Licences and Licensing
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(3 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Diana Johnson
I was just about to say that businesses in the hospitality sector, particularly pubs and bars, stand to benefit from this modest extension, which would allow them to accommodate increased demand during these high-profile fixtures. I fully accept that the hospitality sector has had a difficult time over the past few years, and that this is a helpful measure.
It is right to acknowledge that police representatives have expressed some concerns regarding the potential for increased crime and disorder. While operational decisions on deployment and resourcing are a matter for individual forces, I am confident that appropriate measures will be taken to mitigate any risks, as has happened in similar cases.
Notably, there have been no significant incidents of large-scale disorder linked to previous licensing extensions, which is testament to the professionalism of our police service, to which we owe our thanks. I also emphasise that this is a limited and proportionate two-hour extension. It applies solely to the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises after 11 pm and does not extend to off licences, supermarkets or other premises licensed only for off-sales.
To clarify one final point, if neither England nor Wales reach the semi-finals, the proposed extension will not apply on 22 or 23 July. Similarly, if one or both teams reach the semi-finals but do not progress to the final, normal licensing hours will apply on 27 July.
I also make Members aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) is sponsoring a private Member’s Bill, supported by the Government, which seeks to make such orders subject to the negative resolution procedure in future. That means that less time will be spent, particularly on the Floor of the House, having to agree such measures. The Bill has completed its Committee stage in the House but will not be enacted in time to apply to this summer’s tournament, hence the need for this order to be brought before the House today. Should this order receive the support of the House, as I hope and expect it will, it will reinforce the argument that debating such measures may not represent the most effective use of parliamentary time.
In conclusion, this order has been brought forward in recognition of the significant public interest in the forthcoming tournament and, in particular, the hopes and expectations surrounding the England and Wales teams. On that note, I take the opportunity to wish the players of both teams the very best of luck. I am sure they will do themselves, their fans and their nations proud, and I commend the order to the House.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
We are delighted to support the temporary licence changes, as I am sure are Members on all sides—although, to be fair, I do not think I would have much choice on the matter, for if I ever stood at this Dispatch Box and opposed more time in the pub to watch football, my dad would probably disown me. The changes, as the Minister has outlined, will extend licences by two hours for venues that already have licences until 11 pm and apply if England or Wales, the two qualifying teams in the UEFA women’s Euro, reaches a semi-final on 22 or 23 July, or the final on 27 July. There is no reason we should doubt that they will reach that threshold because we are the defending champions, after England’s magnificent performance at the 2022 tournament, hosted in the UK at Wembley. The final saw a 2-1 victory and, of course, it was made all the sweeter by beating the Germans.
This is a fantastic time to support our local as well as our national teams. It is also worth taking the time, however, to note that since the autumn Budget, the hospitality sector is sadly reporting a spike in the number of pub closures. That is no surprise, as the Chancellor’s raid on pubs has cost them at least £2,500 per full-time employee. Sixty per cent of pubs say they have cut jobs and three quarters say they have increased their prices as a direct result. Therefore, even though the licensing changes mean we might all be able to go to the pub for a little longer, it will cost us a bit more for a pint—and sadly, for many, the local might not even be in business any more.
Now, more than ever, we need to support our locals, such as the 63 pubs that were nominated in my Fylde pub of the year competition, which was won by the Coach & Horses in Freckleton. I am sure that the two Grahams who run that cracking establishment will be delighted with a shout-out from this Dispatch Box, but they will be even more delighted with the Minister for having a bit of extra time to sell some more pints of Ponkys ale.
That just leaves me to finish by wishing the England and Wales teams good luck—though, of course, I am biased and hope to be raising a glass to England, once again, thrashing Germany.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Just before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, it would be remiss of me not to mention my local football club, Crowborough, and that we are a family of Gooners.
Crime and Policing Bill
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsWednesday 18th June 2025
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 18 June 2025 - (18 Jun 2025)
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I rise to speak in support of Liberal Democrat new clauses 83, 84, 85 and 86, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart). I also commend my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on his new clause 43.
Representing one of the most rural constituencies in the UK, I know just how deeply rural crime affects my constituents’ lives and livelihoods. I am not talking about the occasional petty theft from a property; the problem we face is calculated organised crime, and it is devastating North Cornwall’s farmers, small businesses and entire communities in our rural areas. Take the farmer in St Kew who lost more than £3,000-worth of tools and equipment in a single night, or the farming couple in Blisland who had two of their quad bikes stolen, worth £15,000. In that case, the police did not even arrive until three days later. To this day, the couple have heard nothing more. That is not to blame our hard-working local constables, who are stretched to breaking point.
It is no wonder that 86% of countryside residents say that rural crime is harming their mental wellbeing, and these are not isolated incidents. They are all part of a growing pattern that successive Governments have allowed to thrive under their watch. New clause 83 would finally extend the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 to cover GPS units, which are some of the most commonly stolen pieces of farm tech. Separately, new clause 84 would establish a dedicated rural crime taskforce, on which the Liberal Democrats have long campaigned. It is working in Scotland and a handful of regional police forces, so it is time that the Government developed and rolled out a properly funded and equipped taskforce nationwide.
I am pleased that, after years of pressure from me and my Liberal Democrat colleagues, the Government have finally announced that they will be committing to a full rural crime strategy. I hope that the Minister can today update the House on its timing. Strategy alone, however, will not stop thefts; it must come with proper enforcement. That is why new clause 85 and new clause 86 matter. They would guarantee minimal levels of neighbourhood policing and ensure that every local authority area has officers exclusively dedicated to community-based work.
In Cornwall, the police are doing all they can, but when the force gets less money per head than almost anywhere else in England, it is not enough. Officers are overstretched and underfunded. We need boots on the ground, with officers who understand the rural landscapes they are serving. That is why I urge the House to back these amendments, for the tradesmen who have lost their tools, for the farmers who have lost their machinery and vehicles, and for every rural community that has lost faith that justice will ever be done.
Separately, new clauses 87 and 88 would make it a criminal offence for water companies to breach pollution performance commitments and would finally hold senior executives personally liable for their failures. In North Cornwall, my constituents are living with the consequences of systematic pollution for profit. In 2024, South West Water issued more than 3,000 sewage alerts in its region, including 540 during the official bathing season and a staggering 2,600 outside of it. This is a routine and preventable environmental harm. South West Water pledged to significantly reduce its sewage discharges, but freedom of information requests show that it increased its discharges by a shocking five times last year versus the previous year, and the human cost is real.
In Widemouth Bay, my three-year-old constituent Finley became severely ill with diarrhoea and vomiting after playing on the beach. A friend’s child who was there that same day suffered similar symptoms, and I was contacted at one of my surgeries a few weeks ago by a teenage girl who required hospital admission after surfing in Harlyn bay. In St Eval, I dealt with residents reporting brown water coming from their taps. As a result of cracks at Bears Down reservoir due to South West Water’s lack of maintenance, many had no water for days, and the compensation from South West Water was £50 a household.
The leadership behind these constant and shocking failures continues to be rewarded. Susan Davy, the chief executive of Pennon Group, which owns South West Water, was paid a total of £860,000 in 2024. That was a small increase of £300,000 from the year before. Our beaches, rivers and families are being failed and let down, especially by the last Conservative Government and now by this Government. That is why these new clauses offer a clear message—
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
On 30 April 1999, three nail bombs went off in London, killing four and injuring 140. One of them exploded at Brick Lane, the hub of London’s Bengali community; one exploded in Soho, at the Admiral Duncan pub, the heart of London’s gay district; and one exploded in Brixton, in an attack on south London’s black community. The sick terrorist who committed those evil acts was motivated by hatred. He hated Bengalis and black people because of their race. He hated LGBT people because of who they love and how they live their lives. He hated those groups because they were different from him. He hated them because of who they are.
I raise that appalling incident to remind the House that hatred comes in many forms, but whoever in our society it is against, we must all stand equally strongly against it. We must have hate crime laws that show that whether the hatred is for someone’s race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability, Britain is a country that will not tolerate it; that all hatred is equal; and that all those who commit vile acts of hatred will face the same grave consequences.
I regret to say that that is not currently the case. Today the law recognises five categories of hate crime—race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and disability—but only two, race and religion, are treated as aggravated offences subject to stronger sentencing powers; the other three are not. That discrepancy cannot be right. We cannot say, as a society, that some forms of hatred are more evil than others.
I was at university when section 28 was introduced—I remember it vividly. It was more than a law; it was an attack on the right of people like me to live openly. It stigmatised lesbians, gays and bisexual people; and it pushed us out of public life. I went into politics to fight that cruel law and everything it represented.
Hate corrodes our entire society. It does not just harm the individuals who are targeted; it creates fear—fear to go outside, fear to speak up, fear to be seen. It silences people. It makes us all afraid. Research by Stonewall found that less than half of LGBT+ people felt safe holding their partner’s hand in public. That is the impact that the fear of hatred has on people. It makes them afraid even to show the world that they exist.
Unfortunately, far too many recorded crimes never result in charges. Of 11,000 disability hate crimes recorded by police, 320 led to prosecutions. Of 22,000 homophobic hate crimes, 3,118 led to prosecutions. Of 4,000 hate crimes against transgender people, only 137 led to prosecutions. Behind those statistics are real people, whose scars may heal on the outside but who may never recover from the fear and trauma that they have suffered.
In 2024, a teenage far-right extremist was jailed for targeting and attacking a transgender woman. Along with another young man, he kicked her to the ground in a park in Swansea and hurled transphobic abuse at her. In 2022, Cassie, a PhD student and wheelchair user, was waiting outside a shop when two drunk men grabbed her wheelchair, pushed her down the road and made sexual comments. She had to escape by rolling into traffic.
We must fight back against this hatred. We must show that we are not content to stick with the status quo. The victims of these attacks deserve to live in a society that says that we take this hatred seriously and will not stand for it. Victims must be at the heart of our criminal justice system, and we must ensure that laws protect them. That is why my new clause 122 is so important.
LGBT and disabled people tell me that they do not feel as safe as they used to. We are seeing rising transphobia everywhere. Pride flags are being taken down at county halls, and some politicians are openly questioning whether disabilities are even real. I am proud that Labour, in our manifesto, committed to equalising our hate crime laws by making hate crimes against LGBT people and disabled people aggravated offences. I am proud to be bringing forward that change through new clause 122. I hope that I can persuade all my parliamentary colleagues to support the new clause today, and to take this important step forward for equal rights.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for standing shoulder to shoulder with me throughout this process, and I urge the House to support the new clause.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I think the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) just ran out of time. I remember that I too raised Banaz’s case as a Back Bencher.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of six of the new clauses that go to the heart of our responsibilities as legislators—safeguarding children, restoring public confidence in the law and defending free expression—although due to the lack of time, I will not be able to go into them all in detail.
New clause 45, standing in my name, seeks to ensure that where an individual under the age of 18 has been cautioned or convicted of a child sex offence, the police must notify any organisation that that child is involved in, where they are with other children, or an organisation that that person is seeking to join. This new clause stems from a real case in my own constituency and would close a dangerous and demonstrably harmful safeguarding loophole, which I have already discussed privately with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). I hope that the Government will look at this as they take this legislation through the other place.
New clause 46, also standing my name, addresses another gap in legislation: a person’s ability to buy a car without providing any form of verifiable ID, or indeed proving that they can actually drive. This is in memory of Andrew Rowlands, with the support of his family, and it would make it harder for criminals and reckless drivers to use untraceable vehicles with impunity and kill people, as happened in Andrew’s case.
New clause 108, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), seeks to reaffirm the right to speak freely about religion or belief, including criticism, satire and dissent, by restoring clarity to our public order laws. I know he will be speaking to it later, and I wholly support it. It is closely aligned to new clause 7, which is being put forward by the Opposition Front Bench today. We need to start addressing some of these non-crime hate incidents, which I think are becoming a pernicious attack upon freedom in our society.
More broadly, it was great to hear the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) speak about pornography and some of the amendments she has put forward. I support new clause 103. In fact, I have been doing some work recently with the British Board of Film Classification because there are clearly major issues between what is allowed to be broadcast and age rated within traditional broadcast settings and what is available online. There is a growing body of evidence linking violent and abusive pornography with increased rates of sexual aggression, especially towards women and girls. I fully support the new clause and hope that the Government pay attention to what the hon. Member proposed.
I support new clause 150 relating to cousin marriage. I am glad that the Opposition Front Bench has put it forward, and I spoke at length about the matter earlier in Westminster Hall. This is not a knee-jerk reaction; it represents the next logical step in a serious and ongoing effort to protect the vulnerable and promote social cohesion. I have already introduced a private Member’s Bill in this Session on the marriage element, following the successful challenge banning virginity testing and hymenoplasty in the last Session, because when it comes to protecting women and men from outdated, coercive and harmful practices, this House must not look the other way.
This is not about race or religion; it is about freedom, societal cohesion and health. It is about freedom because consent is meaningless when extended families can pressure young men and women into cousin marriages that they do not want. We must stand up for those without a voice and give them the legal backing to say no. It is about cohesion because multigenerational cousin marriage often fosters huge issues around social segregation, locking individuals into closed systems of authority. When countries like Norway and Denmark have acted decisively, there is no excuse for this country to lag behind others with progressive credentials. It is about health because there is a real risk. The Born in Bradford study, which has been going on for many years, has found the real societal implications, and we still do not know the full side effects of multigenerational first cousin marriages.
We rightly prohibit relationships where power distorts consent—between teachers and pupils, doctors and patients, and within close family settings. The same logic clearly applies here as well. This new clause is rooted in compassion, not condemnation. It speaks to freedom, especially for women, and the courage to legislate where silence simply causes harm.
Each of these amendments addresses a different risk—child safety, public accountability and freedom of expression—but they are united in the common principle that the law should protect the vulnerable, demand responsibility, and preserve the freedoms on which a healthy and confident society depends.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The speaking limit is now reduced to four minutes.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I will not be able to speak to all the amendments that Members have worked so hard on and that I have supported so many times by putting my name to them, but the Members know that I support them. New clauses 21, 25, 13, 18, 10, 43 and, in particular, new clause 122 are all important proposals that the Government should listen to. I do not support new clause 7 from the official Opposition, and I cannot support new clauses 2 and 3, as I do not believe there is any evidence that those measures would help make sex workers safer. We have to respect evidence and listen to sex workers and their voices on these issues.
Principally, I rise today to speak to my new clauses 26, 27, 109, 30 and 49, and new clause 50 from the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). First, new clause 26 would require the Home Office to publish quarterly data on antisocial behaviour orders, including the number of times that stop-and-search powers were used prior to such orders being issued and the protected characteristics of individuals who receive those orders. That is important scrutiny to make sure the powers are being exercised fairly.
New clause 27 would enable regulations to vary the ability of police forces to use stop-and-search powers. Specifically, it would require the Government to suspend the use of those powers by any police force subject to Engage status under His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services. If a force has reached the point of requiring formal monitoring due to systemic issues, it is right that the most intrusive and abused police powers are subject to heightened scrutiny or even suspension.
New clause 30 would prohibit the deployment and use of certain forms of “predictive” policing technologies, particularly those that rely on automated decision-making, profiling and artificial intelligence, to assess the likelihood that individuals or groups will commit criminal offences. My hon. Friends will recognise that danger. Such technologies, however cleverly sold, will always need to be built on existing, flawed police data, or data from other flawed and biased public and private sources. That means that communities that have historically been over-policed will be more likely to be identified as being “at risk” of future criminal behaviour. As I have always said in the context of facial recognition, questions of accuracy and bias are not the only reason to be against these technologies. At their heart they infringe human rights, including the right to privacy and the right to be presumed innocent.
Crime and Policing Bill
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsTuesday 17th June 2025
(5 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 17 June 2025 - (17 Jun 2025)
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I rise to speak against new clauses 1 and 20, and in support of new clause 106, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson). First, it is important for me to say that I fully support women’s reproductive rights. I think that we generally get the balance right here in the UK, and protecting that is a hill I would die on. However, I am disturbed by new clauses 1 and 20, which would decriminalise abortion up to birth. If they become law, fully developed babies up to term could be aborted by a woman with no consequences.
The reason we criminalise late-term abortion is not about punishment; it is about protection. By providing a deterrent to such actions, we protect women. We protect them from trying to perform an abortion at home that is unsafe for them, and from coercive partners and family members who may push them to end late-term pregnancies. I have great respect for the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who has tabled new clause 1. We share many of the same objectives on other topics, but in this case I think she is trying to solve a very real issue—the increased number of prosecutions—with the wrong solution.
These amendments are driven by the case of Carla Foster, among others. Carla Foster is a mum who was prosecuted under UK law for carrying out an illegal abortion in May 2020, during the covid pandemic. She carried out the abortion at 32 to 34 weeks of pregnancy after receiving the relevant drugs through the pills-by-post scheme introduced during lockdown. This is a terrible case that harshly demonstrates the flaws with the current process, but the issue here is not the criminalisation of abortion after 24 weeks; it is the fact that Carla Foster was given the pills without checking how far along she was in the first place. She was failed by people here in Parliament who voted to allow those pills to be sent out by mail during lockdown without an in-person consultation. That was an irresponsible decision; and one that might have been forgiven in the light of a global pandemic if it had remained temporary. However, in March 2022 the scheme was made permanent.
If we want to protect women from knowingly or unknowingly acquiring abortion pills after 24 weeks of pregnancy and inducing an abortion at home, we must put an end to the situation in which those pills can be acquired without a face-to-face consultation at which gestational age verification by medical professionals can take place. These drugs are dangerous if not used in the right way, as we saw when Stuart Worby spiked a pregnant woman’s drink with them, resulting in the miscarriage of her 15-week-old baby. Make no mistake: the pills-by-post scheme enabled that evil man and his female accomplice to commit that crime.
It is also important to note that prior to the pills-by-post scheme, only three women had been convicted for an illegal abortion over the past 160 years, demonstrating the effectiveness of the safeguard. However, since that scheme was introduced—according to Jonathan Lord, who was medical director of Marie Stopes at the time—four women have appeared in court on similar charges within an eight-month period. Criminalisation of abortion after 24 weeks is not the problem; the pills-by-post scheme is.
If new clause 1 passes while the pills-by-post scheme remains in place, here is what will happen. More women will attempt late-term abortions at home using abortion pills acquired over the phone, and some of those women will be harmed. Many of them will not have realised that they are actually going to deliver something that looks like a baby, not just some blood clots—that is going to cause huge trauma for them. Many of those women genuinely will not have realised how far along they are, due to implantation bleeding being mistaken for their last period, and on top of all of this, some of the babies will be alive on delivery.
We in this place need to get away from this terrible habit of only considering issues through a middle-class lens. What about women who are being sexually exploited and trafficked? What about teenage girls who do not want their parents to find out that they are pregnant?
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I rise to oppose new clauses 1 and 20 and to support new clause 106. All the new clauses concern the issue of abortion.
Through the process of decriminalisation, new clauses 1 and 20 will introduce the possibility of de facto abortion up to birth for any reason in this country, for the first time in history. Let me be clear: this means that it will no longer be illegal for a woman to abort a full-term, healthy baby. That would be a profound change in the settled position on abortion in this country for the past 58 years—an extreme move that polling has shown that the vast majority of the country does not want. Indeed, recent polling shows that only 3% of the public support the idea of abortion up to birth. New clause 106 would diminish the risk of women being criminalised for abortions beyond the current legal limit through the reinstitution of in-person appointments. That is popular; recent polling shows that two thirds of women back a return to in-person appointments for abortions.
I do not want to be standing here talking about abortion. It is not something that I came into Parliament to do. I am also very conscious that, as a man, I should be very careful about commenting on the experience of women. However, I feel that new clauses 1 and 20 give me no choice but to speak against them, despite my huge respect for the mover of new clause 1 in particular.
What are we trying to achieve here? If the aim is to decriminalise women in difficult situations, I have huge sympathy for that. For eight years I was the chief executive of a homelessness charity that housed and supported women in desperate situations, many of whom were traumatised, dependent on substances, with fluctuating mental ill health conditions and extensive experience of the criminal justice system. A common theme among them was that they had been abused and harmed from a very early age, consistently into their adulthood. The women we served and supported still had agency. They still had free will. If their circumstances were desperate at times, they nevertheless often confounded those circumstances to rise above them. However, they also made decisions that they regretted. They made decisions, at times, that those around them—and even they themselves, later—were appalled by.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The speaking limit is further reduced to three minutes.
Julia Lopez
I am afraid there is simply not enough time.
That failure is now being used to justify the loosening of abortion laws still further due to a recent uptick in cases of women being investigated. I have looked carefully at the arguments being pushed for decriminalisation, and with those from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), I see that the bogeyman of the US right is back. Apparently, unless we agree to these amendments, evangelical religious groups paid for by US cash are going to start rolling back women’s reproductive rights in this country. This is utter nonsense. We are in the UK, and we have a very different and a more balanced national conversation. This is not pro or anti life. It is not extremist to want protections for viable babies, and it is not anti-women to say that coercion or dangerous self-medication should not be outside the reach of the law.
We also see the argument made that this is solely a woman’s health issue and nobody but she should have a say over what happens to her body, but that is to ignore a very inconvenient truth that has always stalked the abortion debate: this is not about one body; there are two bodies involved. Like it or not, this House has a duty to consider the rights of a woman against the safety and morality of aborting the unborn viable child without consequence. It is not extreme or anti-women to say that a baby matters too. I accept that new clause 1 does not decriminalise a doctor or third party carrying out an abortion outside existing time limits, but let us step back and ask why we have criminal law at all. It is not simply to punish, but to deter.
The former Justice Minister Laura Farris has expressed concerns that the challenge of prosecution for infanticide will become greater. She has also raised similar concerns about prosecuting coercive partners if the termination is no longer a criminal offence.
Tom Hayes
I want to start by aligning myself with, and commending the speeches of, my hon. Friends the Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis), for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). I am proud to stand alongside my colleagues and was proud to listen to what they had to say today. And because of what they had to say today, I have less to say, which will allow more people to speak.
I have been sent here by my constituents to defend and further their right to safe and illegal abortion. My inbox has been inundated with messages from constituents who are concerned, and who want to be able to have safe and legal abortions. They want to be removed from the criminal justice system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gower said, because we have situations where clinically vulnerable women, who have gone through some of the worst experiences that anybody can go through, will in some cases be arrested straight from the hospital ward, hurried to cells and made to feel unmitigated levels of shame and guilt, on top of the physical and mental traumas they have already experienced.
Tom Hayes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree with those bodies and I agree with him.
Finally, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) made an argument about a bogeyman of American politics somehow being conjured up by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. I represent Bournemouth East. In my constituency, we have BPAS Bournemouth, which was targeted by US Vice-President J.D. Vance when he made his point about buffer zones and abortion access. I have spoken with the people who work at that clinic since that speech was given, and they are scared. They want to support women’s reproductive rights and women’s health and safety, but staff members’ vehicles are being tampered with, and women seeking the clinic’s support are finding their access impeded. They want us to be sensitive in what we say and how we say it, because there are people across our constituencies who are deeply concerned for the welfare of women, and who look to us to send the right signal through how we conduct our politics.
I was a signatory to new clause 1 and new clause 20. I recognise that there will be a vote on new clause 1 first. I will vote in favour of it, and I call on all Members across this House to do the same.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We have run out of time, so I will call the Front-Bench speakers. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart
As is usual on matters of conscience, these votes will not be whipped by my party today, as I believe is the case across the House. That said, my party passed relevant policy at our party conference, and I will lay out that policy before talking a little about my predecessor’s work on the 1967 Act. Then I will explain, in a personal capacity, why I will support some, but not all, of the amendments before us.
The Liberal Democrats believe that women have the right to make independent decisions about their reproductive health without interference from the state, and that access to reproductive healthcare is a human right. The current law impacts the most vulnerable women. Under that legislation, some can be dragged from hospital beds to prison cells and endure needlessly long periods of investigation and prosecution. The provisions that allow for this were introduced before women were even allowed to vote, so it is not surprising that many see the need for them to be updated.
In the past five years, there have been both debates about whether the police have the resources that they need to keep our community safe, and a surge of police investigations into women suspected of obtaining medication or instruments to end their pregnancy outside the law. That surely cannot be the best use of police time. Lib Dem policy is to ensure proper funding for impartial advice services, so that people can receive comprehensive, unbiased information without being pressured. Access to abortion should never be made more stressful, so we would maintain safe zones around clinics to protect those seeking care.
My predecessor as Liberal MP for Hazel Grove, the late Dr Michael Winstanley, later Lord Winstanley, was key in shaping the Abortion Act 1967. He was on a cross-party group of around a dozen MPs who sought to refine the language and the strategy of that vital legislation. Dr Winstanley continues to be mentioned on the doorstep in my constituency, and he is known, among other things, for bringing calm, professional insight to the debate. He drew on his background as a general practitioner and on his medical knowledge and experience to ground the discussion in medical evidence, and was especially vocal in highlighting the dangerous and often desperate conditions faced by women when abortion was severely restricted. He made the case that legal, regulated abortion was not only safer but more humane.
At the end of this debate, I will join the World Health Organisation, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, midwives, nurses, psychiatrists, general practitioners and the End Violence Against Women Coalition in supporting new clause 1. To be clear, this new clause would not change how abortion is provided or the legal time limit on it, and it would apply only to women acting in relation to their own pregnancy. Healthcare professionals acting outside the law, and abusive partners using violence or poisoning to end a pregnancy, would still be criminalised, as they are now.
Lisa Smart
I am under strict encouragement from Madam Deputy Speaker to be speedy, so I will not give way.
I very much support the spirit of new clause 20, but I cannot support new clause 106. I acknowledge that those who tabled it want women to be able to access the best healthcare available, but it would be a step backwards to make it harder for women to access the treatment that they need, whether that is women in a coercive relationship, or those who live in a rural area with limited transport options, and who find it hard to access in-person medical appointments. Telemedicine enables timely, accessible abortion care. We rightly speak repeatedly in this House of the strain on our NHS’s space, staff and capacity, so it feels entirely retrograde to roll this service back and insert clinically unnecessary barriers, and I cannot support doing so.
The amendments and new clauses before us are subject to free votes, so Members can rightly choose for themselves. I very much hope that we choose to move forwards, not back.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Mr Mayhew, to be clear, nothing has happened that is out of order. Your point is more one of frustration than process and procedure, and it is not a point of order for the Chair.
Child Sexual Exploitation: Casey Report
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(6 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s point. The Minister for Safeguarding will follow up these issues with the devolved Administrations. My hon. Friend is right that this is a devolved issue but that this kind of appalling crime is happening everywhere. Action is needed everywhere to safeguard and protect children.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I appreciate how sensitive the topic is, but longer questions mean that fewer colleagues will get in. Shorter answers from the Secretary of State will help as well.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
At one of my surgeries, I heard from a civil servant who had gathered evidence for the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse across the whole of England. They described themselves as being
“left emotionally and physically drained”
after collecting evidence, only for the Government not to act on it. I welcome this Government’s acceptance of the 12 Casey review findings, but will the Secretary of State assure my constituent and other civil servants that there will be no delay in implementing the findings of the IICSA?
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I welcome Baroness Casey’s audit and the Government’s instigation of the national inquiry, which must leave no stone unturned, lead to convictions and lead to perpetrators and anybody complicit being put behind bars where, as far as I am concerned, they can rot. It is also important that this most serious of issues demands serious and considered conduct from people in this place, including not misrepresenting what happens here. Will the Home Secretary confirm that if the reasoned amendment referred to by the Leader of the Opposition had passed, it would not have led to a national inquiry; it would have blocked child protection measures, and it weaponised child rape to go after clicks—[Interruption.]
Yvette Cooper
We want action to be taken across the board to make sure that children are protected and that the recommendations are introduced. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that the Opposition voted against is an opportunity to implement two of the recommendations in Baroness Casey’s audit. It is right that we implement those changes to strengthen the protection of children and to keep young people safe.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
I pay tribute to victims, survivors and campaigners. I am 40 years old and it has taken being that age for me to be able to talk about some of the abuse that happened when I was a child. As one of the countless victims living with the impact of grooming, sexual and psychological abuse, I found it galling to watch Tory and Reform Members who never once lifted a finger—[Interruption.] No, you didn’t—not one finger lifted.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. “You didn’t”—you are talking through the Chair. Please ask a quick question as there remain colleagues who hope to contribute.
Dan Aldridge
I found it galling that those Members have appointed themselves as defenders of abused people for political gain. Does the Home Secretary agree that neither history nor the British people will be kind to the sickening political opportunism that we have seen from the Conservative and Reform parties?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right that those attitudes towards teenage girls—towards children—and treating them as adults still persist. Baroness Casey quotes a serious case review of a case involving a teenager online. She was just 12 or 13 years old, and was being drawn into the most explicit and abusive chatrooms and pornographic sites online. This was treated as somehow being the child’s choice, even though there was evidence of exploitation and crime taking place. We have to ensure that we do more to protect our teenagers, and we will bring in the mandatory duty to report to strengthen the law in that area.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Dr Ben Spencer to ask the final question.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and for changing her mind on the need for a national inquiry. She has had the Casey report for the past 10 days. Could she lay out what evidence in that report was most persuasive in changing her mind, or, if she reached that conclusion independent of the report, which factors led her to do so?
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsMonday 12th May 2025
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 May 2025 - large print - (12 May 2025)
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I would like to focus on new clause 21. We can all see that the asylum system is broken and expensive, and the horror of people arriving in a desperate state on small boats is causing division and anger across our country. However, turning to a populist party that throws out soundbites that appeal to many but fall apart at the first hint of real scrutiny is not the answer.
How do we address this problem? First, we need to dial down the volume and the divisiveness in this debate, and to talk about these people as humans, not numbers. We need to open up safe and legal routes for people genuinely fleeing war, persecution and conflict. We need to assess their asylum claims quickly and efficiently, and then help them into the workforce so they can start earning money, supporting themselves, contributing to the economy and, just as importantly, integrating properly into our society.
The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) said on Radio 4 this weekend that his party’s chairman, the child of immigrants from Sri Lanka, was intensely patriotic, saying:
“The whole point of coming to a country is that you adopt it”.
That is exactly what asylum seekers will do when given refuge by a country that offers them safety. We have seen it since time began. Indeed, many in this House are the children of immigrants who have given back enthusiastically to the country that welcomed them.
The asylum backlog stood at 91,000 at the end of 2024. While they wait, asylum seekers are trapped in limbo, unable to work or rebuild their lives and forced to depend on Government funds. This benefits no one. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 21 would lift the restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment, which would help to manage the cost of asylum, benefit the UK economy and help asylum seekers to integrate.
Evidence from the Refugee Council shows that, in the medium to long term, refugees in the UK make a net positive fiscal contribution. Initially, they rely more on public services, but within five to 10 years their tax contributions exceed their cost to the state. After five years, 60% to 70% are employed, approaching the national average for employment rates. A study by the Centre for Entrepreneurs shows that one in seven UK companies is founded by a migrant: 17% of non-UK nationals have launched businesses compared with just 10% of UK-born individuals.
The reality is that we have an ageing population, with more people than ever aged over 85 who depend on services. We have fewer people paying tax, working and providing services, and more who have greater needs, particularly in health and care. The chief operations officer of CareYourWay franchising told me:
“We are both baffled and deeply concerned by the government’s decision to revoke the visa route for social care workers. It is harrowing to witness such a critical sector continuously overlooked… This change will, without doubt, have a tangible and far-reaching impact… For many, this decision will not only reduce capacity—it may very well close doors.”
The Liberal Democrats are pushing for more safe and legal routes for refugees, which we know will be crucial to help stop these dangerous channel crossings—
Iqbal Mohamed
The UK immigration system is in shambles. That is no secret after the debacle of the last Government, with the proposed Rwanda scheme, the controversial refugee barges, the Illegal Migration Act 2023 to stop boat crossings, and the hostile environment, which made immigration enforcement the responsibility of nurses, doctors, teachers and public service workers. I think we all agree that any step towards fixing this mess is a step in the right direction, and the Bill deserves credit for repealing certain measures proposed by the previous Government. However, it needs to go further and it still has substantial issues: worryingly, it criminalises vulnerable families fleeing hardship and it fails to adequately protect victims of trafficking.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We have no more speakers, so we will go straight to the Minister. Forgive me, I thought we had another person bobbing, but they no longer seem to be in the Chamber. Minister Eagle, you get the lucky extra few minutes for the winding-up.
Dame Angela Eagle
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise after what has been a very full debate, with people having to fit in quite complex points in short amounts of time. I congratulate everybody on the points they made. I will try, as much as possible, to deal with some of them in the time I have left.
I thank all those on the Labour Benches who made contributions: my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), for Bassetlaw (Jo White), for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) and for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt).
Liberal Democrat Members concentrated on safe and legal routes, and the ability to work. I was worried that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) had had such a difficult time in Committee. I thought we were having quite a reasonable time, but he was extremely downbeat about it. I must try more on another occasion.
I welcome the maiden speech from the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), which we all listened to in traditional silence. I congratulate her on it, welcome her to the House and wonder if Reform is practising the principle of one in, one out—or perhaps one out, one in. It is a pleasure to welcome her to the House.
The shadow Home Secretary produced a flurry of amendments and new clauses demanding that we do a whole range of things that not only did he not do when he had the chance as a Home Office Minister, but his party did not do when they had the chance over 14 years. I have to keep saying this, but we inherited a system in the most incredibly difficult mess, with huge backlogs. He says we have made it worse, but by beginning to process claims, that by definition creates a backlog of those who have been refused. By trying to get the system working again, we get a backlog of appeals, because people who are refused asylum generally appeal, and the backlog—as he knows from his time in the Home Office—therefore reappears in the appeals system. That is why we have the new clauses to attempt to get a timeline for dealing with those cases.
I will concentrate on some of the things that I know there will be votes on tonight. First, I will deal with safe and legal routes and new clause 3. Our approach is to resettle refugees identified by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees who would benefit most from resettlement to the UK. Alongside that, we have bespoke routes to sanctuary for those from Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong. It is important that safe and legal routes are sustainable, well managed and in line with the UK’s capacity to welcome, accommodate and integrate refugees. Part of the difficulty we have at the moment is the legacy we received from the Conservatives of a huge quadrupling of net migration and the issues with having to assimilate all those people in the huge, unplanned way in which they delivered that.
New clause 37 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). We recognise her campaigning on this issue over the past five years. We also recognise that there has been an unfair burden for some families with rights to citizenship under the system as it is. I can confirm that the work referenced on page 76 of the White Paper—it is right at the end—will look at tackling the financial barriers that she highlighted in her speech. I urge her to work with us on how we move forward and to not press her new clause.
The Opposition tabled new clause 14. Let me be clear that this Government are fully committed to the protection of human rights at home and abroad. As the Prime Minister has made clear, the United Kingdom is unequivocally committed to the European convention on human rights, and it is worth noting that many of the legal obligations provided for in the European convention are also found in other international agreements to which the UK is a party.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
It has been brought to my attention that not all the Division bells are working. We are trying to rectify that as soon as possible. I urge colleagues to remain close to the Chamber and the estate, and to keep their eyes on the annunciators.
New Clause 21
Removal of restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment
“The Secretary of State must, within three months of the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the ‘immigration rules’) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) to make provision for asylum applicants to take up employment whilst their application is being determined, if it has been over three months since the application was made, with no decision made.”—(Lisa Smart.)
This new clause would remove the restriction on working for asylum seekers, if it has been over three months since they applied.
Brought up.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Bill restores order to an asylum system that was left in chaos by the Conservatives. It puts an end to the failed gimmicks and unworkable mess that they bequeathed us. It repeals in full the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, and it repeals most of the unworkable Illegal Migration Act 2023, which trapped asylum seekers in limbo as asylum backlogs soared and the taxpayer picked up a spiralling bill.
This Government are clearing up the mess that the Conservative party left us, and the Bill before the House will help us to succeed. It will assist in securing our borders by dealing with the soaring backlogs. It gives counter-terror style powers to law enforcement agencies, equipping them to go after the people-smuggling gangs that are making millions of pounds out of exploiting people’s misery. The Bill introduces new powers to seize electronic devices and disrupt the activities of people smugglers; new offences against gangs selling or handling small boat parts for use in the channel; new powers on serious crime prevention orders to target individuals involved in organised immigration crime; a new law to protect lives at sea by making it an offence to endanger another life during small boat crossings; a new statutory footing for the Border Security Commander; and new and improved data sharing between Government agencies, such as HMRC and DVLA, and law enforcement to detect organised immigration crime.
The Bill introduces a statutory timeline for appeals decisions and a major modernisation of the powers of the Immigration Services Commissioner. It ensures that those who commit certain sexual offences will be denied protection under the refugee convention, and contains a long-overdue extension of the right-to-work checks for casual and temporary workers in the gig economy, so why on earth is the Conservative party going to vote against it tonight?
People smuggling is a complex and multifaceted problem, and there are no quick or easy solutions to prevent it. Anyone who claims that there are easy answers is a snake oil salesman, but it is possible to identify, disrupt and dismantle the criminal gangs and strengthen the security of our borders through international diplomacy and operational co-operation. This Bill will help us do just that, and I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Home Secretary, who has a minute or two.
Oral Answers to Questions
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patricia Ferguson
I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the UK Government, together with the international community, are looking for a peaceful solution in Syria that puts the people of Syria first. Organisations working with the Syrian communities in Scotland, such as the Scottish Refugee Council, have reported a sense of heightened anxiety among Syrians currently in the asylum system, and wonder whether people seeking protection should be kept in limbo any longer than is necessary. There are also concerns that the pause in decision making may increase the backlog of asylum cases, contributing to the legacy backlog left by the Conservative Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Ms Ferguson, is there an actual question?
Patricia Ferguson
There certainly is. Is my hon. Friend able to give a timeline for her decision making?
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Many seeking asylum, including from Syria, enter the UK by illegally crossing the channel, which is, of course, completely unnecessary, as France is a safe country with a well-functioning asylum system. In relation to those channel crossings, will the Minister accept that the Government’s plan to smash the gangs lies in tatters? Crossings are up by 31% since the election—they are about to break 300,000—and the first three months of this year have been the worst on record. Does the Minister accept it was a catastrophic mistake to cancel the Rwanda deterrent before it even started? I was in Berlin last week, and the new German Government, and other European Governments, are looking to implement removals deterrents very similar to the Rwanda deterrent. Will she now do a U-turn and implement a removals deterrent so that all illegal arrivals are rapidly removed to a safe third country?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend will know that there is a court case under way in Romania and that issues around prosecution and extradition decisions are matters for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. I know that she has worked with victims, including in her constituency, and it is hugely important that victims of appalling crimes have a route to justice, wherever they are in the world.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
In at least 50 of our towns, gangs of men have groomed and then sexually tortured little girls, with astonishing depravity. Still, not one person has been convicted for covering up these institutionalised rapes. Local inquiries cannot summon witnesses, are being refused by local authorities, and cannot address national policies like deportation. Fundamentally, the Government’s plan will not cover even one in 10 of these towns. Will the Home Secretary explain how she will choose which towns get a local inquiry and what she will say to the victims whose towns will not be included?
Dan Jarvis
I give the hon. and learned Member an absolute assurance that we work closely with all the devolved Governments on this matter. In fact, I was in Northern Ireland just recently to discuss this with the Justice Minister. The work that we are conducting as part of the taskforce is cross-party and designed to ensure that we do everything we possibly can to prevent interference in our democratic processes. We take the matter seriously, and we will work with others on it.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) was unable to get a meaningful answer, but with Islamist extremism behind three quarters of MI5’s caseload, it is essential to shield our democracy from its pressure. The Minister has repeatedly reiterated the Government’s non-engagement policy with the Muslim Council of Britain, despite a Government Minister attending its annual dinner. More recently, there have been concerns about attendees at Government events who have publicly expressed some frightening views. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government remain committed to a non-engagement policy with those who seek to promote extreme views that undermine our democracy? Where Government Ministers go against that, how does the defending democracy taskforce respond?
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Clearly, legislation has been brought forward to protect retail workers from assault. However, a good employer will want to ensure their staff are well looked after. If there are issues about leaving work and needing to take a taxi, I am sure that good employers would want to address that and support those retail workers.
Matt Vickers
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) has outlined, this weekend we heard the shocking reports that the parents of a nine-year-old girl were arrested by six Hertfordshire police officers and placed in a cell for 11 hours because they complained about their daughter’s primary school on WhatsApp. At the same time, 270,000 shoplifting cases have been closed without a suspect being identified. Does the Minister agree that the police should be able to get on with the job of tackling crime on our streets? Can she comment on whether they were getting their priorities right in that case?
Pete Wishart
One of the most shocking and egregious things this Government have done is impose a blanket ban on British citizenship for all individuals who have entered the UK irregularly, without any parliamentary scrutiny or public consultation, effectively disenfranchising all asylum seekers and refugees, including those who have made this country their home for years. The Refugee Council estimates that up to 71,000 refugees who have already been granted asylum could now be blocked from securing naturalisation. The Minister knows that there are no safe routes to get to the UK, so nearly all asylum seekers have to arrive irregularly. Surely the policy clearly breaches article 31 of the 1951 refugee convention, which prohibits penalising those seeking protection for their mode of entry? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. All Members should be respectful and mindful of their language at all times. Now we need to hear the Minister respond.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Member for his question. He will know that we explained when making the changes that each citizenship application will continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis, and that the Secretary of State may choose to apply discretion to grant citizenship on an exceptional basis where there has been particularly exceptional or mitigating circumstances, such as modern slavery.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
As the Minister has said, getting more bobbies on the beat in Gloucestershire and across the country is crucial to delivering the frontline policing that our communities deserve, but recent freedom of information figures show that more than 1,500 police officers are stuck on long-term sick leave, including 148 in my own Greater Manchester police force. On the job, officers witness violent and traumatic events that can damage their mental health, but too many report being left without enough support. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that mental health support is good enough in the police? That is one of the ways to get officers fit for a return to work more quickly, to be part of restoring the proper community policing that our communities deserve.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issues around the Windrush generation, who were so badly let down and treated by the Home Office over many years. We have increased support and advocacy for compensation scheme claimants, and the Minister for migration and citizenship, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), would be happy to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Has the Home Secretary seen the police’s anti-racism commitment that was published last week, which says that the police do not have to treat everyone the same regardless of race and calls for arrest rates to be artificially engineered to be the same across racial groups? Does she agree that this two-tier approach to policing is totally unacceptable?
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. It is absolutely key that people feel safe walking at night, particularly shift workers and residents, and good street lighting is a key part of that.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Ukrainians in the UK deserve stability after fleeing war, yet almost half report severe stress and anxiety caused by prolonged uncertainty about their visa status. Some 44% have lost a job opportunity, 26% have been unable to sign new tenancy agreements and 25% have had a student loan rejected, all because of that uncertainty. Does the Minister agree that this is an unacceptable way of treating those to whom we opened our arms, and will she commit to giving Ukrainian refugees the certainty about their visas that they deserve?
Dame Diana Johnson
The Government have announced that we will provide £7 million over the next three years to support the police in tackling retail crime, including by continuing to fund a specialist policing team. There is £100,000 available to the National Police Chiefs’ Council to assist with measures that retailers can introduce to make their shops and retail outlets more secure. That that may well be of use.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. These are topical questions. I call the Minister.
Seema Malhotra
I am happy to speak to the hon. Member about the case she raises.
Dr Johnson
I would be delighted to pay tribute to Dawn and the Rugby Street Pastors for their excellent work. Many street pastors around the country do really important work in keeping people safe and secure on nights out.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary consider raising an obvious lacuna in the law in the Committee of Ministers at the Council of Europe? Under the refugee convention, we can automatically deport foreign criminals who enter this country illegally, but under the convention on human rights, we cannot. Surely we can address that in partnership with other members of the Council of Europe.
Modern Slavery Act 2015: 10th Anniversary
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
As the only female MP to be sanctioned by the Chinese Communist party for highlighting Uyghur slave labour in supply chains, I will join the right hon. Lady in paying close attention to the Minister’s response.
Asylum Hotels and Illegal Channel Crossings
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(2 months, 4 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
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Questions are getting considerably longer. Can we keep them on point?
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Like the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), I have visited Calais on a number of occasions, and I have met people there who are desperate. They are victims of war, human rights abuses, environmental degradation and sheer poverty and desperation. They do not cross the channel without a reason to do it. What conversations is the Minister having with those in European countries, north Africa and the middle east about the root causes of the huge numbers of people globally who are seeking asylum at the present time? Inhumanity and deportation will not work.
Knife Crime: Children and Young People
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before we begin the debate, may I remind Members of the House’s rule on matters sub judice? Members should make no reference to live criminal cases in which a suspect has been charged.
Crime and Policing Bill
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsMonday 10th March 2025
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
The Policing Minister is happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss the detail. It is imperative that all institutions and organisations across communities take responsibility for tackling these appalling and damaging crimes.
We are also introducing measures around national security, including a new youth diversion order to help manage the increasing number of young people being investigated or arrested for terrorism-related activity. Counter-terror police have said that their case load of young people has trebled in just three years, and more action is needed.
There are further measures, which I am sure we will discuss later in this debate and in Committee, to strengthen standards in policing and ensure that chief officers and local policing boards have the right to appeal the result of misconduct boards to police appeals tribunals, to make sure that those who are not fit to serve can be removed from policing and that the standards of police officers, who do an incredible job across the country, can be maintained.
On accountability, we will bring forward amendments to establish a presumption that firearms officers who are charged with offences relating to, and committed during, their duties will have their anonymity preserved during the court process so that we can maintain their confidence, as well as the confidence of communities, in the work that they do.
Safety from harm is not a privilege; it is a fundamental right that should be afforded to everyone, no matter their circumstances. No one should be left to live in fear because of crime and antisocial behaviour in their community. Under this Government, safer streets is a mission for us all, to draw our communities together. We are putting police back on the beat, introducing respect orders and taking action on off-road bikes, shoplifting, street theft, stalking, spiking, grooming and child abuse, knife sales, terrorism and serious crime. We are taking stronger action against criminals, delivering stronger support for victims, restoring respect for the rule of law and restoring police to our streets. Ultimately, we are building a better, fairer Britain that is founded on safety and security for all. I commend this Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, I inform the House that because many people wish to contribute, Back Benchers will have a time limit of five minutes to begin with.
Amanda Martin
Thank you for giving way. We as a Government are taking very seriously the culture of child grooming and gangs. In your previous role as Minister for crime and policing—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. You said “your”—I was not the Minister. A short and sharp intervention, please.
Amanda Martin
In the right hon. Member’s previous role he attended 352 meetings. Could he please explain why not one of those was on child grooming?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
There is a five-minute time limit. I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I cannot possibly do justice to the Bill’s many needed and well-crafted measures in the few minutes I have, so I will just talk about its effect on the justice system and raise a couple of specific concerns.
The Bill introduces a number of new criminal offences—I have counted 27—and makes changes to existing offences. The Bill is being considered at a time when there is significant uncertainty about how the criminal justice system will operate in the future. There are two reasons for that. First, the criminal justice system is in a bad way. Last summer, prisons reached bursting point, and emergency measures were needed to ensure that convicted offenders could be sent to prison, rather than released. Secondly, in December, it was announced that the Crown court backlog had reached a record level of 73,105 cases, despite the previous Government setting a target of reducing it to 53,000 cases by now.
In response to both those crises, the Government have commissioned wide-ranging reviews: one on the criminal courts, chaired by Sir Brian Leveson, and one on sentencing, chaired by David Gauke. Both reviews are likely to have a significant effect on the justice measures in the Bill. The new criminal offences in the Bill will come into effect at a time when the criminal justice system is in flux. Parliament will be asked to consider whatever proposals the Government decide to take forward from the reviews. We are legislating to create a number of new offences, but it is difficult for anyone to know what their effect will be. Those are both problems left for the Government by the previous Government, but those difficult matters need to be addressed, as both issues are going on at the same time.
I turn briefly to knife crime, which I mentioned in my intervention. Between April 2023 and March 2024, 262 people were killed by sharp instruments. Home Office statistics can identify the type of sharp instrument in 169 of those cases; in 165 of them, it was a knife. Where the type of knife was identified, 109 were kitchen knives. In other words, two thirds of the identified knives used to kill people in that year were kitchen knives. There is a growing campaign to phase out kitchen knives with pointed tips as an everyday household item, and to introduce kitchen knives with rounded tips. Pointed knives are much more likely to pierce vital organs and sever arteries, and those injuries are far more likely to be fatal. Of course, there are millions of pointed knives in drawers all over the country.
The safer knives group, of which I am a member, supports a pilot scheme in which pointed kitchen knives would be converted into safer, rounded-tip knives. The Government could encourage manufacturers to replace pointed knives with rounded knives and discourage the sale of pointed knives by creating a price differential. They could also support the launch of a knife modification scheme to change pointed knives to rounded knives and collect more data on the types of knives used in any knife-related crime. That is now happening for homicides, but we ought to extend it. I am pleased to say that not all of that requires legislation—we do not need to add to the weight of the Bill—but those are all matters that need consideration. I am grateful for the indication that the Home Secretary gave earlier.
Finally, I will speak about something that should be in the Bill but is not: the law as it applies to Gypsy and Traveller communities, who face many inequalities and prejudice. They were seemingly sanctioned by the previous Government by the inclusion of part 4 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which gave the police extra powers to ban Gypsies and Travellers from an area for 12 months, along with powers to arrest and fine them, and even seize their homes. A High Court ruling in 2024 determined that those powers were incompatible with the European convention on human rights. The Bill is the first vehicle that could rectify that injustice. Will the Minister, in winding up, indicate whether the Government will attend to that? They clearly have to, because of the determination of the High Court, so the sooner that is done, the better. The future of a very vulnerable community that is very much discriminated against depends on this. I hope the Government will, as they are doing in so many other ways, correct the faults of their predecessor.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Lisa Smart.
Several hon. Members rose—