Shabana Mahmood MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That conduct would not be caught. Again, I point the hon. Member to proposed new section 17B, where the combination of subsection (6)(b) and subsection (4) ensures that the work of NGOs is not caught by the tests set out. We have had specific advice on that point from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, I have discussed it at length with the Attorney General’s Office, and Law Officers have had a look at it. We believe that the way in which the Bill is constructed does not catch humanitarian activities. It is not intended to do so, and we have made it clear in the explanatory notes that it will not do so. Our reading of how the Bill is constructed means that it will not do so. Let me move on to the third offence in clause 2, which is of obtaining a material benefit from a designated body. An individual is outlawed from receiving a payment or a gift from a designated body either on their own behalf or on behalf of someone else. The very act of making the agreement would also constitute a crime even if no money were exchanged and no service were provided. That would cover a hacker hired to carry out a cyber-attack, a criminal gang commissioned to conduct arson attacks on British soil and a gang recruiting thugs to do their state-directed dirty work. Those two offences—assisting and benefiting from a designated body—would carry prison terms of up to 14 years alongside the sentences they may receive for any other illegal activity conducted, with sabotage and espionage offences carrying life sentences. To trigger the offences of assisting a designated body and of obtaining benefit from a designated body, an individual must know that they are aiding a body that has been designated or, crucially, ought reasonably to know that they are doing so. Ignorance is therefore not a defence. If a reasonable person should have been able to surmise who would benefit from such an attack, the individual will be prosecuted despite their professed ignorance. The new powers are significant—

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Let me be very clear: it is the former of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s points. On the construction of knowing or “ought reasonably to know”, obviously the “ought reasonably to know” is both a subjective test of what was known and then an objective test as to what it is reasonable to surmise based on that knowledge. We think that captures exactly the kind of activity that I hope all of us in the House can agree should meet the test for criminal sanction. Let me make progress quicker than perhaps others might have wanted. As I have noted already, the genesis for the Bill comes from the excellent work of Jonathan Hall KC, whom I thank for the work he has completed. In May 2025, he made further recommendations regarding gaps in our state-threats legislation. The Government have accepted all his recommendations in full, and we will legislate for them all in due course, but, in the interests of the pace at which we are required to bring this vital legislation forward, that will not happen in this Bill. As was set out in the King’s Speech, there will be further national security legislation in this Session. Every day, our intelligence agencies and their law enforcement colleagues make this country safer for their presence. They do so, however, facing a rising challenge. The threat from terrorism is growing and, at the same time, we face foreign powers acting with greater hostility than we have seen at any time since the cold war. In the face of the growing threat, it is essential that we equip those we expect to protect us with the tools they need to do the job at the moment that they need them the most. The need for the Bill is therefore great. It gives us a new and powerful tool to tackle hostile states and those who act on their behalf. I end with a request to the House. We do not just require this Bill; we require it as quickly as possible. For that reason, the Government have promised to fast-track the legislation through both Houses. While we must debate it fully and rigorously, and I know that we will, I hope we can work together in the pursuit of a shared ideal, and one that is greater than our political differences: our solemn duty to protect our country. I hope that, today, the whole House can unite around the first and most sacred responsibility of us all. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. The Bill seeks to create the legal framework by which designations will be made in future. The Bill will hopefully be approved quickly by Parliament, and I will seek to move forward with designations as quickly as possible, to deal with the threats that I am discussing in the House today. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the fact that I have spent some time considering the different nature of the threat posed by these three states in particular shows that we are very alive to the ways in which they use their unique positions to pose a threat to us in the United Kingdom. He is right about the way in which Iran operates; it is different from how Russia and China operate. The Government have to be alive to the different type of risks posed by these three countries in particular. At the moment, those countries account for a large proportion of the hostile activities that are monitored by our security services, but those activities are not exclusive to those three countries. On matters of oversight, I will repeat my starting position. I do think that our current framework is robust and has stood the test of time. Of course, things change, and we would review the framework all the time anyway. I repeat my general offer—I suspect that I am making it to the whole of the ISC, given how well represented it is in this debate—of a conversation to pick up any concerns that its members have. The Minister for Security and I will make sure that we consider any additional proposals fully, but I am mindful that we do not want a position in which the Government cannot act quickly, or to over-regulate what is necessarily an Executive function, as speed is often of the essence. With that understood, a sensible conversation is always welcome. In relation to Iran, Members will be aware that two men await trial under the National Security Act for the surveillance of Jewish sites. While investigations remain ongoing, the police are exploring potential links between Iran and the spate of arson attacks directed at our Jewish community in London. Faced with this intolerable hostility, our nation has bolstered its defences. The National Security Act, brought forward by the previous Government and supported by Labour, rightly commanded support from both sides of the House. It has given our authorities new tools and provided the legal underpinning for a series of complex and sensitive investigations, and it has secured important convictions, including of two men for gathering information and conducting surveillance to assist the Chinese state. In addition, the foreign influence registration scheme has been in force for close to a year. Russia and Iran are placed on its enhanced tier. Anyone now conducting activity on behalf of those states faces a clear choice: identify themselves and register their activity, or face the prospect of prison. Sanctions remain a vital tool in our action against hostile states. The UK now has more than 550 sanctions against Iranian-linked individuals and organisations, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety. Through measures like these, we have made this country a harder target. However, as we improve our defences, our adversaries respond and change their behaviour to pose new threats to our country. That has been particularly evident in the rising use of proxy groups—criminal gangs, professional enablers and front companies that do the bidding of a foreign power, against the interests of this country, in exchange for money. There has long been a desire to ban state-linked organisations from operating in this country, and to target those who facilitate them. That is why the Government made a manifesto commitment to deal with state-backed domestic security threats in the same way that we tackle terrorism. The question was how to create the right legal power to do so. My predecessor, now the Foreign Secretary, tasked Jonathan Hall KC, the Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism and state threats legislation, with answering that question.

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. The first responsibility of a state is to protect its citizens. The security of our nation is the basis upon which our democracy, our prosperity and our way of life depend. If a state cannot guarantee the safety of its people, every other promise it makes rings hollow. Today we debate a relatively short Bill, but its brevity should not be mistaken for unimportance; it is essential to meeting the sacred responsibility of protecting this country and our fellow citizens. This Bill comes at a time when the need is great. We live in an increasingly dangerous world—one in which many of our old assumptions no longer hold. The boundaries between war and peace have blurred; the tactics employed by hostile actors have become more sophisticated, more deniable and more insidious; and the threat has grown in scale. The director general of MI5 recently revealed that the number of individuals under investigation for state threat activity had grown by more than a third in the space of a year. After many years in which the Security Service was focused overwhelmingly on counter-terror work, it must now also respond to threats from foreign powers that are greater in number than at any time in a generation. The nature of the threats posed by foreign powers will be known by many in this House. We have seen physical threats against individuals and property; we have witnessed attempts to interfere in and influence our democracy; and we have experienced cyber-attacks targeting both the state and the private sector that disrupt critical infrastructure and compromise sensitive data. The source of these state threats has come predominantly, although not exclusively, from three countries: Russia, China and Iran. I should emphasise that the threats from each present differently, both in scope and nature, and I will take each in turn. The Russian state, as we know all too well, is responsible for deaths on British soil. What began with the murder of Alexander Litvinenko was repeated in Salisbury with the attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal. The Russian state’s wanton disregard for human life was evident in the risks it was happy to pose to British citizens, which led, tragically, to the death of Dawn Sturgess—an innocent British woman killed by the Russian state. Putin’s Russia has also sought to influence our politics, as demonstrated by the guilty plea by Nathan Gill, Reform UK’s former leader in Wales, who accepted bribes for peddling pro-Kremlin narratives. Russia is also a prolific and malevolent force in cyber-space. A recent targeting of politicians, journalists, universities and civil society organisations was disrupted by our security services in December 2025, resulting in the sanctioning of eight Russian cyber-intelligence officers. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, our approach to China is nuanced: we will co-operate where we can and challenge where we must. There are areas on which we will engage with China, including the economy, the environment and, indeed, on certain shared security challenges. Choosing not to engage with China is no choice at all. However, national security is the first duty of Government, and China does pose real national security threats to the United Kingdom. We have seen cyber-attacks, foreign interference, and espionage targeted at our institutions. Just days ago, MI5 and fellow Five Eyes members issued an alert warning of the threat posed by China’s military intelligence services. The Hong Kong police force has also encouraged transnational repression on our soil against a community to whom we are proud to have given sanctuary.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Protest Policing · Hansard source

  More

  With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on public order. The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Mark Rowley, has requested a prohibition on processions relating to al-Quds Day under section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986. I have consented to that request, placing a ban on those processions for both protesters and counter-protesters that will now last for a month. This is the first ban since 2012, so I wish to explain to the House today why I have done so. It is important that we start with the context. Initiated by Iran’s then leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, in 1979, al-Quds Day is an event held on the last Friday of Ramadan. The day is marked worldwide by rallies and demonstrations in support of Palestine, including here in Britain. Plans for a procession this Sunday in London have been led by the Islamic Human Rights Commission, an organisation that has been closely associated with the Iranian regime. Of course, this year’s event interacts with the ongoing conflict in the middle east. It comes at a time when the Iranian regime is attacking British forces and bases, as well as those of our allies. It also comes just days after the arrest of four individuals as part of an investigation led by counter-terror police. Those individuals were arrested under the National Security Act 2023 for allegedly spying on Jewish communities on behalf of the Iranian regime. This context creates clear challenges for the police: heightened attention and therefore larger expected attendance, and heightened tensions between protesters and counter-protesters and therefore greater potential for conflict. The expertise on whether and how those challenges can be safely managed rightly sits with the police, and the legal test is clear. Any request to prohibit a procession must only be lodged with the aim of preventing serious public disorder that could not otherwise be prevented by imposing other conditions on a public procession under section 12 of the Public Order Act. Section 12 conditions typically include specifying the route, location and times of a protest. Under normal circumstances, they are sufficient to ensure protests remain peaceful and the public are kept safe. However, the commissioner has clearly stated that the Metropolitan police’s view is that serious public disorder cannot be avoided unless a prohibition under section 13 is introduced. That assessment is grounded in the tensions created by international conflict, the scale of the expected march, and the presence of protesters and multiple counter-protesting groups all seeking to march at once. My first duty is to keep the public safe. Having carefully and thoroughly considered the risk assessment presented to me by the Metropolitan police, I am satisfied that an order under section 13 is necessary. For one month, there will therefore be a prohibition on processions in London related to al-Quds Day involving protesters and counter-protesters, which will come into effect today and end on 11 April. Should the commissioner consider that a further extension is required, he will be able to make a further submission at that time. I must be clear about what this prohibition does not do. The police and the Home Secretary only have the power to prohibit a public procession. Section 13 cannot be used to ban a static protest, referred to in the legislation as a “public assembly”. Should a static demonstration proceed this weekend, the police will not be able to stop it. Instead, they will be able to impose conditions, such as dictating the precise location and timing. People will therefore be able to exercise their right to peaceful protest, although the full force of the law will be enforced if hate crimes, or other crimes, are committed. Today’s announcement is confined to specific circumstances, but I know that it will excite scrutiny of the wider issue of policing protests. The House will be aware that I have appointed Lord Macdonald of River Glaven to carry out an independent review of public order and hate crime legislation. His review is ongoing, and I will update the House on its findings at the earliest possible moment. I do, however, want to make a wider point about the right to protest in this country. What I have announced today is narrowly focused on specific circumstances in a unique moment, but it does not alter an enduring fact. In this country, we rightly pride ourselves on our freedoms, including the right to peaceful protest. It is a precious right and one that I revere, as it sets us apart from autocracies of all kinds across the world. This prohibition is therefore limited and specific. It bans marches, but not static demonstrations, in relation to al-Quds Day. Equally, I must add, there is no prohibition on protesting against the plight of Palestinians, and there never will be. Hundreds of protests have already taken place across the country this year in solidarity with Palestinians, and the Met alone has policed 32. Peaceful and lawful protest, whether for Palestine or for Israel, or for any other cause, must be cherished and protected, and this Government will always defend that sacred freedom. At the same time, as Home Secretary I have a solemn duty—and it is my first duty—to keep the British people safe. I have been presented with the assessment of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police that he cannot guarantee the security of our capital and prevent serious public disorder without a prohibition on processions relating to al-Quds Day. I have reviewed his assessment, and it is clear to me that my duty to the public and their safety dictates that I must accept his request. It is right that we prohibit these processions, while continuing to uphold our ancient commitments to the freedoms of which we are rightly proud. That is the balance that I have sought to strike today, and I commend my statement to the House.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Asylum Seekers: Hotels · Hansard source

  More

  Asylum hotels were a legacy of the last Conservative Government—at their peak, there were 400 open across the country, as asylum case working had ground to a halt. We have already restarted decision making, increased returns and opened new military sites. We are now closing asylum hotels, and by the end of this Parliament, we will have shut every single one.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Asylum Seekers: Hotels · Hansard source

  More

  There are no easy options having inherited a broken asylum system and in which there are asylum hotels, which were opened by the Conservative party, in operation across the whole of the country. We believe that large military sites are a better way of reducing the burden felt by communities across the country, including in Scotland. I reassure my hon. Friend that, by the end of this Parliament, we will get out of every single asylum hotel, including in his constituency.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  This Government pledged to restore order and control to our borders, and our work is taking effect. Since we took office, removals of illegal migrants are up 31%, to nearly 60,000, forced returns are up 45%, and deportations of foreign criminals are up by a third. In December we imposed visa sanctions on three countries—Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo—and those sanctions have worked, with each of those countries now accepting its citizens back. I know that the public want us to do more, and we will: we will reform human rights law and our appeals processes to swiftly remove those with no right to be here. This country will always offer sanctuary to genuine refugees, but with those who do not play by the rules, we must be firm. The previous Conservative Government lost control, and it is this Labour Government who are restoring order to our border.

• 14 Jan 2026 · West Midlands Police · Hansard source

  More

  With permission, I will make a statement on the decision to ban the travelling fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv from attending a game at Villa Park in November last year. The decision was taken by Birmingham city council, following the advice of the safety advisory group, which acted on a recommendation by West Midlands police. The House will be familiar with much of the detail, not least as the Home Affairs Committee has applied itself to the matter with its customary forensic focus, but it is important to begin this statement by laying out the facts. On 8 October, at a meeting with a number of chief constables from across the country, I was informed that West Midlands police force was considering its options to ensure the game could be conducted safely. As the minutes of the meeting show, a ban on fans was one of the options under consideration. Such policing decisions are subject to operational independence. Politicians cannot dictate how the police choose to manage risk, so although my Department sought information thereafter on what decision was to be taken, I did not seek to influence it. I did not because I could not while a range of options were still under consideration. All options remained on the table until a decision was eventually taken by the safety advisory group on 16 October. The decision taken that day to ban the travelling fans was clearly of considerable national and even international importance. Maccabi Tel Aviv fans who sought to travel to this country to enjoy a football match were told that they could not, because the game’s safety could not be guaranteed. This came, lest we ever forget, just two weeks after the most horrific antisemitic terrorist attack this country has ever known. On 16 October, the day the decision was taken, the Prime Minister and I both voiced our considerable concern, setting out our belief that the game should go ahead with all fans present. The Government sought further information from West Midlands police and offered the resources required to ensure that the game could go ahead. A subsequent meeting of the safety advisory group was then arranged, on 24 October. At that moment, its chair requested “a wholly fresh consideration of the issue”, at which point the intelligence provided by West Midlands police hardened, and the recommendation to ban fans was upheld. In the days that followed, it was clear to me that an external review of the decision was required, as well as a review of wider questions around safety advisory groups. On 31 October, I commissioned a rapid review by His Majesty’s inspector of constabulary and fire and rescue services, Sir Andy Cooke, and on 27 November, as the intelligence that the force provided was called into doubt, I asked him to look specifically at that issue. Today, I have received Sir Andy’s interim report, and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Sir Andy’s findings are damning—there is no other way to describe them. The force, we now discover, conducted little engagement with the Jewish community, and none with the Jewish community in Birmingham, before a decision was taken. As Sir Andy says, it is no excuse to claim, as the force now does, that high holy days during the relevant time prevented engagement. Most concerningly, Sir Andy describes, in the approach taken by West Midlands police, what he characterises as “confirmation bias”. This means that rather than following the evidence, the force sought only evidence to support their desired position, which was to ban the fans. This saw West Midlands police speaking to Dutch police following a game in which there had been fan violence, while failing to speak to police in other countries—Greece, Ukraine and Denmark—where Maccabi Tel Aviv had played more recently, and where things had gone more peacefully. The West Midlands police engagement with the Dutch police is one of the most disquieting elements of Sir Andy’s report. The summary provided as evidence to the safety advisory group ahead of its crucial meeting on 24 October was inaccurate. Claims including those about the number of police officers deployed, the links between fans and the Israel Defence Forces, the targeting of Muslim communities, the mass tearing down of Palestinian flags, and attacks on police officers and taxi drivers were all either exaggerated or simply untrue. In his report, Sir Andy is clear that the force’s validation of intelligence was a cause for “significant concern”, and that record keeping within the force was “poor”. He was “especially concerned” about the handling of sensitive information that should never have been shared without redaction. Sir Andy also points to a series of public statements from West Midlands police that we now know to have been misleading. He shows that the police overstated the threat posed by the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, while understating the risk posed to Israeli fans if they travelled to the area. The term “misleading communications” also extends to the words of the chief constable himself at his appearance in front of the Home Affairs Committee; he claimed that artificial intelligence tools were not used to prepare intelligence reports—a claim since refuted by one of his own officers, who blames incorrect evidence on “an AI hallucination”. I know better than most that West Midlands police officers do their duty bravely, day in and day out. Sir Andy’s report does not argue that the entire force is failing, but it is clear from the report that on an issue of huge significance to the Jewish community in this country, and to us all, we have witnessed a failure of leadership that has harmed the reputation of and eroded public confidence in West Midlands police, and policing more broadly. Faced with a game of such importance, the chief constable of the force, Craig Guildford, should have ensured that more professional and thorough work was done. As Sir Andy says, the shortcomings detailed in his report are “symptomatic of a force not applying the necessary strategic oversight and not paying enough attention to important matters of detail, including at the most senior levels.” The ultimate responsibility for the force’s failure to discharge its duties on a matter of such national importance rests with the chief constable. It is for that reason that I must declare today that the chief constable of West Midlands police no longer has my confidence. It has been, as I understand it, over 20 years since a Home Secretary last made such a statement, but on the evidence provided by Sir Andy Cooke, the chief inspector of policing, that is now the case. Until 2011, the Home Secretary had the authority to dismiss a chief constable, but the power was removed by the previous Conservative Government. Today, only police and crime commissioners hold that power, so the chief constable’s future rests with the local police and crime commissioner, and not with me. I am sure that Simon Foster will now follow all due process as he considers the question for himself. However, I believe that this case illustrates that Home Secretaries should, in future, have that power restored to them. When a chief constable is responsible for a damaging failure of leadership, the public rightly expect the Home Secretary to act, and I intend to restore their ability to do so. I can announce today that the Government will soon reintroduce the Home Secretary’s power to dismiss chief constables in the light of significant or persistent failings, and that this will be part of the Government’s upcoming White Paper on wider police reform, with legislation to follow. I do not expect the power to be used often, but it must be available at those rare moments when it is warranted. Sir Andy Cooke’s report is devastating. It catalogues failures that did not just affect the travelling fans but let down our entire Jewish community in the west midlands and across the country. I speak today not just as Home Secretary, but as a Member of Parliament for a Birmingham constituency. In his report, Sir Andy says that he believes that the police acted in an attempt to avoid long-term damage to local community relations; if that is the case, what a grossly misguided effort it was. Peaceful, harmonious communities rely on a police service that, above all else, pursues the truth. We live in a world where misinformation flows freely and dangerously; in this case, the police added further misinformation to the public debate, when they could and should have provided the truth, which could have allayed fears. In doing what it did, West Midlands police force did not support community relations; instead, it inadvertently made things worse. This must serve as a lesson to police forces throughout the country—a reminder that they are called to their profession to serve truth and the law, and to police our streets without fear or favour, and that community trust and cohesion depend on them doing that above all else. With that, I commend this statement to the House.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I signed that letter because one of the individuals was a constituent of mine who had served in the British armed forces—serving this country on two tours of Afghanistan—and was British in every meaningful way, and his case should have been looked at more by the Home Office before he was placed on that deportation flight. I will look at the details of the specific case the hon. Gentleman mentions and write to him on that.

• 20 Nov 2025 · Migration: Settlement Pathway · Hansard source

  More

  Nothing I have said today changes the position of those who have come to this country on the Ukrainian scheme. That is a bespoke scheme for the people who have arrived here from Ukraine. In fact, it is seen not as a refugee route, but as a temporary scheme. All its provisions were supported by us in opposition, and they continue to be supported by us in government. Nothing in the position of Ukrainians in this country will change as a result of anything in the asylum policy statement or today’s Command Paper.

• 20 Nov 2025 · Migration: Settlement Pathway · Hansard source

  More

  I was clear about our responsibilities towards Hongkongers, and that the issues in relation to the Ukraine scheme are not going to change. However, the hon. Member will know that the stats on health and care visa holders, primarily those who came to work in adult social care, will be the main contributors to the settlement increase between 2027 and 2029, because they will make up nearly half of all settlement grants in 2028. The figures really do speak for themselves, so it is important that the Government move to deal with the vast number of settlements due to happen over the next few years. It is therefore right that we extend the path to settlement, and ask some questions about how we manage the situation in the future.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Hotels · Hansard source

  More

  I recognise the huge pressure that asylum hotels have placed on communities. This Government are committed to exiting asylum hotels by the end of the Parliament. We have already halved the number of hotels in use since the peak under the Conservative party, but I would like to go faster. That is why I am exploring the use of large sites, including military sites.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that it was not misleading; it was just wrong, so I can clarify that for the record. I say to the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) that I think it is a fair point of debate to point out that the Green party often indulges in hypocrisy. I shall look carefully at what her colleague has said in relation to the large military sites, but I say to her that the Green party never seems to offer any solution, only commentary that does not work.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I can assure my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour that we are moving at pace on the exit of hotels. We have already made good progress, having closed a number of them. The number of hotels that remain has fallen from the peak that we inherited to just under 200, but we will go further and faster. We are looking at large sites, including military sites, and there will be more announcements about that in due course. As for the wider proposals, some require consultation while others require legislation—I know that they were debated with real vigour in the House—but we will aim to pass these measures as quickly as possible, because I agree with my hon. Friend about the need for us to make a rapid transition to a better system in which we can all have more confidence, to introduce the safe and legal routes that are the viable alternative and the right alternative, and to persuade people not to get on to a dangerous boat in the north of France instead.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Again, forgive me, but I am not going to take any lessons from the party that gave us hotel use in the first place and is now lecturing me about hotel exit. It is a manifesto commitment of this Government that we will get out of hotels by the end of this Parliament. I hope to do so before then, which is why we are exploring large sites, including military sites. I know that will give rise to more debate in this House over the coming weeks and months, which I look forward to, but the hon. Gentleman is a member of the party that started hotel use; I hope that he will reflect on that fact first.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Let me just say gently to the hon. Gentleman that voluntary removal is the outcome that we should be aiming for. Enforced removals cost more money and are more likely to result in a failed removal, especially if there is such disruption that the pilot in charge of the plane says that he or she will not take the individual concerned. That often costs the British taxpayer much more. It is value for money for voluntary removals to take place wherever possible, but we will pursue all types of removal, voluntary as well as enforced, along with deportations of foreign national offenders. Our track record over the past 18 months shows that we got those numbers up by 23% to just over 48,000, doing better than the Conservatives did over their last 18 months in government. As for the issue of visa sanctions, all I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that these were powers that the Conservatives acquired but did not use.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  We already do safe country reviews, and we would seek to continue that. Those reviews, and our position on different countries, are publicly available; in fact, most pass through the House, in secondary legislation. I make no apology for a system that will privilege those who come to this country through a safe and legal route, rather than those who paid people smugglers thousands of pounds to end up in the north of France. The point on visa sanctions is related to the fact that many countries do not comply with us when we seek to return people lawfully to their country. That is just one of the tools we have at our disposal to ensure compliance from those countries, so that they take their people back.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  In designing the new system, we will take into account all the learnings from the Homes for Ukraine scheme and other models. We will work closely with the UN Refugee Agency and other international partners, as well as philanthropist and community organisations, local councils, universities, businesses and others here in this country. We know that there are people who want to be able to sponsor refugees and play their part in offering sanctuary to those most in need. People recognise that the current system is broken. As we get to grips with the broken system, we will be able to increase the number of people who come here on safe and legal routes in the medium and long term, which is the right future and the right compassionate answer, and will enable us to fulfil our international obligations.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Let me just make a point about Ukraine that I think was not understood fully by those who were questioning me at the weekend. It is a bespoke scheme created only for Ukrainians, with its own rules. It is not subject to what we have set out in the asylum policy statement. The hon. Gentleman will know, as is the position in relation to our discussions with the Ukrainian Government, that those individuals are welcome in our country so that we can keep them safe. They are not classed as refugees, because they are here temporarily on that scheme. We will always uphold our obligations under that scheme—we supported it in Opposition, too. The hon. Gentleman is right on the point about rapid decisions. It is important that decisions made at first instance, but also through an appeals process, are of high quality. That is one of the ways we have to ensure that they do not get constantly appealed. Our current system means that even though we have made huge progress on decreasing the backlog on initial decisions, the appeals backlog has grown. Over time, as people sit in the appeals queue, more rights are accrued. Unlike with any other type of legal order in this country, the order to leave this country not being complied with still allows people to accrue more rights in the interim. We do not run a good and effective appeals system at the moment, which is why we are going to create a new one, but I can assure him that at its heart will be early legal advice and truly independent adjudicators making the decisions, but doing so in a way that allows them to fast-track claims that have a low chance of success and make sure that the right decision is made quickly— one claim, one appeal—with a certain outcome at the end, not subject to years and years of a merry-go-round around the courts.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about how we restore order and control to our borders. I do so as this Government publish the most significant reform to our migration system in modern times. This country will always offer sanctuary to those fleeing danger, but we must also acknowledge that the world has changed and our asylum system has not changed with it. Our world is a more volatile and more mobile place. Huge numbers are on the move. While some are refugees, others are economic migrants seeking to use and abuse our asylum system. Even genuine refugees are passing through other safe countries, searching for the most attractive place to seek refuge. The burden that has fallen on this country has been heavy: 400,000 have sought asylum here in the past four years. Over 100,000 people now live in asylum accommodation, and over half of refugees remain on benefits eight years after they have arrived. To the British public, who foot the bill, the system feels out of control and unfair. It feels that way because it is. The pace and scale of change have destabilised communities. It is making our country a more divided place. There will never be a justification for the violence and racism of a minority, but if we fail to deal with this crisis, we will draw more people down a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred. I have no doubt about who we really are in this country: we are open, tolerant and generous. But the public rightly expect that we can determine who enters this country and who must leave. To maintain the generosity that allows us to provide sanctuary, we must restore order and control. Rather than deal substantively with this problem, the last Conservative Government wasted precious years and £700 million on their failed Rwanda plan, with the lamentable result of just four volunteers removed from the country. As a result, they left us with the grotesque chaos of asylum seekers housed in hotels and shuttled around in taxis, with the taxpayer footing the bill. My predecessor as Home Secretary picked up this dreadful inheritance and rebuilt the foundations of a collapsed asylum system. Decision making has been restored, with a backlog now 18% lower than when we entered office. Removals have increased, reaching nearly 50,000 under this Government. Immigration enforcement has hit record levels, with over 8,000 arrests in the last year. The Border Security Bill is progressing through Parliament, and my predecessor struck an historic agreement with the French so that small boat arrivals can now be sent back to France. Those are vital steps, but we must go further. Today, we have published “Restoring Order and Control”, a new statement on our asylum policy. Its goals are twofold: first, to reduce illegal arrivals into this country, and secondly, to increase removals of those with no right to be here. It starts by accepting an uncomfortable truth: while asylum claims fall across Europe, they are rising here, and that is because of the comparative generosity of our asylum offer compared with many of our European neighbours. That generosity is a factor that draws people to these shores, on a path that runs through other safe countries. Nearly 40% come on small boats and over perilous channel crossings, but a roughly equal proportion come legally, via visitor, work or study visas, and then go on to claim asylum. They do so because refugee status is the most generous route into this country. An initial grant lasts five years and is then converted, almost automatically, into permanent settled status. In other European countries, things are done differently. In Denmark, refugee status is temporary, and they provide safety and sanctuary until it is possible for a refugee to return home. In recent years, asylum claims in Denmark have hit a 40-year low, and now countries across Europe are tightening their systems in similar ways. We must act too. We will do so by making refugee status temporary, not permanent. A grant of refugee status will last for two and a half years, not five years. It will be renewed only if it is impossible for a refugee to return home. Permanent settlement will now come at 20 years, not five years. I know that this country welcomes people who contribute. For those who want to stay, and who are willing and able to, we will create a new work and study visa route solely for refugees, with a quicker path to permanent settlement. To encourage refugees into work, we will also consult on removing benefits for those who are able to work but choose not to. Outside the most exceptional circumstances, family reunion will not be possible, with a refugee able to bring family over only if they have joined a work and study route, and if qualifying tests are met. Although over 50,000 claimants have been granted refugee status in the past year, more than 100,000 claimants and failed asylum seekers remain in taxpayer-funded accommodation. We know that criminal gangs use the prospect of free bed and board to promote their small boat crossings. We have already announced that we will empty asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament, and we are exploring a number of large military sites as an alternative. We will now also remove the 2005 legislation that created a duty to support asylum seekers, reverting to a legal power to do so instead. We will continue to support those who play by the rules, but those who do not—be that through criminality or antisocial behaviour—can have their support removed. We will also remove our duty to support those who have a right to work. It is right that those who receive support pay for it if they can, so those with income or assets will have to contribute to the cost of their stay. That will end the absurdity that we currently experience, in which an asylum seeker receiving £800 each month from his family, and who had recently acquired an Audi, was receiving free housing at the taxpayer’s expense, and the courts judged that we could do nothing about it. The measures are designed to tackle the pull factors that draw people to this country, but reducing the number of arrivals is just half of the story. We must also enforce our rules and remove those who have no right to be here. That will mean restarting removals to countries where they have been paused. In recent months, we have begun the voluntary removal of failed asylum seekers to Syria once again. However, many failed asylum seekers from Syria are still here, most of whom fled a regime that has since been toppled. Other countries are planning to enforce removals, and we will follow suit. Where a failed asylum seeker cannot be returned home, we will also continue to explore the possibility of return hubs, with negotiations ongoing. We must remove those who have failed asylum claims, regardless of who they are. Today, we are not removing family groups, even when we know that their home country is perfectly safe. There are, for instance, around 700 Albanian families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation having failed their asylum claims—despite an existing returns agreement, and Albania being a signatory to the European convention on human rights. So we will now begin the removal of families. Where possible, we will encourage a voluntary return, but where an enforced return is necessary, that is what we will do. Where the barrier to a return is not the individual, nor the UK Government, but the receiving country, we will take action. I can announce that we have told Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Namibia that if they do not comply with international rules and norms, we will impose visa penalties on them. I am sending a wider message here: unless other countries heed this lesson, further sanctions will follow. Much of the delay in our removals, however, comes from the sclerotic nature of our own system. In March of this year, the appeals backlog stood at 51,000 cases. This Government have already increased judicial sitting days, but reform is required, so we will create a new appeals body, staffed by professional independent adjudicators, and we will ensure that early legal representation is available to advise claimants and ensure their issues are properly considered. Cases with a low chance of success will be fast-tracked, and claimants will have just one opportunity to claim and one to appeal, ending the merry-go-round of claims and appeals that frustrate so many removals. While some barriers to removal are the result of process, others are substantive issues related to the law itself. There is no doubt that the expanded interpretation of parts of the European convention on human rights has contributed. This is particularly true of article 8: the right to a family life. The courts have adopted an ever-expanding interpretation of that right. As a result, many people have been allowed to come to this country when they would otherwise have had no right to, and we have been unable to remove others when the case for doing so seems overwhelming. That includes cases like an arsonist, sentenced to five years in prison, whose deportation was blocked on the grounds that his relationship with his sibling may suffer. More than half of those detained are now delaying or blocking their removal by raising a last-minute rights claim. Article 8 is a qualified right, which means we are not prevented from removing individuals or refusing an application to move to the UK if it is in the public interest. To narrow article 8 rights, we will therefore make three important changes, in both domestic law and to our immigration rules. First, we will define what, exactly, a family is—narrowing it down to parents and their children. Secondly, we will define the public interest test so that the default becomes a removal or refusal, with article 8 rights only permissible in the most exceptional circumstances. Thirdly, we will tighten where article 8 claims can be heard, ensuring only those who are living in the UK can lodge a claim, rather than their family members overseas, and that all claims are heard first by the Home Office and not in a courtroom. We will also pursue international reform of a second element of the convention: the application of article 3, and the prohibition on torture and inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment. We will never return anyone to be tortured in their home country, but the definition of “degrading treatment” has expanded into the realm of the ridiculous. Today we have criminals who we seek to deport, but we discover we cannot because the prisons in their home country have cells that are deemed too small, or even mental health provision that is not as good as our own. As article 3 is an absolute right, a public interest test cannot be applied. For that reason, we are seeking reform at the Council of Europe, and we do so alongside international partners who have raised similar concerns. It is not just international law that binds us. According to data from 2022, over 40% of those detained for removal claimed that they were modern-day slaves. That well-intentioned law is being abused by those who seek to frustrate a legitimate removal, so I will bring forward legislation that tightens the modern slavery system, to ensure that it protects those it was designed for, and not those who seek to abuse it. Taken together, these are significant reforms. They are designed to ensure that our asylum system is fit for the modern world, and that we retain public consent for the very idea of providing refuge. We will always be a country that offers protection to those fleeing peril, just as we did in recent years when Ukraine was invaded, when Afghanistan was evacuated, and when we repatriated Hongkongers. For that reason, as order and control are restored, we will open new, capped, safe and legal routes into this country. These will make sponsorship the primary means by which we resettle refugees, with voluntary and community organisations given greater involvement to both receive refugees and support them, working within caps set by Government. We will also create a new route for displaced students to study in the UK, and another for skilled refugees to work here. Of course, we will always remain flexible to new crises across the world, as they happen. I know that the British people do not want to close the doors, but until we restore order and control, those who seek to divide us will grow stronger. It is our job as a Labour Government to unite where there is division, so we must now build an asylum system for the world as it is—one that restores order and control, that opens safe and legal routes to those fleeing danger across the world, and that sustains our commitment to providing refuge for this generation, and those to come. I know the country we are. We are open, tolerant, and generous. We are the greater Britain that those on this side of the House believe in, not the littler England that some wish we would become. These reforms are designed to bring unity where others seek to divide, and I commend this statement to the House.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Manchester Terrorism Attack · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is an assiduous constituency Member of Parliament. I saw for myself at first hand his deep links in the community that he represents in the House and how he has been a source of real strength in bringing people together in that part of Manchester. As a member of an ethnic and faith minority myself, one of the things that I most hate about our political discourse and national conversation is the hierarchy of racism. I hate how minority communities feel like we are pitted against one another in a fight for attention and recognition of the difficulties that we might face as individual groups. Racism in all its forms is abhorrent, and I will be as assiduous in fighting the scourge of antisemitism in this country as people might expect me, as a Muslim, to be in fighting Islamophobia in this country. We are all safe when we are all safe, and I will not stand by and watch our communities being forced to compete with one another and forced to explain again and again why they are suffering and why they do not feel safe. To me, that is unacceptable in 21st-century Britain. I will not stand for it, and it will not be the policy position of this Government. The person who bears responsibility for what happened on 2 October was the terrorist attacker himself—I will not name him again today—but there is no doubt that events in the middle east have caused tensions here at home, and some have sought to exploit those tensions. It is incredibly important that we are clear-eyed in holding the line between what could be a legitimate critique of the Israeli Government’s actions in the war in the middle east and antisemitism: you can be a critic of policy in the middle east without becoming antisemitic, hating Jews and holding Jews in this country to account for things happening in a country elsewhere that are nothing to do with them. It is incumbent on all of us to hold that line and to be clear where that line is, so that we speak with one voice and give confidence to our minority communities here at home. One of the most devastating things that I heard when I was in Manchester on the day and in the aftermath of the attack was our Jewish community expressing how they now feel unsafe in their own country and that they might never see a time when their children do not have to have security when they go to school. Although it is important that in the immediate aftermath of the attack we consider security matters, enhancing the police presence and deepening our work with the Community Security Trust, I will not stop until people in this country can go to a synagogue or Jewish school without first having to go through a security cordon.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Crown Court Backlog · Hansard source

  More

  I am rather surprised by that question from the hon. Gentleman, because he is normally across the detail. Let me tell him two points of detail that were missing from his question. First, he knows that the demand coming into the system is rising. We have record numbers of cases coming into the system, which is a good thing, because it means that victims are seeking justice, but the system has not been able to cope with that demand. Secondly, he should know that there is a difference between judicial capacity, which is what the Lady Chief Justice has spoken about, and system capacity. Unless he and the Conservatives have suddenly discovered a system that will 3D print new judges, lawyers, prosecutors and defence barristers overnight, I think he will recognise that there comes a point at which additional money does not buy us the ability to go faster. That is what I have to reckon with as Lord Chancellor. I have set the sitting days at 110,000 because that is the max for the system, and that is fully funded. We will consider once-in-a-generation reform to get to the bottom of this problem and fix it once and for all.