Immigration and Asylum Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

First, I thank the Home Secretary for listening to me and my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), and for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), as well as all our constituents; she acted super quickly and seized this issue, to make sure that we could change the law to allow for the deportation of Shabir Ahmed.

The Bill introduces a new power, personally applied by the Secretary of State, to allow offences like Ahmed’s to be classed as so serious that the offender loses protections under the Immigration Act 1971. Let us be clear: that Act was meant to give rights to law-abiding citizens of the Commonwealth who came here to work hard and play by the rules; its drafters never intended for it to exempt vile sex offenders and grooming gang leaders from deportation.

Shabir Ahmed’s release from prison this month was, for many, another painful reminder of the wicked crimes he committed. Ahmed, who lived in Oldham, was the ringleader of the Rochdale grooming gang. He was convicted of the serial rape, exploitation and vile abuse of young white girls in Heywood, and was separately convicted of 30 rapes of a young Asian girl. All his victims were failed for years by the institutions that should have protected them. It is important for me to say that the people of Rochdale, whatever their racial background, are united in their disgust at paedophiles like Ahmed.

It was this Labour Government who finally created a specific offence of grooming, which, unbelievably, did not exist before. The Government are also trialling the use of chemical castration for convicts in jails, which I personally would welcome being made compulsory for sex offenders like Ahmed. Ever since my election, I have pressed Ministers to pursue the deportation of every grooming gang member who can legally be removed from the UK. I know that this is just the start, and that even once the law is changed, Pakistan may still say that it will refuse to take back this man. Whatever diplomatic barriers exist must be challenged, and every possible avenue must be explored.

The public interest is clear in this case; more broadly, the public interest is strengthened by this Bill. Article 8 of the European convention on human rights—the right to family life—has always been a qualified right, as the Home Secretary has pointed out. This means that judges are asked to strike a balance between those rights and the public interest. That is precisely why the Rochdale grooming gang members lost their appeals under human rights law. However, these bogus appeals happen far too often, and for many, it is a sick joke that paedophiles who have robbed children of their own right to family life depend on human rights to stay in this country. That is why I welcome the new provision in the Bill to require decision makers and courts—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call Tim Farron.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I cannot see Steve Yemm, so I call Euan Stainbank.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I have made it very clear to the Whips on duty that I am not going to get everybody in, and interventions are not helping.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)]

The media, Reform and all on the far right in Britain have created the most horrible and dangerous atmosphere in this country against refugees, migrants and minorities. They have promoted racism, and that racism has played out in the violence on the streets, the violence against mosques, the violence against synagogues, and the violence against any minority group within our society. They should think very carefully about what they say and how they depict asylum seekers and refugees. When I listen to the rhetoric in the media and follow it in some of the papers, it seems to me that they have taken leave of all aspects of humanity.

The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) said that he had been over to northern France to examine what was going on there. I have been over to northern France as well—I have been over to Calais and talked to people living in tents, and they are desperate. They are desperate people who once worked for the British Army in Afghanistan. They are desperate people who were bombed in Iraq or in Syria. They are desperate people trying to find somewhere in this world to survive, and what they find is hostility, danger and abuse.

Nobody in their right mind would get into one of those dinghies and cross the channel unless they were utterly desperate to do so, so can we not just have a sense of humanity about this and have an international, Europe-wide approach to the issues faced by people who are desperate? Thousands have died crossing the Mediterranean, and hundreds have died crossing the channel. The historians of the next century will say of this century, “What were the politicians of Europe doing while all these people were drowning because they were trying to get to a place of safety?” Can we not instead accept the importance of international institutions and the value of the European convention on human rights, which protects all of our human rights, and try to have a humane system of doing things?

In the last minute I have for my speech, I want to draw attention to the amendment I have tabled, endorsed by Members of the independent alliance group, which concerns the Afghan resettlement schemes. The people of Afghanistan have suffered grievously from the war. In August 2021, the Taliban took over in Kabul; the UK created resettlement schemes, and then dropped them all. Now, we have the horrible situation in which, although many Afghan families who have come to Britain as part of those schemes were told that the rest of their family could come, there are many dependants stuck in Afghanistan who can have no place here. The Government, through the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office, guaranteed that right of family reunion and guaranteed that extended family members could come here. When the Minister for Border Security and Asylum responds to the debate, I hope he will remember the words of the Afghan International Council in the United Kingdom, who said that

“many Afghan families continue to endure the pain of prolonged separation”—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call Rachel Taylor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I am going to squeeze in one more speaker, with two minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Unfortunately, I have to go to the Front Benchers now. I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

This has been an important and thoughtful debate, and I begin by thanking Members from across the House for their contributions.

There have been genuine differences of opinion this evening, but I think there is broad agreement on one point: our immigration system is not working. Immigration is one of the defining issues facing our country. It goes to the security of our borders, the integrity of our laws, the pressure on our public services, and, ultimately, the confidence the British people have in the ability of the Government to keep their promises.

The British people expect an immigration system that is fair to those who play by the rules and firm with those who seek to abuse them. They expect secure borders, swift decisions, effective enforcement and, above all, a Government to deliver. That is the test the Bill must meet.

In many respects, today’s debate brings us full circle. Ministers stood at the Dispatch Box and argued that immigration policy should be about grip and control, not gimmicks and false promises, yet over the past two years, we have seen too many headlines, too many announcements and too many promises, while illegal migration has continued to undermine confidence in our borders.

Let me be clear: I do not believe that anyone in this House wants to see people risking their life crossing the channel in small boats. Those crossings benefit organised criminal gangs, undermine confidence in our immigration system, place enormous pressure on communities, public services and public finances, and all too often end in tragedy. Nobody should accept them as inevitable. The question before us today is therefore a simple one: does the Bill contain the measures necessary to stop illegal migration? That must surely be the ambition.

The Government’s own impact assessment recognises that deterrence is essential, but it also accepts that the deterrent effect of these proposals is too uncertain even to quantify. That uncertainty goes to the heart of the Bill. The fundamental principle should be straightforward: if someone enters the United Kingdom illegally, they should not be able to stay. Everything else flows from that principle. Without it, public confidence is weakened and genuine refugees lose out. Those who come here legally and contribute to our country are let down, and the criminal gangs continue to exploit the gaps in our system.

To be fair to the Home Secretary, there are measures in the Bill that the Opposition welcome. It is right that the Government are seeking to recover more of the costs of asylum support. It is right that Ministers are finally acknowledging that the article 8 framework has frustrated removals. It is right that they recognise shortcomings in the operation of the modern slavery system. It is right that they acknowledge that the current appeals process is too slow, too cumbersome and too vulnerable to abuse. In truth, one of the most striking features of the Bill is that the Government have finally accepted many of the arguments that they have spent the last two years dismissing.

Recognising a problem, though, is not the same as solving it. The Home Secretary and I agree on much of the diagnosis; we disagree on the cure. Time and again, the Bill identifies the right issues but stops short of the reforms needed to address them. The Government propose a new independent immigration appeals authority, yet they cannot tell us with any certainty whether it will speed up removals or simply replace one backlog with another.

The Bill looks to narrow article 8 claims, while simultaneously creating a new, sponsored human rights claim that risks opening another avenue for litigation. It speaks about strengthening deportation powers, yet it leaves unanswered the wider questions about the legal framework that continue to frustrate removals. Despite repeated promises, the Bill contains no comprehensive reforms to settlement, no clear answer on preventing those who arrive illegally from obtaining citizenship, and no comprehensive removals framework capable of delivering the deterrence that Ministers say is necessary.

That is why the Opposition have tabled our reasoned amendment. We believe that the Bill does not yet go far enough to restore public confidence or deliver the outcome that the British people rightly expect. Our alternative is clear: those who enter the country illegally should have no right to stay.

Several Members have spoken about public confidence, and they are right to do so. Public confidence depends on knowing that the rules matter; that those who have no right to remain will be removed; that foreign national offenders can be deported swiftly; that endless legal challenges cannot frustrate the clearly expressed will of Parliament; and that those who come here legally, work hard and contribute are not disadvantaged by a system that appears unable to distinguish between those who respect the rules and those who seek to exploit them.

As has been mentioned, the Home Secretary faces a political challenge from her own Benches. If she wants to come back and deliver real and meaningful reform that will properly secure our borders, and if she needs some support to do that, she can give us a call—[Interruption.] Give me a call.

The British people do not want another cycle of announcements followed by disappointment. They want to know that criminal gangs will no longer profit from human misery; that dangerous channel crossings will end; and that those with no right to remain will not spend years exhausting endless appeals while the taxpayer picks up the bill. They want to know that Britain remains a country that welcomes those who come legally, while maintaining control over who enters and stays. Those are not unreasonable expectations, but the foundations of a fair immigration system.

As the Bill progresses through Committee, the Opposition will scrutinise it carefully. Where measures meaningfully strengthen border security, improve enforcement and restore confidence, we will support them. Where they fall short, we will seek to strengthen them. The Home Secretary has moved some way towards recognising the scale of the challenge facing our immigration system, and I welcome that. The Bill identifies many of the right problems, but it still stops short of the bold reforms needed to solve them. For that reason, we have tabled our reasoned amendment.

The British people deserve an immigration system that is fair to those who follow the rules, uncompromising with those who do not, and capable of restoring control of our borders. That remains the standard by which the Opposition will judge the Bill. I commend our reasoned amendment to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call my favourite Home Office Minister.

Police Leadership Commission Report

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on leadership in policing.

The police perform a unique and vital role in our society. They enforce our laws, tackle those who break them, and keep the public safe. These are awesome responsibilities. The officers and staff who uphold them every day, at all levels, are owed our respect, admiration and thanks. At the same time, if forces are to serve their communities effectively, they must secure and retain the trust of those communities. But in recent years, that trust has come under strain. Creaking systems, outdated structures and a lack of central grip from previous Governments have meant that the police have struggled to consistently hit the high levels of performance that we rightly expect of them.

Things have to change. That is why earlier this year, the Home Secretary announced the most significant police reforms in 200 years. Our plans will ensure that the right policing happens in the right place, building on the progress that we have already made on restoring neighbourhood policing and driving down serious threats such as knife crime, and creating a new model in which local policing protects our communities and national policing protects us all.

The reform programme provides us with a generational opportunity to address the long-standing challenges that have hampered the police’s ability to provide a consistently world-class service to the public. One such challenge centres on the question of how we ensure that our forces have the strong, effective leadership that they need to meet the significant demands that are placed on them. It is a question that is rightly the subject of considerable parliamentary and public scrutiny, especially when things go wrong, as they have in the recent past.

Equally, I want to emphasise that there are a great many outstanding officers and staff across the police service, including those in the highest ranks. When failings occur and the public are let down, they feel it more keenly than anyone. The reality is that leadership is about more than just individuals. It is about culture and standards, and about giving every member of the police workforce the support and skills that they need to flourish and become leaders themselves.

We are not the first Government to grapple with this topic. Various tweaks have been made to the system over the years, yet the same concerns keep arising, whether they relate to culture, conduct or the retention and promotion of talent. As we roll out our reform programme, this is clearly an issue requiring close examination. That examination has now taken place in the form of an independent review commissioned by the Home Secretary last year.

The police leadership commission was established last October and is co-chaired by two former Members of this House with extensive knowledge of policing: my noble Friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord Herbert of South Downs. Together with the other members of the commission, they have carried out the most significant review of police leadership in recent times. Its findings and recommendations are published today. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Lord Blunkett and Lord Herbert for the care and skill with which they have approached their task. I am grateful, too, to the other commission members, and all who have participated. There has been a particular emphasis on giving voice to those on the frontline, which is welcome and essential.

The review’s report sets out a comprehensive and, in places, candid assessment of police leadership in England and Wales. While the commission found examples of excellent leadership and delivery, it also identified concerns around consistency, capability and culture, and the impact that shortcomings in those areas have on the service received by the public. To quote from the report,

“the policing profession has not consistently had the excellent leadership it needs”.

It was also clear that those on the frontline are not getting the consistent support they deserve, amid wide variations in approaches to leadership development.

The commission highlights the critical importance of leadership to ensuring that policing is prepared for the challenges of the future while upholding the sacred principle of policing by consent, without fear or favour. It is also important to emphasise, as the report rightly does, that leadership must not be confined to the senior officer ranks. It can and does exist in all parts of the service. It should be nurtured at every stage of a policing career—for both officers and staff. The review’s findings are rightly unsparing, and I welcome its willingness to engage with difficult issues, because, as the report’s foreword states:

“Fundamentally, this is about ensuring that the public receives the quality of policing to which they are entitled.”

I will turn now to the review’s recommendations, of which there are 27 in total. They are ambitious in breadth and scale and, taken together, they make a compelling case for change. While it is right that we now take the time to consider them in full, we welcome the commission’s proposals and the intent behind them. In particular, we are actively looking at the recommendation to create a formal senior constable rank and at how this could be done.

The commission also recommends a new professional digital passport for every individual in policing, and other measures to put stronger supporting structures in place around professional development and performance. These could in the future help to build a route to a licence to practise, which is a proposal we included in our police reform White Paper, as one way of raising standards and promoting a stronger culture of professional development. Other recommendations from the review include: a new police leadership fast stream; a new targeted direct entry scheme to fill specific gaps in policing, with a focus on leaders from professions with transferable skills; and a role for the forthcoming national police service in promoting ethical policing at national level.

As I have said, we will consider all the report’s findings and recommendations carefully. I am certain that they will be of great assistance as we advance our police reform agenda. A full Government response will follow in due course. In the meantime, we are making progress on leadership-related measures designed to improve public confidence and police performance, such as a new senior appointments panel and reforms to promotion processes, alongside the wider work we are doing on restructuring, including the creation of the national police service, which will provide a single source of strategic leadership and a stronger set of national standards.

I will finish where I started: by paying tribute to the thousands of men and women who work tirelessly every day to protect our communities from harm. From the officers and staff on the frontline and their colleagues performing essential roles behind the scenes to the chief constables they ultimately report to, I am grateful to them all. While the threats they must tackle are evolving all the time, what will never change is our commitment to the founding principles of British policing, which dictate that in this country we police by consent, and assert that the police are the public and the public are the police.

To uphold these traditions while meeting the demands of modern crimefighting, we must ensure that our police forces are fair, open and meritocratic workplaces that are able to meet the high standards we rightly expect of those entrusted with keeping their fellow citizens safe and driven forward by strong, effective leadership at all levels. Reform on the scale required is no easy task, but working in partnership with policing and aided by the findings of this important report, I believe that we can and will succeed in making our police service stronger and our society safer. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. We have to be laser-focused on what will improve outcomes for the public and what will enable the police to do the job that we ask them to do. I do recommend that he reads the report—it is a very good read. At its heart, it says that we want our police to have sound judgment and common sense in their policing. We want them to be freed up to make the decisions that are commonsensical and the right thing to do. To do that, we have not only to strip away the bureaucracy and all the forms they have to fill in, but to ensure that they are trained to be the police officers we want them to be. How do we match that training with freeing up our police to get on and do the job that we all ask them to do in the first place?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I thank the noble Lords Blunkett and Herbert for the report, which is a welcome shining light on the challenges facing leadership in our police forces. I know at first hand from my constituency that police forces deal day in, day out with highly sensitive, dangerous and traumatic incidents. They keep us safe. It is deeply challenging work, and we are greatly indebted to them. That is why the findings of the report are so concerning.

The report shows that officers are too often hampered by scarce resources, excessive bureaucracy and conduct processes, which leave them unable to focus on delivering for the public. The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for a return to the proper community and neighbourhood policing that our constituents want. For that to happen, officers must be properly supported and equipped to tackle the many issues facing our communities. Will the Minister set out what plans the Government have to increase the numbers of bobbies on the beat?

Even more concerning are the report’s findings on the inconsistent leadership standards across our police forces. The numerous instances of leaders falling short of the standards of integrity, honesty and professionalism expected of them—including in cases of cronyism, nepotism and abuses of power for sexual purpose—are appalling. It is clear that we need root-and-branch reform of the policing system, as the report calls for, to stamp out that bad behaviour, improve leadership and hold senior officers to the highest standard. Will the Minister confirm that that recommendation and others in the report will directly inform the forthcoming police reform Bill?

Finally, the Police Federation has highlighted poor leadership in the police and an increase in officer suicides, but we do not have the data. Will the Minister commit to requiring police forces to gather that data?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend and congratulate him on his honesty in his description of his previous chiefs. There are on average fewer than three applicants for each chief constable job, which is frankly woeful, and many are filled by internal applicants. We do not have the pool of people going for these jobs that we want to see. We had already said that through the police reform programme we would set up a national body to help with recruitment, as well as giving the Home Secretary new powers to remove chief constables in extreme circumstances. There is a lot in this report about how we can improve the pipeline up to the chief constable level, but also how we can achieve a better system of promotion within the chief constable ranks and ensure that we get diversity of talent, so that we have—as we would want—a good cohort of people applying for every single job.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for the £100 million grant she has given to Lincolnshire police and the transformative extra £12 million a year. We have been campaigning for that for years and have averted 400 job losses. When the Government do something right, it is right that we should say thank you. However, she may want to say a word about our problem. We are losing our excellent police and crime commissioner, Marc Jones—she could perhaps say a nice word about him—and those powers will be transferred to the mayor, but we have the Lincolnshire police and Humberside Police, and Humberside Police, of course, straddles two mayoralties, so she has a problem. May I urge her, in any local reorganisation, not to do away with small police forces such as Lincolnshire, to concentrate on old-fashioned policing—not woke, not courses, not staff—and to try to avoid throwing too many chairs up in the air with boundary reorganisation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

A white man on a night out in Birmingham is assaulted by two black men. The police intervene and arrest the white man—the victim—and allow the two black lads to flee the scene. They then call the victim a “dick” and hit his head against a police car while they are sticking him in it. They then misrepresent what happened at the event, saying that it was a fight, when it was actually an assault. They say that absolutely nothing is wrong. The footage then goes viral, as ever, and the police are forced to change their tune—footage that the police actually tried to suppress.

I have three simple questions for the Policing Minister. One, does she consider this to be another appalling incident of two-tier policing? Two, will she haul the acting chief constable of—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Mr Jenrick, one question is normally enough, and I have given you the privilege of two. I call the Minister.

[Robert Jenrick]

I was the only person to raise it. Millions of—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Mr Jenrick, you know better.

[Sarah Jones]

There is no room in policing for anything other than for the police to do their job without fear or favour, and that involves treating everybody equally under the law. Where the police are trained, have good leadership and are given good support, we believe we can ensure better outcomes for the citizens we are all here to serve. That is the point of the leadership work that has been done over many months, and it is the point of our reform programme. Where things go wrong, of course we must shine a light on that, and a huge amount of work has been done over the past few years—for example, police wearing body-worn cameras, publishing that evidence so that people can see it for themselves, and being quicker to speak publicly about what has happened in certain incidents. Those are all important, transparent changes that we are making to our police, but ultimately we need to make sure we are trying to bring people together through reforms that give them the policing we all need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Mr Vince, you have moved. No wonder it is so quiet in your usual part of the Chamber.

[Chris Vince]

This is the closest I am ever going to get to the Front Bench. [Laughter.]

Having spoken to police officers across my constituency of Harlow, I know that the two things they want to do are keep my constituency safe and—to paraphrase a new Labour manifesto pledge—tackle crime and the causes of crime. Can the Minister outline what she is going to do on the back of this review to ensure we take away the barriers, so that police officers can do their job of protecting my community and keeping the country safe?

Domestic Abuse and Public Life

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Natalie Fleet)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for raising this vital issue, and for her continued advocacy for victims and survivors of domestic abuse everywhere.

There are parts of this job that I find really difficult, and I know that my hon. Friend shares that. And then there are parts of being here, in this Chamber and on these Benches, that are the most incredible privilege. As I sit here, as a Minister, to be able to hear your testimony as a survivor—sorry, I mean my hon. Friend.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I know the Minister is new to the Dispatch Box, but no “you” and “yours” because it is not my story. To help, she must look into the microphone and speak through the Chair.

[Natalie Fleet]

Thank you for your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It is the most incredible privilege to be here in this Chamber to hear how my hon. Friend triumphed against the most horrendous abuse and to see her surrounded by her colleagues in the most supportive way possible. That feels like a real privilege, and I am very grateful to have been here for that moment.

My hon. Friend championed the importance of a whole system approach to domestic abuse and violence against women and girls more broadly. I also know how hard it is to come forward and share experiences of abuse. I am proud to use my platform to shine a light on the challenges many victims and survivors face, and I know that so many will have been listening to my hon. Friend’s account this evening and will take strength from it.

I want to reassure my hon. Friend that tackling VAWG is a top priority for this Government. We have made it a mission to halve these crimes in a decade. Domestic abuse and violence against women and girls are the source of untold harm. The abuse can remain hidden, regardless of a person’s lifestyle, their social circles and their profession, including people in public life. It is something that affects every single part of society, and too often it is still hidden and accepted as part of everyday life. That is why this debate is so important, and I am so grateful for my hon. Friend’s testimony and campaigning on this issue. Her bravery and honesty, and that of other survivors, is crucial. Only by listening to those who have first-hand experience can we continue to champion and advocate for victims of these crimes.

The Government have been clear that things must change. Our violence against women and girls strategy is driving that change by strengthening early intervention, pursuing perpetrators at every turn, and giving victims the best possible support. It is about not just responding to harms after they happen but focusing on stopping them in the first place. We are taking clear steps to challenge attitudes, norms and behaviours that allow abuse to continue.

Through the updated relationship and sexual health education curriculum, we are giving our children the tools to spot and challenge unhealthy relationship dynamics. We are delivering “Enough”, our behaviour change campaign, to help young men and boys reflect on and question harmful behaviours that have absolutely become normalised. By raising awareness across our society, spotting those early signs, and teaching everyone to challenge those behaviours, I hope that we continue to reduce the shame and stigma that stop people seeking help early.

We are taking a victim-centred approach to tackling violence against women and girls by investing £550 million to pay for counselling, court guidance and children’s services to support victims. In the Home Office, I am proud that this month we launched a £24 million competition for helpline and advocacy services. Those specialist helplines are for minority groups and will help victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence, honour-based abuse, intimate image abuse, and stalking. We have worked hard to secure multi-year funding that will give our services more certainty and reassurance.

If we are going to make real change in tackling VAWG, however, we need to transform how we work across the public sector and services. We need a whole-of-Government and a whole-of-society approach, so victims can access housing, health, justice and the support they need. We have established the National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection, so that victims receive a consistent VAWG response across our forces. Our strategy focuses on pursuing perpetrators, holding them accountable for their crimes, and managing them, wherever they are, to prevent further harm.

An example of that is our domestic abuse protection orders, which bring together the strongest elements of protection orders into a single flexible order. That means that they can impose behaviour change programmes on perpetrators. The pilot has seen more victims protected and perpetrators held to account, with prison sentences able to be handed down where breaches occur. We are rolling out DAPOs across England and Wales as soon as we can, so that more victims can benefit from the impact it is having in pilot areas. Though we are taking active steps to combat all forms of violence against women and girls and domestic abuse, there is so much more to do.

My hon. Friend raised post-separation abuse. I found out today about the interventions that have been made in this area—it blew my mind that they were not always a thing. But they were not. Too often, abuse continues after a relationship has ended. That is why, in our changes to the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, we extended the offence of controlling and coercive behaviour to former intimate partners. We have also removed the requirement for the victim and perpetrator to live together, to reflect that this can happen once the ex-partner has left the property.

As technology advances, it amplifies the scale, severity and reach of abuse. That is why the VAWG strategy includes ambitious commitments to tackle online and technology-facilitated harm. We are already taking decisive action to protect all of us online. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduced measures to ban nudification apps, and requires platforms to remove non-consensual intimate image abuse within 48 hours. On 8 June, the Prime Minister announced that Britain will be the first country to prevent children from taking, sharing and viewing nude images on their devices.

My hon. Friend mentioned how difficult it is for people like her to hold public office because of the challenges she has faced. Our democracy is richer with Members like her in this House. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Democracies across the world need women and survivors within them. In fact, public office should be open to everyone, regardless of background. All our democracies are better for it. Again, I thank her for her campaigning in this area. My hon. Friend mentioned our sister Jo Cox and her legacy more than once. The work taking place in this space to ensure that we support each other to be here is absolutely vital.

The Government absolutely recognise that MPs face abuse and intimidation, and that they have a disproportionate impact on minority groups in politics, including women and those from minority ethnic backgrounds. Through the defending democracy taskforce, we are working with policing and electoral partners to ensure that candidates and elected officials are safe while campaigning and when in office. The taskforce is driving a whole-of-Government approach to tackle abuse targeted at elected officials and has taken steps to make it safer to stand for and be elected to public office. We continue to review and develop our approach, working with partners across law enforcement, Parliament and the third sector to identify and address any gaps in our response.

On vexatious civil court proceedings, the Government are absolutely committed to preventing courts from being used as tools of abuse by perpetrators. We recognise the damage that vexatious litigation has on individuals. In England and Wales, the courts have several mechanisms to protect individuals from being subjected to repeated meritless or abusive litigation. Most commonly, a party can seek a civil restraint order, which restricts a person from making further applications or issuing claims without the court’s permission where those applications have been found totally without merit. CROs can range from limited orders, which apply only to current proceedings, to extended or general orders to prevent wider use of the court system without prior approval. In more extreme cases of persistent abuse, the High Court may declare an individual a vexatious litigant under section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. If this happens, the individual must obtain permission before bringing forward any new proceedings.

Along with those measures, courts must also strike out baseless claims and impose cost sanctions. In certain circumstances, where litigation forms part of a pattern of harassment, injunctive relief may be available. Together, these remedies help to ensure that individuals are protected from repeated unfounded claims while preserving the integrity of the justice system.

Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I have refrained from commenting on any individual case, but I will say that listening to the personal accounts in this debate has been an incredibly moving experience. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for not just the powerful and thought-provoking contribution we heard tonight, but the contributions she continues to make across the House. I have heard her.

As I hope has been clear from my response, the Government’s commitment to tackle domestic abuse and violence against women and girls is total. We have taken important steps forward, especially with our VAWG strategy to improve criminal justice outcomes, restore trust in policing and ensure that tackling domestic abuse and violence against women and girls is everyone’s problem. However, we all know that there is more to do. Across Government, Parliament, policing and beyond, we all must now step up our efforts to prevent abuse and protect the vulnerable as we work towards halving VAWG in a decade.

I have been able to set out the measures that the Government are taking and where there is more that we can do, but I cannot overstate how powerful it is for survivors everywhere to see a survivor raising this issue here, surrounded by a group of her peers who support her without question. I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Asylum Accommodation

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

This is deeply concerning news for my constituency. The boundary fence of RAF Barnham adjoins the market town of Thetford, which I represent; the town centre is a short walk away from the base.

I strongly support the right of people to claim asylum, and I am proud that we are able to offer refuge to those fleeing war and persecution, including those who have supported our armed forces abroad, but that is not without risk and impacts on community relations. In the absence of openness and transparency and a proper plan, malign forces will fill the void, stoking greater fear and division. Whether it is a Conservative Government or this Government, these announcements should be sensitively handled and thoroughly planned, but that has not happened in this case, where there has been secrecy and confusion. It is my community who pay the price for that failure.

While such news will never be welcomed by a community, the worst could be mitigated by a stronger commitment to transparency, engagement and reassurance. Alongside this announcement, where is the engagement plan? Where is the communication strategy? Where is the commitment to addressing community cohesion concerns in these areas?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I will be paying close attention to these answers.

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those important questions. Let me start where he started; everything is local somewhere, and the impact of our proposals is significant on those local communities. I recognise that, and that is important, but we are developing plans to mitigate the impact. There is a reason that we do not wait until the very end and announce the decision just as it is taken. At some point, we vet sites; we have vetted all sorts of sites around the country ahead of being able to bring these ones forward.

There comes a point, however, when we need to get onsite and start peeling back the layers and engaging with the local authority, police and health services, and that point is now. My hon. Friend is right; there needs to be sensitive handling of plans. I appreciate that the burden is on me and the Government to demonstrate that we will do so. I believe that we can do this while mitigating the impacts on his community and surrounding communities, but, as I say, it is up to us to demonstrate that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I regret that the Labour Government still have not set out a credible plan to restore fairness and control in our immigration and asylum system. This announcement is another sideways step that fails to address the root cause of the problem.

Simply moving asylum seekers from one form of expensive and unsuitable accommodation to another is not good enough, particularly when the costs are going up. At the Crowborough MOD site, which is currently in operation, accommodation costs around £160 per asylum seeker per night. That is more than the cost of the average asylum hotel place. The Government are choosing a more expensive option, adding an estimated £60,000 every night to the bill faced by taxpayers. How does the Minister justify that? Will he confirm whether this decision is driven by a desire to be seen to be closing asylum hotels, rather than securing the best value for taxpayers? The Government should instead be focusing on reducing the asylum backlog and ending the limbo that many asylum seekers are in. The overall asylum caseload is now higher than when Labour took office, while the appeals backlog has reached record levels. Will the Minister set out what he and his Department are doing to reduce that backlog and ensure that the Home Office gets more decisions right first time, avoiding unnecessary appeals?

Finally, if we are to deliver the controlled and compassionate immigration and asylum system that my constituents in Woking and the whole of the British public want, it is essential that we tackle dangerous channel crossings. Will the Minister work with our European partners to establish a genuinely effective returns agreement that ensures that we can have controlled, legal routes and that those who arrive in small boats can be returned swiftly?

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He has heard the plan from me and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary before: co-operation abroad, quicker and better decision making, and more returns. All those things are going much better than they did under our predecessors. It is also about tackling illegal working, but crucially, it is about reducing pull factors too. I sometimes feel that Opposition colleagues have given up on the idea that the numbers might go down. Actually, the numbers are significantly elevated from what we are used to, and with sensible attempts to tackle pull factors—including tackling illegal working, but also this proposal—we can reduce them.

The hon. Gentleman talked about costs. He cited the per night figure for Crowborough; that figure will of course fall if we stay at Crowborough longer, because some of that is up-front capital investment. Pro-rated over a longer period of time, the nightly rate will come down, but again I say gently that we are doing this because we want less of this activity. We are not merely asking, “We expect to house the same number of people, so where is the cheapest place to put them?” but, “What is the best use of our estate to promote a number of goals, one of which is reducing those numbers?” That is how we get costs down. I might add that we speak with a degree of credibility, given that we have already taken £1 billion out of taxpayer spending in this area. That is progress.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned appeals. He knows very well why the appeals backlog has grown—we have had a huge backlog of initial decisions, because the previous Government stopped making them. Of course, that cohort is now in the appeals system. As he will have heard in the King’s Speech, important reforms to appeals are coming, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will support us in that venture.

On his point about co-operation abroad, that is of course crucial. We engage all the time with our European and EU neighbours, working together on a shared problem. The fruits of that can be seen in our much-enhanced deal with France. That work is crucial, and it will continue to grow.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

As the Minister has repeatedly mentioned Crowborough, which is in my constituency, I assume he will be meeting me this week to clarify the position for my constituents.

[Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) for mentioning RAF Barnham, which is in my constituency—it is adjacent to the border of Thetford, and within easy walking distance of it. It was formerly a base that housed mustard gas during the first world war, and in the cold war it was the home of the RAF’s strategic nuclear weapons, so it has an interesting history.

The people of Suffolk are a kind and compassionate people, and they understand the need to house those who are fleeing war and persecution. However, I saw a protest at RAF Barnham this weekend, so how will the views of local people be taken into account, and what exactly is the role of the local planning authority?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Although I am more than happy to have the Minister here for hours and hours, we do have other business to get on with, so I ask Back Benchers to make sure their questions are as short as they can be. I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for confirming that RAF Scampton is not cost-effective. Frankly, he has been a lot more helpful than his predecessor Conservative Ministers, who have now left the Conservative party, so I thank him.

The problem with these sites, as I know from asking hundreds of questions, is that they are unbelievably difficult to transform into asylum centres, so can I ask the Minister: is this really a deterrent? If someone comes from a hellhole of a country, does it matter where they are going to be sent? However, can I be positive and ask a question in this way: is not the best way to solve this problem to process these asylum claimants very quickly, preferably within a month? There will be some who cannot be sent back because their country is not safe, but surely the solution is to create a returns hub in a Council of Europe country—distant, small—so there is no question of their human rights being abused. That is a real deterrent: to treat them quickly and then send them home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Minister is right that all we saw under the previous Government were the numbers going in the wrong direction and the operation of Government coming to a standstill. Of course, we should never forget the role of the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who does not grace us with his presence in the Chamber, but who was the orchestrator of all this. The Minister is right to bring down the numbers, which are now heading in a positive direction. He will know, because of the many times I have contacted him, about the urgency of returning the Sandpiper hotel in Chesterfield to its proper purpose. It is now being massively underutilised. Will the Minister tell us when we are likely to see the Sandpiper, which has done its turn, being returned to proper use? On appeals, can he tell us more about how we will ensure that the cases of those whose appeals have no serious prospect of succeeding can be expedited so that we do not have the appalling backlog in the appeals process?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I remind colleagues that it is always best to let other Members know in advance if you intend to refer to them.

[Alex Norris]

In a general sense, a number of the people we now see in leadership positions in the Reform party were previously in the Tory party and had significant agency over this issue. They pretend now to be concerned bystanders, but actually they are the architects of the situation we are now in. I feel for some of our Conservative colleagues who have been left to tidy up behind them—at least they stand and take on the question, as right hon. and hon. Members have done in this debate. On my hon. Friend’s point about the Sandpiper, I cannot give him a date but I will say, to be clear to him and his community, that it will not be open a day longer than needed. The Sandpiper hotel is a vital community amenity that needs to be returned to its public use. With regard to important reforms to appeals, my hon. Friend may not have to wait much longer to see more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

It is rare that I disagree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. His incredible work on the persecution of Christians abroad, for example, is something on which I agree with him, and it shows the importance of having managed but humane asylum systems around the world. That is what we must have in this country. I did not take it from what he said that we are actually that far apart. He talks about the cost in financial terms and about the cost in terms of the community. I share those concerns. These types of schemes are part of changing that reality, because they will reduce the pull factors so that people are not tempted to come here or exploited by traffickers to do so. I think that that is the right balance.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

It is deeply disappointing that I have to remind the Minister and the Treasury Benchers that paragraph 9.1 of the “Ministerial Code” and paragraph 19.21 of “Erskine May” make it clear that statements on important matters should be made to this House first, not to the press at 10.30 pm on a Thursday night. MPs and their constituents should hear about important policy news in this House first. I expect much better from the Minister. It is totally unacceptable that constituents and MPs hear about important policy matters on the news and not in this House. There is an impact on Members, including me as a constituency MP, and our constituents deserve much better. Minister, we need to see better from you on this.

National Security (State Threats) Bill (Allocation of Time)

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Allocation of time motion
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will not give way, given the time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Do any other Members wish to contribute? I call Sir Jeremy Wright.

National Security (State Threats) Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I was going to ask the Home Secretary later but, as she has raised the matter, perhaps I can ask her this now. On proposed new section 17C of the National Security Act and, indeed, in respect of other parts of the Bill, the knowledge of the person who may be committing an offence becomes important. Can the Home Secretary clarify—because the language in the Bill is potentially ambiguous—that the knowledge required of the person in question is that the body they are supporting or being remunerated by is a designated body? The language could be read simply to mean that the individual needs to know that the body they are supporting is a particular body, not necessarily that they know that that body has been designated. Can the Home Secretary be clear that the language refers to knowledge of designation, not simply knowledge of the particular institution or body that the individual is supporting or being remunerated by?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before the Home Secretary responds, I remind the House that many people wish to contribute and it is just a four-hour debate.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me be very clear: it is the former of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s points. On the construction of knowing or “ought reasonably to know”, obviously the “ought reasonably to know” is both a subjective test of what was known and then an objective test as to what it is reasonable to surmise based on that knowledge. We think that captures exactly the kind of activity that I hope all of us in the House can agree should meet the test for criminal sanction.

Let me make progress quicker than perhaps others might have wanted. As I have noted already, the genesis for the Bill comes from the excellent work of Jonathan Hall KC, whom I thank for the work he has completed. In May 2025, he made further recommendations regarding gaps in our state-threats legislation. The Government have accepted all his recommendations in full, and we will legislate for them all in due course, but, in the interests of the pace at which we are required to bring this vital legislation forward, that will not happen in this Bill. As was set out in the King’s Speech, there will be further national security legislation in this Session.

Every day, our intelligence agencies and their law enforcement colleagues make this country safer for their presence. They do so, however, facing a rising challenge. The threat from terrorism is growing and, at the same time, we face foreign powers acting with greater hostility than we have seen at any time since the cold war. In the face of the growing threat, it is essential that we equip those we expect to protect us with the tools they need to do the job at the moment that they need them the most. The need for the Bill is therefore great. It gives us a new and powerful tool to tackle hostile states and those who act on their behalf.

I end with a request to the House. We do not just require this Bill; we require it as quickly as possible. For that reason, the Government have promised to fast-track the legislation through both Houses. While we must debate it fully and rigorously, and I know that we will, I hope we can work together in the pursuit of a shared ideal, and one that is greater than our political differences: our solemn duty to protect our country. I hope that, today, the whole House can unite around the first and most sacred responsibility of us all. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

The world has clearly entered a new era of geopolitical volatility, with technology and strategic competition for resources driving an increasingly contested and competing world. This has not just happened since July 2024. It has been on the horizon for a good many years, and that intensifying and escalating rivalry between states is now the new normal. The United Kingdom must adapt to this new world, not cling to a dying world order, and this Bill is the latest recognition from the Government that they must and will adapt and respond, and that they will always put the national security of the UK first.

Today, I will centre my remarks on the state threats we face, on the Bill and on the wider response that is needed to tackle those state threats. The three greatest state threats facing the United Kingdom are from Russia, China and Iran, and they each pose a distinct and unique threat. Only this week it has been confirmed that Russian proxies set the Prime Minister’s house and car on fire. We need to urgently grasp the seriousness of that. It was abhorrent political violence targeted against the elected leader of the United Kingdom—our country—but that was not all. The individuals spread disinformation, whipped up community tensions and paid for far right posters to be put up and for “Stop Islam” graffiti to be sprayed. We must not tolerate this. That was not an isolated event. We have heard about the assassination of Litvinenko, the attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal, the attack on the warehouse in east London in March 2024 by the Wagner Group and many other suspicious attacks on these shores. These include the cyber-attacks on Jaguar Land Rover, on Marks & Spencer and on the British Library, which still has not recovered from the attack several years ago.

In October 2025, the director general of MI5, Ken McCallum, said that state threats had risen by a third over a year and were now equal to or even greater than the threat of terrorism. In the last year alone, there has been a 35% increase in state threat activity. For example, between 2022 and 2025, the UK prevented 20 Iran-backed plots, all of which were potentially lethal threats. Meanwhile, Chinese espionage and cyber-attacks are a continual threat. With China’s thousand grains of sand theory, every piece of information, no matter how small or seemingly unimportant, is of value. In May 2024, the director of GCHQ said that the service

“devotes more resource to China than any other single mission”

and that China poses a

“genuine and increasing cyber risk”

to the UK.

Those three countries present three different ideologies and three different strategies, but they all represent an intensifying and rapidly evolving threat to the United Kingdom. The Bill is another important step following the critically important National Security Act 2023 to protect the United Kingdom from these state threats. It will introduce a new power to designate bodies involved in foreign power threat activity, as we have heard, and create a new offence of supporting, assisting or benefiting from designated bodies. Of course, that follows the review by Jonathan Hall KC into whether existing terrorism powers could be used to address state threats. He found that the terrorism proscription charges would not be appropriate, so instead this legislation will now designate bodies, including proxies, such as the IRGC or the Wagner Group.

It was clear from the inquiry by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy into the China spy case that while the 2023 Act was a big step forward, the ever-evolving threat landscape means that it would need to evolve, be improved upon and be amended, just as we are doing today. I am pleased that the Government have taken up the recommendation and acted in the national interest. The designation of certain bodies should and must send a clear message to our adversaries that the person will be held responsible for it, with a maximum of 14 years in prison for such an offence.

It is slightly unusual for a Bill to be expedited in this way, but I recognise the urgency and thank the Department for its continued engagement with the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. However, I do have one area of concern. The impact assessment outlines a potential long-term consequence that I would like to focus on. The assessment says that a long-term impact may be “Detrimental impact of foreign policy objectives/bilateral relationships”.

On the risks to bilateral relationships, my immediate thought is, of course, China. The Chinese state does not take kindly to accusations of espionage, as we saw with the collapsed China spy case whereby, under the last Conservative Government, the deputy National Security Adviser was unable to describe China as the enemy due to Government policy, despite the security threat—this tricky tightrope that we continue to have to walk. We have to engage with China. Its economic might and, quite frankly, our dependence on it, which we have to reduce in the long term, means that ignoring China is not an option, but how does the Minister plan to mitigate the risk to our national security while avoiding damaging that relationship? It seems that the contradiction here is yet to be fully resolved. Could the Minister assure me that there are clear contingency plans for an incident like that and that all civil servants, police forces and intelligence services are clear on the Government’s position regarding China?

I am pleased that this Labour Government have already taken a raft of measures to keep us secure and safe, with today being the latest piece of legislation to meet the moment. Of course, there will be other piece of legislation because the threats will become greater and even more diverse. The Representation of the People Bill, the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill and the Bill before us are all interlinked and should be seen as a co-ordinated effort, but there is more to be done.

We need to explain this very real threat to the public and build resilience in our institutions and businesses, and throughout the country for each and every individual. We need a national conversation with the public because the Government cannot do this alone. In this new era of state threats, legislation is crucial, and the Government have an integral role in keeping us all safe, but so does the public. We need to explain that and not shy away from the realities before us.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Murder of Henry Nowak

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me give that assurance to my hon. Friend and, through him, to Henry’s family, as I did earlier in my statement. The family asked me a specific question when they responded yesterday. I have met that challenge and will ensure that we continue to meet that challenge, and that they get the answers they need and deserve.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

For the final question, I call Tristan Osborne.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the House today, and I extend the sympathies of my constituents to Henry Nowak’s family over this heinous and horrific crime. There is speculation online about the identities of these police officers, which is putting at risk other officers across the country due to the irresponsible actions of extreme-right groups and others, fanning the flames of tension. Will the Home Secretary confirm what we are doing to protect our officers on a daily basis under these circumstances, and will she comment on the irresponsible speculation that is happening online?

Crime and Policing Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her response to my letter on cumulative disruption, signed by 50 MPs, which would give the police powers to limit strikes and industrial action. Your letter states:

“I have no desire to infringe on—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I am on my feet, so please be seated. “Your letter states”? I do not think I have corresponded with the hon. Member. Continue.

[Kim Johnson]

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Does the Minister accept that there is a danger that a future Government might be less benevolent towards workers’ struggles and could exploit those powers? Will she please explain to the House why we have not been given the right to debate, discuss and vote on amendment 312?

--- Later in debate ---

Parliament has been clear that no woman should be criminalised for abortion—that matter has been settled. It is now imperative that the women already affected are protected from the enduring cruel legacy of the law, once it is disapplied to women. I implore colleagues to support clause 361 and the Government amendments to it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

As the Liberal Democrats made clear at earlier stages, there are parts of the Bill that we can support and parts that we strongly oppose. We welcome a number of the new measures brought forward today. None the less, it is a pity that the Government have overlooked opportunities to take action in some crucial areas, from cracking down on rural crime to supporting a real return to proper neighbourhood policing.

In addition, we are deeply disturbed by the use of the Bill to further erode the protest rights of British people. These are hard-won freedoms that were won by the suffragettes, trade unionists and others over many years, but the previous Government and this one are recklessly taking them away for short-term political expedience, so we strongly oppose those measures. That is happening not just because of the measures in the Bill before us today; it is happening regularly under this Government. We must all consider that at some length in this House.

However, I am pleased that the House will today consider two amendments tabled by Liberal Democrats in the other place. Amendment 2 will ensure that private companies are not incentivised to issue as many fixed penalty notices as possible, so more serious antisocial behaviour is prioritised instead. The Government’s amendment in lieu does not go far enough. It substitutes the clear ban on fining for profit with non- statutory guidance. We must remove this perverse incentive with a ban, not guidance that will inevitably be open to challenge.

Amendment 342, another Liberal Democrat amendment tabled in the other place, will change how youth diversion orders are issued, ensuring courts are given a full account of any alternative interventions that have been tried or considered, why those interventions failed and what consultation took place with the child, as well as relevant agencies. Multi-agency input will help courts better understand why other interventions have failed, leading to higher success rates and time efficiency. Crucially, this amendment will mean better outcomes for young people who would otherwise become embroiled in terrorist activity. We call on Members from across the House to support these measures.

The Liberal Democrats are also supporting several other amendments. We support Government amendments 1 and 4 regarding respect orders, which were concessions secured by our Liberal Democrat colleague Lord Clement-Jones. Respect orders will grant police extended powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, with police chiefs given the power to issue orders without oversight. Lords amendments 1 and 4 require the Secretary of State to make appropriate consultations before issuing or revising those orders.

We are backing several further measures that take action on violence against women and girls. We support Lords amendment 294, a concession thanks to the work of our Liberal Democrat colleague Baroness Brinton, which would replace the power to issue stalking guidance by the Secretary of State with a duty to do so. That follows similar provisions in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which places a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

The right hon. Gentleman is so right. People might ask why I, as a Member of Parliament, am talking about something as simple as litter and fly-tipping, but this criminal activity is costing the taxpayer, costing wildlife and costing our communities. We need strong action—on enforcement and deterrence—to stop this scourge. Walsall, as I have explained, is treating fly-tipping as the crime that it is. The council is gathering evidence and prosecuting offenders, and then the fines can be reinvested in enforcement. All of that together sends a clear message that if people treat our streets as a litter bin, there will be consequences.

That is why I recommend, push, promote and welcome the amendments that would give penalty points to those convicted of fly-tipping offences. We must be clear that if someone uses a vehicle to commit this crime, there will be real consequences. Amendments that would allow vehicles to be seized are a welcome further measure. If we remove the means by which this crime is committed, we strike at the heart of the problem. It is no longer enough to tinker around the edges; we need strong action. Enforcement is key, but so is deterrence. That is why I have long argued for stronger action on littering from vehicles, including putting penalty points on people’s driving licences. If people know that there are real consequences, behaviour will change, because ultimately this is about respect—respect for our communities, for our environment, and for the people who take pride in the place where they live. They are the people who make this country a great place to live, and for their sakes, I urge the Minister to listen, to engage, to take action, and to strengthen the Bill, so that actions once again have real consequences.

Let me end with a slogan from Keep Britain Tidy, which some Members may remember: “Don’t be a Tosser”. I say to the Government: don’t toss this matter to one side. Take some firm action, please.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Let us make sure that language is always parliamentary. I call Andy McDonald.

[Hon. Members]

Follow that!

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

There are many important proposals before us today, and I congratulate the Minister on bringing them forward. I wholeheartedly support the Government’s efforts to tackle antisocial behaviour, offensive weapons, fly-tipping, the exploitation of children, and appalling sexual offences. However, Lords amendment 312, which was introduced in the other place, dangerously infringes on civil liberties.

It is incumbent on all Members to jealously guard the rights of our constituents, and any restriction of their civil liberties should only be accepted by this House on the basis of overwhelming evidence that such proposals would strengthen, rather than undermine, the health of our democracy. On this occasion, however, we have had next to no evidence whatsoever, because these significant changes were only introduced after the original passage of the Bill through this House, which is ultimately a pretty sorry way to treat representative parliamentary democracy.

Lords amendment 312 is out of step with the best traditions of this country and of the Labour party, which has always existed to redress the balance of power in favour of ordinary people. The Chartists, the suffragettes, the organisers of the Kinder Scout trespass, those who stood against fascism at Cable Street, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Jarrow crusade—these were protest movements and campaigns of direct action that were supported and led by giants of our party, and which we should celebrate, not disown. They were advancing Labour’s historic mission to wrest power from the established status quo, so that ordinary people have a real say over their lives. Lords amendment 312 contradicts that impulse, and risks shifting the balance of power in our society towards the vested interests that we ought to take on.

The corrosive influence of the rich and powerful runs through every corner of our politics. It muddies policymaking and leaves our constituents asking whether decisions are made in their interests, or in those of the last donor who paid £2,000 a head at a lobbyist curry night. If tweaks are to be made to defend our democracy and prevent disruption to the life of our communities, that would be a far more apt target than the civil liberties of our constituents. Today, Lords amendment 312 is opposed across the Labour movement and civil society by many organisations that share the progressive instincts that should be guiding this Labour Government. That is hardly surprising, given the way this legislation is drafted. It is vague, with no definition of what is meant by

“serious disruption to the life of the community”.

It is widely drawn, with no necessary link between the events considered to be cumulatively disruptive. It does not define the area in question or the timeframe, and it has the blindingly obvious potential to be abused.

The proposals could easily be used to restrict protests simply because they are considered inconvenient due to their persistence, and not because of their content or messages. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out, this may place substantial political pressure on the decision making of senior police officers. I want to address the concerns raised by several hon. Members in this debate about the intimidation of specific minority groups. I do understand those concerns and they are legitimate, but the legislation is not drafted tightly enough to address that problem. It is far too vague and far too broad to coherently address that point, and it is not what we will achieve by passing this amendment.

Finally, since we are discussing notions of cumulative impact, whatever the stated intentions today, when these plans are considered alongside the recent restrictions on the right to protest against animal testing, a legally contested proscription and other legislation that I assume means that any of my constituents disobeying these plans would not have the right to a trial by their peers, assertions by the Government that they hold the right to protest sacrosanct are wearing so thin as to be clearly transparent. The case for Lords amendment 312 has not been made, we should not be asked to vote for it en bloc alongside other important but entirely separate changes, and I urge Ministers to drop these plans for good.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Members who have participated in the debate should be making their way back to the Chamber, because the Minister will be on her feet shortly. I expect those on the Front Benches will be communicating that message to their Back Benchers.

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

I shall keep my remarks brief. I welcome the vast majority of this Bill, but given the serious implications for our fundamental rights, Lords amendment 312 on cumulative disruption should be given adequate time to be properly scrutinised and debated. This amendment could be used by future far-right Governments to in effect stamp out protests and even trade union pickets altogether. As we all know, Reform UK would repeal the Employment Rights Act 2025, but I doubt it would repeal what Lords amendment 312 will allow. I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) in his motion to disagree with the Lords amendment. Sustained peaceful protest is central to the achievement of democratic change.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That was very brief indeed, when the hon. Member had such a huge amount of time. I call the Minister.

[Sarah Jones]

I welcome the broad agreement across the House with, I think, the great majority of the Lords amendments, particularly those brought forward by the Government. Those amendments further strengthen the powers of the police, prosecutors and partner agencies to tackle violence against women and girls, online harms and hate crimes. We have sought to engage constructively with the non-Government amendments carried in the Lords. As I set out in my opening speech, in many instances we support the intent behind these amendments and our concerns are about their workability, not the underlying objectives. In that spirit, let me turn directly to some of the points raised in the debate.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), seeks to disagree with Lords amendment 301. Let me be clear: this is not a move by the Government to police lawful speech, and these provisions do not criminalise the expression of lawful opinions. Extending the aggravated offences does not create any new offence. This amendment extends an existing aggravated offences framework, which operates in relation to race and religion, to cover additional characteristics—namely, sexual orientation, transgender identity, disability and sex.

This framework applies only where specific criminal offences—offences of violence, public order, criminal damage, harassment or stalking—have already been committed and where hostility is proven to the criminal standard. This is not about creating new “speech crimes”; it is about ensuring that where criminal conduct has taken place, and that conduct is driven by hostility towards a protected characteristic, the law can properly recognise the additional harm caused.

That is an important distinction. Freedom of expression, legitimate debate and strongly held views remain protected, but where someone commits an existing criminal offence and does so because of hostility towards a person’s identity, it is right that the criminal law should be able to reflect that seriousness through higher maximum penalties. The hon. Member for Stockton West is simply wrong if he thinks that the same end can be achieved through sentencing guidelines. It is about equality of protection, not the policing of lawful speech.

I will now come to measures debated on the epidemic of everyday crime. Lords amendment 333, on closure powers, was raised by a number of hon. Members. I want to pay tribute to the dodgy shops campaign being run by my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt). I agree wholeheartedly with their aims. If we do not tackle dodgy shops, it is very hard to do the wider work of bringing back our high streets. I completely share the concerns raised about the rise of illegality affecting so many of our high streets. It is for exactly that reason that the Home Office has established the cross-Government high streets illegality taskforce, which will be backed by £10 million a year for the next three years—£30 million in total. The taskforce is already working at pace to develop a strategic long-term policy response to money laundering and associated illegality on our high streets, including other forms of economic crime, tax evasion and illegal working, and to tackle the systemic vulnerabilities that criminals exploit. The initiative was announced in the 2025 Budget and, as I said, is supported by significant funding.

Strengthening the closure powers available to local partners in tackling criminal behaviour on the high street is part of that mix. Our amendment in lieu accepts that and will enable us to go ahead and do it. The push from my hon. Friends is to do that at pace. We will of course work as fast as we can on the consultation on closure orders that we have agreed to do. I hear the message loud and clear that we need to go fast, but the purpose of the consultation is to ensure that we get this right—that we make the distinction between private and public property, and the complications that might come from that.

Lucy Letby Case: Conduct of Cheshire Police

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Deirdre Costigan.)

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before we come to the Adjournment debate, I should inform the House that there are live inquests into the deaths of six babies, so those cases are technically sub judice under the rules of the House. However, Mr Speaker has issued a waiver for today’s debate to allow the cases to be referred to, given that the inquests have been adjourned for a number of months.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Davis]

I am not easily embarrassed, but the hon. Member—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I will of course take that away. We are always looking at ways to improve the IOPC system. I was with the IOPC earlier today talking about its transformation programme and the work we are trying to do.

The right hon. Gentleman made a number of remarks about Cheshire constabulary—he can have his view. His Majesty’s inspector, through his Peel inspections, has in fact given it some of the highest ratings in the country, with two “outstanding” ratings and four “good” ratings, as well as two graded “adequate”. I put that on the record in the context of this conversation. In that context, it is important that we as Members of Parliament should not undermine public confidence in the police and the criminal justice system. We need to be careful to avoid implying impropriety where none has been established.

The right hon. Gentleman said that he will write to the DPP. He will take that through its course. I end by reminding the House that this country uses due process, and due process has been followed in the convictions of Lucy Letby, with a trial by jury, upheld on appeal. I remain confident of that and of the effectiveness of Cheshire constabulary. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I also wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and everyone else here a happy Easter.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I, too, wish everybody, and especially my constituents in Sussex Weald, a very happy Easter.

Question put and agreed to.

Protest Policing

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on public order.

The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Mark Rowley, has requested a prohibition on processions relating to al-Quds Day under section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986. I have consented to that request, placing a ban on those processions for both protesters and counter-protesters that will now last for a month. This is the first ban since 2012, so I wish to explain to the House today why I have done so.

It is important that we start with the context. Initiated by Iran’s then leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, in 1979, al-Quds Day is an event held on the last Friday of Ramadan. The day is marked worldwide by rallies and demonstrations in support of Palestine, including here in Britain. Plans for a procession this Sunday in London have been led by the Islamic Human Rights Commission, an organisation that has been closely associated with the Iranian regime. Of course, this year’s event interacts with the ongoing conflict in the middle east. It comes at a time when the Iranian regime is attacking British forces and bases, as well as those of our allies. It also comes just days after the arrest of four individuals as part of an investigation led by counter-terror police. Those individuals were arrested under the National Security Act 2023 for allegedly spying on Jewish communities on behalf of the Iranian regime.

This context creates clear challenges for the police: heightened attention and therefore larger expected attendance, and heightened tensions between protesters and counter-protesters and therefore greater potential for conflict. The expertise on whether and how those challenges can be safely managed rightly sits with the police, and the legal test is clear. Any request to prohibit a procession must only be lodged with the aim of preventing serious public disorder that could not otherwise be prevented by imposing other conditions on a public procession under section 12 of the Public Order Act. Section 12 conditions typically include specifying the route, location and times of a protest. Under normal circumstances, they are sufficient to ensure protests remain peaceful and the public are kept safe.

However, the commissioner has clearly stated that the Metropolitan police’s view is that serious public disorder cannot be avoided unless a prohibition under section 13 is introduced. That assessment is grounded in the tensions created by international conflict, the scale of the expected march, and the presence of protesters and multiple counter-protesting groups all seeking to march at once.

My first duty is to keep the public safe. Having carefully and thoroughly considered the risk assessment presented to me by the Metropolitan police, I am satisfied that an order under section 13 is necessary. For one month, there will therefore be a prohibition on processions in London related to al-Quds Day involving protesters and counter-protesters, which will come into effect today and end on 11 April. Should the commissioner consider that a further extension is required, he will be able to make a further submission at that time.

I must be clear about what this prohibition does not do. The police and the Home Secretary only have the power to prohibit a public procession. Section 13 cannot be used to ban a static protest, referred to in the legislation as a “public assembly”. Should a static demonstration proceed this weekend, the police will not be able to stop it. Instead, they will be able to impose conditions, such as dictating the precise location and timing. People will therefore be able to exercise their right to peaceful protest, although the full force of the law will be enforced if hate crimes, or other crimes, are committed.

Today’s announcement is confined to specific circumstances, but I know that it will excite scrutiny of the wider issue of policing protests. The House will be aware that I have appointed Lord Macdonald of River Glaven to carry out an independent review of public order and hate crime legislation. His review is ongoing, and I will update the House on its findings at the earliest possible moment. I do, however, want to make a wider point about the right to protest in this country.

What I have announced today is narrowly focused on specific circumstances in a unique moment, but it does not alter an enduring fact. In this country, we rightly pride ourselves on our freedoms, including the right to peaceful protest. It is a precious right and one that I revere, as it sets us apart from autocracies of all kinds across the world. This prohibition is therefore limited and specific. It bans marches, but not static demonstrations, in relation to al-Quds Day. Equally, I must add, there is no prohibition on protesting against the plight of Palestinians, and there never will be. Hundreds of protests have already taken place across the country this year in solidarity with Palestinians, and the Met alone has policed 32. Peaceful and lawful protest, whether for Palestine or for Israel, or for any other cause, must be cherished and protected, and this Government will always defend that sacred freedom.

At the same time, as Home Secretary I have a solemn duty—and it is my first duty—to keep the British people safe. I have been presented with the assessment of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police that he cannot guarantee the security of our capital and prevent serious public disorder without a prohibition on processions relating to al-Quds Day. I have reviewed his assessment, and it is clear to me that my duty to the public and their safety dictates that I must accept his request. It is right that we prohibit these processions, while continuing to uphold our ancient commitments to the freedoms of which we are rightly proud. That is the balance that I have sought to strike today, and I commend my statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend will know that the IRGC is already sanctioned in its entirety. As I say, we do not comment on matters relating to proscription, but we have accepted the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC. The Government will take those forward at the earliest available opportunity.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The Home Secretary is aware that we have concerns about her authoritarian tendencies. We have particular concerns about this Government’s enthusiasm for restricting the right to protest and their use of terrorism legislation to proscribe protest groups. The Liberal Democrats place a much stronger weight on the right to peaceful protest than the Home Secretary does. That is her right. The right to protest is a fundamental freedom, and any decision to ban a march must only be made in exceptional circumstances.

On this occasion, however, it is right to take a cautious approach. The Islamic Human Rights Commission has very concerning views on Iran. The organisers of the al-Quds march have expressed support for the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and have claimed that he stood on the right side of history. Clearly, these values are at odds with those of the British public, who would rightly condemn the ayatollah’s oppression of the Iranian people and sponsorship of terrorism across the world. At a time when Iran is putting the safety of British citizens in the middle east at risk with its indiscriminate attacks, it would be inappropriate for the march to go ahead.

Nevertheless, the decision to ban the march highlights a deeper failure by the Government to tackle the underlying threats that fuel such tensions. Labour has dithered and delayed over the proscription of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the organisation responsible for much of the violence and terror emanating from Iran, and for attacks abroad. It is utterly ridiculous that the Home Secretary has already sunk almost £1 million of taxpayers’ money in fighting in court to keep Palestine Action proscribed while dragging her heels on the IRGC’s proscription, even when the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has urged immediate proscription. Will the Home Secretary commit to confronting the threat of the Iranian regime by immediately proscribing the IRGC? If not, will she give the House a date for legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

The House will be pleased to know that I decline the invitation to learn any lessons from the Liberal Democrats—not just on this occasion, but for evermore.

Let me reiterate the point about the IRGC. We will bring forward measures as soon as we can. We obviously have to proceed with care, because these are complex matters, and we have to get the balance right in the action we take. However, we have accepted the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC, and the Government are working at pace to move forward with delivery.

The conditions that might be placed on a static protest that may or may not take place are operational matters for the Met police. However, I and the whole House should have every confidence in our police, not just in London but across the country. Police forces have been dealing with a huge increase in the number of protests, the variety of protests and the multiplicity of counter-protests that take place, and I think we should pay tribute to the work day in and day out of our hard-working police officers, who manage to keep our country safe while allowing respect for our fundamental freedoms.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I agree with everything the Home Secretary has said, especially as she is one of the best Conservative Home Secretaries we have ever had! Will she forgive me for asking her to stress just one part of her statement? I have noticed an increasing tendency to say that we should ban marches because we find the views of the marchers thoroughly offensive. Frankly, I find most of the marches in London fairly offensive, because most of them are left wing, but I would defend to the death the right of those people to march. Can she emphasise that there is a very high bar, and that marchers will be banned only if they might incite or cause violence?