Police Leadership Commission Report

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Dorset is about to get its fourth chief constable in just eight years. While I wish Amanda Pearson well in her retirement, those I spoke to who were involved in the recruitment panel said that the only potential candidates were the deputy chief constables or the assistant chief constables. In a place like Dorset, we tend to get someone who is either internal or about to retire. In almost every case, there is only one candidate. Given that situation, how will the Minister look to introduce fresh ideas and a culture free from nepotism, bias and toxicity in such a small cohort, so that we can get the leadership that we need?

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Lady speaks to one of the problems that I highlighted earlier, which is that in the main, fewer than three applicants apply for a chief constable role, and many such positions end up being filled by an internal candidate. It cannot be right, as she said, that in a force such as hers that position will only be filled by somebody internal or thinking about retiring. It is a brilliant job—challenging, yes, but brilliant, definitely —and we should have many people aspiring to it. I again thank all those who have contributed to this piece of work, including many people who have given much of their time to help, to support and to think these things through. There is much in this work that will help us get to a point where, as we would all want, multiple people want to apply when a chief officer role comes up.

Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

The terms of reference are very wide and very clear. They will look at culture, ethnicity, race and any kind of bias that was in the system. There is a wider question that Louise Casey has talked about many times, and which I am trying to drive through in policing, and others are trying to drive through in other areas of work, which is about professional curiosity: keeping an open mind; problem solving; looking and finding; being curious to get to the bottom of what is happening; and finding those connections. There is also a big piece of work around information sharing across different organisations, because there is a blindness that comes from all the different institutions not talking to each other in the way that they should and not picking up vulnerability where we should. We saw that with Southport and Nottingham, and we see it here. There is a big job to be done there, too.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

The abuse of children is the most disgusting of crimes, and anyone who is involved in it, or who protects someone involved in it, must face justice. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who I note is not in his place, published his report this week, and my constituents are eager to understand why the statutory inquiry will take three years—[Interruption.] Another two years—several years. Why is the Government-backed inquiry going to take so long?

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) has done a piece of work. I welcome the work that he has done, and hope that he will pass on to the police and the inquiry any evidence, criminal or otherwise, that he has gathered. This is an independent statutory inquiry—it is a very different thing. It will be absolutely ruthless in making sure that we can outline every single part of what has gone wrong here and learn every single lesson that we have to learn, so it is a completely different thing.

Statutory inquiries have taken years and years in the past, and Louise Casey was very clear that she wanted it to be time limited, so we have said that we want it finished, which is unusual for an inquiry—some inquiries that the previous Government set up are still ongoing. It will be done by 2029, but it is a completely different piece of work. It will be enormously thorough, get to the bottom of what happened, and bring us the answers that I know victims and the whole country want to see.

Crime and Policing Bill

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kim Johnson]

I have to say that I disagree with the right hon. Member.

Although today’s proposals have not come in under the radar through secondary legislation, as the Tory Government tried before they were ultimately defeated in court, amendment 312 has sneakily come in through the back door from the Lords, leaving MPs with no opportunity for scrutiny, debate or vote.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that the vague wording could lead a police force to ban, for example, a Pride protest three months after a farmers’ protest? There is no clarity as to whether a protest is damaging; it is just that the protest is cumulative.

[Kim Johnson]

The hon. Member makes a valid point, and those are some of the issues that have been raised by civil liberties organisations and disputed by the Minister in the House this afternoon. The situation means that many colleagues who are here today will rely on the Government’s reassurances that the proposals strike a fair balance between permitting protests and preventing disruption, without being given the time to consider what that really means. I therefore ask them to heed my words closely.

The suffragettes protested for decades for women to win the right to vote. It took years of disruption and fighting a patriarchal system for them to win the historic gains from which we all benefit today. Who would condemn their action, or argue that their protests should have been made less impactful, and their struggle for women’s liberation harder and longer? Looking back on the suffragettes’ fight, it is inconceivable that we would support a restriction on their struggle on the basis of “cumulative disruption”. It was exactly that process of sustained pressure that won women the vote.

The same applies to the fight to bring down the evil anti-apartheid regime, during which I was proud to cut my political teeth as a young activist in Liverpool. There, we occupied council buildings and universities, raised money and organised boycotts of goods, sports and culture. We marched and held street stalls and mass demonstrations until that evil regime fell—another victory of the powerless over the powerful, made possible by sustained action and protest. Without sustained protest, we would not have the hard-won employment rights that so many of us benefit from today.

Immigration Policy

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

As I have said to the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, the Rwanda scheme would not have removed those people; it would have removed a tiny proportion, at an eye-watering cost. We are ramping up removals of those who have no right to be here. If the hon. Gentleman is really saying that he wants to rip up the ECHR because he wants to send people back to countries that are not safe, he should name which ones.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Alongside last week’s announcements was the most welcome announcement that BNO passport holders will not be required to hold B2 language qualifications, but Hongkongers resident in Wimborne are really concerned about the income threshold. Can the Minister confirm whether that is also being exempted?

[Alex Norris]

As I have said to other colleagues, I can confirm that the income threshold, and particularly how it is resolved at a family unit level, was part of the consultation. We have had more than 200,000 replies, and we are looking at them closely.

Police Grant Report

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I want to follow on from the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) in asking the Policing Minister again: would you agree that it is about time we got—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I do not agree, I do agree—I am pretty neutral. The hon. Lady should ask the Member to agree and not use the term “you”.

[Vikki Slade]

I can only apologise, Madam Chair. Would my hon. Friend agree that the Policing Minister is long overdue in replying to the calls from Dorset MPs and the police and crime commissioner in November last year to look at the seasonality issue, because we simply cannot go on?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. To help other Members in case they should make the same error: I am not “Madam Chair”; I am Madam Deputy Speaker.

Oral Answers to Questions

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I suppose I want to say from this Dispatch Box that I want that perpetrator to be inconvenienced. Inconveniencing him is exactly what we should try to do, which is why this Government are tackling perpetrators —that is essentially about shifting the focus on to those who cause harm. We are rolling out domestic abuse protection orders, removing the burden on victims by placing stronger, enforceable prohibitions and requirements on the perpetrators, such as electronic monitoring and positive requirements to keep victims safe. Importantly, a breach of that order is a criminal offence.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

The child maintenance system is being used, as the Minister knows, to abuse women after they have left their relationship. One of my constituents lost her home after she was manipulated into selling it. Her ex-partner put the money into a joint account, and he then bought a new house in his own name. He left her and is now living the life of Riley while she is doing three jobs and cannot get a penny out of him in child maintenance. I have written to the Minister to ask her to meet my constituent and two other women. Will she please agree to meet us, so that we can give those women the visibility they need in holding the men to account?

[Jess Phillips]

The hon. Lady’s constituent’s experience is not unfamiliar to any Member of Parliament who has ever had to deal with the Child Maintenance Agency. That is why child maintenance was included in the violence against women and girls strategy. We will ensure that the abuse of women through child maintenance can no longer happen. Like always, I am more than happy to meet the hon. Lady and her constituents.

Police Reform White Paper

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I 100% agree with my hon. Friend. I welcome the good work that has already taken place in his area, although I know there is more to do. The changes that we are bringing in will improve our ability to meet the challenges faced by his community and communities across the country.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I welcome the commitment to police funding reform. Dorset is the second worst funded police force in the country and has a much higher proportion of local funding, with 50% funded by the precept. Dorset MPs and the police and crime commissioner wrote to the Home Secretary in November, and we want to push for a reply. What assurances can we be given that seasonality will be factored into the new funding formula?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will ensure that the hon. Lady gets an answer to the letter she sent along with colleagues. Once we have completed the review into the new shape of regional forces, we will announce plans on the review of the police funding formula.

Disclosure and Barring Service

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I am pleased to have secured this debate on the Disclosure and Barring Service. It is my hope that I can shine a light on some of the shortcomings of the current system and that the Minister will consider my proposed improvements so we can help families protect their loved ones, reduce the burden on voluntary groups, and speed up employment processes. Tonight, I want to make the case that the DBS system as it currently operates is not fit for purpose. Its loopholes cost lives, undermine trust and leave families exposed. In its current form, the DBS introduced enhanced checks that include not only a search of an individual’s criminal record, but checks against barred lists, providing a more comprehensive assessment of an individual’s suitability for specific roles, especially those involving vulnerable groups. The system is an integral part of employment in appropriate sectors, and should offer assurance to families as well as employers and voluntary organisations.

When a parent drives away from a dance class, a scout group or a swimming lesson, they assume that the organisation has established that the employee or volunteer has no criminal record, and does not present a risk to their child. At the heart of the problem, however, is the fact that thousands of roles involving unsupervised contact with children or vulnerable adults are eligible for DBS checks, but are not required to have them. Eligibility in itself is not protection, and families assume that protections exist where they simply do not.

I want to start by sharing the tragic story of Lauren, a promising performer who lost her life in 2020 after an accidental drugs overdose. In November 2019, two separate safeguarding allegations were made about someone relating to the supply of class A drugs to Lauren and her friend. That person was eligible for—and in my view should have been required to undergo—enhanced DBS clearance, but it seems the relevant information never made it to the Disclosure and Barring Service. The teacher continued to work with the children and allegations of other inappropriate activities were later made. Sadly, Lauren had by then been exposed to drugs and became involved with someone who continued to supply her with them. By August 2020, she had died.

When I made inquiries, the DBS could find no record of the organisation, so I could not establish whether the teacher was registered, or even whether the organisation had obtained checks on any of its other staff. The Disclosure and Barring Service told me that it has no jurisdiction over whether an employer or safeguarding lead should take action; its role is only to record whether the legal duty to refer an incident has been met. It told me that any failure to investigate lay with the employer and whoever regulates the employer, but as there is no regulator for dance schools, I met another dead end.

That raises two issues. First, is it appropriate for someone to provide hands-on, unsupervised sport or dance activities without the expectation of an enhanced DBS check? Secondly, do parents not have the right to know whether someone undertaking such work has clearance to work with children and vulnerable people?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate; I spoke to her beforehand about the incredibly important issues that she is raising. Does she agree that child safety must be paramount? The Government need to clarify paid and voluntary sector rules—for example, how often should screening be done and how often should mandatory child protection training be carried out? Too much is left to best practice, which differs across all the regions, and not enough is clear and unequivocal. The time has come to make obligations crystal clear.

[Vikki Slade]

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right: assumptions are being made around the country. As the mother of four children, I assumed, as I dropped off my children, that everybody had to be DBS checked. The idea that that is not strictly the case fills me with dread. When I talked to the people from the Campaign for Gigi this afternoon about nursery safety, I shared this issue with them, and they were horrified. Clearly, people working in an early years setting are required to have an enhanced DBS check, but they were concerned about other sectors, too.

As I am sure the Minister can understand, Lauren’s grandfather Paul, who brought this case to my attention, and Lauren’s parents remain concerned that if the coach had been reported to the DBS at the time of the original allegations and potentially withdrawn from working with children, Lauren, who was described as

“a talented singer and dancer with the world at her feet”

may not have been introduced to illegal drugs and could well have been continuing to enjoy a very bright future. Additionally, there does not seem to be a route for the public to report concerns. If the employer has not registered a member of staff, or an organisation has not been deemed to be undertaking a “regulated activity”, as the council told me the dance school was not, there is no one to document the concerns and no register to check.

I welcome the DBS’s new video, which was launched before Christmas, to support faith organisations with the legal duty to refer. The legal duty to refer requires organisations to notify the DBS when they remove a person from a regulated activity because they have harmed or may pose a risk of harm, but it does not protect those in the care of an individual who has not been registered by their employer in the first place. I welcome the changes made in the Crime and Policing Bill, which will close the loophole for supervised staff, ensuring that they will be eligible for checks against the children’s barred list. I also welcome the Minister’s work to ensure that that happened earlier last year.

Those are positive steps, but I have two questions. First, will the Government consider requiring employers and organisations to register their staff, rather than just making them eligible, and will they require the police, local authority or regulator to record allegations made against the organisation where an individual is not registered? Secondly, have the Government considered a simpler system? For example, there could be a system in which an individual applies for a card that could be searched by an employer, a parent or a service user to confirm that an individual has been cleared to work with children or vulnerable people. The card could include a “date of most recent update” section—that way, details of past convictions do not necessarily need to be shared, but a timeline of when people have been deemed safe to be around vulnerable people could be.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

My hon. Friend raises very good points on this matter. There are two issues that I have always seen with the DBS check. First, like an MOT, it is only as good as the date when it is issued, and people do not have to subscribe to the update service. Does she agree that updates should be mandatory? Secondly, a DBS check cannot be passed from one organisation to another—people need a fresh one every time—which seems to be an unnecessary waste of time. Does my hon. Friend agree that her card idea would probably solve that?

[Vikki Slade]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People have to pay extra to be part of the update system. Why would anyone pay extra to put themselves under additional scrutiny? Why is that not automatic?

The other option, which has been suggested by some, is that the Government could consider a right to ask/right to know process for family members. That would ensure that the public could not have free and easy access to information that could be risky, but if they had a concern, there would be a route for them to find out. We were simply stonewalled every time that we tried to find out whether this teacher had been registered and whether those allegations had been made.

Let me turn to another situation, which has come up on a number of occasions, relating to people who are caring for family members. DBS checks currently have to be undertaken by an employer, a registered organisation or an umbrella organisation. That increases costs, adds delays and makes it more complex for families using direct payments for the care of disabled children and for those starting the journey of caring for an elderly relative.

Laura contacted me about the direct payments that she receives to fund the care of her son, noting that she cannot directly access DBS checks. She said that

“my very vulnerable son, quadriplegic with cerebral palsy and profound multiple learning disabilities has a team of 15 carers none of whom have DBS checks.”

She asks why the law does not allow parents to carry out DBS checks on carers, who are

“working often alone in our home”.

Another constituent, Sandra, is in a similar position. She said:

“We had a carer a few years ago, who had been lone working with our daughter at night for over a year, with a current DBS check. We had a call from Child Protective Services—the carer had tried to smother her own child”.

They later discovered that the reason why the carer’s other child lived with grandparents was because she had tried to smother the older child, and they had been removed from her care. The man from the child protection services said, “It probably should have been on her DBS,” but it was not. As a result, Sandra said, “What is the point? There is no reason for me to get a DBS check—it would not have protected my child.”

I have also been contacted by Louise, from another part of Dorset, who approached me due to my dementia champion work. After her husband Richard was diagnosed with dementia, she decided to try to care for him at home. Her job meant that she went away for a few days at a time, and she felt that the best option was to find a carer to stay in her home with Richard. My colleagues in Somerset may remember this story, as it was in the local paper.

Louise’s experience led to her starting a campaign for Richard’s law, which I said that I would take up. The law has three simple pillars—so simple that I was shocked they were not already in place. Those three pillars are mandatory registration of all care workers; mandatory enhanced DBS checks, with all carers required to join the update service; and mandatory, nationally recognised training for care staff in first aid, medication compliance, manual handling, dementia awareness and safeguarding. I find it hard to believe that a person can be a carer without all of those things being in place.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

What my hon. Friend has said puts me in mind of another case in a village not far from where I live, where a cleaner was systematically thieving from elderly and vulnerable residents. This went on for years, and every time the person nearly got caught or was interviewed by the police, they just left their job and moved on. This is exactly why we need to do something to make the system far better, because elderly and vulnerable people have no way to be absolutely certain that when they give somebody their card to get some money so that they can pay the carer, something will not go desperately wrong and the rest of their money will not disappear.

[Vikki Slade]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Today, the headline in the Bournemouth Echo is about another case involving a carer, who stole £125,000 from an elderly person. The case I am describing is not a one-off.

Louise told me about a carer who was coming into her home and who she had trusted. The basic DBS check was all she had, but after the carer stole jewellery and cash from her home, it came to light that this woman had three previous convictions for theft and obtaining property by deception, including a suspended sentence for an almost identical offence. In her victim statement, Louise said:

“I welcomed her into our home, believing she was there to help us through one of the hardest chapters of our lives. Instead, she exploited our vulnerability in the most callous way imaginable. The worst thing she stole was my trust. Her betrayal destroyed my ability to believe in the carers who were supposed to support us. I reached a breaking point where I could no longer allow outside help, and as a direct result, I had to make the heartbreaking decision to place my husband in residential care. This was never what I wanted for him, and it has changed both of our lives immeasurably, for the worse. The weight of that decision, forced upon me by her selfishness, is something I carry every day.”

Sadly, Richard Woollam died on Boxing day—Louise contacted me a few days later to tell me that I had not managed to have this debate while he was still with us. However, it seems shocking that family carers who are already sacrificing so much are unable to access DBS checks for those who are coming into their homes, and that someone who is providing such personal care is not automatically required to have such checks and training. Provision of personal registration would allow those who are working directly for their employers—be they carers, cleaners, tutors, babysitters, drivers or personal trainers—to provide security for families, particularly families who are home educating their children, and to work across multiple employers with ease.

Finally, over the past few months, we in this place have spoken on numerous occasions about improving the service provided by Government agencies. From two-year waits for shotgun licences to nine-month delays in responses to MPs’ letters to the Department for Work and Pensions—if the Minister is listening, I have been waiting since February for an answer to a simple request—and a Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency that does not bother to chase doctors’ letters at all, I have been shocked by the poor service experienced by my residents in times of need.

Where an enhanced DBS check is needed for an employee to take up their position, it is so important that it is processed swiftly. In theory, such checks should be completed within a fortnight, but in Dorset, the police are advising that delays can be up to 100 days. Daniel from Wareham has explained that this problem is impacting his ability to move forward with professional opportunities. He said that when he worked abroad, background checks often came back within a few hours, and that the

“current manual processes just feel so outdated and inefficient, especially when so many people—students and employees alike—need these certificates to do their jobs or continue their studies.”

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the speed of DBS checks. My constituent Marcia had a DBS check, but needed an enhanced DBS check to move into a child’s residential home for work, and was at risk of losing that job opportunity if the DBS check did not come back. Given that it had taken seven months to get the original DBS check, Marcia had very little faith that the enhanced one was going to arrive on time. Does my hon. Friend agree that when people are looking for job opportunities, they need to be able to respond quickly?

[Vikki Slade]

My hon. Friend makes a great point, and it is exactly the situation that Tabitha from Wimborne told me about. She said:

“I am desperate to work…this is a big problem for not only my life and finances but also for others who are surely out there…who are like me, waiting for more than three months… I have been a TA (teaching assistant) previously and all my prior DBSs came back within a month.”

She said it is absolutely ridiculous. Dorset is not alone in this. Across the country, families, volunteers and employers face similar failures, with delays, loopholes and an opaque system that simply does not keep pace with modern care and employment.

The Disclosure and Barring Service exists to make recruitment safer and to protect vulnerable people from those who may present a risk. Those are both worthy aims, but the system is not working. We need: mandatory registration of anyone working with children or vulnerable adults; mandatory enhanced DBS checks and use of the update service; a central, individual-held clearance card; a public mechanism to report concerns; the ability for families directly employing people to access DBS checks themselves; faster processing times via a digital system; and a review of the definition of regulated activity. These failures are not administrative inconveniences; they are risks to life and safety, and they reduce productivity too. The people I have spoken about tonight have paid the price for a system that is too complex, too slow and too optional. We owe it to them, and to every family in this country, to build a DBS system worthy of the trust that people place in it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

I will come on to that when I pick up some of the issues of portability from one person to another. However, from Wednesday those hiring personal carers, or families engaging private tutors, will have access to the same high level of check, with the same level of information, including information about whether a person is barred by the DBS.

Thirdly, we have enabled the disclosure of an individual’s barred-list status on the international child protection certificate.

[Vikki Slade]

Will people have to go through some of the umbrella agencies, which can charge a lot of money? Will there be a cost differential for those individuals?

[Jess Phillips]

That is a very good question. There does seem to be a bit of a discrepancy. I know that when the hon. Lady was looking through different regulated systems to get people checked in her own area, they were found wanting. Individuals, families or those who want to employ a tutor or a carer on a self-employed basis, whether or not that involves direct payments, will have access to the enhanced check.

I pay tribute to Richard and the campaign of his brilliant wife Louise: she is absolutely on the money. The right to ask is a fundamental part of the system, and from Wednesday—give me 48 hours—parents will have that power. If I were sending my child to a tutor—which I have done, like many other people across the country—I would be able to ask whether that tutor had had an enhanced check. It may not be possible to access all the information, but it will be possible to question and scrutinise employers as well, to ensure that that is done. Parents will have that power.

As I have said, we understand that child protection is international. The ICPC, issued by the ACRO Criminal Records Office, is used for individuals who intend to work with children overseas. We changed the relevant legislation on 18 December, reducing the risk that an overseas employer could unknowingly hire a barred person to work with children and thereby meeting the third of the inquiry’s recommendations relating to the disclosure of criminal records.

Overall, our approach is underpinned by an unwavering commitment to safeguarding through the proportionate disclosure of criminal records and other relevant information. It is of course important that we listen to, and when necessary act on, any concerns raised by individuals, including Members of Parliament, and the sectors that interact with the regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I woke up this morning, I did not think that this debate would start until 10 pm, so any more time is a bonus. I apologise. The last time I replied in an Adjournment debate, I ran wildly over time, and somebody had to shut me up. I did not want anyone to be put in that position again.

The portability of checks was raised. I think people do not understand quite how many DBS checks are done a year—7.3 million. It gives me some comfort that quite a lot of the workforce in our country are undertaking checks. Incidentally, we do not have to undergo checks as Members of Parliament.

[Vikki Slade]

There are 7.2 million checks done a year, and I am sure that means multiple checks for individuals. I used to foster, and I obviously had very enhanced DBS checks for my fostering, but I then had to get a separate DBS check to undertake my work as a school governor. Frankly, that seems crazy. As a foster carer, I was being checked in far more detail. We could reduce the burden on the DBS by having a system of single portable checks, because I do not think that 7.2 million people a year are having checks.

[Jess Phillips]

We recognise that people may want to use their existing DBS check when moving from one role to another, where the new role requires a check. That is exactly the point that the hon. Lady raised. It is possible for employers to accept an existing criminal record certificate, but it must be for the same type of check in the same workforce—in the instance she has given, that would be working with children—such as enhanced with barred lists checks for the children’s workforce. This is to ensure that the appropriate level of information is available. We do not want a random DBS to have been done, and for someone to just say, “Look, I’ve got a DBS”. Over the years, I too have had more DBS checks than I can count.

On the delays, the DBS has a key performance indicator of getting 80% turnaround within 14 days, and it currently reaches 75%. It has been progressively working on that and ensuring that things are done more quickly. The enhanced check relies on police forces undertaking the work, and seven months seems like a very long time, but there can be a variety of reasons why delays may arise. However, the vast majority of checks are done within 14 days. My son had an enhanced DBS the other day, and it came back in three days. I do not think the DBS knew that he was my son.

Oral Answers to Questions

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mike Tapp]

This Government acknowledge and are grateful for the significant contribution that health and social care workers put in, day in and day out, across the country. However, it was right that we ended the overseas recruitment of care workers due to the high levels of abuse that many workers were experiencing at the hands of dodgy employers. There are no current plans to replace the current sponsorship arrangement for care workers.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I am disappointed to hear that the Minister is not looking at a common certificate of sponsorship. Has he made a decision, with his colleagues, on whether care workers will be considered in the same group as NHS workers in relation to the faster route? Otherwise, we are going to end up with a massive hole in our services, with social care yet again being the Cinderella service to the NHS.

[Mike Tapp]

We must remember that hundreds of thousands came into the country to fill just tens of thousands of jobs, so this is the right approach here. There are no plans at this time, but the mechanism of delivery is currently at consultation, and that closes on 12 February.

Migration: Settlement Pathway

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I hope my hon. Friend will reflect on how I opened my statement today and how I closed it. I see the benefits of migration. I would not be here if this country had not welcomed my parents. It is literally the story of my life and how I have managed to get from there to this Dispatch Box today, so I very much feel those benefits personally. I will always speak up for them—as I have done today, as I did on Monday and as I will always do—as I make the case out there in the country for the need for these reforms. I hope that he and others will always support me on that—I know they will. I have also made clear that we will always offer sanctuary. I want us to be a country that offers sanctuary to those who are in need. That is why it is so crucial that we get order and control back into our asylum system and open up new safe and legal routes. It is important that today I have confirmed that those safe and legal routes will have the earlier 10-year path to settlement. That is what will enable the integration we all want to see.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

In the summer, I spent the morning with Anushka, a senior social care worker in Wimborne. She and her colleagues earn more than the earnings threshold and came here with their families on the understanding that they could make a new life here, contributing to society and paying their taxes. The recent hostile narrative is making her and others consider leaving for places such as New Zealand and Australia. Will the Home Secretary confirm whether Anushka and her colleagues, doing jobs that cannot be filled by British workers who will not do the work, will be considered public sector workers?

[Shabana Mahmood]

These will be matters for the consultation and I encourage the hon. Lady to engage with it. We have put in an element around public service, because we recognise the specific contributions made by those who fill the gaps in our labour market that we are not otherwise able to fill. On the general principle, I would say to her that settlement is not a right and that it is absolutely fair for a Government to say that it has to be earned. It is not unusual for countries to change their settlement requirements. That is quite normal. It happens all over the world, as British citizens who work abroad know all too well. The proposal to go from five years to 10 years will not change, but all the other measures I have set out today are subject to consultation. I encourage her to engage with that.