Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025
Max Wilkinson Excerpts(5 days, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The UK life sciences sector is something that this country should cherish. It is vital to our national wellbeing, from lifesaving research to pandemic preparedness, and it must be protected. But misguided and misdirected efforts to protect this essential industry risk further undermining many of our fundamental democratic freedoms.
Time and again, the Conservative Government undermined the right to peaceful protest by passing sweeping and unnecessary powers that went far beyond what was needed to maintain public safety. The Public Order Act was one of the most troubling examples of criminalising peaceful dissent and expanding policing powers in ways that we Liberal Democrats consistently opposed. It is deeply worrying to see Labour choosing to follow the same authoritarian path, rather than to revise those damaging restrictions. Rebranding research and manufacturing sites as key national infrastructure risks turning legitimate protest into a criminal offence. Peaceful campaigners, including those raising ethical concerns, should not be treated as threats to national security.
The police already had strong powers to deal with dangerous or obstructive behaviour long before the Conservative Government imposed new laws; these powers are now even stronger. Further restrictions on the democratic right to protest are deeply worrying and illiberal, and it is disappointing to see the new Government pursuing them.
Violence against Women and Girls Strategy
Max Wilkinson Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Violence against women and girls is a stain on society. I know that the Minister shares the passion that we feel about the issue, and I know how much work she has done in this area. However, I want to follow up on some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) that were perhaps not dealt with in as much detail as we might have hoped, given the level of the briefing to the press over the weekend.
To ensure that halving violence against women and girls does not become a broken manifesto promise, how will the Home Secretary and the Minister measure progress, and what consequences will be set if progress is not made quickly enough? With misogynistic content continuing to spread online, how will Ministers ensure that social media companies are upholding their duty to protect children, particularly when figures such as Andrew Tate—described by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is not in the Chamber, as an “important voice” for men—are so easily accessible?
The Minister seems to be somewhat frustrated about being here today to answer the urgent question, and indeed we all feel frustrated. The Home Secretary gave many of the details of her announcements to the press this weekend. Given the seriousness of the issue, and given that we have been told that the statement will be made on Thursday—the final day before the recess—does the Minister think that this is an appropriate way to conduct government?
Jess Phillips
I did not give all the details because, as I said in response to the question from the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, on Thursday I will announce the full details of all the metrics of action plans. They will be placed before the House on Thursday. As for the briefing, we cannot tackle violence against women and girls only “IRL”, as my kids would say, so there has to be an online element—it would be no strategy without it. What the Home Secretary spoke about to the press were Labour party manifesto commitments. It was not new news when we said that there would have rape-related services in every police force; that was written into the manifesto of the Labour party, which the country voted for.
Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry
Max Wilkinson Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The despicable, sickening crimes that we have heard about today were first reported in the press more than 20 years ago, and the victims have already waited far too long for justice, so we welcome today’s announcement. We also welcome other details in the statement, including reforms to ensure that children cannot be considered to have consented to sexual activity with adults—the fact that that was the case is a shame on our nation—and moves to close loopholes in taxi licensing, as well as the points about data collection.
Some questions remain about the process. How will the Government ensure that the inquiry remains fully independent and free from political influence and pressures regardless of the strong pressures it will face, including from in this House, and that it runs to timetable? Are Ministers still in touch with the women who recently resigned from the previous panel to offer them the chance to rejoin the process now that it is gaining some pace? What steps will the inquiry take to maintain the trust of the victims and their families? Will the Home Secretary commit to implementing all the previous recommendations from the previous Casey and Jay reviews?
The national audit highlighted the incompleteness of data, but it was suggestive of concerning trends related to the modes of organisation and how they relate to ethnicity, particularly in the areas where police were recording appropriate data. The Home Secretary rightly mentioned cohesion in her statement. How will this inquiry avoid stigmatising entire communities and undermining efforts to improve cohesion in this subject and in others adjacent while thoroughly investigating the matter and ensuring that victims get the justice they deserve?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesman for his remarks. Let me reassure him that the track records of the chair and the two panel members speak for themselves. These are three women who have a long track record of holding public authorities to account; and in the case of Baroness Longfield, the chair, they have done so under different political parties. They have shown in their work that they are unafraid of whoever the political masters might be when holding to account police forces, local authorities or other organisations, so I think we should take some encouragement from that. I know that Baroness Casey recommended these individuals because of their track record and their deep experience in holding authorities to account, and I am sure they will bring all that experience to bear as they conduct the work of the national inquiry.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the panel of victims and survivors. They have been written to by the chair and the panel today. The particular panel that was set up to help get the inquiry going will now necessarily disband, as the inquiry will now get up and running, but the inquiry itself will have a victims charter that will set out how the inquiry will ensure that victims and survivors are at the heart of this process and ensure that they feel a sense of confidence and trust in the inquiry’s work.
On earlier recommendations from previous reports, the hon. Gentleman will know that we are commencing our work on all the recommendations made by Baroness Casey in her national audit and that we continue our work implementing the IICSA inquiry’s recommendations. There will be more announcements to come later this week and next on that, which I will not pre-empt today.
The hon. Gentleman asked about avoiding stigmatising entire communities, and I totally hear and understand the point he is making. It is obviously of concern to many Members in this House, including myself. In my experience, every community wants these people locked up and these individuals—these vile rapists—to face the full force of the law. Those who feel stigmatised by the behaviour of these criminals might even feel that more strongly than others. It is in everyone’s interests that we get to the truth. There is never anything to be afraid of with the truth; once we have established truth, justice can take place, and we as a society can learn lessons for the future.
Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban
Max Wilkinson Excerpts(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
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
This has been a sorry saga from the very beginning. First, we were told that the fans had to be banned for safety reasons. Intelligence reports, we were told, said that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were highly organised, skilled fighters with the serious desire and will to fight with police and opposing groups. That was false. Last week, the West Midlands assistant chief constable told MPs that the Jewish community in the local area supported the ban. This has now been found to be false, too, and he has rightly apologised. There are serious questions to be answered about West Midlands police’s handling of this decision, so will the Minister commit to support the setting up of any independent inquiries that are needed to get to the bottom this, in excess of what is already going on, if the answers are not found, so that anyone who is responsible can be held to account?
Finally, with antisemitic incidents remaining at record highs in this country, the Government must reassure the Jewish community of its safety. Ministers assured me last month that the community cohesion strategy would be published when it was ready. Can they assure us that the Jewish community remains part of that process, and can they give us a concrete timeline for the strategy’s publication?
Sarah Jones
I very much hope that through the processes I have listed—the HMICFRS review into what happens to police intelligence and the advice feeding into safety advisory groups, the wider look at what is needed for events of national significance, and the Cabinet Office review of the role of safety advisory groups—we will ensure that we do not have a situation like this ever again. The hon. Gentleman asks what we would do if we did not get to the bottom of this, but I very much hope that we will. Of course I will come to this place and make sure that the House has all the information it needs to draw its own conclusions.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the community cohesion strategy, and we are working hard on that. In the wider context of how we deal with it when we know that large groups of people will attend protests, we are doing a wider piece of work that will help us navigate whether the existing legislation on protests is fit for purpose on a range of issues. For example, we have had significant concerns about antisemitism rearing its head at protests and we are working really hard with Jewish organisations to make sure that we get it right on that. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that.
Angiolini Inquiry
Max Wilkinson Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
All our thoughts today will be with the family of Sarah Everard. More than four years on from her horrific murder, too many women are still suffering life-changing crimes on our streets. The inquiry makes it painfully clear that women continue to feel unsafe. They change their daily routines just to avoid very real threats. That is unacceptable in Britain today.
Part one of the inquiry showed that Wayne Couzens should never have been allowed to become a police officer. Multiple opportunities to stop a dangerous sexual predator were missed or ignored. As Lady Elish Angiolini warned, without radical action,
“there is nothing to stop another Couzens operating in plain sight.”
Today’s report underlines just how radical that action must be. The lack of basic data on sexually motivated crimes against women and the fact that over a quarter of forces still lack fundamental policies for investigating sexual offences are nothing short of horrifying. The inquiry finds that sexually motivated crimes against women in public are not prioritised to the same extent as other serious offences. We are told that prevention “remains just words” while perpetrators slip through the cracks. Those are shocking findings that shame our nation.
Will the Minister commit to implementing all 13 of Lady Angiolini’s recommendations, and will she set out a timeline for their implementation? This Government pledged to halve violence against women and girls within a decade, yet the strategy has still not been published. Will the Minister reassure us that this manifesto promise will be met, as she has said? Will she tell us today when it will be published? She says it will be soon; I think people will be reassured by a date.
Jess Phillips
Okay, I will say “very soon”—that is the answer to that. When all hon. Members get to read Lady Elish’s full report, as I have—I obviously get it sooner—they will see that she particularly criticises Ministers or the police service standing up after part one of the report and saying, “Yes, we will just do everything,” and then going away and thinking, “Hang on—a bit of this, a bit of that.” I am going to give Lady Elish the respect that she deserves by taking away all the recommendations before I say exactly what I am going to do. When others get to read the strategy—I was interviewed by Lady Elish as part of this review—it will answer many of the questions in the report. The timing is awkward: had the strategy come out at the same time, I would be able to answer the question more fully. But Lady Elish deserves the respect of our actually looking at what is possible, rather than just going, “Yes, I will take them all,” and then not being able to deliver on them.
Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban
Max Wilkinson Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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
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?
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. At this point, I cannot give him the answers he wants about intelligence—the root of it and the truth of it. We are responding simply to the information that we got yesterday, and we have asked the appropriate questions to get to the bottom of that. He is right to say that the Home Affairs Select Committee has a strong role in this space, and can be quite helpful in helping us to unpick some of these challenges.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the support and signals that we as a Government are sending, and intend to send, to our Jewish communities to reassure them that we take their safety incredibly seriously. I can reassure him that I have met Jewish community leaders, including the Community Security Trust, as has the Home Secretary. As a response to the Manchester attack, we are making more funding available for our Jewish synagogues and other buildings. We have also commissioned an independent review of our public order and hate crime legislation, and Lord Macdonald of River Glaven KC— a former Director of Public Prosecutions who is well known to this House—has been appointed to carry out that review. It will examine whether the existing legislation within the wider parameters of public order and protest is effective and proportionate; whether it adequately protects communities from intimidation and hate; and whether it strikes a fair and sustainable balance between the freedom of expression and peaceful protest and the need to prevent disorder and keep our communities safe.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the wider review that is being undertaken. That work is not being done within my Department, but we are working with the relevant Department on it, and the review will be published as soon as it is ready.
Migration: Settlement Pathway
Max Wilkinson Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before I begin, I beg your forgiveness for taking a few extra seconds to reflect on the exchanges in this Chamber on Monday. I would like to use this opportunity to put on the record my utter contempt for those who abuse the Home Secretary and anybody else who is abused based on the colour of their skin or their religion. That is not what Britain stands for.
The Home Secretary will, of course, choose the language that she wants to use in this debate, and I will choose my language too. The constructive and moderate tone of voice that I and the Liberal Democrats will use in discussions about immigration will remain, as will our attempts to help offer feedback as and when the Government bring forward proposals. The number of Liberal Democrats present today shows that we are not ignoring this issue; indeed, we have as many in the Chamber as there are Reform Members—and none of them is here.
Like others, we are aware of the issues facing communities up and down the country, and immigrants who live here too. We agree with the Home Secretary that faith must be restored in the immigration and asylum system, as I stated on Monday, and we agree that that requires changes to policy. Of course, most of what we are discussing today is distinct from some of the discussions we had on Monday about desperate refugees and asylum seekers.
We also believe that it must be acknowledged that prior to Brexit and the removal of nearly all safe and legal routes, this country had a more rational and controlled approach to immigration and asylum. The Conservative party is responsible. We think it is regrettable that the Government have not made quicker progress towards building stronger links with Europe in their work on getting control of our immigration policy, and we believe that discussions about regaining control must also come with a proper discussion about the opportunities that that provides and the potential risks.
Changes to pathways to settlement must be done with regard to the economy and public services, and with fairness to individuals. We are concerned about the chilling effect that some changes could have on the economy. The UK is fast becoming a less competitive place for science and innovation, not least because of Brexit. The cost of a five-year global talent visa to Britain is £6,000 per person—around 20 times more expensive than comparable visas in our competitor countries, where similar schemes typically cost a few hundred pounds. It is no surprise that so few researchers come to Britain on these visas every year. Cancer Research UK alone spends £900,000 annually—money that could be better spent on setting up research labs instead.
The Government must also be careful about the effect that their rhetoric and policy will have on our public services. The NHS is heavily reliant on nurses and staff who are not British nationals. Has the Home Secretary made an assessment of the risk that some will leave, and what steps are this Government taking to develop domestic talent in the health and care sector?
Shabana Mahmood
I do not propose to revisit the detail of our exchanges on Monday, but I will always listen to constructive contributions, wherever they come from in this House, and I will reflect on the points that the Liberal Democrats make in order to be constructive. One thing on which we will perhaps continue to disagree is just how important it is that we acknowledge that there is concern across our country. It is not made up, and it does demand answers of politicians. I hope that that is now a point of agreement between us.
I think the hon. Gentleman made a point in relation to the asylum system. I did not pick it up directly, so if I do not address it now, he is welcome to write to me. Again, I do not propose to go into the details that we discussed on Monday during the asylum policy statement, but one thing that I made very clear is that the number of those arriving on small boats in this country is almost exactly the same as the number of people who overstay visas. There is a relationship between legal migration and illegal migration in the overall migration system: when people overstay and then come straight into the asylum system, and particularly into asylum accommodation, at the point at which a visa ends, it is a very real problem, and a significant number of people are doing that. It is incumbent on us to resolve that, which is what the totality of all these reforms is designed to do.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government has made huge strides in resetting our relationship with the European Union, and these are matters that we discuss very closely with our counterparts in Europe. The progress made since the EU reset has been considerable, and we will continue to build on that. Once again, though, I do not propose to revisit old debates. We live in a new reality, and we are forging a new path ahead.
Of course, we want to give certainty to people who are already in this country. That is what we are doing through the consultation that we have set, and I have given certainty to British citizens who wish to bring their dependants over and to those from Hong Kong. Those arrangements will not change, and we have also given certainty through Windrush grants and EU settlement grants, none of which is affected by the consultation. Since the Government published our immigration White Paper, people have known that the qualifying period will move from five years to 10.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about fairness to individuals. I agree with him, because giving fairness and certainty to those who have come here to work and make a contribution to our economy is absolutely important. However, our reforms are also designed to give fairness to those who are already here, and to build public confidence in the system overall.
The hon. Gentleman made some points on the national health service. I know that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care takes very seriously future labour market reforms and ensuring that there is a pipeline of the required labour so that our NHS keeps going. We absolutely value the contribution that those from overseas who have come to work in our national health service have made, are making and will always continue to make.
Oral Answers to Questions
Max Wilkinson Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
Metaphorically.
Max Wilkinson
Metaphorically trying to kill, yes.
Leaving the ECHR would do nothing to halt small boat crossings but it would deny British people hard-won rights: free speech, the Hillsborough inquiry and protections for older people. The Government have announced that they are reviewing certain articles of the ECHR—the Home Secretary has just referenced it. Can she give us a cast-iron guarantee that when she is working on these changes, she will do so in partnership with other signatories to the convention and will not follow the Conservatives and Reform in seeking to isolate this country on the international stage?
Shabana Mahmood
The Prime Minister and I could not be clearer. We are not coming out of the European convention on human rights. We are going to pursue reform—in particular of article 8, which is a qualified right under the convention—and I will set out those plans later today. There is a conversation happening with our partners at the Council of Europe in relation to the application of article 3. A conversation is already happening on reform of the European convention—both here at home with the domestic legislation that we will pursue and at the Council of Europe itself. That is the approach with which this Government will continue.
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?
Alex Norris
I am slightly reluctant to enter into the Brexit theory of everything with the hon. Gentleman. The reality is that we have the settlement we have. The British people rightly want to understand why asylum numbers are falling across Europe but increasing in the UK, and that is why we are taking the actions we propose to take. He will not have to wait much longer to hear the detail.
Asylum Policy
Max Wilkinson Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is right that the Government are looking for ways to bring order to the asylum system, which was left in total disarray by the Conservatives. Sadly, the Government have been too slow to act.
Britain has a long and proud history of responding with compassion to people fleeing unimaginable horrors. That should continue in a way that is fair and sustainable, so we welcome some of what the Home Secretary has said on that score. However, it is not helpful for the Home Secretary to claim that the country is being torn apart by immigration. Acknowledging the challenges facing our nation is one thing, but stoking division by using immoderate language is quite another.
I welcome the news about safe and legal routes. The Liberal Democrats have called for such routes since they were scrapped by the Conservatives, leading to more small boat crossings, but we have some concerns about the far-reaching detail behind the proposals, which seems to be missing.
The Home Secretary is revoking the legal duty to provide asylum seekers with accommodation, and says that asylum seekers should support themselves and contribute to our society, yet she is still banning them from working so that they can support themselves and contribute to our society, which makes no sense. The Home Secretary relies a lot on Denmark as an example. Denmark lets asylum seekers work after six months, so will she? Can she guarantee that the burden to house asylum seekers will not fall on already struggling local councils? Can she also guarantee that we will not see a wholesale transfer of asylum seekers from hotels to the streets?
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum has announced to the media that asylum seekers could have jewellery confiscated. Is the Home Secretary doing that to raise money or to deter people? Either way, does she acknowledge that many British people will see it as unnecessary and cruel? State-sponsored robbery will certainly not fix a system that costs taxpayers £6 million every day in hotel bills.
If the Government plan to keep their promise to end hotel use, they must process the claims of the 90,000 asylum seekers in the backlog. The Liberal Democrats have a plan to do that within six months using Nightingale-style processing centres. Does the Home Secretary seriously believe that an overstretched Home Office that is yet to clear the existing backlog can also undertake reviews of every refugee’s status every two-and-a-half years?
The UK must continue to lead international efforts to manage large migratory flows. Because the flow of people comes from Europe, the Home Secretary will need to work with the EU on a solution. The Oxford Migration Observatory has identified a clear Brexit effect. That means that people refused asylum in the EU make a second attempt here—a consequence of the Brexit delivered by the Conservatives and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). The Minister for Border Security and Asylum refused earlier to answer whether Brexit has harmed our immigration and asylum system, so I will ask the Home Secretary now. Does she think that Brexit has made it easier or more difficult for this country to control its borders and asylum system? Does she think that reductions in overseas development spending will reduce or increase migratory flows?
We have already made it very clear that we think leaving the ECHR will make no difference to securing our borders and will tear hard-won rights away from British people. It is encouraging that the Home Secretary has said that that is not part of the Government’s plan. We urge the Government to tread carefully and act with fairness, efficiency and compassion for local communities in the UK who want this issue resolved, but also for asylum seekers.
Shabana Mahmood
I wish I had the privilege of walking around this country and not seeing the division that the issue of migration and the asylum system is creating across this country. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, unfortunately, I am the one who is regularly called a “fucking Paki” and told to “Go back home”. I know through personal experience and through the experience of my constituents just how divisive the issue of asylum has become in our country.
I wish it were possible to say that there is not a problem here—that there is nothing to see and that in fact these are all extremist right-wing talking points—but the system is broken. It is incumbent on all Members of Parliament to acknowledge how badly broken the system is and to make it a moral mission to fix this system so that it stops creating the division we all see. I do not think it is acceptable or appropriate for people in this place not to acknowledge the real experience of those who sit outside this House. We are supposed to be in this House to reflect that experience, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will approach the debates that we will no doubt have on all these measures in that spirit.
The hon. Gentleman accused this Government of being too slow to act. I have to say that removals of those who have no right to be in our country are up by 23% in the first 18 months of this Labour Government compared with the last 18 months of the former Tory Government. We are a Government who are getting on with the job. We have made 11,000 enforcement raids, 8,000 arrests and, as a result of those raids, more than 1,000 people with no right to be in this country have been removed from this country. This is a Government who are getting on with the job, and this is just the next phase of our work as we deal with the broken migration system we inherited from the Conservatives.
The hon. Gentleman said he thought that people who are waiting on their claim should be given the right to work. I think he knows that would be a huge pull factor and increase rather than decrease the number of channel crossings. That would be our experience in this country, and that is why we are not pursuing that policy. We have said that those who are granted refugee status in this country who can and want to will be able to switch into the protection work and study route, so that they can start contributing to society. That will help them to integrate, and it will help the communities they are living in.
The hon. Gentleman knows full well that it is not the policy of this Government to confiscate jewellery from those who are accessing asylum accommodation. Asylum accommodation is provided to asylum seekers by British taxpayers, and it is right that if people have high-value assets, they contribute to the cost of that asylum accommodation. In my speech, I gave the example of a man who was in supported asylum accommodation, paid for by taxpayers in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine. He received £800 a month from his family and had enough money to acquire an Audi. It is right that the British state should be able to say to such an individual, “Contribute.” We are not saying that we will take everything away and leave that individual destitute, but contribution is a fair principle here. I would be very disappointed to discover that the Liberal Democrats do not support people contributing, when they can afford to, to the cost of their asylum accommodation.
The hon. Gentleman made his remarks on Brexit. I do not have any more to say about that; I am living in the world as it is today. If he has things to say about that, I am sure that the House will continue to hear them.
Huntingdon Train Attack
Max Wilkinson Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
This attack has left 11 people in hospital, one of them a member of the train staff, who is in a critical but stable condition. My party’s thoughts are with all those affected: the victims, their loved ones and everyone who witnessed such a shocking event. We also want to thank the emergency services and rail staff for their swift response, as well as the passengers who intervened to prevent further harm.
After this sort of incident, it is vital that the police are given the time and space they need to establish the full facts. That is ever more difficult due to the rapid spread of disinformation online in the immediate aftermath of such attacks. Within hours, social media was flooded with speculation over the ethnicity and race of the perpetrator, inciting racist and Islamophobic comments. While communities were still reeling from the horror of the attack, certain political figures on the hard right, including members of the Reform party, were already seeking to exploit the incident for political gain. Desperate to involve themselves in the tragedy, they reached for their dog whistles. They threw around baseless opinions on levels of crime when facts were available, shamelessly trying to turn this tragedy into yet another excuse to whip up fear and sow division.
The shadow Home Secretary’s comments today also veered into that realm. Never is an opportunity to blame foreigners missed—that is beneath contempt. At moments like this, those who aspire to leadership must calm fears and attempt to unite, not to inflame tensions. Does the Home Secretary share my view that while knife crime must be tackled forcefully, it is important that all of us must respond with arguments grounded in fact rather than trying to stoke fear?
Can the Home Secretary confirm whether the Government hold data on violent incidents involving knives or sharp instruments where three or more victims were harmed in a single incident? If so, what is the trend over the past two years, or over any other timeframe the Home Secretary has data for? Finally, she has said that the individual was not known to anti-terror police or Prevent, but when the facts are known, will she confirm that proper lessons will be learned about individuals who may pose a risk, be it as a result of mental health issues, an obsession with extreme violence or other relevant factors?
Shabana Mahmood
I deplore the ease with which so many armchair warriors feel the need to speculate and spread misinformation on social media. It is important that the police and all our emergency services are able to proceed with their investigations not only at pace but transparently, so as to calm any tensions that might arise as a result of misinformation that spreads, particularly across social media. In terms of how other people may or may not have reacted, I tend to think that at moments of such crisis people normally reveal their true colours. I will leave my remarks about other individuals there.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that knife crime must be tackled forcefully. As I said earlier, we have seen an 18% decrease in murders by knife, and I will make sure he receives the further stats that he mentioned. As I have said, the data in relation to knife crime is going in a better direction, but like others in this House, I am impatient to see more change happen more quickly. I hope he will work with us on a cross-party basis on all the measures needed to achieve that. Of course, when all the facts around this case are known and understood, I will ensure that any lessons that there are to be learned will be learned and acted upon.