Oral Answers to Questions

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner is clear that, despite recent welcome funding increases from the Government to the capital city grant, to be able to police protests and events in London he has two pretty invidious choices on his hands: he either has to take police officers out of constituencies like mine—and the Policing Minister’s—to police those protests and events, or he has to cut back on just-in-case police officers, so there is a huge risk if an event flairs up. Which does the Policing Minister think is the better option?

[Sarah Jones]

I meet the commissioner regularly and we talk about these issues all the time. I should point out to the House that this Government are funding the police to record levels. Hundreds of millions of pounds extra are going to the Metropolitan police, with £2 billion extra going into policing since we came to power. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has just agreed rules on abstraction rates, which I know is a big challenge. I have had a lot of conversations with the commissioner about managing the risk of protests and maintaining officers in our communities. I think he has got the right balance at the moment, but we will, of course, continue to monitor that.

Child-like Sexual Abuse Dolls (Offences) Bill

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 2 stand part.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is an absolute pleasure to have you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I start by thanking all the hon. Members who have given up their time today to discuss and scrutinise this Bill on a horrific yet important issue. I am going to provide a trigger warning to everyone here today—hon. Members, and also those in the Public Gallery and listening online—because of the disturbing nature of some of the material I will share. It has certainly been a difficult issue for me and my parliamentary assistant, Max, to explore in detail in recent months. He is in the Public Gallery, and I am very grateful for all his work.

Given the quirks of the private Member’s Bill process, this is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak about my Bill in Parliament, so I hope, Ms Vaz, that you will forgive and indulge me if I spend a few moments speaking about the Bill in broad terms and setting the context before I address its specific clauses.

Child-like sexual abuse dolls are life-like, anatomically correct dolls, or any other object, designed to resemble a child and to be used for sexual activity. I was shocked to discover that these things even existed, let alone that they are legal to possess or sell in our country, but they are, and I have seen them in person. I have even felt one, and it is impossible to make it clear in words just how vile they are and how they are produced to be as life-like as possible. Increasingly, they are custom-made to order, and with the advance of technology, I shudder to think how closely these dolls will be made to resemble an actual child.

These dolls are dangerous. They sexualise children. They normalise sexual abuse and form part of a pattern of behaviour that can and does end in real children being harmed. I have heard this at first hand from the police and the National Crime Agency, as well as from leading child protection charities such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Lucy Faithfull Foundation. For example, in 2017, an ex-school governor here in the UK was found to have imported a child-like sexual abuse doll. He was also found to be in possession of 34,000 images of child sexual abuse. His case is one of many that demonstrate the horror of the issue and the real consequences of these dolls being legal.

As the law stands, the dolls expose a gaping hole in our child protection laws. It is not an offence to own, use or make them. Existing laws can sometimes be used where these items are imported, sold or distributed, and Border Force plays an important role in stopping them entering the country. However, those offences were not designed specifically for child-like sexual abuse dolls, and they do not provide a clear or comprehensive legal framework. The result is a patchwork approach that can leave gaps in protection.

Since 2017, when the NCA and Border Force ran Operation Shiraz, law enforcement authorities have been using this dated customs legislation that prohibits the importation of “indecent or obscene articles”. There have been some prosecutions, but too many are falling through the cracks, as is demonstrated by the following case study. A registered sex offender had his home searched following a prompt relating to child sexual abuse imagery. A child-like sexual abuse doll was found, resembling a child of approximately four to five years of age. It came with a child’s underwear and pink, fluffy slippers, as well as accessories, including a removable penis. He was able to be charged only with the indecent images of children offence, not the possession and use of a child-like sexual abuse doll. Furthermore, under current legislation, the police did not have the legal powers to remove and destroy the doll.

The Bill we are considering will close that gap in the law by amending the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It will make it an offence to make, possess, import, supply or offer to supply—that is, advertise—a child-like sex doll. How we define a child-like sex doll in legislation is important, and for that, I draw Members’ attention to clause 1 and proposed new subsections 46D(2) and (9) of the 2003 Act. A child-like sex doll will be defined as

“a doll or other object…which resembles a child or any part of a child’s body, and…which a reasonable person would consider has been made for, or is intended to be used for, engaging in a sexual activity, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.”

That definition is drafted to make the legislation as effective as possible without being overly prescriptive. For example, manufacturers of the dolls sometimes ensure that the dolls have large breasts, because that is what their customers want. They then try to claim that the dolls are not child-like due to their breast size, regardless of the fact that these dolls are, in every other sense, clearly designed and intended to resemble a child. This definition will also close another loophole that has been increasingly exploited to evade the existing customs legislation that I referred to, whereby parts of a doll are ordered separately rather than a whole doll and are subsequently assembled at home.

A number of countries around the world have already put similar legislation in place. The reference to whether a “reasonable person” would consider it likely that dolls have been made for sexual activity is modelled on the Australian legislation. It is an objective test and allows consideration to be given to the characteristics of the doll in its entirety rather than insisting that it has set features. As with similar judgments involving child sexual abuse material and other offences where age, appearance and context are relevant, it will be up to the court to weigh up the circumstance of each case.

I would also like to bring proposed new subsection 46D(9) in clause 1 into this part of the discussion. The offence of making a child-like sexual abuse doll includes adaptation. For example, an offender found to have made their own doll through adapting a child’s toy doll—a real scenario presented to me by the NCA—would also fall under this legislation. The subsection also defines a child as

“a person aged under 18.”

The Bill makes exception for relevant defences in clause 1 through proposed new subsections 46D(3) to (5) of the 2003 Act, including the protection of law enforcement officers working on detecting or investigating a crime relating to such dolls, as well as unsolicited or unintentional possession. I reassure Members that these defences are tightly drafted; vitally, the burden will be on the accused to prove that they are eligible for the defences. Offenders will be penalised, as detailed in clause 1, through proposed new subsection 46D(6), in line with offences involving indecent images of children: on summary conviction, up to 12 months’ imprisonment and/or a fine, and on indictment, up to 5 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine. Crucially, under clause 1(2), offenders will be placed on the sex offenders register if they are imprisoned for a term of at least 12 months and eligible for notification requirements, so that their risk can be managed by the police and the Probation Service.

Proposed new subsection 46D(7) ensures that UK nationals committing an offence abroad will be able to be prosecuted here, and it extends the same provision to relevant UK bodies and unincorporated associations. That aligns with other child sexual abuse offences. Proposed new subsection 46D(8) sets out the powers for the police in terms of entry, search, seizure and forfeiture of child-like sexual abuse dolls, again in line with legislation relating to possession of indecent images of children. Proposed new section 46E is relevant to organisations or companies’ involvement with CSA doll offences. When a body commits an offence and that offence is committed with the consent or complicity of senior figures, they will be held liable.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making an incredibly powerful case about something that, I think we can all agree, is utterly abhorrent. I want to ask about proposed new subsection 46D(9), which, as she rightly emphasised, would ban the adaptation of something into a CSA doll. Does the Bill also ban the supplying of parts to allow that to happen? She has mentioned that the Bill would look at banning the supply of CSA dolls. There is also separately a concern about modifying an object into a CSA doll. Is there a potential loophole whereby supplying the parts to enable the modification would not be covered by the Bill, which would address only the supply of entire CSA dolls?

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention; I confess that I had not thought about that angle. The examples I have seen, presented to me by the NCA and the police, were literally like Annabell dolls that had had orifices made in the appropriate places. Presumably, tools that we would utilise in everyday life were used, such as screwdrivers and knives. I am not aware of tools specifically made to adapt these dolls, but the Minister is indicating that she may be able to pick that up with a prompt from the officials.

Clause 2 details the territorial extent, commencement and title of the Bill. As would be expected, the commencement of clause 1 would allow time for operational guidance and training, as well as assessments on the impact of the justice system. Finally, on the territorial extent, the Bill will apply to England and Wales, given that criminal law and policing are devolved matters in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Although I would have liked the Bill to have a UK-wide remit, it was challenging to do that in the time available, given the constraints of the private Member’s Bill process. I very much hope, however, that Holyrood and Stormont will bring forward equivalent measures as soon as they can. I am grateful to Home Office officials for already sharing their expertise in this area with their counterparts.

The Bill is a very small part of the work that we need to do to protect children from harm, but it is a vital step. I am grateful to have the support of a significant number of leading charities, including the NSPCC and the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, and I am grateful to have the support of the NCA. I also want to give particular credit to Detective Sergeant Kat Knock from Lancashire constabulary and Hazel Stewart from the NCA—two amazing women who have worked incredibly hard to tackle this issue on the ground for several years. Without their dedication, we would not be here discussing this Bill.

I thank the group-based child sexual exploitation response team in the Home Office, as well as the Government Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for its work in advising my staff and me, as well as for drafting this legislation. I am grateful to the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls and her predecessors for getting behind the Bill. I am also grateful to my cross-party co-sponsors. I very much hope that we can collectively get the Bill on to the statute book as soon as is humanly possible.

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I wholeheartedly congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham on bringing forward this Bill to close a clear legislative gap on child-like sexual abuse dolls, and I welcome the Government’s support. She has been a fierce champion for women and children for many years, and she should be commended for her leadership on this issue. This legislation comes at an important time, when the Government’s legislation to prohibit pornography with an actor purporting to be a child is due to come into operation on 6 November. It feels as though we are truly making steps forward to combat the environment that normalises child sexual abuse.

However, I want to draw the Committee’s attention to a digital counterpart of the same harm: chatbots that simulate sexual scenarios with children. They are referred to by multiple members of the Pornography Harms Coalition, which includes CEASE, Barnardo’s, Rape Crisis and the Internet Watch Foundation, among many others, as digital sexual abuse dolls. These chatbots are more accessible, more scalable and arguably more immersive than any physical doll, and they are not clearly illegal today.

The Internet Watch Foundation’s analysts have found artificial intelligence companion chatbots modelled as children that encourage users to act out specific child sexual abuse scenarios, including “child prostitute in a hotel”, “sex with your daughter while your wife is on holiday” and “child and teacher alone after class”. General purpose chatbots and companion apps are being used for interactive role play in which users actively co-produce abusive scripts. That can be text, but it can also involve visual, cartoon-like characters that narrate and reinforce the scenario. These are not isolated text exchanges; they create an immersive environment in which a user can interact with a child avatar and rehearse abusive scenarios. In some cases, the user can reach AI-generated sexual abuse images of children within a few clicks.

Last year, the IWF actioned 17 reports of confirmed child sexual abuse images on those chatbots, with some depicting children as young as seven. Professor Clare McGlynn and her colleagues found that some chatbots, freely accessible to millions of users, let people role-play rape, incest and child sexual abuse. Research by Graphika cited by Professor McGlynn found a Chub AI character card with 109,000 chats depicting a grooming scenario. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that character.ai users could interact with characters such as “Bestie Epstein”, based on the prolific paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Under UK law, child sexual abuse material is unlawful whether it is real, AI-generated, synthetic or a hybrid. The Government accepts that AI-generated material causes comparable harm, yet a chatbot built to simulate written sexual scenarios with a child sits in a legal gap. Professor McGlynn has noted that text-only chatbots are not considered pornography under part 5 of the Online Safety Act 2023, so an incest role-play chatbot with a young girl’s avatar could fall outside its pornography duties. In July, the Government announced a ban on sexualised AI chatbots for under-18s—something that I and many here welcome. However, it is unclear what counts as a sexualised chatbot, how the ban will be enforced and what exemptions apply. It protects only under-18s, so it does nothing about an adult using a chatbot that generates written child sexual abuse scenarios.

The Crime and Policing Act 2026 gave the Secretary of State power to bring AI chatbots within its scope, including illegal AI-generated content of all kinds—not only priority illegal content. However, that route helps only if the underlying conduct is actually illegal. Furthermore, no timetable has been given for either of those measures. This issue was raised by my friend Baroness Gabby Bertin in the other place during the passage of that Act. She tabled an amendment that would have made written material that glorifies sexual activity with a child a crime.

That was prompted by a case reported in The Guardian of Emily, a pseudonym, whose father fantasised about, and described in detail in an online chatroom, raping and sexually abusing her as a child. Though the physical sexual abuse was never real, the trauma of its description has had a very real impact on Emily, who should have been recognised as a victim. The Crown Prosecution Service refused to prosecute, arguing that the father had no intent to deprave. Government Ministers at the time said Baroness Bertin’s amendment was unnecessary, as written child abuse content was already illegal. The relevant legislation they cited was the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and the Communications Act 2003. However, the CPS said that it was not possible to establish that the defendant in Emily’s case intended the messages to be obscene, or that he was aware when sending them that they would be considered so if seen by a reasonable member of the public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Satvir Kaur]

Yes, that is already covered in the legislation. Naturally, we want to find these dolls and find who is producing, sharing and using them. I thank the hon. Lady for raising that.

The Government are satisfied that the Bill strikes the right balance, and we support the clauses standing part of the Bill. I again thank the hon. Member for Twickenham for her leadership and determination in getting the Bill to this stage. The Government are proud to support this important safeguarding measure, and I commend the Bill to the Committee.

[Munira Wilson]

I thank the Members who spoke for their very kind and generous words to me. I thank the hon. Member for Lowestoft for her campaigning on this issue. She has come under a lot of significant personal abuse for her work on protecting women and girls from violence. I thank her for that work and strongly support her comments. Although the amendment she would have liked to make—on digital child-like sexual abuse dolls and chatbots, as she laid out so clearly—was out of scope, I very much hope that the Minister will find ways of taking that forward. As the hon. Member said, the ban on sexualising chatbots that the Government announced was targeted specifically at what children access; here, we are talking about adults accessing physical dolls. But we know that the online world is developing at pace so, as the Government are looking to introduce all sorts of legislation in this area, I ask the Minister to look to capture, as broadly as possible, all the horrendous activities that are going on.

I thank the official Opposition for their strong support for the Bill. To pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, the argument sometimes made against criminalising these dolls is that they stop people abusing real children. What a misconception that is. I spoke to an amazing organisation in Australia called Collective Shout, which was involved in bringing forward the legislation there. They gave me a horrendous example in Australia of a man who was picked up importing a child-like sex doll. They went to his home, and they found not only a second child-like sex doll and all sorts of child sexual abuse imagery on his devices, but also a lockable sound-proof room that he had created in his house, and some maps. He had based himself close to a nursery and quite clearly had the intention of kidnapping children and doing I dread to think what to them, in a lockable room that could not be accessed by anyone, from which children’s cries could not be heard.

That gives us an idea of the intentions of the sorts of people who use these things. I know that UK police enforcement authorities are working on other examples, but I am not able to share them because they are live cases.

[Alicia Kearns]

I thank the hon. Member for making that point. She is essentially giving the National Crime Agency and police forces across the country an additional reason to enter the homes of potential offenders and those who are planning a crime. It is absolutely vital that we move to prevention in this area, because the reality is that there are too many children and adults across this country whose lives have been forever harmed by this. It is something they will live with for ever. The hon. Member is not just tackling a doll but providing a preventive power to go in and catch people before they escalate, and she is therefore protecting children. I thank her ever so much for doing so.

[Munira Wilson]

Absolutely; I completely agree. The hon. Member also made the point about resources. When DS Kat Knock, who I mentioned in my speech, came to London from Cheshire with a couple of these vile objects for me to look at, a couple of officers from the Met police joined that meeting. I talked to them about the fact that the number of police officers who track and monitor those on sex offender registers has not gone up in recent years, while the number of offenders on the register has gone up—particularly with the early release scheme. That workload is increasing all the time, so we have to resource it properly. I hope that the Government will consider that. I know that everyone is demanding more money and we are fiscally constrained, but this is a really important area, especially when we are talking about protecting children and adding these offences to the statute book. This needs to be resourced properly.

To respond to the hon. Member for South West Devon, line 24 of the Bill says that a defence for a person who might be charged with an offence is that they

“did not keep it for an unreasonable time.”

I am confident that, if a member of the public finds one of these dolls in a public place and reports it, there would be a strong case for defence in that they were not in possession of it for use themselves.

On the points about files for 3D printing and tools to adapt dolls, I know that the Minister is committed to following that up. I am also very happy to work with officials to follow up with colleagues and address those issues, and to make amendments on Report if necessary.

I close by thanking everybody again. I think we are looking at the first Friday in February for Report and Third Reading, and we will hopefully get the Bill to the other place as soon possible in order then to get it in statute. I am very grateful for everybody’s strong support.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question put, That the Bill be reported without amendment.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Safety of the Jewish Community

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West]

From the number of people who have written to me since this debate was granted, I am very aware that resourcing is crucial. There are more than 500 additional officers across England and Wales, boosting security around schools, synagogues and community centres. It is deeply upsetting, as their MP, to hear mothers ask, “Why does my daughter say, ‘Mummy, why there are so many police outside my school?’?”

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I agree with the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), although members of the Jewish community say to me that they do not want to build ever-higher walls. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and I had a harrowing meeting with children and young people who attend Richmond synagogue in my borough. They told us about their terrible experiences of bullying, both physical and verbal, at school and university. They are all having to hide their faith. Does the hon. Member agree that nobody should have to hide their faith? Sir David Bell, who is doing a review for the Government on antisemitism in schools, says that headteachers tell him that, for Jewish faith schools, security comes ahead of education. That cannot be right, can it?

[Catherine West]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Although we have not yet heard back from the Bell inquiry, I will touch on it in my third and final point and will pick up the hon. Lady’s points then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Sewards]

Goodness me! I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is a disgraceful turn of events when people feel confident enough to say something like that on camera, especially if they are not even intoxicated and inebriated, not that that would justify any comments of that nature. That is sickening and it goes to the heart of what we are trying to get to. Because of the way antisemitism has been allowed to flourish, a lot of people now confidently say such things even on camera. It is disgraceful.

We need to think about what it means to belong to a society in which we are repeatedly forced to ask whether it is safe to live openly as a Jewish person. The threat is the threat itself; that is the problem, as is the effect it is having on Jewish people who have to live in anticipation of it. Over the past year, Jewish communities have seen attacks on communal organisations and threats against places of worship and institutions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet set out, alongside appalling levels of antisemitic incidents.

The significance of that cannot be measured simply by counting the incidents, because it is changing the everyday, ordinary lives of Jewish people in this country. Familiar places and ordinary routines become questions of security. Precautions that might once have seemed extreme, maybe even paranoid, have instead become reasonable considerations that Jewish people have to make as part of their ordinary daily lives. That is why security outside synagogues, schools and community institutions sadly remains all too essential; why Jewish societies at universities do not always publicise where their events will take place; and why celebrating Jewish life in public can require precautions that few other communities in this country ever have to consider.

[Munira Wilson]

In my previous intervention, I mentioned that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and I had met children, young people and their parents at Richmond synagogue to talk about their experience in schools, colleges and universities. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about people hiding their identity and partly withdrawing from public life, one of the students from —I will name the university, because I went there—the University of Cambridge said that antisemitism was rife in some colleges and was not dealt with. They hid where the Jewish society would meet. One student said she had done Hebrew teaching as part of her extracurricular activities, but is keeping that off her CV because she is worried she will be discriminated against. Folk in that room said to us, “We’re tired of advocating for ourselves; we need others to advocate for us.” It is incumbent on us all to come together and say that enough is enough.

[Mark Sewards]

I could not agree more. I will come on to universities in the final part of my speech. The experience of students at the University of Leeds reflects what the hon. Lady said.

Security is incredibly important, but our ambition cannot simply be to protect the Jewish people from immediate physical danger. It must also mean being able to live openly and confidently in British society, with a sense of belonging, while being Jewish. That challenge is made even more serious by the actions of hostile states. I welcome the Government’s action on designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps under the newly reformed National Security Act 2023. Designation must be backed up by vigilance and effective enforcement.

Ministers have acknowledged in previous statements that Jewish people, alongside dissidents and journalists, are among those most targeted by the Iranian state and the IRGC in particular. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what further steps are being taken to ensure that hostile states and their proxies cannot intimidate or target British Jewish communal institutions or other organisations in Britain. This is not just some distant foreign policy concern; as we know, we have to live with it every day. Iran has demonstrated its willingness to project threats well beyond its own borders. It also views Jewish communities through the prism of the conflict with Israel, which inevitably creates further concerns for Jewish people here in Britain.

Before I come to my point about universities, we have to confront the antisemitism that presents itself as anti-Zionism. Criticism of the Israeli Government is, of course, not inherently antisemitic—of course it is not—but denying Jewish people alone the right to national self-determination, or treating British Jews as responsible for the actions of Israel, is obviously antisemitic. It is anti-Zionist antisemitism and it needs to be called out.

Improving the UK Visa System

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I commend the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on introducing this important debate. He will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with everything that he said. The city I represent, Cambridge, has fantastic universities that rely strongly on international students, who we are very proud of. We rely on a functioning visa system to make the city prosper, but my constituency office deals daily with a steady flow of immigration and nationality cases from across a range of routes, including skilled worker visas, dependant visas, and family reunification, settlement and naturalisation applications. I suspect we will hear the same story from other Members.

A city like Cambridge probably has a disproportionate number of such cases. A consistent theme across them is delays in the system and, I have to say, sometimes limited communication with the Home Office. It is hardly a new problem. I have been an MP for 11 years and it has always been the case. In many ways it may be improving, but it is still not good enough.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way so early in his speech. He hits on the issue that communication with the Home Office is challenging. I would go so far as to say that there is a cultural problem in the Home Office, whether for visa applications or naturalisation applications. A family in my constituency applied for citizenship in 2022, and after months—years—of me and them chasing, and being pushed back and told by the Home Office, “These things take a long time; please be patient,” it transpired that there was an administrative error in the Home Office. It was noticed after three years, and four years later the family finally got naturalisation. Does the hon. Member agree that the culture at the Home Office needs to change?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. I remember notorious problems with the system based in Croydon from when I was a teenager living there, so the issue goes back 50 or 60 years.

The issue is important because it creates such uncertainty for so many people, with knock-on effects for employment, housing and family life. We are seeing cases where constituents are seeking to reunite with family members through refugee family reunion routes, including applications made, exactly as has been suggested, prior to recent changes in the immigration rules. That includes cases where people are trying to be with seriously ill relatives, but still facing delays even when urgent expedition routes exist. Importantly, those routes prioritise only case consideration; they do not guarantee that a faster decision will be made.

Frankly, in many cases, I have found constituents unable to take up confirmed job offers or proceed with planned family relocations because applications remain unresolved or there is insufficient clarity around timelines. Alongside the delays themselves, a recurring concern is the difficulty that constituents face in obtaining any information—again, exactly as has been pointed out—which leaves them unable to plan with confidence or understand their position within the system. I think that point will be repeated throughout the debate.

My second point refers to a time when I was fisheries Minister. Last summer, late in my occupation of that post, I visited the constituency of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I was alerted to problems in the Northern Ireland fishing industry, where a relatively small number of visas are essential to its continuation. I wrote to the Minister with some suggestions for working with the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations. I gently say that that offer stands if he wishes to take it up.

My final issue refers to the points made by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire about language testing. The Cambridge University Press & Assessment, a major employer in Cambridge, is one of the players that bid and then withdrew its bid because of concerns about the changes to online testing. It asked me a number of questions that I will put to the Minister today, echoing the points that have already been made. Is he really satisfied that a fully remote model can match the security of in-person, supervised testing? These are high-stakes tests because the number of people coming to our country depends on their accuracy. I echo the point calling for an explanation of why are we diverging from Australia and Canada, which have rejected this approach, and I ask whether the Home Office will publish the risk assessment underpinning the move to remote-by-default testing, including its assessment of fraud, impersonation, AI-enabled cheating, hidden devices and organised malpractice.

Could the Minister also tell us whether the Home Office has consulted the National Cyber Security Centre on the threat model for fully remote English language testing, including AI-enabled cheating, impersonation, organised fraud and cross-border cyber-risks? Perhaps he could explain why the Government are moving towards remote-by-default testing when other high-stakes assessment bodies are moving in the opposite direction. For example, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants is ending remote invigilation, and the Law School Admission Council, which runs the law school admission test for US schools, is returning to in-person testing to protect security and integrity. Could he tell us whether the Home Office English language testing system will be independently regulated to the same standard as the current secure English language tests, and whether Ofqual will have a formal role? What fall-back arrangements are in place if security, reliability or integrity problems emerge after the contract is awarded, including whether the Home Office could realistically switch provider or return to higher-assurance in-person provision?

I appreciate that the Minister and his colleagues inherited a system that was buckling under the strain, and I also appreciate the hard work of the many civil servants trying to make it work, but I would appreciate any answers that the Minister can give.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I will speak for my constituents who did exactly what this country asked of them. They came here legally, they worked hard, they paid their taxes and they built lives on the clear understanding that after five years they could settle. Now, part-way through that journey, as we have heard time and again in this debate, the goalposts are being moved.

I have met and heard from NHS clinicians, care workers, engineers, researchers, academics, teachers and other skilled professionals, some only weeks away from being able to apply for settlement under the current rules. These are people who kept services running through covid and who pay thousands in tax, yet many are now living with anxiety and despair. Parents have asked me how they explain this to their children—children who feel British, because Britain is all they have ever known. These are households already paying more into the system than they take out.

I understand the Government’s desire to reward contribution and support integration, but my constituents are struggling with a system that feels increasingly detached from the reality of their lives. Government power comes with responsibility, especially when people have arranged their lives around our decisions. We cannot invite people in on one set of rules, benefit from their labour and commitment, and then rewrite the contract halfway through.

I recently attended a community meeting at the gurdwara in Warrington, with constituents who arrived in the UK from south Asia—members of the Sikh, Muslim and Hindu communities, all of whom came here in good faith. Every person in that room was at a different stage of the journey, and every single one would be affected by these changes. Some of the concerns that came up were about a single national income threshold that ignores regional pay differences. People working full time in vital jobs in Warrington cannot simply magic their wages up to a national figure. Many described normal career progression in highly skilled roles, with salaries starting lower and growing quickly, while others explained how visa restrictions limit their ability to move into higher-paid work.

I have spoken to couples where both parents work and pay tax, yet neither earns enough individually to qualify.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sarah Hall]

I am going to carry on because of time.

I have spoken to highly skilled public sector workers who are being told that their day job is somehow not contribution enough. I have heard from researchers and lecturers who are strengthening our universities and innovation base, yet are falling short of blunt thresholds.

To be clear about what fairness looks like, it means no retrospective changes for people already on the route to settlement, clear guaranteed transitional protections, and recognition of regional pay differences. We should manage and control migration, and our constituents rightly expect that, but they also expect fairness. They expect a system that recognises the contribution of hard-working, tax-paying people who now call Warrington their home. I ask the Government to match that same sense of fairness, protect those already on the five-year route, recognise real contribution and give families the certainty they deserve.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.

The Liberal Democrats and I are completely opposed to these sudden and retrospective changes to entitlement to indefinite leave to remain. Families who have worked hard, paid taxes and integrated into British society should not face more years of insecurity and additional costs.

[Munira Wilson]

As well as the uncertainty caused by the extension from five to 10 years of the qualifying period for ILR, many families in my constituency have contacted me with another concern: where, at the moment, one parent stays at home to look after the children, if they are forced to go out to work in order to meet the £12,500 minimum threshold for permanent residence, they will face massive childcare costs. Does my hon. Friend agree that they are right to be concerned?

[Mr Forster]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that issue. She is a strong advocate for children and families, and she is right to highlight how the Government have not thought this policy through. It has a disproportionate impact, particularly when childcare costs are so significant. I will come on to talk about the unacceptable changes to the income thresholds.

As I said, the Liberal Democrats and I oppose the changes, which move the goalposts and change the rules of the game after we have kicked off. They go against the fundamental British value of fairness. I thank the organisers of the two petitions and all those who signed them, including and especially the 218 and 444 of my constituents in Woking.

The Government’s consultation document states that from April 2026, anyone who does not have ILR status—even if their application is going through the process—will be affected. That is subject to the final outcome of the consultation, which invites views on whether there should be transitional arrangements to exempt some people already in the UK. The Government press release suggests that such arrangements might be considered for “borderline cases”. Will the Minister expand on that, and perhaps explain, without the use of euphemism or vague language, what it means in practice for our constituents? We owe it to the people of Hong Kong, Ukraine and other war-torn parts of the world who have sought refuge in Britain to respect their wish to take part in our society and allow them peace of mind to plan for the long term.

Police Reform White Paper

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will absolutely take into account the views of the rank and file, and I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend. As for the Police Federation, the White Paper makes it clear that we are not happy with the status quo. The Policing Minister has met its representatives directly, and they know that if they do not improve quickly enough, I will not hesitate to bring forward further reforms to ensure that our rank and file police officers are better represented. My hon. Friend also mentioned direct entry. As he will know, Lord Blunkett is currently leading an independent commission on police leadership, and I will look at the proposals that he puts forward. The White Paper signals our interest in this model of direct entry, but, as has been noted, the devil is always in the detail and it is all about how these reforms are implemented. I hope that my hon. Friend and others will continue to keep an open mind as we develop our proposals further.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

The White Paper states, on page 24:

“To build trust and increase accessibility, officers will also maintain a visible presence in local hubs, schools and community spaces”.

May I ask the Home Secretary how that vision marries with the fact that in London, under the Met’s “tough choices” programme, we are about to see the closure of the Twickenham police station front counter? We have already lost our specialist schools team and we have lost our specialist parks police, including those in Bushy Park in my constituency. Does this not show that the Home Secretary can make as many reforms to structures as she likes, but if they are not resourced properly, our constituents will not see the community policing that she is promising?

[Shabana Mahmood]

What the hon. Lady’s constituents will see is the increase in neighbourhood police officers—we will have 3,000 in place by the end of March—and a named, contactable officer in every neighbourhood. The neighbourhood policing guarantee is the absolute bedrock for ensuring that communities, wherever they are—in London or other parts of the country—always have visible policing in their neighbourhoods.

Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am sure that the chair and panel have heard my hon. Friend’s request that they visit the area. She will understand that I will not speak for the chair and the panel members, but I know that Members across the House will want to make representations about their areas, and I am sure that all of that will be taken into consideration. My hon. Friend will know that Baroness Longfield knows Bradford well, having gone there to help turn around children’s services in the local authority in relation to a different matter.

I recognise that, already, improvements have been made and lessons have been learned by my hon. Friend’s local police. The inquiry will make recommendations about what we need to do at national level to learn the lessons and make sure that such criminality cannot take place again, but it is important that the good practice already taking place be shared with authorities all over the country. I will talk to Baroness Longfield about how we can ensure that we do not lose current good practice while we wait for the final recommendations of the inquiry.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and the appointment of Baroness Longfield, who will be an excellent chair. When I met Professor Jay at the start of the year to talk about her inquiry, she impressed two points on me: the importance of a child protection authority, and the importance of data sharing. Earlier this year, the safeguarding Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), announced the establishment of a child protection authority. Will the Home Secretary update the House on progress in establishing that authority?

On data sharing, the Liberal Democrats have supported the Government’s legislation to create a single unique identifier. Unfortunately, people outside this place are suggesting that it is the precursor to digital identification for children, and that the Government use children’s data inappropriately. Will the Home Secretary reassure parents and carers that the Government will guard children’s data with the utmost security, and will use it only to keep children safe, and to improve services for them?

[Shabana Mahmood]

On the hon. Lady’s second point, let me provide reassurance that the data is to keep children safe. We have a duty to children in our country, and the recommendation on data sharing was well made and absolutely the right thing to do. The unique identifier is there as a child safety measure, and not for anything else. Some people may have legitimate concerns in this area and may need that reassurance; I think others are seeking to make mischief, but in any case, I confirm that the unique identifier is there solely as a child protection measure.

On the child protection authority, the hon. Lady is tempting me to gazump imminent announcements. I will not do so, but let me assure her that there will be a progress update very soon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is right that for many of their years in government, the Opposition wanted to look at the police funding formula, but they never did. The Home Secretary will bring forward our police reform White Paper, which will set out the context for our future funding decisions, but the allocations for this year are being looked at as we speak. I hear my hon. Friend.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that the Met police recently proposed closing, or scaling back the hours of operation for, a number of police front counters across London. Those plans were scaled back, apparently in response to public feedback, but the Twickenham police station’s front counter is still earmarked for closure, and only 15 people were invited to an online meeting at which to give that feedback. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Mayor of London and the Met police have a duty to do a full public consultation on these plans?

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Lady is right: there was a consultation, and seven fewer front counters will now be closed than before, and she is right that Twickenham is not one of those that will no longer close. We need to judge the police in London on their outcomes and Sadiq Khan on the work that he has done. We have the lowest number of murders since records began. Fraser Nelson, that well-known socialist, wrote just this week:

“But look past the headlines…the city is winning the battle over violent crime. It’s not a bad time to be a Londoner.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

1. What discussions she has had with the Mayor of London on the closure of front counters at police stations.

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

It is clear to us that visible policing is essential to restoring public confidence in our police, which is why there will be 3,000 more neighbourhood police on the beat by April next year under this Labour Government. The Metropolitan police will receive up to £3.8 billion in 2025-26, a £262 million increase in funding through the settlement.

[Munira Wilson]

May I, as a London Member, begin by paying tribute to the brave police officers from the Met and many other forces who were policing protests on Saturday, a number of whom were injured in the line of duty as a result of abhorrent attacks? I am sure that the thoughts and prayers of all Members, in all parts of the House, are with them.

Last week we discovered that Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, had admitted that he had known as long ago as November that the Met planned to close a number of police front counters across London, having promised just six months earlier in his election manifesto that not a single borough would be left without a police front counter. The decision to close Twickenham’s counter means that Richmond upon Thames will be left without one. Does the Minister agree that, given the importance of police counters in maintaining trust in and accessibility to our police, this decision needs to be reversed? Does she also agree that the Mayor of London has broken his promises, and that the Metropolitan police should be funded properly?

[Sarah Jones]

May I associate myself with the comments made by the hon. Member at the start of her question? As she would expect, we have been in close contact with the Met throughout the weekend. Our thoughts are with the officers who were injured, some of them seriously, and we must of course ensure that justice is done for them: they run into danger for us every day.

It is clear to me that the Mayor of London is making the right decisions on policing across London. Of course Members will feel that their particular police stations are important, and of course visible policing is important. What our communities are saying—what my communities in Croydon are saying to me—is that they want to see police on our streets tackling crime, not sitting behind desks doing the jobs that unwarranted police officers could be doing, and that is why we are putting neighbourhood policing at the heart of our policies and putting those 3,000 officers back on our streets by April next year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

While Border Force does not routinely disclose information of a port-specific nature, in the calendar year of 2024 it seized approximately 300,000 e-cigarettes and vapes at the UK border. Border Force has a robust approach to seizures, based on intelligence received from its partners. I know that my hon. Friend has raised this issue previously, and I am very happy to meet with her to discuss it.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

In my constituency, we have seen the parks police slashed from Bushy Park and rates of theft and knife crimes soaring. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner warned last week that the Home Secretary will not meet her laudable targets on neighbourhood policing, tackling knife crime and tackling violence against women and girls without additional investment. Can she reassure my constituents that they will see the bobbies on the beat that she has promised, or will they see only the Chancellor’s iron fist?

[Yvette Cooper]

I can tell the hon. Lady that more than 400 additional neighbourhood police officers will be on the streets in London this year as a result of our neighbourhood policing guarantee.