Matt Vickers MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q If you could make one amendment to the Bill to increase the distinction between people coming to Britain legally and those entering illegally, what would that be? Guy Dampier : That is a very difficult one, because one of the big problems that the Bill does not tackle is the fact that an increased number of people are coming legally and then claiming asylum. Since 2019, I think, the number of those coming on the study route has gone up by four times and the number of those coming on the work route has gone up by 22 times. A lot of people are abusing the legal way of getting into the country and then claiming asylum, often suspiciously close to the end of their visa. Nothing in the Bill would really tackle that; that area is really missing.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q In your experience, how often does article 8 make the decisive difference between somebody being allowed to remain or being removed? Do you think that the provisions in the Bill will materially and effectively change that situation? Jacqui McKenzie: We are worried about the provisions in the Bill around article 8, particularly as they relate to the best interests of children and the redefinition of the family, at a time when we are recognising that families come in all different types and colours—I do not mean colours in terms of race; that is probably not the best word. There is not a straightforward definition of a family. The Bill seeks almost to narrow it down to who lives in the house and who does not. That is the sort of language we are getting from the Home Office in trying to describe what it means, because we do not know yet. All we have is a template of an idea. We have section 55 on the best interests of the child, which most of us base our work on. That enables families using article 8 to remain together in the country. In the impact assessment accompanying the Bill, I saw that fewer than 12,000 families were likely to be refused. We are going for such a draconian measure to deal with a very small number of people. It almost reminds me of Rwanda again. We spent £700 million and we got four volunteers out. Even if we had got some people out through enforcement, it would have been a very small number. I cannot quite understand why we are targeting families. A lot of those families are actually the third and fourth generation of people who settled here and then brought over their children. In Windrush families, south Asian families and west African families, we have this concept of leaving children behind. The first came when they were over the age of 18, and now large numbers of their children are the ones caught up in the system and using article 8 to remain. Those are the sorts of people we would be targeting. This is their home. They are settled here. The numbers are small. It is not yet clear to me why we need to be doing this.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q The sole test for the Bill is whether it will reduce illegal arrivals and increase removals. What is the single biggest amendment you would put forward to make that difference? Stephen Webb : In a sense, the Bill seems mainly to look at the stock rather than the flow, looking at people already in the country. I know the Government have legislated previously on the actual crossings. I suppose the question is, within the way the Bill is structured at the moment, what would make the biggest difference in deterring people from starting the journey in the first place? That is quite hard to say, because there are lots of changes around making it more difficult to make claims, particularly under article 8. My main point is that I feel, as I have written before, that it is not just article 8, but article 3 that gives asylum seekers an extremely high chance of staying in the country. Although the Government have chosen to toughen, somewhat, the way that article 8 will be treated, the Bill is silent on article 3. That is slightly disappointing, given that the Chişinău declaration, back in May, talked about reforming both and suggested areas where the courts—both domestically and in Strasbourg—could potentially tighten things up. I would see that as the main area.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q With regards to the article 8 changes, can you give us one concrete example of a category of case where someone could successfully resist removal today on article 8 grounds, but where the Bill would prevent them from doing so in future? Anna Turley: Bas, you have an example—we discussed this earlier today. Bas Javid: With all the measures in the Bill, we want to address what potentially gives people the opportunity to frustrate removals, either in bad faith or just by being late, whether that is article 8 appeals or national referral mechanism issues. I would highlight two things that frustrate operational removal. One is the successive number of issues that people raise, but not necessarily all together, and there is also the fact that it is done very late, often on the steps of the plane, particularly on charter flights. To give an example, in 2025, on all the charter flights that my teams ran, over a third of the people frustrated their claims through late NRM referrals. That is just an example of the kind of things that happen, and that obviously also puts a lot of extra cost and wasted resource into the system, where I would otherwise use that resource to remove people legitimately.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q As a practising immigration lawyer, where in the Bill do you anticipate the greatest volume of new litigation? Could any of those challenges actually increase delays to removal? Jacqui McKenzie: Sorry, I cannot actually hear the question. Professor Singer: Which aspects of the Bill do you anticipate would lead to the greatest number of litigation cases? Jacqui McKenzie: It is difficult to say, but one of our major concerns—this is purely as a practitioner, not a researcher—is about the removal of the current tribunal system and the establishment of the independent immigration appeals mechanism. We think there is considerable risk there, for a number of reasons. The first reason relates to the separation of powers, and it is one that the Committee should be very concerned about. The whole point of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 was that it was a constitutional device set up by Parliament to have a separation of powers. However, what we will see instead is a system where the Home Secretary appoints the chair and the chief executive officer of this new authority, and that person in turn will appoint the adjudicators, which gives rise to some concern. We are very concerned about whether there is scope to challenge that. The whole idea of the tribunal system is that we have highly trained judges with lots of experience presiding over it. However, it is not clear, and there may not be a problem, because we do not know where the adjudicators are going to come from. Our major concern at the moment is their independence. I just want to add that the whole of this is predicated on there being a backlog in the system, but it is not clear that just changing from one system to another will really address that. We saw the Home Office bring in large numbers of people to try to fast-track immigration decisions, but what we saw with those decisions was a number of errors, which have now caused problems in the immigrations appellate system. We do not envisage that that is going to change. In my practice, for instance, we regularly see decisions going into the appellate system that should not be there in the first place. The evidence of that is the fact that the tribunals are now awarding costs against the Home Office, and we had two cases recently where it was clear that the Home Office had failed to follow directions on the need to review the whole case or assess the evidence before it; it just failed to do that. If you are going to replace one system with another, but you still have very poor decision making in the first instance, you are not really going to clear the backlog. I could go on forever, but just recently I accidentally sat in on the wrong hearing at a tribunal. I was only meant to be an observer; a younger member of my team was doing a hearing, and I thought I would like to observe it. I was sent the wrong link by the tribunal, and it took me about half an hour before I suddenly realised that I was on the wrong link—I thought this other matter was just being heard first, and mine was going to follow. I sat through half an hour, and it was a man from Iraq with no representation and no bundle. The interpreter did not really understand him, and it was a waste of time. It took about 30 minutes for the immigration judge to say, “We have to abandon this.” That brings me to the fact that the other cause of the backlog is the large number of people who are not represented, and that is partly because of the problems in the legal aid system. I know we have recently had an increase, but if we want to get rid of the backlog, we are going to have to address the larger numbers of people coming into the system with no representation at all because they cannot find a lawyer. Most legal aid lawyers cannot make this work on the rates, so they are giving up. My own practice is currently considering giving up legal aid work, and we are one of the few that is still around doing it. You are going to have people coming into the tribunal system requiring adjournments, and the tribunal system will have to deal with not only that, but very poor decision making coming from the Home Office. I have other concerns about the Bill, but that is my biggest concern. The thing I am exercised about at the moment is whether there is a way of legally challenging this, but I do not know yet.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Okay.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q In your view, what is the single biggest reason why the UK fails to remove more people who have no right to remain? Does the Bill actually address the issue? Guy Dampier : The fundamental issue that we face, as we do in this entire crisis, is human rights legislation—whether international or domestic. It means that we have the extremely lengthy process of going through the asylum claim. It makes it very difficult to establish some of the facts and very difficult to remove people, even in cases where we have refused to grant them asylum. Tony Smith mentioned earlier that something like 4% of all small-boat migrants who have come since 2018 have been removed. Of those, the largest number have been Albanians because we essentially had a way to send them home without breaching human rights. That is unfortunately not true for the vast majority of other nationalities coming here. Until that human rights issue is tackled, the rate of returns will always be relatively low.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Minister, the independent Regulatory Policy Committee has rated the Government’s impact assessment of the Bill as not fit for purpose. It says: “Little of the appraisal is quantified and most impacts are…uncertain.” What measurable difference do the Government expect the Bill to make? How many additional removals will it deliver? How much faster will cases finally be resolved? Anna Turley: The Bill is a really important part of our armoury for dealing with illegal immigration and securing our borders in this country. In introducing it, we have tried to be clear that this country has fundamental values of decency, fairness and tolerance that we hold dear. We have an historic role in providing safety to those fleeing war and persecution but, as we have heard today from lots of witnesses, we must recognise that the world is changing. The current system was not designed to cope with a world that is so volatile and insecure, or with people travelling through multiple safe countries before crossing the channel, particularly by boat. We have to confront the situation facing our asylum system, which is one of the most permissive, compared with other countries in Europe. Unfortunately, it is acting as a pull factor, providing a perverse incentive for people who have arrived illegally to switch to the asylum system once here. The Bill, as part of our wider process, tries to tackle that. The Bill is part of a range of measures we have in place to tackle issues raised by the shadow Minister, such as removals. I just want to set it in its context, because we have had a lot of conversation today about whether the Bill will be the silver bullet to stop the boats. I think it is really important to see it in the broader context of all the other measures that we are bringing in. As you know, we have established the Border Security Command, which has been part of the reason why—together with our one in, one out deal with France—we have already seen small boats down by over 40% this year. We have stopped 38,000 channel crossings, and the number of asylum claimants we have awaiting their initial decision is at its lowest since 2019. We are now down to fewer than half the hotels that asylum seekers had been placed in, and we have seen 80,000 removals since the last election, including 11,000 foreign national offenders. As I said, the Bill is one part of the armoury that we want to use. The problems we want to tackle are clear. Some 41% of asylum claims are from people who are already here and hold visas from another form of entering the country. As colleagues have heard, the first-tier tribunals have 156,000 appeals outstanding, with 72 weeks being the current average for asylum appeals. We have a number of late claims mechanisms that people use to threaten removals, and at the moment 95% of asylum decisions get appealed. That is the context we are trying to deal with through the course of the Bill’s passage. We have obviously talked about the Bill’s measures today, and we are confident that they will start to address, as part of that broader armoury, some of the pull factors that are leading to us being seen as having one of the most permissive processes in Europe.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Is there any evidence that expanding safe and legal routes would reduce the number of small boat crossings, rather than simply increase the overall number of people coming to the UK? Angela Afzal: To reduce small boat crossings, there will be a range of interventions. Our position would be that the safe routes need to be part of that, because if refugees do not have an alternative, they will use people smugglers. Under the Biden Administration in the US, for example, there was a mixture of a change of internal policy on the border and an extensive offer of safe routes for people. The evidence showed that when there was an alternative, people chose it, and it reduced irregular arrivals significantly.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy · Hansard source

  More

  At the weekend, I had the pleasure of joining Cleveland scouts and seeing at first hand the fantastic work that scouting does to give young people confidence, practical skills, friendships and opportunities they might not otherwise have. Can the Minister reassure those young people and their families that this Government are not seriously proposing to tax a scout for pitching a tent? Can he confirm that scout camps and other charitable youth residentials will be exempt from his holiday tax?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Safety of the Jewish Community · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing this debate on an issue important to so many of her constituents. Despite having been in this role for only a couple of years, I have too often stood opposite Ministers to condemn violence against and, on solemn occasions, mourn the loss of life in the Jewish community—people targeted for no reason other than being Jewish. When those tragedies happen, we seem to find ourselves in the same post-tragedy discourse, with public figures stating that antisemitism has no place in our society, rightly acknowledging that it is an evil that must be vanquished. Yet how hollow must those words ring when British Jews know that another incident could merely be round the corner? When the Golders Green attack occurred, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was right to state clearly: “This is a national emergency”. As with any emergency, there is no single solution. It requires multiple measures, but underpinning those must be a willingness to tackle the underlying ideologies that allow this hatred to fester. Today the facts are stark. Having visited the Community Security Trust’s headquarters, I join hon. Members in recognising the organisation’s incredible professionalism. The CST data released in August showed that between January and June, antisemitic incidents reached the second highest total ever reported to the trust in the first six months of any year. That is a disgrace. Prior to October 2023, the CST had only ever recorded monthly incident totals exceeding 200 on five occasions. In the first half of 2026, the organisation logged more than 200 incidents of anti-Jewish hate in every single month, and more than 300 a month from March to June. Those incidents ranged from threats to life, assaults and arson to damage and desecration of Jewish property and abusive behaviour. But there is another statistic that should stop every Member of this House in their tracks. The latest Home Office figures show that in England and Wales, there were 106 police recorded religious hate crimes targeting Jewish people for every 10,000 Jewish people. Across the population as a whole, the equivalent rate was 1.7 recorded religious hate crimes per 10,000 people. If we put those figures alongside one another, the disparity is extraordinary and horrifying. On that population-adjusted measure, the rate of recorded religious hate crime targeting Jewish people was more than 60 times the rate in the overall population—I repeat, more than 60 times the rate. Religious hate crime is concentrated against Britain’s Jewish community, and on an extraordinary and horrifying scale. In modern Britain, that fact should shock every one of us: it is a stinging indictment of where we are and why this debate is so necessary. It also illustrates why the Government were right, in the summer, to allocate further police resources to tackling the issue. Ultimately, across matters of enforcement, we need to increase police presence, see urgent prosecutions, put a moratorium on hate marches, implement maximum sentencing and deterrence, conduct a comprehensive audit of counter-terrorism cases involving antisemitic motivation, deport foreigners who express antisemitic views supporting violence or terrorism, and better use existing powers to ensure that hatred cannot be targeted at Jewish communities. The question I have is this: is enforcement enough, when the ideas that fester continue to be popular? Many of us across this House were fortunate enough to go to university; yet, as has been said, polling conducted for the Union of Jewish Students earlier this year paints a horrendous picture. How can someone feel safe when one fifth of the university campus would not share a house with them and one in four have seen behaviour targeting Jewish students? Can the Minister confirm when the Government will publish the Bell review into antisemitism in schools, and whether they will accept its recommendations in full? There is nothing intellectual about prejudice, there is nothing progressive about excluding Jews and there is nothing enlightened about recycling vile conspiracy theories that are centuries old. The same polling found that 16% thought it was not antisemitic to claim that Jews control the media or government. We need to tackle the ideologies creating this mindset, because antisemitism does not begin with an attack on a synagogue. It begins with ideas and conspiracy theories. It begins when Jews are treated as a sinister collective and ancient prejudices are allowed to spread under new guises. The need to tackle this across communities is unfortunately clear. Polling by Policy Exchange this year found that more than two in five British Muslims believed that Jews had too much power over the media, weapons manufacturing and the banking system. We should be capable of saying two things at once: the overwhelming majority of British Muslims are not responsible for antisemitism and should never be treated as though they are, but when antisemitic attitudes exist within any communities, we do that community and British Jews no favours by being frightened to confront them.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Safety of the Jewish Community · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that opening doors is part of the solution, but I also agree that we have to tackle antisemitism wherever it might be, and it is most prominent. The same applies to antisemitism on the far right. Hatred does not become acceptable because of the politics of the person expressing it. These views go to the heart of the problem. It is not enough merely to have resources to protect the Jewish community. We must combat the intellectual idiocy that upholds and spreads antisemitic views. The test of a liberal democracy is not whether the majority feel safe; it is whether minorities can live openly as themselves, without fear. I have taken a sombre tone because it is impossible to look at the current situation with rose-tinted glasses. However, for the vast majority of people, antisemitic hatred remains abhorrent. The university polling showed that many recognise this hatred when they see it, with 82% deeming calls to “globalise the intifada” to be antisemitic. That majority matters, but a tolerant majority cannot afford to become a silent majority. My request to the Government today is twofold: first, to use the powers of the state unapologetically to protect Jewish people, and secondly, to go further upstream, work with the Jewish community, listen to Jewish students, challenge institutions that allow antisemitism to flourish, confront extremist ideology regardless of where it originates and, when making decisions in response to events in the middle east, remember that British Jews must never be treated as proxies for the actions of an Israeli Government. Whatever our political disagreements, that principle should be utterly uncontroversial. I know that Members across the House want to see the Jewish community safe, but wanting is no longer enough. When the population-adjusted rate of recorded hate crime targeting Jews stands at more than 60 times the overall population rate, when Jewish students are questioning whether they belong on their own campuses and when Jewish families require security simply to practise their faith, we have to recognise the scale of the emergency before us. That is not simply a problem for the British Jewish community; it is a test for Britain, this Government, this House and our country, and it is one we cannot afford to fail.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Draft Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank you, Mrs Barker, for chairing the debate. I do not think that anybody on the Committee objects in principle to making it easier for someone to prove that they are over 18 without having to carry a passport or similar around with them. There are obvious conveniences for consumers, and potentially for businesses, but I would like the Minister to provide some reassurance about where the measure sits within the Government’s wider approach to digital verification. The order before us appears relatively narrow. It allows licensed premises to rely on a registered digital verification service when checking somebody’s age. We are told that its use will be voluntary, that businesses will not have to accept digital identification and, importantly, that customers will still be able to use physical identification. I welcome that assurance, but I would like the Minister to put it beyond any doubt that there is no intention for digital identification to become, in practice or in law, the only reasonable means by which somebody can prove their age when purchasing alcohol. As technology changes, it is right that the means by which the Government regulate should expand to incorporate and utilise that technology. This should not be about digitally excluding people, but about increasing people’s options and choices and allowing people to do business more easily. As has been acknowledged, the work on this matter is based heavily on efforts begun under the Conservative Government, which were consulted on in 2024. Critically, that work was about ensuring that people have additional methods of proving their age, rather than requiring them to adopt a digital identity. As I see it, allowing shops, for example, to utilise existing verification schemes and then validate them with something like a QR code appears to be a sensible step for the Government to take. More and more people leave the house with only a phone in their pocket, making it all the more likely that their physical ID has been left at home. Giving them another means of proving their age is therefore a practical and sensible development. Although I have noted the likely benefits stemming from the measure, I would like to see clarity on a point made in the other place last week about whether cards bearing the PASS—proof of age standards scheme—hologram will continue to be recognised as the preferred form of physical proof of age. Can the Minister confirm that, in making these changes, there will be no change to the recognition of PASS hologram cards before the office for digital identities and attributes has provided its supporting analysis, and PASS and others have had a proper opportunity to respond? In addition, I understand that retailers in the wine and spirit trade have raised a technical concern about the meaning of the words “deliver identification”. Put simply, when somebody proves their age digitally, what information does the retailer actually need to receive? Is it sufficient for the digital verification provider to confirm that the customer meets the relevant age requirement, or must further identifying information be provided? I hope the Minister can confirm that that will be made absolutely clear to retailers in the updated guidance. Those may be small and more technical elements, but given retailers’ responsibility to ensure that they serve people of the appropriate age, it is critical that we get the regulations right to support businesses and make compliance easier, not more difficult. I would like to return briefly to the question of choice. The Government’s modelling assumes that the uptake of digital verification for this purpose will reach 100% after seven years. If that remains the assumption, can the Minister confirm that those who choose to use physical forms of identification will nevertheless continue to be able to do so? There will be people who do not have a smartphone, people who cannot readily use digital verification services and people who simply do not want to use digital identification. We would not want any of those individuals to be excluded. The benefit of the measure should be that it adds another option, not that the new option gradually becomes the only practical option. Overall, I recognise why the measure has been brought forward and the practical benefits that stem from it. In doing so, I hope that the Government ensure that the conditions they impose allow the system to operate effectively, give businesses the certainty they need and preserve genuine choice for the public. Digital technology can make proving our age more convenient. It should not make having a digital identity a prerequisite for participating in everyday life.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Policing in Cleveland · Hansard source

  More

  As a local Member, I pay tribute to PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough, and to every police officer who has worked tirelessly throughout these horrific and tragic events. Our thoughts remain with their families and colleagues. Despite having the highest crime rate in the country, Cleveland received the lowest increase in funding, with our local Labour police and crime commissioner warning of a £2.4 million shortfall. I very much welcome the mutual aid and the funding that has been announced, but will the Home Secretary guarantee that the new funding formula will properly reflect the pressures of serious and organised crime faced by Cleveland, so that this funding does not prove to be merely a sticking plaster?

• 16 Jul 2026 · Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  I start by joining the many other hon. Members who have paid tribute to Ann Widdecombe. She was a remarkable, inspiring and passionate woman, and I was honoured to welcome her to Stockton on numerous occasions. My thoughts go out to her friends and family. One issue that is raised with me week after week is the growing scourge of off-road bikes and e-bikes. Whether it is in Bishopsgarth or Elm Tree, Ingleby Barwick or Thornaby, residents across Stockton West are fed up with feral, balaclava-clad thugs using these bikes to intimidate communities, tear through parks and footpaths, and make neighbourhoods feel unsafe. Families cannot enjoy parks, older residents feel intimidated and children cannot play safely. This is not simply anti-social behaviour —it is dangerous criminality. I put forward amendments to legislation that would have made it easier for officers to seize vehicles, ensured that non-roadworthy bikes seized from persistent offenders were not returned and explored greater accountability around the sale of off-road bikes in the first place. Those amendments were not accepted, but the problem has not gone away; if anything, it is getting worse. I urge Ministers to look again at the issue and bring forward a comprehensive package of measures that equips police with the powers they need, tackles the supply of these machines and sends a clear message that those who use off-road bikes and e-bikes to terrorise our communities will face real consequences. Another issue that I hear about almost every day is over-development. Across Yarm, Eaglescliffe, Middleton St George and Hartburn, residents increasingly feel that their communities are being asked to shoulder an unfair level of development without the infrastructure to support it. People understand that homes are needed and that young people want somewhere to live, but what they cannot understand is why developments continue to be approved without the roads, school places, GP capacity, drainage and local services keeping pace. Time and again, I hear from residents who feel their voices are ignored. Development should happen with communities, not to them. The Government’s increasing housing targets risk placing more pressure on these communities. Planning should improve places, not simply gobble up the greenbelt to maximise housing numbers. I hope Ministers will continue to look at ways to strengthen the role of infra- structure in planning decisions and ensure that local communities have a meaningful voice before developments are approved. Finally, I pay tribute to Richard Pengelly from Strangers Bar who retires today after 37 years. Richard has not just poured pints—he has poured patience, good humour and the occasional reality check for MPs of every party. The place will not be the same without him. I wish him a long and well-earned retirement, and I look forward to reading his memoirs. Stockton West is an amazing place, with amazing people. I am proud to call it home and I am proud to represent them.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Over recent years, the people of Stockton have seen investment in the local health service, with a new diagnostic centre, a new mental health hub and new state-of-the-art robotics. But North Tees hospital is reaching the end of its life. The outstanding staff who work there deserve a first-class place to work, but instead of a new hospital, all they have had from this Government is 600 job losses. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on the urgent need for a new North Tees hospital?

• 15 Jul 2026 · National Security · Hansard source

  More

  We put in place powers that assist in this. The first duty of any Government is to keep the public safe, regardless of which party is in office. We introduced the National Security Act 2023. The Minister and I have had many debates on this subject, pushing for action, and we have been clear and consistent that the powers should have been used much more quickly. If the Government are now doing what is necessary to protect the public, they will have our support. National security should not be a political football. Groups such as the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right demonstrate how quickly new organisations can emerge, targeting people here in the United Kingdom while often acting on behalf of hostile states. We know that their activities have included threats against dissidents and particular hostility towards Britain’s Jewish community. That brings me to a wider point. The rise in antisemitism we have seen in recent years is deeply disturbing. Jewish people in this country should never have to look over their shoulder because of who they are or what they believe. Equally, those who have come to Britain to escape authoritarian regimes should be able to live here free from intimidation and fear. Protecting those communities is not optional; it is a fundamental responsibility of the state. These organisations, and those who support them, should face the full force of the law. Parliament has provided the powers; now they must be used robustly. When the 2026 Act was before this House, we spent a great deal of time scrutinising how the powers would work in practice. We asked whether there were gaps in the legislation and whether hostile actors might find ways around them. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could reassure the House that the operation of these new powers is being kept under close review, their effectiveness is being assessed, and, if weaknesses emerge, the Government will not hesitate to act. But legislation alone will never be enough. The organisations we are dealing with today are driven by ideologies that reject everything this country stands for. They seek to divide communities, spread hatred and undermine confidence in our democratic way of life. They do not believe in debate; they believe in intimidation. They do not persuade; they threaten. That is why our response has to be broader than enforcement alone. Of course we need strong policing. Of course we need capable intelligence agencies. Of course we need robust legislation. But we also need confidence in who we are as a country. We need to defend the values that unite us: democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. Those are not abstract ideas. They are the very things these organisations seek to attack. If we are serious about protecting our national security, we must do both: relentlessly pursue those who threaten us, while strengthening the resilience of the society they seek to undermine. That is why we support the regulations today. They are an important step and they send a clear message that those acting on behalf of hostile states, or supporting those who do, will find no safe haven in the United Kingdom.

• 15 Jul 2026 · National Security · Hansard source

  More

  It is right that these measures have been brought forward, and the Opposition will support them. The powers Parliament created through the National Security Act exist for precisely this purpose. They are there to respond to hostile state activity and those who threaten our national security. It is right that they are now being used. That said, we have consistently argued that these powers should have been deployed sooner, particularly against the IRGC. We made the case repeatedly because the threat was clear. While it is disappointing that it has taken this long, it is nevertheless welcome that action is now being taken against these organisations. As we heard throughout today’s earlier debate, Iran continues to pose a serious threat to the United Kingdom. It seeks to intimidate, to interfere and to undermine our security, often through the use of proxies and affiliated organisations. That is why it is right that the regulations do not focus solely on the IRGC itself. The Iranian regime does not operate through one organisation alone. It relies on a network of proxies to spread fear, conduct hostile activity and threaten those it regards as opponents. The Minister has already set out clearly why each of these organisations meets the test for designation, so I will not repeat those arguments, but it is important that we recognise the danger they pose.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This has been an important and thoughtful debate, and I begin by thanking Members from across the House for their contributions. There have been genuine differences of opinion this evening, but I think there is broad agreement on one point: our immigration system is not working. Immigration is one of the defining issues facing our country. It goes to the security of our borders, the integrity of our laws, the pressure on our public services, and, ultimately, the confidence the British people have in the ability of the Government to keep their promises. The British people expect an immigration system that is fair to those who play by the rules and firm with those who seek to abuse them. They expect secure borders, swift decisions, effective enforcement and, above all, a Government to deliver. That is the test the Bill must meet. In many respects, today’s debate brings us full circle. Ministers stood at the Dispatch Box and argued that immigration policy should be about grip and control, not gimmicks and false promises, yet over the past two years, we have seen too many headlines, too many announcements and too many promises, while illegal migration has continued to undermine confidence in our borders. Let me be clear: I do not believe that anyone in this House wants to see people risking their life crossing the channel in small boats. Those crossings benefit organised criminal gangs, undermine confidence in our immigration system, place enormous pressure on communities, public services and public finances, and all too often end in tragedy. Nobody should accept them as inevitable. The question before us today is therefore a simple one: does the Bill contain the measures necessary to stop illegal migration? That must surely be the ambition. The Government’s own impact assessment recognises that deterrence is essential, but it also accepts that the deterrent effect of these proposals is too uncertain even to quantify. That uncertainty goes to the heart of the Bill. The fundamental principle should be straightforward: if someone enters the United Kingdom illegally, they should not be able to stay. Everything else flows from that principle. Without it, public confidence is weakened and genuine refugees lose out. Those who come here legally and contribute to our country are let down, and the criminal gangs continue to exploit the gaps in our system. To be fair to the Home Secretary, there are measures in the Bill that the Opposition welcome. It is right that the Government are seeking to recover more of the costs of asylum support. It is right that Ministers are finally acknowledging that the article 8 framework has frustrated removals. It is right that they recognise shortcomings in the operation of the modern slavery system. It is right that they acknowledge that the current appeals process is too slow, too cumbersome and too vulnerable to abuse. In truth, one of the most striking features of the Bill is that the Government have finally accepted many of the arguments that they have spent the last two years dismissing. Recognising a problem, though, is not the same as solving it. The Home Secretary and I agree on much of the diagnosis; we disagree on the cure. Time and again, the Bill identifies the right issues but stops short of the reforms needed to address them. The Government propose a new independent immigration appeals authority, yet they cannot tell us with any certainty whether it will speed up removals or simply replace one backlog with another. The Bill looks to narrow article 8 claims, while simultaneously creating a new, sponsored human rights claim that risks opening another avenue for litigation. It speaks about strengthening deportation powers, yet it leaves unanswered the wider questions about the legal framework that continue to frustrate removals. Despite repeated promises, the Bill contains no comprehensive reforms to settlement, no clear answer on preventing those who arrive illegally from obtaining citizenship, and no comprehensive removals framework capable of delivering the deterrence that Ministers say is necessary. That is why the Opposition have tabled our reasoned amendment. We believe that the Bill does not yet go far enough to restore public confidence or deliver the outcome that the British people rightly expect. Our alternative is clear: those who enter the country illegally should have no right to stay. Several Members have spoken about public confidence, and they are right to do so. Public confidence depends on knowing that the rules matter; that those who have no right to remain will be removed; that foreign national offenders can be deported swiftly; that endless legal challenges cannot frustrate the clearly expressed will of Parliament; and that those who come here legally, work hard and contribute are not disadvantaged by a system that appears unable to distinguish between those who respect the rules and those who seek to exploit them. As has been mentioned, the Home Secretary faces a political challenge from her own Benches. If she wants to come back and deliver real and meaningful reform that will properly secure our borders, and if she needs some support to do that, she can give us a call— [ Interruption. ] Give me a call. The British people do not want another cycle of announcements followed by disappointment. They want to know that criminal gangs will no longer profit from human misery; that dangerous channel crossings will end; and that those with no right to remain will not spend years exhausting endless appeals while the taxpayer picks up the bill. They want to know that Britain remains a country that welcomes those who come legally, while maintaining control over who enters and stays. Those are not unreasonable expectations, but the foundations of a fair immigration system. As the Bill progresses through Committee, the Opposition will scrutinise it carefully. Where measures meaningfully strengthen border security, improve enforcement and restore confidence, we will support them. Where they fall short, we will seek to strengthen them. The Home Secretary has moved some way towards recognising the scale of the challenge facing our immigration system, and I welcome that. The Bill identifies many of the right problems, but it still stops short of the bold reforms needed to solve them. For that reason, we have tabled our reasoned amendment. The British people deserve an immigration system that is fair to those who follow the rules, uncompromising with those who do not, and capable of restoring control of our borders. That remains the standard by which the Opposition will judge the Bill. I commend our reasoned amendment to the House.

• 13 Jul 2026 · High Streets Organised Crime Unit · Hansard source

  More

  Dodgy vape shops are a scourge on our high streets, but even more horrifying are some of the people who run them. Twana Jamal, convicted in France and described as the godfather of people trafficking, has reportedly been found running two vape shops in Leicestershire. Does the Home Secretary agree that that demonstrates the need for stronger powers to tackle rogue vape shops and organised crime? If so, why have the Government cut funding to regional organised crime units, and opposed stronger closure powers for the police and local councils.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Police Officer Numbers · Hansard source

  More

  Under the last Government, police numbers reached a record high. Labour promised to increase police numbers, but instead we have seen them fall. As the Minister was forced to confirm, they are down 1,318 in the last year. Is the Minister doing anything to protect the number of officers in response policing so that when people ring 999 in their hour of need, they are not left waiting?

• 8 Jul 2026 · European Entry and Exit System · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) for securing this important urgent question. Anyone who has travelled or spoken to those who have tried to use the new European entry-exit system understands why the scale of the challenges over summer is so great, and despite all the problems, it has now been reported that a separate new online system to preauthorise entry to the EU will be delayed until next year. That is a pitiful response, indicative of the problems facing so many UK travellers, and there is nowhere near the urgency needed to address the problems facing the EES as we enter the summer holidays. As the president of Airports Council International Europe recently expressed, politicians should “stop pretending...that EES is working just fine. It is not.” That delusional attitude among EU colleagues is not acceptable. With the EU telling representatives of the travel industry that a full suspension of the system is not needed and not possible, the Government must stand behind the interests of British travellers. For instance, there appears to be a ridiculous situation in which a facility built in Dover cannot be activated until the technology for the kiosks, which is the responsibility of the French authorities, is working. My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands, who chairs the Home Affairs Committee, is right: it is time to “apply maximum pressure” before chaos arrives at the border at Dover. Will the Minister detail what conversations the Government have had, and what pressure they will apply? Have they asked for a temporary suspension, relaxation or phased use of EES checks at periods of exceptional congestion? Given the increased traffic, what have the Government done to strengthen plans in case queues spill out of Dover or Folkestone? It is in all our interests to ensure that people can get through border checks quickly, and it is time to ensure that that happens.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Vickers, for chairing today’s debate. For the avoidance of doubt, I want to be clear that the Opposition support the Government’s decision, and welcome what I hope is a first step to stop the proliferation of these dangerous substances. The evidence that the Government and our international partners have presented on orphines shows them to be dangerous substances that we must stop being used as quickly as possible. We must act expediently to crack down on new and dangerous substances without medical uses and stop them making their way into our society. Orphines have already been involved in at least 15 deaths since spring 2025, and I share the concerns of both the Government and the ACMD about the urgent steps needed to protect public health. In that light, the important question for the Government is: when do they expect to transition from the temporary order to a permanent measure that will offer enhanced powers to stop their use? We all recognise that a transition in leadership can cause difficulties in Ministers offering assurances, but it would be helpful if they could set out a timeline for when we might expect the change to be made. Recognising the dangers posed by this compound, we must also acknowledge the need to be agile and have robust enforcement. A presentation by the Australian Prompt Response Network in June this year, on the emerging threat of new synthetic orphines, identified 14 analogues. Although the three most frequently identified on the digital market are covered by the order, it leaves open the possibility of new substances entering the market without being controlled. The continuing evolution of these drugs means that it is necessary to identify at speed which items are entering the market before they result in further deaths. We have a responsibility to those who have died to be ready to identify any changes. As such, does the Minister know whether conversations have been held with police forces about recognising the new substances? Moreover, given the decrease in police officers, is there sufficient capacity to respond to changes? The order is necessary and comes with the support of the ACMD. We must be ready to confront the changing dangers posed by new synthetics, so I sincerely hope that the Government act fast to introduce all the measures that they have accepted.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Police Leadership Commission Report · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement and pay tribute to the noble Lords Herbert and Blunkett for producing such a timely and thoughtful report. The last year has done real damage to public confidence in police leadership. Of course, the report rightly recognises that there are many outstanding officers leading forces across the country, but the headlines that people remember tell a different story. From the shameful scenes surrounding the Maccabi Tel Aviv match to the heartbreaking murder of Henry Nowak, alongside too many other incidents, the public have been left asking a simple question: who is in charge? Leadership is not about managing decline or issuing guidance; it is about setting a culture and making it unmistakeably clear that the first duty of every police officer is to protect the public and uphold the law without fear, without favour and without distraction. The report gets to the heart of that when it says that police leaders must refuse to take sides and remain focused entirely on preventing crime, catching criminals and bringing offenders to justice. Culture starts at the top. If we want frontline policing to change, leadership must change first. What struck me most about the report was not simply its recommendations but the evidence behind them. This is not the work of critics looking in from the outside; it reflects what police officers themselves are saying. As the authors acknowledged in their letter to stakeholders, much of the evidence made for uncomfortable reading. Perhaps the most alarming finding is that only 13% of constables and just 17% of sergeants surveyed believed that they worked in a well-led and well-managed organisation. Think about that: more than four in five officers who put themselves in harm’s way to keep our streets safe do not believe that they work in a well-led organisation. If that does not ring alarm bells, I do not know what will. Time does not permit me to go through all 27 recommendations, but there is much that deserves support. In particular, I welcome the emphasis on merit. Our best officers should be recognised, developed and promoted because they are the best, not because they have ticked the right boxes. But we also have to be honest about the context. The report sits alongside a programme of wider police reform announced by the Government, although reports suggest that the incoming Prime Minister is already getting cold feet about those reforms. That matters, because many of the recommendations assume larger forces and more centralised models. If those reforms do not happen, Ministers need to explain how the recommendations will work in practice rather than simply in principle. There is another contradiction that cannot be ignored. If we want stronger leadership, we need to give police leaders the tools they need to succeed. That means enough officers on the streets and the technology to help them do their jobs effectively. Instead, officer numbers have fallen by about 1,300 across the country. At the same time, in London, the Labour mayor chose to pick a public fight with his own commissioner over the use of technology, with the commissioner making it clear that the mayor’s decision would leave the force able to achieve less. How can we demand better leadership while cutting officer numbers and denying forces the technology they say they need? There is much in the report that hon. Members on both sides of the House can support. Better leadership is not a partisan cause—it is a public necessity—but if we are serious about restoring confidence in policing, we cannot stop at identifying what police leaders should do differently; we also have to stop making political decisions that make their jobs harder. The public deserve better, our best officers deserve better, and the future of policing depends on us getting both police leadership and political leadership correct.

• 6 Jul 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s decision to allow alterations to this Bill will come as a surprise to many who followed it through its earlier stages. As colleagues in the other place observed, this came as a surprise because, throughout the interregnum, the Government repeatedly informed the official Opposition that they were unable to make further policy decisions. That position even extended to measures confirmed as Government policy, such as passport seizure powers. Given that even fundamental issues relating to countries such as China could not be addressed then, it surprising that we are considering further amendments to this Bill now. Nevertheless, we are where we are, and we are considering the Government’s amendments on humanitarian activities. I understand the intention behind them. Nobody wants genuine humanitarian organisations that are carrying out vital work in difficult parts of the world to be caught by legislation never intended to target them, but we also have to recognise the reality of the threats that we face. As the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation recently pointed out, hostile states are willing to hide behind legitimate activity. Just as they might exploit legal or journalistic cover, they might also seek to exploit humanitarian cover. That is why the amendment he suggested was narrower than the one before us today. My concern is that the Government’s wording is capable of broader interpretation, particularly around conduct said to be for the purpose of “the carrying out of humanitarian activities”. That risks creating uncertainty and opportunities for abuse. What is striking is that this is not the position the Government took a short time ago. On Report, the Minister made it clear that genuine humanitarian work would not be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. Indeed, when rejecting amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), she argued that the prohibited purpose test would protect legitimate conduct without creating loopholes for hostile actors. If that was the Government’s position then, what has changed? We would be naive to assume that this defence could never be exploited. We have seen hostile states attempt to use charitable organisations as vehicles for influence and interference. The chief executive of the Charity Commission has warned about those risks, and Ministers themselves have highlighted concerns about Iranian-backed charities operating in this country. Members have worked hard to expose those threats. As we strengthen our powers to tackle hostile state activity, we must be careful not to create new opportunities for hostile actors. This Bill already contains a higher threshold—or safeguards, as some would call them—that creates greater protections for those who support state bodies directing acts of terror, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, than for those who support the terrorist groups that the IRGC funds and directs, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. This threshold, we believe, will make prosecutions far less likely, as the extra hurdle and burden of intent is too high, and necessarily so. In addition, any prosecution requires the consent of the Attorney General, providing a significant safeguard against inappropriate cases. That makes me question whether these provisions are necessary. I appreciate the Government’s intentions, but our first responsibility is to ensure that this legislation is robust. This Bill exists because the threats posed by hostile states are real and growing. If we are giving our police, intelligence agencies and security services the powers they need to respond, we must ensure that those powers are not weakened by loopholes. For that reason, we remain concerned that these amendments, however well intentioned, risk creating opportunities for hostile actors to evade the measures that the Bill is designed to put in place.