Crime and Policing Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Martin]

In the Government’s defence, I do not think that this is a difference in policy; it is a difference in timing, but the timing seems to be very elastic. We seek a definitive time when the Act will be commenced—perhaps the Minister can respond at the Dispatch Box.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

As somebody who was incredibly proud to work with the hon. Gentleman’s predecessor on this legislation, having worked for many, many years to recognise misogyny in our hate crime framework, let me say that it will be two years in September since this House agreed to this legislation on a cross-party basis. It will be two years in September of the work being done, in theory, to be able to commence the legislation. Many of us on the Government Benches are proud of our commitment to recognising misogyny in hate crime, so will the hon. Gentleman join me in saying that we really want to understand what the barriers might be to getting on with the job that we know across this House will keep women and girls safer on our streets?

[Mike Martin]

I can actually give the hon. Lady a very specific time: it is 21 months to the day since this Act received Royal Assent. If the Minister would be so gracious, we might have from her either a time for commencement or, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow says, a specific problem that is stopping the Act being commenced, rather than some of the more general responses we have had to date.

I am doubly disappointed that although this Act was passed in a previous Parliament—expressing the unanimous will of Parliament, as it passed without a Division—it is entirely commensurate with the Labour Government’s policy to halve violence against women and girls. Harassment and violence are on a continuum and a spectrum. One of the things we are trying to do is to change the culture of men in how they act towards women; this Act is a part of that and really does contribute to the Labour Government’s priorities and manifesto. Indeed, the Minister for VAWG sat on the Public Bill Committee for the Act in 2023 and said that the Labour party would work with the then Conservative Government to ensure that the Bill passed without a Division, and so it did.

The Government have signalled that they will vote against new clause 43, which has been selected for a vote tonight. When the new clause has cross-party support and the original Act had unanimous cross-party support, why will the Government vote against the new clause? It seems to me that they are voting against their own manifesto and their own commitments while in opposition. That is difficult to understand, because I think we all want the same thing.

I will conclude. Implementing the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act is an important step in helping the Labour Government to achieve their own manifesto commitments. Let this not be another speech without action. I urge hon. and right hon. Members to vote for new clause 43.

Crime and Policing Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Lady is correct that if a woman got the tablets at a clinic, she could give them to somebody else, but in order to get them in the first place she would need to be 10 weeks pregnant, and the clinician would check that she was pregnant. When the medication appears not to have worked, questions would perhaps be asked about where the tablets had gone, so I think there is an inherent safety feature there.

The hon. Lady brings up the issue of bus routes. That is important, but the question is whether we should improve the bus routes or make medical services less safe. Most clinical services are accessed by individuals attending hospitals or clinics, and in some respects this instance is no different, because it is important that proper medical checks are done. I am not trying to limit people’s access to what is clinically legally available. I am trying to make sure that people are safe when they do so.

I want to turn to women who have been trafficked or are being forced into sex work. We talked yesterday in the House about young girls who had been groomed and raped in the grooming gangs scandal. Would we put it past those evil, nasty men to have got drugs and given them to these young girls to hide the evidence of their crimes? I would not.

What about those who want to preserve the honour of their family by preventing their daughter from being pregnant? What about those who think that the baby being carried by their partner is of the wrong gender—they would like a boy but are having a girl? What about those who are trying to cover up sexual abuse, particularly of teenagers and young girls, by causing a termination to hide the evidence of their crimes? What if a partner does not want a baby? Stuart Worby got caught, was prosecuted and is rightly in jail, but how many others have done that and not got caught? We simply will never know.

No one knows who is taking these medications. If we have proper clinics, gestation can be checked, a clinician can ascertain more effectively if a woman is being coerced, and they can make the abortion medically as safe as possible. My amendment is not pro-life or pro-choice. It is pro-safety.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I think we all agree that there are concerns about vulnerable people and abortion law in this country, but we disagree about how to address them. I propose new clause 20 as a way to address those concerns and recognise that the issue of abortion access is increasingly under attack, not just in our country but around the world. If we think that we face these challenges because we have outdated laws in this country, why would we retain them in any shape or form rather than learning from best practice around the world for all our constituents?

To start, let me put on the record that I take seriously all the concerns raised across the House about abortion. I recognise that this is a complex issue, I hear strongly the stories about investigations and prosecutions, and I want to see change, but I also recognise that change does not come without consequences. New clause 20, therefore, is based on what is good abortion law—what many of us have worked on. It is based on what the sector itself used to say mattered, which was that abortion law in England and Wales should recognise developments in modern abortion law in Northern Ireland, delivering on the promise we made in this place in 2019 that abortion was a human right, that safe care was a human right for women, and that we should see a progression of minimum human rights standards on abortion, including through the proposals of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

I want to start with how the new clause would do that. I want to be clear that only this new clause would provide for decriminalisation. Decriminalisation, as defined by Marie Stopes, means removing abortion from the criminal law so that it is no longer governed by both the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929, because that would protect both clinicians and those who are at threat of criminal prosecution. Decriminalisation would not impact the regulations on safe medical use, medical conduct, safeguarding—I recognise that is a serious concern—or the distribution of medicines, and neither would it stop tackling those people who seek to use abortion as a form of abuse or coercion. I want to explain how,

In decriminalising and removing the laws that have caused those problems, the new clause would keep the 1967 Act not as a list of reasons why someone would be exempted from prosecution but as a guide to how abortion should be provided. Many of us in the House would recognise the shock for our constituents that abortion is illegal in theory and that the guidelines in the 1967 Act are the settled will of this place. To resolve any regulatory challenges, the new clause would require the Secretary of State to comply only with sections 85 and 86 of CEDAW—the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. Those sections are about minimum, not maximum, standards of care, and that is only if the Secretary of State believes there appears to be an incongruence that needs to be addressed.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am trying to reconcile the two things that the hon. Lady has said. She talked about the significance of the 1967 Act. When Lord Steel—David Steel as he was then—spoke on its Second Reading, he said that it was not his aim

“to leave a wide open door for abortion on request”,—[Official Report, 22 July 1966; Vol. 732, c. 1075.]

yet she has said that it is a human right and so people should have the right to an abortion. How does she reconcile her advocacy of what she described as the “settled will” of the 1967 Act—not having abortion on request—with the right to have an abortion on request?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Creasy]

I hope that the right hon. Member has read the human rights requirements, because they are about the treatment and dignity of the woman in question and the safety of the service provided. I do not believe that Lord Steel would want women to be put at risk; indeed, I think that is why he fought for that original legislation. We have supported these human rights treaties in this place for other reasons. The new clause, as in the provisions in Northern Ireland, would use the human rights requirements as a guide—a template or a test—as to whether the safety and wellbeing of women is at the heart of what many of us believe is a healthcare rather than a criminal matter.

The new clause sets out additional tests for how we would interpret those human rights provisions. It brings in the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights to constitute the rights of women to sexual and reproductive health and gender equality. Fundamentally, those human rights are about equal treatment of each other’s bodies. At the moment, the lack of a human right creates an inequality for women in my constituency and his—an inequality that women in Northern Ireland do not face. We should shape services around their wellbeing; it is an established principle.

Some have argued that we should not make this change through amendments to legislation. This issue has always rightly been non-governmental, and there are people who disagree with the right to abortion, and people who support it, in every single party. That means that proposals for reform of abortion will always come from Back Benchers, or from somebody who has won the golden buzzer of a private Member’s Bill, which happens very rarely.

For those who have called for consultation, the good news is that it is exactly what we got by voting for abortion to be a human right in Northern Ireland. If hon. Members’ concern about this amendment is the lack of consultation, they should know that voting for it will trigger a consultation on how to apply the human rights test to abortion provision in England and Wales, so that we can test whether our services meet the objectives that we set for women in Northern Ireland.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

There is a difference of principle on the question of human rights, because there are two lives involved in these decisions. That is the fundamental problem.

[Ms Creasy]

I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s belief, and I will always defend his right to it. I tell him this, however: the human rights of the woman carrying the baby are intricately related to the ability of the baby to survive. If we do not look after women and protect their wellbeing, there will be no babies.

The human rights test allows us to ask whether it matters to us that we treat women equally when it comes to the regulation of this healthcare procedure. Practically, it also means that there is somebody to champion those regulations. In Northern Ireland, the human rights commissioner has taken the Government to court when access to the procedure has been denied. She has established buffer zones and safe access to abortion clinics as a human right. Indeed, she is now looking at telemedicine as a human right, and at how to provide it for women in a safe way.

[Jim Allister]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Creasy]

I will, one more time, and then I want to make some progress.

[Jim Allister]

The hon. Lady refers to Northern Ireland. It was courtesy of her intervention back in 2019 that we had foisted upon Northern Ireland the most extreme abortion laws of any place in this United Kingdom—laws that totally disregard the rights of the unborn and treat them as a commodity to be disposed of at will and at whim. In consequence, we have seen a huge, unregulated increase in the destruction of human life through the destruction of the unborn in Northern Ireland. I do not think that that is an example that anyone should want to follow in any part of this United Kingdom.

[Ms Creasy]

I respect the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not agree with abortion, but as I have said throughout my life when campaigning on this issue, stopping access to abortion does not stop abortion; it stops safe abortion. We are talking about how to provide abortion safely. He disagrees with abortion, and I will always defend his right to do so, but I will also point out the thousand women who have now had abortions in Northern Ireland safely, which means that their lives are protected. Surely if somebody is pro-life, they are pro-women’s lives as well. New clause 20 is on that fundamental question.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Creasy]

I am sorry, but I cannot. I will tell him afterwards why I cannot, but I promise that it is not out of a lack of respect for his position.

Some say that Northern Ireland is different, but why would we think that women in Northern Ireland are different from women in England and Wales when it comes to human rights? We are seeking not to remove our regulations, but to apply the same test to them. We simply want the Secretary of State to ask whether they are human-rights compliant. Those who celebrated bringing abortion to Northern Ireland, and who continue to promote it, did not just celebrate the provision of a service; they celebrated the liberation of women from this inequality, which we risk perpetuating for our constituents.

[Carla Lockhart]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Creasy]

I am sorry, but I cannot take any interventions.

New clause 20 is primarily about whether we think that abortion is a human right, and how we apply that principle to our laws here. It is also about the very present and real threat to access in our communities. Members will have seen outside this place the modern anti-abortion movement that we now have in the UK, and will have received the scaremongering emails. Of course those in that movement are reacting more strongly than ever to the idea of women having this human right protected in law, because their opposition is not about children. If it was, they would not shout at mine when they see them in the street. It is about controlling women. They do not openly advocate for an end to abortion access, but they make lurid claims, including the claim that there would be abortion at birth, so let me put that one to bed. Because new clause 20 retains the 1967 framework, it retains not just the time limit—crucially, it is different from new clause 1 in that regard—but all the provisions in the 1967 Act relating to everyone involved in an abortion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Creasy]

I am sorry; I cannot take interventions because of time.

Those who worry that new clause 20 removes outdated laws should look at the limited number of prosecutions that have taken place under existing laws, and compare it to the number of investigations that have taken place. Let us deal with the claims that are being put about. First, there is a claim that repeal would mean that there would no longer be the crime that MSI has called reproductive coercion. That is what it called the offence of coercion in the Serious Crime Act 2015, which it hailed. That offence would remain, and it explicitly covers forcing someone to have an abortion, giving the same penalty as section 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Those who claim that coercing someone to have an abortion would be legal under new clause 20 have not paid attention to that legislation, or to the calls from the abortion providers to ensure that more healthcare providers—and, it seems, more Government lawyers—are aware of that 2015 law, and of reproductive coercion.

Those who claim that the loss of the “concealment of the body” law in section 60 of the Offences Against the Person Act would facilitate live abortions should look at the existing laws on grievous bodily harm and actual bodily harm, which are used in such cases because of the difficulty of proving an offence under section 60, and indeed because of the requirements of the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929. Having given birth to a baby at 37 weeks, I want to be very clear why time limits and medical decisions matter when it comes to abortion, not just to the application of substance misuse laws. Let us be very clear that there would be criminal offences to cover the cases that the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) described, but we are also talking about removing laws that have criminalised people who have had stillbirths. These are people who need our compassion, and who need us to be able to differentiate between an outdated law that criminalises abortion and the malicious intent in the substance misuse legislation.

People should recognise how seldom these offences can be proved because they make no sense. Also, in retaining the 1967 Act, we retain the good faith principle for all parties to an abortion. That would deal with the trope of sex selection; nobody can prove that abortion for sex selection reasons has happened, but that is covered in the good faith arrangements that are retained with the 1967 legislation.

I return to the subject of Northern Ireland, because it was not the absence of regulation that made a difference; it was Parliament voting to make abortion a human right, and then the Government working with us to make it happen. Voting for new clause 20 would kick-start a similar process. We know that Government lawyers never really like to deal with change—who does?—but this is the proper and appropriate way to proceed, and in our Parliament, this is the only way for Back-Benchers to make changes on matters of conscience.

Those of us who recognise that reproductive rights are the foundation of social justice know that now is the time to act. If we are not free to control what happens to our bodies, we cannot be free in the rest of our lives. Those who are playing politics with abortion play politics with equality. The Vice-President of the US has attacked our buffer zones. We should not tolerate his interference in any matter of human rights. Only new clause 20 would give buffer zones that human rights footing. We would not ask a woman to carry to term a baby that would die at birth, but again, there are people in this place who call our abortion laws ludicrous, and who advocate for a reduction in the time limit, putting a woman’s health second. That would not happen with a human rights framework.

Those of us who care about these rights need to act tonight. Less than half of all men under 40 in this country believe that abortion should be legal in most cases, so those who feel that abortion is a settled matter that cannot be weaponised in our politics need to listen to the drumbeat already banging loudly in this country. We face a choice today. We know that these laws are outdated. Do we retain but limit them, or do we remove them and get ahead of what is to come? I urge colleagues who care about these matters to listen to our American counterparts, who bitterly regret not having acted under Biden and Obama to protect abortion access, and who now find medics being prosecuted and dragged across state lines. Do we learn from how Parliament has acted before?

Procedurally, Members know that if new clause 1 is passed, new clause 20 cannot go to a vote, so they will not have the chance to say whether they believe that a safe and legal abortion is a fundamental human right. I want to be clear that I will support new clause 1, but with great hesitation. That is not because I dismiss those proposing it. I hope we can all agree that there are genuine and decent terms for disagreement. It is because new clause 20 brings in a lock on ministerial powers. It explicitly restricts what Ministers and the Government—not Parliament—can do on this subject in a delegated legislation Committee.

It has been surprising to learn, in these debates, how few people have had the joyous experience of sitting in a delegated legislation Committee, stacked by the Whips with Government MPs, that makes major changes to the law, but in 15 years, that has happened to me a number of times. We have seen it on tuition fee rates and welfare cuts, and the previous Government tried to do it with the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. Only new clause 20 would stop Ministers using regulatory powers to overturn abortion rights. They could use them only to bring in human rights-compliant regulations. Conversely, if new clause 1 is passed, there are no constraints on how Ministers could use the powers. The Minister might say that the new clause brings in no requirement to make regulations. That is true. New clause 1 does not require regulation, but it can and will facilitate it. As the Hansard Society points out, Ministers sometimes seek powers in a Bill to enable them to take actions that they consider appropriate. That leaves Ministers with huge powers.

New clause 1 would bring abortion within the province of this legislation and give the Secretary of State enabling powers to make laws relating to abortion, as long as they would not reverse the disapplication of abortion law to a person acting in relation to their own pregnancy. The powers could be used to target medics, or the family of a person seeking an abortion. I therefore ask the Minister to explicitly give a commitment that if new clause 1 is passed, there will be no further regulation on abortion under the Bill, and no application to make new clause 1 workable or to clarify the impact of a prosecution on the anti-abortion laws that remain. If the Minister cannot do that, by definition she proves that that power will exist. By contrast, new clause 20 would restrict that. It would give power back to this place. Nobody can bind a future Parliament, but we can demand that it is not small Committees of hand-picked, select MPs making decisions on the Government’s behalf, and that each of us should be able to act on behalf of our constituents.

Criminalisation does not reduce or deter abortion; it just makes it harder to carry out safely. We should be clear that criminalisation will remain if only new clause 1 is passed. If we want the decriminalisation that the sector has always advocated for—for good reason—it is only through new clause 20 that we can achieve that. I hope that colleagues in the Lords will have heard this debate, and will not let these matters rest.

Regret has no place in politics. It certainly has no place in the politics that I came here to represent. When there are those who would seek to attack women in this way, I pledge to continue fighting for women’s rights. I pledge to continue fighting to make abortion a human right in this country, and I ask colleagues to consider the case for doing so in this way. But I ask people who care about this to think about this moment and whether we will ever have another one when this Parliament could act in such a positive, constructive and established way. We can get one thing over the line. Why not make it the thing that would make the biggest difference to our constituents?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

“Yes, Jesus was a refugee. And he is still in their camp. We should be too.”

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I represent Walthamstow; once upon a time, the architect of the ECHR, Winston Churchill, was our constituency next-door neighbour. But let us be under no illusions and let us be frank, because people in this Chamber will write off my corner of London as some nirvana of good relations and say that we do not get issues or challenges with immigration: we have people in our community who judge people on the basis of their skin colour and who listen to the social media tropes; and we have people who seek division, who share that common aim and who will find somebody to blame rather than a solution for the challenges we face. Legislation needs to counter that, not facilitate it, because the reality is that across this country there are too many people with too much month at the end of their money, and it is too easy to tell those people that immigrants are the reason why, rather than telling them the truth.

The people in my community are not woke; they are wise. They get that some are trying to tell them that immigrants are the problem, when the truth is that it is actually politicians who do not face up to the challenges we have. People in my community, like those across this country—whether they are old friends or strangers, incomers from Hackney or even further afield—can all find common ground if they do not get their bins collected, if they cannot park their cars or if they feel that their children are at risk. In this country, people find humanity in each other—in our common grumbles. That is what it means to be British: to have a moan about the reality of daily life. Those who want to divide us—who tell us the way forward is finding somebody to blame rather than a solution to the challenges—do nobody a service.

Let us talk about what we could do in this Bill to make things better. I support new clause 37, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) from the other end of the Victoria line. We should not be making a profit from children who are seeking to be citizens who have the right to remain here.

I draw the Minister’s attention to new clause 44, which I have tabled. We could learn from Australia and New Zealand—those bastions of progressive immigration policy—and introduce a worker’s justice visa. We really need to help overseas workers in our communities who are at the behest of their sponsors. It is outrageous that there are people in this country whose future relies on somebody else’s largesse, rather than their basic human rights. We can learn from Australia and New Zealand in introducing such a visa in order to correct the issue whereby somebody who is clearly a victim of modern slavery cannot stay in the country to pursue that claim, so the person making them a slave cannot be held to account.

[Chris Murray]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we have significant problems in this country as the system to address modern slavery has degraded? Will she join me in pushing for the national referral mechanism to be reviewed, as the Government promised, to tackle exactly what she is talking about?

[Ms Creasy]

Absolutely. Let me be clear: I recognise that my suggestion will not address all the issues with overseas domestic workers, but a worker’s justice visa could be the start of ensuring that our immigration system is more functional.

I also draw the Minister’s attention to new clause 45, which is about the “good character requirement”. It makes no sense to those of us concerned about integration to say to somebody that they may stay in this country—that they have a well-founded fear of persecution—but that they will never be able to make a life here, that they will always end up paying more for their mortgage because they will not be able to get a proper income, and that they will never be able to get jobs as easily as others, so they might be more dependent on benefits. That is what happens when we start denying citizenship to people who have the right to be here.

The Refugee Council recognises that the requirement will affect 71,000 people because it is retrospective. It is little wonder that a court case is now in train. Bad policymaking in the face of social media tropes does nobody any favours, and I urge Ministers to look again at the provision. New clause 45 is simple: it is about us upholding our international obligations. It is about saying that if there was a safe route, absolutely it would be bad character not to use it, but I would love some Opposition Members, who are no longer in their place, to tell me what the safe route from Iran is, when many people on the boats are from Iran.

We have to get immigration policy right. I stand here as somebody who does not want open borders. I want a fair and just immigration service. I learned in my first year in this place from the former Home Secretary Jack Straw, who told me there were two divides: left and right, and those people who had to deal with the UK Border Agency and those who did not. The legislation before us does many welcome things, but it also does things that I fear we will come to regret in future—just as we will come to regret pandering to those who wish to divide us, rather than getting on and sorting out why we still have a cost of living crisis.

The Government will have my support if they want to do more to bring people together, not just by sorting out bin collections—that perennial challenge—but by investing in everybody, whether they were born here or have come here to make a contribution. After all, those of us with refugee heritage—whether we were Huguenots, Farages or Creasys—deserve and need better.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

We will now start a three-minute time limit.

Asylum Hotels and Illegal Channel Crossings

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The right hon. Lady is talking about the prime contractor, which in this case is Clearsprings Ready Homes. As with the other two contractors, the break clauses are with it. We have approval or not of sub-prime contractors. Stay Belvedere Hotels Ltd is a sub-prime contractor, and as the Home Office we have withdrawn our approval for it to be in the supply chain.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The shadow Home Secretary has a nerve to come to this House and make that argument when we in the communities saw the damage that the contract he managed did to the public purse. Shall we revisit some of those greatest hits? His contract put councils and Clearsprings against each other, pushing up prices and making it impossible for local communities to help those housed there. He caused absolute chaos.

I have in my hand one of the letters that the hon. Gentleman’s Government were presenting to people who were refugees, giving them less than five days’ notice of where they were being moved, meaning that school places had to be hastily reorganised and children had to be hastily re-clothed because of the decisions he made on public funds. Absolutely no savings were made in the way in which he managed the contracts.

Will my hon. Friend make a commitment and a pledge to all of us who have had to deal with Clearsprings and its chaotic management that when she has the opportunity to renegotiate the contract, or possibly even break it for good, she will put public value for money first and not repeat the chaos of the shadow Home Secretary?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We are doing all that we can with the existing contracts to drive value for money, and we are also looking to pilot some other potential alternatives to supply.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

I gently say to the hon. Member that the number of settlement grants grew by almost a third in the final year that his party was in government, compared with 2023. We will take absolutely no lessons from the Tory party and a shadow Home Secretary who completely lost control of our borders, allowing net migration to quadruple to a record high of nearly 1 million while the number of dangerous boat crossings soared.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Only refugees whose cases prove that they would be at harm if they returned home are given indefinite leave to remain in this country—30,000 people last year. They will not leave the United Kingdom to return to the bombs and the dictators, but without a route to citizenship they will find it harder to get a job to support their families, get a mortgage, or have a say in their local communities. Will the Minister meet me, and other MPs who are concerned about the new guidance on naturalisation, to talk about how we can properly support integration in the UK?

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend will know that, for many generations, refugees who have arrived for resettlement in the UK have been able to apply for British citizenship if they meet the conditions, and that continues to be the case. The UK must always do its bit to support those who are fleeing persecution, but we are also clear that we must do all we can to prevent people from making dangerous boat crossings and risking their lives in the arms of criminal gangs.

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I am planning to run the statement only until 7 pm, so it might be helpful if we had very short questions and perhaps shorter answers from the Home Secretary.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I just say, on behalf of every decent-minded MP across the House, how powerful and important it is to see the Safeguarding Minister here on the Front Bench with the Home Secretary? It is a testament to their commitment to getting this matter right and not being deflected, however hard other people try, from what really matters, which is the victims of these horrific crimes. I am proud to sit behind them and to support the work they are doing, and I welcome what they have said about bringing in a victims panel.

In the spirit of the cross-party working that we will need to do on this, may I also welcome the words of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare)? He is right that the common story we hear time and again from victims of abuse—whether from grooming gangs, in care homes or in their own homes—is that they were not believed; nobody listened to them. How can we have the national conversation that we need to have about the culture of belief, putting victims first and finally ending the silence that has meant so many have been the victims of these perpetrators for so long?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right; we have to ensure that victims’ voices are heard and that they can have the confidence to come forward, because often they feel that they will not be believed and will not get the support they need if they do speak out. That can make it extremely difficult. I also support her words about the Safeguarding Minister, who not only does a phenomenal job in the Home Office now but has been a tireless champion for victims of abuse and exploitation for very many years. Without her, there is no doubt that the Home Office would not be making the progress we are now making on tackling these serious crimes.

Border Security: Collaboration

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I gently point out to the shadow Home Secretary that his party left us with the highest ever level of small boat crossings in the first half of a year—the highest level on record. If we had carried on with small boat crossings at the same level as in the first half of the year, when he was in the Home Office, we would have had to deal with thousands more arrivals over the last few months. When he was the Immigration Minister, small boat crossings increased about tenfold because he let criminal gangs take hold along the channel. They built an entire criminal industry on his watch that he did nothing to stop, which is why we now have to deal with those criminal gangs.

On returns, I gently point out to the shadow Home Secretary that by the time the Conservatives left office, returns were down by more than a quarter compared with under the last Labour Government because of the Conservatives’ continued failure to even get the system working. That is why we have put substantial additional resources into returns and into making sure that the rules are enforced, which they simply have not been for far too long.

On the asylum backlog, perhaps the shadow Home Secretary will take responsibility for the total crashing of the asylum system in the last few months before the general election, when the Conservative party and the Home Office of which he was a part ended up cutting asylum decisions by more than 70% compared with the beginning of the year. That shocking dereliction of duty means that we have had to deal with the increased backlog that his party left behind over the summer, and we are getting it back under control.

There are some important issues on asylum decisions involving Syrians. Let us be clear: many claims for asylum relate to the Assad regime, which is clearly not in place now. It would therefore not be appropriate to grant asylum decisions on those cases in the current circumstances. We need to monitor the evolving situation so that we can get new country guidance in place and take those decisions, but we will do that in a sensible and serious way, which is about getting the asylum and immigration systems back under control. By contrast, the shadow Home Secretary and the Conservative party seem simply to want to go back to the Rwanda scheme. Once again, I point out to them that it cost the taxpayer £700 million and sent just four volunteers to Kigali—the most shocking waste of public money, over two years, on a failing scheme. All they delivered were gimmicks, instead of ever getting a grip, and all the shadow Home Secretary wants to do is turn the clock back to failure again.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is so refreshing to have a Home Secretary who is actually targeting those who exploit refugees. I understand what she says about the evolving situation in Syria, and I welcome what she has just said about new country guidance. May I press her a little bit more, though? She will understand and recognise that the Syrian community in this country, which many of us have been proud to welcome and support, is unsettled. There are 6,500 claims in process. When does she expect to have a refreshed assessment? We know that the situation in Syria is very uncertain at the moment. Can she please give our Syrian community some comfort about the direction of travel?

[Yvette Cooper]

We are obviously reviewing the situation as swiftly as possible. We have withdrawn the previous Syria country guidance, because it would not have been appropriate to take decisions on that basis, and we are monitoring the situation closely to look at how and when new country guidance can be drawn up. My hon. Friend will understand that there is considerable uncertainty about what is happening in Syria. We have welcomed the removal of the Assad regime. However, much is still unknown about what will happen in Syria next, which is why we have to be serious about this matter and monitor the situation closely. Other countries are doing the same.

Violent Disorder

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful for the strong leadership that the Home Secretary has shown on this. The truth is that these events did not happen in a vacuum. That is why, after three days of distress and panic in Walthamstow because somebody published a list suggesting that thugs were going to come to our community, thousands of people took to our streets. They stood with members of our local mosques and churches, holding hands with them to keep them safe. They helped businesses to board up their properties. We even had knitters against Nazis.

As much as we are grateful for that solidarity, we in Walthamstow know that the fear endures even after the immediate threat has gone. That is the challenge that we have to deal with in this place: those people who promote anger rather than answers to the challenges that we face in our society. The Home Secretary talks about a review. Can she set out what she actually means by far-right extremism and such terms, because those details matter in being able to have these debates and give confidence to the communities that are targeted that we stand with them, as we did in Walthamstow that day, and as we will do every day?

[Yvette Cooper]

Nobody in Britain should ever feel afraid because of the colour of their skin. That is the really troubling thing that we found people saying and feeling as a result of the violent disorder earlier in the summer. I have set up a review around countering extremism. I have had concerns for a long time that not enough is being done to counter extremism in this country. That means far-right extremism, Islamist extremism, and some of the other forms of changing extremism that do not fit necessarily into the clear, more historical, categories.

There has been a definition that the Home Office has used for a long time around “extreme right-wing” extremism, and some of the issues online, but we also know that there are changing patterns, particularly with online radicalisation. That is why the review is so important. The last countering extremism strategy was set out in 2015. So much has changed since then, especially around online radicalisation. We need to tackle all forms of extremism and violent hatred. It is so important to our wellbeing as a democracy and who we are as a country. We have always stood against that kind of extremism, and we must continue to do so.

Immigration and Home Affairs

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Department (Dame Angela Eagle)]

Hon. Members would not think that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) was in the Government that presided over a Parliament in which living standards were lower at the end than at the beginning. They would not think that this is a man who presided over a hash of a Government that had eight Home Secretaries, five Prime Ministers and 10 Education Secretaries all within a few years. To listen to him, hon. Members would think that he was still on the Government Benches, lecturing us about the fantastic record that his party has delivered for this country when, actually, he has just lost an election by a landslide.

It is a great pleasure to respond to this debate on the King’s Speech. We have had a fascinating debate, of the type that we can only really have at the beginning of a Parliament, particularly a landslide Parliament where the Government have changed. We have had 20 maiden speeches today, which means that we have had 68 over the past five days of the debate on the King’s Speech. From listening to the contributions from all sides of the House that we have been privileged to hear today, I know that in this Parliament the new Members on the Government Benches will drive the Government forwards, and those on the Opposition Benches will hold them to account. I certainly look forward to being a part of it.

I congratulate all those Members who have made their maiden speeches today, including the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), who was the police and crime commissioner in his area. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) explained how beautiful her constituency is and how she was trying to make it even more sustainable. Her commitment to equity and public health shone through. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), an old mate of mine, made Gateshead sound as interesting as I knew it was. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) mentioned Janet Anderson, one of his predecessors, who came to the House when I first arrived. His comments on the Boundary Commission were heard with empathy across the entire House.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who came in and did his usual. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), who paid tribute to her predecessor Peter Gibson, who is a particularly good friend and had many friends across the House, who were all sad to lose him. She gave us another gastronomic tour of her constituency. Not being able to eat at all while listening to the debate, and listening to 20 maiden speeches with massive amounts of information about the food offering in those constituencies, has been a bit of a torture for me.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), who also did the food thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White) told us she is proud of her parents, and her insights into working class aspirations and success will have struck many a chord on the Government Benches. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), who I learned is one of seven Joshes who have flooded into the House of Commons after the election. He presented us with a particular nightmare of actually defeating the teacher who taught him when he was 15. That would be a nightmare for any of the teachers on the Labour Benches. Just be careful who you teach at school—you never know what might happen in future.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan), who made a fitting tribute to her predecessor, the right hon. Margaret Hodge, who is a particular friend and inspiration for a lot of us. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) made a superb speech. We heard from the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) was particularly fast in talking about his transferrable skills as a golf professional, and transferring them over to being an MP. We look forward to claret jugs arriving to ensure he can make friends of us all.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) was particularly thoughtful about Alex Chalk, whom he defeated and who, again, was well liked across the House. We also heard from the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox). My hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) talked about the differences between the Scottish Parliament and this Parliament. I am sure he will continue to see differences as they emerge, but he is right that this place is indeed older and more complex. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) made a very good maiden speech, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill (Frank McNally). Last but my no means least, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) had to wait over six hours to make her contribution and did not waste a word of it. They all showed that the House continues to go from strength to strength.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister will have heard the concern across the House about the Conservatives’ two-child cap on benefits. Because it exists, in the past year alone 3,000 women have had to fill in a form to admit to the Department for Work and Pensions that they have been raped and had a child that was non-consensual. That is more than the number of rape convictions under the last Government. Can she assure us that that form and that approach has no future under this Labour Government?

Political Violence and Disruption: Walney Report

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat]

As the hon. Member will understand, I will not answer every single page of the report at this stage. I will look at all the pages that have been submitted. In fact, I have looked at many of them already. The reality is that this will take a little bit of work, so I hope that he will understand.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister talked earlier about the difference between online and offline, but for many of us there is now no distinction in the intimidation and aggression that we face. If liberty means anything for elected officials, it means being able to take time off and go to the park. Last week, a man made my toddler cry because he would not leave us alone in the street, and was instead determined to call me a child killer in front of her because he did not agree with my views on abortion, a matter that I have debated with many others in my constituency. I should say that he was not a constituent.

I am not alone in being targeted on my own—many Members present have talked about it—but the parliamentary police tell me that such behaviour is completely normal and acceptable within a democracy, that this man had a right to express his opinion, that MPs should expect to be contacted wherever they are in the street and whoever is with them, and that if our families are distressed that is just unfortunate. The report talks about a Speaker’s Conference. We have an election in the offing. Many of us have spent years encouraging a diversity of candidates to come forward, particularly women with children. Does the Minister agree that we need an urgent Speaker’s Conference to get the balance right in how we can all protect our families, because we are parents and carers as well as politicians?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I offer my deepest sympathies to the hon. Lady, because that is completely unacceptable. I would be happy to take that up with her afterwards and have a specific conversation about it. I do not think that a Speaker’s Conference is necessary right now because we have set up the defending democracy taskforce, and the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and hon. Members from other parties are already on it, as is Mr Speaker, represented through the parliamentary head of security, Alison Giles. We have effectively the same thing being assembled, with the ability to draw on information from the intelligence services, GCHQ and the police. While I agree entirely with the spirit of the hon. Lady’s suggestion, I merely argue that we are already doing it, and I know that the hon. Member for Barnsley Central and others will pull me up if they do not think that we are getting it right.