Immigration and Asylum Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

To reassure my hon. Friend, before a case proceeds to appeal, we already have an internal process whereby we check whether we should still defend the claim at appeal stage. If the facts have changed or if there are issues with the original decision, we remove cases from the list of those proceeding to an appeal under the current system. We are doing something similar already. I do not want to create additional bureaucracy and ever-more complication, but that is part of the Home Office’s current process. We have removed cases from the appeals backlog where we know that they should be granted.

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

The case that the Home Secretary is making for this legislation is that the way in which appeals are being dealt with is unnecessarily slowing up and clogging up the system, because of the nature of the appeals being made. She has just argued that there is a quality control with the initial decisions that the Home Office is making. Looking at the figures, I see that that accounts for 40% of these appeals being overturned. Will she reflect again on the quality of initial Home Office decision making? Will bringing in a piece of legislation that will further complexify that decision-making process lead to better decisions being made the first time? For value for the public purse and the decency of how we treat refugees, surely that is where she should focus her efforts.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Actually, I think we need to focus our efforts in a number of areas. We need to ensure that we are improving the quality and speed of initial decisions, and we have been doing that. However, as my hon. Friend will know and as I have just set out, people make multiple claims, often at the last minute. I raised the example of a foreign national offender who it took us four years to remove from the country after he had served a sentence. That is because he kept putting in appeal after appeal after appeal after appeal. These reforms are designed to deal with that problem.

I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that we need to be able to look at the system in its totality, so we should absolutely look at the quality of initial decisions, but there is no silver bullet here. There is nothing that says, “As long as you fix that one thing, you are not going to have a problem anywhere else.” There will still be claims that are rightly refused both at the initial stage and at appeal stage, and it is imperative that we can remove people from this country as quickly as possible when they have no right to be here.

It is vital that we provide protection to those who are truly in need. Following the devastation of the second world war, this country led the world in promoting human rights to ensure that we learned from the horrors of the past. This Government will always be committed to that internationalist ideal and to the robust human rights laws that underpin it. However, we are also realists, so we admit where noble intentions have been misused and abused. Today, too often, we see well-meaning laws used not to defend a human right, but as a way to frustrate the removal of someone with no right to be in this country, including failed asylum seekers, visa abusers and even foreign criminals.

The British people have a natural sense of fairness. They believe that those who require protection should receive it, but no one should be able to abuse that protection. The abuse of human rights law does not just erode the public’s support for our immigration system; it erodes their support for the very idea of having such laws at all. For those who believe that these laws matter, it is essential that we reform them to end their abuse.

Clauses 17 to 20 reform the domestic application of article 8 of the European convention on human rights—the right to a family and private life. Article 8 is undoubtedly a vital protection, but it is a qualified right. That means that the rights of individuals must be weighed against the public interest. Over time, the balance between an individual’s family rights and the rights of the wider community has shifted. Without a clear definition from Parliament of how that balance should be struck, the interpretation of article 8 in our domestic courts has expanded beyond the original convention and what Strasbourg case law requires.

To understand how far the balance has shifted, consider just one example. In 2025, an Albanian man jailed for growing cannabis escaped deportation not because he had any right to be here, but because it was deemed unduly harsh on his partner to deport him. She was not his wife or life partner—instead, this relationship began only after a deportation order had been served. Why was the deportation deemed to be unduly harsh? The partner spoke no Albanian and had never visited the country before. While that is just one example, the expansion of article 8 is clear throughout the system. More than half of those who stayed in the UK for family reasons last year did not meet our own rules, relying instead on their article 8 rights, and 71% of those who stay in the UK because of article 8 rights arrived here illegally or overstayed their visa.

The Bill addresses both the definition of family life and the public interest test. Clause 19 tightly defines the public interest. It clarifies that judges must consider the economic impact on the taxpayer of allowing people to remain in the UK, including whether they are able to support their family, and that no weight should be given to an article 8 claim when someone is here illegally.

Clause 20 strengthens the public interest test so that foreign criminals can be removed more easily. It states that the more serious the offending, the greater the public interest in removing them from this country. It also specifically addresses those facing deportation who may be appealing on article 8 grounds. The Bill makes it clear that a deportation should go ahead outside of a limited number of truly exceptional circumstances, as set out in clause 20.

On the subject of deporting foreign criminals, the Government intend to table an amendment to the Bill in response to the widely reported case of the vile grooming gang leader Shabir Ahmed. Our amendment will provide the Home Secretary with a new power to disapply section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971 for serious criminals. That section provides protections for long-term UK residents, but it clearly should not act as a bar to removal in cases such as that of Shabir Ahmed. The threshold for the power will be tied to the power to deprive citizenship, which applies only in cases of exceptional severity. It is important to note that that does not guarantee his removal from this country, as the Conservatives know all too well from their own experience. The Foreign Secretary and I will continue to work on all avenues to pursue a deportation. I know that the thoughts of everyone here are with the victims and survivors of this vile criminal.

Let me return to the Bill as drafted and our reforms to the definition of family life in domestic law. Clause 18 tightens the definition of family life. For immigration purposes, a “family” will now normally mean relationships in the immediate family unit. That means a spouse or partner, a parent or a child under the age of 18, apart from in truly exceptional circumstances, such as an incapacitated adult who lives with and is entirely dependent on their sibling.

Clause 19 makes it clear that judges must consider when article 8 rights were established and, in particular, whether that happened after someone entered this country illegally or overstayed their visa. In clause 17, we clarify whose article 8 rights should be considered. This makes it clear that for someone overseas to come to the UK on article 8 grounds, a family life claim must be made by a UK-based sponsor, and cannot be made by family members overseas. That is because our obligations under the ECHR are, rightly, to those who are living in the UK.

In clause 19, as part of our reforms to article 8, we set out where it is unreasonable to expect a child to leave the UK when a member of their family is being removed. Specifically, it is if the child will not receive an education in the other country or will not be able to integrate into that country, or where relocation would have a very significant and long-lasting adverse effect on them. This brings us in line with case law in the European Court. We also set out the limited circumstances in which it may be reasonable to remove a parent where they do not have a genuine and subsisting relationship with the child. In doing so, we once again bring UK law in line with existing Strasbourg case law.

We do so with legitimate cause. As the interpretation of article 8 has widened, we have seen shocking examples of the abuse of parental relationships, including a paedophile who was allowed to stay in this country because his deportation to Pakistan was, under article 8, considered “unduly harsh” on his children. That was despite the fact that his contact with those very same children is restricted by law, in order to protect them from their father. The Home Office appealed the case and eventually won, but only after a lengthy legal battle necessitated by the lack of a clear definition in the law. This Bill rectifies that situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

When the ECHR was first conceived and entered into as a treaty in 1950, it was developed for very good reasons. It was designed to avoid a repetition of the horrors of the second world war, which the hon. Gentleman refers to, but over the years judges in Strasbourg and domestically, using the living instrument doctrine, have expanded and expanded and expanded the definitions of the articles, which are necessarily very vaguely worded.

For example, article 3 of the ECHR is on

“freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment.”

When it was written, that meant “Don’t send people to concentration camps.” On the face of it, the words are very reasonable; if we were to sit down today and come up with a convention, it would have those words in it. But the way it is applied by judges today means that we cannot send foreign criminals back to other countries, like Zimbabwe, in case they face hostility there as foreign criminals. We cannot run our border system because of the way the articles are interpreted. The balance has now shifted so far that it is preventing border control and a number of other things as well, and that is why we have to leave the ECHR.

I do not accept the proposition that the only thing standing between us and barbarism is the ECHR or the Human Rights Act. This country has led the world in human rights, not just for decades but for centuries. If there are any gaps in our protection of rights that this Parliament feels are exposed by leaving the ECHR, the proper remedy is for this sovereign, democratically elected Parliament to legislate to fill them. If there is a gap in our domestic statute or our common law, and this House feels that the gap needs to be filled, the right way to do so is not by having judges make up expansive case law; it is by having this democratically elected parliament debate the issue, as we are doing now, and take a vote on it. That is the way in which democracy should function.

I think that one of the reasons mainstream politics is coming under pressure, if I can put it euphemistically, is that pledges made at elections, by successive Governments, on issues like immigration do not get delivered. One of the reasons why is that the human rights legal framework prevents them from being delivered. The Home Secretary gave examples of that, and it is essentially a democratic deficit; this Parliament, not judges, should decide how our borders are run. While I welcome these measures as small steps in the right direction, I do not think that they will work. I do not think that the measures in this Bill go far enough, because they do not address the fundamental problem.

[Ms Creasy]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Philp]

I will take one last intervention before finishing.

[Ms Creasy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving us his experience. Governments of all colours have always been angry about the European Court of Human Rights, because they are kept honest by having a court of human rights that can act to protect citizens when Governments make incorrect decisions about people’s basic fundamental liberties. If he wants a good example of why upholding international treaties matters, I suggest that he talk to our colleagues from Northern Ireland about the Good Friday agreement, which is rooted in the European Court of Human Rights. Before he argues that we should remove those protections in such a cavalier fashion, perhaps he might reflect on why people like Winston Churchill wanted to protect citizens from Governments who might make incorrect decisions, whether in the immigration system or about their fundamental human rights.

[Chris Philp]

First of all, I do not think that Winston Churchill would ever have envisaged that the ECHR, which he helped create, would lead us to being unable to control our borders. Secondly, on the Good Friday agreement, I urge the hon. Lady to read the 175-page report by Lord David Wolfson KC, which explains how our Good Friday agreement obligations could be upheld after leaving the ECHR. Thirdly, on her point about protecting rights, the ultimate guarantor and protector of the rights of people in this country should be this democratically elected Parliament, not judges handing down expansive definitions of vaguely-worded clauses that have acted as a charter for illegal immigrants and foreign criminals.

I ask the House to support our reasoned amendment. While these are small steps in the right direction—

--- Later in debate ---

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

To have concerns about this Bill does not mean that we defend the status quo. It does not mean that we want the boats to continue, or that we do not want to see Shabir Ahmed deported, or that we do not recognise that claims are down, channel crossings are down, the number waiting for decisions is coming down and things are moving in the right direction. It means making the very simple case that the Bill could take us backwards, and could end up being more expensive for the taxpayer.

I do not stand here raising concerns about this legislation because of my concerns about the approach to the ECHR and my belief in the importance of defending it as a fundamental part of our liberty, or because I am proud to live in a community that welcomes refugees and proud to have spent this morning talking to a refugee businessman. If we are going to tell stories about refugees, let us tell the whole story about the contribution that they make to our country. I stand here as someone speaking up for the taxpayer’s interest.

As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) has just pointed out, the truth is that much of the backlog is a result of poor-quality decision making. That is where cost is mounting up for the British taxpayer. The idea that there are no lessons to be learned about how we can save money, when in two thirds of cases the appeals are accepted or the decisions are withdrawn by the Home Office, does not bear scrutiny. Frankly, it would be decent if the Home Office turned up at those first-tier tribunals in the first place, and it would probably improve decision making as well, because we know that that has been a problem. Our failure to go after the Eurodac data means that it is harder for us to deal with asylum claims between the UK and Europe. That is why Brexit has caused problems.

Fundamentally, spending money on getting it right the first time would be the best way to give people confidence in our asylum system. Bringing in a new system that will add further complexity is only likely to add cost. We are creating a refugee system that will see us spending money on repeatedly asking people whether they are still victims of torture and whether there is still civil war in their country—testing and retesting these people for no apparent gain other than proving that we have a broken system. The Bill introduces a Diet Coke version of refugee status, the core protection visa, which will require refugees to be retested every two and a half years, potentially for 20 years. Think of the cost! The Refugee Council has estimated it to be about £1 billion. Then there are all the people that we are forgetting in this process. We have already talked about the madness of introducing a £10,000 debt for people on low incomes so that they are never able to sort themselves out properly in the UK if we do give them status.

In the final seconds remaining to me, I want to refer to the overseas domestic workers in this country who are being exploited. The right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) spoke powerfully about the importance of not seeing everyone who comes here as a criminal, but recognising criminal behaviour. There are things that we could do so much better, which would save the British taxpayer money and restore confidence in the system, but I am sad to say that I do not think the Bill will take us in that direction.

Asylum Accommodation

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

As the hon. Lady says, this is the choice ahead of us. I believe that the change to larger sites is a good one. The Copthorne must close, and it will. I cannot offer her space in the meeting with Madam Deputy Speaker, but I suspect that she would be keen for the hon. Lady to be there too.

I apologise to the hon. Lady, because I rang neighbouring MPs who have been affected by Crowborough, but not in her case. I hope I will be able to mitigate that, at a point not too far away, when I ring her about Copthorne.

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

We are having this debate because of the cost to us all of trying to move from the broken system that this Government inherited to a fair and effective one. We are in this position because the previous Government failed to process people, and the Conservatives now seem to want to rely on creating fiction, rather than fact, about what actually works.

The Minister is absolutely right to argue that we need to tackle the root causes and try to stop people getting into boats. It is also right to recognise that where people are fleeing persecution and that is proven, it is the mark of a good society to help them. It is also more cost-effective. Given that last week the Government lost legal proceedings on the proposal about good character and citizenship, and given the likelihood of more litigation because of the fictitious idea that somebody travelling by an irregular route is somehow less of a person, does the Minister recognise that we will save money by changing the policy and putting integration, not ill will, at the heart of a future system for refugees?

[Alex Norris]

It is important to recognise the cost of that loss of grip. The previous asylum contract was let on the assumption that there would be about 60,000 people. The previous Government let the figure balloon to double that. It continues to come down, but it is still around the 100,000 mark. We have to make difficult decisions, and that is the nature of the accommodation today.

We have to pivot the model in this country. We were clear in November’s asylum policy statement that we have to make sure that we reduce the pull factors and remove people who have no right to be here, but we also have to make sure that we provide safe and legal means for people to come to the country—that is better. Nobody should ever transit across continents and across the channel.

My hon. Friend’s point about litigation is important. It seems to me that there will always be an element of that in the Home Office, but I think we can pivot to a much better model, certainly through safe and legal means; community sponsorship allows communities to come forward in a positive way. We are not in that place yet, but we are moving to that model. This is an important staging post on that journey.

Murder of Henry Nowak

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me reiterate my belief and expectation that the police must always act without fear or favour and treat all citizens equally before the law. I hope the hon. Member will recognise that the vast majority of our police officers run towards danger every day to keep us all safe, and in the vast majority of cases they get the balance right between how they respond in a specific case and, more broadly, how they keep communities safe. Where there are issues, lessons must be learned; I am sure that, once the IOPC investigation has concluded, we will do that.

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

I think that for all of us as MPs, the time we spend with families who lose a family member in horrific circumstances stays with us throughout our career. I know that in my community there will be many parents who, sadly, have lost children to knife crime, who will have seen Mark Nowak’s statement and felt every single word, and who will want to send their condolences to the family. They will also be acutely aware of how difficult a watch that body camera footage was, and of his words about not seeing the tragedy used to “inflame division”.

Given that, and given how some people are interpreting this matter and the misinformation that is circulating, what thought has the Home Secretary given to ensuring trusted sources of information on this issue? There is an important need for scrutiny and transparency about what has happened—and in a context where there is so much misinformation, we need sources of light, not heat. What more could the Home Office do on that matter?

[Shabana Mahmood]

We in the Home Office have a responsibility, which we seek always to fulfil, to make sure that we act calmly and responsibly, with the full facts at our disposal; if we do not have the full facts at our disposal, we wait until we do before we comment, in order not to put out misleading or false information.

My hon. Friend is right that the wider environment is very challenging. Of course the Government are taking action through other Departments, such as through the Online Safety Act 2023, in relation to digital platforms. I am sure we will return to those conversations, because there is no doubt that, on social media in particular, the environment makes it very challenging to establish the truth, rather than misinformation and straight-up lies. We collectively have a responsibility in this House to make sure that we shine light rather than heat on these matters, so that we can hold our country together and make sure that all our citizens are treated fairly.

Crime and Policing Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

There is a powerful group of Ministers working very hard on that. Not least among them is my colleague in the Home Office, the Minister for Safeguarding, who is leading the wider work on violence against women and girls. There is a whole programme of activity, whether by Ministers or officials, across DSIT, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to make sure that we get these things right. They are complex, and they involve Departments working together, stepping up and taking responsibility for this work, which is very much ongoing. We want to get this right; that is why we have set the 12-month timescale. The important thing is not only the outcome of that work, but the power to make regulations, as we will, that give effect to that outcome.

Lords amendment 311, introduced by Lord Walney, seeks to grant a power to the Secretary of State to proscribe organisations deemed to be extreme criminal protest groups. The Government understand the concerns expressed in both Houses about the sustained impact of criminal activity by certain protest groups, and, where such conduct meets the threshold for a proscription order under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Government will act, and have already acted. However, we are not persuaded that the introduction of a proscription-lite regime is necessary or proportionate in instances where that threshold is not met. This view is shared by Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who recently expressed concerns about the adverse consequences of this amendment for the established proscription regime in the Terrorism Act 2000. I urge hon. Members to read the four-page note that he published online last week.

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

My hon. Friend will recognise, though, that many of us are concerned about the integrity of the concepts of terrorism and terrorist organisations, and the importance of people’s ability to protest the concept of proscription. Those are two very different things. Does she recognise that concern, and will she look at how we can better delineate those two things, so that people can express their concerns about the concept of proscription and how it is evolving under this Government without facing arrest for wanting to have that conversation?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend will have debated these issues in this place, and I think there will always be a debate about the right to protest and where we draw a line in this country. I am very happy to have further conversations with her on that wider issue. Jonathan Hall set out in his letter—I can pass it on to my hon. Friend, if she has not seen it—why he does not think that this amendment will work, and that is why we are not persuaded on this occasion. I am, of course, happy to have further conversations with my hon. Friend on this.

Turning to Lords amendment 333, tabled by Baroness Buscombe, I fully agree that the Government, local authorities and law enforcement agencies need to do all they can to tackle money laundering and associated criminality on our streets. The high streets illegality taskforce, announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in her most recent Budget, will examine the use of enforcement powers in this light, including the closure power. It will have a £10 million budget to support its work. While we support the principle of extending the duration of closure orders, we should first consult to avoid any unintended consequences on legitimate businesses or residential premises. Accordingly, amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 333 will enable us, following targeted consultation, to extend the maximum duration of closure orders and, if necessary, to make different provision for commercial and residential properties.

I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), and for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), have been campaigning on high street illegality, and will no doubt speak about it later. I want to assure them and others in this place that we know that we need to go further, as we will, not just on this measure, but on the wider challenge of high street illegality. We will be very keen to work with Members in this place on that work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I do not agree with my hon. Friend. This was announced by the Home Secretary after the Heaton Park attack, when lots of protests took place immediately after the attack. The cumulative disruption and the impact that had was there for all to see. We have no desire to reduce people’s right to protest, and nor would we ever. There is a lot of misinformation about this change in the law, implying that we are in some way increasing the bans on protest. To be clear, the rules on banning protests are very strong, and bans can be introduced only in very significant circumstances. Indeed, we have no rules to ban assembly, so the idea that we are banning protest is just wrong.

We are responding to communities who have recently been feeling the pain of repeated protests, sometimes outside faith organisations—synagogues, in particular. In those cases, we believe that the police should look at the impact of cumulative disruption when they, and not the Government, are deciding whether to impose conditions on those marches.

[Ms Creasy]

Many of us recognise the picture of pain that the Minister is painting, especially following the terrorist attack, but good legislation requires debate, scrutiny and specification. One of the concerns that many of us have is the lack of definition of “cumulative”. Will she set out now, on the record, what the Government intend by the concept of “cumulative”, so that people can understand how this proposed test would be met?

[Sarah Jones]

I am pleased that we are debating this issue today, which is what we should be doing here, and I am sure that hon. Members will be talking about it more in the several hours that we have to debate these issues. This already exists in law, in that the police are able to look at cumulative disruption when considering whether to impose conditions. We are not redefining “cumulative” at all, or changing the parameters of sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act; we are simply saying that when the police are looking at whether to impose conditions, they must look—rather than they can look—at cumulative disruption. That is a small change that will make a big difference to people who are currently scared and intimidated by persistent protests, outside mosques and Jewish places of worship in particular.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I should conclude. I hope that I have demonstrated that we have sought to engage constructively. As I have said, I urge the House to support all the changes that we are suggesting together today with the Government amendments brought from the Lords.

Knife Crime

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I am interested in what the Luton Youth Partnership Service is doing, and perhaps my hon. Friend and I can have a chat about that at some point. We are not trying to reinvent the wheel, but rather support the organisations that already exist. There are some gaps that we are trying to fill. For example, we are running a whole range of pilots across the country where we are intervening with young people who have been arrested but not charged; a lot of those people slipped through the net. We are doing a lot of work in that space, but we do not want to reinvent what is already working. I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend more about her partnership.

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

I know that the Minister, like me, has had conversations with a parent who has lost a loved one. As an MP, they break your heart. I think particularly today of the mother of Josh McKay, who was murdered in my constituency a few years ago. He was a young man with his whole life ahead of him and a young family. I also thank the Minister for her open acknowledgment of the value of voluntary and community groups such as Street Fathers, Project Zero, Spark2Life and Break Tha Cycle, which do fantastic work in my community with our young people. May I press her on something? She talks powerfully about the importance of making school a safe place, but she will know of the concerns many of us have about the unilateral decision to withdraw school safety officers in my constituency. Headteachers tried to raise that concern. What confidence can she give us that those officers will return? They were such an important part of our fabric of supporting our young people to be safe.

[Sarah Jones]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she does in her constituency, and I send my condolences to Josh’s family, who will still be reeling after their loss. I agree with her that organisations such as Break Tha Cycle and Street Fathers do incredibly important work that we need to support. The target from this Government is that we should have a massive increase in our neighbourhood police officers, and we expect those officers to have a role going into schools and building relationships. We know that those relationships can be powerful. With those neighbourhood officers, we are trying to have consistency and to professionalise the neighbourhood route, so that people want to stay in it, rather than moving on up through the ranks and moving away from it. We want to have some continuity. We are also working to ensure that they are not abstracted, which is the other challenge that we have, particularly in large cities. When we have our proper cohort of neighbourhood officers, those people can be involved in their local schools, as we would expect them to be.

Electronic Travel Authorisation: Dual Nationals

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mike Tapp]

I find the framing of this absolutely absurd—it is nonsense. There have been years in planning from the officials and Ministers. As I said, this has been in the public domain for some years. For those looking to travel for emergencies, there are emergency travel documents, and I urge them to explore that through the Government website to see if they are eligible. It is great that the hon. Member’s constituent found out in good time. That says to me that the communications in that instance did work. On the specifics of that case, I ask him to visit the drop-in with officials on Monday and we can go into that further. We should all be very proud to hold a British passport.

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

The Minister says this has not been mishandled, but I am sure even he would accept there are elements that could have been done better. One of those is to do with babies. I have two constituents—a three-month-old little boy stuck in Italy, and a little girl stuck in Uruguay who was born in Whipps Cross hospital in Walthamstow—whose mothers have dual citizenship and who both want to be back in the United Kingdom within the next month. If they come home with their families, under the current policy they face being turned away or separated from their mothers on arrival. Alternatively, families who have just taken on the biggest cost of all—having a baby—will have to find hundreds of pounds to pay for a certificate that will take months to arrive. In those circumstances, will the Minister at least accept there should be a waiver on the fees for babies so that they can come back home to their country?

[Mike Tapp]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important point on babies. There is no exemption at this time; I am happy to meet and talk about that further. At the moment, the average turnaround time is nine days, so the four weeks should not be a problem. If there are any problems, please do approach me. We will not separate any families at the border.

Violence against Women and Girls Strategy

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

The hon. Lady will see from the strategy that the issue of tech is undoubtedly in there. I agree that, on assessing how well things are going, it seems quite a long time to wait until 2027. I can absolutely guarantee that I will hold tech companies accountable for their behaviours—I think it is quite famously known that a lot of them are not all that keen on me. I will also work with them on what is possible, for example on ensuring that what teachers know is adapted to the modern world—my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) asked about that. We will also need big tech brains on that, so although I will hold them accountable, it will also be important to work with them.

There is ringfenced money specifically for targeting domestic abuse and sexual violence. The strategy contains a commitment to how we give the standards of commissioning when giving out money from the centre down to areas, in order to look at exactly the issue of “by and for”, which the hon. Lady talked about, whether for older people, for veterans support, or for black and minority ethnic groups. All those “by and for” groups will have to be taken account of.

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

I thank all the Ministers for their collective hard work with the Safeguarding Minister. It has been worth the wait for this strategy. She will know that for too long it has been an occupational hazard for women in this country that they get hassled wherever they go and whatever they do. Will she therefore confirm that, as part of the strategy, the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 will come into force in April next year? That will mean that, for the first time ever, the law will recognise that misogyny causes crimes against women and girls, and the police and courts will be able to do something about it. The Minister will know that Citizens UK, the brilliant Sue Fish, Our Streets Now, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), and indeed the former Member for that constituency, Greg Clark, and I have been pushing for that for over a decade because we want to see women and girls as free to walk our streets as men and boys are. Will she tell us how we can now feed into the police guidance on the matter?

[Jess Phillips]

Absolutely, I can confirm that. I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and the others she has mentioned to discuss what exactly goes into the guidance. We always have to ensure not just that we write nice words on goatskin in this building, but that we make them workable in the real world. I am keen that everything in the strategy does that.

Violence against Women and Girls Strategy

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

I did not give all the details because, as I said in response to the question from the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, on Thursday I will announce the full details of all the metrics of action plans. They will be placed before the House on Thursday. As for the briefing, we cannot tackle violence against women and girls only “IRL”, as my kids would say, so there has to be an online element—it would be no strategy without it. What the Home Secretary spoke about to the press were Labour party manifesto commitments. It was not new news when we said that there would have rape-related services in every police force; that was written into the manifesto of the Labour party, which the country voted for.

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

I do not think that anyone in the Chamber can doubt the Minister’s passion and commitment on this topic, and she will recognise the shared sense of urgency across the House. We know that one in six teenage girls experience domestic abuse in a relationship, which means that an equivalent number of our teenage boys are perpetrators. I welcome the discussion about how we can help young men to make healthy choices, and I appreciate that the Minister will be saying more in the statement on Thursday. My colleagues and I all agree that we would love to be here, but we recognise that this discussion will continue. Can the Minister give us a bit more detail about how we can help both young men and young women not to feel judged, but to feel supported and helped to be healthy and to be respectful? That is how we can move forward together.

[Jess Phillips]

My hon. Friend shares my passion for this subject, and has done over many years. She is absolutely right: the data shows that nearly half of all teenage relationships between those aged 13 to 17 experience issues of control. What does that mean for both the victim’s group and the perpetrator’s group? As the mother of teenage boys—although one of them is no longer a teenager, because I am getting old—I can say that the idea that we should not support boys in this circumstance has led us to the terrifying statistics that she and I have cited. The strategy will focus very heavily on prevention, because I am sick of just putting bigger, better plasters on scars, rather than trying to stop the scars coming in the first place.

Angiolini Inquiry

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

Do I think I will get enough money? Any Minister who stands before the House and says yes to that question is lying. Look, I would, of course, always want more money, but actually there are fundamental problems in our system and in the culture of organisations that more money will not solve. Take us having more police—we have more police now, let us say, than we did 100 years ago, and that has not stopped this happening. There are absolutely fundamental things that need to change. I suppose I am here for a long time, not a good time, in that regard. We have to change absolute fundamentals.

When the Justice Secretary was here before me giving his statement, he announced the £550 million—half a billion pounds—three-year settlement for victims funding, which will increase year on year with the rising rates of inflation. I was very heartened to hear that level of security and those increases. Do I think I will have as much as I would want? Never. Do I think I will have enough and that I will make do? Yes, I do.

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

I think all our hearts will have been broken by the words of Sarah Everard’s family. The honest truth is that what this report covers did not happen in a vacuum. This weekend women in Walthamstow will hold a vigil to reclaim Hollow Ponds, which is a lovely open space, but there have been repeated concerns about sexual harassment and offences there. I cannot tell the Minister whether those concerns are merited, because my local police, Waltham Forest police, have refused a freedom of information request about the number of crime reports or offences at the site, just as they refused an FOI to explain why they were using community protection notices to deal with violence against women offences. I mention FOIs because the police refused to respond to me, as the local MP, and to local women about how they are dealing with violence on our streets and concerns about street safety, which Lady Angiolini includes in her report.

There is a problem with the Metropolitan police. We have known that for many years, and many reports show that. That is why for many years, many of us have campaigned to make misogyny part of our hate crime rubric, because we have seen the difference it has made to how other police forces approach these issues. The Minister will be aware that it is now nearly three years since this House passed the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 to bring those measures into power and finally hold organisations like Waltham Forest police to account for their disrespect for the safety of women in my community. Can the Minister give my residents some assurance that misogyny will be implemented as a hate crime and that we will see the cultural change that will tackle the fundamentals she is talking about?

[Jess Phillips]

I only wish that writing things on to the statute book changed the culture—it has been illegal to rape someone for quite some time, and it has been illegal to murder for even longer. I only wish that simply putting things on to the statute book made a difference. I would say to my hon. Friend’s police force that I always encourage good communications, including with the women involved. Policing is based on consent, and that is something we hold dear in our country. I implore the police to have discussions with my hon. Friend and the local community—about the community’s concerns and about what the police are going to do. I have seen this work all over the country. Project Vigilant by Thames Valley police is a brilliant example of work done with local businesses and local women’s groups to do exactly what my hon. Friend is talking about; I implore her force to implement a similar scheme.

My hon. Friend mentions the use of community protection notices. In her review, Elish Angiolini has some interesting things to say about what police should be doing in public spaces using certain orders, so I ask my hon. Friend to have a look at some of those things. We will be talking in the violence against women and girls strategy about some of the issues that she has raised today. However, as I have said, just putting things on the statute book does not necessarily mean that, operationally, they will be brilliant. My job is to make sure that before I commence anything, it can actually work in practice.

Migration: Settlement Pathway

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The powers to revoke indefinite leave to remain are not going to change as a result of this. The hon. Member will know that the specific provisions for foreign national offenders will also be unaffected. Separately, we are going to review the threshold in relation to criminality. The current rules work on the basis that someone cannot qualify for indefinite leave to remain if they have received a sentence of 12 months or more. However, given the changes being brought forward in the Sentencing Bill and others, we will be looking at that threshold in its entirety. He raised a point about retrospectivity, and we will be reviewing that as we review all the criminal thresholds that apply here. He had another question, but—forgive me—I missed it. [Interruption.] If he will write to me, I will come back to him, but I think he was asking about wage thresholds.

The hon. Member made a final point, which I did pick up, about the modelling—essentially, the numbers—and whether a reduction of 61,000 a year is the right number. Let me just say to him that I will be coming to this House on a regular basis to be held to account for the delivery of these reforms and those that I set out on Monday about the asylum system. It is a big package of reforms, taken together. These are the biggest changes to settlement for 40 years, and the asylum package is one of the biggest packages of modern times. The combination of the two will keep modellers and others very busy over the coming months, but I promise the House that we will be transparent on the data, the numbers and what our proposals mean in practice. That will inevitably change as we design the new system, but hon. Members will always get transparency from me in this House.

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

I agree with the Home Secretary that our immigration system needs reform and that people are concerned about it. I think we should also be very clear in this House that we recognise the benefits of immigration to our country—the talents, the jobs and the entrepreneurship it brings—and that nobody would ever argue that we will bring this country together by tearing families apart. On that basis, it is very welcome to hear the Home Secretary commit to a five-year pathway for partners of British citizens. Many of my constituents have been deeply concerned about that, because they would never wish the state to tell them whom they could fall in love with. However, given that some of those people are on different visas here, can she clarify how the five-year term will be calculated, so that we do not inadvertently end up penalising people who fall in love with somebody who came here on a worker visa, but has been here for five years? Love is love, and let us make sure that in this country we welcome it.

[Shabana Mahmood]

None of the rules about marriage in-country, as it were, are going to change, but if my hon. Friend wants to send me some of her constituency examples, I would be very happy to look at them. It is important to have a distinction between what citizenship unlocks as a set of rights for British citizens and what applies for those who are working here and who may not have settled status but may acquire settled status. I think it is right that we open a question in the consultation about what is unlocked from the British state and for people’s rights here at citizenship as well as at settlement. I would be very happy to discuss these matters with her in more detail, and I am sure I will do so over the next few months.