Crime and Policing Bill

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

These bikes often accelerate fast, and only someone who is used to riding something that can move quickly on two wheels can do that. If not, they will go off the back. In a car, they would be restrained by the seat, but that is not the case on a bike or motorcycle. Knowing that does take some instruction—being ready, leaning into it and all the rest of it. My main point is that that is a good illustration of how we are being a bit too casual about these modes of transport, and too many young kids do not understand that they should have some training. For their sake, we should do more on this issue.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has been generous with taking interventions. I support his amendment and note that his amendment helpfully includes e-scooters, because there is a real problem. As e-scooters do not meet the criteria in the Highways Act 1980, they are effectively banned. When I speak to the hard-working police in Waterlooville, they say that e-scooters are banned in public areas. We have a real problem with illegal usage in public areas and in the shopping centre. However, people do not know that, and we need the law to be more proactive, deliberate and expressive, and that is why an amendment like this is right. Is there anything he would like to add on the issue of e-scooters?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I bow before my right hon. Friend’s greater knowledge in these matters, having headed up the Department. I simply say that for this particular purpose, I agree with her. I am urging the Government to take this matter away and look at it in the other place. Although I will not press my amendment, because legal bikes are incorporated in the earlier cycling amendment that I put forward and the Government accepted, we need more work on illegal bikes and e-scooters.

My worry, as I have said again and again, is that people can buy these things without any qualification whatsoever, whereas if I as a motorcyclist buy a bike, I have to be able to demonstrate that I am qualified to ride it away from the shop. People are not required to do so with e-bikes and e-scooters, so there is a peculiarity. Everywhere else in our legislation, we follow through. This one has dropped through the grid, and I therefore urge the Minister and the Department to look closely at the matter and see whether we can define that better in the other place and ensure that shops are unable to sell those bikes. I will not press this new clause because I think we are at the right place so far with the Government.

Crime and Policing Bill

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I think we need to consider both.

I remember a case involving a lady, Carla Foster, in June 2023. From my reading of the case, she admitted to lying about where she was in her gestation, saying that she was further back in pregnancy, at seven weeks, when she was actually much further along; she turned out to be around 33 weeks pregnant when her baby—her little girl, whom she called Lily—was born. In the papers I have read about the case, she described being traumatised by the face of that baby, which could have been prevented if she had been to a proper clinic and seen a health professional, as that health professional would have clearly seen that she was not seven weeks pregnant, and that taking abortion pills intended for early pregnancy was not a suitable or safe medical intervention.

If one has a termination later in pregnancy, it is done by foeticide. Essentially, an injection of potassium chloride is administered to kill the baby, and then the baby is born in the usual way, but deceased. That is why it is important to know what the gestation is—because the termination offered under the law is done by a different route, to make sure that it is done safely. We know that the later in pregnancy a termination happens, the more a woman is at risk of medical complications.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an expert and well-informed speech, and I shall be supporting her amendment. On the point about the risks involved with abortion to birth, what does she think about jurisdictions such as New Zealand and the State of Victoria in Australia that have decriminalised abortion and seen a significant increase in failed late-term abortions—where a baby is born and there has been a lot of physical harm and risk as a result?

[Dr Johnson]

Every jurisdiction has a democratic right to do as it chooses and I respect that, but it is a tragedy when we hear of cases where late-term abortions have not been supported by medical care or the law, and women and infants have suffered significant harm as a result.

I want to raise the case of Stuart Worby. Some people say that this issue is about protecting vulnerable women, but in this case, which was prosecuted in December 2024, a man who did not want his partner to be pregnant, when she did want to be pregnant, decided to take matters into his own hands. He asked a woman who was not pregnant to get the pills for him. He put them in a drink and gave them to his partner, inducing a miscarriage. He has rightly been put in jail for that, but the case demonstrates that there are men out there who will obtain tablets with the help of a woman. That could not have happened if women had to have an in-person appointment, because the woman arriving at the clinic to get the abortion pills on the man’s behalf would be clearly seen not to be pregnant, so would not be able to obtain the medication. My amendment seeks to protect women—women who are wrong about their gestation or who are mistaken in thinking they have had a bleed or whatever—to make sure that they have a safe termination using the right mechanisms.

United Front Work Department

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I agree that is not the right approach; the current Government’s approach is the right one. I have laid out the strategic approach we intend to adopt with China. We have to be clear headed about the nature of the threat we face, but we also have to look for areas where we can co-operate as well.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)]

Last year, as Home Secretary, I made the decision to exclude Yang Tengbo from the UK because his presence posed a threat to our national security. That decision was based on the advice of MI5, and I am very pleased that the High Court has upheld that decision. I say gently to the Minister that it is regrettable that it has taken a high-profile case, public outcry and Opposition MPs dragging the Minister to the Chamber to finally get the Government to commit to implementing the foreign influence registration scheme—a scheme that we enacted and that was ready to go at the time of the general election. If the Government are really serious about tackling the unprecedented threat posed by China—malicious cyber-attacks, transnational repression, the Confucius institutes, Chinese police stations, and of course human rights abuses against the Uyghur Muslims—when will they list China on the enhanced tier?

[Dan Jarvis]

I was not going to make this point, but given the way in which the right hon. and learned Lady has made hers, I will gently point out that the previous Government had a significant period from the passing of the National—

[Suella Braverman]

indicated dissent.

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. and learned Lady shakes her head. It is a statement of fact that the previous Government had a significant amount of time—many months—from the passing of the National Security Act 2023, during which they could have chosen to implement FIRS. They did not implement FIRS. It now falls to this Government to do so, and that is precisely what we will do.

Small Boat Crossings

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Yes, I agree profoundly with my hon. Friend, which is why the new Government have changed tack in this area. I am sure that we will see the results in due course.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)]

The Government have pledged millions of pounds to smashing the gangs, on top of the millions of pounds that we spent on stopping the boats. The Government have pledged more drones on the channel and to fast-track cases, just as we deployed drones on the channel and fast-tracked cases. The Government have set up a border security command, which sounds remarkably similar to the small boats operational command that we set up when in government. Other than scrapping the one thing that would have worked—that is, the deterrent—what have this Government done that is different that is actually going to stop the boats?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

First, the border security command is operationally completely different from the command on the channel, which is deliberately there to try to save life and find out what is going on on the water. Operationally, the border security command will co-operate across borders in a very different way. If I were the right hon. and learned Lady, I would not be boasting about the colossal morass of wasted expenditure that the Rwanda scheme represented—£700 million down the drain, with plans to spend nearly £10 billion on the plan over the next few years. It was a gross waste of money that did not deter a single boat crossing.

Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

Suella Braverman Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I reassure the hon. and learned Lady that we will do exactly that.

I turn to the measures in the Bill. We are creating a new regime for bulk personal datasets that have low or no expectation of privacy: for example, certain datasets that are widely publicly or commercially available. Bulk personal datasets are an essential tool to support our intelligence services in identifying fragments of intelligence within a large quantum of data, in order to disrupt threats such as terrorism and hostile state actors. The Bill seeks to create a new statutory oversight regime for how the intelligence services access and examine bulk personal datasets held by third parties. It will place that oversight on a statutory footing, increasing the transparency of the regime. The regime will be subject to strong safeguards, including the double lock.

We are also making changes to the notices regime that will help the UK anticipate and address the risk to public safety of companies rolling out technology that precludes lawful access to data. We want to work with those companies to achieve common goals, but we must have the tools available when collaboration falls short.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)]

I know that the Home Secretary wants to make progress, but I am grateful for the opportunity to comment.

These reforms to the IPA are necessary to upgrade our world-class regime and ensure that our frameworks are kept up to date with evolving threats and, importantly, technology. We know that the terrorists, the serious organised criminals, the fraudsters and the online paedophiles all take advantage of the dark web and encrypted spaces: to plan their terror, to carry out their fraudulent activity and to cause devastating harm to innocent people such as children, in the field of online paedophilia. Does he share my concern and indeed frustration with companies such as Meta and Apple? The former has chosen to roll out end-to-end encryption without safeguards and the latter has rolled out advanced data protection, which will allow these bad actors to go dark, which will severely disable agencies and law enforcement from identifying them and taking action, and will enable—indeed it will facilitate—some of the worst atrocities that our brave men and women in law-enforcement agencies deal with every day.

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. and learned Friend—and immediate predecessor—makes incredibly important points. Digital technology and online technology have been a liberator in so many ways, but, sadly, as has been the case with technology throughout time, it has also been used by those who would do people harm. Indeed, she mentioned in particular the harm done to children. We take that incredibly seriously. We value the important role of investigatory powers and will continue to work with technology companies—both those well established at the moment and those of the future—to maintain the balance between privacy and security, as we have always done, and ensure that these technology platforms do not provide a hiding place for terrorists, for serious criminals and those people taking part in child sexual exploitation.

The three types of notices under the existing IPA are data retention notices, technical capability notices and national security notices. Those notices must be both necessary and proportionate, and they are of course subject to the double lock. The Bill does not introduce any new powers for the acquisition of data. The changes are about ensuring that the system is up to date and remains robust. The Bill will create a notification notice allowing the Secretary of State to place specific companies under an obligation to inform him or her of proposed changes to their telecommunications services or systems that could have an impact on lawful access. This is not a blanket obligation, and it will be used only where necessary and proportionate, and then only on a case-by-case basis.

The notice does not give the Secretary of State any powers to veto or intervene in the roll-out of a product or services. It is intended to ensure that there is sufficient time for appropriate consideration of the operational impact of the proposed changes, and potentially for discussions with the company in question about them. The public, rightly, would want their representatives to know in advance if companies were proposing to do something that would put public safety at risk, and responsible companies will work with Governments to avoid endangering people, who are of course also their customers.

The Bill will also amend the IPA to require the company to ensure that existing lawful access is maintained. That means the company cannot legally take any action that would negatively affect the level of lawful access for our operational partners during the review period. In the other place, the Government tabled an amendment to allow a timeline for review of a notice to be specified in regulations. We also gave the judicial commissioner further powers for managing the review process. Taken together, they ensure that companies are clear on the length of time that a review can take, which reduces uncertainty for their business as well as providing greater clarity for the review process. In the other place, my noble colleague Lord Sharpe of Epsom also committed to a full public consultation before amending the existing regulations on the review of notices, and laying new regulations relating to the notification notices.

The Bill also clarifies the definition of a telecommun-ications operator, to make it clear that companies with complex corporate structures that provide or control telecommunications services and systems in the UK fall within the remit of the IPA. These changes do not directly relate to any particular technology, including end-to-end encryption, but are designed to ensure that companies are not able to unilaterally make design changes that compromise exceptional lawful access.

The Bill makes changes to the powers of public authorities to acquire communications data. Section 11 of the IPA made it an offence for a relevant person in a relevant public authority to knowingly or recklessly obtain communications data from a telecoms operator or a postal operator without lawful authority. The Bill will set out examples of the acquisition routes that amount to lawful authority outside the IPA, giving greater clarity to public authorities that they are not inadvertently committing an offence. Further targeted amendments will ensure that public sector organisations are not unintentionally prevented or discouraged from sharing data. Further changes will allow bodies with regulatory functions to acquire communications data.

The Bill also creates a new condition for the use of internet connection records—ICRs—by the intelligence services and the National Crime Agency. The IPA currently requires certain thresholds to be met on the known element of an investigation, such as exactly when a website has been accessed. That limits the ability of operational partners to use the ICRs to detect previously unknown criminals, terrorists or state threat actors who are acting online. The proposed measure will allow greater detection of high-impact offenders by removing the requirement to unequivocally know a specific time or times of access and service in use, and instead will allow these factors to be specified within the application.

Antisemitism in the UK

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for her comments and questions. She asked about protests. I agree that it is completely unacceptable for people to seek to intimidate others, to incite racial hatred or to glorify terrorism. In fact, it is illegal. The police have made 600 arrests at protests since 7 October, and we in Government are urging the police to use all their powers to ensure that hatred is not incited in the course of the marches that have happened.

The shadow Home Secretary rightly asked about online safety, where a great deal of hatred is fomented. We are engaging with online platforms on a regular basis; I think the Home Secretary is due to travel to California next week to discuss these issues, among others. From memory, schedule 7 to the Online Safety Act 2023 contains a list of priority offences, one of which is inciting hatred. When that part of the Act comes into force, large social media platforms will be under an obligation to take proactive steps in advance, not retrospective steps after the event, in order to prevent priority offences from taking place. That will include hate crime of the kind she mentioned.

The right hon. Lady asked about non-crime hate incidents. The changes to the guidance were designed to ensure that minor spats between neighbours, or expressions of essentially legitimate political views, do not end up wasting police time by getting recorded. Where things do not meet the criminal threshold but might be useful in pursuing a criminal investigation later, they will still be recorded. To be clear, inciting racial hatred is a criminal offence under sections 17 and 18 of the Public Order Act 1986; causing harassment, alarm and distress through threatening and abusive language, or causing fear of violence, is an offence under sections 4, 4A and 5 of that Act; and there are various other criminal offences as well. Those things meet the criminal threshold and are therefore not affected by any change to non-crime hate incident recording rules in any event.

Updating the law and the approach to extremism is kept under continual review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities spends a great deal of time considering the question of extremism. In relation to criminal law, just a week or two ago we announced various changes for which we intend to legislate via Government amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill when it comes back to the House on Report in a few weeks’ time. Those measures will tighten up a number of areas relating to protest, including removing the “reasonable and lawful excuse” defence to various public order offences, making it easier for the police to have a blanket prohibition on face coverings, which are often menacing but also make it difficult to identify people committing criminal offences at protests. We will make it an offence to climb on key war memorials, which is grossly disrespectful, and introduce other measures as well. We keep things under continual review, so if further changes to the law are needed, the right hon. Lady can be assured that we will make them.

It is this Government’s view that antisemitism is a scourge that must be fought online, on the streets, through the law and through the courts. I am sure the whole House will be united in that fight.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his hard work and genuine commitment to seriously tackling this issue, and I was pleased to work with him and CST last year. The reality is that the Jewish community has been demonised and targeted, is scared and has been let down by the authorities. The Jewish community needs its champions and friends to speak in its defence without fear or favour. Lord Ian Austin, who sits in the other place, is one such courageous advocate who has campaigned for decades against antisemitism and Islamism. Does my right hon. Friend share my deep concern about organisations such as Midland Heart, which has suspended Lord Austin as its chair merely for his speaking against Islamism, terrorism and antisemitism?

[Chris Philp]

Let me first pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend for her work during her time as Home Secretary. We worked closely together, and I can tell the House that the Jewish community had no stronger advocate in the Government on these issues, particularly during the events of the autumn. I agree with what she said about Lord Austin. I have read the tweets that he sent, and it strikes me that there is nothing unreasonable about them. He was criticising Islamism, which is a form of extremism. That is obviously not the same as the Muslim community more widely, as everybody knows. I do not think that the actions proposed by Midland Heart are in the slightest bit reasonable. I join my right hon. Friend the DLUHC Secretary in urging Midland Heart to urgently reconsider what it has done. Lord Austin is a tireless campaigner against racism, was a great servant of this House when he was here, and does not deserve the treatment he has recently received.

Death of Jalal Uddin: Statutory Inquiry

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Thursday 9th November 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)]

Today I am announcing the establishment by the Home Office of a statutory inquiry, under the Inquiries Act 2005, to investigate the death of Mr Jalal Uddin on 18 February 2016 in Rochdale, Greater Manchester.



The inquiry will be chaired by His Honour Edward Thomas Henry Teague KC, Chief Coroner of England and Wales.



In accordance with the provision of section 3(1)(a) of the Inquiries Act 2005 His Honour Judge Teague will sit alone as chair.



I am establishing a statutory inquiry after careful deliberation and on the advice from the Chief Coroner that this is necessary to permit all relevant evidence to be heard.



The formal setting up-date of the inquiry is today. I will place a copy of the terms of reference for the inquiry in the Libraries of both Houses.



The direction of the inquiry’s investigation will be a matter for the chair. As the sponsoring Department, the Home Office will provide support and ensure that the inquiry has the resources needed to fulfil its terms of reference.

[HCWS23]

Counter-Terrorism Disruptive Powers Report 2022

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)]

I have today laid before both Houses the Counter-Terrorism Disruptive Powers Report 2022 (CP 954). Copies of the report will be made available in the Vote Office and online at gov.uk.

It is important that there is transparency in the use of our national security tools. Publishing this report ensures that the public are able to access a guide to the range of powers used to combat terrorist threats to the United Kingdom, the extent of their use, and the safeguards and oversight in place to ensure that they are used properly.

[HCWS1096]

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: Appointed Person Report

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)]

Today I lay before Parliament the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Appointed Person report covering England and Wales for the period 2022-23. The Appointed Person is independent of Government and scrutinises the circumstances and manner in which search and seizure powers conferred by the Act are exercised without prior judicial approval and where nothing is seized for more than 48 hours.

I am pleased that we are now able to publish the Appointed Person’s latest report. The report details that search and seizure powers were used in these circumstances on seven occasions.

The Appointed Person has confirmed in the report that he is satisfied that the criteria required for justifying the searches without prior judicial approval were met and that the powers of search were exercised appropriately. The Appointed Person has made no new recommendations for the period. This would indicate that the powers are being used reasonably and appropriately in accordance with the Act. We will continue to monitor the way that the powers have been used closely.

Copies of the report will be available in the Vote Office.

[HCWS1089]

Investigatory Arrangements following Police Use of Force and Police Driving-related Incidents: Terms

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)]

Police officers across England and Wales do an incredibly difficult job, in some instances having to make life or death decisions in a split second to keep us safe. It is vital that the public and officers have clarity and confidence in the accountability system relating to police use of force and police driving, including the efficacy of investigations.

Successive Governments have referred to the need to consider the balance between ensuring the police can do their job to keep the public safe, while ensuring operational guidelines are complied with and officers act within the law.

On 24 September I announced a Home Office-led review to assess the existing legal frameworks and guidance on practice that underpin police use of force and police driving, and the framework for investigation of any incidents that may occur. It will examine:

Whether use of force or police driving frameworks provide clear, understandable and well understood guidance for officers;

Whether a lack of clarity or the frameworks themselves in any way inhibit or prevent the police from carrying out their role to protect life;

Whether they serve to maintain public confidence in the police, in particular for those impacted by police use of force;

How the UK meets its obligation to independently investigate situations where a death or serious injury (DSI) results from an incident involving law enforcement;

Whether necessary lessons have previously been understood and acted upon after historic incidents; and

Whether individuals are held to account appropriately.

I am pleased to announce that today we will publish the terms of reference for the review on www.gov.uk. A copy of the terms of reference will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

These make it clear that the review will not consider live or ongoing investigations or proceedings. The need to ensure it does not in any way prejudice or interfere with ongoing or concluded investigations or proceedings is paramount. To that end, the Home Office will keep under consideration any potential effect of the review on such investigations or proceedings.

The review will be co-ordinated by the Home Office, reporting to me and working with other Government Departments such as the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General’s Office. It will aim to provide findings to me by the end of year.

[HCWS1092]