Shabana Mahmood
MP for Birmingham Ladywood · Labour · United Kingdom
“I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I know how deeply affected he and other parliamentarians who represent the local area have been by what has happened, and I pay tribute to their ability to give voice to what their communities are experiencing.”
“That will build on existing operations, including the “clear, hold, build” approach, which is tough both on serious crime and on the causes of serious crime, and has been shown to work across the country.”
“It is a reactive process, in the sense that they are responding to content being flagged—it has then, for the most part, been removed from their platforms—but from the middle of next year there will be a duty on those platforms to act proactively, not just reactively. However, as I have said to the hon.”
“People should be in no doubt that any attempt to instigate public disorder or to break our laws will be met with the full force of the law, and the Government will support the police as they carry out that incredibly important work.”
“We have increased funding for policing by £2 billion since being elected, and all forces will receive a real-terms uplift in their funding this year as part of an overall £18.5 billion package. Funding to Cleveland has increased by £18.3 million since 2024, and that is a real-terms increase of 4.4% over two years.”
“That is being provided, but the Policing Minister will continue to talk to the chief constable and others to ensure that our officers are being supported and looked after. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on the need for fundamental change in the way that we do the funding formula for policing.”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Shabana Mahmood, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 13.
“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.”
“It will insert new section 33A into the National Security Act 2023. Such a designation will be possible if the Home Secretary believes that a body is, or has been, involved in foreign power threat activity and that designation is necessary to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. The definition of a body is purposefully wide; it cannot be targeted at individuals, but it can be targeted at a wide range of organisations, including foreign intelligence services, mercenary groups, front companies and criminal networks. The power to designate is of critical importance.”
“He memorably described that as “shopping in the wrong department.” He said: “For the Secretary of State to have or purport to have power to prohibit the existence of foreign State entities would be well beyond what Parliament could have intended” when it passed the Terrorism Act. He went on to conclude that applying the power to a state entity would “appear to overstep the boundaries of the principle of non-intervention at international law.” Instead, he proposed a new regime: a power equivalent to proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000, but specifically designed to tackle state and state-linked organisations. Through this legislation, we seek to bring that new power into law. I will now take the House through the Bill in some detail. Clause 1 introduces a power for the Home Secretary to designate a body.”
“The combination of what we already have on the statute book in the National Security Act and this Bill means that all aspects of that activity will be covered. It obviously depends on how the activity presents. The Bill closes the loophole where a designated body is responsible. Where proxy groups are responsible, they will be caught by the measures in the Bill, and that activity will be liable to both prosecution and conviction. Jonathan Hall KC examined whether tools available in our current terrorism legislation might be emulated or adapted to address state threats. He determined that we could not use the existing terror legislation to proscribe a state entity.”
“The first offence is supporting a designated body, which covers inviting or expressing support and arranging, managing or addressing a meeting in support of a designated body. The offence will be triggered when the reason for the supportive act is to prejudice the safety and interests of the United Kingdom in what is known as a prohibited purpose test, echoing the National Security Act. Let me say again that it should be noted that there will be occasions when individuals and organisations have to engage with some designated state actors. The new designation regime will ensure that diplomats can work on behalf of this country and that humanitarian organisations can continue their lifesaving work. The second offence is to assist a designated body. It will become an offence to materially assist a designated organisation.”
“If that is so, let me say first that we might not have needed an unnecessary vote on the programme motion, but I will make quick progress as I explain the thinking behind the measures. Clause 1 also introduces a new designated body condition. Under the National Security Act, it can be difficult to secure a prosecution, as a link must be proved that runs all the way from the individual to a foreign power, but through the designated body condition more organisations will be brought to justice. On the so-called support offence, clause 2 sets out new offences related to those new designated bodies. Again, it amends the National Security Act, adding new sections 17A to 17C.”
“Members to subsection (6)(d) of proposed new section 17B, which makes it clear that anything that has essentially been approved by the UK, or is part of an agreement to which the UK is a party, will not be caught. If humanitarian organisations are concerned, I urge them to talk to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office—as the hon. Lady well knows, that happens regularly in the humanitarian sector. The combination of all those provisions will ensure that the activity that she wants to see continue, as I do, will not be caught by the Bill’s measures. I understand that there is some consternation from the Opposition about what I might be intending to say in the rest of my speech.”
“I do not think that the activities that the hon. Lady mentioned are caught by the Bill. We have been clear in the explanatory notes to the Bill—I refer her to paragraphs 37 and 43—that diplomatic activity, and indeed humanitarian activity, will not be caught by any of the Bill’s measures. We do not want to create a regime with lots of exemptions as that would enable hostile states to try to play games with our legal framework by dressing up front organisations. I reassure her that the measures in the Bill will not apply to any humanitarian organisation going about its business as a humanitarian organisation. If there is any doubt, I refer hon.”
“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—”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Under the previous Government, net migration hit record highs after they lowered entry requirements and opened our borders. My definition of what is best for the UK economy is one where migration is controlled and where there is investment in skills and training for our home-grown workforce, not an overreliance on overseas recruitment.”
“No one disputes the tremendous contribution that international workers make to our NHS. The picture the hon. Gentleman describes is replicated in constituencies across the country, and we will always welcome that contribution. Overseas recruitment in the NHS is falling primarily because the NHS is leading by example and doing what we want all employers to do: look first at domestic recruitment to ensure that the skills and expertise of the health service are home-grown. I believe that those two systems can go hand in hand, but we have to make changes at the same time.”
“We have to remember that currently in our country we have more than 1 million young people who are not in employment, education or training, and the hon. Lady and all Members should want us to turn that around and make sure that there are employment opportunities and a positive economic future in their own country for those young people in many of the sectors that she describes. We are the Government who have formalised that link between migration and skills reforms to make sure that companies are investing in the domestic workforce first and foremost before recruiting from abroad.”
“This Government have increased routes at the very top end of the skills spectrum, such as through our global talent visa, to make sure that we are attracting talent from all over the world. We have a good track record in doing so and will continue that. There is work to do with our university sector to make sure that students recruited to this country are on good courses and making a contribution, and obviously we want to make sure that we use the best of that global talent in the future. The changes we are making are not about students—students do not come to attain indefinite leave to remain in our country—but for other parts of the migration system. I will make sure, however, that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the migration Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) to discuss these matters in more detail.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At a point when we have over a million young people not in employment, education or training, it is imperative that we make progress in this area. We would be letting our young people down if we did not take this opportunity to ensure that we are investing in our domestic skills workforce. That is a cross-Department priority and the Home Office is playing its full part.”
“The employment statistics that the hon. Lady has just used run from January 2020 to December 2025, so I congratulate her on exposing the track record of the Tory Government.”
“Dodgy shops are blighting our high streets—we all see them in our constituencies—so this Government have announced a new high street organised crime taskforce, investing £30 million in law enforcement action. That will fund more officers and a nationwide unit based in the National Crime Agency, and will strengthen powers to tackle these criminals.”
“First, I welcome my hon. Friend’s important work in this area. Greater Manchester is one of three hotspot areas selected for an enhanced operational crackdown in addition to the nationwide campaign. I cannot comment on specific dates due to operational sensitivities, but the public can expect to see the start of a major offensive against dodgy shops beginning this year.”
“It is always a pleasure to appear before the Home Affairs Committee, and I thank the right hon. Member and her Committee for their work on this important area. She will know that the money we announced recently will fund work by trading standards, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and immigration enforcement. If we pick up cases of forced labour, that will engage our modern slavery obligations. That money is part of a full-spectrum response to a complex issue. I saw some of the counterfeit goods when I joined the police on a raid at the end of last week. It is a real problem, and the Government are ensuring that we fund every aspect of how we fix it.”
“We have made the landmark commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. The Government have already begun to implement domestic abuse protection orders, which have protected more than 1,000 victims, Raneem’s law, placing domestic abuse experts in 999 control rooms, and the provision of specialist rape and sexual offence teams in all police forces in England and Wales. Our ambition is clear, but there is much more work to be done.”
“My deepest sympathies are with Harshita’s family for their unimaginable loss. No one should have to go through what she and her loved ones have endured. As the investigation is live, I cannot comment further. I hope my hon. Friend will understand that doing so could prejudice the investigation and the path to justice for Harshita and her family.”
“First and foremost, this Government’s commitment is evidenced by our landmark commitment to halve the levels of violence against women and girls over a decade. We have a deliberate 10-year vision to do that, because it is a wider societal change that we are seeking to enact. We are delivering that transformational change to keep more victims safe. Work has begun, but there is much more to be done. As my hon. Friend will know, these matters are discussed regularly in the House, and I will keep Members updated.”
“Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that criminal law applies across the whole of the UK. Those are things that we track as a Government, and I will look at the substance to see if we need to change the law. We work very closely with our colleagues in Northern Ireland, and I will ensure that the ministerial team discuss these matters with their counterparts in Northern Ireland.”
“The shadow Minister will know that we never comment on matters relating to extradition, or on any specific cases. I would never want to say anything at the Dispatch Box that prejudices any future action—she knows that well enough. She has made her point in relation to those two men, and I am sure that point has been heard.”
“This is a landmark moment in the protection of children in this country, so if I may, I will end by paying tribute to the woman who has pushed for this harder than anyone else, my hon. Friend and former colleague in the Home Office, the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). The children of this country will be safer as a result of her work.”
“I believe that we in this House have a duty to protect the children of this nation, but there can be little doubt that collectively we have failed to keep pace with the changing threats they face. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the horror of online sexual exploitation and abuse, but we have begun to change the story. Today, we laid down the gauntlet to tech firms. We have told them that they must block nudity on children’s phones. We know the tech is there; we know there is a way. The question is: do they have the will? The tech firms now have three months. The clock is ticking. If they do not introduce these controls, we will legislate and force them to do so.”
“The hon. Gentleman is right that it can ruin lives. The Government have already held different platforms to account, and the hon. Gentleman will know about our row with Grok and the action we forced as a result. We are alive to the online environment and what that means for deepfake images and nudification apps—areas where we have already taken action. The action today on device-level controls to block nudity for children is a game-changing moment because it will prevent children from becoming sex offenders before they even know what sex is, and from being victims of sextortion. It is the right way forward.”
“The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the NPCC, which is independent of Government, is rightly reviewing the wording of the “Police Anti-Racism Commitment” to ensure that there is no ambiguity or suggestion of differential treatment. [ Interruption. ] The right hon. Gentleman speaks from a sedentary position, but I say to him that I have taken more action on preventing differential treatment in the criminal justice system than he or his party ever did.”
“Given that the right hon. Gentleman represents a party and former Government that did not take any action on dealing with hate crime, anti-Muslim hatred, or other forms of hatred, I am not going to take any lessons from him. Let me make clear from the Dispatch Box that the police, wherever they are—south Wales or anywhere else—must always police without fear or favour, and we all must always be equal before the law.”
“I urge all commentators, would-be commentators and wannabes of every description to leave our criminal justice system to us. We have been going for a very long time, and we will carry on in that vein.”
“I very much thank my hon. Friend for her question, and she is absolutely right. Let me clarify for the House that this involves the taking of those images. We will also follow through on the threat to legislate, and the Department is working at pace on the content of the legislation and the appropriate vehicle in the second Session.”
“We are still limited in what we can say—there is a sentence to be handed down, further charges may follow, and an IOPC investigation is ongoing—but I call on everyone here to be responsible in this moment, and to allow justice to run its full course. While we must be limited in what we can say, we must not be limited in how we act. I will end with the words of the Nowak family, once more. Last night, they wrote that “no other family should experience the heartbreak and horror of losing a child to knife crime.” Let that be the challenge to us all, across this House, across Government and across society. It is the very least we can do to honour the memory of Henry Nowak. I commend this statement to the House.”
“We must condemn those who seek personal political profit from tragedy. Instead, we must show who we really are in this country. This was a murder—a vile and violent crime. The punishment must be reserved for those who are responsible for the act. We do not believe in collective punishment in this country. Instead, we stand together against an act of pure evil. We condemn those who committed this heinous crime, not all those who share their faith or ethnicity. Yesterday, a sentence was handed down in court. I know it will never be enough. The loss felt by Henry Nowak’s family and friends will last forever. A wonderful young man will never enjoy the promise of the life that stretched out before him. The evil acts of his murderer and accomplice will never be undone, but we can choose to use this moment to pursue positive change.”
“This included extending defences, so that kirpans can be lawfully possessed for religious reasons and used in religious and ceremonial contexts, but let me be clear: carrying the knife for the purpose of religious observance is one thing, but using it, as so tragically occurred in this case, is quite another. It is a vile act, a crime of the utmost severity, and it will be met with the severest punishment. Yesterday, the Nowak family ended their statement with a powerful call to us all: they did not want Henry’s death “to be used to create further division, hatred or tension.” They quoted the words of the prosecuting lawyer: “This is not a case about Sikhism. This is not a case about racism. This is a case about murder. ” I echo those words. We cannot allow this murder to turn communities against one another.”
“It will see schools and families supported to address the root causes of knife crime through the establishment of 50 young futures hubs; police using new crime mapping tools to target enforcement more precisely, and making better use of stop and search; and cruel and exploitative drug gangs stopped from criminally exploiting children, which will prevent the knife violence that is driven by the county lines trade. On knife controls, there have been calls to limit the right of Sikhs to carry their ceremonial knife, the kirpan, one of the five holy items in their faith. The Offensive Weapons Act 2019, passed under the previous Government, clarified and strengthened existing legal protections in relation to long kirpans.”
“Since the start of this Parliament, we have made progress. Knife crime has fallen by 10%. Knife homicides are down 27%, and are at their lowest level in a decade, but clearly we must do more while there are still tragedies like this one. For that reason, we have recently published our halving knife crime plan. It sets out how we will go further to drive sustained reductions in violence. It brings together action across Government and society to stop people turning to knife crime, and to ensure that perpetrators are caught and brought to justice. It includes a range of measures.”
“Threats against police officers are utterly unacceptable. There can be no justification for intimidation, abuse or attempts to take the law into one’s own hands. A police officer unrelated to this case has been misidentified online and subjected to death threats. He has been forced to relocate, to protect himself and his family. Misinformation and inflammatory commentary is making a dreadful situation even worse. We must all, together, condemn it. We must also allow the facts to be established through the appropriate investigations and the courts, and we must do so calmly and responsibly. The Nowak family, and Henry’s memory, deserve answers. The family have also called on us all to take action to address the daily tragedy of knife crime in this country. This Government are committed to halving knife crime in this decade.”
“The IOPC will be equipped and encouraged to act; to find the truth; and to ensure, if necessary, that there are consequences. There have been accusations, I know, of two-tier policing, and that one community has been prioritised over another. It will be for the IOPC to determine the facts in this case—I cannot and will not comment on them—but let me say this on the question of preferential treatment more widely: the police in this country have a sacred duty to police without fear or favour. Everyone in this country is equal before the law; it is the promise upon which our whole justice system rests. The equality of every citizen is the foundation on which the openness, tolerance and generosity of this country rests. Let me also be clear about one other thing—a dangerous undercurrent that I have seen in the reaction to this awful crime.”
“It is, without question, a disturbing and tragic thing to see. People are rightly asking questions about how the situation was handled. They are shocked and disquieted to hear Henry’s words, “I can’t breathe.” I know that it is difficult to wait any longer for answers, but there is a proper process for assessing whether there have been incidents of police misconduct, led by the Independent Office for Police Conduct. It will determine what could and should have been done differently, and it will determine what action may need to be taken against individual officers. The family yesterday called on me “to ensure the IOPC has the resources, authority and independence it needs to conduct a full, fearless and transparent investigation.” I can confirm today that I will do so.”
“His mother, Kiran Kaur, has been convicted of assisting an offender. She is due to be sentenced on 17 July. The Crown Prosecution Service has today authorised further charges against other members of the attacker’s family. With further sentencing and possible charges pending, we must be cautious still in what we say about this case so that we do not place any proceedings at risk. However, I can and must pay tribute today to the dignified and powerful words of the Nowak family in the statement they gave after yesterday’s sentencing. They deserve answers, in particular about what happened on that awful night and the actions of the police officers who arrived on the scene. I expect many in this House, and many more across this country, have now seen the police officer’s bodycam footage, which was released last night.”
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the murder of Henry Nowak. Last December, Henry, aged just 18, was a first-year university student with his life ahead of him. He was kind, hard-working and loved by his family and friends. His murder, at the hands of Vickrum Digwa, was a horrifying act. Digwa murdered Henry and then lied about him as he lay dying, falsely accusing him of racism. It was an evil act. I know that the thoughts of the whole House will now be with Henry’s family and friends, just as mine are. What they have been through is heartbreaking and, for most of us, unimaginable. I know that nothing can take their pain and loss away, but yesterday we saw some measure of justice. Digwa was sentenced to life imprisonment. He will serve a minimum term of 21 years.”
“My own track record as a Government Minister shows that I will always act when there is evidence of differential treatment, and it is absolutely vital that that message is heard loud and clear across the whole of our country.”
“Whatever changes are made, it is important that nobody over-corrects or course-corrects in such a way that all of us citizens are no longer equal before the law. This Government will always ensure that the police, in fulfilling their sacred duties to keep our communities safe, always act without fear or favour, and always ensure that every citizen is treated equally. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not want to do down or ignore the historical and legitimate concerns from some communities about institutional racism as well as differential treatment. I condemn every and all types of differential treatment; I do not stand for it.”
“I repeat that all are equal before the law, and every public service needs to bear that in mind. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the police anti-racism commitment. He will obviously remember that the race action plan for the police began life under the previous Conservative Government—in fact, I am old enough to remember when Theresa May called out the disproportionate use of stop and search in black communities in particular. He will know that the way policing works in this country is by consent. It is important that the police retain the confidence of all the communities they police, and I think he will acknowledge that there is a history and a context here relating to racism and the police.”
“Gentleman referred to phase 1 of the Southport inquiry on the horrific murders, and the findings relating to how the public service systems centred on the danger that Axel Rudakubana might have posed to himself, given his mental health diagnosis, and did not take into account the danger he potentially posed to others. The right hon. Gentleman will know that recommendations for change have been made in this area, which the Government will respond to fully in due course. Let me be very clear to him and to all Members in the House that in all such matters, when it comes to how we engage with our public services and how they assess risk, the only important factor is the risk that an individual poses—not their race, religion or anything else. We will not tolerate a situation in which other, irrelevant factors are taken into account.”