Shabana Mahmood MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 Jul 2026 · Death of Ann Widdecombe · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman will know that it is an independent process within the Home Office that deals with the risk assessment and risk management of those in public life. I am not going to compromise the integrity of those arrangements by commenting in any detail on specific instances. Let me simply observe that, in the 10 months I have been in the Home Office, I have seen media reports in relation to various suggested risk assessments and risk mitigations. I have never commented to say whether something is true or false, simply because I believe that the principle of not commenting should not be breached, so as to protect the integrity of the system. The meeting has been offered. Let me assure him that RAVEC is and will always be fiercely independent. It must be, because the protection offered to people, and the level of protection and the tactics of protection that are offered, must never be based on a political assessment of who needs it, but on an independent operational assessment of what risk is and how it is best managed. That operational independence is incredibly important. I will always maintain it and protect it, and I know the Government as a whole will do so as well.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Death of Ann Widdecombe · Hansard source

  More

  I have not seen all the comments that the right hon. and learned Lady refers to, but I have seen some of them, and they were deplorable and completely unacceptable. I know that an apology has been made in relation to comments that were made, I believe, on Sky News. I know that others have reacted with horror and anger at comments that were designed to denigrate Ann’s political views, and to deny her dignity in death. I share the right hon. and learned Lady’s absolute revulsion at such behaviour towards an elderly woman who has lost her life in very distressing and deeply tragic circumstances. It has no place in our politics or our national life, and I know that all Members of the House will agree with that. I urge everyone, wherever they may sit on the political spectrum, to exercise calm and careful judgment before hitting the send button on social media messages. A little time for reflection is often the best thing in these circumstances.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Death of Ann Widdecombe · Hansard source

  More

  That was a very moving and funny set of memories from the right hon. Gentleman—very affecting. “Keep calm and carry on” are definitely words to live by, and we could all do with taking that lesson on board. Let me also echo the right hon. Gentleman’s best wishes for the police as they continue this investigation: Godspeed.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Death of Ann Widdecombe · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we must all do more. I assure him that the Government will work closely with Mr Speaker and the Parliamentary Security Department to make sure that we are doing everything we can, but as I have said in answer to other questions, I think we as a society have to take a stronger position on the right boundary between contested debate and unacceptable behaviour and abuse online. We have more work to do in that space.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Death of Ann Widdecombe · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman makes wise points about the safety of MPs’ home addresses, and in my work alongside Mr Speaker on lessons to be learned from the circumstances of Ann’s murder, I will ensure that we consider the privacy and security of home addresses.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Death of Ann Widdecombe · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. He raised three specific issues. I am happy to discuss amendments to the Representation of the People Bill with him. He knows that the Home Office is not the lead Department on that Bill, but I am happy to have a discussion about any additional legislative measures that might be needed. Of course, the Electoral Commission has its own work to do, and it might be better for duties to be placed elsewhere, but, as I said, I will happily discuss that with him. Equally, on whether any further obligations or changes of policy in respect of the Home Office, or indeed the Parliamentary Security Department, are necessary, I am happy to engage with the hon. Member and other Members across the House. I do not wish to speak for you, Mr Speaker, but I think that all of us who are Members can attest to the fact that we are treated equally in this place by the Speaker and for the purposes of the Parliamentary Security Department when it comes to our safety on the estate and in our constituencies. That position is shared by the Government. There is equal treatment for all in work that we do on security for Members of Parliament. Specific work is undertaken by RAVEC—the executive committee for the protection of royalty and public figures—which is the independent body in the Home Office that looks at security arrangements for some of those in public life. That work is also fiercely independent. It has been the subject of legal proceedings previously, and I have always maintained the independence of that process, which is based on risk assessment and risk management.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Death of Ann Widdecombe · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. He will know that colleagues in DSIT are working carefully on the Online Safety Act 2023 and its further implementation, learning lessons from how it is being applied and thinking carefully about what might need to be done. It is clear that we need a much stronger and better policed boundary between what is acceptable in a democracy and behaviour that is challenging the very foundations of our democracy. I have undertaken to have that discussion with colleagues across government, and I will make sure that the House is updated on the programme of work that the Government intend to take forward. We must make sure that all our arrangements are as robust as possible, and that it is we, the people of this country, who decide the inheritance that we wish to leave for our children, not algorithms operated by a very small number of men who live abroad.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Death of Ann Widdecombe · Hansard source

  More

  Given the sheer range of threats that have been made to the Mother of the House personally, it is a testament to her personal bravery that she has continued to be an active parliamentarian, but it should not take such levels of bravery just to be able to represent the people of your constituency. She is right that we must always ensure that our security arrangements can keep pace with the changing nature of threats. Let me assure the Mother of the House that the Government will do that. We work closely with the Parliamentary Security Department to ensure that that is the case so that all Members can make their contributions just as effectively and for just as long as she has.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Death of Ann Widdecombe · Hansard source

  More

  I think the right hon. Lady is absolutely right. When I was first elected in 2010, I used to run an open, first-come-first-served advice surgery, but that is no longer possible, and I have had to change that in the last few years. I still offer advice surgeries, but on terms that are very different from when I first became a Member of Parliament. That is a huge change, and it is entirely as a result of what happened to Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. It is a tragedy because it does change the way we relate to our constituents. It is a very precious thing, and we must protect that connection between Members of Parliament and those they represent, and between councillors and those they represent as well. That is the work that the Government and the Parliamentary Security Department, Mr Speaker and all his team here in the House are determined to see through to make sure that, even if there are some changes in the way we relate to our constituents, we are still able to do so on terms that we would all recognise as good old British democracy at its best.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Death of Ann Widdecombe · Hansard source

  More

  With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the death of Ann Widdecombe. It is with great sadness that I say those words. My thoughts today are with her family, her friends and all those who loved her. Ann Widdecombe dedicated her life to politics and public service. She was a fixture of our political life for nearly 40 years. She brought conviction to our politics, grounded in her profound Catholic faith. She was forthright in her opinions and argued courageously for the things she believed in. But, perhaps most of all, she brought an inimitable style to politics. She was forthright and fearless. As Lord Howard of Lympne can attest, she had a memorable turn of phrase. And she was joyful: she thought seriously about ideas but did not take herself too seriously, and that allowed her to reach beyond this place and charm the country at large. She was one of those rare politicians who was bigger than politics. There have been so many moving tributes in the past few days, reflecting Ann’s impact both within this place and beyond politics. But I think her outlook on life is best summed up by Ann herself. Sitting on Graham Norton’s sofa, she said: “We get one go this side of eternity—one go. Life is not a dress rehearsal. You take opportunities that you like, and you go for it.” Ann took her opportunities. She was the proud MP for Maidstone for 23 years—a champion of her constituents. She served the country in government, as Minister for employment and then Minister for prisons. She took politics out of these ancient walls and became a bona fide TV star. Her contribution to our politics and national life will never be forgotten. On Wednesday, Ann Widdecombe was murdered in her home. The circumstances of her death are extremely distressing. Counter Terrorism Policing has now taken the lead in the investigation. As Laurence Taylor, the head of national Counter Terrorism Policing has said: “We now have new information and evidence that means Counter Terrorism Policing is leading the investigation... We are pursuing multiple lines of inquiry to establish the motivation for this attack.” The police now have a suspect in custody: a 28-year-old white British man. I can confirm to the House that this man was not known to Prevent. The police have cautioned against speculating about the case. That is the right thing to do for Ann’s family and friends. It is also vital that the police are given the space they need to carry out their work. For now, what matters most is supporting the investigation, so that we can see justice delivered for Ann and all who loved her. I urge anyone, with any information at all, to come forward immediately. I know this raises questions about the security of those in public life. I will not be the only one in the Chamber also thinking of two other beloved Members of this House: Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. Politics is a calling for those of us here, but it should not be a dangerous one. It is incumbent on the House and the Government to work together to protect those who choose to serve. The Home Office and the police work closely with the Parliamentary Security Department to provide practical advice and support directly to MPs. But we must always be vigilant and respond to changing threats. Security measures are kept under constant review to ensure that MPs can carry out their duties safely. The police intend to issue guidance to MPs soon, and they will be contacting parliamentarians in their constituencies to offer support. I also recently commissioned the former Lord Chancellor, Sir Robert Buckland, to review the lessons from Sir David Amess’s murder, including into required improvements to security for MPs working in their constituencies. I recognise the particular concern that the Reform UK party will feel today, and of course Nigel Farage, the party’s leader. I am happy to offer a meeting for Mr Farage with the chair of RAVEC—the Royal and VIP Executive Committee—the independent body within the Home Office that manages the security of those in public life. I will also be looking at what security guidance can be provided to former Members of Parliament, which I hope to work with you on, Mr Speaker, as well as to those who serve a party outside of this place. Today is a dark day in our political life, but we must also use it as an opportunity to celebrate Ann Widdecombe’s memory. She was a unique figure in our politics: a distinctive and devoted public servant, the likes of whom we will rarely, if ever, see again. Ann had a profound faith. Her journey in this life has ended too soon, but may she now rest in eternal peace. I commend this statement to the House.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Asylum Hotels · Hansard source

  More

  No decision has been taken, and all these factors, including other community assets, such as schools and community facilities, are taken into account as part of the decision making.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Asylum Hotels · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman is correct: if we are to deal with this problem effectively, we must also reduce the inflow of people coming across the channel. As he will know, later today we will debate a Bill that includes measures designed to do just that, and since I have been Home Secretary I have announced wider policy changes designed to alter the calculations of those who are in the north of France seeking to get on to a boat to come to this country. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is signalling the Conservative party’s previous policy, the Rwanda scheme. As he will know, we disagree with that as a deterrent, but we are working on every other measure to deter those people from making the journeys in the first place.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Asylum Hotels · Hansard source

  More

  Before I answer the question, may I briefly say what is on the minds of many in this House and pay tribute to Ann Widdecombe? She was a true public servant, and I will shortly make a statement about Ann and the ongoing police investigation. This Government committed to end the use of asylum hotels in this Parliament, and we are on track to deliver just that. We have brought the number of hotels down from 213 in July 2024 to fewer than 170 today, meaning that one in five hotels open at the election are now closed. We continue to move people into more basic accommodation, speed up caseworking and remove record numbers of people from this country.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Asylum Hotels · Hansard source

  More

  I reassure my hon. Friend that we work closely with local authorities, accommodation providers and safeguarding partners to ensure that families and vulnerable individuals receive the support they need throughout any move, and that is true across the whole UK. We understand that hotels can impact community tensions, and although people have a right to protest peacefully, nobody has the right to intimidate communities or vulnerable families.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Asylum Hotels · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for the tremendous campaigning he has done in this House on behalf of his constituents. There may be further good news to come, but this Government have a commitment to end the use of all asylum hotels by the end of the Parliament, and we are on track to do that.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Asylum Hotels · Hansard source

  More

  Those are contracts that we inherited, and they will be retendered under this Government to ensure that we drive value for money across them. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the cost of asylum accommodation and support has come down by more than £1 billion since this Government came to office, and we will continue to make progress in that regard.

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

  More

  I have already answered the point about proposals around indefinite leave to remain; I remind the right hon. and learned Lady, and the House, that it has been settled Government policy to increase the qualifying period from five years to 10 years since last summer—since before I was Home Secretary. In our earned settlement consultation, we have set out a series of proposals that we are consulting on. We are seeking views on the appropriate transitional arrangements that should be applied to that cohort. That is not what we are debating today, but if there is one thing I am sure of, it is that those arrangements will be the subject of intense debate in the weeks and months to come.

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

  More

  Actually, I think we need to focus our efforts in a number of areas. We need to ensure that we are improving the quality and speed of initial decisions, and we have been doing that. However, as my hon. Friend will know and as I have just set out, people make multiple claims, often at the last minute. I raised the example of a foreign national offender who it took us four years to remove from the country after he had served a sentence. That is because he kept putting in appeal after appeal after appeal after appeal. These reforms are designed to deal with that problem. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that we need to be able to look at the system in its totality, so we should absolutely look at the quality of initial decisions, but there is no silver bullet here. There is nothing that says, “As long as you fix that one thing, you are not going to have a problem anywhere else.” There will still be claims that are rightly refused both at the initial stage and at appeal stage, and it is imperative that we can remove people from this country as quickly as possible when they have no right to be here. It is vital that we provide protection to those who are truly in need. Following the devastation of the second world war, this country led the world in promoting human rights to ensure that we learned from the horrors of the past. This Government will always be committed to that internationalist ideal and to the robust human rights laws that underpin it. However, we are also realists, so we admit where noble intentions have been misused and abused. Today, too often, we see well-meaning laws used not to defend a human right, but as a way to frustrate the removal of someone with no right to be in this country, including failed asylum seekers, visa abusers and even foreign criminals. The British people have a natural sense of fairness. They believe that those who require protection should receive it, but no one should be able to abuse that protection. The abuse of human rights law does not just erode the public’s support for our immigration system; it erodes their support for the very idea of having such laws at all. For those who believe that these laws matter, it is essential that we reform them to end their abuse. Clauses 17 to 20 reform the domestic application of article 8 of the European convention on human rights—the right to a family and private life. Article 8 is undoubtedly a vital protection, but it is a qualified right. That means that the rights of individuals must be weighed against the public interest. Over time, the balance between an individual’s family rights and the rights of the wider community has shifted. Without a clear definition from Parliament of how that balance should be struck, the interpretation of article 8 in our domestic courts has expanded beyond the original convention and what Strasbourg case law requires. To understand how far the balance has shifted, consider just one example. In 2025, an Albanian man jailed for growing cannabis escaped deportation not because he had any right to be here, but because it was deemed unduly harsh on his partner to deport him. She was not his wife or life partner—instead, this relationship began only after a deportation order had been served. Why was the deportation deemed to be unduly harsh? The partner spoke no Albanian and had never visited the country before. While that is just one example, the expansion of article 8 is clear throughout the system. More than half of those who stayed in the UK for family reasons last year did not meet our own rules, relying instead on their article 8 rights, and 71% of those who stay in the UK because of article 8 rights arrived here illegally or overstayed their visa. The Bill addresses both the definition of family life and the public interest test. Clause 19 tightly defines the public interest. It clarifies that judges must consider the economic impact on the taxpayer of allowing people to remain in the UK, including whether they are able to support their family, and that no weight should be given to an article 8 claim when someone is here illegally. Clause 20 strengthens the public interest test so that foreign criminals can be removed more easily. It states that the more serious the offending, the greater the public interest in removing them from this country. It also specifically addresses those facing deportation who may be appealing on article 8 grounds. The Bill makes it clear that a deportation should go ahead outside of a limited number of truly exceptional circumstances, as set out in clause 20. On the subject of deporting foreign criminals, the Government intend to table an amendment to the Bill in response to the widely reported case of the vile grooming gang leader Shabir Ahmed. Our amendment will provide the Home Secretary with a new power to disapply section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971 for serious criminals. That section provides protections for long-term UK residents, but it clearly should not act as a bar to removal in cases such as that of Shabir Ahmed. The threshold for the power will be tied to the power to deprive citizenship, which applies only in cases of exceptional severity. It is important to note that that does not guarantee his removal from this country, as the Conservatives know all too well from their own experience. The Foreign Secretary and I will continue to work on all avenues to pursue a deportation. I know that the thoughts of everyone here are with the victims and survivors of this vile criminal. Let me return to the Bill as drafted and our reforms to the definition of family life in domestic law. Clause 18 tightens the definition of family life. For immigration purposes, a “family” will now normally mean relationships in the immediate family unit. That means a spouse or partner, a parent or a child under the age of 18, apart from in truly exceptional circumstances, such as an incapacitated adult who lives with and is entirely dependent on their sibling. Clause 19 makes it clear that judges must consider when article 8 rights were established and, in particular, whether that happened after someone entered this country illegally or overstayed their visa. In clause 17, we clarify whose article 8 rights should be considered. This makes it clear that for someone overseas to come to the UK on article 8 grounds, a family life claim must be made by a UK-based sponsor, and cannot be made by family members overseas. That is because our obligations under the ECHR are, rightly, to those who are living in the UK. In clause 19, as part of our reforms to article 8, we set out where it is unreasonable to expect a child to leave the UK when a member of their family is being removed. Specifically, it is if the child will not receive an education in the other country or will not be able to integrate into that country, or where relocation would have a very significant and long-lasting adverse effect on them. This brings us in line with case law in the European Court. We also set out the limited circumstances in which it may be reasonable to remove a parent where they do not have a genuine and subsisting relationship with the child. In doing so, we once again bring UK law in line with existing Strasbourg case law. We do so with legitimate cause. As the interpretation of article 8 has widened, we have seen shocking examples of the abuse of parental relationships, including a paedophile who was allowed to stay in this country because his deportation to Pakistan was, under article 8, considered “unduly harsh” on his children. That was despite the fact that his contact with those very same children is restricted by law, in order to protect them from their father. The Home Office appealed the case and eventually won, but only after a lengthy legal battle necessitated by the lack of a clear definition in the law. This Bill rectifies that situation.

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

  More

  I will give way to the right hon. Lady, but I will make progress after that.

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

  More

  I think my hon. Friend means mandatory reconsideration in the context of a case when an appeal is made.

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

  More

  As my hon. and learned Friend will know, 50% of a 150,000 backlog is still 75,000 cases. He will also know that the multiple appeals made to delay and frustrate legitimate removal from the country are a real problem in the system. That is why our proposals include a single appeal route. With the new authority, we are seeking to change the totality of the behaviours that are designed to frustrate lawful, legitimate removal from this country.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right—yes, they can and they do. That is the difference with a safe and legal route that has buy-in from communities across the country, and that is the basis on which we will build a system for the future.

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

  More

  I say to the right hon. Lady, for whom I have the greatest respect, that it is not as if I am about to forget my own background, so I do not really need other people to remind me of my own history or background in my own country. We are talking about people smugglers, and about men, women and children—these days, primarily young men—getting on small boats in the channel and crossing into this country. They are not arriving in a safe and legal way. They are not migrants in the usual sense. We wish to pivot to a system in which this country will live up to its responsibilities to help those in need across the world and fulfil our international obligations by taking people through safe and legal routes. We will be able to increase the numbers that we take on those routes, and that will be subject to debate in this Parliament. We will ensure that we are playing our full part, but in a controlled way that does not put tens of thousands of pounds per person in the hands of people smugglers. The right hon. Lady knows that that is the trade we are trying to break. We have been going after the gangmasters, and now we must make legal changes to change the calculus of those who seek to get on a boat in the north of France. The Bill focuses on how we reduce the numbers arriving unsafely and illegally in this country and on reducing the burden placed on local communities. It is designed to be fair to genuine refugees and fair to British citizens. It will ensure that asylum claims are fair and fast, with legitimate claimants not stuck in limbo, and ensure the swift removal of those with no right to be here. It will ensure that human rights protections remain robust where they must be, but are also tightened where necessary to eradicate the abuse that has crept into our system. Finally, the measures in the Bill ensure that we support those in their hour of need while making it clear that, although this may be a right, it comes with responsibilities. When the recipients of public support are in a position to contribute to their costs, they should do so. With those goals in mind, I will take the House through the detail of the Bill. It begins with measures to make asylum decisions fast and fair. Today, the backlog in appeals hearings is a major barrier to this. Although the Government have slashed the backlog in initial decisions, the vast majority of failed asylum seekers lodge an appeal. There are now more than 150,000 people waiting for an appeal decision, with average wait times of well over a year. We must be honest about the nature of the appeals queue.

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

  More

  Indefinite leave to remain, and the Government’s proposals on earned settlement, will be settled policy later this year when the Government respond to the earned settlement consultation, in which we have said that we are consulting on transitional arrangements. Those will be settled later this year, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not the subject of the Bill.

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

  More

  Well, I disagree with my hon. Friend, the Bar Council and other groups on this matter. In fact, I will shortly set out the many tribunals in which people make decisions of great import every single day without being required to be legally qualified professionals before they do so. We must be honest about the nature of the appeals queue. Some are genuine appeals, but others have been made simply to delay a legitimate removal from this country. By placing themselves last in the long queue for a hearing, people delay the date of their removal, continue to receive taxpayer support and use the time to accrue rights that could strengthen their appeal. The best way to prevent this gaming of the system is to speed up decision making while ensuring that claims are heard fully and fairly.