Dame Karen Bradley
MP for Staffordshire Moorlands · Conservative · United Kingdom
“The Leader of the House knows that I have enormous respect for him, and I am sure that this is quite a difficult statement for him to make, particularly as the right hon. Member for Makerfield will face unfavourable comparisons with Boris Johnson, who did come to this House and make a statement before the summer recess.”
“I thank the hon. Member—my friend from the Select Committee—for an enjoyable visit. We learned a lot, but it was a challenging visit, as there was an awful lot to take in. This is a problem that affects countries across the world; it is not an issue that can be solved by one country alone. We have to work together.”
“Members for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) and for Bassetlaw (Jo White) were all there to see the work being done. It is very impressive to see the work being done jointly with the UK.”
“Someone’s immigration status may make them more vulnerable, but it is a financial crime—it is the exploitation of one human being by another for financial gain.”
“Like many on this side of the House, I have very fond memories of Ann. She made the effort to travel to Staffordshire Moorlands—not many people do; we are quite isolated— [ Interruption. ] Yes, they come to Alton Towers—the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) is quite right.”
“It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon). He was absolutely right about the tone we need to employ. I recognise the comments he made about his constituents. I suspect that his constituents have a very similar view to my constituents—we are not too far apart.”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Dame Karen Bradley, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 13.
“The Leader of the House knows that I have enormous respect for him, and I am sure that this is quite a difficult statement for him to make, particularly as the right hon. Member for Makerfield will face unfavourable comparisons with Boris Johnson, who did come to this House and make a statement before the summer recess. However, can I change the subject? We are expecting a statement on local government reorganisation on Thursday. Now that tomorrow is not an Opposition day, could the Leader of the House find a way for that statement to be made tomorrow, rather than on Thursday?”
“May I associate myself with your comments, Mr Speaker, and those of the Home Secretary about Ann Widdecombe? She was a formidable human being, and someone about whom we are all thinking very much at this time. This week, in the light of that news, the safety of politicians is something that we should all consider. The Home Secretary may be aware of the situation of a district councillor in Staffordshire Moorlands, Councillor Jill Salt, who has been the victim of sexualised artificial intelligence images. I do not agree with Councillor Salt on many matters, but on this I stand with her in total solidarity. Will the Home Secretary join me in condemning the comments of a Reform councillor, Dave Poole, who said that Councillor Salt needed to grow bigger balls in order to do the job?”
“In four days’ time, we will mark exactly two years since I first explained to Ministers how much the people of Staffordshire Moorlands do not want to be part of a greater Stoke local authority, do not want devolution forced on them, and want their say on who makes decisions about what happens there. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), may I implore the Minister for a referendum? We do not want this imposed on us in north Staffordshire; we want to have our say.”
“May I also thank Staffordshire police for contacting me this weekend and making a visit to my home to review my security arrangements? I know that police forces across the country will be doing that and I am grateful to them for taking that time. May I ask the Home Secretary to comment on what might happen in the longer term around the Prevent duty? She will know that the Home Affairs Committee produced a report on new forms of radicalisation and extremism, with some recommendations that, we hope, might help law enforcement and others to find those who have a tendency towards violence. Will the Home Secretary consider that in the longer term?”
“Like many on this side of the House, I have very fond memories of Ann. She made the effort to travel to Staffordshire Moorlands—not many people do; we are quite isolated— [ Interruption. ] Yes, they come to Alton Towers—the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) is quite right. But Ann came to Consall Hall Gardens, as it was then, to do a fundraising dinner for me, and she delivered a tour de force, which I suspect the then Prime Minister, now the noble Lord Cameron, might not have entirely approved of. My association was totally enraptured, however, and thought it was the most wonderful event. It is still fondly remembered in the association, not least because Ann told me I had to take off my heels because it would not be appropriate to stand too tall next to her in the photographs.”
“Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) was also an Immigration Minister and she employed a similar approach. It would be fair to say that the evidence we have heard on the Select Committee indicates that that level of ministerial oversight has not happened at all times, and perhaps that is why we saw some big spikes.”
“Members for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) and for Bassetlaw (Jo White) were all there to see the work being done. It is very impressive to see the work being done jointly with the UK. We heard a lot from UK law enforcement and others who were working closely with their French counterparts. I encourage more of that. However, I cannot stress enough how important ministerial oversight is. I pay tribute to our former colleague James Brokenshire, who as Immigration Minister insisted that he receive an update every single day on the number of people entering the country, the number who were in claims and the number of visas being issued. He kept on having a daily update. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a delight that you are in the Chair, but my right hon.”
“Perhaps the wording could be changed to “may” to make it easier for courts to disregard clearly ridiculous decisions that should not have any bearing on the decisions being taken in our courts. I also refer him to the work done in the coalition Government on the European arrest warrant, when we were still a member of it. We changed the rules in the UK so that only somebody who was guilty of a crime that would be a crime in the UK could have an arrest warrant applied to them. Previously, we had all sorts of spurious claims such as not paying tips to Greek waiters and so on. The Minister may want to look at that. On small boats, the Select Committee visited northern France. The hon.”
“It may not go as far as some would like in some areas and it may go too far for others, but on Second Reading we look at the principle of a Bill, and I agree that it should have a Second Reading and then be considered in Committee and on Report. There are a couple of points I want to make before I move on to my main comments. On article 8 of the ECHR, the Chişinău declaration was very encouraging. It is a good step forward to see agreement across the Council of Europe area on the way article 8 and other parts of the ECHR are being abused. I suggest that the Minister look at section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which states that the UK courts “must” refer to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.”
“It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon). He was absolutely right about the tone we need to employ. I recognise the comments he made about his constituents. I suspect that his constituents have a very similar view to my constituents—we are not too far apart. I refer him to the Home Affairs Committee report on asylum accommodation, which talked about the point he made about the disproportionate numbers of asylum seekers in lower-cost accommodation areas. We did ask the Home Office to look at that. I also suggest that he avoids X and Facebook in the morning. It will probably make his life a lot better. I rise to speak briefly on the Bill, which I broadly welcome. These are matters on which our constituents expect action to be taken.”
“That human being needs to be prepared and able to give evidence, to speak out and to recognise the crime that has been committed against them. Victim support is essential to solve this crime. If one wants to see the issue in a hard-nosed way, the only way we are going to kill the trade is by looking after the victims so that we can stop the bad guys. That is the basic point. I do not have time to go through the specifics, but I urge the Minister to engage with the many authorities—in particular, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner—to see where the measures that the Government have introduced may have unintended consequences that make it harder to tackle this crime. With that, I will sit down and let other Members speak, as there are many others who wish to do so.”
“A first responder has to say that this person is likely to be a victim of modern slavery, so what is going wrong with the first responders? Why is it that first responders are being dragged into, as the Government say, declaring people to be victims of modern slavery to avoid deportation? That is something that should be looked at without removing protections for victims. One has to have a victim-centred approach to this crime in order to solve it; it cannot be solved only by pursuing the bad guys. The victims have to be at the centre, because it is an extraordinary crime in which the commodity that money is being made from is the human being. It is not a drug, a firearm or any other product; it is a human being.”
“Someone’s immigration status may make them more vulnerable, but it is a financial crime—it is the exploitation of one human being by another for financial gain. Although I understand the reasons and we are grateful that there are some good points in the Bill, it is concerning that it keeps being put into the migration bucket, rather than being seen as the financial crime that it is. I am in contact with a number of organisations, and the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Eleanor Lyons, has been in touch with me. There is general agreement that there are some good things in the Bill—the strengthening of civil orders and the support for children are welcome. However, the abuse of the modern slavery protections needs to be looked at, because nobody can self-declare as a victim of modern slavery.”
“I thank the hon. Member—my friend from the Select Committee—for an enjoyable visit. We learned a lot, but it was a challenging visit, as there was an awful lot to take in. This is a problem that affects countries across the world; it is not an issue that can be solved by one country alone. We have to work together. We also came away agreeing that if everybody who arrived from France was immediately taken back to France, it would kill the trade of the people smugglers. That is something that we should start trying to negotiate with our friends in France. In the short amount of time that I have left, I will focus on part 5. I declare that, as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking and modern slavery, I have some concerns. Apart from anything else, human trafficking and modern slavery is not an immigration crime.”
“The Minister must think he is having déjà vu after our exchange at the Home Affairs Committee yesterday. I implore him once again to make every endeavour and to use his best offices with the EU Commission and the French to try to get them to understand that we cannot wait for there to be delays; we have to anticipate switching off the system. The Port of Dover, Eurotunnel and others have extraordinarily intelligent and complex ways of forecasting flow. Will they look at those flow forecasts and use them to decide when to put measures in place, not wait for the delays to start?”
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government not to proceed with any plan to include Staffordshire Moorlands in a new combined or unitary authority or regional devolution deal without the clear consent of local people in Staffordshire Moorlands. And the petitioners remain, etc. ] [P003215]”
“The petitioners request “that the House of Commons urges the Government not to proceed with any plan to include Staffordshire Moorlands in a new combined or unitary authority or regional devolution deal without the clear consent of local people in Staffordshire Moorlands.” Following is the full text of the petition: [ The petition of residents of the constituency of Staffordshire Moorlands, Declares that the Government has consulted on a proposal to create a new unitary council across north Staffordshire, encompassing Staffordshire Moorlands, Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme; further declares that this is despite continued fears of bankruptcy in Stoke-on-Trent, with the Government having to intervene in February 2024 with a £42.2 million bailout package; and further declares that a merger could leave Moorlands residents on the hook for future costs, and that it would place the unique identity and heritage of Moorlands towns and villages at risk.”
“I rise to present a petition that represents not just the names on the petition but the many thousands who have signed the petition, complaining and protesting against the proposal by the Government to force Staffordshire Moorlands into local government reorganisation. The people of Staffordshire Moorlands say no to Stoke, which they have said in their many thousands on the internet in online petitions.”
“I know that he will have done as much as was possible at that time, but things have evolved. How confident is the Minister that the Bill is future-proof? How confident is she that the powers that I am sure this House will end up giving to the Secretary of State today will not be misused if, in the future, there is someone else sitting in the Home Office as Home Secretary? That person may have a different agenda and may not agree with the consensus that there is in this place today, and they may want to use these powers for ill. Is the Minister confident that these powers cannot be misused in the future?”
“I appreciate that she is new to her role and she may be asking her officials the same questions, but it is important that we test the new provisions against the reality of what has been going on in the world. We must check that they will actually work and that the Crown Prosecution Service will be prepared to take cases, because it is only worth having this legislation if law enforcement and others are prepared to use it and legal action comes from it. My final point is about future-proofing. We have talked about evolving threats. The fact that the Government are introducing the Bill three years after the National Security Act 2023, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) took through when he was Security Minister, shows how threats evolve.”
“The Security Minister will recall that during the covid pandemic we did not always have time to scrutinise the legislation that the Government were taking through. As a member of the governing party, I was concerned about that, but as an Opposition Member, she was incredibly concerned about the lack of scrutiny, and it has to be said that the Government did not always get things right. Having made those points, I have a couple of questions for the Minister about the substance of the Bill. First, I am not clear about how the various regimes—sanctions designation, the FIRS regime and proscription, which does not apply in many cases—are going to work together, so it would be helpful to understand how she envisages these issues fitting together.”
“When we took legislation through in one day, we spent a lot of time working with the Opposition and interested stakeholders to ensure that they understood why we were taking it through and what it meant, and to listen to them about where improvements could be made. I regret enormously that the Home Affairs Committee, which I chair, has been offered only a briefing on the legislation after today, so our Committee members will not be briefed by officials until after the Bill has passed all stages in this House. That is very disappointing. It is a shame that the Home Secretary is so far refusing to appear before the Committee before the summer recess for her regular session. I deeply regret that and I warn the Security Minister that the Committee will look at this in detail, because we need to make sure that scrutiny has happened.”
“I benefited from that when I sat on the Treasury Bench and had similar support from the Opposition, but I never expected the Opposition just to accept that what I was saying was correct and accurate; I always expected there to be scrutiny, and I welcomed it. The report by Jonathan Hall was published over 12 months ago, so there is no need to pass the Bill in one day. It could have been introduced and considered at many times over the past 14 months. When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I frequently had to take legislation through in one day, because devolved matters could not be considered in Stormont while there was no Executive.”
“I say gently to the Minister for Security that the business managers could have set aside more time for Second Reading and perhaps a general debate to follow, with then some time in Committee to scrutinise the Bill properly, looking at amendments and deciding what might improve the Bill. It would be better for everybody if they knew that the Bill had been properly stress-tested. I say to the Security Minister and to the Home Secretary, who is no longer in her place, that I genuinely want them to succeed. I am not somebody who wants to see Ministers fail because we are from different parties.”
“I rise to make some brief comments about this legislation. I agree fully with what the Government are trying to achieve; I just do not agree with the way they are doing it. I will not repeat the arguments for why we need the legislation, as we have heard them from both sides of the House and I agree fully with what has been said. I benefited from the national security measures when I was in government, as I am sure will the new Minister for Security—I welcome her to her place. When we need to pass this kind of legislation, there is a consensus across the House, but we need time to properly scrutinise it.”
“My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Select Committee recently looked at new forms of radicalisation and extremism, and we were very struck by how things can be looked at through an ideological lens or not, and that sometimes things fall through the cracks in the middle because they are not looked at as a whole. Does he agree that the Bill could present an opportunity to address that issue?”
“I join others in paying tribute to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which has once again acted without fear or favour and walked bravely into some of the most dangerous situations. To follow on from the previous question, I was struck by just how many young people were involved in the disorder yesterday, incited not only by what they have seen on social media but by gangmasters who have groomed them into committing violence day in, day out across Northern Ireland. Will the Home Office look into a review of the treatment of young people in Northern Ireland and how so many of them have been groomed? In effect, it is modern slavery.”
“My right hon. Friend is making a very important point. My constituents are utterly shocked by ticket prices. If they wanted to travel between London and Stoke-on-Trent by train today, it would cost a minimum of £160. We need local democracy and decision making, because these prices are outrageous.”
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with the local authority and relevant agencies to facilitate urgent action including the installation of safe pedestrian crossings, the introduction of stronger parking restrictions, the provision of a school crossing patrol officer, the review and reduction of speed limits, and increased enforcement and monitoring. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003204]”
“And the petitioners remain, etc.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Staffordshire Moorlands, Declares that local people have urgent concerns about the safety of roads around Moorside High School, Werrington Primary School, and residential streets more widely in Werrington; and further declares that high traffic volume, excessive vehicle speeds, unsafe parking, a lack of safe crossing points, and insufficient enforcement and supervision pose a serious risk to the safety and wellbeing of the community, particularly for young people and those with additional needs.”
“A few weeks ago, I met leaders from Moorside high school and Werrington primary school in the villages of Werrington and Cellarhead, which are both suffering with real road safety concerns. They are located on the A52, which is one of the main arterial roads into Stoke-on-Trent. Traffic moves quickly down those roads, yet there are simply no safety measures. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with the local authority and relevant agencies to facilitate urgent action including the installation of safe pedestrian crossings, the introduction of stronger parking restrictions, the provision of a school crossing patrol officer, the review and reduction of speed limits, and increased enforcement and monitoring.”
“The Home Secretary will be aware of the inquiry that the Committee is conducting on the role that organised criminality plays in the crime we see on our high streets. We heard compelling evidence recently about counterfeit goods, the role they play, and the role that forced labour plays throughout that supply chain. Can the Home Secretary explain what she is doing to combat forced labour? I look forward to putting more questions to her when she appears before my Committee before the summer recess.”
“The Prime Minister has just told us that after he sacked Peter Mandelson, he changed the process so that now an appointment cannot be announced until after security vetting is passed. Why did he do that if he did not think there was a problem with the security vetting?”
“I am sure that everyone in this House will have heard stories from friends and constituents who are unable to enjoy a full Jewish life in the way that they should. The Minister is right that this is not just about putting in place more police and security, but about driving out the root cause of antisemitism. In this case, it does seem that the attacks are driven by foreign state actors, so I must agree with the calls for the proscription of the IRGC. This is something that the Government must now look at urgently.”
“One great privilege of being a Member of Parliament is the ability to raise constituents’ concerns directly with Ministers. Unfortunately, far too frequently, the responses to be sent to our constituents come from officials rather than Ministers. I am sure the Leader of the House agrees that our constituents are entitled to hear from the Ministers themselves. Will he remind his ministerial colleagues of their duty to ensure that our constituents hear directly from them, not their officials?”
“Has the Home Office made an assessment of the number of people who will be affected, and of the amount that will be saved, by moving from a statutory duty to support asylum seekers to a discretionary power?”
“Given the vulnerabilities of Members of Parliament, can I urge the Security Minister to work with the parliamentary authorities not just to pass information to Members but to work proactively with us to ensure that we are all aware of the risks that are posed to us and the steps we need to take to ensure that we are not exposed to interference from foreign states?”
“In the event, Maccabi Tel Aviv did not take up their allocation of tickets and the issue went away, but not without considerable damage being done to the reputation of WMP, to trust in the police by the Jewish and other communities in Birmingham, and to the integrity of decision making around the policing of football and sporting events. We welcome the review of this decision-making process announced by the Government and have urged them to look again at a previous review of the policing of football by Baroness Casey. We look forward to examining the results.”
“Only at this point did officials begin exploring options with the police to enable away fans to attend. The Home Secretary argued that respect for the operational independence of the police did not allow earlier intervention, but this principle was inconsistently applied. If the Government could intervene publicly after the decision, could they not have intervened privately before the decision? We concluded that they could have done so in a way that respected the operational independence of the police and reduced rather than inflamed tensions.”
“If the Government did not find this outcome politically palatable, you might think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that they would take prompt action to avert it—for example, by providing the necessary additional resources to enable the fixture to be policed safely and go ahead. No such attempt was made. The Home Secretary and Ministers were not told definitively that there would be a ban on away fans, but we know that she was briefed that it was a possible option. Home Office officials were aware that a ban was the likely outcome. We still do not know precisely when Ministers in the Home Office, DCMS and No. 10 were informed of this. It was only on 16 October, when the decision was announced, that the Government intervened—in the form of a post on X by the Prime Minister, saying that it was the wrong decision.”
“10 recognised at an early stage the political significance of the match and asked the Home Office to be kept informed of developments. There was also a Department for Culture, Media and Sport interest, as that Department has lead responsibility for the safety of sports grounds. This was a test of the ability of the Government as a whole to identify whether they should have a role in the decision and, if so, to share information internally to enable any intervention to be made in a timely and effective manner. I am afraid to say that that test was failed. The Government were informed on 6 October—a month before the match—that a ban on away fans was the likely outcome of the SAG process. It was the “working assumption”.”
“As I have said, it is unusual for there to be a political context to SAG decisions, but that was the case here. Although we did not see evidence of political pressure regarding the decision to ban away fans—we simply do not know what conversations went on behind the scenes —we did note that the Muslim councillors on the SAG, who had publicly stated views on whether the match should take place at all, had “a disproportionate opportunity” to influence the decision of the SAG. We concluded that elected politicians should not sit on SAGs. Finally, we scrutinised the role of the Home Office in the decision-making process, and that of the Government. Strictly speaking, there should not have been a role for the Government in a decision taken at local authority level on the operational advice of the police, but No.”
“In respect of the role of the SAG in this decision, we concluded that it failed to apply sufficient challenge to the clear recommendation of WMP regarding the banning of away fans, and that it lacked the capability to balance the interests of local communities and those of the police against broader national and international considerations, given the unusual sensitivities surrounding this particular fixture. We welcome the review of guidance to SAGs being undertaken by the Cabinet Office, and we recommended in our report that that should consider whether an escalation process is required to handle such rare but highly consequential circumstances. As part of its review of the governance of SAGs, the police should review the presence of elected politicians on what are essentially safety-oriented committees.”
“We reviewed the content of all three SAG meetings that provided advice on the fixture. Having done so, we were not surprised that the chair of the SAG wrote to WMP seeking further clarity on the rationale for the ban on away fans. There were clearly some who were uncomfortable with that decision—not just Aston Villa, who said they were happy to host away fans, and the leader of Birmingham city council, who expressed to us both his discontent with the decision and his respect for the operational independence of the police and the integrity of their advice.”
“We welcome the commitment of the new acting chief constable this week to continue WMP’s efforts to rebuild trust with the Jewish community and, more broadly, to address each of our recommendations. I cannot stress strongly enough how vital it is that the Jewish community in Birmingham and the west midlands are able to feel trust in their police. At the moment, they simply do not. As I have indicated, responsibility for the decision to exclude the Maccabi fans ultimately rested with Birmingham city council, through the provision of a safety certificate for the event. The role of the SAG was to provide specialist safety advice regarding the event. In reaching its conclusions on advice relating to public order, SAG is heavily reliant on the advice of the police.”
“However, it is not the issues relating to competence that are the most damaging to the reputation of WMP; it is those around balance—balance in the information presented to the SAG, which consistently emphasised the unique risk from the Maccabi fans and downplayed the risk emanating from local communities in Birmingham. Intelligence around elements in these communities threatening to “arm themselves” against Maccabi fans was not relayed to the SAG. There was also imbalance in community engagement. WMP acknowledged that it failed to engage with the Jewish community early enough, in contrast with a full programme of engagement with other communities. It apologised for that and for managing to mislead the Committee on the extent of engagement, and acknowledged the damage done to relations with the Jewish community in the west midlands.”
“He had subsequently to apologise that that was not the case. Precisely how West Midlands police managed to generate inaccurate information using AI to inform the intelligence picture related to this match is the subject of an ongoing inquiry by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, so I am sure we will hear more on that in due course. Although we accept that the former chief constable did not deliberately misinform the Committee, he should have ensured that he came armed with the facts rather than with complacent platitudes followed by humble apologies.”
“The use of AI by West Midlands police was under consideration at the time, but was not authorised at that stage. What we found extraordinary, though, is that the information used to support such a significant decision—whether from AI or elsewhere—was not cross-checked with other sources. Not only did WMP fail to do due diligence on the information that it presented to the SAG, which was responsible for taking the decision to ban away fans, but it failed to prepare properly to give accurate information before the Committee. The then chief constable told us explicitly that AI was not used by West Midlands police, and that the reference to a match against West Ham— a completely fictitious game that was cited as one of the reasons for banning the away fans—had resulted from a Google search.”
“The police relied to a disproportionate extent on a single conversation between a chief inspector from West Midlands police and the Dutch police about the behaviour of Maccabi fans at a match against Ajax in Amsterdam in November 2024. The Dutch police strongly disputed the WMP version of events, which included claims that 500 to 600 Maccabi fans were involved in disorder that targeted local communities, that they had links to the Israel Defence Forces, and that they threw local fans in the river. We cannot be sure what was said in that conversation because, unbelievably, the meeting notes were destroyed by West Midlands police. We now know, however, that some of the information relating to the conduct of the Maccabi fans was generated by artificial intelligence—Microsoft Copilot, to be precise.”
“Our report covers conclusions about three organisations: West Midlands police, which is responsible for providing advice to the safety advisory group of Birmingham city council; the SAG itself, both in Birmingham and more generally; and the Home Office, including its liaison across Government. I will take them in turn. Our inquiry uncovered serious failings in the way that West Midlands police gathered and presented information and intelligence in advising on this fixture. While the fixture was rightly identified in advance as high risk, and the initial assumption was for away fans to attend, consultation was limited.”