Police Reform White Paper

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we start, it would be remiss of me not to say to the Home Secretary that although we have a statement now, I watched this all unfold yesterday and over the past few days. Whether it is the FBI or the merging of police forces, it really needs to be brought to the House before it is taken to the media. I say once again to the Home Secretary, who I know is very diligent in the job, that these are not my rules; they are the Prime Minister’s rules. I do not need the Prime Minister ignoring his own rules.

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on police reform.

A little less than 200 years ago, speaking at this very Dispatch Box, Sir Robert Peel declared that:

“the time is come, when…we may fairly pronounce that the country has outgrown her police institutions”.—[Official Report, 28 February 1828; Vol. 18, c. 795.]

Those words could just as well have been spoken today.

Policing is not broken, as some might have us believe. Last year, the police made over three quarters of a million arrests—5% more than the year before. Some of the most serious crimes are now falling, with knife crime down and murder in the capital at its lowest recorded level. However, across the country things feel very different. Communities are facing an epidemic of everyday crime that all too often seems to go unpunished—and criminals know it. Shop theft has risen by 72% since 2010, and phone theft is up 58%. At the same time, in a rapidly changing world, the nature of crime is changing. Criminals—be they drug smugglers, people traffickers or child sexual abusers—are operating online and across borders, with greater sophistication than ever before.

The world has changed dramatically since policing was last fundamentally reformed over 60 years ago. Policing remains the last great unreformed public service. Today, as this Government publish a new policing White Paper, I set out reforms that are long overdue. They define a new model for policing in this country, with local policing that protects our communities and national policing that protects us all.

Since taking office, we have already restored a focus on neighbourhood policing that the last Conservative Government eroded. They pulled bobbies off the beat, and now over half of the public report that they never see police on patrol in their local area. It was a foolish error, because neighbourhood policing works. Across the world, the evidence shows that visible patrols in high-crime areas work. The last Labour Government put more officers on the streets, and confidence in policing hit record levels. The Tories cut them, and confidence fell.

This Government are righting that wrong, with a target of 13,000 more neighbourhood officers by the end of the Parliament, and we have already put 2,400 back on to the beat. We have also introduced the neighbourhood guarantee, so that every community has a named, contactable officer. I also intend to end the distortive “officer maintenance grant” that was introduced by the last Conservative Government, who had to replace the 20,000 police officers lost on their watch. The results were perverse: uniformed officers hired but stuck behind desks, with 12,000 men and women in uniform now working in support roles, including—absurdly—some 250 warranted officers working in human resources. I intend to end that by introducing a neighbourhood policing ringfence, which will ensure that forces are putting uniformed officers where the public want and need them: out in the community, fighting crime on our streets.

However, we must do more. Today, policing happens in the wrong places. We have local forces responsible for national policing, which distracts them from policing their communities. At the same time, we have forces of various shapes and sizes, and quality varies widely force by force. This Government’s reforms will ensure that we have the right policing happening in the right place. That starts with the creation of a new national police service.

At first, the force will set standards and lift administrative tasks off local forces. In time, it will draw in all national crime-fighting responsibilities, including counter-terrorism policing, serious organised crime, and fraud. This will ensure that local forces are no longer distracted by national responsibilities, while at the same time creating an elite national force that is expert at fighting the ever-more sophisticated criminals who are operating nationwide, across our borders, and online.

Alongside the new national force, we will replace the patchwork of 43 local forces that has remained almost unchanged since the Police Act 1964. That model has been straining for decades, and today it is simply not fit for purpose. Our 43 forces are of varying sizes: some have just 1,000 officers, others over 8,000, and the Metropolitan police is 30 times larger than our smallest forces. As a result, some forces are not equipped to handle complex investigations or respond to major incidents.

Meanwhile, the duplication across force headquarters means that money is wasted, drawing resource away from frontline policing. We will introduce a smaller number of regional forces responsible for specialist investigations, including murder, serious sexual offences and public order. Within these forces, we will introduce smaller local policing areas. These will be focused exclusively on local policing, tackling the burglaries, shoplifting and antisocial behaviour that too often go unpunished today. It is vital that we set these new forces up in the right way, so I will soon launch a review to determine the precise number and nature of the new forces. Its work will be completed this summer. Taken together, these reforms will put the right policing in the right place: an elite national force will tackle nationwide crime; regional forces will conduct specialist investigations; and local policing will tackle the epidemic of everyday crime.

Our structures are outdated, and so is our adoption of the tools and technology that could make our policing more effective and more efficient. Criminals are operating in increasingly sophisticated ways, but in policing, in all honesty, our response is mixed. While some forces surge ahead, with the results to show for it, others are fighting crime in a digital age with analogue methods. We will ensure that every force is adopting the latest technology, led out of the new national police service. This will include the largest-ever roll-out of live facial recognition technologies, across England and Wales. We know that this approach works. In London, in just two years, the Metropolitan police has made 1,700 arrests, taking robbers, domestic abusers and rapists off our streets.

When the future arrives, there are always doubters. A hundred years ago, fingerprinting was decried as curtailing our civil liberties, but today we could not imagine policing without it. I have no doubt that the same will prove true of facial recognition technology in the years to come. At the same time, we will launch police.AI, investing a record £115 million in AI and automation to make policing more effective and efficient, stripping admin away to ensure that officer time can be devoted to the human factor that only a police officer can provide.

Common standards apply both to the technology we use and the quality and performance of our officers. We must, and we will, set and maintain the highest standards. We have already introduced new vetting requirements enabling forces to dismiss those who fail vetting checks, alongside a range of measures to lift policing standards. We will introduce a licence to practice for police officers, recognising the professionalism, dedication and duty that comes with the uniform. We must be willing to set clear standards and the performance that we expect within forces, and to hold policing leaders to account for their delivery. Under the last Conservative Government, there was a retreat from the historical role held by Home Secretaries and the Home Office since the days of Peel. That was an error, and this Government will reverse it.

As the old Peelian maxim has it, the police are the public and the public are the police. I consider it essential that the people, through Parliament, can determine what they expect from their forces, so this Government will restore targets for police forces and set minimum standards that forces must abide by. Force performance will be transparent and public, and where performance falls, we will take action. We will create new turnaround teams to go into a force where performance has fallen, and in the most extreme examples of a failure of leadership, I will restore the Home Secretary’s power to fire a chief constable. This vital power was relinquished by the last Conservative Government, who handed it to police and crime commissioners—a position that I consider a failed experiment, despite the best efforts of many excellent PCCs across the country. We will now draw that experiment to an end. Local accountability and governance will remain essential, however, and will continue to be provided by mayoralties or local crime and policing boards.

Taken together, these are, without question, major reforms: a transformation in the structures of our forces, the standards within them, and the means by which they are held to account by the public. These are the most significant changes to how policing works in this country in around 200 years. The world has changed immeasurably since then, but policing has not. We have excellent and brave police officers across the country, and effective and inspiring leaders across many of our forces, but they are operating within an outdated structure, making the job of policing our streets and protecting our country harder than it should be.

I began by quoting Peel’s declaration that

“the country has outgrown her police institutions”.

He went on to argue that the

“safest course will be found to be the introduction of a new mode of protection.” —[Official Report, 28 February 1828; Vol. 18, c. 795.]

Now, as then, it is time we had the bravery to pursue a new mode of protection and a new model of policing, with the right policing in the right place. That means local forces protecting their communities and national policing that protects us all. That is what this Government will deliver, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

You did run slightly over, by over a minute, so I will give a little bit of leeway to the Opposition Front Benchers. I call the shadow Home Secretary.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

We are very mindful that, whatever the nature of the supported accommodation, it should tread as lightly as possible on the community and on its neighbours. I would say to my hon. Friend that we are standing up capacity within the Home Office to make sure that local police are sharing information, and that we are sharing information with local police, about possible vulnerabilities, particularly in some of the cases he is talking about. If he is able to share that information with us, we can make sure that local authorities and local police, alongside the national Government, are supporting the community to the fullest degree possible.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Happy new year, Mr Speaker. The Minister keeps saying that he intends to end the use of asylum hotels, but the most recent figures show that there are now more illegal immigrants in asylum hotels under this Government than there were at the time of the election. The numbers are going up: 41,000 illegal immigrants crossed the channel last year, a 40% increase on 2023. Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s admission in an astonishing letter to President Macron that this Government have no deterrent to stop these crossings? Is it not the truth that this Government have no control of illegal immigration and the only way to stop the crossings is to leave the European convention on human rights and deport anyone arriving here illegally within a week?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

Safe and legal routes relate to those who we would accept as refugees before they enter this country, in order to drive down the number of people who seek to enter the country illegally. My hon. Friend refers to routes for people who come to this country to work. It is right that we acknowledge, as we have done in our planned reforms to settlement, that settlement in this country is a privilege that has to be earned, not a right. It is perfectly proper for this country to be able to set the rules for how settlement is earned. Previous considerations about how many people might arrive through particular routes in order to work have shown that more people have arrived than anticipated, and therefore it is right that we change our approach; the discussion about care workers is particularly pertinent to that point. We are consulting on how those changes are delivered—as he rightly points out, that consultation ends on 12 February—and we will then set out our proposals for delivering our reforms.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Of course we are all proud of our historic record in welcoming genuine political refugees who apply in the proper way, but I am sure that the Home Secretary would agree that this humane policy is being entirely negated by illegal boat crossings, which are driving people mad and putting people at risk. Will she do the humane thing and seek an urgent derogation from the refugee convention and the convention on human rights so that we can arrest, detain and deport these people? By the way, if she announced that now, Labour would shoot up five points in the polls and the Prime Minister’s position would be safe. Does she support all that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

That is why we have our neighbourhood policing guarantee: to get those police officers back on the beat and in neighbourhoods, providing reassurance and dealing with the types of crimes that we know are going up, which have a huge and deleterious effect on our communities. Of course, total funding for territorial police forces and counter-terrorism policing will be up to £19.5 billion, which is an increase on 2025-26.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners has today said that this Government’s funding settlement leaves our police forces with a shortfall of almost half a billion pounds. We have already seen the number of police officers fall under this Government, and that shortfall could make the situation worse. With crime on the rise and prisoners being released early, will the Government commit to getting police numbers back up to the level they were at before they came into office?

[Shabana Mahmood]

It would be a bit easier to take the hon. Gentleman more seriously if it were not true that 94% of the reduction in police officers he refers to occurred when his Government were in office. From March 2024 to June 2024—before the general election— there was a reduction of 1,232 officers, so I will not take any lessons from him. The details of the police funding settlement will be clarified by the end of this month.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Happy new year to you from the Liberal Democrats, Mr Speaker.

The Tories left us without enough police to tackle burglaries, car thefts and shoplifting. People voted for change, but between March 2024 and March 2025, that legacy and the new Government’s actions meant that we lost more than 4,000 frontline police officers. Will the Home Secretary reassure us and the country that the next set of police numbers in March 2026 will show a net increase in frontline police compared with when this Government took office?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It was not just public confidence in policing that fell under the last Government but how the police felt they were treated, which affects retention. One aspect of the White Paper process and police reform is looking at how we train police, how we treat them and how we give them the support they need to do the job they want to do, rather than the bureaucracy that blights a lot of their time. My hon. Friend makes a good point, and we are working closely with the police bodies to ensure that we get this right.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

It is becoming increasingly apparent that West Midlands police retrospectively created a rationale and, according to remarkable investigative work by The Sunday Times, false evidence to justify their predetermined decision to ban fans from the world’s only Jewish state from going to a football match in Britain’s second city. Does the Minister think that the chief constable of such a force can possibly be overseeing effective community policing? How can he continue in his role?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

The Home Secretary launched the violence against women and girls strategy. She, like my hon. Friend, takes this issue seriously. We are working across Government, in particular with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, on this issue.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister. Welcome back.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and happy new year.

Women are overwhelmingly the victims of hate crimes online, but that is no surprise when companies are promising that the purchase of a self-swab rape kit will deter rapists. That is plainly offensive and shifts the onus on to women and off the cowards who rape them. The kits are also inadmissible in court. We have already had a sexual assault of a child case collapse because of the use of a self-swab kit. For almost a year, rape charities have begged the Government to take action and ban these dangerous kits and their dangerous narratives. Will the Government work with me, support my campaign and commit to protecting women from self-swab rape kits?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaign. Essex police have been allocated £4.5 million, which will fund 74 more neighbourhood police officers in 2025-26. They will provide a visible and engaging police presence, build strong relationships with local communities, and tackle the issues that my hon. Friend has raised.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

We now know that Alaa Abd el-Fattah expressed racist, anti-white, antisemitic and violent views. Members of the present and the last Government say that they did not know about that beforehand, and of course I accept those assurances, but now that we do know about those disgusting comments, will the Home Secretary use her powers under section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 to revoke his citizenship and deport him on the basis that he meets the statutory test in subsection (2), namely that he is not

“conducive to the public good”?

--- Later in debate ---

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

In addition to what I laid out earlier in the House, the changes announced by the Home Secretary are subject to consultation, which is live and will end on 12 February. Any decision to implement these proposals will take full account of relevant legal precedent.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The Home Secretary is turning heads by focusing on people arriving in this country, but the latest migration statistics show a worrying trend in the opposite direction. The number of working-age UK nationals leaving the country is concerning from an economic and a demographic perspective. Why does the Home Secretary think that they are leaving? Is it the disastrous Brexit legacy of the Tories, the terrifying prospect of a future Reform Government or her own Government’s low-octane approach to boosting young people’s life chances?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

As the Home Secretary has said, we were all appalled by the antisemitic terror attack at Bondi Beach. As my hon. Friend will know, all faith communities should be able to worship in peace and without fear. That is why the Government are investing £70.9 million in 2025-26 to strengthen security at places of worship. I listened carefully to the point she raised and would be very happy to discuss it with her further.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

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

As a fellow west midlands MP, the Home Secretary will be aware that policing in her constituency is incredibly different from policing in Staffordshire Moorlands. Can she confirm that, when we get the police reform White Paper in a few weeks’ time, we will not see any moves to abolish Staffordshire police, which knows how to police Staffordshire Moorlands, and merge it into West Midlands police?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

No, I disagree with my hon. Friend on that. Policing protests is always a balance that we have to get right: we have to respect the right to protest, but we also have to ensure the police have the powers they need to tackle issues and ensure that protests can happen peacefully, as they have done for so many years in this country.

[Mr Speaker]

With congratulations on his engagement, I call Ben Obese-Jecty.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

On 9 February 2020, the Home Secretary co-signed a letter to the then Prime Minister urging him to suspend a deportation flight to Jamaica for foreign national offenders. Fabian Henry, who had been convicted of grooming and raping two young girls, was removed from that flight and is believed still to be living in the UK. Having previously campaigned to keep them in the country—even demanding in this Chamber that the flight be halted—has the right hon. Lady now taken any action as Home Secretary to deport this dangerous child rapist, whom she helped to remain in the country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

For the final question, I call Iqbal Mohamed.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and a happy new year to all.

I have a constituent who was in care as a child and who was arrested at age 11, more than four decades ago, for stealing. Even though it is a minor petty crime, this juvenile crime has not been removed from their Disclosure and Barring Service certificate, and my constituent believes that this has impacted their ability to be employed in the social care sector as it appears on their DBS certificate and is not eligible for removal. Will the Home Secretary consider changes to the DBS filtering framework for petty minor offences committed by children to determine whether such offences should continue to appear on DBS certificates and later impact employment?

Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

Of course we want to ensure that as much information as possible is in the public domain. We do not yet know the truth about some of the statements in yesterday’s article and we need to get to the bottom of that. I know that Members of the House will be very interested in hearing about where the inspector gets to in his work, as well as ensuring that we have answers to the questions that Members are raising today.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Last month, Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were banned under the threat of antisemitic mob violence and a highly politicised anti-Israel campaign. Let me be clear: we must never allow the threat of mob violence to dictate policy. West Midlands police cited concerns about the Tel Aviv fans based on a previous game in Amsterdam, but the Dutch police have now shown that those concerns were completely false. There was no mob of 500 fans targeting the Muslim community in Amsterdam. In fact, many Maccabi fans were themselves attacked. Nobody was thrown in a river, apart from one Maccabi fan. The Maccabi fans were not skilled and organised fighters; that was just made up. What will the Government do to hold West Midlands police to account for providing that false information? Unless they have a good explanation, the chief constable should resign.

Disturbingly, two members of the safety advisory group, Waseem Zaffar and Mumtaz Hussain, both previously expressed vehement anti-Israel views, so they were not impartial. We have seen the Palestine solidarity campaign in Birmingham trying to hunt down Maccabi players before the game—that is despicable. When my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) went to the game, he was abused and called a “dog” by pro-Palestine protesters, thereby revealing their true colours.

We have now discovered through a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston) that the Home Office was made aware of the possibility of the ban as early as 2 October—a full two weeks before the decision was taken. Why did the Home Office then do nothing to ensure that Maccabi fans could be properly protected? Do the Government really think it is acceptable that the threat of antisemitic mob violence can dictate policy? That is morally wrong and should never be allowed to happen in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

The SAG looked at lots of considerations in terms of what the options were. Should it have been a closed match, for example, with no fans? That sometimes happens. Should the match not have gone ahead at all? As my hon. Friend says, should it have been a match with a limited number of tickets? Many options were being weighed up, but a SAG will not just look at the policing advice when it makes its recommendation; it will also look at other factors. That is why we want to get to the heart of how the SAG process is working, what kinds of decisions are being made and how it operates.

I should also tell the House that although there was concern that there would be problems at the match itself, with significant protest and different groups coming to the match, those concerns were not realised, which was a good thing. However, I certainly take my hon. Friend’s point.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is alarming that the decision made by West Midlands police was based on intelligence parts of which the Netherlands national police force has stated is not true, according to reports in the national press this weekend. The public should be able to trust the authorities to base decisions on credible, well-sourced and proportionate intelligence. Will the Minister set out where this intelligence came from, if not the Dutch police, and if she cannot, is that one of the questions she is asking West Midlands police? Who was ultimately responsible for sourcing that intelligence? What investigations has the Home Office asked for to ensure that any circulation of misinformation and the use of that misinformation by police was not prompted by antisemitic sentiment?

West Midlands police have continued to defend their decision, and to say that the threat was related to a specific sub-group of fans, not the wider fanbase. Will the Home Secretary ensure that senior West Midlands police officers come back to Parliament to appear before the Home Affairs Select Committee, to defend their decision and explain why a total ban on all supporters was justified? Finally, with antisemitic incidents remaining at record highs, what steps are the Government taking to reassure the Jewish community of their safety and tackle the root causes of antisemitism? This Government promised a community cohesion strategy last year following the Southport attacks. Part of that strategy must focus on anti-Jewish racism, so when will the Minister commit to publishing it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I can definitely give my hon. Friend that assurance—she is absolutely right, and I thank her for the work she is doing as chair of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism. I have been involved with that group and with Danny Stone for many years; they do a fantastic job, and I recommend that all Members of Parliament do their training session on antisemitism—it is incredibly insightful and really worth investing the time in. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If Israelis want to come here, they are very welcome, and there should be no question about that. Through the reviews that we are undertaking on public order and through the work we are doing to put money in to tackle antisemitism and to protect our Jewish friends in synagogues and other places, we hopefully will be sending the right message. There will always be extra work to do, because antisemitism is a rising issue and we all need to work to tackle it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

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

Will the Minister provide any information about the work done by the Home Office from the point that it found out that the away fans may be banned to when the decision was taken—or was the work that could be done to enable the match to go ahead with the away fans there done only after the decision had been taken?

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 19th November 2025 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Mr Speaker]

I inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege.

After Clause 41

Collection of data on overseas students subject to visa conditions and immigration rules

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 37.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 1 to 36 and 38 to 42.

[Alex Norris]

The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill has returned to this House in good order. A number of amendments were made in the other place, with all but one made by the Government. Throughout the passage of the Bill to date, the strength of feeling about the importance of a properly functioning immigration system that is controlled and managed so that it is fair and works for the people of this country has been evident. Proper enforcement and respect for the rules is crucial to that.

As we discussed in this House on Monday, the Government’s new asylum policy statement sets out significant reforms to the UK’s asylum and illegal migration system to restore order, control, fairness and public confidence in the system. That statement builds on the measures in the Bill, our consideration of which returns our focus to the core objectives of the Bill.

This Bill will strengthen UK border security. It is part of a serious, credible plan to protect our borders that sees the Government working closely with our international partners upstream and in our near neighbourhood. It is a plan that sees this Government bringing to bear the powers and impact of the system as a whole, under the leadership of the Border Security Command, against those who seek to undermine the UK’s border security. It is a plan that delivers for our law enforcement partners by creating the new powers that they need to intervene faster and earlier against more of those involved in serious and organised immigration crime activity, providing for better data-sharing and creating stronger intelligence to inform enforcement activity. It is a plan that disrupts the sales pitch spun by the gangs by preventing illegal working in sectors that are not currently required to confirm whether a person’s immigration status disqualifies them from working.

Turning to the Lords amendments, I will start with the non-Government amendment passed by the other place. Lords amendment 37, tabled by the Opposition, is in our view unnecessary. It would mandate the Home Secretary to collate and publish statistics on the number of overseas students who have had their student visa revoked as a result of the commission of criminal offences, the number of overseas students who have been deported following the revocation of their student visa and the number of overseas students detained pending deportation following the revocation of their student visa.

It is first worth emphasising that the Government strongly value the vital economic and academic contribution that international students make in the UK. They enrich our communities, including my own in the city of Nottingham. The immigration rules provide for the cancellation of entry clearance and permission to enter or stay where a person has been convicted of a criminal offence in the UK or overseas. Where a student’s permission is cancelled, as a person without leave to enter or remain they are liable to administrative removal from the UK. Foreign nationals who commit a crime should be in no doubt that the law will be enforced and that, where appropriate, we will pursue their deportation.

On the specifics of the amendment on publishing data on these topics, the Home Office already publishes data on a vast amount of migration statistics, including information on visas, returns and detention. The official statistics published by the Home Office are kept under review in line with the code of practice for statistics, taking into account a number of factors including user needs and the resources required to compile those numbers, as well as the quality and availability of data. This ensures that we balance the production of high-quality statistics against the need for new ones to support public understanding on migration.

I want to be clear, however, that we recognise that there has been heightened interest from parliamentarians, the media and members of the public in learning more about the number and type of criminal offences committed by foreign nationals in the UK and about what happens to foreign national offenders—FNOs—after they have been convicted, and after they have completed their sentences. The Home Office is looking closely at what more can be done both to improve the processes for collating and verifying relevant data on the topic of FNOs and their offences, and to establish a more regular means of placing that data into the public domain alongside the other Home Office statistics that I have talked about. When this work progresses, the Home Office proposes to publish more detailed statistical reporting on FNOs subject to deportation and those returned to countries outside the UK. I hope that, on that basis, right hon. and hon. Members will support the Government motion relating to Lords amendment 37.

The Lords amendments introduced by the Government further strengthen and expand the powers and offences that target organised immigration crime groups. The most significant is Lords amendment 7, which introduces a new offence that criminalises the creation or publication of material relating to unlawful immigration services online, on internet services including social media, and on messaging platforms. Such material will be considered criminal when a person knows or suspects that the material will be published on an internet service and it has the purpose, or will have the effect, of promoting unlawful immigration services. I hope that the policy objective is clear to Members: it is crucial in order to tackle the facilitation of organised crime online, and to ensure that law enforcement has the appropriate tools to break down organised crime groups’ exploitation of the online environment, including social media.

Lords amendments 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 and 15 work alongside this new offence, providing intermediary liability protections for internet service providers, meaning that they will not be impacted by this offence and the actions of those being targeted in this offence—namely, individuals who are promoting unlawful immigration services online. The offence will have extraterritorial effect and therefore may be applied to online material created or published anywhere in the world and by a person or body of any nationality.

I turn now to the amendments to the core immigration crime offences set out in clauses 13 and 14, which concern the supply and handling of articles used in immigration crime. Lords amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 10 and 11 enable us to disrupt the actions of not only those who commit offences directly, but those who facilitate them through the provision of tools, materials or services. That sends a clear and unequivocal message: those who enable immigration crime, whether through direct action or indirect facilitation, will face consequences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has just walked in, and I do not think he has heard everything that has been said. That is rather unfair, and I do not expect people to do that. He should know better.

[Alex Norris]

I can assure Members, especially those from Northern Ireland, that we are talking closely with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) knows well from our many discussions on the topic how much I value my relationships with them. I met several of them on Monday and I will continue to do so to make sure that the application of this provision and beyond is as good as possible and works seamlessly across all parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that provides a degree of comfort.

Lords amendments 41 and 42 relate to clause 62, the commencement clause, and the commencement of clause 42, which provides legal clarity for EU citizens and their family members with EU settlement scheme status—those who are in scope of the withdrawal agreement and have that as the source of their rights in the UK. The amendments change the commencement provision so that clause 42 will be brought into force on Royal Assent, to provide legal certainty as soon as possible for all EU citizens and their family members with EUSS status as to their rights in the UK.

This is a really important Bill. The work done in the other place was excellent, and I commend Lord Hanson of Flint especially on his work. Colleagues in the other place worked hard to improve the legislation, which we appreciate, and I ask the House to support our amendments today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The right hon. Gentleman’s question would have had a bit more force if he had apologised for being part of a Government who fundamentally broke our migration system and presided over the crisis inherited by this Government. Of course we will model the impact of our policies. This is a sweeping set of reforms—the most significant in modern times. They will bring down the number of arrivals and increase the number of removals of those who have no right to be in this country. We will build on our track record in government, which has seen removals increase. The totality of the reforms will, I believe, unlock the generosity of this country in creating new safe and legal routes, which will grow more generous over time.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Well, it is good to see the Home Secretary here, taking some time off from her leadership campaign. She is quite clearly preparing a one in, one out policy for No. 10 Downing Street!

The Home Secretary has announced that she wants to replace the Government’s entire immigration policy with Denmark’s. Is that because the Government have failed so badly in the year and a half since the election? Since the election, illegal channel crossings have surged 55%, up to 62,000; new asylum claims have reached record levels; and the numbers in asylum hotels have gone up. In just 75 days, since the right hon. Lady became Home Secretary, 10,000 illegal immigrants have crossed the English channel, but the Home Secretary—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. You have to at least try to get to a question. Don’t forget that we are having a big statement on this topic shortly.

[Chris Philp]

Okay, I will ask a question. Will the Home Secretary agree with us that in order to control our borders we must come out of the European convention on human rights, enabling us to deport all illegal immigrants within a week of their arrival?

[Chris Philp]

Our leader is not going anywhere, but the right hon. Lady’s leader most certainly is—out of No. 10!

The Home Secretary talks about the Rwanda scheme. That scheme never even started. It worked in Australia and it would have worked here. After her Government cancelled it with no replacement, numbers have surged. The truth is that under this Government, illegal immigration has gone up, and there is a crime wave going up with it, including rape and murder. Her ideas are not radical enough. She wants to give illegal immigrants a 20-year path to citizenship—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I’m not being funny. The idea is to ask a question. The statement will be coming later, and we are going to go through all this then. This really does not help. You can pick which colleagues from your side of the Chamber you do not want to ask a question, because they are the ones you are taking time away from.

[Chris Philp]

The Home Secretary wants to give illegal immigrants a 20-year path to citizenship. We want to deport them. Will she accept our proposal to come out of the ECHR so that we can actually control our borders?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am sure that all Conservative Members will be delighted to hear that the Leader of the Opposition is going absolutely nowhere—and we are very happy to see her remain in place.

This Government will not come out of the European convention on human rights. We are going to reform the way that article 8 in particular is applied to immigration rules within our country. This Government are rolling up our sleeves and doing the hard work of governing—unlike his party, which just gave up altogether.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

On the point of asylum policy, the Liberal Democrats recently defeated an attempt by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), backed vociferously by the Conservatives, who he is trying to kill, to rip this country out of the ECHR.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

We recognise the vital role of specialist “by and for” services in providing tailored support to victims and survivors. It has been my personal pleasure over many years to work alongside the brilliant women at Sikh Women’s Aid, who operate so furtively in our local area. I meet regularly with Imkaan, the umbrella lead for such “by and for” services, to seek solutions to exactly the problem of ensuring that there is not a postcode lottery and that everybody can have specialist support.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

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

I very much look forward to the new violence against women and girls strategy. Can the Minister give us a bit more of a clue as to when we might see it? Will it include a single definition of violence against women and girls that is applied consistently across law enforcement and the Department?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

There is absolutely no reason why historical cases should not be brought forward and reviewed. As part of the work following on from the Casey review—certainly in cases of historical child sexual abuse—the opening of “no further action” cases has been worked on at pace through Operation Beaconport. More broadly, there are review systems, and I will send the hon. Member information about the organisations that the Home Office works with and that work alongside the police to look into the review systems that might be needed for people in cases such as hers and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) that have not been picked up.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

In March this year, the then permanent secretary of the Home Office said that the strategy to tackle violence against women and girls would be published before the summer recess. In July, the Minister committed to September. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) wrote to the Minister six weeks ago to ask for an update and has yet to receive a response. We would all like to see progress in halving violence against women and girls. Commenting on the delay, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Dame Nicole Jacobs, has said:

“I fail to see where the momentum within government is coming from to ensure this commitment succeeds.”

What does the Minister make of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s words, and can she please reiterate her commitment to publish the strategy before the end of the year?

[Jess Phillips]

As somebody who meets the Domestic Abuse Commissioner on a very regular basis, I cannot say that she would ever say that I did not have the enthusiasm to make this work—but perhaps I am wrong. I shall ask her what she meant by those comments. What I absolutely can say is that the strategy will come; it will be out very soon. It will be out when it is the best it can be, but we do not need to wait for a piece of paper to start our action. I will not take up too much time going through the list of about 13 things that we have already changed in the last 18 months, such as Raneem’s law or the roll-out of domestic abuse protection orders, which for four years—

[Mr Speaker]

Order—we do not need to go through the whole list.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

4. What steps she is taking to tackle rural crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight those crimes and the need for us to prioritise them in a way which they were not under the previous Government. The National Police Chiefs’ Council strategy on rural and wildlife crime will set operational and organisational policing priorities for tackling those crimes, and it will be published imminently. Once it has, I would love to have a proper conversation with him.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Rural crime and tool theft are out of control. A tradesman’s tools are stolen every 21 minutes, and when a farmer or tradesman has their equipment stolen, it causes complete misery and costs them severely. Their means of work are then all too often sold in broad daylight at car boot sales. Will the Government adopt our rural crime and tool theft plan to crack down on the sale of stolen goods and on the misery being caused to so many farmers and tradesmen?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I would be very happy to have a conversation with the hon. Lady about her experience of that. Of course, the use of illegal vapes, and their sale to under-18s, is prolific and a main source of income for serious organised criminals. I know that the Met police have carried out a huge operation recently to target not just the buyers of the goods but those who are responsible for driving that serious organised crime.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Joy Allen, Labour’s very own police and crime commissioner for Durham, has said that the Government have consistently demonstrated their complete lack of understanding of policing and community safety. Does the Minister think that she said that because the Government have cut police numbers by 1,316 since they came to power, because crime is surging, or because senior police officers are warning that the Government are creating a funding crisis?

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am pleased to start with some very good news indeed: one of the heroes of the Huntingdon attack, Samir Zitouni, the member of the train’s crew who risked his own life to save others, has been discharged from hospital. There is a long road ahead of him and his family have asked for privacy, but I am sure the whole House joins me in wishing him the swiftest and fullest recovery possible. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

Since the last Home Office oral questions, I have made a number of significant announcements. A review of police protest powers was launched last weekend, and I am pleased that the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord Ken Macdonald, will lead it.

Last week, we announced that police and crime commissioners will be abolished. The introduction of police and crime commissioners by the last Government was a failed experiment. I will introduce new reforms so that police are accountable to their mayoral teams or local councils. The savings from this will fund more neighbourhood policing on the beat across the country, fighting crime and protecting our communities. I recognise the efforts of all current and former police and crime commissioners, and I thank them because they served their communities with honour and will continue to do so until they have completed their current—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The answer is far too long. I still have to get other people in. Please can we have shorter answers.

[Seamus Logan]

The Muscatelli report, commissioned by the Labour party in Scotland, recommended that the Scottish Government push for a bespoke immigration approach that tackles the unique issues faced by Scotland and its economy. While the leader of the Labour party in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, may be a bit confused about what is devolved and what is reserved, I am sure the Home Secretary is not. Will the Home Secretary meet me to discuss the report further, to deliver a win for the Scottish economy and fulfil one of the manifesto commitments made by the Labour party in Scotland?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The assessment of the terrorist threat to the UK is made independently by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre. Government partners, including JTAC, the National Protective Security Authority and counter-terrorism police, work closely with industry to ensure that the latest threat picture is appropriately responded to by owners of CNI. I am happy to discuss that further with him.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Last October, a Sudanese small-boat illegal immigrant murdered 27-year-old Rhiannon Whyte by stabbing her 23 times with a screwdriver. In September, an illegal immigrant from Egypt was jailed for brutally raping a young woman in Hyde Park. Just last week, an Iranian and two Egyptian small-boat illegal immigrants were committed to trial for the rape of a 33-year-old woman on Brighton beach. How many more murders and rapes must there be before the Home Secretary agrees to the immediate deportation of all illegal immigrants within a week of arrival?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before the Minister answers, let me say that the last case is sub judice, so please be careful with the answer.

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)]

I am grateful for that clarification, Mr Speaker.

We are totally clear that those who commit crimes should not get settlement or citizenship in this country; they should be removed. That is why removals have reached their highest level for a decade. We can do much more in this space, which is why the Home Secretary will make the statement that she is going to make later.

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

My hon. Friend is right to raise that. We will ensure that there are more neighbourhood officers on our streets, with 3,000 more by next April, but PCSOs have a really vital role to play. I am a big fan of them, and I encourage all forces to have more of them.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Ahead of the Budget next week, the Labour Chancellor departed from years of silence on the matter by admitting that Brexit has been a disaster for our economy. Will the Labour Home Secretary follow the Chancellor’s lead by admitting that Brexit has also caused significant harm to this country’s ability to maintain order in our immigration and asylum system?

Police Reform

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on police reform.

Let me begin by expressing my sadness at the passing of Baroness Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner. She was a champion for victims and made a huge difference, holding Government and agencies to account. I extend my sympathies to her family and friends, and I know that she will be a huge loss to the other place.

Last year, the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), informed the House of her intention to bring forward a White Paper on police reform. The White Paper will outline a programme of wide-ranging reforms that will drive quality, consistency and efficiency in policing to ensure that it is set up to deliver for the public. Ahead of publication, we are today announcing the first of those reforms.

In order for any institution or organisation to perform to the highest standards, it must be underpinned by strong, effective governance. That is all the more critical when the service in question is integral to the safe functioning of our society, as policing undoubtedly is. Police and crime commissioners have been in place since November 2012. The model was created to increase accountability and build a greater connection between policing and local communities by having a single public official, directly elected by the public, responsible for holding their chief constable to account, setting the local police budget and agreeing strategic priorities for their force through their local police and crime plan.

However, while the role of PCCs has evolved over time to include responsibility for commissioning services for victims, driving local partnerships and—in some areas—responsibility for fire governance, the model has failed to live up to expectations. It has not delivered what it was set up to achieve. Public understanding of, and engagement with, our police and crime commissioners remains low despite efforts to raise their profile; less than a quarter of voters turned out to vote for them in the 2024 elections, and two in five people are unaware that PCCs even exist. Home Office research conducted during the PCC review in 2020 found that 68% of the public in mayoral areas claimed that they could name their mayor, compared with only 16% of people in PCC areas claiming that they could name their PCC.

On an individual level, PCCs up and down the country have sought to provide strong oversight and drive crime prevention activity locally. I place on record my thanks to the individuals and staff in all the offices of police and crime commissioners and at the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners who have done, and will continue to do, their best to improve policing for their local communities. However, the reality is that the PCC model has weakened local police accountability and has had perverse impacts on the recruitment of chief constables. It has failed to inspire confidence in local people, in stark contrast to the mayoral model, which clearly has ultimately been more successful. The Theresa May model has not worked.

The Government announced in our English devolution White Paper that we will transfer policing functions to elected mayors in England by default wherever geographies allow. Five mayors now hold policing functions, in Greater Manchester, Greater London and across Yorkshire. In those areas, we have seen the benefits of the mayoral model, including greater collaboration, visible leadership and local innovation. We are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to create as many strategic authority mayors with policing functions as possible in this Parliament. However, due to the nature of how public services are organised across different areas, the process of establishing mayors across England is a complex one.

I can therefore announce today that we will abolish police and crime commissioners at the end of their current term in 2028 and transfer functions to mayors wherever possible. In areas where plans do not yet allow for a transfer of policing to a mayor this Parliament, we will establish new policing and crime boards to bring council leaders together to oversee the police force in their area until such time as mayors are in place in England. Those boards will replicate the benefits of a mayoralty before the formal transfer can be realised, with in-built, local collaboration, public accountability and a greater ability to join up budgets and local services. They will comprise local authority upper-tier leaders, co-opted members with appropriate skills and experience, and—if they are in the force area—mayors.

Preventing crime is everyone’s business, and giving local leaders these responsibilities will help create thriving town centres, help businesses to succeed and help people to walk without fear in their communities. We are absolutely clear that these boards will not be a return to the bureaucratic and invisible committee-based oversight of policing that existed before the establishment of PCCs. We will ensure that council leaders are empowered to exercise police governance functions. Boards will be supported by a policing and crime lead, akin to a deputy mayor for policing and crime, to carry out day-to-day activities on their behalf. This will mean that every area will have a visible, nominated lead who will be dedicated to the oversight of policing in their area.

Over the coming months, we will work with local government and policing to design new structures that will provide effective oversight of policing. As part of these reforms, we will also work with those in local government and policing to drive down the support costs of policing governance. We will no longer run separate policing elections, and we will also abolish police and crime panels, the current structure that performs scrutiny functions for PCCs. We estimate that at least £100 million will be saved this Parliament by moving to these new arrangements. Once delivered, these changes are expected to achieve savings to the Home Office of around £20 million a year, enough to fund around 320 extra police constables. Further detail will be set out in the forthcoming White Paper, and we will bring forward the necessary legislation as part of our broader police reform proposals as soon as parliamentary time allows.

There are no plans to create mayors in Wales. We wish to harmonise arrangements across England and Wales as far as possible, and we will therefore work with the Welsh Government to ensure new arrangements to replace PCCs provide strong and effective police governance for Wales, recognising the unique nature of Welsh arrangements. I also clarify that these reforms will not affect governance arrangements for the City of London police, which is governed by the City corporation.

Before I conclude, I stress that the decision we are announcing today is based on the shortcomings of the PCC model, not the PCCs themselves. PCCs have done and continue to do important work, and I will engage constructively with all of them until the end of their terms. I specifically thank the chairs of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners past and present for their endeavours: Nick Alston, the late Sir Tony Lloyd, Mark Burns-Williamson, Katy Bourne, Paddy Tipping, Marc Jones, Donna Jones, and the current chair Emily Spurrell. We recognise that this is a significant change, especially for the policing and local government sectors, but it is necessary. As a Government, we have a responsibility to do what is right for our communities. If there are steps we can take to improve outcomes for law-abiding citizens, we must act, because in the end, whatever police reform measures we pursue, our primary motivation is, and will always be, to keep the public safe. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

Huntingdon Train Attack

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

Points of Order

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Minister.

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Minister for that.

Rape Gangs: National Statutory Inquiry

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Alison Hume]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

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

Manchester Terrorism Attack

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

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

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

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