Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right that we need to maximise the numbers we are returning from this country. He will know that asylum-related returns are at their highest level since 2010. This Government have made excellent progress on getting returns up and back to levels seen in previous years, and we will make more progress.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Some people, including the Prime Minister, argue that the small boats crisis was caused by our leaving the EU. It started in 2018. In the two years before Brexit, only 289 small boat people were sent back under agreements. What is the solution? The only solution, surely, is to detain and deport. As the Home Secretary will not leave the European convention on human rights, will she at least consider creating return hubs in a distant Council of Europe country, so that we can have a genuine deterrent?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right: not only are small boat returns up and asylum-related returns at their highest level since 2010, but in our first two years in office, this Government have managed to get returns of foreign offenders up 41% from the last two years of the Conservative Government. That is because, in addition to all the other work we are doing, we are also unlocking greater returns co-operation with countries of origin, so that we can more smoothly return people from this country. Appeals reform is also absolutely crucial, and is something that this Government are pursuing.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Ministers tell us that small boat arrivals are vetted, so we need not worry, but Mohammed Yaseen—who, as we all know, joined al-Qaeda at 16, was convicted as a Daesh terrorist in Germany, and, a British court was told, was a danger to the British people—was put by the Home Office not in a detention centre ready to be deported to Iraq, where the Iraqi people deserve to see him face trial and justice, but instead in a hostel in Windsor. He was free to roam British streets during daylight hours, along with too many of the 95% not yet deported. He is now back in prison, thanks to the newspapers. How can we have any confidence in the Government, when they allow a convicted Daesh member to be released on to our streets while his deportation is pending, and will the Home Secretary today give the commitment that he will be held in detention until he is on a plane, and that his ticket has been ordered?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right. That is why this Government have been working to reset our relationship with the European Union. Of course, our co-operation with France is central to our being able to deal with the challenge of the small boats, and I was pleased to make the recent deal with the French—the successor to the Sandhurst agreement. We have set aside money that we will spend only on measures that we know have an impact on small boat numbers, which are down by 43%.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and we are indeed flattered to see the Prime Minister discussing improved relations with the EU as a way to solve issues in the asylum system, but when the Government say that they will negotiate access to various agreements, including Eurodac, without dropping their red lines, they are engaging in Brexit delusion of the type we saw under the Conservatives. If we want useful co-operation on asylum and a good deal for taxpayers—because it will cost less if we are in the pact—we will have to join the EU migration and asylum pact, and that means dropping the Government’s red lines, doesn’t it?
Sarah Jones
I meet the commissioner regularly and we talk about these issues all the time. I should point out to the House that this Government are funding the police to record levels. Hundreds of millions of pounds extra are going to the Metropolitan police, with £2 billion extra going into policing since we came to power. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has just agreed rules on abstraction rates, which I know is a big challenge. I have had a lot of conversations with the commissioner about managing the risk of protests and maintaining officers in our communities. I think he has got the right balance at the moment, but we will, of course, continue to monitor that.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It has been an incredibly hard few months for Cleveland. Local people are not interested in point scoring, but they do want answers. Cleveland has the highest recorded crime rate in the country, yet the latest Home Office data reveals that it has 17 fewer police officers than it had a year ago. Can the Minister explain why?
Satvir Kaur
I extend my congratulations to the chief constable on his dedicated service, and join Cheshire MPs in congratulating Cheshire police force.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Foreign nationals, including illegal immigrants, make up 23% of sex offenders. The Home Office knows that, and even hands out leaflets asking illegal immigrants nicely not to rape. That is why mothers in Piddington are now terrified that over 1,000 young male illegal immigrants are about to turn up. In order to protect women and girls, rather than allowing 95% of illegal immigrants to stay and accommodating them in Piddington or anywhere else, should the Government not leave the European convention on human rights and deport them?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend will know that we have made it easier for the police to seize e-bikes on the spot, and we have cut the timeframe for disposal to just seven days. Police forces are already making use of these powers so that dangerous and illegally used bikes can be taken off our streets. Where appropriate, they can also be destroyed.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
In a speech in March, which I thought was rather good, the Home Secretary said that failure to implement her proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain in full would be “an affront” to British citizens, and would cost hard-working taxpayers £10 billion for care workers alone. Given how strongly she clearly feels about her policy, will she confirm to the House that she will implement her own plans in full, or are the Housing Secretary and the Energy Secretary now in charge of immigration policy?
Sarah Jones
We will make sure that there are more neighbourhood police in our communities and in his communities. We will make sure that the legal powers are there for the police to take the action that they need, and we are working to see what else needs to be done about the scourge of e-bikes, of which everyone in all our constituencies feels that we have had enough.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
In our inquiry looking at the impact that serious and organised crime has on local neighbourhoods, we have heard evidence from Trading Standards that organised criminals are now using online second-hand marketplaces to sell stolen goods and launder money. What conversations are the Government having with those online vendors to try to stop such sites being used by organised criminals to make money?
Dawn Butler
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I need some clarification. After I posted my Black History Month speech last week, I received thousands of abusive messages. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien), posted:
“If you want to tax my constituents more to fund random handouts to your mates overseas then yes, that is ‘stolen wealth’—their money is not yours, they have done nothing wrong, and you can do one.”
That resulted in a racist pile-on, and I am troubled and concerned by the phrase “your mates overseas”. What exactly does the Member mean?
I am deeply concerned by this. It is not about the reparations debate—I can handle people disagreeing with that—but “The Code of Conduct” states that Members are required to “treat others with respect.” I have emailed the Member to ask for an explanation, but none was given. Mr Speaker, could you advise me on how I can obtain an explanation for what was meant?
Mr Speaker
Debate is very important in this House, but how we treat each other matters. We should think about the language and the words we choose. In the end—this is what worries me—how we treat each other in here is replicated, as has been shown in the number of tweets that followed. It has been raised and I am sure that everybody can learn from what has happened. Please, I hope that we will consider what we say to each other and the tone we use.
National Security
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the Home Secretary’s statement, I note that Joshua Kerry has been charged with a number of offences, including the murder of Ann Widdecombe and engaging in conduct in preparation of acts of terrorism, including against the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). Those cases are therefore sub judice. I am granting a limited waiver so that Members can refer to the fact that those charges have been brought, and the way in which related matters have been handled by the police. However, Members should not discuss the details of those cases or speculate on the guilt or innocence of the individual while it is rightly being dealt with in the courts.
I also say to the House that I have not been told which Members were on the list—I have had no information. I only know when Members personally contact me, which means I find it difficult to help and support. I think that this is not being handled well, and I wonder what we are going to do in the future. If Members have concerns, please let me know privately. Obviously, it is very hard to know without the list.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on national security. Since the House last sat, we have received a reminder of the threats ranged against this country. That has included the danger posed not only by extremists and terrorists, but by foreign powers seeking to undermine our nation’s security. Those threats have targeted people, businesses and critical infrastructure, but above all else, they are attacks on our values and way of life. The first duty of Government is the security of the nation, so I will update the House on our response to those threats, and how we are acting to keep our country and citizens safe.
I start with the threat posed by terrorists and extremists, and I know one case will be on the minds of many in this House today. It is now three months since the murder of Ann Widdecombe at her home in Devon. We continue to mourn her loss. On 2 October, the suspect was charged with a terrorism offence, including preparing an act of terror against the leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). I know that this news will have been deeply distressing for the hon. Member, so I say to him and his family that they have my profoundest sympathies at what must be an awful time. As I have said before, an attack on any one of us is an attack on us all.
I know other Members, as well as people outside of this House, have recently been contacted by the police in connection with that case. To all those affected, I offer the same sympathies and solidarity as I do to the hon. Member for Clacton. At times like these, we must stand together as one House. For those who serve, politics is a calling. Robust debate and criticism are part of this job; threats, abuse and violence are not.
Today, as on so many other days, we remember Ann Widdecombe, Sir David Amess and Jo Cox—three beloved colleagues, and three champions of our democracy. We owe it to them, and to everyone who believes in a fair and open country, to ensure that those who serve, at all levels, receive the protection they deserve.
We must first ensure that every opportunity was taken in this particular case to stop the attacker. The Independent Office for Police Conduct is investigating the response to an attempted break-in at the hon. Member for Clacton’s home last year. I have asked it to conduct that investigation both thoroughly and swiftly, and we expect it to conclude early next year. I would caution everyone not to pre-empt that investigation.
Regardless of the outcome, it is clear that there is insufficient protection for those who serve. I can therefore announce that I will expand, with immediate effect, police support to political figures who are not currently Members of Parliament. This will include former Members of Parliament, peers and party spokespeople, giving them access to a named police officer, as well as help with wider security measures.
However, we must go further. Today, I also announce an independent, root-and-branch review of the protective security provided by the state to those in public life. The review will be led by Sir Stephen Lovegrove, the former National Security Adviser. It will examine protective security from every angle, including physical threats, online risks, and the dangers posed within our more polarised society. It will hear directly from Ministers, Members of Parliament and other high-profile people in public life, and it will report within six months. It will complement Sir Robert Buckland’s ongoing review into the killing of Sir David Amess. It is rightly an independent review, but my commitment is that its findings must and will lead to tangible change, and that the state’s resources will be rebalanced to protect those people and places that need it most.
The terrorist threat is not only ranged at those who serve in public life. In recent days, we marked the first anniversary of the terror attack at the Heaton Park synagogue. On that awful day in October last year, as our Jewish community celebrated Yom Kippur, two brave men, Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby, lost their lives and three others were seriously injured. What happened that day must be fully understood so, as requested by the coroner, I can today announce a public inquiry into the deaths of Mr Cravitz and Mr Daulby. This will ensure that all evidence can be heard, including any sensitive national security material that could not otherwise be fully heard in the coroner’s court.
Tragically, Heaton Park is just one of a series of attacks on our Jewish community that, in the year since, have included: the stabbing of two Jewish men in Golders Green, north London, with a trial now set for March 2027; a failed attack on the Israeli embassy, for which the attacker was jailed last week for 20 years; a spate of arson attacks across north London; and last month, just hours before Yom Kippur began, a foiled but potentially lethal plot on the Jewish community in Manchester. In that case, two men, both Iranian nationals, have now been charged with terrorism offences. I pay tribute to the police and the security services for what was a long-running investigation conducted with their customary professionalism and skill.
Faced with the threat posed to our Jewish community, we have increased funding to the police by an additional £250 million to boost police presence in key Jewish areas and to tackle antisemitism on our streets, but I know we cannot simply build higher walls around our Jewish community and expect them to live in fear. We must root out the evil of antisemitism wherever it lurks in society, and this Government are committed to that effort and are tackling antisemitism wherever it is found, be it online, in our schools and universities, in our public services or on our streets.
The threat posed to our Jewish community shows us how the lines are increasingly blurring between extremism and state threats. We know that the Iranian state is targeting our Jewish community. Earlier this year, the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right claimed responsibility for the arson attacks in north London. We know that members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps were behind that group and most certainly directed its other attacks across Europe. This speaks to a wider trend. States like Iran are using proxies to conduct hostile activity here in Britain. They pay criminals or exploit naive volunteers to attack our country and its citizens while maintaining an air of plausible deniability.
It is a brazen threat, but it is one that we are alert to and will not tolerate. That is why, this summer, we fast-tracked the National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 through Parliament, which created stronger powers and tougher punishments to deal with state-backed threats to domestic security. Under these new powers, we have designated both the IMCR and the IRGC.
That brings us to the recent events at RAF Fairford. As the Prime Minister has said, our assessment is that it is highly likely to have been co-ordinated by a known individual based in Iran, and almost certainly directed by Iran’s IRGC. The Foreign Secretary has today summoned the Iranian ambassador, and he will condemn Iran’s continued attempts to undermine our safety. We are also sanctioning two individuals involved in conducting espionage and attacks in Europe and the US on behalf of the Government of Iran, and we will not hesitate to take further action to restrict Iran’s capacity to threaten international security.
The threat is not contained to Iran, of course. As the invasion of Ukraine enters its fifth winter, the Kremlin continues to lash out at European countries. Together with the EU, we attributed to Russia an attack on Poland’s energy grid last December that could have caused half a million citizens to lose electricity. Similarly, we are acting against the threat on our shores. Last month, a British man was charged under the National Security Act 2023 over alleged contact with Russia’s military intelligence agency, and in recent days a Royal Navy sailor, accused of spying on behalf of Russia, has been charged under the same Act.
We remain vigilant to the threats posed by China, too. MI5 recently warned universities and academics to cut ties with the China General Technology Research Institute, which had been funding research in the UK with the “primary purpose” of improving China’s espionage operations. Those who continue to work with this group will face criminal charges for aiding a foreign state, and lengthy prison sentences as a result.
The threats we face today are complex and often interconnected. They target communities and citizens, the critical infrastructure that we depend on, and the institutions and individuals that make up our democracy. Our response to this growing threat is rightly multifaceted. We are tackling extremism in our communities and in the online world. In “Protecting What Matters”, our social cohesion plan, we set out a range of measures to tackle this threat, including banning those who seek to come to this country to spread hatred, and committing to publishing an annual “State of Extremism” report, which will identify the threats we face and, crucially, equip frontline professionals to counter them.
We are also adapting to the changing nature of the violent threats we face. Following the horrors of Southport, we have taken action to curb the threat posed by individuals fixated on violence. This has included strengthening the handling of repeat Prevent referrals, and making it clear that referrals can be made to Prevent without a clearly identifiable ideology. The Online Safety Act 2023 has also ensured that thousands of services now have stronger age checks and safety measures.
In addressing the threat posed by states, make no mistake: our police and security services are on permanent watch. Since 2023, more than 23 people have been charged under the National Security Act, leading to five convictions and sentences totalling more than 48 years’ imprisonment so far, including 18 years for two men convicted of spying for China. We have imposed more than 4,000 sanctions linked to Russia and Iran, and we have placed both on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, which means that anyone conducting activity on their behalf must register it or face the prospect of prison. But more is required, and as I have noted already, the National Security (State Threats) Act has given us powerful new tools to tackle state threats. We are also building a specialist mission in Counter Terrorism Policing to disrupt state threats, and we are tightening security around military bases.
Of course, resilience is about more than our physical defences. We are also establishing a national centre for information defence to tackle disinformation from states. Our Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill will protect everyday services by strengthening national defences against cyber-attacks. We will go further with our upcoming national security Bill and give intelligence agencies and the police stronger powers to bear down on cyber-criminals.
Mr Speaker, let me say this to the public: if you are ever worried about someone you know, tell a teacher, a doctor or someone else you trust. Institutions like Prevent exist to stop people following a dark path from which there may be no return. If ever you see something suspicious, report it immediately to the police or a relevant authority. To businesses, in an increasingly online world, consider the cyber-threats that you face and strengthen your defences. Finally, to those responsible for some part of our critical infrastructure, we will work with you. The National Protective Security Authority and the National Cyber Security Centre stand ready to help. We can defeat those who mean us harm, but we are strongest when we act together.
In a more dangerous world, we are faced by threats from without and within that target our democracy and our way of life. In response, we are adapting and strengthening our defences. As ever, I commend the work of the police and our security services who labour in silence to keep us safe, and I am sure the whole House joins me in offering thanks to them for that vital, lifesaving work.
This Government are taking action in support of that effort, but as I have set out in this statement, I know there is more that we must do to protect this country, to protect our citizens and to protect our democracy. I hope the whole House can join together in that vital work, which is so much greater than any of our differences, because I know that those of us who choose to serve all share a belief: we will never be defeated by those who mean us harm.
Mr Speaker, with my thanks to you for allowing it to run a little longer than would usually be the case, I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
Order. We need to be very careful about where we are going on motivation. We are creeping into what a court might decide, and we are not the court. Please can we steer a little bit away from that? We all want a prosecution. I want nothing to risk this case, because she was a friend to all.
Chris Philp
I was quoting what the prosecutor said, Mr Speaker, but I will of course take your advice, as always. I was going to ask whether the Home Secretary shares my concern, which she alluded to in her statement, that the cancellation of the earlier investigation may have meant that opportunities to prevent the later tragedy were missed.
I understand that a number of current and former MPs have very recently been contacted to be told that they appeared on a list made by Kerry. Kerry was arrested on 11 July, but it was not until last week—nearly three months later—that some on that list, including current and former MPs, were notified. Can the Home Secretary tell the House when she knew about that list? Does she agree that it would be wrong if those on it had had that information withheld from them for a period of time, potentially as long as three months?
Threats to democratically elected representatives are threats to democracy itself, so I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement on protective security, including for those outside Parliament—recognising, of course, that it is Mr Speaker who plays the leading role in protecting Members of Parliament.
I would also like to mark the anniversary of the terrible deaths of Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby at Heaton Park synagogue in an antisemitic attack perpetrated by an Islamist extremist. In the year since, I have twice visited Golders Green in the aftermath of antisemitic attacks. As the Home Secretary said, in the last 10 days two Iranian small boat illegal immigrants have been charged with plotting a further antisemitic terror attack in Manchester. It is more important than ever that we redouble our efforts to fight antisemitism and Islamist extremism with all our might.
On that topic, I wrote to the Home Secretary on 27 September asking her to deny an entry visa to Randa Abdel-Fattah, who praised the appalling terrorist massacre on 7 October as “exhilarating”. But the Home Secretary allowed her into our country anyway. Why did the Home Secretary do that, given the obvious risk that Abdel-Fattah might radicalise others with her antisemitic and pro-terror views? I really think that demands a specific answer.
There are clearly a wide range of serious threats to the safety of our country, political leaders across the political spectrum and our Jewish community. I know that the whole House will be united in wanting to fight those threats. I thank again those serving in the security services and the police, who work tirelessly to keep us safe. The whole House supports them in their vital work.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his comments and questions, though much of what he has asked, as I believe he knows full well, relates to ongoing investigations. As such, there are limits to what I can share with the House today. I also observe that there are limits to what is appropriate to be said publicly while investigations are ongoing. That is not just a restriction that we impose on ourselves for the sake of it; it is an important part of ensuring the integrity of our criminal justice system and the independence of police investigations.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will therefore understand, even if his questions do not suggest so, that in relation to RAF Fairford and the decision to bail suspects, that was entirely an operational decision for the police, who are solely responsible for that investigation. I have full confidence in the police as they carry out that investigation. Because it is ongoing, more facts will be established, and I am sure that the police will take appropriate action when they come to light.
Those suspects are bailed under strict conditions, and no one—certainly no one in our legal jurisdiction—should be commenting on the rightness or wrongness of that, because it is in our jurisdiction and we have a responsibility to ensure that the investigation has full integrity. If there are criminal proceedings to follow, those proceedings must not be prejudiced by commentary beforehand. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman understands why I will not go further than what I have said in my statement on that point. I think that a more responsible approach from all Members of this House on this matter is required.
I would not comment on intelligence briefings, and nor have other Home Secretaries. I will not compromise an ongoing investigation. As more facts are established, they will be public when it is appropriate for them to be made so.
The right hon. Gentleman made a point about action taken by the previous Government after the Salisbury attack and laid out his suggested actions against the Iranians at this stage. I set out the actions that the Foreign Secretary is already taking, but we will not take anything off the table as the investigation matures, more facts are established, and more detail is known on exactly what happened. The Government will always keep under review all the methods we have at our disposal for responding to any hostile state carrying out activity in our country.
On RAF Molesworth, again, I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman knows this, but the police have said that their investigation is at a very early stage. At the moment, there is nothing to suggest that this incident is connected to the events at RAF Fairford. The police are continuing to investigate. It would not be appropriate to provide a wider running commentary on that investigation while it is still in its early stages.
The shadow Home Secretary moved on to the circumstances relating to the murder of Ann Widdecombe and the recent charging decisions against Joshua Kerry on terror charges. Again, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on conversations between me and counter-terror policing, but I do not believe that information has been withheld from anybody at any point in an inappropriate manner. This is a thorough investigation whereby the police have been checking devices and other material at the property of that individual to establish a fuller picture. As that fuller picture has emerged, they have been sharing information; they have sought to do so appropriately, in my view.
I know that people have been contacted by the police. That is a matter for the police to pursue. I think the implication of the shadow Home Secretary’s questions was that potentially there was a withholding of information or that it had taken too long for it to be shared with individuals—both Members of Parliament and former Members of Parliament. I do not believe that anything has happened in this investigation that is inappropriate; that is how I will respond.
The shadow Home Secretary went on to ask questions relating to attacks on our Jewish community. In relation to the Home Secretary’s powers for excluding individuals from entering our country—we have had these exchanges on a number of occasions across the Dispatch Box—I will always use my powers appropriately by looking at both threat and risk as well as the wider impact on communities. I have used those powers in some instances where that threshold has been met. I have not used them in every single one—it would not be appropriate to do so—but let me tell him that I take a robust approach to the exercise of my powers and will always use them in an appropriate way to limit the threat to our communities here at home.
I think that I have covered everything that the shadow Home Secretary said. I will ensure that I respond to his letter as soon as I finish the statement.
Mr Speaker
I gently say to the Home Secretary that it is much harder to read in a newspaper about which MPs have been targeted and named when we have no knowledge of that. That puts us all at a disadvantage, especially as we give health and wellbeing support as well as security. I think there is a gap that has not been closed.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and recognise the dignified way in which she, as a woman of colour, carries out her duties in trying to help and support all of us, having been at the receiving end of quite a lot of this stuff herself over many years. I say that because in the two years that I have been back here, I have lost count of how many times we have stood here to discuss the activities and antics of people in this country who want to come after MPs, peers and minority communities. Whether those are the so-called patriots who do their patrols around the streets targeting migrant communities or the virulent antisemites who go after the Jewish community, they do so seemingly because they fear very little. I agree with the Home Secretary that we can put up walls to protect those communities—but at some point the state is going to have to say: “Enough of this; we are coming after them.” As well as all the welcome protections that the Home Secretary is putting in place for the victims, what more can we all do collectively to bring the perpetrators to the place they deserve to be, which is probably in front of a judge and then in jail?
Shabana Mahmood
Mr Speaker, before I answer my hon. Friend’s question, may I say that, on sharing of information, you will know that that is a matter for counter-terror policing? They are in charge of the investigation and they have got to ensure that all their actions can survive future contact with a court of law. Nobody wants to do anything that might be prejudicial in any way.
I hear the case made by you, Mr Speaker, and by other Members of the House. Let me assure you that I will pick up those conversations with counter-terror policing and wider criminal justice system partners to ensure that we have stress-tested the robustness of our arrangements in such cases. I will come back to you directly, Mr Speaker, as well as updating the House in the future.
Shabana Mahmood
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will also ensure that I update the Lord Speaker.
My hon. Friend will know that the Government have announced substantial new additional funding for the protection of our Jewish community: about £250 million of additional money committed over a three-year period to ensure an enhanced policing posture in key Jewish community sites. That is an important step forward and a recognition of the ongoing nature of the threat that our community faces.
My hon. Friend is right on the issue of putting up ever higher walls: we have got to ensure that the security system is robust and can respond effectively. Let me say again to him that, as we can see from the sheer number of cases now appearing before the courts, the police and our security services are working around the clock to bring people to justice and to foil plots—they have done so on many occasions and will continue to do so—but we must have a wider national conversation about the cultural changes we have seen. We need a wider societal response against antisemitism, because we cannot simply put security guards everywhere. We need our citizens to be able to live together in harmony and respect, for the betterment of everyone.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I start by sharing my support for the police and security services. As the MP for GCHQ, that means a great deal to me, given that so many of my constituents work there.
The murder of Ann Widdecombe shocked us all, and the revelations about the suspect’s plans apparently to attack other MPs are deeply concerning to all of us in the House. Those of us who want protection for politicians must demand it for all, no matter the political persuasion of those politicians; that needs to be said on the record. In return, we must hope that all politicians on all sides moderate their language when necessary to lower the temperature of debate and reduce the threat against us all. That is an important part of the debate that must not be lost.
Those who target politicians must not be allowed to impose their intended chilling effect on our democracy. My thoughts remain with Ann’s family, including my constituent Rev. Roger Widdecombe who leads the congregation at St Paul’s in Cheltenham.
Sadly, the public discourse aimed at politicians has coarsened in the last decade, which has resulted in increased hatred, abuse and offences against politicians and retired politicians at all levels, and politically motivated killings. We must never forget what happened to Sir David Amess and Jo Cox. It is important that we can all do our jobs without intimidation, fear or worse. I know that the Speaker takes that seriously. We therefore welcome the review into the protective security provided to those in public life. It is right that it will be done swiftly.
On another of the many elements of the statement, we must be clearly ever more mindful of the threat to this country from our enemies on the global stage—and those at home, too. We must do all we can to prevent those threats: especially, as we have seen in recent months, those that have wickedly targeted the Jewish community in this country. It is right that today we remember Melvin Kravitz and Adrian Daulby. We welcome the Home Secretary’s comments on an inquiry for the Heaton Park attacks. Let us all remain vigilant to antisemitism and supportive of our Jewish communities—that goes for all political parties.
In April, I wrote to Ministers seeking additional support for the police to account for the added strain on their resources in areas around military bases. Ministers told me that the police should work within their existing budgets without extra support, but given what has recently happened will Ministers look again at how they can support the police forces responsible for the areas around RAF Fairford and other bases? Will the Home Secretary push Ministers to accelerate the previously announced security review and set out what she will do to strengthen the security of all bases in general?
Earlier, the Prime Minister stated that Iran and the IRGC were “highly likely” to have been behind the incident at RAF Fairford. So, finally, what action is being taken against Iranian operatives involved in that activity? Is the expulsion of diplomats being considered?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman is correct: if we are to deal with this problem effectively, we must also reduce the inflow of people coming across the channel. As he will know, later today we will debate a Bill that includes measures designed to do just that, and since I have been Home Secretary I have announced wider policy changes designed to alter the calculations of those who are in the north of France seeking to get on to a boat to come to this country. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is signalling the Conservative party’s previous policy, the Rwanda scheme. As he will know, we disagree with that as a deterrent, but we are working on every other measure to deter those people from making the journeys in the first place.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Last year the National Audit Office reported that the cost of asylum accommodation contracts had more than tripled, from under £5 billion to more than £15 billion. Clearly they are bad value for money, bad for communities and bad for the asylum seekers themselves. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has stated his ambition to activate the break clause in these contracts. Given that he is set to become Prime Minister next week, is the Home Secretary planning to rip up the agreements?
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
May I associate myself with your comments, Mr Speaker, and those of the Home Secretary about Ann Widdecombe? She was a formidable human being, and someone about whom we are all thinking very much at this time.
This week, in the light of that news, the safety of politicians is something that we should all consider. The Home Secretary may be aware of the situation of a district councillor in Staffordshire Moorlands, Councillor Jill Salt, who has been the victim of sexualised artificial intelligence images. I do not agree with Councillor Salt on many matters, but on this I stand with her in total solidarity. Will the Home Secretary join me in condemning the comments of a Reform councillor, Dave Poole, who said that Councillor Salt needed to grow bigger balls in order to do the job?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me assure my hon. Friend that this is a cross-Government strategy and commitment. It has been led directly by the Prime Minister himself, who has got Government Departments together, knocked heads together and made sure that everybody is equally committed. I am sure that will not change, regardless of what may happen in the very near future. Let me assure my hon. Friend that this remains a cross-Government strategy, and I hope that it has support across parties as well.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to echo your tribute to a predecessor of mine, Ann Widdecombe. She was an exceptionally effective Member of Parliament, has been a really tough act to follow, and is very fondly remembered in the Weald. On behalf of my constituents, whom she served for decades—a role that she fulfilled with outstanding dedication—I would just like to say thank you. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Last week I met a group of victims and survivors of the most appalling sexual violence, like Angela. It is not her real name, but Angela was first raped by her stepfather at the age of eight. He then sold her to men for sex to pay off his gambling debts. He was sentenced to just 10 years in prison and, having served only six, is now being let out early by the Government. My question to the Home Secretary is one that those women were asking: why did they endure the years of pain and danger that it took to have their abusers put in prison, only for this Government to let them out again after such a short time?
Shabana Mahmood
That is precisely what this new national crackdown is designed to do. The additional money will put more officers on the street to raid dodgy shops and other premises. We are also providing funding for trading standards and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, because we know that this multi-layered problem requires assistance from other professionals. Immigration enforcement will also receive additional funding as part of this crackdown. We are determined to make sure that our high streets are safe places for communities to use.
Gill German
Many seaside towns, like Rhyl and Colwyn Bay in my Clwyd North constituency, are working really hard to regenerate their high streets and attract investment. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the high streets organised crime unit will ensure that coastal towns facing issues with organised criminal activity receive the same support as larger urban centres?
Shabana Mahmood
First, the hon. Lady raises an important point about online illegality. The Home Office has an interest in that, as do other Departments. We will continue to work with partners across Government to ensure we are doing everything we can to clamp down on the platforms that enable illegality. She will recognise that the physical presence of these many thousands of businesses across our country on our high streets has had a very damaging impact on local communities. In that context, it is right that this Home Office and this Government are focused very specifically on the physical locations of those businesses to make sure we are driving out the criminality and the antisocial behaviour that has left too many of our high streets no-go areas for local communities.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Dodgy vape shops are a scourge on our high streets, but even more horrifying are some of the people who run them. Twana Jamal, convicted in France and described as the godfather of people trafficking, has reportedly been found running two vape shops in Leicestershire. Does the Home Secretary agree that that demonstrates the need for stronger powers to tackle rogue vape shops and organised crime? If so, why have the Government cut funding to regional organised crime units, and opposed stronger closure powers for the police and local councils.
Mike Tapp
We have consulted widely on earned settlement. We are considering the responses, and will bring forward reforms at the earliest opportunity. In the meantime, those on the BNO route can continue to apply, and the service standard for those on that route continues to be six months. If there are any individual circumstances, my hon. Friend can grab me after this and we can go through them.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Ann Widdecombe was a force of nature, and my heart goes out to all her friends and loved ones.
The BNO route has provided sanctuary for Hongkongers fleeing the autocracy of the Chinese Communist party. However, its effectiveness should not be measured in visas granted, but in whether people are actually safe here. BNOers live under CCP bounties, doxxing and surveillance. A year after the foreign influence registration scheme went live, not one person or company has registered as working or taking money from the Chinese state, and the Government still refuse to put the Chinese Communist party in the enhanced tier. Do the Government really believe that not a single organisation in the UK is engaged in political influence on behalf of the Chinese Communist party, and if not, how many investigations have there been into those failing to disclose? The annual report on FIRS was due to published by the end of June. Are the Government planning on sneaking it out during the summer recess to hide their failure to protect us and Hongkongers from the Chinese Communist party?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is right that the funding formula is completely outdated. It was not updated by the previous Government, and it is almost decades old. We are going to review it, and we are working on that now as part of the reform programme. As soon as we have an announcement, we will bring it forward.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
I understand that my hon. Friend went door to door talking to people about these issues; I appreciate his efforts in doing that. Our Crime and Policing Act 2026 is delivering new and enhanced powers to tackle antisocial behaviour. Respect orders will bear down on relentless ASB offenders, and we have ensured that every police force in England and Wales has a dedicated ASB lead and a local action plan to crack down on these thugs.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Mr Speaker, I join you in paying tribute to Ann Widdecombe. She was a formidable campaigner who served with huge integrity. She will be missed. I know that the whole House supports the police in delivering justice for Ann.
Reports today suggest that the Home Secretary and the new Prime Minister plan to capitulate to some of their open-border MPs on the Government’s own indefinite leave to remain plans. Previously, the Home Secretary was clear that the changes will apply to those in the country already. Will she now repeat that pledge, or is the new Prime Minister doing his first U-turn before he has even entered Downing Street?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Operation Reckoning is delivering the Met’s largest ever enforcement response to phone theft. In the 12 months to May, phone theft in London fell by 18% on the previous year, and it pretty much halved in the west end, where we see most of that occur. He is right that phone companies need to do more. If phone theft does not continue to fall, we will take further action.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Culture Secretary has quit X and removed her Department from the platform, citing its descent into misinformation and abuse. Does the Home Secretary agree with her decision? What is the Home Office doing about the abuse and misinformation on X? Will the Home Office be leaving, too?
Death of Ann Widdecombe
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the statement, I must advise the House that the case relating to Ann Widdecombe’s death is not yet sub judice, as charges have not been brought. However, a live criminal investigation is ongoing and Members should take care not to say anything in this House that might prejudice a future trial. I therefore urge Members to avoid speculating on the guilt or innocence of any person, the identity of the person who has been arrested, or the motive for the attack. Members may wish to discuss the general arrangements for the security and safety of politicians and other connected matters, but they should avoid discussing the detail of individual Members’ security arrangements.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the death of Ann Widdecombe. It is with great sadness that I say those words. My thoughts today are with her family, her friends and all those who loved her.
Ann Widdecombe dedicated her life to politics and public service. She was a fixture of our political life for nearly 40 years. She brought conviction to our politics, grounded in her profound Catholic faith. She was forthright in her opinions and argued courageously for the things she believed in. But, perhaps most of all, she brought an inimitable style to politics. She was forthright and fearless. As Lord Howard of Lympne can attest, she had a memorable turn of phrase. And she was joyful: she thought seriously about ideas but did not take herself too seriously, and that allowed her to reach beyond this place and charm the country at large. She was one of those rare politicians who was bigger than politics.
There have been so many moving tributes in the past few days, reflecting Ann’s impact both within this place and beyond politics. But I think her outlook on life is best summed up by Ann herself. Sitting on Graham Norton’s sofa, she said:
“We get one go this side of eternity—one go. Life is not a dress rehearsal. You take opportunities that you like, and you go for it.”
Ann took her opportunities. She was the proud MP for Maidstone for 23 years—a champion of her constituents. She served the country in government, as Minister for employment and then Minister for prisons. She took politics out of these ancient walls and became a bona fide TV star. Her contribution to our politics and national life will never be forgotten.
On Wednesday, Ann Widdecombe was murdered in her home. The circumstances of her death are extremely distressing. Counter Terrorism Policing has now taken the lead in the investigation. As Laurence Taylor, the head of national Counter Terrorism Policing has said:
“We now have new information and evidence that means Counter Terrorism Policing is leading the investigation... We are pursuing multiple lines of inquiry to establish the motivation for this attack.”
The police now have a suspect in custody: a 28-year-old white British man. I can confirm to the House that this man was not known to Prevent. The police have cautioned against speculating about the case. That is the right thing to do for Ann’s family and friends. It is also vital that the police are given the space they need to carry out their work.
For now, what matters most is supporting the investigation, so that we can see justice delivered for Ann and all who loved her. I urge anyone, with any information at all, to come forward immediately.
I know this raises questions about the security of those in public life. I will not be the only one in the Chamber also thinking of two other beloved Members of this House:
Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. Politics is a calling for those of us here, but it should not be a dangerous one. It is incumbent on the House and the Government to work together to protect those who choose to serve. The Home Office and the police work closely with the Parliamentary Security Department to provide practical advice and support directly to MPs. But we must always be vigilant and respond to changing threats.
Security measures are kept under constant review to ensure that MPs can carry out their duties safely. The police intend to issue guidance to MPs soon, and they will be contacting parliamentarians in their constituencies to offer support. I also recently commissioned the former Lord Chancellor, Sir Robert Buckland, to review the lessons from Sir David Amess’s murder, including into required improvements to security for MPs working in their constituencies.
I recognise the particular concern that the Reform UK party will feel today, and of course Nigel Farage, the party’s leader. I am happy to offer a meeting for Mr Farage with the chair of RAVEC—the Royal and VIP Executive Committee—the independent body within the Home Office that manages the security of those in public life. I will also be looking at what security guidance can be provided to former Members of Parliament, which I hope to work with you on, Mr Speaker, as well as to those who serve a party outside of this place.
Today is a dark day in our political life, but we must also use it as an opportunity to celebrate Ann Widdecombe’s memory. She was a unique figure in our politics: a distinctive and devoted public servant, the likes of whom we will rarely, if ever, see again. Ann had a profound faith. Her journey in this life has ended too soon, but may she now rest in eternal peace. I commend this statement to the House.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks and memories of Ann Widdecombe and for his questions. He asked about the new information that has come to light and the progress on the Counter Terrorism Policing investigation. A statement has been put out by Counter Terrorism Policing. I believe it has been published online, but I will make sure that it is placed in the Library of the House as well. The main points to draw out from it are, as I said in my statement, the fact that new information and evidence means that Counter Terrorism Policing is now leading the investigation and pursuing multiple lines of inquiry in order to establish the motivation behind the attack. As soon as more information is available that can be shared without compromising any future trial, it will be shared.
We take very seriously, as does Counter Terrorism Policing, the learnings from the summer of 2024. We definitely want to heed the call of Jonathan Hall KC and others about the timely release of information without compromising the ability to bring someone to justice, which is the main aim when such a horror of an attack happens.
I would like to echo the shadow Home Secretary’s remarks to you, Mr Speaker, and thank you personally for all your efforts to maintain the safety and security of parliamentarians. I know that it is something that you personally worry about and take a deep interest in.
Given the fast-moving nature of this investigation, I do not want to say anything here that will prejudice the direction of travel. However, this murder raises a question about the security arrangements for not only sitting Members of Parliament but those who have left this place but nevertheless retain a public profile as a result of their political party membership or their political activities. Also, given the range of new political parties that are contesting the political and democratic space, there are questions about those who are not represented at all here in the House of Commons. To reassure you, Mr Speaker, I will look at those arrangements very closely and seek to work with you directly. My officials will engage with parties across the House and those outside of it to make sure that whatever changes are made are done so in a manner that covers the multiple range of threats that we see.
There has been a step change in the security of parliamentarians over the last few years, but I think that that is a reflection of the multi-layered threats that our democracy faces and that active individuals in that democracy face. This is not something that we can ever take for granted or believe to be settled; it is something that we have to review continually, which we do. New questions have been raised, and I will make it my personal business to answer them. I will update the House in due course.
Shabana Mahmood
Given the sheer range of threats that have been made to the Mother of the House personally, it is a testament to her personal bravery that she has continued to be an active parliamentarian, but it should not take such levels of bravery just to be able to represent the people of your constituency. She is right that we must always ensure that our security arrangements can keep pace with the changing nature of threats. Let me assure the Mother of the House that the Government will do that. We work closely with the Parliamentary Security Department to ensure that that is the case so that all Members can make their contributions just as effectively and for just as long as she has.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The news about Ann Widdecombe is shocking and deeply distressing. My thoughts are with her family, including her nephew, the Rev. Roger Widdecombe—my constituent—and his wife Hannah, who lead the congregation at St Paul’s church in Cheltenham. Her death is all the more tragic given what we now know about the upsetting and disturbing circumstances.
Ann Widdecombe was a conviction politician, and also an entertainer. Many did not agree with her views—including me, particularly when she was briefly my Member of the European Parliament—but the style in which she put those views was compelling and captured the attention of the nation, just as her dance moves did. They were deeply held beliefs. She was a passionate public servant who was never afraid to challenge those in power—might I briefly speculate, a strong liberal inclination to challenge power from a strong Conservative politician?
I pay tribute to the police for their rapid response in this case. I also pay tribute to you, Mr Speaker, for the way in which your office gives security support to MPs. It is important that we can do our jobs without fear, intimidation or worse. It is horrifying that three politicians have been murdered in this country in the past decade. Clearly, there is more work to be done.
Might the Government support some amendments to the upcoming Representation of the People Bill to impose a duty on the Electoral Commission to provide more guidance on safety for politicians? Will the Home Office consider supporting measures so that politicians’ safety can be improved?
Finally, some alarming allegations were made on the weekend by the Reform home affairs spokesperson Zia Yusuf. If they are true, they are extremely concerning— but, given his record, many of us have doubts. I am certain that the Government and the House authorities, including you, Mr Speaker, are taking seriously the duty of care to Members from all parties in the House. For the sake of the record, perhaps the Home Secretary can confirm that that remains the case.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Just for the record, the security of every Member of Parliament is equal to me, and I assure you that there is no difference between Members. When things are brought to my attention, I do not put out there what is happening and what has been done, because we do not discuss security. But I reassure everybody that when something is mentioned to me, it is passed on to the security people to deal with. I am sorry that some people, unfortunately, do not think that I do that.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I join the Home Secretary in paying my respects and condolences to the family of Ann Widdecombe. We might not have agreed politically, but I always greatly admired and respected her outspokenness, her fearlessness and her ability not to take herself too seriously. She was one of a kind, of the like that, frankly, we do not make any more. I think we can all agree on that. I hope that, at moments like this, we can come together across the House to talk about these issues with one voice. May I also place on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for your leadership, in all that you have done over many years, in making sure we are all kept safe and secure?
Does the Home Secretary agree, though, that this is about not just our security and our safety but reducing the level of threat? Debate in this country is now highly politicised, highly polarised and highly personalised, which is bringing more and more threats on to all of us. Does she agree that we must do more to tackle, with urgency, the online algorithms and business models that heighten polarisation and hate towards those in public life?
Shabana Mahmood
My right hon. Friend is right to say that the climate in which we are operating in our national politics is unlike any that most of us have seen. Those of us who have been around for a while can see the big change that has occurred over the last decade or so. We must do more, as a Government and as a society, to know exactly what the boundaries are between passionate, contested, fierce debate of the kind that Ann Widdecombe herself engaged in, and behaviour that spills into threats and harassment of the kind that is designed to drive people out of public life. Getting that balance right is absolutely crucial. It is clear that there is more work for the Government to do, and there is more work to do across society, which includes social media platforms taking greater responsibility for the kinds of behaviours that are promoted on their platforms. I assure my right hon. Friend that I will be discussing with colleagues across Government how to ensure we are responding to all those challenges.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Like many on this side of the House, I have very fond memories of Ann. She made the effort to travel to Staffordshire Moorlands—not many people do; we are quite isolated—[Interruption.] Yes, they come to Alton Towers—the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) is quite right. But Ann came to Consall Hall Gardens, as it was then, to do a fundraising dinner for me, and she delivered a tour de force, which I suspect the then Prime Minister, now the noble Lord Cameron, might not have entirely approved of. My association was totally enraptured, however, and thought it was the most wonderful event. It is still fondly remembered in the association, not least because Ann told me I had to take off my heels because it would not be appropriate to stand too tall next to her in the photographs.
May I also thank Staffordshire police for contacting me this weekend and making a visit to my home to review my security arrangements? I know that police forces across the country will be doing that and I am grateful to them for taking that time. May I ask the Home Secretary to comment on what might happen in the longer term around the Prevent duty? She will know that the Home Affairs Committee produced a report on new forms of radicalisation and extremism, with some recommendations that, we hope, might help law enforcement and others to find those who have a tendency towards violence. Will the Home Secretary consider that in the longer term?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Lady makes an important point on the consequences for the Prevent duty of the changing nature of the threat. It is essential that we retain a deradicalisation programme that is focused on ideology, but as she and those who are experts in these matters know, the range of threats and the links between ideology, mixed ideology, occasional ideology, mental health and other issues ask a bigger question about how the Prevent strategy will work in the future and how we deal with the threats that fall outside of that through wider and other societal programmes. I will look at the recommendations, which I will discuss with her Committee when I appear before it, I hope, very soon.
Mr Speaker
I call John Slinger, a member of the Speaker’s Conference on the security of candidates, MPs and elections.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I send my deepest sympathies and condolences to the friends and family of Ann Widdecombe, and I extend that to her former colleagues from the Conservative party and Reform UK, for whom I know this must be a very difficult and sad time. Mr Speaker, you chose the security of MPs, candidates and elections to be the subject of the Speaker’s Conference this Parliament. We have done good work in the Speaker’s Conference, but there is much more to be done, as I am sure we can all agree. Will the Home Secretary confirm that she will work closely with you, Mr Speaker, the parliamentary security department and all others who care about protecting our democracy from the threats that sadly are growing?
European Entry and Exit System
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Norris
I recognise that it is a shared goal for ourselves, for locally affected Members of Parliament and for the French to ensure that we do not see scenes of huge queues. We know the impact that has on individuals and on businesses. The right hon. Gentleman talks about making more efforts, and I can assure him that we will be doing this on a daily basis, as we already are, both with France and with the Commission. We have pushed on this fundamental point. This is a complex scheme in operation, and when volumes peak shortly, the fundamental question will be the prioritisation of flow or of compliance with the scheme. We are pushing heavily, as we will every day between now and then, to ensure that the French use the flexibilities available to prioritise flow. That is what I want, it is what he wants and it is in everybody’s interest.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) is quite right to highlight this challenge and the impact on Kent when these queues build up, and of course the impact on British people trying to get out through Dover, Folkestone and other places. I want to ask the Minister what can be done for British holidaymakers coming home who have been stuck at airports for hours and missed their flights because of the airlines needing to get moving under working time directives. I am led to understand that fingerprints are required on entry but not on exit from the Schengen area, yet many of these delays are being caused because airports in different countries are making holidaymakers provide fingerprints again, as well as the much easier face recognition. Could the Minister pick this up, please, and tell me what is happening?
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) for securing this important urgent question. Anyone who has travelled or spoken to those who have tried to use the new European entry-exit system understands why the scale of the challenges over summer is so great, and despite all the problems, it has now been reported that a separate new online system to preauthorise entry to the EU will be delayed until next year. That is a pitiful response, indicative of the problems facing so many UK travellers, and there is nowhere near the urgency needed to address the problems facing the EES as we enter the summer holidays. As the president of Airports Council International Europe recently expressed, politicians should
“stop pretending...that EES is working just fine. It is not.”
That delusional attitude among EU colleagues is not acceptable. With the EU telling representatives of the travel industry that a full suspension of the system is not needed and not possible, the Government must stand behind the interests of British travellers. For instance, there appears to be a ridiculous situation in which a facility built in Dover cannot be activated until the technology for the kiosks, which is the responsibility of the French authorities, is working.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands, who chairs the Home Affairs Committee, is right: it is time to “apply maximum pressure” before chaos arrives at the border at Dover. Will the Minister detail what conversations the Government have had, and what pressure they will apply? Have they asked for a temporary suspension, relaxation or phased use of EES checks at periods of exceptional congestion? Given the increased traffic, what have the Government done to strengthen plans in case queues spill out of Dover or Folkestone? It is in all our interests to ensure that people can get through border checks quickly, and it is time to ensure that that happens.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Last week I visited the port of Dover with the Home Affairs Committee, to see those operations in action. Given that this is an EU entry-exit system, we must face the fact that this is an inevitable consequence of Brexit, and we have to make it work. The best solution to the challenges facing our constituents this summer is sustained engagement—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Sorry about this. Can the hon. Members for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) and for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) stop the little argument on the Back Benches?
Chris Murray
The best solution to managing those challenges this summer is sustained engagement with the French, at leader level, Cabinet level, ministerial level, and working official level, so that the police aux frontières have a delegated responsibility to let flows through. What discussion will we be having at every level with the French, using the better relationship we have struck, so that our constituents and British holidaymakers trying to get a holiday abroad this summer, do not face the consequences of Brexit, which will be missed flights and long queues?
Alex Norris
Sustained engagement with the French is crucial, and it is happening at all levels, be that ministerial, senior official, or operationally, to ensure that prioritisation of flow. This is not something that has just started, and neither is it coming to its end. We are in that constant position and have been for many months, even before the EES started its operations, and that will continue. I say gently that it is not just the French but all EU member states. At some point this summer our constituents will end up in all those different member states. I want them to have the best possible experience, so we are also having those engagements.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is now 10 years on from the Brexit referendum, and in the words of the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), where are we? We are here, stuck in queues at the EU border for hours at a time, because he and his acolytes forced a damaging Brexit on this country. It is interesting to note that the Conservatives have come to the Chamber today complaining about the consequences of the Brexit deal that they negotiated. The Brexit plan of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), implemented by the Conservatives and unresolved by this Government, has left British holidaymakers in this position. Indeed, the Government are guilty not just of failing to plan, but of political and diplomatic failures that have let down holidaymakers. We are already seeing reports of queues of up to five hours—what a way to start our holidays.
What immediate steps is the Minister taking to mitigate disruption? Will he seek an immediate meeting with the European Commission so that contingency measures can be put in place to protect passengers as a matter of urgency? Will the Government drop their red lines on Europe, and commit to joining the single market and customs union? Not only would that reverse the damage done by Brexit and get our economy back on track, but it would mean that we—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Sorry, but you’ve gone way over your one minute. I think your border queue has just gone. I call the Minister.
Alex Norris
To address the point about Brexit, we must be clear—for example, the Republic of Ireland, which is outside Schengen, also has these challenges, so the idea that reversing to previous arrangements would change that reality is tricky. There is a fundamental choice here, as real practical measures will affect the hon. Gentleman’s community and those of many right hon. and hon. Members, and lots of British holidaymakers. We can choose to use our efforts and leadership collectively to have conversations about the past, or we can work together to ensure that those people have the best possible experience. That is what we are doing, and why we are engaging with France and the Commission. That is the best approach, rather than having global conversations about things that do not really go anywhere.
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend makes an exceptionally important point about vulnerable users. Operation Brock and the Dover traffic assessment project give scope for the KMRF to stand up contingency plans to make movement for domestic travel easier, because the last thing we want is for people, particularly vulnerable people, to be in cars for long periods of time.
On my hon. Friend’s point about communications from the carriers, we work closely with the carriers and they are working hard, as are the ports. My message to travellers would be to check in with the advice they are getting from the carriers, particularly on how long to give themselves. They should not change their travel plans, but they should engage to ensure that they arrive on time. I am a sinner on the Eurostar because I leave things as late as possible, but that is not a prudent approach at the moment. Instead, travellers should check in with their carrier to get the best up-to-date information. I will undertake to have conversations with carriers to ensure that things are as good as possible, in the spirit he suggests.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The Minister must think he is having déjà vu after our exchange at the Home Affairs Committee yesterday. I implore him once again to make every endeavour and to use his best offices with the EU Commission and the French to try to get them to understand that we cannot wait for there to be delays; we have to anticipate switching off the system. The Port of Dover, Eurotunnel and others have extraordinarily intelligent and complex ways of forecasting flow. Will they look at those flow forecasts and use them to decide when to put measures in place, not wait for the delays to start?
Rochdale Grooming Gang: Offender Deportation
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Norris
I have known my hon. Friend for a very long time. He is resolute on this issue and fights day by day to protect his constituents in Oldham, and his contribution was in that spirit. I can confirm that all options are on the table. I share his anger and the anger of his community.
I have personally engaged with the Government of Pakistan in recent months; we engage with them frequently. It is in all our interests for us to have excellent, functional returns agreements with as many countries as possible. All the work that we do is in that spirit.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
My thoughts are with the victims and survivors, who have already suffered unbelievable harm and trauma. They have been failed at every stage, and they deserve better. It is completely unacceptable that someone who has been convicted of such vile offences, and who has rightly been stripped of his British citizenship, cannot be deported because of what I believe is a loophole in the law. It was not intended back in 1971 that the law should protect people like this, and the law must be rectified as a matter of urgency. Will the Minister tell the House when the Government will bring forward the necessary changes, and whether they have set a deadline for doing so? What progress has been made in discussions with Pakistan to ensure that this offender is deported?
Asylum Accommodation
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on asylum accommodation.
It is important to remind the House of the wider context, and in particular the events that have brought us here today. In the years before the general election, the number of people arriving in the United Kingdom illegally, particularly via small boats across the channel, rocketed. The dismal consequences of that abject failure to secure our country’s borders are grimly familiar to us all: individuals risking their lives to come here via dangerous means, criminal gangs growing rich from the proceeds of organising those journeys, community cohesion placed under severe strain, and public trust in the state’s ability to perform one of its most basic functions shredded.
Over the last two years this Government have taken concerted action to turn the situation around. We have begun by implementing major asylum reforms to reduce the incentives that draw people to this country. We have cut overall asylum costs by nearly £1 billion, while asylum decision making, which effectively ground to a halt under the previous Government, is at a 24-year high. More foreign criminals and illegal migrants are being removed than at any time in many years, and in partnership with our French counterparts we have stopped more than 44,000 crossing attempts. We have also put in place a groundbreaking scheme that means that small boat arrivals can, for the first time, be returned to France.
All that work is important and it is making a difference. However, perhaps the most totemic and tangible manifestation of the failing system that we inherited is the continued use of hotels to house asylum seekers. That issue has, quite understandably, been a source of widespread concern and anger. The Government recognise those frustrations, and we share them. Hotels ought to be local assets serving their communities, not propping up the asylum accommodation system. When hotels are used for that purpose, there are significant implications for local services, community cohesion and public safety. Clearly, that unsuitable, unsustainable and costly practice must be stopped, which is why this Government made a commitment to end the use of asylum hotels in this Parliament. We are well on track to deliver on that aim.
In April we announced that 11 asylum hotels had been closed and given back to local communities. We were clear at that point that more would follow in the subsequent weeks, and so that has proved, with a further 20 now having closed. That means that just under 170 asylum hotels remain in use, which is a reduction of more than half compared with the peak of around 400 under the previous Government. The number accommodated in hotels has also seen a significant fall from 56,000 in 2023, to around 21,000 now. Progress is being made but we must go further, and that means scaling up our use of larger, more basic facilities.
There are currently two such sites in operation: Wethersfield in Essex and Crowborough in East Sussex. Those sites began housing asylum seekers in 2023 and January this year respectively. Across both sites there is, at present, capacity to accommodate up to 1,340 individuals, with additional contingency capacity at Wethersfield of 400. In the meantime, work has continued to identify further viable locations.
Today I can confirm to the House that three new ex-military sites are now under consideration: Barnham in Suffolk, Bicester in Oxfordshire and Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire. Together, those sites could eventually provide accommodation for around 3,750 asylum seekers, subject to feasibility assessments, planning permission and the necessary approvals. Those caveats are important, because while our commitment to the promise we have made on hotels is absolute, we must ensure that we get this right and carry out all relevant due diligence, so that if we decide to proceed with an alternative site, our plans are as strong as they can possibly be. Let me assure hon. Members that we have learned from the previous Government’s forays into this arena. No final decision will be taken on any site until, in each case, all necessary arrangements, assessments and approvals are in place and have been properly considered.
Work on those three potential sites is ongoing, in conjunction with local and national partners. To further support the exit from hotels, we are exploring the possibility of extending the use of the site at Crowborough, which is currently due to end next January. At Wethersfield, we are exploring both an extension and the best use of capacity. Finally, following detailed assessments, the Government have decided not to proceed with Cameron barracks in Scotland as a potential site for asylum accommodation, and it will be returned to the Ministry of Defence.
Before I finish, I assure the House that we understand our responsibilities in this space. With any decision on asylum accommodation, public safety is and will continue to be a critical consideration. We will always take every possible step to minimise the impact on communities. To be clear, wherever asylum seekers are located, they should be in no doubt that if they break our laws, they will be caught, face justice and, like the thousands of foreign offenders already removed under this Government, made to leave our country.
To conclude, it was always going to take time to fix the mess we inherited, but as the measures I have set out today clearly demonstrate, we are acting decisively to achieve the change the country voted for at the general election by closing asylum hotels for good, by securing our borders and by restoring order and control to the immigration system. That is what the public rightly expect and that is what the Government are working relentlessly to deliver. I commend this statement to the House.
Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sarah Jones
I am happy to facilitate conversations, but it sounds like my hon. Friend is already having them. As she will know, we are working on police culture. The Hillsborough law and some of the wider work we are doing across Government aim to ensure that we have the right openness, transparency and culture of being professionally curious and seeking out solutions. That is very important. All forces across the country have had a funding increase this year, and Operation Beaconport has its own fund of £38 million. The funding should be there, but I am happy to have further conversations with her about that.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
It is deeply disheartening that, a year on from Baroness Casey’s audit, the Government have not made greater progress. The victims have already been failed once; they must not be failed again. Previous inquiries have produced more than 800 recommendations, most of which have not been implemented. We see this over and over again across Departments: inquiry launched, recommendations produced and accepted by the Government, and then nothing—while victims continue to suffer.
I wholeheartedly support the independent inquiry into grooming gangs, but it must not become an excuse to delay implementing the changes that we already know are needed. Will the Minister set out a clear timeline for implementing all Baroness Casey’s recommendations in full, and make clear to every organisation with a duty to safeguard children that the hundreds of recommendations from previous inquiries are not “nice to haves” but must be implemented at pace and without further delay?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At a point when we have over a million young people not in employment, education or training, it is imperative that we make progress in this area. We would be letting our young people down if we did not take this opportunity to ensure that we are investing in our domestic skills workforce. That is a cross-Department priority and the Home Office is playing its full part.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
The latest estimates indicate that 627,000 non-EU migrants, mostly from low-income countries, came to the UK between December 2024 and December 2025. Meanwhile, 61,000 Brits aged 16 to 24 left the UK, as did another 65,000 aged 25 to 34. In recent years, for every young Briton who has been employed, 27 young migrants from outside the EU have also joined the workforce. Does the Home Secretary accept that mass migration has wrecked economic opportunity for young people? How will that inform any changes that she makes to the immigration rules, given that almost two thirds of a million non-EU migrants came to this country last year?
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I think the Minister speaks for the whole House in thanking the Metropolitan police for policing riots and protests that go beyond the realms of what is legally appropriate or acceptable, and that should happen to everybody, whatever the subject of their protest. Does the Minister agree that the rules on donations to fund these rallies—one of the organisers of the rallies, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who has thanked his donors, is a prominent member of a political party—should apply to the organisers as much as they do to anybody involved in politics, and that those donations should be declared with the transparency expected by this House and my constituents? Does the Minister agree that anybody receiving money from domestic or foreign sources should declare it?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not quite sure that that question relates to the policing of rallies. It is a very good question, but it is not one for today.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Last week, the Government voted against my amendment to the Armed Forces Bill, new clause 5, which would have waived visa fees for the spouses and children of armed forces personnel and veterans. That was, of course, a Labour manifesto pledge—as it was a Conservative manifesto pledge— to ensure that the families of those who have fought to defend this country are allowed to reside here without being charged £3,229 per person just to remain in the country following service. I understand that the reason the policy has not been pursued is a Home Office issue, rather than a Defence issue, so will the Minister explain why it has not been progressed in two years? Could he give an update on whether the policy will be amended when the changes come out later this year?
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Member for his question—as a veteran, it is an important question, and I respect it. I am working with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence at the moment to deliver that important manifesto commitment.
Shabana Mahmood
First, I welcome my hon. Friend’s important work in this area. Greater Manchester is one of three hotspot areas selected for an enhanced operational crackdown in addition to the nationwide campaign. I cannot comment on specific dates due to operational sensitivities, but the public can expect to see the start of a major offensive against dodgy shops beginning this year.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The Home Secretary will be aware of the inquiry that the Committee is conducting on the role that organised criminality plays in the crime we see on our high streets. We heard compelling evidence recently about counterfeit goods, the role they play, and the role that forced labour plays throughout that supply chain. Can the Home Secretary explain what she is doing to combat forced labour? I look forward to putting more questions to her when she appears before my Committee before the summer recess.
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. I have seen the footage. Like, I am sure, all other Members, I was shocked but not surprised by it. The police have an important job to do in cracking down on this kind of activity, but I can give the right hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance of the priority that this Government attach to antisemitism. We have seen a range of abhorrent antisemitic attacks in recent times, and we will do everything we can to stand against them.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
We have seen the devastating impact of extremism on our country, with the Jewish community experiencing disgraceful attacks. Does the Minister share my concern about the fact that in recent elections, candidates such as Kate Hollern were threatened with beheading? More recently, we have seen convicted terrorists standing for election. What will the Minister do to prevent that? Does he believe that individuals with terrorist convictions should be allowed to stand for election?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that criminal law applies across the whole of the UK. Those are things that we track as a Government, and I will look at the substance to see if we need to change the law. We work very closely with our colleagues in Northern Ireland, and I will ensure that the ministerial team discuss these matters with their counterparts in Northern Ireland.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
May I put on the record my sympathy for the family and colleagues of Sir Alex Younger? He was a true patriot.
Two years ago, this Government pledged to halve violence against women and girls within a decade, but the Minister responsible for delivering that promise has now resigned. In her resignation letter, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) laid a damning charge: that Government progress came from the fear of embarrassment from
“threats made by me in light of catastrophic mistakes”,
and that it was only when the Prime Minister’s shameful decision to appoint paedophile apologist Lord Mandelson “bubbled up” that No. 10 would “kick into gear” and finally do anything about women and girls.
Two years in, we still do not know how this Government are going to measure violence against women and girls and whether it has halved, so my ask is simple and is something that the Government can do today: extradite Andrew and Tristan Tate to the UK to answer Crown Prosecution Service charges that were laid in 2024. It is a political decision. A year since I asked for them to be extradited, the Government should do what is right. If they are in Dubai or Hong Kong, they can be extradited. Why will the Government not extradite them?
Alex Norris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. When I visited her community, I heard in no uncertain terms on the doorstep how important this issue is to people, as it is for my community and the rest of the country. That is why we are stepping up the international action we have taken, including the important new deal with France. Domestically, we will be legislating through our immigration and asylum Bill to create the system that I know her constituents want, which is a fair but firm one.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Nigerian illegal immigrant Gift Oladele was recently jailed for the brutal rape of a teenage girl. He dragged her into isolated woods, leaving her terrified, and she now has recurrent nightmares. Oladele had committed previous violent sexual offences, and the Home Office rightly tried to deport him, yet an immigration judge allowed him to stay because of Oladele’s human rights, and he went on to violently rape the teenage girl. I believe the rights of women and girls to be protected are more important than the supposed human rights of foreign rapists to stay here. Is it not time to leave the European convention on human rights, so that all criminals such as Oladele can be deported?
Alex Norris
Let me start by saying that I agree that that is a truly awful case. It shows how important it is that we remove people who commit crimes, and we have removed nearly 8,000 foreign offenders since we came into office. But the right hon. Gentleman’s prescription does not match up to a solution: leaving the ECHR would undermine our returns agreements with countries around the world. Instead, our contention is that we can improve it. We have said that we will look at legislating to narrow the domestic interpretation that has sprawled around article 8, and he will have seen the progress we have made internationally on article 3. That is the sensible approach, rather than chasing a sugar high that he knows—because he did not do it when he could have done so—will not work.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Brexit has seen off a number of Prime Ministers, but as we approach the 10th anniversary of the referendum this Prime Minister has apparently been given a period of indefinite leave to remain in No. 10. Ministers are clearly feeling unusually generous, but are they aware of a report by the Oxford Migration Observatory, which shows that Brexit is actually a pull factor for dangerous small boat crossings? It is now obvious that the Government’s one in, one out scheme with France is never going to work at the scale required, so will Ministers today re-state for the official record that Brexit is a large contributor to the small boats crisis, and will they commit to pursuing a new comprehensive asylum deal with the entirety of the EU?
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
My hon. Friend may be aware that I recently met the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) and the rabbi for south Buckinghamshire. She will know that the Jewish community protective security grant scheme, administered by the Community Security Trust, funds security measures such as CCTV, alarms and fencing, which require fixed sites to install and maintain. However, I fully recognise the fear and concerns raised by mobile Jewish congregations, and we are working closely with CST to understand what more support we can give.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
The “Police Anti-Racism Commitment”, a copy of which I have here, published in March 2025 by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, asks police to reverse engineer the same arrest rates for different ethnic groups, even though offending rates are different. It expressly calls for different racial groups to be treated differently, saying that people should not treat “everyone ‘the same’” or be “colour blind”. This is a formal policy requirement for two-tier policing. I have been raising this issue for over a year, and I have never had an answer, including from the Home Secretary last Tuesday. Let me try again: does she agree that this racist and dangerous policy document should be immediately withdrawn—yes or no?
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
Around half of vehicle crime involves manipulation of signals from remote devices. Through the Crime and Policing Act 2026, we have criminalised the possession, importation, making, adapting and supplying of the electronic devices used to commit vehicle theft, which will make a real difference in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Last week we discussed the murder of Henry Nowak, which continues to shock the country. As we said last week, his father, Mark, asked politicians not to use the tragedy to stoke division and hatred. With that request in mind, and considering the need to maintain trust in policing, would the Home Secretary like to take this opportunity to urge Vice-President J. D. Vance and the US Department of Justice to butt out of our politics, leave British law enforcement to Britain and, just as importantly, show respect for British victims of crime?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her question—[Interruption.] The right to peaceful protest and public assembly is one that we must protect, but it must be balanced with the need to maintain public order and keep the public safe. Perhaps she could write to me with further detail. If she wants to have a meeting to talk about it, I would be very happy to do that.
Mr Speaker
Order. I just want to help the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters). The Minister was answering, and you walked straight across both of us—not that I should need to explain that.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Edward Morello
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In my topical question earlier, I asked the Minister whether the Department would reform the police funding formula to account for seasonality and rurality. The Minister said that that announcement had already been made; actually, only a review of the funding formula has been announced. Can you give me guidance, Mr Speaker, on how I can get information on what will be included?
Mr Speaker
You have put that on the record, and those on the Front Bench have heard it. I think it was an error rather than a complete misleading of the House, so I think we can leave it at that.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In March, I requested two briefings from the Home Office as a member of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition: one on Islamist terrorism and one on the security threat in Northern Ireland. After months of chasing, at the end of last month I received a reply from a private secretary informing me that
“we will need to decline the request of a briefing for Alicia Kearns on the security and threat picture in Northern Ireland and the Islamist terrorist threat”.
It is not unreasonable for the Opposition to request two briefings in six months. What advice and guidance can you kindly give, Mr Speaker, on how we can get the briefings we need so that we can hold the Government to account?
Mr Speaker
The Chair has no responsibility for that, but the Government have a responsibility to ensure that the Opposition are briefed. I am sure that point will have been noted.
Murder of Henry Nowak
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the murder of Henry Nowak.
Last December, Henry, aged just 18, was a first-year university student with his life ahead of him. He was kind, hard-working and loved by his family and friends. His murder, at the hands of Vickrum Digwa, was a horrifying act. Digwa murdered Henry and then lied about him as he lay dying, falsely accusing him of racism. It was an evil act.
I know that the thoughts of the whole House will now be with Henry’s family and friends, just as mine are. What they have been through is heartbreaking and, for most of us, unimaginable. I know that nothing can take their pain and loss away, but yesterday we saw some measure of justice. Digwa was sentenced to life imprisonment. He will serve a minimum term of 21 years. His mother, Kiran Kaur, has been convicted of assisting an offender. She is due to be sentenced on 17 July. The Crown Prosecution Service has today authorised further charges against other members of the attacker’s family.
With further sentencing and possible charges pending, we must be cautious still in what we say about this case so that we do not place any proceedings at risk. However, I can and must pay tribute today to the dignified and powerful words of the Nowak family in the statement they gave after yesterday’s sentencing. They deserve answers, in particular about what happened on that awful night and the actions of the police officers who arrived on the scene.
I expect many in this House, and many more across this country, have now seen the police officer’s bodycam footage, which was released last night. It is, without question, a disturbing and tragic thing to see. People are rightly asking questions about how the situation was handled. They are shocked and disquieted to hear Henry’s words, “I can’t breathe.”
I know that it is difficult to wait any longer for answers, but there is a proper process for assessing whether there have been incidents of police misconduct, led by the Independent Office for Police Conduct. It will determine what could and should have been done differently, and it will determine what action may need to be taken against individual officers. The family yesterday called on me
“to ensure the IOPC has the resources, authority and independence it needs to conduct a full, fearless and transparent investigation.”
I can confirm today that I will do so. The IOPC will be equipped and encouraged to act; to find the truth; and to ensure, if necessary, that there are consequences.
There have been accusations, I know, of two-tier policing, and that one community has been prioritised over another. It will be for the IOPC to determine the facts in this case—I cannot and will not comment on them—but let me say this on the question of preferential treatment more widely: the police in this country have a sacred duty to police without fear or favour. Everyone in this country is equal before the law; it is the promise upon which our whole justice system rests. The equality of every citizen is the foundation on which the openness, tolerance and generosity of this country rests.
Let me also be clear about one other thing—a dangerous undercurrent that I have seen in the reaction to this awful crime. Threats against police officers are utterly unacceptable. There can be no justification for intimidation, abuse or attempts to take the law into one’s own hands. A police officer unrelated to this case has been misidentified online and subjected to death threats. He has been forced to relocate, to protect himself and his family. Misinformation and inflammatory commentary is making a dreadful situation even worse. We must all, together, condemn it. We must also allow the facts to be established through the appropriate investigations and the courts, and we must do so calmly and responsibly.
The Nowak family, and Henry’s memory, deserve answers. The family have also called on us all to take action to address the daily tragedy of knife crime in this country. This Government are committed to halving knife crime in this decade. Since the start of this Parliament, we have made progress. Knife crime has fallen by 10%. Knife homicides are down 27%, and are at their lowest level in a decade, but clearly we must do more while there are still tragedies like this one. For that reason, we have recently published our halving knife crime plan. It sets out how we will go further to drive sustained reductions in violence. It brings together action across Government and society to stop people turning to knife crime, and to ensure that perpetrators are caught and brought to justice. It includes a range of measures. It will see schools and families supported to address the root causes of knife crime through the establishment of 50 young futures hubs; police using new crime mapping tools to target enforcement more precisely, and making better use of stop and search; and cruel and exploitative drug gangs stopped from criminally exploiting children, which will prevent the knife violence that is driven by the county lines trade.
On knife controls, there have been calls to limit the right of Sikhs to carry their ceremonial knife, the kirpan, one of the five holy items in their faith. The Offensive Weapons Act 2019, passed under the previous Government, clarified and strengthened existing legal protections in relation to long kirpans. This included extending defences, so that kirpans can be lawfully possessed for religious reasons and used in religious and ceremonial contexts, but let me be clear: carrying the knife for the purpose of religious observance is one thing, but using it, as so tragically occurred in this case, is quite another. It is a vile act, a crime of the utmost severity, and it will be met with the severest punishment.
Yesterday, the Nowak family ended their statement with a powerful call to us all: they did not want Henry’s death
“to be used to create further division, hatred or tension.”
They quoted the words of the prosecuting lawyer:
“This is not a case about Sikhism. This is not a case about racism. This is a case about murder. ”
I echo those words. We cannot allow this murder to turn communities against one another. We must condemn those who seek personal political profit from tragedy. Instead, we must show who we really are in this country. This was a murder—a vile and violent crime. The punishment must be reserved for those who are responsible for the act. We do not believe in collective punishment in this country. Instead, we stand together against an act of pure evil. We condemn those who committed this heinous crime, not all those who share their faith or ethnicity.
Yesterday, a sentence was handed down in court. I know it will never be enough. The loss felt by Henry Nowak’s family and friends will last forever. A wonderful young man will never enjoy the promise of the life that stretched out before him. The evil acts of his murderer and accomplice will never be undone, but we can choose to use this moment to pursue positive change. We are still limited in what we can say—there is a sentence to be handed down, further charges may follow, and an IOPC investigation is ongoing—but I call on everyone here to be responsible in this moment, and to allow justice to run its full course. While we must be limited in what we can say, we must not be limited in how we act.
I will end with the words of the Nowak family, once more. Last night, they wrote that
“no other family should experience the heartbreak and horror of losing a child to knife crime.”
Let that be the challenge to us all, across this House, across Government and across society. It is the very least we can do to honour the memory of Henry Nowak. I commend this statement to the House.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution and his questions. I give him that guarantee: the IOPC will, and does, have the resources it needs to conduct its investigation, and I know that it will do so with the full independence that our system affords it. I understand that the IOPC intends to report finally within the next three months, and I believe that a meeting is now taking place with the family—some contact had been made before, but the IOPC was waiting for the end of the criminal trial. Of course, it will do its job; it is getting on with doing its job, and I expect it to report as quickly as possible, but I can give my hon. Friend the guarantee he seeks.
My hon. Friend is right that we have a knife crime problem in this country, which is why the Government have a landmark commitment to halving knife crime over a decade. It is why we have launched the knife crime action plan, and I reassure him that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its historic mission.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
This is a heartbreaking case of a young man who should be alive today with a happy life ahead of him. Because of the forces of evil, he is not. On behalf of my party, I extend my sympathies to Henry’s family and friends, and I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement.
The independent investigation should uncover how one evil individual was not picked up despite apparently exhibiting disturbing behaviours that saw him ejected from his place of worship and having an obsession with weapons. Of course, police officers work under high stress and must make split-second decisions, and we rely on their good judgment every day. Tragically, in this case the officers made a clear and terrible mistake—one that failed Henry and has broken the hearts of his family. The investigation must ensure that recommendations are made so that nothing like this can happen again, but as the Home Secretary said, there must be no doubt that the police officers we see on our streets must be treated with respect.
Before going any further, we must acknowledge that Digwa betrayed his faith and his community, and he deserves his punishment. Regardless of that, when we in this House discuss this issue, it is incumbent on all of us to bear in mind the words of Henry’s father Mark:
“We do not want Henry’s murder to be used to create further hatred, division or tension.”
Since the sentencing and the release of the harrowing video showing the sickening incident, the vast majority of politicians have responded to this matter with due sensitivity, and that reflects well on this House. It is therefore all the more disturbing that we have seen the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) once again using tragedy to divide British communities. We all know why he does this—he has made a career out of it, and has become rich as a result—but we are also well aware, as is he, that his actions are divisive, dangerous and fundamentally un-British. The rights of British people to observe their faith are hard won; they cannot be contingent on the colour of any individual’s skin. Those rights come with a responsibility, one that Digwa has betrayed, and he must now serve his well-deserved punishment.
Of course, as other Members have said, we are too aware of the tragedies of knife crime and the problem it represents in this country.
Max Wilkinson
That must be tackled, as Mark Nowak has rightly said. The judge’s remarks in this case tell us that the knife being carried by the murderer was different from that typically carried by British Sikhs as a part of their faith.
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Wilkinson, it is no use holding your hand up as though you are some policeman. I am policing this statement on the basis of the time allowed, and you are quite a bit over. I hope you are coming to the end of your question now.
Max Wilkinson
I am, Mr Speaker, and I apologise.
As Mark Nowak has said, the outcome here should not be further division. In that spirit and in Henry’s memory, we must work together to ensure that this kind of tragedy is not allowed to happen again.
Shabana Mahmood
Police officers must apply the law fairly, without fear or favour, to every single person they serve. They work incredibly hard and get it right the vast majority of the time, and where mistakes are made, it is right that they are properly investigated and examined. The whole House should remember that our police officers run towards danger every day in order to keep our communities safe. As my hon. Friend will know, because of the ongoing independent IOPC investigation, I do not think it is appropriate to comment further on the specifics of this case.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with everything the Home Secretary says. I agree that we should not weaponise this issue, but neither should we tiptoe around it. The truth is that many white people in this country feel that the police are so terrified of being called racist that they either underreact, as in the case of the appalling grooming scandal, or they overreact, as in this case, so there is a role for the Home Secretary now. She needs to summon in top police officers and say, “Things have got to change. We are all equal. Don’t be terrified of what people think about you—just carry out the law as you’re supposed to do as police officers.”
Mr Speaker
Order. You are meant to be speaking through the Chair, not across the Chamber.
Mr Speaker
Order. I started this Session by calling for tolerance and respect. I do not expect Members to be pointing at each other and attacking each other. Members speak through the Chair. We want an orderly Chamber that is respectful. This does nobody any good.
Mr Dhesi
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Hundreds of thousands of Sikh soldiers bravely fought alongside British soldiers in both world wars. Tens of thousands made the ultimate sacrifice, proudly wearing their turban and their kirpan. What reassurances can my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary give to the Sikh community, who are horrified and ashamed by this brutal murder and fearful about their right to freely and peacefully practise their faith?