscription. There is clearly a problem with violence and intimidation in our politics, and we have to get this right because public confidence is falling, too. I am not here as a supporter or defender of Palestine Action and its tactics. I condemn without hesitation abuse, intimidation and attacks on the police and any political opponent. The case for acting on the group itself was and is strong. We have seen a pattern of violence at its events, and it has not dissociated itself from that violence. But we also see police and refugees being targeted for violence alongside those who want to protest about immigration matters—banners that say, “Kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out!”, neo-Nazi groups circling. We cannot ignore the impact on policing on our streets because of these incidents, but this is just not sustainable for our police or our criminal justice system.

There is a difference between people protesting using violence and people protesting the use of proscription. If we do not get the response right, if we continue to arrest those in that secondary category, the seriousness of the term “terrorism” risks losing its meaning and becoming diluted rather than strengthened. Proscription was supposed to be about stopping those inciting direct harm and violence. Going after somebody with a poster testing the boundaries of liberty—many of whom are clear that they do not support Palestine Action, but feel strongly about Palestinian rights or free speech—confuses rather than clarifies the Government’s intention. People must be able to protest what is happening in Gaza, and the focus should be on what is happening in Palestine, not Parliament Square.

I asked for this urgent question because I think it is for us to act. Legislation on public order focuses on specific Acts; proscription orders target specific terrorist groups. Nothing sits in between. Given that, what discussions has the Minister had with the police about distinguishing between members of Palestine Action and people concerned about proscription itself? [Interruption.] The offence of recklessly encouraging support of a proscribed group runs counter to that focus on criminality. If he will not abolish that offence, will he at least set out guidance to the Crown Prosecution Service and the police on any public interest test in using it? The previous Policing Minister—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is what happens. I granted the urgent question because I thought it was important to hear you, and you were advised that it was two minutes. I think you have now finished or are about to.

[Ms Creasy]

I do apologise, Mr Speaker. I was advised that it was three minutes, but that is my fault.

Terrorism is different from terrorising opponents, but both should be criminal offences. Will the Minister commit to a review of that section so that we can get it right for the sake of our democracy?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I believe the advice was corrected to two minutes. [Interruption.] That is correct. I do not want my department to be blamed.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing these issues to the House. They are important, and it is right that Ministers are held accountable for them.

I am sure that the whole House will agree with my hon. Friend’s remarks about violence and intimidation, which have absolutely no place in our politics. She will be aware that there is a significant body of work taking place across Government, co-ordinated by the defending democracy taskforce, to ensure that all our elected representatives are able to do their duty and represent their constituents without fear or favour. The Government take that very seriously indeed.

My hon. Friend made a number of points, and I will struggle to respond to all of them. She will understand that the police are operationally independent of Government, but of course we remain in regular contact. It is important to take this opportunity to thank the police for their important work. They come under a huge amount of scrutiny—rightly so—but I think we saw at the weekend an impeccable police operation in which brave officers stood and did their duty, at least 17 of whom were allegedly assaulted in the line of duty.

The final thing to say to my hon. Friend relates to drawing the distinction, as she will well understand, on the absolute right of anybody in our country to express their concern about the desperately difficult situation in the middle east and more specifically in Gaza. The ability to go to the streets and join others in expressing individual or collective concern about unfolding events, be they in this country or further afield, is a cornerstone of our democracy. This Government would never do anything to get in the way of that. It was interesting that tens of thousands of people took to the streets this weekend and were able to express their concern in an entirely lawful way.

My hon. Friend asks about whether we are seeking to review any elements of the Terrorism Act. It is worth pointing her to the recently published article by Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who said with regard to tackling Palestine Action that

“There is no way ordinary criminal law would be effective against funding, training and recruitment.”

The Government must ensure public safety, and that is what we will seek to do.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I take the opportunity to acknowledge the difficult job that the police do. In my experience, recently and over a longer period, the police have done an excellent job, often under very difficult circumstances. It is important that we consider proportionality. These operational judgments have to be made by the police, often on the ground and often under pressure or in difficult circumstances. It is also important that we consider that we would not tolerate the kind of activity that we have seen in recent days and weeks from an organisation that was motivated, for example, by Islamist extremism, or by an extreme right-wing ideology. Similarly, we cannot tolerate that activity from Palestine Action, and this Government will support the police in doing the difficult job that we have asked them to do.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of a liberal democracy, but events over the weekend have set a dangerous precedent and risk having a chilling impact on free speech and legitimate protest in the UK. The arrest of 857 protesters under terror laws, following hundreds of arrests under the same powers last month, is deeply alarming. The Lib Dems warned that that would be exactly what happened when the Conservatives expanded terrorism powers in 2018. There is no doubt that those using violence, antisemitic abuse or hate speech must face the consequences, but those crimes are already covered by existing law. It cannot be right that simply displaying a placard in support of a proscribed organisation, while peacefully protesting, can result in a conviction and up to six months in prison. Will the Minister urgently review terrorism legislation, specifically as it is impacting the right to protest peacefully, to ensure it is proportionate and contains the nuance that it so clearly needs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in and concern about these matters. I give her an absolute assurance that the law is being applied fairly. I say to her—I know that she will agree with this—that nobody is above the law. It is important to think about how we collectively seek to respond to those who behave in a similar way but underpinned by very different causes, such as extreme Islamist terrorism or an extreme right-wing ideology. If people were demonstrating on behalf of those organisations in the same way that we have seen people demonstrating in support of Palestine Action, I think people would absolutely want the police to act in the way that they saw them act over the weekend. I say again: the law is being applied fairly; nobody is above the law; and the police need to be able to ensure that they are able to enforce it without fear or favour, and that is what I think they did over the weekend.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

The burden of policing these protests is falling on certain forces more than others. That was also the case during the disorder last summer. Can the Minister give some reassurance that the Home Office is providing the support that is needed to those forces to ensure that they can manage the protests and so that their doing so does not distract from day-to-day policing?

Borders and Asylum

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to the statement by the Home Secretary, I should like to say something about the House’s sub judice resolution. The case of Epping Forest district council v. Somani Hotels is still active and before the courts, but because the case concerns wider issues relating to the planning consent required for hotels to house asylum seekers, I have decided to grant a waiver so that Members are free to refer to it in proceedings. However, I remind the House that there are other active criminal prosecutions related to disorder around the Bell hotel and elsewhere, as well as one prosecution of an asylum seeker for alleged sexual offences. Hon. Members may refer to the general issues relating to asylum accommodation, but should avoid discussing any specific criminal cases.

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

With permission, I will update the House on the actions we are taking with France to strengthen our border security and the next steps in our reforms to the asylum system.

The House will be aware that when we came into government, we found an asylum and immigration system in chaos: for seven years, small boat gangs had been allowed to embed their criminal trade along the French coast; the asylum backlog was soaring; and illegal working was being ignored. The previous Government had lost control of the system and, as a result, opened many hundreds of asylum hotels across the country, while returns were a third lower than in 2010. Before leaving office, they deliberately cut asylum decision making by 70%, leaving behind a steeply rising backlog. It is little wonder that people across the country lost confidence in the system and demanded to know why they were paying the price of a system that was so out of control.

However, that does not mean that people rejected the long and proud history of Britain doing our bit to help those fleeing persecution or conflict—including, in the past decade, families from Ukraine, Syria and Hong Kong. It is the British way to do our bit alongside other countries to help those who need sanctuary. However, the system has to be controlled and managed, based on fair and properly enforced rules, not chaos and exploitation driven by criminal smuggler gangs. It is exactly because of our important tradition that substantial reforms are needed now.

In our first year in government, we have taken immediate action, laying the foundations for more fundamental reform. We restored asylum decision making and then rapidly increased the rate of decisions. Had we continued with the previous Government’s freeze on asylum decisions, thousands more people would have been in hotels and asylum accommodation by now. Instead, we removed 35,000 people with no right to be here, which included a 28% increase in returns of failed asylum seekers and a 14% increase in removals of foreign criminals. We have increased raids and arrests on illegal working by 50%, and we cut the annual hotel bill by almost a billion pounds in the last financial year. We are rolling out digital ID and biometric kits so that immigration enforcement can check on the spot whether someone has a right to work or a right to be in the UK. On channel crossings and organised immigration crime, we are putting in place new powers, new structures and new international agreements to help to dismantle the criminal industry behind the boats.

I want to update the House on the further steps we are now taking. In August, I signed the new treaty with France allowing us, for the first time, to directly return those who arrive on small boats. The first detentions—of people immediately on arrival in Dover—took place the next day, and we expect the first returns to begin later this month. Applications have been opened for the reciprocal legal route, with the first cases under consideration, subject to strict security checks. We have made it clear that this is a pilot scheme, but the more that we prove the concept at the outset, the better we will be able to develop and grow it.

The principles the treaty embodies are crucial. No one should be making these dangerous or illegal journeys on small boats; if they do, we want to see them swiftly returned. In return, we believe in doing our bit alongside other countries to help those who have fled persecution through managed and controlled legal programmes.

This summer we have taken further action to strengthen enforcement against smuggling gangs. France has reviewed its maritime approach to allow for the interception of taxi boats in French waters, and we will continue to work with France to implement the change as soon as possible. In the past year, the National Crime Agency has led 347 disruptions of immigration crime networks—its highest level on record, and a 40% increase in a year.

Over the summer, we announced a £100 million uplift in funding for border security and up to 300 more personnel in the National Crime Agency focusing on targeting the smuggler gangs. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill will give them stronger powers: counter-terrorism powers against smuggler gangs, powers to seize and download the mobile phones of small boat arrivals, and the power to ban sex offenders from the asylum system altogether. If Opposition parties work with us to speed the passage of the Bill through the other place, instead of opposing it, those powers could be in place within months, making our country safer and more secure.

Let me turn to the major reforms that are needed to fix the broken asylum system that we inherited. Although we have increased decision making and returns, the overall system remains sclerotic, outdated and unfair. As we committed to in the immigration White Paper, we will shortly set out more radical reforms to modernise the asylum system and boost our border security. We will be tackling the pull factors, strengthening enforcement, making sure that people are treated fairly and reforming the way that the European convention on human rights is interpreted here at home. We will be speeding up the system, cutting numbers and ending the use of hotels, and developing controlled and managed routes for genuine refugees.

At the heart of the reforms will be a complete overhaul of the appeals system—the biggest obstacle to reducing the size of the asylum system and ending hotel use. Tens of thousands of people in asylum accommodation are currently waiting for appeals, and under the current system that figure is to grow, with an average wait time already of 54 weeks. We have already funded thousands of additional sitting days this year, and the border security Bill will introduce a statutory timeframe of 24 weeks.

However, we need to go further. We will introduce a new independent body to deal with immigration and asylum appeals. It will be fully independent of Government and staffed by professionally trained adjudicators, with safeguards to ensure high standards. It will be able to surge capacity as needed and to accelerate and prioritise cases, alongside new procedures to tackle repeat applications and unnecessary delays. We are also increasing detention and returns capacity, including a 1,000-bed expansion at Campsfield and Haslar, with the first tranche of additional beds coming online within months to support many thousands more enforced removals each year.

Our reforms will also address the overly complex system for family migration, including changes to the way that article 8 of the ECHR is interpreted. We should be clear that international law is important. It is because other countries know that we abide by international law that we have been able to make new agreements with France, to return people who arrive on small boats, and with Germany, to stop the warehousing of small boats by criminal gangs, and it is why we have been able to explore return hubs partnerships with other European countries. However, we need the interpretation of international law to keep up with the realities and challenges of today’s world.

There is one area where we need to make more immediate changes. The current rules for family reunion for refugees were designed many years ago to help families separated by war, conflict and persecution, but the way they are used has now changed. Even just before the pandemic, refugees who applied to bring family to the UK did so on average more than one or two years after they had been granted protection, which was long enough for them to get jobs, find housing and be able to provide their family with some support. In Denmark and Switzerland, those who are granted humanitarian protection are currently not able to apply to bring family for at least two years after protection has been granted.

However, in the UK those family applications now come in, on average, around a month after protection has been granted, often even before a newly granted refugee has left asylum accommodation. As a consequence, refugee families who arrive are far more likely to seek homelessness assistance. Some councils are finding that more than a quarter of their family homelessness applications are linked to refugee family reunion. That is not sustainable. Currently, there are also no conditions on family reunion for refugee sponsors, unlike those in place if the sponsor is a British citizen or long-term UK resident. That is not fair.

The proportion of migrants who have arrived on small boats and then applied to bring family has also increased sharply in recent years, with signs that smuggler gangs are now able to use the promise of family reunion to promote dangerous journeys to the UK. We continue to believe that families staying together is important, which is why we will seek to prioritise family groups among the applicants to come to Britain under our new deal with France, but reforms are needed. So in our asylum policy statement later this year, we will set out a new system for family migration, including looking at contribution requirements, longer periods before newly granted refugees can apply, and dedicated controlled arrangements for unaccompanied children and those fleeing persecution who have family in the UK.

We aim to have some of those changes in place for the spring, but in the meantime we do need to address the immediate pressures on local authorities and the risks from criminal gangs using family reunion as a pull factor to encourage more people on to dangerous boats. Therefore, this week we are bringing forward new immigration rules to temporarily suspend new applications under the existing dedicated refugee family reunion route. Until the new framework is introduced, refugees will be covered by the same family migration rules and conditions as everyone else.

Let me turn next to the action we are taking to ensure that every asylum hotel will be closed for good under this Government, not just by shifting individuals from hotels to other sites but by driving down the numbers in supported accommodation overall, and not in a chaotic way through piecemeal court judgments, but through a controlled, managed and orderly programme: driving down inflow into the asylum system, clearing the appeals backlog, which is crucial, and continuing to increase returns. Within the asylum estate, we are reconfiguring sites, increasing room sharing, tightening the test for accommodation and working at pace to identify alternative, cheaper and more appropriate accommodation with other Departments and with local authorities. We are increasing standards and security and joint public safety co-operation between the police, accommodation providers and the Home Office to ensure that laws and rules are enforced.

I understand and agree with local councils and communities who want the asylum hotels in their communities closed, because we need to close all asylum hotels—we need to do so for good—but that must be done in a controlled and orderly manner, not through a return to the previous Government’s chaos that led to the opening of hotels in the first place.

Finally, let me update the House on the continued legal and controlled support that we will provide for those facing conflict and persecution. We will continue to do our bit to support Ukraine, extending the Ukraine permission extension scheme by a further 24 months, with further details to be set out in due course. We are also taking immediate action to rescue children who have been seriously injured in the horrendous onslaught on civilians in Gaza so that they can get the health treatment they need. The Foreign Secretary will update the House shortly on the progress to get those children out.

I confirm that the Home Office has put in place systems to issue expedited visas with biometric checks conducted prior to arrival for children and their immediate accompanying family members. We have done the same for all the Chevening scholars and are now in the process of doing so for the next group of students from Gaza who have been awarded fully funded scholarships and places at UK universities so that they can start their studies in autumn this year. Later this year, we will set out plans to establish a permanent framework for refugee students to come and study in the UK so that we can help more talented young people fleeing war and persecution to find a better future, alongside capped and managed ways for refugees to work here in the UK.

The Government are determined to fix every aspect of the broken system we inherited and to restore the confidence of the British people, solving problems, not exploiting them, with a serious and comprehensive plan, not fantasy claims based on sums that do not add up or gimmicks that failed in the past. What we will never do is seek to stir up chaos, division or hate, because that is not who we are as a country, and that is not what Britain stands for.

This is a practical plan to strengthen our border security, to fix the asylum chaos and to rebuild confidence in an asylum and immigration system that serves our national interests, protects our national security and reflects our national values. When we wave the Union flag, when we wave the St George’s flag, when we sing “God Save the King” and when we celebrate everything that is great about Britain and about our country, we do so with pride because of the values that our flags, our King and our country represent: togetherness, fairness and decency, respect for each other and respect for the rule of law. That is what our country stands for. That is the British way to fix the problems we face. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Anyone who comes to our country needs to abide by our laws. The rules need to be enforced. We also believe that new partnership and stronger measures are needed between policing and immigration enforcement and the Home Office to ensure that there are proper public safety plans for the asylum estate. We are drawing up new arrangements, including not only stronger checks at the border but stronger arrangements in local communities. I recognise the important point that she makes.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary, as always, for advance sight of her statement.

Anyone with any sense knows that the Conservatives trashed our asylum system and left the backlog spiralling out of control, with applications for asylum routinely taking years to process. Some of the Home Secretary’s remarks are welcome, but I worry that this Government risk repeating some of the same mistakes.

The Liberal Democrats will closely scrutinise the plan that the Home Secretary has talked about today, but given that the Home Office itself says that one of the reasons that those human beings seeking asylum make dangerous small-boat crossings is the lack of safe, alternative family reunion routes, cutting those back further seems counterproductive, especially when more than half of those granted family reunion visas in the year ending June 2025 were children under 18.

It is right that the Government have increased the rate of decisions made—those with no right to be here should be sent back swiftly, and those who have a valid claim should be able to settle, work, integrate and contribute to our communities. The backlog is still too large, however, and initial application decisions still take too long. As the Home Secretary stated, a significant share of the backlog comes from appeals. According to the Government’s own figures, in 2024 almost half of rejected asylum applications were overturned on appeal. For applicants from high-grant countries, that proportion was even higher. I would welcome clarity from the Home Secretary on how long it is currently taking to process the average asylum application, and on what concrete steps are being taken to ensure not only that cases are processed more swiftly, but that decisions are right the first time, so that applicants are not left in limbo, the courts are not overburdened and taxpayers are not footing the bill for avoidable delays.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s encouraging comments about the reciprocal agreement with France. Can she confirm whether the Government plan for that to be scaled up and, if so, when? Given that one of the main drivers of dangerous channel crossings is the absence of safe, legal family reunion routes, does the Home Secretary agree that cutting family reunion rules risks making the small-boat crisis worse, not better?

The Home Secretary rightly also mentioned the impact on local authorities. When individuals leave hotels, many present as homeless, creating an unsustainable burden on councils, including my own. Will the Home Secretary explain how she is working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to support councils and ensure that this crisis is not simply shifted from one overstretched system to another?

In recent weeks, constituents have been in touch with me as they are concerned about the number of flags that have gone up on lampposts around our area. They worry that the flags have been put up by those who seek to divide our community, not bring it together. Patriotism is a good thing. We should be proud of our country. We should be proud that our country welcomed people such as my nan in the 1930s, when she was fleeing the Nazis. We should be proud of our record of doing our bit. We should be proud of the British values I see in action across my community every day.

I am proud of those police officers who kept everyone safe during the protests at two hotels in my constituency over the summer; proud of those teachers and pupils who welcome new classmates when they have been placed in one of the hotels; and really proud of those who volunteer their time to support new arrivals, whether through local churches or other voluntary groups and charities—because that is what patriotism looks like.

Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the shadow Home Secretary to ask this urgent question, I remind the House that hon. Members must not refer to any matters that are currently before the courts. Members are free to refer to broader policy issues, but they should not get into the details of the specific cases for which criminal charges are being brought.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

There was no proper management of public safety risks posed by individual asylum seekers. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Do we both understand?

[Chris Philp]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

Okay. Carry on, Minister.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

There was no proper management of public safety risks posed by individual asylum seekers, and migrants could work illegally in the gig economy with few sanctions for the companies responsible.

This Government are gripping the situation and turning the system around. We have removed 5,179 foreign national offenders in our first year in office. Just to put that in perspective for the benefit of the House, that is more foreign criminals than were removed in the entire 20 months when the right hon. Gentleman was the Minister for Immigration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend will know that the Immigration Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), who I believe gave evidence to the esteemed Home Affairs Committee on which he sits, is looking at that issue. A number of companies have been reported in the press as employing or using people in particular from asylum hotels—I know the shadow Home Secretary has taken a particular interest in this—and the Minister is working very hard to ensure that those companies are held to account, and that the new provisions we are bringing in to ensure that the gig economy is treated in the same way as other employers, who have to check individuals’ immigration status, are followed through. There is much more to do, but certainly I know the Immigration Minister is working hard on this.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The scenes of violent unrest at the Bell hotel this weekend are deeply concerning. Liberal Democrats will always defend the right to peaceful protest, but what we saw went far beyond that. There is no place for that sort of violence and thuggery in our society. I thank the police and the emergency services for their brave and professional response, and my thoughts go out to anyone who is feeling frightened as a result of those unacceptable scenes.

It is completely understandable that people are concerned about criminal activity, not least after the former Conservative Government’s chaotic approach to immigration shattered public trust. That is why we need an efficient asylum system that swiftly returns those without a genuine right to stay. I would welcome details from the Minister on what steps the Government are taking to deliver that. Clear rules that are properly enforced will be key to rebuilding public trust in the system after it was broken by the Conservatives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am the Policing Minister, but I know that work is already under way on that issue. The Immigration Minister has had a number of conversations, particularly with employers, as I have just said, about where work should not be taking place because of individuals’ immigration status. There has been investment in the National Crime Agency—additional officers are working on this issue—and work is under way on smashing the gangs who were behind bringing people across in the small boats. There are also our international arrangements and treaties that we are signing with various countries, which the previous Government were unable to do.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

This is a real national crisis, and there is such an outcry and such outrage in the country that there is a real danger that people will take the law into their own hands, which we all deprecate. We have to solve this, and the only way to do so is to have a reasonable and proper deterrent. We must arrest the people who land on our shores, detain them and send them back to where they came from. The Human Rights Act 1998 was never intended to cover illegal immigrants of this sort. We have to do this for all our sakes; otherwise, people will wrongly take the law into their own hands.

Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 11th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to our proceedings, I remind Members of the difference between Report and Third Reading. The scope of debate on Report is the amendments I have selected. The scope of the Third Reading debate to follow will be the whole Bill as it stands after Report. Members may wish to consider those points before deciding at which stage, or stages, they want to try to catch my eye.

Clause 1

Offence of unauthorised entry to designated football matches

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “or attempts to enter”.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, page 1, line 8, leave out “or attempted entry”.

Amendment 3, page 1, line 11, leave out “or attempting to enter”.Amendment 4, page 1, line 13, leave out “or attempted to enter”.

Amendment 5, page 1, line 15, leave out “or attempted entry”.

Amendment 6, clause 2, page 2, line 3, leave out from “force” to end of line 4 and insert

“at the end of the period of 2 months beginning with the day on which it is passed.”.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Many people watching and observing proceedings in Parliament will wonder whether we have our priorities right. The Bill is about unauthorised entry to football matches in particular circumstances, but I think most people are much more concerned about the proliferation of unauthorised entry into our very country, and the failure of the Home Office and its officials to do anything effective about it. In my submission, the Bill is a trivialisation of legislation by Home Office officials who should be doing other things—but I will not dwell on that now, Mr Speaker.

The long title of the Bill states that its purpose is to

“Create an offence of unauthorised entry at football matches for which a football banning order can be imposed following conviction.”

However, it is about not just unauthorised entry but any attempt at unauthorised entry. My amendments are designed to exclude from the Bill provisions relating to attempts to enter. Such attempts are less important than actual unlawful entry, and to include them in the same category is disproportionate and unreasonable. When we come on to debate other parts of the Bill on Third Reading, points can be made about the Bill more generally, but it seems to me that someone attempting to enter a football match without authorisation should not be subject to the same penalties, as set out in the Bill, as people who actually succeed in getting into a football match.

Actually, 11 July is quite an interesting date. On this very day four years ago the 2020 Euros final at Wembley stadium resulted in the unauthorised entry of thousands of fans, which caused a lot of disorder. Baroness Casey, who is an expert on producing reports, was commissioned by the Football Association to look into that issue and come forward with recommendations. In her report, which spanned more than 100 pages, she emphasised the fact that much of the disorder was nothing to do with people coming in without tickets and tailgating; in fact, a lot of it was attributed to other failures to enforce the law, in particular the taking of drugs and alcohol on public transport in London, which is verboten, and the taking of drugs in the vicinity of a football match, which should also be forbidden but was allowed to proceed with impunity. She also made the point that unlike at many football matches, what happened at Wembley was largely exacerbated by the inadequacy of the stewarding arrangements.

As a result of Baroness Casey’s report, the Home Office decided to bring forward this Bill. However, nowhere could I find in the report any reference to the fact that Baroness Casey wanted to treat attempts to enter in exactly the same way as entering, which is why I have put forward these amendments. There is no need to expand on that except to say that it is in common law. Normally, an attempt to commit a criminal offence is an inchoate action, which can itself be the subject of criminal proceedings; in those circumstances, there would be no need to have this provision written into the Bill.

It seems to me that the provisions would create a penalty that is quite severe; it could affect people’s ability to go and watch football matches for many years into the future. The presumption under the Bill—as you will know, Mr Speaker—is that if someone is guilty of an offence, they will be unable to go to football matches again as a spectator. My assessment is that that is disproportionate and unnecessary. For those reasons, I strongly oppose this aspect of the Bill, and seek through these amendments to remove references to “attempts”.

Amendment 6 is another example of where we need to try to tighten up private Members’ Bills when they are brought before this House, so that the Government do not have everything their own way. Members will know that there are four other Bills to be debated on Report this morning. All those other Bills have a commencement date, but clause 2(2) of this Bill says:

“This Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint.”

The question I ask is: why? Why is that necessary? Why can we not in this very simple Bill say that these provisions will come into effect either on the day of Royal Assent or within two months of that date? That would be the norm.

What sometimes happens, of course, is that the Government give themselves powers and do all the talk about supporting Bills such as this, and then never bring forward the regulations. The consequence of not having a specific timetable is that the ball is very much—to use that expression—in the Government’s court, because they can decide whether they will implement the provisions of this Bill, which has been put forward by the Home Office. I hope that when the Minister responds to this debate, he will explain why the Bill has to be introduced by regulations on a date yet to be specified. Of course, the making of regulations is in itself a further unnecessary administrative burden. I would be interested to hear from the Minister as to why the Bill is being treated differently from the other Bills the Government are hoping will get through today.

--- Later in debate ---

Fourthly, my hon. Friend’s amendments would protect civil liberties. I have spent many long years and Fridays in this place defending civil liberties. I do not believe in over-regulation and ever more laws restricting civil liberties. The amendments would guard against penalising individuals where intent or context is unclear. We are criminalising only intent; we are not criminalising an actual fact, and that is a dangerous legal proposition. If we start doing it now on this Bill, where will it stop? Will we criminalise an attempt to enter a cinema or theatre?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is straying a little wide into different areas. As he rightly said, the Bill is quite narrow. I am sure that he will want to get back on track. This is about football, not cinemas.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am so grateful to you, Mr Speaker; you will be grateful to hear that having made those remarks, I am drawing to a conclusion.

We have a duty to ensure that punishment is based on actual misconduct in entering a football ground, not suspicion or misjudged behaviour. Fifthly, my hon. Friend’s amendments would allow for practical enforcement. Focusing on completed unauthorised entry would help police and clubs concentrate their resources on the most serious breaches, rather than chasing marginal cases. The amendments would provide necessary implementation time. The two-month delay before commencement gives football clubs, police and stewards time to prepare for the new legal framework, reducing confusion and aiding smooth enforcement.

Finally, the amendments would encourage propor-tionality. They keep the law from becoming an unnecessarily blunt instrument and instead preserve a proportionate, targeted response to genuine requests.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for bringing the Bill forward and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for his amendments. At this stage, is it correct that you wish us to speak only to the amendment, Mr Speaker? [Interruption.] Yes. We the Opposition have nothing further to add to the debate that we have had this morning.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Minister.

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I thank the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for tabling these amendments, which propose two changes. First, amendments 1 to 5 would remove attempted unauthorised entry from the scope of the offence. Secondly, amendment 6 would bring the Act into force two months after it receives Royal Assent, rather than by commencement regulations made by statutory instrument.

It is absolutely essential that the Bill explicitly covers both attempted and successful unauthorised entry. We have seen widespread issues involving ticketless fans at football matches attempting to force entry and tailgate at high-profile matches, including the 2024 champions league final, premier league fixtures and at the Euro 2020 tournament. These forms of attempted entry place significant demands on stadium safety and security personnel and, at times, require police intervention. Maintaining provisions for attempted unauthorised entry ensures that law enforcement can act before a breach occurs and thus maintain safety and security at football matches across the country. It also enables the imposition of preventive football banning orders against persons involved in attempted entry. Banning orders are an effective deterrent against those who may seek to compromise public safety.

I turn to amendment 6. The Bill is designed to allow the measures to come into force by regulation on a date shortly before the start of the domestic football season. This approach will ensure that all organisations involved in safety and security operations are prepared to implement the new offence. A fixed date two months after Royal Assent may not coincide with the football calendar or allow sufficient time for training, communication and co-ordination. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Member for Christchurch to withdraw his amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right, and he and I have talked to shop managers in his constituency about the importance of tackling town centre crime. It is why Lancashire police are getting an additional 83 police officers and PCSOs into neighbourhood teams this year. I strongly welcome the work they are doing as part of the Government’s safer streets summer initiative to tackle shop theft and street assaults; doing so can make so much difference to keeping people safe.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

May I associate myself and my Committee with your words earlier, Mr Speaker, regarding the 20th anniversary that we are marking today?

Live facial recognition technology is an effective tool in community and neighbourhood policing. We know that is being used effectively by the Metropolitan police, but other police forces are nervous because they do not believe that the statutory underpinning is in place. Can the Home Secretary provide some reassurance about what the Government will do to make sure this technology can be used effectively?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We want to see standards raised across policing and across all police forces. That is why the police reform White Paper will set out new measures to improve performance management across all police forces. Warwickshire is getting an additional 22 police officers, PCSOs and specials on to the streets.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

May I join you, Mr Speaker, in marking the anniversary of the 7/7 London bombings? Our thoughts are with the victims and families, and all who did all they could to help those in need.

Yesterday, Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley called the spending review “disappointing”, highlighting that he is being forced to cut 1,700 officers and staff. Policing may not be a priority for this Labour Government, but the last Government put a record number of police on our streets. Will the Home Secretary commit to keeping total number of police officers above 147,746, as it was under the last Government—yes or no?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that police forces are following the guidance that the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), drew up on this issue. We have a review that is happening under the College of Policing at the moment, but the shadow Minister refers to the Crime and Policing Bill, which is introducing new measures on stalking, spiking, respect orders, e-bikes, off-road bikes and a whole serious of different issues, and which sadly the Conservatives voted against—so much for caring about tackling crime.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The best community policing is embedded within communities, responding to their needs. Whether it is attacks on Jewish-owned businesses or hateful chants at music festivals, there are too many sobering reminders of the reality of the antisemitism that too many within the Jewish community across the UK are facing right now. Home Office figures have shown that religious hate crimes are at record highs, and that the number of hate crimes specifically targeting Jewish people has more than doubled. Everyone deserves to feel safe in our society, and that must include British Jewish communities, so what steps is the Home Secretary taking to ensure that police have the training and resources needed to effectively tackle antisemitic hate crimes, while supporting survivors?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We are as anxious as my hon. Friend to end the use of asylum hotels, but the backlogs we inherited from the Conservatives and the time it was taking—decision making collapsed by 70% in the last three months of that Government—have made it harder to empty hotels than we thought it would be at the beginning. However, we have sped up; there has been a 116% increase in initial asylum decisions. We are speeding up the system, we are getting people through the system, and we will close all asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I gently remind the Minister that the number of immigrants in asylum hotels has gone up since the general election. I recently visited an asylum hotel and saw bikes from Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber Eats in the hotel compound. Local eyewitnesses confirmed that the illegal immigrants in the hotel had been illegally working. That creates a pull factor, because people smugglers actively market illegal working opportunities. It also creates risk for women and girls, who might receive deliveries late at night from these undocumented illegal immigrants. Will the Minister at least commit now to preventing this illegal working from taking place from the hotels that she runs?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We have had a 50% increase in raids and arrests on illegal working since we came into government, so perhaps the shadow Home Secretary should have spent more time when he was in government enforcing the rules on illegal working. We are doing more, including extending the law on illegal working to the gig economy. That measure is in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which he voted against.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Enabling new refugees to prepare properly for life in the UK will be key to reducing the need for asylum accommodation. In my constituency we have seen the extension of the move-on period not only giving new refugees much-needed time to make those preparations, but protecting other public bodies such as the local authority from being left to pick up the costs. We welcomed the news last December of the Government’s decision to trial a longer move-on period for six months, but those six months have now come and gone, and despite numerous requests for an answer, the Government have provided no certainty on whether the trial will be extended. Can the Minister provide clarity today?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

Of course. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but he should take up that issue with the Scottish Government, as it is devolved. As I have said, we will make sure that all learning is passed on to the devolved Administrations.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

The comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) relate to the question of whether it will be a national inquiry, rather than a co-ordination of a few local inquiries. All the victims and survivors deserve justice, so can the Minister please confirm for us today that every town and city with a grooming and rape gang will be part of the inquiry, including and especially where local authorities may not wish to be part of it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I associate myself with the Home Secretary’s remarks about the terrorist atrocities perpetrated on 7/7. The 52 victims and their families of course remain in our prayers. The whole House will want to send thanks to the emergency services for what they did on that day and what they do every day.

It is now clear that the Home Secretary has lost control of our borders. So far, 2025 has been the worst year in history when it comes to illegal immigrants crossing the channel. Her claim to be smashing the gangs is clearly laughable. The French are having almost no effect, despite spending hundreds of millions of pounds, and the press report that not much will change in the negotiations this week. Returns of small boat arrivals are down, representing only 5% of overall arrivals, so will—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is topical questions. You have to help me get the Back Benchers in, but you are not at the moment. I am sure you are coming to an end now.

[Chris Philp]

I am, Mr Speaker. Will the Home Secretary finally admit that the only way to fix this situation is for there to be a removals deterrent whereby every single illegal immigrant is immediately removed?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)]

That is an important issue. I am working closely with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), and the Israeli, Jordanian and Egyptian authorities to identify safe routes by which British nationals and other eligible people can leave Gaza, or indeed the west bank, and so are able to obtain visas and travel to the UK.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The number of small boat crossings is driving people mad and eroding support for the Labour Government, just as it eroded support for the Conservatives. I worry for the Labour Government; I want them to do better on this, for all our sakes. Have not our French friends got a point about this country being uniquely attractive to illegal asylum seekers? We do not have identity cards, and we do not do what the Belgians do, which is to refuse to put them in reception centres. Can we make a study of what every other member of the Council of Europe is doing, and replicate the strongest actions, so that this is not the most attractive country for illegal asylum seekers?