Commons Chamber

Monday 13th July 2026

(began 1 month, 3 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:34
None Portrait Speaker's Statement Mr Speaker
-

Before Before we Before we begin Before we begin today, Before we begin today, I'd Before we begin today, I'd like Before we begin today, I'd like to pay a tribute to American who died in tragic, deeply troubling circumstances last week. Ann was a formidable politician, a prominent figure in public life. She was a member of Parliament for Maidstone for 27 years, holding a number of ministerial posts in the 90s, and was fierce and endured robust political debate. Whether you agree with her or not.

She was principled, spoke her mind and was true to her beliefs, which were informed by a Christian faith and was a close friend to David Amess, who was murdered in 2021. And both were fellow animal lovers. In light of the ongoing police investigation, I would urge members to take care not to say anything in this House that might prejudice a future trial. I will set up more on that advice of the Home Secretary's statement later. For now, we are thinking about.

But just on a personal level, Casa Pizza in Lambeth in Kennington is where I spent a lot of time in the evening sharing a pizza with the one and only Ann Widdecombe. She was a friend in many ways. Politically we may not agree, but she was without doubt a courageous, principled politician and all of us with family and her friends here. Order, order! We now come to question Secretary of State. Home Department.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lorraine Beavers. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Canada's was pushed into Speaker. Canada's was pushed into taking her own life. Oh, sorry. Question one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Can I associate myself and my colleagues with your remarks about
14:36
None Portrait Q1. What progress her Department has made on improving the police response to domestic abuse. (900958)
-

colleagues with your remarks about Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Speaker, and Ann was a Minister when I was doing
14:36
14:36
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
Alex Norris Portrait Alex Norris MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Nottingham North and Kimberley, Labour )
-
-
Now the Home Secretary is boasting about the fact that hotel asylum seekers numbers are being reduced, but of course, they're reduced, but of course, they're being moved into HMOs and the government won't produce the actual figures of how many are going into HMOs, which means places like Hinckley and Bosworth are getting more HMOs. So will the government to commit to produce the data to show exactly where people are being moved from and to. So we can see it specifically around HMOs, because it is not in the data and has not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

been released in the quarterly data. I'd be grateful for an answer. Yeah. I'm slightly saddened by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm slightly saddened by the hon. Gentleman's question. He and I had a very, very good conversation about the nature of the supportive population, his constituency. He population, his constituency. He knows that we work very closely under a policy of successive governments for full dispersal, so governments for full dispersal, so that the the the challenge of supporting the supported population is shared more fairly, where there is shared more fairly, where there have been local disproportionate issues, like in postcodes of his own, we were able to make positive changes there.

I would have hoped he would have recognised that. But to be very clear on his. On his original point, if you look. If he talks about data, the May, the May stats really show a reduction in the total population of 35% and an increase. If the hon. Gentleman can do the questions, he can't do the answers as well. If he were that a reduction in a a reduction in 35% in total population and an increase in the supportive population of less than 1%, even he can do those maths.
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
Alison McGovern Portrait Alison McGovern MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Birkenhead, Labour)
-
-
blur accountability. The government's aim on local government reorganisation is clearer structures, stronger councils, quicker decisions, more councils, quicker decisions, more homes and better services. We have set out the timetable, we are on set out the timetable, we are on track and this includes making announcements on the remaining areas. This week my officials have areas. This week my officials have written to councils to confirm the announcement will take place this week, and I am pleased at the week, and I am pleased at the progress made so far with unitary councils for five areas announced and elections held in Surrey.

Structural changes orders are being brought forward as planned and we are on track for new councils to go live in April 2028, £63 million worth of funding is available to support transition costs, which we are paying directly to councils. Each new council will receive at least £900,000. This is the first time funding has been made available by central government for this purpose, because we need to get these reforms right. Local government reorganisation offers an opportunity for our communities to give local leaders the funding, powers and capacity to grow economies, build the homes their communities need, create better public services, improving the lives of the people we serve.

And I thank the right hon. Gentleman for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the opportunity to set that out. Sir James.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We've all we've all watched this particular film before, the particular film before, the Secretary of State, who once again scurries away to avoid scrutiny, scurries away to avoid scrutiny, tried to cancel local elections, and he was caught putting his thumb on the scales and was forced into on the scales and was forced into an embarrassing climbdown that cost time. It cost money, and it undermined confidence in politics and local government. And. And he's setting about the biggest reorganisation of local government in more than half a century, and is doing so with no mandate for a change of this scale.

And now Ministers appear to be desperate to avoid scrutiny by announcing these decisions on the final day of sitting before the House rises for summer recess. A pattern, a pattern that we have seen before. And the Minister insists, insists that these new shadow authorities, the elections for shadow authorities,
15:43
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:45
Florence Eshalomi Portrait Florence Eshalomi MP (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, Labour )
-
-
And just tell the House there's no point taking everybody. It's going to be a short brief, because we're going to do it all on we're going to do it all on Thursday when all the facts before us, if I've been told earlier, this wouldn't have happened. So there we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wouldn't have happened. So there we are. So let's go to the Select Committee. Florence Eshalomi thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Florence Eshalomi thank you. Mr. Speaker, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Braintree for securing this urgent question. This. The reality is LGR is very complex and involving so many different councils. Only two over 200 councils and services and delivering services to millions of residents right across the country. And I. And I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is very able and capable, but there are real concerns being raised by local government. Is she aware of the concerns and comments from the new chair of the LGA, Councillor Eamonn O'Brien, where he said that the LGA had previously not taken a position on LGR, but they are hearing from councils about real delivery concerns.

This is an area that we've looked at on the Select Committee where we've raised issues around standards across the housing sector to deliver measures, you know, right measures like the Renters Rights Act and enforcement and the LGA raised concerns about these reforms, are trying to do too much, too quickly, with too little. And this poses a real challenge for the vital services that councils and residents need. So can the Minister ensure that the concerns of the LGA are being heard across government, and that reorganisation will never take resources away from those critical frontline services, including adult social care, children and social care that so many of our residents rely on.
15:47
15:48
15:49
15:49
15:50
15:50
15:51
15:51
15:51
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:53
15:53
15:53
15:54
15:54
15:54
15:55
15:56
15:56
15:57
15:57
15:57
15:58
15:58
15:58
15:59
15:59
16:00
16:00
16:01
16:01
16:02
16:03
16:03
16:04
16:04
16:04
16:05
16:05
16:05
16:06
16:06
16:07
16:07
16:08
16:08
16:09
16:10
16:10
16:11
16:11
16:12
16:12
16:12
16:13
16:13
16:14
16:14
16:14
16:15
16:15
16:15
16:16
Jesse Norman Portrait Rt Hon Jesse Norman MP (Hereford and South Herefordshire, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Leader of the House Jesse Norman thank. >> You, Mr. Speaker. I'm not going to come to the despatch box now to come to the despatch box now without registering my sadness, and I'm sure everyone across this house I'm sure everyone across this house at the dreadful news about Ann Widdecombe, and we'll talk about this later, I'm sure, but I just wanted to start with that. The Leader of the House is a good and honourable man, and he will be deeply embarrassed by this fiasco of a procedure today.

It is a gross breach of parliamentary protocol and timing to bring a bill, let alone a bill of this sensitivity in magnitude to the House on this very abbreviated notice. Of course, there is a concern about the victims of the Bill of the of the Hillsborough disaster and their families across this House, but these matters must be properly debated in due season. And to do so, Mr. Speaker, with new amendments that have not even yet been published on no notice, and without the ability of members to amend those amendments or to comment until now, is, I think, a further breach.

Mr. Speaker, why has this happened? Because the outgoing Prime Minister is desperate to preserve what he sees as a legacy. It is a tragedy that he should be so focussed solely on his own political future, such as it is. And it's a pity, I think, that he has taken this opportunity to sideswipe the incoming Prime Minister, a man who arrives with no scrutiny and no accountability to this House. I raise a couple of key points. Of course, it is understood that this legislation was being discussed in the Intelligence and Security Committee.

It is understood that this legislation and its implications were being discussed with our Five Eyes allies, with our armed forces and with the USA in particular. And this abbreviation of protocol is something that I know will attract the attention of the Lords when it arrives in their house. But let me ask the speaker now, why now? Why has this bill been brought forward on such an expedited basis? What has changed? What actually of substance? What has caused him to want to abbreviate the consideration of these very delicate matters on such timetable? Have our international partners been consulted about this change in procedure? Have the agencies been consulted and why? Above all, after seven months of grieving families concerned about the passage of it, is it suddenly now, as it may appear, with little or no change being brought forward in front of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this House? Leader? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I do agree with the shadow Leader of the House about the tragedy of Ann Widdecombe, and I join with. I echo Widdecombe, and I join with. I echo his words. I do not agree with him, Mr. Speaker, about his. The way in Mr. Speaker, about his. The way in which he describes the run up to this change of business and the fact that the Bill will come
16:20
Alan Campbell Portrait Rt Hon Sir Alan Campbell MP, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Tynemouth, Labour)
-
-
tomorrow. This is an important bill. We have been signalling for some time that the bill is coming. He knows that because we've had a dialogue about this before, but I've only been able to confirm it today, which has been the earliest opportunity, Mr. Speaker, he talks about amendments. A number of amendments have been laid for a long time on this bill. The government has brought forward for forward further amendments, and they are in the vote office. I do regret that there is not a greater length of time for colleagues to scrutinise that, but they are available, and I'm sure there will be a way of facilitating a full debate tomorrow.

There's been no abbreviation of this process. It's the same programme motion as was agreed by the House at the end of Second Reading, and I just want to assure the House, as we'll no doubt come out in the debate, that the agencies have been central to this process. The families have been central to this process, and that is why we have taken time to get it right, which is why it has been delayed. But I say this is an important bill that colleagues will want to see on both sides of the House, will want to see before the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

summer recess, and that is what we're facilitating. Florence Eshalomi Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the House for thank the Leader of the House for this statement and update and this really important bill coming back to the House, but it does raise questions about the representation questions about the representation of Peoples Act, which has been delayed. A big legislation which would have included key major would have included key major reforms. Enfranchising so many young people, when trust in
16:21
16:22
16:22
16:22
16:23
16:23
16:23
16:24
16:25
16:25
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
brought conviction to our politics, grounded in her profound Catholic faith, she was forthright in her opinions and argued courageously for the things she believed in. But perhaps most of all, she brought an inimitable style to politics. She was forthright and fearless. As Lord Howard of Lymm can attest. She had a memorable turn of phrase, and she was joyful. She thought seriously about ideas, but she did not take herself too seriously, and that allowed her to reach beyond this place and charm the country at large.

She was one of those rare politicians who was bigger than politics. There have been so many moving tributes in the last few days, reflecting her impact both within this place and beyond politics, but I think her outlook on life is best summed up by Ann herself. Sitting on Graham Norton's sofa, she said, and I quote, we get one go this side of eternity, one go. Life is not a dress rehearsal. You take opportunities that you like and you go for it.

Ann took her opportunities. She was the proud MP for Maidstone for 23 years. A champion of her constituents, she served the country in government as Minister for employment and then prisons, and she took politics out of these ancient walls and became a bona fide TV star. Her contribution to our politics and our national life will never be forgotten. Mr. speaker, on Wednesday, Ann Widdecombe was murdered in her home. The circumstances of her death are extremely distressing. Counter-Terrorism policing have now taken the lead in the investigation.

As Lawrence Taylor, the head of National Counter Terrorism Policing, has said, and I quote, we now have new information and evidence that means counter-terrorism policing is leading the investigation. We are pursuing multiple lines of inquiry to establish the motivation for this attack. The police now have a suspect in custody. A 28 year old white British man. And I can confirm to the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That this man was not known to prevent. The police have cautioned against speculating about the case. against speculating about the case. That is the right thing to do for Ann's family and friends. It is also vital that the police are also vital that the police are given the space they need to carry out their work. For now, what matters most is supporting the matters most is supporting the investigation so that we can see justice delivered for Ann and all who loved her.

And I would urge who loved her. And I would urge anyone with any information at all to come forward immediately. Mr. speaker, I know this raises questions about the security of those in public life. I will not be the only one here thinking also of two other beloved members of this House, Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. Politics is a calling for those of us here, but it should not be a dangerous one. And so it is incumbent on the House and the government to work together to protect those who choose to serve.

The Home Office and the police work closely with the Parliamentary Security Department to provide practical advice and support directly to MPs. But we must always be vigilant to changing threats and respond. Security measures are kept under constant review to ensure MPs can carry out their duties safely, and I know that the police intend to issue guidance to MPs soon, and they will be contacting parliamentarians in their constituencies to offer support. I also recently commissioned the former Lord Chancellor, Sir Robert Buckland, to review the lessons from Sir David Amess murder, including into required improvements to security for MPs working in their constituencies.

I recognise the particular concern that the Reform Party will feel today and of course, Nigel Farage, the party's leader. I'm happy to offer a meeting for Mr. Farage with the chair of Arabic, the independent body within the Home Office that manages the security of those in public life. And I will also be looking at what security guidance can be provided to former members of Parliament, which I hope to work with you on, Mr. Speaker, as well as those who serve a party outside of this place.

Today is a dark day in our political life, but we must also use it as an opportunity to celebrate Ann Widdecombe's memory. She was a unique figure in our politics, a distinctive and devoted public servant, the the likes of whom we will rarely, if ever, see again. Ann had a profound faith. Her journey in this life has ended too soon. May she now rest in eternal peace. I commend this statement to the House.
16:29
Chris Philp Portrait Rt Hon Chris Philp MP (Croydon South, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I advance sight of her statement. I start by offering my deepest condolences to Anne's family and friends. She will be terribly missed. Anne sat as the conservative MP for Maidstone for nearly a quarter of a century and in the European Parliament for the Brexit Party. She served in government and in opposition, including as shadow Home Secretary. She always fearlessly spoke her mind.

She did not worry about whether her opinion would be popular or would be fashionable. She always said exactly what she believed and exactly what she thought. Her integrity and her fortitude were unmatched. I first met Anne 29 years ago at a university debate, speaking on opposite sides. I was a callow 21 year old student. She had just left government and was at the height of her powers. I remember starting my speech by asking her to treat me more gently than she had recently treated Michael Howard.

Needless to say, I was put very firmly in my place. Anne was a also a much loved celebrity with memorable appearances on Strictly Come Dancing and Celebrity Big Brother, including being whirled around by. I think it was Anton Du Beke. So we will all remember Anne fondly as a public figure who was always formidable. She was always charming and she was always entertaining. Now, Mr. Speaker, as we discuss this appalling murder, we should heed the words of Devon and Cornwall Assistant Chief Constable Matt Longman, who said at the weekend this.

We are aware of online and public speculation, particularly with regard to motive. I urge people not to share or engage with speculation. It is unhelpful and distressing to Anne's friends and family and particularly harmful to our investigation. A criminal barrister, Dennis Kavanagh, also recently pointed out that speculation makes the police's job harder and in some cases could even prejudice a trial. And I urge everyone debating this issue to keep that in mind. Mr. speaker, it has just been confirmed by the Home Secretary that counter-terrorism police are now leading the murder investigation.

So to help avoid that speculation, is there any further information the Home Secretary can properly share about this without prejudicing the investigation? I'd like to thank the police for releasing the information they have so far, including about the identity of the suspect. It is always important to release as much information as possible in the interests of transparency and to avoid misinformation. Filling the void. As Jonathan Hall QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has said previously. Let me turn now to threats against those in public life.

Any threats against MPs who have been democratically elected to represent their constituents or others in public life should be taken extremely seriously. In the last ten years, two MPs, Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, have been murdered and now a former MP has been murdered as well. The threat is clearly real. I also remember in 2017 when terrorist Khalid Masood drove a car into pedestrians along Westminster Bridge, injuring more than 50 people, four fatally, and then ran into New Palace Yard, just yards from where we sit here, where he fatally stabbed PC Keith Palmer.

That was also an attack on democracy itself, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank you personally for all the work you are doing to protect MPs and those in public life. I know that as the speaker of the House of Commons, you have made the safety and protection of those in public life your highest priority, and I would like to thank you for that. We must redouble our efforts to ensure that public political figures who are MPs and those like Anne, who are not MPs, always receive the proportionate protection they need.

I'd be grateful if the Home Secretary could confirm that she will review all the arrangements. With this objective in mind. I believe in this country we should be able to debate each other robustly on important issues, but should also speak to each other in a way that is civil and respectful. Of course, nothing excuses violent attacks on public figures, but we should all also set an example of civility and calm and not inflame. Mr. speaker, we need people to step up and become MPs and also speak in the public square.

Debate and disagreement are what make our country great. Ann Widdecombe exemplified that every minute of her life. I pay tribute to her. I know we will all remember Ann forever.
16:34
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
Home Secretary thank you, Mr. Speaker, and let me thank the shadow Home Secretary both for his shadow Home Secretary both for his own remarks and memories of Ann Widdecombe and also for his questions. Let me say to him that in relation to the new information that has come to light and the progress on the counter terrorism progress on the counter terrorism policing investigation, there is a statement that has been put out by national by counter-terrorism policing, which I believe has been published online, but I will make sure it is placed in the in the library of the House as well.

The main the main thing is to draw out for that are the fact, as I said in my statement, that new information and evidence means that they are now leading the investigation and that they are pursuing multiple lines of inquiry in order to establish the motivation of this attack. As soon as more information is available that is capable of being shared without compromising any future trial process that will be done. So we take seriously, and I know counter-terrorism policing take very seriously the learnings from the summer of 2024, and definitely to heed the call of Jonathan Hall KC and others on timely release of information without compromising the the ability to bring someone ultimately to justice, which is of course the main the main aim when such a horror of an attack happens.

Let me also, Mr. Speaker, say I would like to echo the remarks made by the shadow Home Secretary to you and to thank you personally for all of your. Your efforts in maintaining the safety and security of parliamentarians. I know it's something that you personally worry about and take a deep interest in. Let me let me also say I. Given the fast moving nature of this investigation, I don't want to say anything that will prejudice the direction of travel here. However, there is a question that is raised in this as a result of this murder, which relates not to the not just to the security arrangements for sitting members of Parliament, but for those who have left this place, but nevertheless retain a public profile as a result of their political party membership or their political activities.

There are also, given the range of new political parties that are contesting the political and democratic space. I think questions about those who are not represented at all here in the House of Commons. And just to reassure you, Mr. Speaker, I will be looking at those arrangements very closely. I will seek to work with Mr. Speaker directly, and my officials will engage with parties across this House and those outside of it, to make sure that whatever changes are made are done so in a manner that covers the multiple range of threats that we see.

Mr. speaker, I think there has been a step change in parliamentary the security parliamentarians over the last few years, but I think that it is a reflection of the multi-layered threats that our democracy faces, and that our active individuals in democracy face that this is not something we can ever take for granted or believe is settled. It is something that we have to continually review, which we do. And there are new questions that are raised, which I will make it my personal business to answer, and I will update the House in due course.
16:38
16:39
16:40
Max Wilkinson Portrait Max Wilkinson MP (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The news >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The news about Ann Widdecombe is shocking and deeply distressing. My thoughts are with her family, including her nephew, the Reverend Roger Widdecombe, my constituent and his wife Hannah, who lead the congregation at Saint Paul's Church congregation at Saint Paul's Church in Cheltenham. Her death is all the more tragic given what we now know about the upsetting and disturbing circumstances, and Widdecombe was a conviction politician and also an entertainer.

Many did not agree with her views, including me, particularly when she was briefly my member of the European Parliament. But the style in which she put those views was compelling, and it captured the attention of her nation. Just did her dance moves. They were deeply held beliefs, and she was a passionate public servant who was never afraid to challenge those in power and might. I briefly speculate, Mr. Speaker, a strong liberal inclination to challenge power from a strong conservative politician. I want to pay tribute to the police for their rapid response in this case, and I want to pay tribute to you, Mr.

Speaker, for the way in which your office gives security support to MPs. It is important we are able to do our jobs without fear, intimidation or worse. It is, of course, horrifying that there have been three politicians murdered in this country in the past decade. Clearly there is more work to be done. Might the government support some amendments to the upcoming Representation of the People Bill to impose a duty on the Electoral Commission to provide more guidance and safety for politicians? And will the Home Office consider supporting some measures so the safety of politicians can be improved? And finally, Mr.

Speaker, some alarming allegations were made on the weekend by the reform home affairs spokesperson, Zia Yusuf. If they are true, these allegations are extremely concerning. But given his record, I think many of us have doubts. I am certain that the government and the House authorities, including you, Mr. Speaker, are taking seriously the duty of care to members from all parties in this House. But for the sake of the record, perhaps the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

concern, the Home Secretary can confirm that this remains the case. Secretary let me thank the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary let me thank the hon. Member for his contribution on his three specific issues that he three specific issues that he raised on the amendments to the representation of the people. Bill, let me say to him, I'm very happy let me say to him, I'm very happy to discuss with him. You know, the Home Office is not the lead for that bill, but I'm very happy to
16:42
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
that bill, but I'm very happy to have a discussion with him about any additional measures that might be needed in terms of legislation. Of course, the Electoral Commission has its own work to do. It might be better that duties are placed elsewhere, but as I say, I'll happily discuss that with him, and equally, whether there's any further obligations or changes of policy in respect of the Home Office or indeed the parliamentary security Department. Again, I'm happy to engage with him and other members across this House.

Let me also say, I don't wish to speak for you, Mr. Speaker, but I think all those of us who are members can attest to the fact that all of us are treated equally in this place by the speaker and also for the purposes of the parliamentary security department when it comes to our safety on this estate and also in our constituencies. Let me say that as a position shared by the government, there is equal treatment for all in terms of the work that we do on security of members of Parliament, there is specific work that is undertaken by Ravec, which is the independent body within the Home Office that looks at security arrangements for some of those in public life.

That work is also fiercely independent. It has been the subject of legal proceedings before, and I've always maintained the independence of that process, and that is based on risk assessment and risk management.
16:43
16:44
16:45
16:46
Karen Bradley Portrait Rt Hon Dame Karen Bradley MP (Staffordshire Moorlands, Conservative)
-
-
Dame Karen Bradley, chair of the Select Committee. 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 Staffordshire Moorlands. Not many people do. We're quite isolated area and she came to console. Yes, they come to Alton Towers. The hon. they come to Alton Towers. The hon. Gentleman is quite right, but she came to Council 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, the noble Lord Cameron, might not have entirely approved of.

But my association were totally enraptured and thought it was the most wonderful event. And it's still fondly remembered in the association, not least because she told me I had to take my heels off because I was going to stand far too tall next to her in the photograph, and that was not appropriate. Can I also thank Staffordshire Police for contacting me this weekend and making a visit to my home to review my security arrangements at home? I know police forces across the country will be doing that, and I'm very grateful to them for taking that time.

But could 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 Select Committee did produce a report on new forms of radicalisation and extremism, and we have some recommendations which we hope might be able to help the law enforcement and others to find

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those that have a tendency towards violence. Could I ask her if she will consider that in the longer term? Home Secretary. Let.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let. Me say to the hon. Lady she makes a really important point, actually, on the prevent duty and actually, on the prevent duty and the changing nature of the threat and the consequences that has for the prevent programme. I think it's the prevent programme. I think it's absolutely essential that we retain a deradicalisation programme that is focussed on ideology. But as she
16:48
16:48
16:50
16:50
Richard Tice Portrait Richard Tice MP (Boston and Skegness, Reform UK)
-
-
To touch. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. sadness and anguish at the loss of our own, and. Also the manner in which she has been taken from us. which she has been taken from us. She was a colossus in public life, in political life, a legend adored and loved by millions and millions of people, including my own late mother, for whom she spoke so very warmly of Ann. She was a remarkable lady. She had an incredible work ethic. She would think nothing of going the length and breadth of the country to speak at rallies.

She was an incredible orator who always spoke without notes. Absolutely remarkable. And and her philosophy to life. The Home Secretary touched on it. She viewed life as. It's not a dress rehearsal. You grasp every opportunity. You go for it as far as possible. Her career, her political career here, Mr. Speaker, I checked earlier. In 23 years, she made over 8000 contributions in this place, and it's a remarkable Witney interventions. When an hon. Member said that she should disappear with her broomstick, she immediately replied, I have my broomstick and I will cast a spell over you.

And that was her nature. Likewise, her media career was also remarkable. She was an agony aunt in two programmes. She was a most deserving semi-finalist in Strictly Come Dancing, for sure, and and of course, Celebrity Big Brother. And, and she was she was an incredible panto performer that was adored by so many. Her conviction, her passion, and her advocacy for free speech was to be commended. I had the honour of working with her for the last seven years and despite being a foot taller than her, I somehow always found myself looking up to her and she.

She also. When. When she phoned, I always stood up on my toes. Incoming. Beware. And that was an. And we will miss her dearly. And I also think that the. The Scottish whisky industry has lost a very discerning customer and. Maybe there could be a limited edition widow's whisky where the tasting notes may reflect unique, unforgettable flavours. A fiery, spicy series of tones but a blend to be treasured to eternity. May she rest in peace, Mr.

Speaker, and I just ask the Home Secretary in conclusion, could she ensure that the counter-terrorism unit keep us updated on as regular possible basis and and given the nature of these things, we all want our police forces to do brilliantly, of course. And would it be wise when considering motivation when giving us early updates to to keep things being open ended as opposed to motive, as opposed to ruling things out too quickly, that may then end up being ruled back in.

Yeah.
16:53
16:54
16:55
16:57
Julian Lewis Portrait Rt Hon Sir Julian Lewis MP (New Forest East, Conservative)
-
-
So. Deputy Speaker, and may I apologise to you and to the House that the fact that I have to chair a meeting in a few minutes time prevents me in a few minutes time prevents me staying, as I would wish to do till the end of the. The statement when the end of the. The statement when I went up as an undergraduate to Oxford in late 1970 and joined the University Conservative Association, there were two outstanding figures a year ahead of me in that August body.

One was Ann Widdecombe and the other was Nicholas Turner. And a few years later, in February 1980. Ann Widdecombe and I shared a taxi to the funeral of Nicholas Turner, who had heroically sacrificed his life in an attempt to rescue his young daughter, Alice. It was a double funeral who had been swept into the sea by a freak wave. Ann was always there when her friends needed support, and on a lighter note, she was always there, ready to bring her friends back down to earth.

So when she was elected, I think in 1987 for the first time, and I was happen to be moving flats, I gifted her a relatively new washing machine that was now surplus to my requirements. And for several years after she became an MP, she used to invite me once a year, almost like clockwork, to have lunch with her in this place, and I naturally assumed that it was that she wished to imbibe the wisdom of my political advice.

It was only by accident that she once revealed when I suggested that to her and how flattered I was, she said, oh, no, Julian, she said, this is rent for the washing machine. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr. Speaker, will certainly remember that in 2008 to 2009, this House spent a lot of time taking steps to ensure that MPs home addresses did not, in future have to be revealed either in answer to freedom of information requests or on ballot papers and notices of nomination.

And it therefore comes as a bit of a shock to me to read in one of the reports today that Ann had, and it may turn out to be a complete coincidence. Featured in her home on a programme on television extensively only six days before she died, and it said that the name of the home had been obscured. But there is software available that if you put up a picture of a of a place, particularly if you know the general area where it is, it will identify the address.

So may I please appeal to members and ex-members from whatever political party. Do not throw away the gains we made and whatever else you do, keep your home addresses as private as you possibly can.
17:00
17:00
Florence Eshalomi Portrait Florence Eshalomi MP (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, Labour )
-
-
Florence Eshalomi. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I join in paying tribute to the many. Heartfelt tributes for Ann Widdecombe from members right across the House. And I didn't know her personally. But as as someone her personally. But as as someone thinking about before I came to this place, there are many names that you always come across and hers was definitely one of them. And may her gentle soul rest in peace. I wanted to ask the Home Secretary about the area that many members have already raised.

I spoke to a group of students earlier this afternoon. Students who compete in completing work experience and shadowing. And one of the young girls asked me, what are the downsides and what do you not like about this role? And it pained me to be honest to them, to say the death threats and the abuse that you get just because you are doing something that you love and something that you enjoy. And we have to be honest about the real life threats being faced by parliamentarians right across the house just for doing the job that they, they, they really enjoy.

And so I asked the Home Secretary, can she confirm that it is good that counter-terrorism police are leading this, that they have all the necessary resources they need to be able to carry out this full and thorough investigation, because there are many competing demands that they will be dealing with in our ever unstable and global world. And she also confirmed that in addition to some of the misinformation that's been spread online, we look at the area which the Mother of the House did mention around that online misinformation, that targeting.

I'll declare an interest. Madam Deputy Speaker, I did. I do sit on the speaker's committee on Electoral Commission, and this is one of the areas we have looked at. And just to add my tributes and thanks to the speaker for the work that he's done on this. In terms of the speaker's conference, I know that whenever I've raised issues and to thank the parliamentary plate team, they have taken that really important, and it's important that we don't deter future people for standing for public office.
17:02
17:03
Iain Duncan Smith Portrait Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)
-
-
Sir Iain Duncan Smith Madam >> Sir Iain Duncan Smith Madam Deputy Speaker on Friday was a funny day because I heard the news very early in the morning that Anne very early in the morning that Anne had died. I must say I was utterly surprised over that because she seemed perfectly fit the last time seemed perfectly fit the last time that I saw her. So I gave my condolences and spoke on the radio about it, and only sadly, later that day, just after lunch.

Then I discovered it wasn't sad. It was a tragedy. A tragedy that a phenomenal woman, a member of this House, and no longer should have been murdered in her own home for reasons we know not what. And it did allow me to think back to this woman who was a force of nature. She was impossible to argue with because she never accepted that she was losing the argument, until finally she was able to turn it 180 degrees and make you feel guilty that in actual fact, you'd even dared to argue with her at that time.

And I particularly remember during the Maastricht debates, of which I have to confess, I and 1 or 2 others here were deeply rebellious, and I got a lecture from the Dispatch Box when she was in government about how I should support the Maastricht treaty and the European Union, which rather worried me, and I have to say rather ironic now when I turned up that she's gone over to reform, I thought to myself, now there's somebody that takes the brief that you have collective responsibility more than she even had to.

I said, so rather remarkable. And she was a remarkable woman in many, many cases. And I got to know her during Shadow Cabinet when we would debate and argue, she argued robustly in Shadow Cabinet, as she did across the Dispatch Box you were the enemy. Doesn't matter whether you were Labour or conservative, you disagreed with her and you got used to it. And it was phenomenal, really, because she was so certain about the way that she was. But she embodied something else. And, speaker, the passion that is necessary in this chamber for us to make our arguments without fear of any other person doing something to us.

We have that because we're there. The second thing she imbibed and completely demonstrated was the peculiar, unique responsibility that we have to our constituents and the nature that we have, which I don't think is replicated almost anywhere else. The personal contact we make with constituents going into their homes. I don't ask for security. When I go into someone's home. You go in to see them if they're too ill to come and see you. We all do this. I know we do, and we do not want to lose that.

We do not want the epitaph of her terrible murder to be that we withdrew from the nature of who we are and what makes this place so great. And I simply say, we need to reiterate. And the government, if I don't mind saying to the Home Secretary, needs to specify to all those social media companies, they must do something to close down on the visceral, violent language that some people use attacking personally, as they did over her murder, which has shocked me to make sure we get on top of that, because that is the root of violence and death.

It is not only her that has been murdered. It is not only Jo Cox or David Amos, my good friend, that has been murdered, but the rack up here shows that terrorists have murdered many in our party. And I say, if we want to stop that, we have to be bold. We have to be clear. We will not accept being shut down, being stopped from our duties, or being silenced in any way, because that is what Anne would have approved of.
17:07
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
Yes. >> The hon. Gentleman makes some very powerful points. He's absolutely right. I think it is not sad. It is a tragedy. Now that we sad. It is a tragedy. Now that we know a little more of the circumstances of the death of of this murder, and more, more will this murder, and more, more will obviously come to light in the fullness of time. Let me let me say I agree with him. I think as a society, as a government, we are all going to have to do much more on holding social media platforms to account for what is said and done through their platforms.

I think that some progress has been made, but it feels like it takes a long time to get legislation through many years before any of it can be implemented, and this is a very fast moving environment and getting that balance right between fierce and contested debate, and then the behaviour that gets you into threats and visceral abuse and harassment, I think, is incumbent on all of us. And I hope that we're able to work together across this House to achieve the necessary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

balance and the necessary regulation of social media that we need. Justin Madders Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Justin Madders Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I add my condolences to those of the Home Secretary and other members? To the family of Anne Whitaker? May she rest in peace. I just want to flag up, if I peace. I just want to flag up, if I may, the concerns I have, not just about members of this place, but actually our party members, our
17:08
17:09
17:10
17:11
17:12
Helena Dollimore Portrait Helena Dollimore MP (Hastings and Rye, Labour )
-
-
answer, so I want to pay tribute to her as well. I don't want to speculate on the case or what happened. I do wish to place on record my concern about the fact that we are seeing very frequently the media either photograph or broadcast identifiable details of members or former members homes. That is happening repeatedly to members across this House, members of the Cabinet, members of the Shadow Cabinet and to former members. And we've heard today about the risks that could come with that.

I know that the former member for Surrey Heath mentioned in a podcast fairly recently that the man who killed Sir David Amess visited his home from I details he had identified from the media. And that's how serious this is. So given the risks that we know exist about this, I know this is something the speaker's commission has looked at as well. And the new tools that are existing out there, like reverse image searching, which makes it easier to look at a media image to then find out where that house is on Google Maps.

Could the Home Secretary urgently look at this issue, together with her colleagues in DCMS and also the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

media, regulators and Ofcom and the Independent Press Standards Authority? Yeah, yeah. Yes. Let me thank my hon. Friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Let me thank my hon. Friend for that question, and to assure her that this is one of the issues her that this is one of the issues that I will pick up. As I said in answer to a question from one of the members opposite a little earlier in this statement, and I earlier in this statement, and I shall discuss with colleagues on a cross-party basis and with Mr. Speaker and the House authorities
17:14
17:14
Bernard Jenkin Portrait Sir Bernard Jenkin MP (Harwich and North Essex, Conservative)
-
-
Bernard Jenkin Mr. Speaker, can I thank the Home Secretary for her I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and her tribute to Ann, which was extremely moving, if I which was extremely moving, if I may say so. Can I also just point out the unfortunate statistical out the unfortunate statistical fact that as a member of Parliament, you are more likely to meet a violent death than a member of Her Majesty's Armed Forces or a member of the British police forces, and I.

Can I just ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to assure this to assure, Mr. Speaker, that none of us doubt his personal commitment to our security. But this remains a very relevant problem, because none of us want our homes to be turned into fortresses. But maybe more people need to be encouraged to put, for example, security gates on the front of their houses and to have security cameras watching and recording what is going on, rather than just relying on the ring bell that happens to be on your front door.

Can I just also pay tribute to my own tribute to Ann? That much has been already said, and I shared 18 years of her parliamentary life alongside my right hon. Friend the honourable. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. The disagreements about Maastricht, the disagreements about women candidates. My goodness, she loathed me trying to promote women candidates in the Conservative Party and and I maintain she was wrong about that. But she was right about many things.

Her maiden speech was actually about the Trident nuclear deterrent, at a time when the Labour Party was a bit wobbly on that subject and the Liberal Democrats. But what a testament to what an emblem of her patriotism and fervour for strength and clarity of purpose. And I would also just point out I served in Shadow Cabinet with her when the government were introducing the Human Rights Act and our close adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights. She was the one member of the Shadow Cabinet said we should oppose this when there were members of our Shadow Cabinet saying that we should relish joining it.

And she was right, and her prescience has often invited derision from others. But she was right on that score. We're learning the lessons that she left behind in her life. Maybe other parties will learn them too.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Well. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that was also very moving tribute that was also very moving tribute to someone that he clearly was very fond of and worked with very, very closely. He is there to say that closely. He is there to say that she was wrong. Perhaps if we listen closely, we can hear her saying something in response to him that something in response to him that was probably quite forceful in its own way. Let, let let me say to him,
17:17
17:18
Alan Gemmell Portrait Alan Gemmell MP (Central Ayrshire, Labour)
-
-
Alan Gemmell thank. >> The family and friends of Ann Widdecombe and the colleagues who work closely with her on the benches opposite. It is hard not to benches opposite. It is hard not to see the murder of an SNP as an attempted attack on this place and our way of life, but we must not let it have a chilling effect on those who want to stand for public office. Can I thank Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr. Speaker, for the time he took with new intake MPs in 2024 to give us his hints and tips and also really focus on on security.

And I also thank the Home Secretary for looking at the safety and risks for MPs. As someone who is in almost daily contact with one of their predecessors, I am sure it will come up in our next phone call. And can I let the Member for Boston and Skegness know? I have a call with the Scotch Whisky Association this afternoon who I think want to talk about the FTA, but I'll very happily talk about widow's whisky. Does the Home Secretary agree? We must do all we can to ensure that people are not put off standing in public life, particularly with online hate and the increasing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

violence that we see on doors and in our society. Home Secretary. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We all must do more. Let me right. We all must do more. Let me assure him that the government will work closely with Mr. Speaker and the Parliamentary Security the Parliamentary Security Department to make sure that we are doing everything that we can. But as I said, as I said in answer to as I said, as I said in answer to other questions during the statement, as a society, I think we have to take a stronger position on the right boundary between
17:19
17:19
17:20
17:21
17:22
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
I thank my hon. Friend for for >> I thank my hon. Friend for for for that contribution. He will know that colleagues in DSIT are working very carefully on the Online Safety very carefully on the Online Safety Act and its further implementation and learning lessons from how it is and learning lessons from how it is applying. So at the moment, to think carefully about what might need to be done in the future. But I think it is clear that we need a much stronger and better policed boundary between what is acceptable in a democracy and behaviour that we know is challenging the very foundations of our democracy.

And as I say, I've undertaken to have that discussion with colleagues in across government, and I will make sure that the House is updated as to a programme of work that the government intends to take forward, to make sure that all of our arrangements here are as robust as possible, and that it is we, the people of this country that decide the sort of inheritance that we wish to leave for our children, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not algorithms decided by a very small number of men who live abroad. Mark Francois thank you, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mark Francois thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I thank both frontbenchers for their very touching tributes to Anne? And for touching tributes to Anne? And for the benefit of those outside this House, can I place on record that House, can I place on record that we all know the absolute personal commitment of Mr. Speaker and all commitment of Mr. Speaker and all the Deputy Speakers to the security of all members and of their families, and can we thank him and the rest of the team for that?
17:23
Mark Francois Portrait Rt Hon Mark Francois MP (Rayleigh and Wickford, Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. Well done. >> Yeah. Well done. >> We mustn't comment on the investigation, but can we at least investigation, but can we at least wish the police Godspeed in bringing whoever was responsible for this utterly heinous act fully to book? Yeah, yeah. We've now lost another fallen comrade to cops, Sir David Amos, and now an. And years ago, others to Republican terrorism too. This is a challenge for all of us and for our loved ones.

And I do believe, as I said, after David was murdered, the social media companies have a responsibility in this to. You always needed a thick skin to come into politics. You now need the hide of a rhino, and they could do something to calm down the level of hate to which hon. Members and their families are exposed online. And I look to the Home Secretary in the hope that something positive could be done there. And Widdecombe was unmissable.

She was a one woman nuclear deterrent. Whether she was debating in the House of Commons or arriving on strictly by zipwire, I saw her only about three weeks ago at a breakfast meeting and she was in fine fettle that morning. I knew her through Sir David. They were great friends. They came in in a similar era in the 1980s. They had a strong bond via the Catholic faith. They got on extremely well. I appeared in a number of photographs with both Sir David and Anne down the years, but for some reason I was never asked to remove reason I was never asked to remove my shoes.

I have one brief anecdote. In 2010, having obviously upset someone in authority, I was made the government accommodation with and it was my responsibility to hand out officers. Now, no one has ever done this job will tell you it's not easy. And Anne, who had retired from the house, had a very, very attractive office overlooking Parliament Square. And that was on my list of one that I knew would be in high demand. So when I went along to check it out, I found Sir David already neatly ensconced in the office.

And when I asked him how this had come about, he told me he was claiming squatters rights, and, moreover, that he had been bequeathed the office by Anne as a personal gift. And when I sought to remonstrate, he told me that if I didn't like that decision I could take it up with her personally, at which point I decided that discretion was the better part of valour and withdrew. She was remarkable. You couldn't argue with her? Well, you could try, but you never got very far.

And she's the type of character that people deeply respected because she was absolutely consistent in her view, whether you agreed with her or not. And we have lost a distinguished and incredibly remarkable colleague in the most awful of circumstances. But Ann Widdecombe would tell us to keep calm and carry on, and I believe that's exactly what we should do.
17:27
17:28
17:29
17:30
Mark Pritchard Portrait Rt Hon Mark Pritchard MP (The Wrekin, Conservative)
-
-
Mark Pritchard Madam. speakers for everything the Speaker's office and the Parliamentary Security Directorate and their team do to keep all members safe of all political parties? Can I thank the Home Secretary for a very warm tribute and also the Deputy Leader of Reform for his warm tribute as well. Can I also put on record my thanks as a West Midlands MP to counter terrorism, policing West Midlands and the fantastic people there, and also Special Branch, West Mercia Police, who do a fantastic job.

I have only been in the house 21 years, but it's only been in the last 2 or 3 years that that I've had to take, if you like, serious and substantive security advice, and that is an unwelcome development and something that I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

think we all need to work together to tackle. There's been reference to technology companies, of course. technology companies, of course. Should we expect technology companies to act, given that some of the technology company owners of the technology company owners don't even believe in democracy, they actually want to undo democracy in order they have democracy in order they have ultimate power. That's not conspiracy. It's actually on the record. Some of them have stated record. Some of them have stated that.

And in defence of some of the mainstream media, particularly the it's called Deadwood Press. And I've had my disagreements over the years, but they have to regulate with very limited resources. They have to regulate the comments that people put under stories. Why can't tech companies do it as well? For too long, the mainstream media in this country have been blamed for most of it. And in fact, it is. The tech companies have more resources that should be doing more. And if I may, on a lighter note, I just want to give a couple of stories, if I may, from Ann's life.

I knew Ann before I entered the house. We spent five years together as members of Parliament, but I knew her before that as well. Two stories. One. I remember when there was a move to stop the first ever Catholic ambassador being appointed to the Holy See, the British Embassy and the Holy See, and Ann and I and David Amos and others worked to overturn that. And I was the only Anglican in the village, to paraphrase a times diarist and middle wicket Anglican at that, a very poor one, not literally poor, but actually both.

But anyway. But as the only Anglican in the village, I felt it was completely wrong. This discrimination against Catholics being appointed to the. The Vatican. Thankfully that was overturned and Tony Blair and others allowed that to happen. So Francis Campbell was appointed the first Catholic ambassador to the Holy See and did a fantastic job. The other story I have briefly Madam Deputy Speaker is that on the way back from the Chelsea Flower Show, having seen David Austin, the former now past founder of David Austin Roses at the Chelsea Flower Show with the former deputy speaker Nigel Evans coming back in the taxi, we heard that Speaker Martin had resigned Michael Martin, we both discussed it and we thought it would be a great deputy speaker.

There was only one problem. That was in 2009. In 2007, she had announced that she was going to step down at the following election. Anyway, we met with her and said, we think you'd be a great speaker. Would you do it? And she said, yes. What have I got to do? Well, you've got to go and speak to the all the parties of all the different parties up in committee room 14, everybody stuffed in there as usual, and you've got to do a pitch.

And I just said to her, but whatever you do, don't say you're running for speaker and then say you're standing down in 2010. And of course, as we all know, Anne was very wise. She completely dismissed that advice, stood up and said, I'm running for speaker, but I will stand down in one year or two years time. So of course, she didn't have any success on that. I just conclude by saying she was a lady of conviction, of clarity, compassion, integrity, authenticity, a lexicon of virtue.

And of course, she was recognised by His Holiness the Pope with a papal damehood, a DSG. But she was, unfortunately, I think, unfairly never recognised in this country in the same way. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hope that is something in honour and memory that could be considered. Thank you. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Well, again, let me say to the hon. Gentleman, those are some lovely memories that he has shared lovely memories that he has shared with the with the house of his his dear friend, as he was making his dear friend, as he was making his contribution, I thought I would follow what he had said in relation to counter terrorism, policing, and just place on the record my
17:34
17:35
Liz Saville Roberts Portrait Rt Hon Liz Saville Roberts MP (Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Plaid Cymru)
-
-
Liz Saville-Roberts I speak on >> Liz Saville-Roberts I speak on behalf of my party, Plaid Cymru. I think we were all of us. We will remember where we were when we remember where we were when we heard the news once again that in this case, a former member of Parliament, but somebody who lived Parliament, but somebody who lived the same lives as ourselves died in such a hideous, shocking way in the murder. And of course, it is the work of the police and the justice system.

Now that must come first and foremost. And I was with North Wales Police in training many of their officers on Operation Bridger. Only on Friday afternoon, just before this happened, and I. I do commend them, but also I think we really need to know how difficult it is for the police, because what Operation Bridger does has to go down to the front line. The front line needs to be alert to that. And I must also mention the importance of Operation Ford for Senate members and in Wales, other national parliaments elsewhere, and also for councillors, because the ability of elected representatives, all of us, to do our job by being available to meet constituents and speak directly to them is precious.

We need to be alert to keeping that the trust that goes with being able to meet people is precious. So does she agree with me that we're not just talking about protection for ourselves for this year, for a few years to come, what we're doing here, what we are endeavouring to do here, is to safeguard the values of democratic debate over violence into the future.
17:37
17:38
17:38
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, I think that it is important that all members of the House are all members of the House are careful and calm in the way that we describe other members of this House and the work done by other House and the work done by other members in this House. I think that we have to imagine how we would feel if we were on the receiving feel if we were on the receiving end of that, and try to treat others the way we wish to be treated ourselves.

And I would certainly want to make sure that I say from this Dispatch Box for myself and for the government, that any abuse or harassment of members of Parliament to other Members of Parliament is, is unacceptable as well. We should all moderate our language. We also have to get the right balance in this place between fierce and contested political debate, which happens on both the right and the left of the spectrum, and and then also making sure that we don't slip into behaviours that increase threat to any of our colleagues.

It is a difficult balance sometimes to strike in the heat of the moment, in the heat of a very polarised debate. But we still have a responsibility to show our best selves at work, as it were. And I would always caution all members, before you say anything quickly, just take a minute to reflect and then and then think about what you're about to say. Let me say to him on specific threat. No, I'm not aware. He knows that I wouldn't ever comment on threats because or indeed arrangements that are in place for any member or indeed others in public life only because to comment starts to affect the integrity of the overall system.

But I will make sure, as I've said, that in relation to the leader of reform UK, that he's offered a meeting with the independent Chair of Ravec to discuss specific issues relating to risk assessment and if there are any other matters in relation to risk assessment. I know that the police are monitoring that very carefully and will discuss with all political parties in this House any any additional changes that they might wish to make?
17:40
Robert Jenrick Portrait Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP (Newark, Reform UK)
-
-
Robert Jenrick can I join colleagues across the House in colleagues across the House in paying tribute to Anne, a woman who was brave, principled, kind and generous. I, like many others, will miss her enormously, even though on my first morning as a member of my first morning as a member of Parliament, when I was the youngest MP, I met her in Westminster Hall and she asked me, am I here on work experience? I think I've eventually shed my MP.

The Home Secretary is the ultimate arbiter of what happened in the Home Office. She. She isn't powerless and no one would pretend. So. Would she agree that it was unwise of the government to heavily reduce the security offered to the Member for Clacton? Given all that we know about his particular danger that is posed to him and to his family, would she agree that, frankly, it shouldn't have taken the murder of Anne for him to be offered a meeting with the committee and that many will conclude, perhaps unfairly, but nonetheless, that it is only because of the political views of the Member for Clacton that he is placed in this position.

And will she use her power as Home Secretary to make sure that the security that he and his family

**** Possible New Speaker ****

needs is put in place immediately? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Well, let me say to the hon. Gentleman, he will know that it is an independent process within the an independent process within the Home Office that deals with the risk assessment and risk management risk assessment and risk management of those in in public life. I'm not going to compromise the integrity of those arrangements by commenting
17:42
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
of those arrangements by commenting in any detail on specific instances. Let me simply say and observe, in the ten months I've been in the Home Office, I have seen media reports in relation to various suggested risk assessments and risk mitigations. I have never commented whether to say something is true or false, simply because I believe that you should not breach that principle of not commenting so as to protect the integrity of the system, but I that the meeting has been offered, let me assure him in relation to Arabic it is and will always be fiercely independent.

It must be because the protection that is offered and the level of protection and the tactics of protection that are offered to people, must never be based on a political assessment of who needs it. But an independent operational assessment of what risk is and how it is best managed. I do think that that operational independence is incredibly important, and I will always maintain it and protect it, and I know the government as a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

whole will do so as well. Madam Deputy Speaker, and the death of Ann Widdecombe is death of Ann Widdecombe is incredibly shocking. But and I didn't know Ann Widdecombe as an MP, but it's been a wonderful afternoon. Listening to colleagues from across this House share some of their memories. She is clearly was was memories. She is clearly was was clearly a formidable political leader. And of course, we will always remember her as well as an
17:43
Zöe Franklin Portrait Zöe Franklin MP (Guildford, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
always remember her as well as an entertainer. And my thoughts are with her family and her friends at this incredibly difficult time. But her death is, I think, also a devastating reminder about the problem that all of us in this place, of all elected members and in particular councillors as well, all face on a day to day basis while we try to serve the communities that we love and we have been elected to serve. And I think it has come across very clearly in this chamber that we all want to and need to do more to protect each other and our democracy, and particularly reflecting on councillors, I speak a lot to my councillors in Guildford, and also as the local government spokesperson to councillors from across the country, and the stories I hear are horrendous, whether it's parish council leaders telling me about death threats, whether it's council leaders telling me about death threats, this is a democracy.

We should not be experiencing this as elected representatives, and I'm grateful to the Home Secretary for the things she has set out already. But I wonder if she could also set out what actions the government is taking to protect elected officials at all levels, but particularly councillors and those who are served by Operation Ford, and whether she can confirm that there will be more resources made available to Operation Ford so that they can provide a consistent level of support across the country.

As I know that police officers and police forces across the country want to do that. But I do hear varying levels of support across the country. Thank you.
17:45
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
Yeah. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me also join with the hon. Lady in saying it has been a very moving afternoon. Hearing tributes to Ann afternoon. Hearing tributes to Ann Widdecombe across across the House, and particularly particularly from her former colleagues in the her former colleagues in the Conservative Party and also from her colleagues in reform UK, who are obviously very personally affected, and I offer my condolences to all of them once, once again, on the loss of their friend and their colleague.

Let me say to the hon. Lady, I take very seriously the the wider risks to our democracy, including for local councillors. She has already already referenced some of the steps that the government has taken through our Defending Democracy Task Force, Operation Ford. I'm sure there will be further developments in this space. I think we're learning lessons from the work that the task force did in relation to the most recent local elections, and I know that the developing nature of these threats has to be reflected in our new arrangements as we move forward as well.

But we are very alive to the risks, not just to those of us in this place. Of course, given what's happened to Jo Cox, to Sir David Amess and now Ann Widdecombe, parliamentarians get a lot of attention in terms of our security. And this is perhaps the most high profile chamber and often referred to as the Mother of Parliament. So that would be understandable. But this country also cannot do without the work of its local councillors, its parish councillors and all those people who put in the hours to make their local area better.

And this government will stand by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them to. Can I thank the Home Secretary for her statement this afternoon, and I will allow a few moments for and I will allow a few moments for and I will allow a few moments for Brings us to a Brings us to a statement Brings us to a statement on Brings us to a statement on the state of nature and Climate 2026 Minister Mary Creagh.
17:47
17:47
Mary Creagh Portrait Mary Creagh MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Coventry East, Labour)
-
-
where human activity is now the dominant influence on our planet's climate and ecosystems. We are climate and ecosystems. We are seeing its consequences pollution, climate change and mass extinction. climate change and mass extinction. Last year, my right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary gave the first ever statement to this House on ever statement to this House on this crisis. One year on, I am here to set out the government's commitment to tackle these commitment to tackle these challenges because climate change drives nature loss and nature loss drives climate change.

We must tackle both. Droughts and floods are disrupting harvests, straining supply chains and pushing up costs. Our Nature's Security Assessment, published in January, shows that if the current rate of biodiversity loss continues, every critical ecosystem is on a pathway to collapse from coral reefs that protect our coastlines to peatlands that store carbon and prevent floods, the UK's climate is getting hotter and wetter, with more extreme events. 2025 was the UK's hottest year since records began in the heat waves in May and June this year, the Met Office reported that as many as 2700 people may have died.

Railway tracks buckled, over a thousand schools closed and the London Ambulance Service had their busiest day on record. Since 1901. The UK sea level has risen by about 20cm, but that rate is accelerating because two thirds of this rise has happened in just the last 30 years, which is why this Labour government is stepping up, leading globally on nature recovery, climate mitigation and adaptation. In the UK, we're working in partnership with local communities, businesses, conservationists and farmers. Before the Paris Agreement, the world was on track for around four degrees of warming.

Now national commitments put us on course for around two and a half degrees. There is so much more to do, but this represents real progress. In December, we launched our environmental improvement Plan, which for the first time set out delivery plans to underpin our targets to restore nature, boost our recycling rates and protect our environmental security. Since then, we have published the Land Use Framework, the Water White Paper and the Farming Roadmap. We have invested a record £2.65 billion funding for flood resilience, invested in new food waste collection services and £1 billion in our national biosecurity infrastructure in Weybridge.

Over the next three years, we will make the largest investment in nature ever over £7 billion. This includes £5.9 billion for environmental farming schemes, £816 million for tree planting and £85 million for peatland restoration. Last October, we published the Carbon Budget and Growth Delivery Plan to set out how the UK will continue to reduce emissions to lower bills for consumer and consumers, and secure good jobs for British people. Last month, the majority of members in this place voted to cut emissions by almost 87% from 1990 levels.

For the carbon Budget seven period, running from 2038 to 2042. Under this government, over £100 billion of private investment has been announced in the net zero economy. We have done much on mitigation. But following advice from the Climate Change Committee, we are setting stronger objectives for climate adaptation. We are building our resilience for a minimum of two degrees of warming by 2050, and we are supporting combined authorities to increase their resilience to climate change to in 2024, we saw a single year exceed 1.5 degrees of warming, which is why we are committed to working with our domestic and international partners to keep the Paris Agreement goal of limiting temperatures to a one point temperature rise to 1.5°C, global warming is likely to reach 1.5 degrees at around 2030, but 1.5 degrees is and will remain the right limit.

Every fraction of a degree of warming reduces the severity of impacts on people and nature worldwide. Every species saved reduces the risk of losses to the ecosystems we rely on. Pollination, disease prevention, food and climate regulation, and the key to delivering our nature and climate goals is how we use our land and seas. Our land use framework shows we do have enough land to achieve our priorities across economic growth, housing, food production, climate and nature recovery. But we must make better decisions about how we use our land.

We are moving from paper based systems to making land digital and opening up the land registry free for all. Today, we have published an interactive story map of our spatial evidence to support decision makers to use their land more effectively. The UK has also committed to protect and conserve 30% of our lands and seas for nature by 2030. Today, we're publishing the 30 by 30 delivery plan for Land in England and guidance to land managers on how to implement it.

In May, we announced the £30 million wildlife Rich Habitat Fund, and today we are providing an additional £37 million a year for the next three years for national parks and national landscapes. But this is a whole of government effort. This weekend, the FCDO ratified the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement to create marine protected areas on the high seas, covering nearly two thirds of the world's ocean. Funded by DSIT, the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, Aria is investing £81 million in its Forecasting Tipping Points programme.

The MoD is developing climate security analysis and critical emerging technologies to support energy resilience for the UK and our armed forces and the Department for Education are investing £710 million out to 2030 to improve the condition of school and college buildings, reducing their emissions and bills and increasing their resilience to climate change. So they last for decades to come. In Coventry East my constituency, I'm delighted that Richard Lea Primary School and Potters Green Primary School are installing new solar panels.

I opened a sensory garden built by the pupils eco team in Courthouse Green School, to bring nature closer to children and tomorrow I will. On this week I'm visiting the Great North Bog to see successful peatland restoration in action. And later in the week I will celebrate the 75th anniversary of the first four National Parks. A legacy of the great 1945 Labour Government. Tomorrow, we launch a competition for young people to join our new Youth and Climate and Nature panel.

It will offer us their expert insight into government as we deliver for climate and nature action through our outreach with young people. From introducing wild beavers to planting three new national forests and creating nine new river walks, this Labour government is bringing nature closer to people and we will all benefit from a more resilient, more prosperous and greener country, as my right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary said in his statement last year, we are at our best in this House when we work across parties on these issues.

By preparing our country and our citizens for the climate and nature crises, we are showing leadership internationally. This government is acting now to protect the world in which we live and which we pass on to future generations. Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this statement to the House. Shadow Minister Robbie Moore.
17:56
Robbie Moore Portrait Robbie Moore MP (Keighley and Ilkley, Conservative)
-
-
Yes. and I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. I am sure that no one in this House am sure that no one in this House disputes the importance of protecting our climate or restoring nature. The real question is whether this government is capable of delivering both. The Minister speaks about climate and nature as priorities, yet the government has repeatedly chosen to target those very individuals who are tasked with delivering it are farmers who are the front line custodians of our natural world.

And let's just have a look at the choices that this government has already made in the last two years, which is in direct contradiction to the ambitions the Minister has set out. First, part three of the Planning and Infrastructure Act was rightly heavily criticised by the RSPB, who warned that this legislation would, and I quote, rip the heart out of the environmental protections and risk sending nature further into freefall. The Wildlife Trust directly challenged this government's growth at all costs rhetoric, stating before the general election, Labour promised to restore nature, yet they are instead driving environmental regression.

Both organisations took the extraordinary step of demanding that part three of the then bill was completely removed, as did we on this side of the House. Second, last September, the Minister pushed through a blanket ban on the controlled burning of heather on deep peat, but in doing so completely ignored the warnings of the National Fire Chiefs Council, the NFU and many environmental scientists who understood quite rightly that by blocking land managers from conducting traditional, heavy, heavily regulated rotational burnings, this government is literally letting massive fuel loads build up across our moorland, effectively creating a tinderbox, vastly increasing the risk of devastating wildfires that destroy the very peatlands and biodiversity which this government claims that they want to protect.

Third, the government has completely undermined the sustainable farming incentive, with only 240 million allocated to this years applications, the government has in effect made a whole the whole scheme competitive entry. And to make matters worse, by capping agreements at 100 000, the government is actively pushing the most ambitious large scale nature restoration projects in the country out of the window, and you cannot achieve a massive 30 by 30 target by cutting funding, reducing green options and telling farmers that large scale conservation efforts are no longer welcome.

Fourth, as a result of this government's choice to remove the onshore wind farm moratorium, we are now literally in the ridiculous scenario where large scale wind farm applications are coming forward to be built on protected peatland, such as the Calderdale Wind Farm proposal in West Yorkshire. Despite warnings from academics and groups like the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust that, if approved, these projects will release massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Madam Deputy Speaker, The list goes on. So I say to the Minister, today's statement offers no new protections, relying instead on a fragmented, reactive approach that tries to hit targets rather than redefining how we count and reference land rather than actually doing anything positive about it.

The choices that this government has already made in the last two years do not represent a roadmap to nature recovery. So I ask the Minister, before coming to give today's statement, what consideration has the government made of the impacts of their previous choices on the targets set out in this plan, in which they have made over the last two years? And does she agree with me that those policies are in direct contradiction to the delivery ambitions the government has brought to this House today?
18:00
Mary Creagh Portrait Mary Creagh MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Coventry East, Labour)
-
-
Minister? >> Minister? >> Well, I'm disappointed to hear the slight, the nature and tone of the slight, the nature and tone of the hon. Gentleman's response to our attempts to write some of the our attempts to write some of the wrongs that were left behind by the previous government. He asked me in particular about the planning and Infrastructure bill. What we have done is introduced strategic policy statements to actually prioritise outcomes over process, so that Natural England and the Environment Agency can actually speed up decision making whilst maintaining these high environmental standards.

We've given them £100 million over three years to fund specialist staff and modern digital systems to cut costly delays for planners. And what was clear when we came into government is that the status quo for development and nature was simply not working. With fragmented, site by site environmental requirements, increasing costs, adding to delays to the much needed housing and infrastructure which this country needs. And at the same time, it wasn't working for nature either, because the condition of many of our most important habitats and species was continuing to decline.

So the Nature Restoration Fund will support development, but ensure that the money spent by developers on environmental mitigation delivers more. So it's a simple levy levy payment, which Natural England will use to deliver impactful conservation measures at scale instead of a piecemeal approach. Let me just talk to him a little bit about peat. 80% of England's peatlands are degraded, and we are investing £85 million in their restoration by 2030. And since we've come into government, approximately ten 000 hectares of peatlands have been brought into restoration through our nature for Climate peatland grant scheme.

Last week, we announced £44 million for lowland peat, which was, I don't think, invested in under his government. And we expect another 4000 hectares this year. So we have a target which his government set to restore an additional 4000 hectares by 2030. But with these 80% of peatlands being degraded, rotational burning is a contributory factor to that. It makes it difficult to restore peat to its natural hydrology and impossible to return it to its natural state. And of course, it's really bad for air quality locally, so it damages peatlands, it shifts species composition, it disrupts the hydrology of peat, and, crucially, it releases stored carbon, increasing vulnerability to wildlife wildfire.

So better healthy, functioning Peter Lamb peatlands are much more resilient to the impacts of wildfire. And let me just say a final thing. We have published our farming roadmap. It is supported, but what we are doing with the new environmental land management schemes is supporting those smaller farmers, those organic farmers that were excluded from the larger schemes that he talked about, and we are spatially targeting so that we get bigger, better, more joined up protected areas for nature and wildlife.

Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee Toby Perkins.
18:03
Toby Perkins Portrait Mr Toby Perkins MP (Chesterfield, Labour)
-
-
Very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, and really welcome the government's statement today. Firstly, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that climate change drives nature loss and nature loss drives climate change, and we must tackle these absolutely hand in hand. I met this week with Moors for the future, who were speaking about peatland and about the importance of working with land managers, and I have to say that they were very much more of the view of my hon.

Friend and of the shadow Minister that we just heard from a few moments ago. She's also absolutely right to to talk about the importance of adaptation. We need to massively improve adaptation. So can she tell us any more about when the next iteration of the national adaptation plan will come out? The previous one under the last government was widely criticised and we need to know more. But a plan that only looks adaptation is simply a plan to fail, and that must be secondary to mitigation and all.

My hon. Friend, finally tell us in terms of the approach going forward, what more we can do. It is right to say that farmers are absolutely fundamental to the success of improving our outcomes on nature. It's regrettable this government got off to such a such a bad footing with farmers. What more can she tell us about how we can rebuild that relationship? Because ultimately we must work hand in hand if we're going to get the achievements we need for nature working hand in hand with sustainable farming.
18:05
Mary Creagh Portrait Mary Creagh MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Coventry East, Labour)
-
-
Well, I think we're seeing through some of our landscape recovery projects, farm clusters, really getting behind this new idea really getting behind this new idea of leveraging in private finance to work alongside the public investment that we are making. But what I would also say is understanding their role in a multifunctional and multi-use landscape. So, for example, in the uplands in the Lake District, working to restore peat, to hold much more water on the land to prevent runoff, which can overwhelm the towns and villages below the the peatlands and the bogs, but also understanding the role that nature can play in protecting runoff on farms, particularly with agricultural runoff.

So planting, for example, trees along riverbanks and making sure that there isn't runoff into the rivers and reducing their phosphate. He asked me about the National Adaptation plan. We are committed to an ambitious fourth national adaptation programme in 2028, and have requested advice from the Climate Change Committee on appropriate planning assumptions to inform our approach. But we are investing in those flood defences. £104 billion in private investment for new water infrastructure and, crucially, the launch of the local advisory Climate Service to support local authorities to respond to flooding and, crucially, now to heat waves.

Liberal Democrat spokesperson Tim Farron.
18:06
Tim Farron Portrait Tim Farron MP (Westmorland and Lonsdale, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for early sight of the statement on my way sight of the statement on my way into Kendal this morning, for I came down here. I observed the jarring reality of fields yellowing jarring reality of fields yellowing in the dry heat and the River Kent so low that I could see the bedrock. so low that I could see the bedrock. And then, alongside the defensive walls being built on the banks of the river in the aftermath of devastating floods, a reminder that climate change has brought extreme weather, different threats at different times, but equally challenging, indeed equally dangerous.

And I'm afraid that those who continue to deny climate change now look more and more foolish by the day. I've seen, especially in the terrifying wildfires in the Peak District as we speak, a reminder that we do not protect nature if we completely remove livestock and the human beings that manage nature, the government aims to reclaim 30% of our land and seas for nature. I welcome that and welcome much of the action plan. But 70% of England land mass is agricultural land.

So would she agree with me that we must start with ensuring that all farmers have access to environmental schemes, not just those who apply for them the quickest? And will she give more detail on the welcome proposals that the Liberal Democrats have long fought for, to now permit those who farm common land to access payments to help restore nature in our most precious landscapes like the Lake District, the Peaks and Dartmoor farmers estimate that hot weather this year will cost them 20% of their harvest.

What is her plan? To remove barriers so that farmers can build on farm reservoirs and take other measures that will protect our natural environment and our food security? And finally, if the government wants to meet its targets and we really want them to. Aren't they being unwise in their rush to deregulate when it comes to planning, shouldn't we be increasing the ability of local communities to resist the destruction of nature and to have greater power, to direct developers, to protect and enhance nature, rather than being at the whim of those whose only motive is profit?
18:08
Mary Creagh Portrait Mary Creagh MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Coventry East, Labour)
-
-
Minister. of policies there. Can I just talk to him a little bit about natural flood management? Because we will be investing £300 million in be investing £300 million in natural flood management over the next ten years, the highest figure ever for flood for floods ever for flood for floods programming. And that's a minimum level to support projects that reduce flood risk and deliver wider benefits to communities and nature. But as he observed at the beginning, the concrete barriers and the dried rivers, we have to do more to enable farmers to hold their water in on the land.

And when they're building their reservoirs, we don't want concrete bowls and concrete buckets. What we need is natural scrapes and areas where they can hold on, and they can help with that aspiration, the natural aspiration by planting trees as well. So experimenting with agroforestry as we're doing with the western forest around Bristol and Gloucester, we are acutely aware of what the challenges that farmers face with extreme weather events. The wheat harvest is already being brought in in some areas in the in the east of England, we are committed to maintaining food production and supporting thriving farm businesses.

But I think, as I said earlier, land managers, farmers have an increasingly important role in reducing the risk of flooding and coastal erosion as we adapt to climate changes and eligibility criteria for floods, National natural flood management funding has widened to include them for the first time, so we want them to do more on soils so that the soils can be can actually hold the water as well. Buffer strips to slow the flow, and runoff attenuation features to store and release water.
18:10
18:10
18:11
18:13
18:13
18:14
18:14
18:15
18:16
18:16
18:17
18:17
18:18
18:19
18:20
18:21
18:22
18:22
18:23
18:24
18:24
18:25
18:26
18:27
18:27
18:28
18:28
18:29
18:29
18:29
18:30
18:30
18:31
18:32
18:32
18:32
18:33
18:33
18:33
18:34
18:34
18:35
18:35
18:36
18:36
18:37
18:37
18:38
18:38
18:39
18:39
18:40
18:40
18:40
18:41
18:41
18:42
18:43
18:43
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Deputy Speaker. >> I beg to move that the bill be read a second time. Two years ago, when this government took office, when this government took office, we inherited an asylum system in chaos. The conservative government had ceded control of our borders to criminal gangs. And as a result, between January 2021 and June 2024, 110 000 people arrived here by small boat, while a further 175 000 claimed asylum by other routes. As numbers soared, so did the cost to the taxpayer.

In just a single year, spending on asylum support was £4.7 billion, including £9 million spent daily on housing people in 400 asylum hotels. In the last two years, this government has begun the work of restoring order to our borders, and that starts by taking the fight to the criminal gangs. In the last year, arrests of people smugglers were up 55%. Since taking office, we have disrupted organised immigration crime on 3700 occasions, up by 46%. And in partnership with French law enforcement, we have stopped 46,000 attempted channel crossings.

We are now taking that partnership further with a new deal signed in April. This will fund increased patrols and intelligence operations, with a 53% increase in personnel on the French coast. This is already bearing fruit. In May, nearly two thirds of attempted small boat crossings were thwarted. Meanwhile, we have rebuilt a shattered asylum system, decision making ground to a halt under the last government. Now, decisions are at a 24 year high. As a result, removals are now at their highest level in nearly a decade, up 41% on the same period prior to our taking office, and we have now deported and removed nearly 10,000 foreign criminals, 36% more than the last government achieved.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we are also beginning to lighten the burden on local communities. This government committed to ending the use of asylum hotels within this Parliament. Two years in, we have already emptied 1 in 5, reducing the hotel population by 29% and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cutting asylum costs by £1 billion. These are. Yes, I will. Jonathan Brash thank you, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jonathan Brash thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way, and can I say absolutely wholeheartedly that she retains my complete support for seeing this legislation through in full. Does legislation through in full. Does she not agree that as we take this action forward, it is important not just that hotels are reduced, but just that hotels are reduced, but also the dispersed accommodation that is overburdened communities like mine and Hartlepool is also

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reduced. I thank my hon. Friend for what he has just said. Let me say to him he has just said. Let me say to him that he's absolutely right. We need to reduce the pressure in local communities as much as possible. He communities as much as possible. He knows dispersal accommodation has been part of the asylum accommodation estate for many years accommodation estate for many years under the previous government as well. Of course, the best way to reduce the need for asylum accommodation, both through the use of large sites, dispersed accommodation as well as other sites as well, is to reduce the inflow of people coming into the country on small boats in the channel.

Once we get to grips with those numbers, we will see the biggest decrease in asylum accommodation, no matter what form that it takes, and that is the work that this government is taking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward. Madam Deputy Speaker, of course, yes. Grateful to. The Home Secretary, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Home Secretary, and I congratulate her on not resigning at all from the tough stance that she is trying to take. Has she received any indication that after July the 20th, a Labour Home Secretary, hopefully she herself will be able to continue to develop will be able to continue to develop this important work?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh, the hon. Gentleman tempts me with some some attractive bait, but with some some attractive bait, but I am going to resist the temptation, and I'm sure once the events of the and I'm sure once the events of the 20th have taken place, all of these matters shall become clearer still. Madam Deputy Speaker, this this Madam Deputy Speaker, this this government has taken some considerable steps forward, but we must do more. Around 94000 people must do more. Around 94000 people remain in asylum accommodation at a total cost of £3.7 billion per year, while asylum claims fell by 12% last year.

They remain close to historic highs and with a criminal gang still at work, people continue to die in the channel. With over 100 deaths since the start of 2024,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

including women and young children. Madam Deputy Speaker Yes, I will. I thank the Home. Secretary for giving way on that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary for giving way on that point. We always forget that people lose their lives in the channel, including, tragically, last year, a including, tragically, last year, a young girl of four and another young man of 16 who just tried to phone his parents. Does the Home phone his parents. Does the Home Secretary agree with me that anyone with any humanitarian beliefs at all should be doing everything they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all should be doing everything they can to stop cross-channel boats? And it is incumbent on everyone that. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think one of the things that's really shocking is that we that's really shocking is that we no longer seem to be giving huge amounts of attention to the deaths that still occur in the channel. In that still occur in the channel. In fact, they barely make the news. Most people don't realise that so many still lose their lives when many still lose their lives when they are crossing on small boats in the channel. And that is why there is a moral responsibility on all of is a moral responsibility on all of us to think about how we deal with the particular challenge of small boats crossing the channel, how we play our part as a government committed to our humanitarian responsibilities, but how we also make sure that we finish off this trade once and for all.

The only people that really benefit from this trade and the huge risks that people place themselves are, are the criminal gangs themselves. This is money that is going into the pockets of hardened criminals who would harm us in other ways, and we have got to put a stop to it. Madam Deputy Speaker, this country has always provided sanctuary to those fleeing war and persecution, and I am proud of that fact. But we must accept that public consent for our asylum system is fraying.

Unless we restore control, we will lose the British public support entirely. My goal as Home Secretary is to rebuild the public's confidence and thereby ensure we can continue providing protection to those in need today and for generations to come. To do so, I believe we must restore fairness to our asylum system fairness both to those who are fleeing war and persecution, and also fairness towards those communities already here who bear the burden of supporting. I'll go

**** Possible New Speaker ****

over here first and then. To the Home Secretary for giving way. On the issue of fairness, I way. On the issue of fairness, I understand that some 80 of her backbenchers have written to the right hon. Member for Makerfield asking him to review his plans. asking him to review his plans. Your plans for indefinite leave to remain, are they likely to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disappointed or encouraged by his response? Well, that indefinite leave to remain in the government's remain in the government's proposals on urban settlement will be settled policy later this year, when the government responds to the settlement consultation in which we have said we are consulting on transitional arrangements. Those will be settled later this year. That is not the subject matter as he well knows of this bill. I give way to my friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, and she's absolutely right. We have an absolute proud tradition of welcoming those fleeing persecution, welcoming those fleeing persecution, oppression and injustice. In my constituency of Bradford East over constituency of Bradford East over a decade ago, many Rohingya who were fleeing genocide made Bradford were fleeing genocide made Bradford their home, and we welcome them. Many of them will then be were able to reunite with their families from the refugee camps who are now living with them in Bradford, all of whom are contributing very positively to Bradford and to this country.

Under her changes today, they will never be able to reunite with their family and they would not have done that. Does she think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that's right and fair on them? Yeah. Well, what I would remind my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, what I would remind my hon. Friend of is that we have paused family reunification, as I know he knows, and the government has said that we will bring forward further proposals on our approach to family reunification, and the need to make reunification, and the need to make sure that we have more parity of treatment between those who are ultimately recognised as refugees ultimately recognised as refugees and other migrants who come to this country, and indeed for British citizens as well, who may marry from abroad but are subject to different rules that do not apply to their refugee counterparts.

I think there is a need to bring some coherence to the family reunification system, and to make sure that we have an approach that is fair to all the sorts of people that make claims for family reunification. That is not the subject matter of this bill today, but it is something on which the government will bring forward additional policy proposals very soon. Madam Deputy Speaker, there is nothing fair about a system that is based upon uncontrolled, unsafe and illegal routes into this country.

The only people who it serves are the people smugglers. Instead, a fair asylum system must be grounded in controlled, safe and legal asylum. For that reason, in the last few weeks, I announced new routes for genuine refugees to build a new life here. These capped, safe and legal routes will soon allow communities, universities and businesses to sponsor refugees. This approach means those in need of protection arrive with the consent of communities and with the financial support of their sponsor and not the taxpayer.

It is an approach to asylum that promotes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

integration within and contribution to this country. Yes. Would she.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would she. Put on record? Thanks to communities like mine in Hornsey and Friern Barnet, who have opened their doors for the homes for their doors for the homes for Ukraine scheme and who were deeply involved both through the synagogue, the mosque and the church in community based schemes, which found accommodation locally, helped people into work who were already refugees that the UNHCR had decided were refugees. There was no question about their applications, but which have been a real positive kind of development for our communities.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When people arrive through right. When people arrive through controlled, safe routes, when we have made a decision to allow people to enter when we are in control, not the people smuggling control, not the people smuggling gangs, the inherent openness and tolerance and generosity of the British people is unlocked, and British people is unlocked, and people are willing to welcome those who are in need and who come to this country at our invitation, and this country at our invitation, and through a system that has broad public support.

And that is the those are the principles that will underpin this government's approach to the asylum system. I will give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way and then I'll make a little progress. I thank the Secretary of State for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for giving way. I just wanted to make the point that even in rural areas like Cornwall, those community schemes welcoming Syrian refugees are welcoming Syrian refugees are working very well. And it just shows that those community sponsorship schemes can work well across the country.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

across the country. She's absolutely right. Yes, they can and they do. And that is they can and they do. And that is the difference between a safe and legal route that has buy in from communities across the country, and that is the basis on which we will build the system for the future. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my right hon. Friend very much for giving way. It's great to hear her supporting schemes like the homes for Ukraine scheme, and that the reason that we don't see Ukrainians crossing the don't see Ukrainians crossing the channel on small boats is because, rightly, we have a safe and legal route. Why not expand those safe route. Why not expand those safe and legal routes to places like Sudan, Eritrea, where obviously, if an asylum claim comes from those countries, at the very least they should be fast tracked and that would help clear up the backlog.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would you support that? Yeah. Well, what we've set out is our proposals to open up a student proposals to open up a student refugee scheme and a community sponsorship scheme that will go live later in the autumn this year, live later in the autumn this year, with the first arrivals coming in the autumn of the following year. These numbers on these schemes will These numbers on these schemes will grow. We will also make it possible for businesses to sponsor refugees to come to this country and provide to come to this country and provide them with work opportunities.

I think this is the right way forward. It means that we are able to accommodate different cohorts of refugees, where we believe we are able to offer a fresh start for people, and also to make the best of the contribution that they are able to make to the country as well. And I look forward to getting those routes open and to welcoming the first arrivals. Madam Deputy Speaker, we know that in Canada, local communities have long sponsored refugees, and they're 70% of sponsored refugees have found work within a year.

Here, the story is very different. In the first year, after being granted asylum, just a quarter of refugees are in work, and this leaves them unable to contribute and build a life here, relying instead on the support of British taxpayers. And so this autumn, we will begin to take applications for our new community sponsored and study routes. The first refugees will arrive in autumn 2027, and while the numbers will start relatively small, it is my intention that they grow in scale as we restore order to our asylum system by reducing the numbers arriving by unsafe, illegal routes.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the bill we debate today is focussed on how we reduce the numbers arriving unsafely and illegally in this country, and on reducing the burden

**** Possible New Speaker ****

placed on local communities. I will give way. We've read reports recently. That.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Her important reforms to indefinite leave to remain are being watered down because of the being watered down because of the incoming Prime Minister's views. We've also read of the letter from 80 Labour MPs, many of them in the 80 Labour MPs, many of them in the chamber today, who oppose her plans today. My simple question is what are we all doing here right now? And is there any guarantee that the reforms that she's putting. Is there any guarantee that this bill is actually going to survive contact with the next Prime Minister, who is going to be assuming power without any scrutiny, any transparency, and absolutely no accountability as to what his plans are?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Well, let me say to the hon. Lady on I've already answered the point on proposals around indefinite leave to remain. I would just remind her in the House that has been settled, government policy to increase the qualifying period from five years to ten. Since last summer, since before I was, in fact, Home Secretary. And what we have done in our own settlement consultation is to set out a series of proposals that we are consulting on, and also seeking views on what are the appropriate transitional arrangements that should be applied to that cohort of people.

That is not what we are debating with this bill today. I am sure if there's one thing I'm sure of, they will be the subject of intense debate in the weeks and months to come. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think, the Home Secretary for giving way just for the benefit of the House and for clarification, the House and for clarification, does the Home Secretary intend to implement her proposed ILR changes via amendments to this bill during via amendments to this bill during its passage or via the Immigration Rules in the autumn?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rules in the autumn? As he well knows, this bill is specifically about the changes we are making to our asylum system, to are making to our asylum system, to human rights laws, and to the approach that the government wants to take for asylum appeals. This is not a bill about indefinite leave to remain. When we have settled policy later this year, they will be subject to the usual procedures for the changes to Immigration Rules that always take place in.

With scrutiny in this House, I. I will give way to the hon. Lady, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will make progress after that. Thank you. The Home Secretary referred

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Home Secretary referred earlier to immigrants coming here to live off the taxpayer. Can I put to live off the taxpayer. Can I put it to her? Not only do a disproportionate number of immigrants find themselves in work, immigrants find themselves in work, whether it's legal work or illegal whether it's legal work or illegal work, but the children of immigrants do pay tax. And she

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should remember that. I do say to the hon. Lady for whom I have the greatest respect, it isn't as if I'm about to forget my own background, so I don't really need other people to remind me of my own history or background me of my own history or background in my own country. And what I would also say to her is we are talking also say to her is we are talking about people smugglers and men, women and children, though these days, primarily young men getting on small boats in the channel and crossing into this country, they are not arriving in a safe and legal way.

They are not migrants as we understand them. In the usual sense. We wish to pivot to a system where in the future this country will live up to its responsibilities to help those in need across the world and fulfil our international obligations by taking people through safe and legal routes, where we will be able to increase the numbers that we take on those routes. It will be subject to debate in this Parliament to make sure we're playing our full part, but doing so in a controlled way and one that does not put tens of thousands of pounds per person in the hands of people smugglers.

She knows that is the trade we are trying to break. We have been going after the gangmasters and now we must make legal changes to make sure that we change the calculus of those who are seeking to get on a boat in the north of France. Madam Deputy Speaker, the bill we debate today is focussed on how we reduce the numbers arriving unsafely and illegally in this country, and on reducing the burden placed on local communities. It is a bill that is designed to be fair to genuine refugees and fair also to British citizens.

It ensures asylum claims are fair and fast, with legitimate claimants not stuck in limbo and the swift removal of those with no right to be here. It ensures that human rights protections remain robust where they must be, but are also tightened where they need to be to eradicate the abuse that has crept into our system. And finally, the measures in this bill ensure we support those in their hour of need, while making clear that this may be a right, but it comes with responsibilities when the recipients of public support are in a position to contribute to their costs, they should.

With those goals in mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will take the House through the detail of this bill that begins with measures to make asylum decisions fast and fair. Today, the backlog in appeals hearings is a major barrier to this. While this government has slashed the backlog in initial decisions, the vast majority of failed asylum seekers then lodge an appeal. There are now more than 150,000 people waiting for an appeal decision. With average wait times of well over a year. We must be honest about the nature of this appeals queue, so I will give way.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I really thank the hon. Friend for giving way. There are a number for giving way. There are a number of civil rights organisations that are opposed to the appeals process, and the Bar Council has spoken out and the Bar Council has spoken out strongly against him. They've said that it's in the interests of justice, that the persons who justice, that the persons who decide immigration appeals are legally qualified. So will the Minister listen to their criticisms Minister listen to their criticisms and strengthen our feeling in this House and remove these proposals so that we can ensure high quality and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legally sound dispute resolution for asylum appeals? Well, I obviously disagree with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I obviously disagree with my hon. Friend and indeed with the Bar Council and other groups on this matter. And in fact, as I'll this matter. And in fact, as I'll come on to in a short moment in my speech, I will set out all of the many tribunals in which people make decisions of great import every single day that do not require single day that do not require legal training before they do so are not required to be legally qualified professionals before they do so.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we must be honest about the nature of the appeals queue. Some are genuine appeals, but others have been made simply to delay a legitimate removal from this country by placing themselves lost in the long queue for a hearing, they delayed the date of their. I'm going to make some more progress. They delayed the date of their removal, continue to receive taxpayer funded support and use the time to accrue rights, which could strengthen their appeal. The best way to prevent this gaming of the system is to speed up decision making, while ensuring claims are heard fully and fairly, as many were here.

I will in a moment, I will make a little more progress. I think I have been really rather generous, as many here will know. Appeals are currently heard by judges in the first tier tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber. This model, reliant on judicial availability, simply does not have the capacity to meet the scale of demand, nor does it have the flexibility to respond to sudden surges in cases. In part one of this bill, we therefore establish a new Independent Immigration Appeals authority staffed by independent adjudicators, not judges, and this will allow us to recruit from a far wider pool of candidates and therefore respond more rapidly to increasing and changing demand.

To those who say such decisions can only be taken by a judge, I need point only to the complex and weighty decisions taken each and every day by those without law degrees, such as magistrates parole board members, ombudsman, planning inspectors and many others. You don't have to be a judge to have good judgement. I'll give way to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hon. Friend. I'm grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. She refers to gaming of the system, but can I just clarify the basis on which she says that given that around half of Home Office initial asylum decisions are overturned on asylum decisions are overturned on appeal, so there's a huge issue about the quality of Home Office decision making, as shown by decision making, as shown by various Audit Office reports. So I would be very useful to know the proportion of appeals that are made

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proportion of appeals that are made that are actually, in her words, abusive. Well, as he will know, 50% of a 150,000 backlog is still 75,000 cases. He will also know that one of the real problems in the system are multiple appeals made to delay and frustrate legitimate removal from the country, which is why our proposals include a single appeal route. It is the totality of the behaviours that we see that are designed to frustrate removal, lawful, legitimate removal from this country that we are seeking to change with this new authority.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm going to make more progress. I will come back. As anyone who knows these tribunals can attest, most immigration and asylum appeals turn on the facts. That request requires careful, impartial and well trained decision makers. Our adjudicators will be paid professionals trained to make robust, defensible decisions. Where specific legal expertise is required. We will have senior adjudicators on hand. This will be a smaller cohort of legally trained adjudicators who must have been a barrister, solicitor or have similar legal experience.

Decisions taken in the new authority will be appealable to the upper tribunal, which will continue to sit before a judge and as today, these appeals will only be on a point of law, not an opportunity to rehear full cases. I give way to the honourable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority. I wonder that others in this place would not be concerned that the. Given the political nature of the decisions made here, that we are seeing a made here, that we are seeing a blurring of the line between the executive and the judiciary in exactly what the Home Minister is proposing here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proposing here. As she will see, it, is a fully independent authority and will be independent authority and will be fully independent. The impartiality of this new authority is vital and as clause one of the Bill makes clear, its decisions will be entirely independent of government, with every Minister of the Crown compelled to uphold the independence of the authority. As is often the case with establishing a new body, the first chief executive and Chief appeals officer will be appointed by the Home Secretary.

However, thereafter appointments will be made by the chair of the authority as set out in clause two, and these will be made on merit on the basis of fair and open competition. The authority's operations and performance will also be subject to external scrutiny, and it will be placed under the remit of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. Within this new. I've already given way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll get. Oh, I'll give way to my hon. Friend who has not asked a question yet. I thank. My Right Honourable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Right Honourable. Friend very much for. Taking my intervention, but I wonder whether she thinks it would wonder whether she thinks it would be more appropriate for the first of each of these categories of appointments to have input from the appointments to have input from the Lord Chancellor or the Judicial Appointments Commission to make sure that their independence is guaranteed?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

guaranteed? Well, all such appointments will be subject to the usual public appointments, public appointments, principles and they will apply here as they do elsewhere. I will be very happy to discuss with members as the Bill passes through the House, whether there are any additional safeguards I have given way to my hon. Friend before I will make progress and I will come back to him. Madam Deputy Speaker, within this new system, a single faster appeal route will be established, addressed in clauses 11 and 12 of this bill today.

Too many claimants make multiple claims at different stages of the process, including at the last possible moment, often to thwart their legitimate removal from this country. They include to give just one illustrative and eye opening case a convicted rapist who was due to be sent home after serving eight years in jail despite not challenging his deportation at first, he went on to make a series of late claims, including a judicial review on the eve of being removed from this country. And while we eventually managed to remove him, it took more than four years to get this criminal out of the country.

And for that reason, alongside the new authority, we will create a single appeal route. This will require claimants to raise all relevant matters up front, where late claims are raised, particularly in the run up to removal, they will be dealt with through an expedited process and this means genuine issues will still be considered. But tactical claims can no longer be used to frustrate a removal. As is already the case, claimants may access advice and legal representation with legal aid available to those who are eligible.

This advice and support is vital to ensuring appeals progress fairly without delay or disruption. Madam Deputy Speaker, In part three, clause 21 of this Bill, we introduce further measures to ensure decision making is fast and fair. Today, there are two separate types of protection refugee status and humanitarian protection. Both carry near-identical entitlements and eligibility for settlement. This creates near-duplicate claims and unnecessary complexity which slows down our asylum system. This bill therefore replaces those two forms of protection with one the core protection model, and this means each claim will be assessed once with one outcome.

A right of appeal will only be available to those refused protection, not those who wish to seek protection under a different status. There is a clearer, simpler process. It will make no difference to those lodging genuine claims, but will cut the inefficiency inefficiency in the system and ensure those with genuine appeals get a faster, fairer decision. An effective asylum system is one in which claims are heard fast and fairly. Those who have a legitimate claim receive the protection they need, while those who do not are removed from this country.

Without turning this the bureaucracy against us. And that is what the measures in this bill seek to achieve. I'll give way to my hon. Friend who still wants to come in. No, I'll

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way to hon. Friend. Thank you for giving me again. She's being very generous. If the purpose is to make the system more, purpose is to make the system more, more swift. I was surprised to see that there wasn't a component of mandatory reconsideration that was mandatory reconsideration that was included in this. Because, as we've seen in the DWP, that has really made that system faster. And secondly, we had a broadly similar system in the 1970s, 80s and 90s system in the 1970s, 80s and 90s that was then replaced.

And I wonder if that didn't make the system quicker. So how is it going to be different to what we already

**** Possible New Speaker ****

had before? I think my hon. Friend means a mandatory reconsideration in the mandatory reconsideration in the context of a case when an appeal is made. So just to assure him before a case proceeds to appeal, we a case proceeds to appeal, we already have an internal process whereby we check whether the whether we should still defend the whether we should still defend the claim at appeal stage, and if if the facts have changed or if there the facts have changed or if there were issues with the original decision.

We do remove cases from the list of those that are proceeding to an appeal under the current system. So just to reassure him, we are doing something similar already, but I don't want to create an additional bureaucracy of ever more complication. But that is part of the Home Office's current current process, and we have removed cases from the appeals backlog where we know that they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should be granted. I will give way. I thank the Home Secretary. For giving way. The case. That she's making for this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That she's making for this legislation is that the way in which appeals are being dealt with is unnecessarily slowing up and is unnecessarily slowing up and clogging up the system, because the nature of the appeals that are being made. She herself has just argued that there is a quality control with the initial decisions that the Home Office is making. that the Home Office is making. Looking at the figures that accounts for 40% of these appeals being overturned, can I ask her to reflect again about the initial Home Office quality of decision making, and whether or not bringing in a piece of legislation that will further complexify that decision making process will lead to better decisions being made the first time, because for the public value of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

purse and the decency of how we treat refugees, surely that is where she should be focusing her efforts. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, actually, I think we need to focus our efforts in a number of areas. So of course, we need to make sure. And we have been make sure. And we have been improving the quality and the speed of initial decisions. She will also know, however, as I've just been setting out, people make multiple setting out, people make multiple claims, often at the last minute. I mean, as I've raised the example of the foreign national offender, the foreign national offender, where it took us four years to remove him from the country after he had served a sentence, and that is because he kept putting in appeal after appeal, after appeal after appeal.

So the reforms are designed to deal with that problem. And I'm sure she would agree that we need to be able to look at the system in its totality. So absolutely, we should look at the quality of initial decisions. But there is no silver bullet here that says as long as you fix that one thing, you're not going to have a problem anywhere else. There will still be claims that are rightly refused, both at initial stage and at appeal stage, and it is absolutely imperative that we are able to remove people from this country when they have no right to be here as quickly as possible.

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is vital that we provide protection to those who are truly in need. Following the devastation of the Second World War, this country led the world in promoting human rights to ensure we learn from the horrors of the past. This government will always be committed to that internationalist ideal and to the robust human rights laws that underpin it. However, we are also realists, and so we admit where noble intentions have been misused and abused. Today, too often we see well-meaning laws used not to defend a human right, but as a way to frustrate the removal of someone with no right to be in this country, including failed asylum seekers, visa abusers, and even foreign criminals, the British people have a natural sense of fairness.

They believe those who require protection should receive it. But no one should be able to abuse that protection. The abuse of human rights law does not just erode the public support for our immigration system, it erodes their support for the very idea of such laws at all. So for those who believe that these laws matter, it is essential that we reform them to end their abuse. In clauses 17 to 20 of this bill, we reform the domestic application of article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The right to a Family and private Life. Article eight is undoubtedly a vital protection, but it is also a qualified right. This means the rights of individuals must be weighed against the public interest. Over time, the balance between an individual's family rights and the rights of the wider community has shifted, without a clear definition from Parliament of how that balance should be struck. The interpretation of article eight and our domestic courts has expanded beyond the original convention, and what Strasbourg case law requires to understand how far the balance has shifted.

Consider just one example. In 2025, an Albanian man jailed for growing cannabis escaped deportation not because he had any right to be here, but because it was deemed unduly harsh on his partner to deport him. She was not his wife or life partner, and instead this was a relationship which began only after a deportation order had been served. The reason deportation was deemed to be unduly harsh. The partner spoke no Albanian and had never visited the country before. While this is just one example, article eight expansion is clear throughout the system.

Over half of those who stayed in the UK for family reasons last year did not meet our own rules, relying instead on their article eight rights and 71% of those who stay in the UK because of article eight rights arrived here illegally or overstayed their visa. This bill addresses both the definition of family life and the public interest test at clause 19. The Bill tightly defines the public interest. This includes clarification that judges must consider the economic impact on the taxpayer of allowing people to remain in the UK, including whether they are able to support their family, and that no weight should be given to an article eight claim when someone is here illegally at clause 20, the Bill strengthens the public interest test to more easily remove foreign criminals.

It states that the more serious the offending, the greater the public interest in removing them from this country. It also specifically addresses those facing deportation, but who may be appealing on article eight grounds. The bill makes clear that a deportation should go ahead outside of a limited number of truly exceptional circumstances set out in clause 20. On the subject of deporting foreign criminals, the government intends to bring forward an amendment to this bill in response to the widely reported case of the vile grooming gang leader, Shabbir Ahmed.

Our amendment will provide the Home Secretary with a new power to disapply section seven of the Immigration Act, 1971 for serious criminals. This provides protections for long term UK residents, but clearly should not be acting as a bar against removal in cases like that of Shabbir Ahmed, the threshold for this power would be tied to the power to deprive citizenship, which applies only in cases of exceptional severity. It is important to note this does not guarantee his removal from this country.

Those opposite know all too well from their own experience that the Foreign Secretary and I will continue to work all avenues to pursue a deportation. I know the thoughts of everyone here are with the victims and survivors of this vile criminal. Madam Deputy Speaker, I return to the bill as it is currently drafted, and I will reforms to the definition of family life in domestic law. At clause 18. The Bill tightens the definition of family life for immigration purposes. A family will now normally mean relationships within the immediate family unit.

This means a spouse or partner, parent or a child under 18. Apart from in truly exceptional circumstances, such as an incapacitated adult who lives with and is entirely dependent upon their sibling, a clause 19. The Bill makes it clear that judges must consider when article eight rights were established, and in particular, whether this happened after someone entered this country illegally or overstayed their visa. And at clause 17, we clarify whose article eight rights should be considered. This makes it clear that for someone overseas to come to the UK on article eight grounds, a family life claim must be made by a UK based sponsor and cannot be made by family members overseas.

This is because our obligations under the ECHR are rightly to those who are living in the UK. In clause 19, as part of our reforms to article eight, we set out where it is unreasonable to expect a child to leave the UK when a member of their family is being removed. Specifically, if the child won't receive an education in that country, won't be able to integrate into that country, or where relocation would have a very significant and long lasting adverse effect on them.

This brings us into line with the case law in the European Court. We also set out the limited circumstances in which it may be reasonable to remove a parent where they do not have a genuine and subsisting relationship with the child. In doing so, we once again bring UK law in line with existing Strasbourg case law. We do so with legitimate cause, as the interpretation of article eight has widened, we have seen shocking examples of the abuse of parental relationships. Just a moment of parental relationships.

These include a paedophile who was allowed to stay in this country because his deportation to Pakistan was considered under article eight unduly harsh on his children. That was despite the fact that his contact with those very same children is restricted by law to protect them from their father. The Home Office appealed the case and eventually won, but only after a lengthy legal battle necessitated by the lack of clear definition in the law, which this bill rectifies. I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. Would the. Hon. Member agree with me that this has these agreements have come about through partnership, working with our European partners, and with our European partners, and this has been a central part of the negotiations, because this is a unity of purpose by other European countries who want to tighten their borders and who are people abusing the system. I'm sure the Home the system. I'm sure the Home Secretary will have seen the amount of people in the chamber, and I'm sure that she'll be bringing her remarks to a conclusion shortly.

I'm Secretary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have been part of Joe Morris Madam Deputy Speaker and I shall plough on. But my hon. Friend is plough on. But my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The way to make sure that the interpretation of sure that the interpretation of international human rights law is in line with what the general public would expect, and is in line public would expect, and is in line with. The original intention of the Draughters is to work with our international colleagues, not to international colleagues, not to rip these things up and give up on human rights law, but to make sure that it is fit for purpose.

Madam Deputy Speaker, just as article eight has been exploited by those facing legitimate removal from our country, so has our modern slavery system. Human trafficking is an abhorrent crime, and we will always provide the support victims need, especially vulnerable children. And for that reason, within this bill, we strengthen a number of those protections protections, especially in relation to child trafficking, guardians being placed on a statutory footing, and to make sure that modern slavery decisions about children are devolved to local authorities.

So those closest to the child who are best placed to make decisions about the support they need are made properly. And we also strengthen trafficking, prevention and risk orders, ensuring law enforcement can restrict offenders movements and work. And at clause four clauses 44 to 49, we raise standards within businesses and public bodies who must report on their actions to identify and tackle abuse in their supply chains, or face potential fines of up to £1 million. But we also know we must address the growing misuse and abuse of these protections in 2025, modern slavery claims by arrivals on small boats reached an all time high.

Over half now relate to alleged exploitation overseas rather than here in the United Kingdom, and we are also seeing claims increasingly used to frustrate legitimate removals from this country. Last year, over a third of charter flight returns failed to go ahead because of a modern slavery referral lodged at the last minute. Foreign criminals have seen the opportunity in recent years. Last minute claims have been made by a convicted rapist, a gangster jailed for possession of a firearm and an attempted murderer.

In every case, those claims successfully delayed their removal from this country, and for that reason, in part five of this bill, we introduced measures to address abuse in the system, in particular, making clear that anyone who poses a threat to public order or national security will not receive modern slavery protection and support. This includes any foreign national who has received a custodial sentence, including if that sentence was suspended at clause 36. We make clear that delayed disclosures have a damaging effect on a person's credibility unless there are good reasons, and in doing so, we further reduce the incentive to make claims as late as possible.

And I won't, because Madam Deputy Speaker wishes me to wind up quickly. At clause 37, we close another significant loophole loophole. As it stands, those whose claims turn out to be unfounded can continue to receive taxpayer funded support for a 30 day recovery period. This bill ensures we stop providing protection for those that we know do not need it. Madam Deputy Speaker, this government is committed to the protections provided by human rights law, but those protections must be applied fairly, and that means ensuring they are always given to those truly in need.

And it means ending the abuse that runs contrary to their spirit and intention. The measures in this bill are realistic and proportionate, designed to protect those who are genuinely deserving while bearing down on abuse that erodes public support for the very existence of protections like this. And a fair asylum system is one in which claims are heard fast and fairly, where protections are upheld for those who need them, but not for those who seek to abuse them. It is also one in which we provide support, but expect that those who are in a position to contribute do so every day.

We ask our constituents to bear the burden of funding our asylum system, and that as that asylum system has spiralled out of control, the weight on their shoulders has grown. That is not fair. And it was also never foreseen. The original draughters of the Refugee Convention could never have imagined that the British people would spend billions each year on asylum support to continue their legacy, providing protection to those in need while retaining public support. We therefore need to adapt to our new reality, and we need a fair way of addressing the challenges of the world as it is.

To that end, part four of this bill creates a new contributory principle within our asylum regime. It does so at clause 23 by introducing a power that requires those who have received taxpayer funded support to pay back a portion when they can. This measure reflects a principle that most people would recognise as fair. Once you are able to contribute, you should. Refugees have immediate access to the labour market and housing. Many go on to work, build successful lives and contribute enormously to our society.

Payments under our new system will be proportionate and made over time. No one will be asked to contribute more than they can afford to do so. But payments will not be optional for those who can, and those who have received support but have been removed from this from the country, will not be able to return until their debt is repaid. And there are some to whom this will not apply, including children and anyone who came here via a safe and legal route.

In clause 23 of this bill. Madam Deputy Speaker, we introduced this new power. However, the precise design of the payment programme will be set out in draft regulations, which I will share with the House during the passage of this bill through Parliament. So there will be ample opportunity for full parliamentary scrutiny of these changes. Madam Deputy Speaker, this brings me to the end of this bill. It must be read in light of the inheritance that this government received. Border Force out of control and asylum system in crisis, a burden placed on the British people that was simply too great.

This country has long provided support to those fleeing war and persecution, and proudly so. But the chaos those opposite left behind has eroded public trust for our asylum system, and this government has already done much to restore order at our borders. But there is more. And that is the goal of this bill to ensure decisions and appeals are fast and fair, to provide protection to genuine refugees, to offer protections under human rights laws for those who are in genuine need, while closing loopholes that have too often been abused.

And finally, to ensure that the generosity of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

British people is not forgotten And that people can contribute when they are in a position to do when they are in a position to do so. This is a bill that will provide fairness for genuine refugees, but fairness for local communities as well, and thereby communities as well, and thereby make sure that we secure our asylum system for generations to come.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

system for generations to come. The and. With the. Exception of frontbenchers, we were starting with an immediate seven minute time with an immediate seven minute time limit. I call Shadow Home Secretary.
19:28
Chris Philp Portrait Rt Hon Chris Philp MP (Croydon South, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'd like to move the reasoned amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, myself and my Honourable and Right Honourable colleagues, declining to give a Second Reading to the Bill give a Second Reading to the Bill on the grounds that it does not go far enough to combat illegal immigration or to ensure that all foreign criminals are deported. Firstly, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can't help but notice the absence of the Member for Dover. The immigration Minister, who I was expecting to see in his place, perhaps.

Well, perhaps the Home Secretary has not yet forgiven him for openly defying her a few weeks ago, and her rather extraordinary public campaign to get him fired. No wonder she has so much trouble deporting illegal immigrants when she can't even deport her own junior Minister from Marsham Street. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, well, does the Home Secretary deny that she tried to get him fired a couple of weeks ago, unsuccessfully. I noticed she makes no such denial now, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the beginning of her speech, the Home Secretary made a number of claims about statistics, 1 or 2 of which I would like to very gently take issue with.

She referred to small boat crossings. Since the election, 76,000 people have dangerously and illegally crossed the channel by small boat. That is more than under any other Prime Minister. And let us keep in mind, those crossings were undertaken mainly by young men, all of whom were leaving a safe country, France. Nobody needs to flee danger in France. She also referred to removal numbers. Of course, about 85% of those removals are voluntary, and only a tiny fraction of those removals relate to people who arrived by small boat.

In fact, since the election, removals of people illegally entering by small boat amount to only about 5%. 5 or 7% of small boat arrivals. So if you enter this country by small boat and you have a 95% chance of staying and you get put up in taxpayer funded accommodation, no wonder the crossings have occurred in record numbers. The only way of deterring these crossings is if almost everybody arriving gets deported when they arrive. Let me let me also observe that of the 8000 people whose asylum claims were rejected at first instance last year 2025, only 12000 were removed or left.

And when it comes to foreign national offenders, yes, it is true that FNO removals are somewhat up, which I welcome. But if you look at the breakdown by nationality, it tells a rather different story. Numbers of foreign criminals who are deported to countries like Albania, Romania, Lithuania, Poland. Those numbers are quite strong, quite high when you compare them against the offender population. But when you look at countries outside of Europe, the numbers are very, very much lower. So for example, Jamaica, Iraq, Nigeria and Somalia together have 1150 offenders in prison.

And yet last year and many more out in the community, I would add. And yet last year, only 110 under 10% were removed. So yes, the removal of FNOs foreign national offenders to countries in Eastern Europe are going well, and I commend the government for that. But when it comes to removing foreign criminals to countries outside Europe like Jamaica, Iraq, Nigeria and Somalia, the figures are very, very low and the reasons for that are some of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the ones the Home Secretary touched way. I thank the shadow Home Secretary for giving way. I I'm Secretary for giving way. I I'm reluctant to interrupt him when he's in full flow, but does he think that our membership of the ECHR has any impact on our ability ECHR has any impact on our ability to deport to those countries that he just listed as being successful

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nations to deport people to? Our membership of the ECHR has less effect on deportations to less effect on deportations to Europe because it's quite hard to make an ECHR based claim if the receiving country is in Europe. However, when it comes to deporting foreign criminals to countries outside of Europe like those I listed, there are frequently ECHR based claims, as the Home Secretary enumerated earlier. I'm going to expand on that a bit later. There is no question in my mind that ECHR based claims are one of the reasons why it's very difficult to deport foreign criminals to countries like the ones I just listed.

Its human rights claims, combined with asylum claims and modern slavery claims that mean dangerous criminals remain in this country. And just to give the hon. Gentleman a number under section 32 of the Borders Act 2007, the Home Secretary is under a legal duty to deport a foreign national who is sentenced to more than a year in prison. It's a legal obligation. And yet there are 2000 people who meet that criteria at large in the community, many of whom continue to offend.

The reason they're still here at large in the community is because they make claims under the ECHR. Modern slavery and asylum. And those 2000 people are a risk to my constituents and to his. So anyway, I do take exception with some of the. Some of the home secretaries high fiving. At the beginning of her speech. Let me let me touch. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the proposal for so-called safe and legal routes or refugee sponsorship. Now, these numbers would be additional to the asylum claims we are already processing.

Last year saw the highest number of asylum claims in history. I think from memory it was somewhere in the region of 109 000. And this current year will only be a little bit less. So to add to that, at a time when we already have record numbers of asylum claims, strikes me as irresponsible. The Home Secretary said there would be a cap, but she didn't specify what the cap would be. I'd be interested to hear it. She also asserted that the people coming in on these routes would not be a burden on the general taxpayer, because their sponsor would look after them.

But what she neglected to mention was that support only has to last for the first year thereafter. Potentially, the taxpayer will have to pick up the tab. So I must say, I do not support the creation of these schemes until we have got illegal immigration and asylum claims down essentially to zero. And in response to the argument that somehow the creation of safe and legal routes will stop small boats, and I think that is an absurd argument, because unless you give access to this country, to everybody who wants to come to everybody congregating in northern France waiting to get on a dinghy just in one second, unless you give access to all of those people, the ones who don't come in on the scheme will still try and cross on small boats.

So the idea this will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stop the boats on its own is giveaway. Is. Grateful to the Shadow Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to the Shadow Minister for giving way. Does he agree with me that with the rising asylum claims and the rising number of claims and the rising number of approvals of the said asylum claims, essentially it's acting as a magnet for others, and essentially it's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for others, and essentially it's amounting to an amnesty for asylum claimants. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are many nationalities who cross the English Channel by small boat, for example, Afghan, Iranian, Iraqi, Eritrean and Sudanese, to name just 6 or 7, where the asylum grant rate is well over 90%. In some cases it is very close to 100%, which means crossing by small boat is tantamount to the automatic right to stay here, even though those illegal immigrants and they are illegal immigrants are leaving a safe country, France, they're not fleeing danger.

They're

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in France already. So I do agree it creates a massive pull factor. Yes. I thank the gentleman for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the gentleman for giving way. I know he's an intelligent man who thinks a lot about these things. who thinks a lot about these things. Has he considered for a moment why there are so many refugees globally? Why there are 70 million people Why there are 70 million people without a home to call their own? What the effects of wars, environmental disaster, and human rights abuse has on populations around the world. Shouldn't there be an international effort to try to help those people, as well as dealing with the problems at home? Will putting up barbed wire all around the world solve the problem

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or create an even worse situation globally? Well, I mean, I do agree that the situation in countries like Afghanistan does create large movements of people. That is correct. And fixing those problems at source is clearly the best thing at source is clearly the best thing to do. What I don't think will solve the problem is transferring tens, potentially tens of millions tens, potentially tens of millions of people. He gave the number, just said it was 60 or 70 million, transferring tens of millions of people into the West.

I don't think is the right solution to this problem. Those people who are displaced are probably better helped close to their country of origin. But transporting people en masse into this country, I don't think is the solution to that. When? Let me finish where. When we have got illegal migration under control. By which I mean zero. Then I think there is a case for a limited, safe and legal route. But until such time as we do that, I do not think it is reasonable.

And by the way, the people who are crossing by small boat are not the most vulnerable. They're not typically women and children. They're not people who are sick and vulnerable. They are mostly young men who are paying people smugglers. And if we were going to choose who to help, it wouldn't be mainly young men who are paying people smugglers. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm going to make a little bit of progress. I will give way again, but I want to make a bit of progress.

There'll be plenty of other opportunities to come in later. I want to briefly touch on ILR, which is which is conspicuous by its absence. We heard the policy proposal was announced. It was announced, I think it was last November. But we still don't have we still don't have any of the details laid out. I actually agree. I actually agree with the thrust of the Home Secretary's proposal to increase the period to ten years, because otherwise a large number of people, about 2 million who entered in the last 4 or 5 years will get the permanent right to stay, including full right to benefits, including including people who came in on skilled worker visas sponsored by, amongst others, kebab shops, kebab shops and fried chicken shops.

But I am I am keen, I'm keen to make sure that the Home Secretary sticks to her previous pledge that these rules would apply to people in the country already, and she does not give in to pressure from her own backbenchers. Let me remind the House what the Home Secretary said to the Institute for Public Policy Research on the 5th of March this year. She says the changes proposed, that is to say, the ten year qualification period, she says, and I quote, that means applying rule changes to those who are in the UK today but have not yet received settled status.

I hope the Home Secretary stands by her commitment and if she does stand by her commitment, we on this side of the House will vote for it. So she has our support on that. And while we're speaking of legal migration, I would also urge the Home Secretary to reconsider her plan to introduce remote language tests. They are open to enormous fraud and abuse. Australia and Canada rejected remote language testing for that reason, and some domestic professional bodies, including the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, have stopped doing remote testing because it is so open to fraud.

I would just ask. I know it's more efficient, I know it will save money, but it is massively open to fraud. Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deputy Don. Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's quite something to listen to. The quite something to listen to. The Shadow Secretary of State, I'm not sure. Is he? Yes, said a second state. His party oversaw net state. His party oversaw net migration increases of 2.5 million in 4 years, and now has the brass neck to stand here and lecture this party in government about how to clear up his mess. Does he think he has any credibility at all on this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

has any credibility at all on this matter, or is this just about the Facebook clip that undoubtedly he'll have pumping out on social media this evening? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, of course, the hon. Gentleman knows nothing about Facebook clips, I'm sure. But look, mistake, I'm going to be honest. mistake, I'm going to be honest. Mistakes were made in the past and the policies we have now developed under new leadership will fix those, under new leadership will fix those, will fix those issues. And in fact, this ILR policy was first proposed by us about a year ago and then by us about a year ago and then very wisely adopted by the Home Secretary.

Now, let me let me come to the. Let me come to the to the. Let me come to the commitment the Home Secretary made on Shabbir Ahmed, the vile gang rapist who should be deported back to Pakistan. We support the amendment to section seven of the Immigration Act, 1971, section 33 of the Borders Act. I think it's section one, subsection three might need some attention as well, but we certainly support that. All I would ask is that the Home Secretary does it, rather than by amendment to this bill, which will take probably a year or so to reach the statute books.

Consider instead doing it by emergency legislation in September, which could be done in a couple of weeks, like the terrorist offenders restriction of early release bill that we took through Parliament in, I think it was 15 days in February 2020. There is not a moment to lose. And this can quite quickly be fixed. Madam Deputy Speaker, on the substance of this bill, I agree with some of the Home Secretary's analyses on where the problems lie. The Home Secretary is quite right to say that the immigration appeal system, modern slavery laws and human rights laws are being abused on an industrial scale by foreign criminals, and also by people with no legal right to be here, including people who came here illegally by small boat.

These illegal immigrants and foreign criminals do make repeated claims time after time after time. She mentioned an example of a foreign criminal who took four years to deport. There was the case I was aware of of a Somali man who entered the country illegally, participated in the violent gang rape of a 16 year old girl, and upon his release from prison, it took eight years to deport that man back to Somalia because he made 2 or 3 different human rights claims on sometimes contradictory grounds.

I think two modern slavery claims and a number of human rights claims as well. There have been cases where foreign criminals have avoided being deported. For example, in one case back to Nigeria on an armed robber on the grounds of his mental health needs, would not be perfectly taken care of in Nigeria. Another man, a drug dealer, wasn't sent back to Iraq again on ECHR human rights grounds because apparently he'd become quotes too westernised, not a single thought for the safety of British children to be protected from paedophiles.

There's another case of a Zimbabwean paedophile who didn't get deported back to Zimbabwe because he might get treated with hostility. Back in Zimbabwe, the judge gave no thought to protecting British children at all, no thought to protecting our citizens from criminals. There was one case where a man was taken off a charter flight to Jamaica, again on human rights grounds. I think it was article eight, and about six months after being removed from that charter flight to return to Jamaica, he murdered someone on the streets of south London, a murder committed because of the supposed human rights of a criminal who went on to commit murder.

So I agree with the analysis that our immigration legal system, our modern slavery system, and the human rights system is being abused on an industrial scale.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And it has to end. Yes. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that part of the problem is with me that part of the problem is that practitioners of the legal system seem to believe that there system seem to believe that there are such things as absolute human rights, whereas most human rights rights, whereas most human rights are in fact relative ones that can be trumped by other people's human be trumped by other people's human rights and in fact can be abrogated when you infringe other people's human rights, you cannot expect your own to have priority over

**** Possible New Speaker ****

theirs, can you, in a sensible system? Yeah. And I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend, when it comes to right hon. Friend, when it comes to foreign criminals, when it comes to people who enter this country illegally having exited a safe illegally having exited a safe place, namely France, I don't think they should be given all of the protections that we've been talking protections that we've been talking about this afternoon. So let me just turn to some of the specifics. The Home Secretary has put in this The Home Secretary has put in this bill.

I think what these measures amount to, whether it's the changes to the immigration tribunal system, modern slavery, or trying to better define article eight. They represent, I would say, small steps in the right direction. But the truth is, on their own, they are not going to work. Previous governments have attempted to make this work, and it has essentially failed, and I think it will fail again. So, for example, attempts to better define article eight in domestic law that was attempted by, I think from memory, it was section 19 of the Immigration Act 2014, which I think created section 117 of the 2002 act.

That was an attempt to do, broadly speaking, what the Home Secretary is trying to do now. And it didn't work because judges, not just in Strasbourg, but our domestic judges here, empowered by the Human Rights Act, simply continued interpreting family rights very expansively and allowing foreign criminals to stay. So I admire her effort to do this, but it's been tried before, and it didn't work. Similarly with trying to exclude modern slavery claims by foreign criminals, I mean, this has been attempted before.

In fact, the legislation before us today essentially seeks to amend section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act, which was an attempt by a previous government to fix this problem for five years ago, and it's been repeatedly struck down by the courts. So because of the ECHR and the way it's incorporated by the Human Rights Act, it doesn't matter how we legislate. In section 63 a few years ago, and the Home Secretary's most recent attempt today, judges will use the ECHR empowered by the HRA to circumvent laws passed by this Parliament.

The Home Secretary experienced this herself just last week, didn't you? Rather didn't. Home Secretary, when her one in, one out scheme has been essentially upset by vexatious modern slavery claims, the Home Secretary tried valiantly to fix the loophole in guidance and last week a court struck it down. So the conclusion I've reached, having suffered in the Home Office in the past, as she is suffering now trying to fix these issues within the construct of the ECHR and modern slavery legislation. The conclusion I've reached and the examples the Home Secretary gave really only support.

This. The only way to fix this is to come out of these institutions entirely. You can't do it by tinkering as this bill seeks to do. The previous government tried it. I've tried it personally. Her predecessor tried it. She's now trying it again. Let me finish the point. The truth is, tinkering like this doesn't work when you have very expansive rights based conventions. The only way of fixing this properly is to exit the ECHR entirely, repeal the Human Rights Act entirely, exit the treaty that's the modern slavery treaty, and say that people entering the country illegally, particularly from a safe place like France, simply can't claim asylum.

That would enable us to legislate in this House without courts effectively circumventing our legislation as they do on a near daily basis. It would enable us to deport not just some foreign criminals, but all foreign criminals, and it would enable us to deport within a week of arrival, anyone entering the country illegally by small boat back, either to their country of origin or a safe third country. If we can't deport to their country of origin, that would be a genuine deterrent to these unnecessary crossings that would give us back control of our borders.

And while I do share many of the diagnosis the Home Secretary set out in her speech, I honestly don't think these measures, which are incremental and trying to work within the existing framework. I honestly don't think they'll work. Only radical solutions will actually work. And I can see the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Member for Norwich South is twitching in excitement, so I think I better give way. I thank the hon. Member for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I don't know if I'm alone here, but to listen to the Shadow Secretary of State glibly throw away 80 years of human rights throw away 80 years of human rights legislation, human rights that were forged in the aftermath of the Holocaust, of concentration camps, of the horrors of fascism. And you stand there and glibly talk about throwing them out when they have protected millions, hundreds of millions of people around the world.

There's a clue. The reason they're called human rights is because it's the universal condition. We're all human beings, and the day we forget that in this place is the day we open to a dark chapter in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country's history. Now the ECHR, when it was first conceived and entered into as a conceived and entered into as a treaty, I think in 1950, was developed for very good reasons. Those the hon. Gentleman just Those the hon. Gentleman just mentioned, to avoid a repetition of the horrors of the Second World War that he referred to. But over the that he referred to. But over the years judges in Strasbourg and domestically using this living instrument doctrine have expanded instrument doctrine have expanded and expanded and expanded the definitions of those articles.

The articles are necessarily very vaguely worded. For example, article three freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment. Now, when it was written, that meant that meant don't send people to concentration camps. But today, and on the face of it, the words are very reasonable. If we were going to sit down today and come up with a convention, it would have those words in it. But the way it's applied by judges today, it means we can't send foreign criminals back to other countries like Zimbabwe, in case they face hostility there as foreign criminals, it means we can't run our border system because of the way these articles are interpreted.

The balance has now shifted so far that it is preventing border control and a number of other things as well. And that is why we have to leave now. The proposition that the only thing standing between us and barbarism is the ECHR or the Human Rights Act. I don't accept this country has led the world in human rights, not just for decades, but for centuries. And if there are any, any, if there are any gaps in our protection of rights that this Parliament feels are exposed by leaving the ECHR, then the proper remedy is for this Parliament, this sovereign, democratically elected Parliament to legislate to fill them.

If there is a gap in our domestic statute, or if there's a gap in our common law, and this House feels that gap. Let me finish the point. And if this House feels that gap needs to be filled, the right way to do it isn't by judges making up expansive case law, it's by this democratically elected parliament to debate the issue, as we're debating now, and to take a vote on it. That is the way I think democracy should function. And by the way, one of the reasons, I think why mainstream politics are coming under pressure, if I can put it euphemistically, is because pledges made at elections by successive governments on issues like immigration don't get delivered.

One of the reasons is the human rights legal framework prevents it from being delivered. And the Home Secretary herself just gave examples of that. And it's a it's a democratic deficit at this Parliament should decide how borders are run, not judges. And that is why, while I welcome these measures as small steps in the right direction, I do not think they're going to work, and I don't think they're going to go. I don't think they're going to go far enough. I'm going to take one last

**** Possible New Speaker ****

intervention a second before finishing, because they don't address the fundamental problem. For giving way and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way and. Giving us his experience. All governments of any colours have always been angry about the always been angry about the European Court of Human Rights, because all governments of any colours are kept honest by having a colours are kept honest by having a court of human rights who can act to protect citizens against their governments when they make incorrect decisions about their incorrect decisions about their basic fundamental liberties. If he wants a good example of that and why it matters to uphold international treaties, I suggest that he talks to our colleagues on the benches from Northern Ireland about the Good Friday Agreement, which is rooted in the European Court of Human Rights.

So before he argues to this House that we should remove those protections in such a cavalier fashion, perhaps he might reflect on why people like Winston Churchill wanted to protect citizens from governments who might make incorrect decisions, whether in the immigration system or for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their fundamental human rights. Yeah. That's all. I don't think Winston Churchill would ever have Winston Churchill would ever have envisaged the ECHR, which he helped create, would lead us to being able, unable to control our borders. unable to control our borders. Secondly, on the Good Friday Agreement point, I urge her to read the report 175 pages written by the report 175 pages written by Lord David Wilson KC, which explains how our Good Friday explains how our Good Friday Agreement obligations can be upheld.

And having left the ECHR. And thirdly, on her point about protecting rights, the ultimate guarantor and protector of rights of people in this country should be this democratically elected Parliament and not judges. Handing down expansive definitions of vaguely worded clauses which have acted as a charter for illegal immigrants and foreign criminals. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to move our reasoned amendment. While these are small steps in the right direction, and while I do, I just need to finish. And while I do agree with the diagnosis, the Home Secretary very eloquently set out in her speech earlier, the measures she takes simply won't work.

And I know that because I've tried taking measures like this myself in the past, like section 63, and the courts don't let them stand until we come out of the ECHR, until we come out of the treaty, until we stop illegal immigrants claiming asylum, until we end judicial review of immigration cases, we won't get control of our borders, and the public will continue to lose trust in mainstream politics. And that, Madam Deputy Speaker, is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

why I move the opposition's reasoned amendment. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. The original question was that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was that the bill be now read a second time, since when an amendment has been proposed, as on the Order Paper. proposed, as on the Order Paper. The question is that that amendment be made with a seven minute time

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be made with a seven minute time limit. I call Diane Abbott, I. Listened with great care to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Listened with great care to the Home Secretary's speech. And one of the things she said and said it more than once in different phraseology, was that her legislation was designed to remove the burden of asylum seekers from the shoulders of British people. I live in a part of the world which has as many asylum seekers,
19:54
Diane Abbott Portrait Rt Hon Diane Abbott MP (Hackney North and Stoke Newington, Independent)
-
-
immigrants as anywhere else. We have had over the century Irish have had over the century Irish immigrants, Jewish immigrants, Caribbean immigrants, South Asian immigrants, Turkish immigrants, African immigrants none of them were a burden on anyone's shoulders. were a burden on anyone's shoulders. And my constituents will be dismayed to hear her talk in these dismayed to hear her talk in these terms, the Home Office website tells us there have been well over 150 pieces of primary legislation or policy changes on immigration since 1988, and each one I've been in the House for some of them.

Each one was accompanied by the same ground assertions that the Home Secretary has said this afternoon that they would bring fairness to our immigration system, fairness to our asylum system. They did not. They simply took away rights and treated people badly. And one example of a piece of legislation which was moved in precisely the terms that she's moving this this legislation today, it's the 2014 Immigration Act, which was brought in in the name of the hostile environment.

And again, the House was told it would bring fairness. Instead, it led directly to the Windrush scandal. People who had been invited here with cross-party support to help rebuild Britain after World War Two, were treated in the most shameful way. People who have given their lives here were deported. People born here were deported, families were split up, people lost their jobs. Others were denied entry to the country after holidays. Travel, family events, including funerals. And that scandal isn't over.

That scandal isn't something that we can move on from. Very many victims of that, of that legislation are still facing severe delays, still facing wrongful rejections and low payouts. And sometimes maybe the Minister should talk some of the people waiting for their payouts for the compensation, because there is a view that Ministers or officials are trying to wait out the victims. It's as if they're hoping that year by year, there are less and less victims to actually give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

compensation to. That's not. That's not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's not. The legislation before us is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The legislation before us is being sold and explained in exactly the same way as nearly 30 years of immigration legislation has been sold to to this House. And I would sold to to this House. And I would argue that precisely like that, 40 years of legislation has failed to do what Ministers said it would do, but in fact has made people's lives harsher and more difficult. I would argue that if the Bar Council, if any amount of legal bodies are saying to her that this legislation is unfair, unduly cruel and will not achieve the the result it's meant to achieve, she needs to look again, because if this kind of very negative and hostile rhetoric and language about asylum seekers and immigrants is not what one would want to hear in this house.

My parents were immigrants. My. Many of my relatives were asylum seekers. We need to be talking about the contribution that immigrants and asylum seekers have made to this country, not talking about them as if they are some kind of burden. And even at this late stage, maybe the Home Secretary will reconsider this legislation that she's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bringing forward. I call. Liberal Democrat spokesperson Max Wilkinson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Max Wilkinson. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was quite taken aback by the passion that the aback by the passion that the shadow Home Secretary showed for wiping out many decades of hard won human rights that we all enjoy. human rights that we all enjoy. Human rights are not just for asylum seekers and people from other countries. In the first other countries. In the first instance, human rights are for all of us. And to put the Member for the New Forest slightly correct.

Some rights are absolute and others Some rights are absolute and others are qualified and limited. I will are qualified and limited. I will make progress on the on the. I will give way.
19:59
Max Wilkinson Portrait Max Wilkinson MP (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
To the hon. Gentleman. Right. It's customary that when you name another member, particularly in a critical way, you give way to them freely and not have to be forced into it. The fact of the matter is, I'd love him to list all these absolute human rights. Even in a democracy, there isn't an absolute right not to put oneself in danger. When people get conscripted in a war time situation, does he or does he not accept the basic moral fact that if you infringe the human rights of other people, you cannot then expect your own rights to be fully respected because you abrogate those rights? And if there has to be a clash between an innocent person's rights being infringed and the perpetrator's rights being infringed, then I and I'd like to think most sensible people would say it's the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

perpetrator who should lose out. Yeah. Well, I thank him for his intervention. I mean, these things are actually defined in law. I saw are actually defined in law. I saw a human rights barrister on the other side of the chamber furrowing his brow at the same time. defined.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

defined. In law. And the shadow Home Secretary mentioned the report by Lord Wolfson, who is in fact a commercial barrister. And therefore commercial barrister. And therefore I assume that when the shadow Home Secretary goes into a hospital with a urology complaint, he demands a a urology complaint, he demands a cardiologist. Maybe he doesn't. Who knows? Does he seek experts from the right field? Perhaps not. Madam Deputy Speaker. According to the Oxford Migration Observatory, asylum seekers in Calais regularly tell researchers they know the UK's absence from agreements with the EU is a weakness in our asylum system.

They even use the word Dublin in reference to the agreement that we left. If asylum seekers have worked it out, why haven't Ministers? One commentator has even described how Brexit turned the UK into the final Court of appeal for asylum seeker in the EU. So it will come as no surprise that we will not be supporting this bill today. It's not because we deny the problems in the UK's asylum system. These are problems that impact local people in our constituencies, but also these are problems that impact asylum seekers themselves.

Quite the opposite, Madam Deputy Speaker, this backlog is too large. Accommodation costs have spiralled and dangerous small boat crossings must be brought to an end for the good of everyone. But this bill does not solve those problems. It piles more bureaucracy onto the Home Office. It risks greater cost to the taxpayer. It undermines integration and still fails to address the fundamental causes of irregular migration. The government's stated rationale for this bill is that claiming asylum in Britain today is more attractive than elsewhere in Europe, but data from her own department, the Home Secretary's own department, shows this to be not true.

Britain was fifth in the number of asylum applications made to European countries in 2025, behind Germany, France, Spain and Italy. The truth is that many migrants who have had their asylum claims rejected in EU nations are trying their luck in Britain. This is the legacy of the Brexit given to us by Farage and the Conservatives, including the shadow Home Secretary. Our damaged relationship with Europe has created Brexit pull factors. Yet nowhere does this Bill attempt to restore an orderly relationship on asylum with our European neighbours.

That would end small boat crossings once and for all. It's an uncomfortable truth for the Conservatives. It's a problem they created. Then. Madam Deputy Speaker, there is the issue of the asylum backlog. Accommodation costs have risen sharply, with more and more people stuck in hotels at considerable cost. Poor Home office decision making is a key cause of this backlog, with two thirds of the concluded appeals finding the Home Office's initial decision was flawed. Yet the bill does not address the quality of first instance decisions.

Instead, it proposes the wholesale reform of the appeals process, creating the IIAA that will not be operational until late next year. Even the Home Office has described the value of this measure as uncertain. If the government wants to solve the problem, it should focus its resources on clearing the backlog by expanding processing capacity and ensuring decisions are right first time. Moving on, those asylum seekers fortunate enough to be successful in their claims will apparently now face a penalty later on of £10,000.

Now we Liberal Democrats are in favour of asylum seekers and all migrants contributing to our economy and paying taxes. That is the fair thing to do. That's just one of the ways that we believe that migration can make our country a stronger place. Only if integration is successful. But this measure is punitive and pushes refugees further towards destitution and state support. Those refugees who had a job after eight years of being here, had a median income of just £23,000 per year.

It's been suggested that repayments will start when refugees are earning far less than that, and that seems unfair. If the Home Secretary was serious about getting refugees to pay their way, she would take the opportunity to allow asylum seekers to work. This would immediately relieve the burden on the taxpayer and bring down costs instead, these proposals create a bigger burden on the state, often falling on already overstretched local councils, to who will be forced to look after those who would otherwise become destitute.

That, Madam Deputy Speaker, is un-british. Sadly, this measure, coupled with potential decades long waits for leave to remain, will actively undermine the integration that everyone in this House should be aiming for. So cost to the taxpayer are likely to go up and not down. The reviews of refugee status alone are set to cost up to £725 million extra in the first ten years. And on the subject of unintended yet entirely foreseeable consequences, there are serious concerns that this bill could inadvertently criminalise victims of modern slavery.

It is simply unrealistic to assume that people trafficked here by criminal gangs will be able or willing to raise a claim upon arrival. The Home Office's own statistics suggest that there is not widespread abuse of the current system, and so it seems that this particular measure is unnecessary and could work against the government's aims. And on the point of the ECHR, the government knows that the interpretation of the law remains in the gift of the UK courts. The judges that the shadow Home Secretary dislikes so much, who perform such a valuable role in our justice system.

That will be the case regardless of what happens with this bill. The reality is that this bill is all show and no substance. Now, when this House, Madam Deputy Speaker, debated the Home Secretary's statement last November, something weird happened. There was an unholy alliance that emerged between Labour and the Conservatives, and even the Reform Party welcomed the Home Secretary's approach. The thrust of our response in that statement last November was that there were issues to resolve in the asylum system, which had been devastated by the conservative government, but recognition was also needed that immigration has a role to play in our economy and in delivering public services.

I also urge the government to drop divisive rhetoric on this subject, a suggestion that didn't quite find favour with the Home Secretary and others. Indeed, after my plea for moderate language, I was in some in receipt of some direct and forthright feedback from the Home Secretary, which the Minister will remember, and also from Lord Gove, who used his quite right spectator podcast to call me Oleaginous. A word that I later learned means oily, the smug, the king of Smuggery and an offensive term.

But I will spare the chamber's blushes by simply saying it starts with D and rhymes with mic. That's true. A member of the House of Lords in this Parliament. Madam Deputy Speaker, I continue to wear that as a badge of honour. In a different recent podcast, the Home Secretary told an audience member who disagreed with her stance on migration and asylum to f off. And later she joked that she would taser and deport four of her political opponents. I am clear it was a joke, but I'm not absolutely certain that those are the actions that a government Minister should be taking.

It's clear that the tone of this debate has not improved much since November. Unfortunately, policy heavy and rhetoric. Sorry. Unfortunately, this is policy heavy on rhetoric and light on substance, and it risks playing into the hands of Nigel Farage. Accommodation costs will remain sky high. I thank the Member for his heckle there. He says. Get it right. I suggest he gets his knowledge of human rights right as well. Accommodation costs will remain sky high. Small boats will keep coming with all the danger that these that that causes to people being trafficked.

And the British people will rightly feel the system is neither fair nor functional until Ministers recognise as asylum seekers seem to. That not having a proper agreement with the EU is at the heart of the Small boats crisis. There will be no resolution. Labour MPs claim that the new Prime Minister will present a reset for the country, and we all hope it does. But if the maker. If the Makerfield MP sticks with these plans, it will be more of the same bad value for money, for the taxpayer, failures on integration and no comprehensive plan to stop dangerous small boat crossings.

That is why Liberal Democrats will not support this bill.
20:09
Jim McMahon Portrait Jim McMahon MP (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton, Labour )
-
-
Jim McMahon thank you, Madam Speaker. I think all of us in the chamber accept that the immigration chamber accept that the immigration and asylum system is broken. All of us want an asylum system that is us want an asylum system that is both firm and that is fair, where the impact is managed, both on the impact is managed, both on those who are seeking asylum and who are coming here to build a better life for themselves and their families, and also on the host communities where integration needs to be managed.

In that process, where there is clearly disagreement, is how on earth do you fix a system that is so broken? There is not a single lever you can pull to make all of this mess, right? We have an absolute crisis in our immigration system, as well as our asylum system. And every debate on this is polarised. And unfortunately, when we come to this place, which is meant to be the place of evidence based policy making and exchanges that are trying to find a degree of common ground.

Honestly, at times it feels like we are just parroting the social media posts that I see come up every morning when I dare to open XR Facebook, and I think we need to be better than that. I think we can say that immigration has made a positive contribution to our country, but there are strains on immigration in some parts of the country that have been managed so poorly that public consent for immigration is framed. If we don't accept that principle, we're not going to win public support back.

But we also have to accept that the tone of the debate that's taking place means that every person that is coming to flee persecution, flee war, is being cast somehow as as a chancer, that they're here to try it on, that the acting against our national interests. And I don't think that is in tune with British values. I think we have a long and proud history, certainly a talent like Holden. We are proud of our history in supporting people who are fleeing persecution.

Yeah, but we're also a town that believes in fair play and contribution. And on the other side, there are people in the system who aren't living up to those values, who are trying to play the system through the appeals process and different claims, and who aren't contributing, because when they arrive, they break the laws of the land. And if on our side of the chamber, we're not willing to be honest about those tensions, then how on earth can we build the middle ground ourselves? And so there's a lot of work to do here to build trust.

And I have a great deal of confidence in the Home Secretary for the work that she is doing. And the evidence speaks for itself, not just actually on asylum and immigration, but I think this week we just had the figures on knife crime that we see coming down again. It takes a lot of hard work and quiet, hard work quite often to get through some of these issues. But it is happening and this is just two years in. So I am optimistic that we can get a grip of this.

But where I think the country and certainly people in Oldham want to see progress is they do want to see a tougher line on the Small boat crossings, because people don't believe that is either plain fairly or playing by the rules. If you break the rules on day one, but people are aghast that there aren't safe routes for families who are fleeing persecution to be supported from. And I think that most fair minded people look at the images of children fleeing war, and we see the same in Gaza, but we see it right across the world too, and think there but for the grace of God go I.

If that was my child, what would I want in terms of sanctuary? To give them a future and not leave them exposed to starvation or death? And this is where we're not quite getting the balance right, really. So I do welcome the efforts that are being made to introduce safe routes. I do want to see a fairer distribution of asylum seekers around the country, though, because for a town like Oldham, this was actually under the last Labour government. I think we were so fearful from right wing headlines that essentially would say that any asylum seeker being being housed in a combination London was living in £1 million townhouse, and they'd pick out a Camden townhouse and say, that's example.

And so the government, obviously, in response to that, says, well, where's accommodation cheapest? And of course, they've come to towns like Oldham and Rochdale and Stoke, where housing at that time was probably plentiful and very cheap. But that isn't the case today because in Oldham today there are eight. There are 588 children who are living in temporary accommodation, and over 100 of those households have been in temporary accommodation for over a year. And those housing pressures are felt by all of the community right across Oldham, and I think a fairer distribution of asylum seekers is dispersed.

Accommodation might win a bit more public support and on top of that, we're still waiting, I should say to the Minister on the front bench for the asylum hotel to close at some point as well. I know he's been lobbied very heavily on that, but all these are important to know that all parts of the country are playing their part and are taking their fair share as a way of rebuilding public concern. But the thing I'd want to come on to was really just to appreciate the speed and the efforts that are being taken on the case of Shabbir Ahmed.

Yeah, I don't think that anybody would look at the Rochdale grooming gang and Shabbir Ahmed as a ringleader of that gang over a long period of time. I think that he is anything other than evil and Havant the way that he sexually abused, exploited those young girls in both Oldham and in Rochdale shook the town. It was on a scale that we hadn't seen before, but probably what really struck home was a complete lack of any empathy for the victims, his refusal to take any responsibility, and him laughing at the justice process that was holding him to account.

And when news came of his release back into the community, and of course, we don't know where he is. It certainly isn't in Oldham, Rochdale, because of the exclusion zones it retraumatized the victims. I spent a long time trying to rebuild their lives and the fact is this he's already been stripped of his British citizenship. He has no right to be here. Bath the loophole in the 1971 Immigration Act that will now be closed, thanks to the actions of our Home Secretary. Now, that isn't to say that we rush to say the answer is always deportation, but on a case of a child rapist who was acted in such abhorrent way, this has got to be the ultimate justice that is secured for the victims that were affected by that.

And I give credit for the work that's taken. But to say that pace is really important on this. The parole board rejected his early release on three separate occasions because of the risk that he posed to victims and wider society. And I don't believe today that he's any safer today than he was 18 months ago when the parole board last looked at the terms of the licence conditions at that time. So please, the government frontbench speed is of the essence on this case. And kind of with the seconds I've got, ask whether there might be grounds in cases like this to say that if you are facing deportation on these grounds, that actually you should be returned

**** Possible New Speaker ****

back to custody pending deportation. Karen Bradley thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it's an honour to follow the hon. Gentleman. He was absolutely right when he talked about the tone that when he talked about the tone that we need to employ here, and I recognise the comments he made about his constituents. I suspect his constituents have a very similar view to my constituents, similar view to my constituents, which we're not too far apart. And I would refer him to the Home Affairs Select Committee report on Affairs Select Committee report on asylum accommodation, which did talk about the point he made around the the disproportionate numbers of asylum seekers in lower cost accommodation areas, and something that we did ask the Home Office to look at.

And I would also just suggest you perhaps avoid sex and Facebook in the morning. It probably will make his life a lot better. I rise to speak briefly on the bill, which I broadly welcome. I think that these are matters that our constituents expect action to be taken, and whilst it may not go as far as some would like in some
20:16
Karen Bradley Portrait Rt Hon Dame Karen Bradley MP (Staffordshire Moorlands, Conservative)
-
-
areas, and it may go too far as others would like, this is a Second Reading at which we're looking at Reading at which we're looking at the principle, and I agree with the bill that should have a Second Reading and then be considered at Reading and then be considered at Report stage and in committee. There are a couple of points I wanted to make before I move on to wanted to make before I move on to my main comments, but if we start on the issues around article eight and the ECHR, I think that what happened in the declaration was very encouraging, and that is a good step forward to see that there is an agreement across the Council of Europe area on the way that article eight and other parts of the ECHR are being abused.

I might also suggest that the Minister looks at section two of the Human Rights Act, which does say. State that the UK courts must refer to decisions of the ECHR and maybe there may be a way of changing that wording to May, might, might make it easier then, for courts to disregard clearly ridiculous decisions that shouldn't have any bearing on the decisions that are being taken in our courts. And I would also refer him to the work that was done in the coalition government on the arrest warrant, which we were still a member of it, where we did change the rules in the UK so that only somebody who was guilty of a crime that would be a crime in the UK could be have an arrest warrant applied to them.

Previously we had all sorts of spurious claims, like not paying tips and to Greek waiters and things like that. By doing that, there were things. So the Minister may wish to look at that. On the matter of Small boats, the Select Committee did a visit to northern France and the hon. Member for Edinburgh East. Is there an hon. Member for Sunderland and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw? We were all there seeing the work that's being done, and it is very impressive to see the work that's being done jointly with the UK.

We've heard a lot from UK, the law enforcement and others who are working closely with their French counterparts, so I would encourage more of that. But I cannot stress enough how important ministerial oversight of this is. I will pay tribute to my former. Our former colleague James Brokenshire, who was immigration Minister, insisted every single day he received an update on the number of people who were entering the country, the number that were inflamed, the number of visas that were being issued, and he kept it having a daily update.

And, Madam Deputy Speaker, it's delightful that you're in the chair, but the right hon. Member for lady from Romsey was, of course, also a migration immigration Minister, and she employed similar things. And I think it would be fair to say that the evidence we've heard on the Select Committee indicates that maybe that level of ministerial oversight hasn't times, and perhaps that's why we saw some of the big spikes that we have seen. Of course, I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Have the Select Committee for giving way. She and I were in northern France together. And does she agree with me on my impression from that trip that it was actually quite astonishing the scale and complexity of operations that the complexity of operations that the French government were undertaking. Does she join me in welcoming the new iteration of the Sandhurst new iteration of the Sandhurst treaty? And does she agree with me that and this may be stretching the bounds of bipartisanship too much, bounds of bipartisanship too much, that it is good to reset the relationship with European friends and neighbours, because in cross-border channels, when difficult issues arise, it is only through those operations that we have left the European Union that we can actually get Clive Lewis small boats, which is as much as an issue in France as it is in the UK.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend from the Select Committee for that. It was a very enjoyable visit and we did very enjoyable visit and we did learn an awful lot. It was challenging visit. There was an awful lot for us to take in, and this is a problem that affects this is a problem that affects countries across the world. This is not not an issue that can be solved by one country alone. We have to by one country alone. We have to work together.

But I think we also came away agreeing that actually, if everybody who arrived from France was taken immediately back France was taken immediately back to France, that would kill the trade for the people smugglers. And that maybe would be something that we should start trying to negotiate with our friends in France. And what I want to focus on now, and the very short amount of time I've got left is part five. And I declare that the co-chair of the All-Party parliamentary Group on Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery, I do have some concerns about this.

Apart from anything else, human trafficking. Modern slavery is not an immigration crime. Your immigration status may make concerning that it still kept being it keeps being put into the migration bucket, rather than being seen as the financial crime that it is. Now I'm in contact with a number of organisations, and the independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Eleanor Lyons, has been in touch with me. And there's a general agreement. There are some good things. The strengthening of civil orders and support for children is welcome, but I think that the the abuse of the modern slavery protections needs to be looked at because it is not.

Nobody can self-declare as a victim of modern slavery, 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 a victim of modern slavery, to avoid deportation? That has to be something that should be looked at without removing protections for victims, because this very victim centred approach has had a victim centred approach to this crime.

In order to solve it, it cannot be solved by just pursuing the bad guys. The victims have to be at the centre of it, because it is this extraordinary crime where the, the, the, the commodity that money is being made from is a human being. It is not a drug or a firearm or any other product. It is a human being. And that human being needs to be prepared and able to give evidence and to speak out and to recognise the crime that's been committed against them, and therefore victim support is essential to solve this crime.

It isn't it isn't a nobody. You know, if if one wants to see this in a hard nosed way, the only way we're going to stop this and the only way we're going to kill this trade is by looking after the victims so that we can stop the bad guys. That is a very basic point. So I would urge the Minister and I don't have time to go through the specifics, but I would urge the Minister to engage with the many authorities, in particular the independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, to see where the the measures that the government has introduced that may have unintended consequences and may make it harder to tackle this crime.

With that, I will I will sit down and let others speak, because

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know there's many others who wish to take part. And with an immediate three minute time limit. Andy Slaughter.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

minute time limit. Andy Slaughter. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'll focus my remarks. The time

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll focus my remarks. The time I've got on part one clauses 1 to 16 of the bill, which creates a new appeals body for immigration and asylum cases known as the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority, which will be staffed by Authority, which will be staffed by non-lawyers or members of the public, and will perform much of the work currently done by the first tier tribunals, immigration and asylum chamber. Chamber. There are backlogs in the in the FTT, which have reached around 60 weeks for cases to be heard, 11 weeks for cases to be heard, 11 weeks longer than than a year ago.

So reforms are clearly needed if vital. Vital, however, that
20:24
Andy Slaughter Portrait Andy Slaughter MP (Hammersmith and Chiswick, Labour)
-
-
Tax reforms are properly thought out and resourced. Last week, the justice committee took evidence from experts in the sector. We've taken a keen interest in this. This was announced last year and I've visited the first tier tribunal. We saw a system under great operational. But with judges doing a good and efficient job from that visit, our diagnosis that these are operational problems. I think there are two key questions for the for the House. Where will this fix the problems in the current system, and will it be truly independent from the Home Office? On point one.

A big part of the problem, and I haven't got time to give all the figures, is that the. Is the poor quality of initial decision making. 45% of decisions are overturned. I mean, how will a body staffed by members of the public, as opposed to judges and legal experts, result in a reduction of errors in a complex area of law? A further risk is created by the by. An increase in errors may be that it shifts the current backlog to the first tier tribunal to the upper tribunal.

It's not clear from the impact assessment accompanying the Bill that enough thought has been given to the potential impact on the upper tribunal is also fair to assume that non-expert adjudicators may take more time to hear cases than judges would, given the complexities of asylum cases, there is insufficient legal aid available and that is likely to lengthen hearings as well. On point two the issue of independence the 35th. The idea will be independent from the Home Office puts that word in the title, but the bill contains provisions for the Home Secretary to expedite cases, to set the length of time for cases and to appoint the chair and chief executive.

The idea is effectively a quango of which the home the Home Secretary has has substantial roles. I thought I can't further justice in in the time that is available, I would just like to see this body, if it is to be set up, is independent, is able to make sensible and judicial decisions, and I don't see this at the moment. And what's on the face of the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alberto Costa thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Deputy Speaker. I hope that the whole House might surely be able to agree that public confidence in our agree that public confidence in our immigration system depends on the principle that those who seek to principle that those who seek to undermine our borders exploit vulnerable migrants or, worse still,
20:27
Alberto Costa Portrait Alberto Costa MP (South Leicestershire, Conservative)
-
-
vulnerable migrants or, worse still, profit from illegal migration are identified, apprehended and removed wherever possible. All our constituents expect robust border security, effective immigration enforcement and a system that distinguished distinguishes between genuine asylum seekers and those who seek to abuse the rules. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is against that backdrop that I wish to raise the deeply troubling case of Twana Jamal, recently exposed by journalist Sue Mitchell and her team through a BBC investigation broadcast only a week or two ago, where Twana Jamal was exposed not only as an illegal asylum seeker.

Apparently working in my constituency in Blaby. Worse still, in a mini mart right next door to my constituency office. But according to Sue Mitchell and the BBC's reporting, Mr. Jamal is a convicted people smuggler who was sentenced to five years imprisonment in France after being identified by French authorities as a major organiser of illegal migration operations, and the BBC subsequently traced him to my South Leicestershire constituency, where he is allegedly working whilst also claiming asylum in the United Kingdom.

These allegations, reported by the BBC, are extremely serious. Sue Mitchell confirmed with me only a few hours ago that the Home Office has not engaged with her or her team post or broadcast regarding the evidence that Sue Mitchell and her team have gathered during their painstaking and thorough investigation. I was grateful that the Home Secretary earlier today did confirm that she would seek to ascertain why civil servants have not responded or have not given me the courtesy as the local MP of an update as to what the Home Office are doing, and I hope that the Minister will ensure that that is taken forward.

I think what we all want to know from the Bill, and what I would be grateful to hear from the Minister, is whether the measures proposed in the Bill will mitigate against a case like Mr. Jamal ever arising again. If this bill is passed into law, can the Minister assure all of us that convicted human traffickers will not be allowed in the United

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Kingdom, let alone allowed to apply for asylum? Thank you. I call Paul Waugh.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I call Paul Waugh. I'm Deputy Speaker. I'd like, first. Of all. To thank the Home Secretary for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To thank the Home Secretary for listening to me. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and also the Member for Oldham West and also the Member for Heywood and Middleton North for an. All our constituents for the way in which he's acted for the way in which he's acted super quickly in seizing this issue, to make sure that we will change the law to allow for the deportation of Shabbir Ahmed. Under this bill, the new power personally applied by the Secretary of State
20:30
Paul Waugh Portrait Paul Waugh MP (Rochdale, Labour )
-
-
means that offences like Ahmed's will be classed as so serious that they would lose protections under the 1971 Immigration Act. That act, let's be clear, was meant to give let's be clear, was meant to give rights to law abiding citizens of the Commonwealth who came here to work hard and play by the rules. work hard and play by the rules. Its Draughters never intended it to be exempted for the vile sex offenders and grooming gang leaders offenders and grooming gang leaders who who should be facing deportation.

Shabbir Ahmed's released from prison this month, was for many, another painful reminder of the wicked crimes he committed and who lived in Oldham, was the ringleader of the Rochdale grooming gang. He was convicted of the serial rape and exploitation and vile abuse of young white girls in Heywood. He was separately convicted for 30 rapes of a young Asian girl. All of his victims were failed for years by the institutions that should have protected them. Now it's important for me to say that I can tell you that the people of Rochdale, whatever their racial background, are united in their disgust at paedophiles like Ahmed.

It's this Labour government that has finally created a specific offence of grooming, which unbelievably didn't exist before, and it's trialling the use of chemical castration for convicts in jails, though I personally would welcome that being made compulsory for sex offenders like Ahmed. Ever since I was elected, I pressed Ministers to pursue the deportation of every grooming grooming gang member who can legally be removed from the UK. And I know that this is just the start and that even once the law is changed, Pakistan may still say it will refuse to take back this man.

But whatever diplomatic barriers exist, they must be challenged. Every possible avenue must be explored. The public interest is clear in this case, and more broadly, the public interest is strengthened by this bill. In the European Convention of Human Rights. The article eight right to Family life has always been a qualified right, as the Home Secretary has pointed out, meaning judges are asked to strike a balance between those rights and the public interest. That's precisely why the Rochdale grooming gang members lost their appeals under human rights law.

But these bogus appeals happen far too often, and for many, it's a sick joke that paedophiles who robbed children of their own right to family life are depending on human rights to stay in this country. And that's why I welcome the new provision in this bill to require decision makers. Order to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

change the order. Tim Farron thank you, Deputy Speaker. This bill, as.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This bill, as. In most debates on this issue, is just riddled with bogus context.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And on false premises. It's worth just bearing in mind that the majority of European Union majority of European Union countries take more asylum seekers per head than the United Kingdom. We heard from the conservative
20:33
Tim Farron Portrait Tim Farron MP (Westmorland and Lonsdale, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
We heard from the conservative frontbench this stuff about young men being here, disproportionately coming as irregular migrants. I just want to tell a little story that the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe will recall, I'm sure. Also, we went to Cairo just over a year ago, and we met some young women, mostly refugees from Sudan, one of whom was presented to us as the chair of the Younger mothers group. And it's all very lovely. Turned out, though, the young mothers group were every single one of them victims of sexual violence between the ages of 14 and 20.

There are reasons. There are reasons why women don't end up on those boats and don't travel and take those risky journeys. I wish we can have a debate, understanding the realities of what it is to flee for your life and to flee from war torn circumstances. The problem with this bill is that it is a set of changes proposed that are a combination of the ineffective, the performative, and the cruel. Let's start off with the new appeals body. Well, already we see 40% of decisions successfully appealed.

How does it make any sense to reduce the quality of the decision making process? Now that will happen in Australia. They try the same thing. It clogged up the system even further. Article 882 applications under the CR decided against the government in the last ten years. How many under article eight? One. Just 1 in 10 years. Again, the government being performative and not tackling the issue. When all. When all is said and done, human rights matter for all of us. And to throw them out the window because of a few difficult cases, is to throw human rights out the window entirely.

The repayment issue for asylum seekers who've been successful, being granted refugee status and being told they'll have to repay the costs of their assignment. Asylum is indeed performative, and it is cruel. This is a government that refuses to allow asylum seekers the right to work. That would be a far

**** Possible New Speaker ****

better way of making. Sure member. Give way. I'm happy to give way. I thank the hon. Member for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for giving way, and I wonder if the hon. Member, and perhaps the Minister, in their efforts to Minister, in their efforts to prevent modern slavery, might consider that they both be allowed consider that they both be allowed to work and thereby pay their way, and also fitted with ankle tags

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and also fitted with ankle tags until their status is decided. Thank you. Well, I certainly think that people who are seeking asylum in this country should be given the right to work, not least because it helps them to integrate if they are successful, and secondly, because they will cover the costs of their accommodation and so many other things whilst they are here. How cruel it is to be telling people who have gone through goodness knows what, who've been granted refugee status, to then say, you have to pay it all back.

We don't make British prisoners pay back the cost of their time in prison, but we're going to do this to asylum seekers again, performative, cruel, and we'll probably end up costing as much to administer as it would bring in anyway. And on the issue of modern slavery, what do we know about people who are victims of modern slavery? We know they're terrified of their captors. We know that often under coercion, they're in a situation where they don't realise, perhaps they are victims of modern slavery until much later, and giving people a handful of days to declare is cruel and again, performative.

There is nothing in this bill to undo or to relax the the moratorium on family reunion, which is a safe route, and it's a safe route that the beneficiaries of nine times out of ten are women and girls. And the failure to restore family reunion is a deliberate decision to remove what is a safe route. That would have been a good and positive way of being able to counter the demand for people crossing irregularly, to give raw meat to those people who are never going to vote for you anyway.

To people who already take the view that immigration is bad and immigrants are bad is utterly and totally pointless and counterproductive. When the last government, some of whom were in the Reform Party, now, did this kind of thing, I thought it was despicable, but at least they meant it. At least they meant it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can't see Steve Yemm Euan Stainbank. has. Seen a discussion of asylum

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Seen a discussion of asylum policy. Take unprecedented command of our local debate. What has occurred in our community is an example of the failure of the past government to provide solutions that work in the best interests of our communities across the country, our communities across the country, or the best interests of asylum seekers fleeing persecution and conflict, to put it mildly, the lack of control the previous lack of control the previous government has had over the asylum system has destroyed almost public confidence.

It saw the number of
20:37
Euan Stainbank Portrait Euan Stainbank MP (Falkirk, Labour)
-
-
applicants rise from tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands from 2020 onwards, leading to their Ministers in a leading to their Ministers in a panic state directing the acquisition of town centre hotels for use as accommodation. With that for use as accommodation. With that one move, they placed asylum seekers who are unable to work, as members have mentioned, into goldfish bowls. Hotels across the goldfish bowls. Hotels across the country ground to a halt, forgot about them and forgot or simply did not care about the communities such not care about the communities such as Falkirk who host them.

We saw cost balloon and we failed to stop the rising people coming through illegal routes. This Labour Labour government, on the other hand, have seen Torbay asylum hotels down by over half the peak of 400 crossings, down 41% in one year, claims down 12% in one year and the grant rate falling from 45% when in July 20th 24 to 39% today, enabling £1 billion a year to be saved in accommodation costs with the previous government have lost control, this government has taken steps to restore it.

The challenge that this bill presents us today is finding a way to re-establish public confidence in the existence of asylum system, which many of my constituents have raised with me that they are questioning. We cannot let the palpable anger and is anger that is out there in certain corners of our community, irrevocably be pushed towards those who suggest we break the rights based order that we have had for 80 years. We must demonstrate that we can control the asylum system without sacrificing our constituents rights, as many on the opposite benches suggest, the tone the government have utilised to communicate a record has caused, and I will admit, reasonable concern within my constituency about the measures we are considering today, but also measures that we have to acknowledge were not considering today.

What I do not believe we can do tonight is deal with that concern by abandoning the essential objectives of this bill seeks to pursue. If we vote against this bill, we do throw away an opportunity for asylum appeals reform. The backlog left by the Conservatives has been rapidly reduced, but many cases have been displaced. The appeal system, and we must be faster and quicker imminently in resolving appeals. If we vote against this, we are throwing away a chance to build a system of controlled routes, which is the only sustainable solution to boat crossings, but one that requires the public to have confidence in the basic norm of asylum system which is being threatened.

We throw away a chance that align with our partners in the Council of Europe on article eight interpretation, as was brought through in May. And now, as we seek to resolve what is an international humanitarian crisis, instead of being pushed to the more extreme solutions other offer, I do think that there are several areas which will bring up at Committee stage and with Ministers that we can improve this bill. However, I will not be indulging those on the other side of the House who broke my community's confidence in the asylum system.

I will be supporting the government who are making a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

good faith attempt to resolve it. Yes, sir. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. speaker, I am very conscious of the speaker, I am very conscious of the short time that we have. I'm going to concentrate most of my comments to concentrate most of my comments on clauses 44 to 49. This is a bill about our border, about who crosses about our border, about who crosses it and on what terms, but a border policy that scrutinises every person while waving through person while waving through products of slavery is really only half a border policy.

The reality is, as we see slavery in the modern world, it is something that impacts every part of the globe, but very much this country. 1 in 5 of cotton garments worldwide is linked to forced labour in China. Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights warned in July 2025 in terms that the UK risked becoming a dumping ground for goods prohibited elsewhere. The ILO estimates forced labour generates roughly £176 billion in illegal profits every year. The reality is this bill does many things and many things, as I welcome, but something that is on the face, the long title of this bill, which is combating modern slavery, it does nothing more than offer meek and weak words in terms of tackling that.

Now, right across this House on all sides, we've often worked together to make a difference, to actually lead the
20:41
Gavin Williamson Portrait Rt Hon Sir Gavin Williamson MP (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge, Conservative)
-
-
world in tackling modern slavery. But what we are seeing is the United States is charging ahead and taking greater action than we are. If we look across the channel that If we look across the channel that we all talk so much about in this debate, we see the European Union debate, we see the European Union doing more than what we are doing in this House. And what are we in this House. And what are we proposing to do in this House.

Just ask for a little bit more reporting, not act to stop goods produced by slavery coming into these shores. In fact, we will act as a magnet for slave produced goods coming from not just China, but so many other countries that will turn a blind eye to slave labour. So while there is much that I welcome in this bill, what I would urge the government to do is to look at how it can work across party to make sure it can have an improved bill.

So make sure that it can have a bill that actually protects some of the most vulnerable people in the poorest parts of the world from being exploited. And if it does that, it will make it a much better bill than the one that is currently

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in front of the House. Tom Collins thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been campaigning on modern slavery for over 20 years. Back when I started, over 20 years. Back when I started, most modern slavery in the UK was sexual exploitation. Let me be clear, that is of girls and I put clear, that is of girls and I put myself in the shoes of a parent whose child was in another country
20:43
Tom Collins Portrait Tom Collins MP (Worcester, Labour)
-
-
and suffering unimaginable abuse and exploitation. And I realised that I would pray every night for someone in that country not to rest until they were rescued. I realised I had to be that person in this country, and I brought that sentiment with me to Parliament. The government has done some good taking some good steps on tackling modern slavery, actually breaking down the criminal gangs and international organised networks behind small boats, starting to open up more safe and legal routes, and clearing the operational operational backlog of immigration cases are good, but diminishing consideration of cases because they don't disclose straight away or because they carried out criminal activity, goes against the very, very basic, fundamental modern slavery 101 principles of how we tackle it.

Recognising who is a victim and who is a perpetrator, and recognising the effects of trauma were great accomplishments of the Modern Slavery Act, and I fear there is a risk now that we start to see tackling illegal immigration and tackling modern slavery as being in conflict or intention, when in fact they are entirely aligned. The Secretary of State raised some powerful examples, but those are examples of decision making that was clearly bureaucratic and detached, lacking professional judgement. And I echo the comments made by a member opposite that disclosure does not automatically mean a referral under the national referral mechanism.

We should be fixing those those operational problems. We should be fixing that system rather than hoping that changing the law is suddenly going to result in it making better decisions. And in fact, I would say that going and deploying that right the way down to policing as well, and our multi-agency response to modern slavery and local areas, is a job still to be done, even since we introduced the Modern Slavery Act. But we should not be going backwards. We should be surging and pushing forwards to eradicate modern slavery in the UK.

And if we were to do that, we would find much of what concerns our communities about illegal immigration would have been solved. We must tackle modern slavery head on. We must strengthen our systems that are failing at an operational level in their design of decision making, their implementation and bringing good governance. And for that reason, I really welcome further discussions with the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

following today to improve this bill. Liz Saville-Roberts.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Liz Saville-Roberts. There are several reasons why, like Henry, colleagues, along with the hon. Members from the SNP and the hon. Members from the SNP and the Greens and others, have tabled a reasoned amendment to oppose this bill. It does not fix the problems bill. It does not fix the problems in the UK asylum system, nor does it deliver the controlled and compassionate system we need. It compassionate system we need. It sees political heavy handedness creeping into an area which should see clear division between the executive and the rightful domain of the judiciary, with the independent and Investigation Appeals Authority, and it also sees the creation of a non-judicial body
20:46
Liz Saville Roberts Portrait Rt Hon Liz Saville Roberts MP (Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Plaid Cymru)
-
-
for immigration appeals, as well as high handed use of Henry VII's powers in clause 16, whereby the powers in clause 16, whereby the idea is replaces any reference from previous law, including devolved legislation with tribunals. What it does, of course, is it avoids the roots of real problems while creating others, and the level of creating others, and the level of detail in some of these bill's measures are scant. At best, there is little information on how the core protection status provision will work, nor the requirements for asylum support contributions.

I understand more detail will be provided elsewhere, but when we have had announcement after announcement, often directly to the press rather than here in this House, how can we, the government, expect the public to keep track of what proposals are actually in motion, as we all endlessly wait for further details? This creates complexity and confusion, which does nothing to address the dangerous narratives about people fleeing war and persecution who are genuinely seeking safety through asylum. All the while, people's rights under the international order, including, of course, the rights of innocent children, are further undermined.

Is this truly what Labour wants as its legacy? Because apparently the Prime Minister in waiting is happy with this approach. Last month, my colleagues on the Senate stood in defence of the Nation of Sanctuary scheme in Wales, and all that does is help people already living there to become a part of our communities. And that's the reality of where we really are. This is the performative nature of politics and how it actually plays out in our communities. And in the age of misinformation, surely it is the UK government's duty not to harm our communities further by brushing over the real problems within our asylum system.

Such problems include the Home Office's poor initial decision making and limited safe routes. It includes further demonising individuals, all the while shifting away from long held principles of needs and rights based protection. With these in mind and what we have heard already today about concerns from all sides of this House about the detail and the principles of this legislation, I would call on the Home Secretary to seek to consider the arguments in the reasoned amendment from the SNP, from the Greens and from by country, and that this Bill, as it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stands, should not proceed. Melanie Onn thank you very much,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Melanie Onn thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I always hear the UK being described as a welcoming nature, that it's a haven for people in times of great difficulty, but I would say it is, but only in limited circumstances. but only in limited circumstances. Like with the Ukraine, there's been a broad consensus that the UK should play its part and offer assistance, but we should be under no illusion that this agreement was
20:49
Melanie Onn Portrait Melanie Onn MP (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, Labour)
-
-
anything more than temporary, limited in scope and made in the context of the current status of context of the current status of the social contract, where specific schemes have been agreed separately by the government, the public have by the government, the public have felt that there was good reasoning, exceptional circumstances and that the UK had a greater reason to provide assistance. That is not the case, particularly in the case of case, particularly in the case of small boat crossings. The social contract is fragile and it's required this really careful narrative that's so clearly explained what the UK is doing, the Who and for how long we will not be able to take the heat out of this area of policy until the government can clearly, confidently and repeatedly demonstrate that the systems we have in place are sufficiently robust that citizens do feel secure, do feel that they understand the system, and increasingly, that the measures in place cannot be undermined through endless appeals or jeers.

Article eight has to receive serious attention when we see that 71% of people newly granted residence rights in 2025 had either entered the UK illegally or overstayed their previous visa. It's also concerning to see that of those who have their article eight appeal turned down, more than half may remain in the UK illegally. Those who commit a crime utilising the same article, despite breaching the terms of permission of being in the country, it is just not seen as being fair. And when the host nation's people start to feel that their hospitality has been exploited, it quickly turns to resentment and a rejection of the whole principle, which none of us want to see.

We should be speeding up the processing of applications for immigration and asylum claims. It's what we promised we would do at the last election. It's unreasonable to leave people waiting for months or years on end. And while asylum processing is not far off, overall 2020 rates to get their initial decision, and we should also be taking action to speed up appeals, I worry that anything that undermines this delicate, delicate balance will see even greater frustrations growing and be exploited by those who thrive on disruption and division.

This isn't about chasing the policies of the right, it is about having rules which meet the needs of the day. They cannot be static

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because the world isn't. Pete Wishart.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pete Wishart. A critical juncture in this whole debate about immigration and looking at what is going on across looking at what is going on across the UK, things are not good, such as the noise that a general culture as the noise that a general culture of anti-immigrant sentiment now sweeps this country, leading to sweeps this country, leading to whole communities feeling unsafe, demonised and scapegoated on a weekly basis. We now see some disgusting scenes at hotels hosting asylum seekers.

Vigilantism is on the rise. People of colour don't feel safe in their own homes all the time. Dangerous misinformation fuels the mood, supported by billionaires and bad actors spreading messages of hate and division. The far right is on the rise. More confident, visible and organised than has been in decades. Madam Deputy Speaker. The rise of the far right is perhaps the most dangerous political development of recent years, and looking at the situation just now, I say it's at best 5050 whether they succeed or not.

So this is the context for the introduction of this bill. The government continues to think that it can beat the far right and the populists by doing exactly what the anti-immigration right want them to do. It accepts the premise that immigration is something that is bad in the negative, and must be controlled by ever increasing restrictive and repressive measures. It joins in calls to weaken essential human rights protection and to use force to remove. It agrees that citizenship should be extended for and and for payments that cannot be afforded.

It is the usual doomed attempts to try and out Farage. Farage, after two years of following this particular logic, it is almost becoming heroic. People who come to this country seeking refuge from conflict and persecution are not asking for special treatment. They just want to feel safe. I've gone through this bill hoping to find measures that genuinely address the problems facing this asylum system, and have spoken with organisations that work daily with supporting refugees and survivors of trafficking and modern slavery.

All are disappointed and concerned because this bill does not address any of the issues at hand. I thought when we had a Labour government that we would see a new and fresh approach to issues around immigration, how disappointed we have all been, at least some of them on the backbench, that are prepared to change the narrative. We want to do something positive when it comes to things like indefinite leave to remain. This is the chance to have new leadership within the next week.

Try and impress upon whoever is going to be leading this country that we cannot go on continuing to do these things again. We are at a critical juncture. Madam Deputy Speaker we need to change our approach.
20:54
20:55
Jo White Portrait Jo White MP (Bassetlaw, Labour)
-
-
smugglers and strengthen the checks so we know who is coming, how and so we know who is coming, how and why. Second, swift decisions and final outcomes. Endless delays final outcomes. Endless delays destroy confidence. Claims must be processed quickly. Appeals heard promptly by independent promptly by independent adjudicators with decisions enforced. If you qualify, you receive protection without receive protection without unnecessary delay. If you do not, departure should follow swiftly. Third, fairness means contribution. Those granted protection should work, rebuild their lives, contribute to our society and help offset the costs associated with processing their claims.

Responsibility must sit alongside rights and contribution alongside compassion. Fourth, protection must remain justified. Refugee status should be reviewed through a clear, streamlined process. If danger remains, protection continues. If circumstances change significantly, the system should respond accordingly. This is how we keep asylum credible. Fifth, honesty about costs and communities. Hotels are a symptom of a system under strain. By reducing backlogs and speeding up decisions, we can lower costs and ensure outcomes are delivered if protected, people moving to work.

If not, they are removed. Every pound saved can be redirected towards border security and genuine protection. Six safe and legal routes if we want people to choose safe routes, these routes must be real, reliable and fast. Clear criteria rapid processing, UNHCR referrals and community sponsorship can provide a genuine alternative to dangerous crossings. The legal route must always be the better route. This is how the economic model of the people smugglers can be broken. To those constituents who have lost faith, they are right to want to control the borders.

Faster decisions, lower costs and rules that are enforced. Control of the border, compassion where it counts, contribution and consequences in equal measure. We cannot undo yesterday's failures, but we can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

build a system that is fair and credible. That's why I'm supporting the bill. OK. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We must reduce immigration to this country and get a grip of our asylum system. Unlike the MPs behind her, I do think the Home Secretary is starting to move in the right direction. But as she the right direction. But as she will know, small boat crossings are on the rise. Since Labour came to power, with an average of 105 illegal migrants crossing the
20:57
Lewis Cocking Portrait Lewis Cocking MP (Broxbourne, Conservative)
-
-
illegal migrants crossing the channel every single day for the last two years, almost 100,000 people are being housed in asylum accommodation, with the numbers up 11% in HMOs. Under this Labour government, the case for urgent action is now overwhelming, but the measures in the Bill before us failed to meet the gravity of the situation, and I will therefore be supporting the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Just look at the tinkering to the application of article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights.

We all know that the protection to family life has been abused and twisted far from its original purpose. The public rightly expect foreign nationals who have broken our laws to be deported. The rights of the British people should always outweigh the interests of foreign criminals. No ifs, no buts. In 2023, a Nigerian man used article eight to stay in this country despite a two year prison sentence. But the tribunal ruled that deportation would breach his article eight rights horrifically.

He then went on to violently rape a teenage girl whose rights were being protected. Then. Will these sorts of cases be the thing of the past? As a result of the modest changes within this bill, I'm not convinced the government is allowing vague and ambiguous, exceptional circumstances to be used by criminals to avoid deportation. The phrasing in this bill leaves it far too much room for legal argument, appeals and delays. No ifs, no buts. Every illegal immigrant should be deported by making changes to article.

The government has conceded that membership of the European Convention on Human Rights places significant limits on the UK's ability to maintain and control our borders. Madam Deputy Speaker, there is only one logical conclusion the only way we will truly end illegal immigration into the United Kingdom and deport all foreign criminals and create a fair system that is generally fair and robust, is to leave the European Convention on Human Rights in its

**** Possible New Speaker ****

entirety and repeal the Human Rights Act. Nadia Whittome thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There's little. Evidence that this bill will do what it claims, that it will fix the most serious issues in our the most serious issues in our asylum system. In fact, experts say that it will divert focus and that it will divert focus and resources to a system that is unfair, unsafe and unworkable. There are many problems in this
21:00
Nadia Whittome Portrait Nadia Whittome MP (Nottingham East, Labour)
-
-
There are many problems in this bill, but for the sake of time, I'll focus on the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority. So the government says that to tackle the backlog, it will replace the tribunal system, which is made up of judges with a new system of adjudicators who are not legally qualified but are given the power and the responsibility to make what are, in many cases, life and death decisions. The government claims that they will be independent, but they're appointed by the chief executive, who is appointed by the Secretary of State.

So this undermines the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers, which are key cornerstones of our democracy. The Law Society says that it risks, and I quote, more wrong decisions, more court challenges, higher costs and longer uncertainty, poor home Office decision making drives the appeals backlog, the last in the last financial year, 39% of appeals were granted and over 10,000 appeals were withdrawn because the Home Office abandoned its initial decision. So rather than building new, expensive bodies, the government should invest in the existing system and get asylum decisions right the first time.

The government could have brought a bill today containing evidence based policies that would actually fix our broken asylum system. For example, a not for profit asylum accommodation system to improve living conditions and integration. Genuinely safe routes that are not severely restricted and heavily capped. Fast tracking obviously well-founded asylum cases, such as those from war zones. But instead, I'm ashamed to say that this immigration and asylum bill is a betrayal of our party's values, and I cannot support it.

I urge the government to withdraw this bill and instead work with sector organisations and experts to create an immigration and asylum system rooted in compassion, justice and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

human rights. Government. Oh, thank. You, Madam Speaker. Following the. Hon. Lady for Nottingham East, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hon. Lady for Nottingham East, I agree with one word. She said that this bill is a betrayal. It's not a betrayal of the Labour Party, betrayal of the Labour Party, though. It's a betrayal of the British people, because this bill British people, because this bill will fail, just as the Labour government has been promising for two years now that it will smash two years now that it will smash the gangs and stop the boats. It has failed. They all laugh. They're all laughing at the British people who are furious with this Labour government.

This government has
21:03
Suella Braverman Portrait Rt Hon Suella Braverman KC MP (Fareham and Waterlooville, Reform UK)
-
-
failed. The last Tory government failed because they've been lying to the British. I'll get to that. I will get to that. Why will it fail? Why is this bill a total and utter Why is this bill a total and utter farce? Because of the European Convention on Human Rights and Reform UK have tabled a reason Reform UK have tabled a reason amendment opposing this bill because it does not do what is needed. It does not take the United Kingdom out of the ECHR.

That is what we need to do. If we have to stop the boats. I won't because I don't have any time. Let's just go through this. Part one, the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority that will get ripped to shreds by article six claims in the High Court. Saying that it's not doesn't offer a right to a fair trial. Part two article eight reform that will be destroyed by article eight claims in the High Court and will probably get overturned by Strasbourg. Part three protection status and asylum.

Article three the right against torture and inhumane or degrading treatment that will block the operation of part three. This bill is not fit for purpose and it will let the British people down. I will actually give way to the gentleman

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at the front. Mike Martin thank. You, speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So she advocates leaving the ECHR. Now, I'm assuming this is after a process of analysis, so could she tell the House two good

**** Possible New Speaker ****

could she tell the House two good things that the ECHR does for British citizens? It is after a process of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is after a process of analysis, ten years as a barrister, five of which were spent defending the Home Office in the immigration tribunals time as Attorney General, finding and seeing how the ECHR thwarted government decision making time and time again, whether it was eco protesters and using article ten and 11, and then as home secretary in 2022. That is why in 2022, I was the first conservative Minister to say publicly that if we wanted to stop the boats, we needed to leave the ECHR for that.

I was attacked by my former conservative colleagues, including the current leader of the Conservative Party, including many members of the shadow Cabinet, many of whom today still privately oppose leaving the ECHR. And they did it publicly four years ago. I'm very glad that it's taken the Conservative Party three years to catch up with me, but it's three years too late and too little because when they had the power, when they had the mandate, and when they had Ministers telling them what needed to be done, that we needed to leave the ECHR they blocked, they attacked, they criticised, and they vilified people like me.

So I won't take any lessons from the Conservative Party that cannot be trusted. A bit. On leaving the ECHR it is my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton, who has been the original advocate for leaving the ECHR. It was him who first raised the alarm about the small boats crisis. It was only thanks to the pressure and the campaigning that he led single handedly, that even forced this place to wake up and take some action. So yes, we need to leave the ECHR.

I've set out a plan on how to do so. Published last year, I include. I urge all of you to read it. The Conservative Party copied it about a year later, but it sets out how to leave. Why to leave, how to protect civil liberties in doing so, how we can amend the Good Friday Agreement and protect Northern Ireland in doing so, and why it's what the British

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people deserve. If we are going to stop the boats. Chris Murray thank. You, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to follow the hon. Member who was the author of the mess that we're currently mess that we're currently discussing, clearing up, and I'm sure she'll look forward to sharing her comments with Count Binface her comments with Count Binface soon enough. And I draw the house attention to my register of interest. And I'd like to say that the government is absolutely right to be tackling both the appeals process, and I accept that as a supporter of humanitarian protection, that that does need reform if it is to be proven resilient in the future.

But I want
21:07
Chris Murray Portrait Chris Murray MP (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, Labour)
-
-
to focus on part four of this bill, which creates powers to recover the which creates powers to recover the costs of asylum support. And I'm pleased to see the bill discussed the cost of asylum system. I the cost of asylum system. I actually support the principle that refugees who go on to earn a lot should contribute back what they should contribute back what they received from this country, and I suspect many of them would be happy suspect many of them would be happy to do so.

But let us be clear, it is not those refugees who are responsible for the extraordinary costs of the asylum system. Since entering Parliament, I have been on a one man mission to highlight what I believe is the biggest public procurement scandal in Britain, a system causing untold damage but costing the taxpayer £15 billion. The real problem lies with the asylum contracts signed by the previous government and overseen by the Member for Fareham, with three private providers. These generated eye watering profits.

One of their founders entered the Sunday Times rich list at taxpayer expense. But when these companies come before the Home Affairs Select Committee, they refuse to answer. Even the most basic questions. While serious concerns about misconduct in their supply chains remain. I recognise that this government inherited these contracts from the member from Fareham and are roped into them for the foreseeable future, but I support asking successful refugees to contribute. But that would be a peripheral issue. Yes, I will give way.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for him giving way. He's almost making my argument. For me. The whole reason and rationale me. The whole reason and rationale as to why the Home Office has to enter into expensive contracts and enter into expensive contracts and spend £5 million worth of British taxpayers money every day. To house taxpayers money every day. To house the asylum seekers is because of the ECHR, because it imposes onerous duties on the state to onerous duties on the state to accommodate unlimited numbers of asylum seekers, without any thought

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as to the cost effectiveness. No it's not. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is because the hon. Lady passed the Rwanda Act that Lady passed the Rwanda Act that allowed the backlog to to soar. It's because the hon. Lady signed up putting them in hotels which cost £34,000 per asylum seeker, as opposed to 14,000 per asylum seeker opposed to 14,000 per asylum seeker when she came into office. And it's because the hon. Lady failed to get that department to grip the public that department to grip the public procurement of taxpayers money that she wasted, and then tried to instrumentalize to sow division in the country.

Yes, these outsourcing contracts have allowed extortionate profits at taxpayers expense. They have damaged communities, they have failed the vulnerable, and they have exposed serious weaknesses in the Home Office procurement. My question is, is the government certain they do not need further powers to sort out these contracts and recoup the costs that have already been wasted? If not, why is that not included in the bill? The Second Reading is about principles, and I believe this bill identifies the right areas for reform, appeals, protection and costs.

For that reason, I will be supporting it tonight, and I look forward to seeing the concerns about the detail, implementation and asylum contracts being addressed as it progresses.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sian Berry thank. You, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to speak in support of the reasoned amendment, which has not reasoned amendment, which has not been tabled. In the name of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross Shire, alongside me and my Green Shire, alongside me and my Green Party colleagues and a cross-party grouping, I associate myself with the comments made already by the the comments made already by the hon. Friends on this bench. We must reject division, not feed it
21:10
Siân Berry Portrait Siân Berry MP (Brighton Pavilion, Green Party)
-
-
reject division, not feed it together. I believe our amendment represents the views of the majority of the UK public who reject the far right, and who delight in the strong reputation this country has of welcoming refugees who believe in human rights, and that we must treat those fleeing war, danger, discrimination and oppression the same as we would want to be treated if circumstances changed in this country, and who are proud of the many, many migrants, families of all kinds over the years who are not only long settled and well integrated, but integral to our British identity in terms of maintaining our proud British tradition of integration and community cohesion.

This bill will do the opposite. It is designed to make it harder for families to form, as well as to reunite and remain together, and clearly designed to prevent refugees from finding a permanent, safe new home here, which will damage community cohesion by preventing long term integration. The conclusions of liberty around this bill's impact on children are stark. They say more children will face separation either from their parent or their home, and they have huge concerns about the proposals to force no weight to be given to relationships formed here in the UK by people, for people here in irregular circumstances, banning people from falling in love is unlikely to work.

So therefore there will undoubtedly be many children seriously harmed by this blunt and bad faith proposal. In addition, the proposals in part four to force payments from financially vulnerable refugees are misconceived and cruel. Remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, this will apply to the very poorest refugees. So it is a tax on poverty and on being a victim of war or persecution. Attacks on the free speech exercise by those who end up political prisoners, attacks on Lgbt+ people, on women fighting for education, on discriminating against minorities in authoritarian regimes.

And this bill obviously does nothing to increase the right to work for people seeking asylum, which is the most obvious way to close the hotels, reduce poverty and destitution and reduce the cost to the state of the long waits refugees face. And above all, this bill does nothing to improve the poor initial decision making. Every Member of Parliament caseworkers know all too much about, and it does not fix the problems caused by Brexit or provide any new safe routes for seeking asylum here itself to reduce small boats and prevent the criminal exploitation of those with clear and legitimate claims, but no safe way to reach her at all.

Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Home Secretary must reconsider and withdraw this bill. I have. Made it very clear to. The whips.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The whips. On duty that I'm not going to get everybody in, and interventions are not helping.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are not helping. Lewis Atkinson thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Asylum and immigration are key concerns for my constituents and their judgement on constituents and their judgement on the asylum system this government inherited is clear and it's correct. inherited is clear and it's correct. The system was broken, it lacked control and it cost taxpayers too much by this. They don't just talk about the illegal and dangerous crossings of the channel, but they also mean it was broken post-arrival in the extended periods of time in which people have been accommodated in dispersal accommodation while awaiting
21:14
Lewis Atkinson Portrait Lewis Atkinson MP (Sunderland Central, Labour)
-
-
decision or appeal outcomes. They are right to expect the amount of public money spent on that system, reducing an amount that has increased as a result of the failings of the system that the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville oversaw. It's on that basis that I welcome the introduction of this legislation, along with the other steps the government is taking to restore control to the system while control to the system while maintaining a proper offer of safe routes for those fleeing war and persecution in the two years since the election, rather than chuntering on from benches opposite, the government has begun to get a grip.

Small boat crossings down 12% now compared to the equivalent period in 2020 for initial decisions, the highest on record. Increasing removals of people without a legal right to remain here. That isn't happening by accident, and it's certainly not happening because of gimmicks and political game playing. It's happening as a result of hard, unglamorous work disrupting the gangs, deepening cooperation with European partners and actually making decisions on applications. As others have said, with Home Affairs Select Committee colleagues, I travelled to northern France last year and saw the significant efforts UK backed efforts to stop the boats, but I also heard from the French a concern that we cannot dismiss, that there remain pull factors on this side of the channel, and those pull factors include a system that incentivises late appeals because of the lengthy appeals backlog.

It is right that this government takes steps to reform the appeal system. I would also just draw the House's attention. I think the shadow Home Secretary said that no previous attempts had worked to reform the system. The Blair government, faced by a broken appeal system past immigration acts in 2002 and 2004, and against opposition from around the House. Slowly, by getting through appeals and making sure that decision making was proper and streamlined, the backlog fell repeatedly. That is not the not glamorous work.

It's not noisy political work that seeks to score political points, but it's the real work of governing that my my constituents expect. Our country is a proud tradition of offering refuge to those fleeing war and persecution, and Sunderland has lived that tradition, including many families who offered their city of sanctuary to Ukrainian refugees. As others have said, in order to maintain that proud tradition, we need a system that commands public confidence and its

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right to reform it in the way the government's proposing. Jeremy Corbyn thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The media reform Deputy Speaker. The media reform and all the far right in Britain have created the most horrible and dangerous atmosphere in this dangerous atmosphere in this country against refugees, against migrants and against minorities. They promoted racism, and that They promoted racism, and that racism is played out in the violence on the streets, the violence against mosques, the
21:17
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP (Islington North, Your Party)
-
-
violence against synagogues and the violence against any minority group within our society. They should think very carefully about what they say and how they depict asylum seekers and refugees. When I listened to the rhetoric on the media and follow it in some of the papers, it seems to me that they've taken leave of all aspects of humanity whatsoever. The hon. Member who just spoke said he had been over to northern France to examine what was going on there. I've been over to northern France as well.

I've been over to Calais and I've talked to people living in tents and they are desperate. They're desperate people who once worked for the British Army in Afghanistan. They're desperate people who were bombed in Iraq. They're desperate people who were bombed in Syria. They're desperate people trying to find somewhere to survive in this world. And what they find is hostility. They find danger, and they find abuse. Nobody in their right mind would get into one of those dinghies and cross the channel, unless they were utterly desperate for it.

So can't we just have a sense of humanity about this and have some international European wide approach to the issues faced by people who are desperate? Thousands have died crossing the Mediterranean. Hundreds have died crossing the channel, the historians of next century will say of this century, what were the politicians of Europe doing? Why all these people were drowning? Because they were trying to get to a place of safety. Can't we instead look at the importance of international institutions? Look at the value of the European Convention of Human Rights, which protects all of our human rights and try and have some humane system of doing things.

In the last minute I've got in this speech, I want to draw attention to the amendment that I've put forward, endorsed by members of the Independent Alliance Group, concerning the Afghan resettlement scheme. The people of Afghanistan have suffered grievously from the war. In August 21st, the Taliban took over in Kabul. In August 21st, the UK created resettlement schemes and then dropped them all. And now we have the horrible situation that many Afghan families that have come to Britain as part of that scheme, were told that the rest of their families could come and there were many dependents stuck in Afghanistan who could have no place here.

The government, through the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office, guaranteed that right of family reunion guaranteed and extended family members could come here. And when the Minister gets the reply, I hope he'll remember

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the words of the Afghan International Youth Council in Britain, who said many

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Afghan families continue to endure the pain of prolonged, prolonged separation. Order, order Rachel Taylor thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order Rachel Taylor thank. You, Madam Deputy Speaker. My constituents in North Warwickshire and Bedworth have been very clear and Bedworth have been very clear Britain must secure its borders, enforce the rules and those with no right to remain here. But they also right to remain here. But they also recognise that Britain should continue to uphold our proud tradition of offering sanctuary to
21:20
Rachel Taylor Portrait Rachel Taylor MP (North Warwickshire and Bedworth, Labour)
-
-
people genuinely fleeing war, persecution and violence. Those two principles do not conflict. A principles do not conflict. A system that's firm, fair and fast is the only way to maintain public confidence. My constituents are confidence. My constituents are angry about the fundamental unfairness in the current system. unfairness in the current system. At a time when they're having to tighten their belts ever more. Clause 23 of the bill tackles that Clause 23 of the bill tackles that unfairness head on, gives the Secretary of State the power to require adults who've received asylum, accommodation or financial support to make a contribution when they have sufficient means.

Those who can afford to contribute should pay their fair share. This safeguards taxpayers money and creates a stronger incentive to come through safe and legal routes. And that's why the new cat routes for Genuine refugees being introduced alongside the bill are so important. Working with the United Nations High Commissioner for refugees, the government will establish controlled community sponsorship, study and work routes. Numbers will start small because we have to restore confidence in the system. People arriving through these routes will have proper support in place so they can reach safety without dangerous journeys or people smugglers.

My constituents are also rightly concerned when serious foreign criminals are allowed to remain here by relying on broad interpretation of article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights. But the answer is not to leave the sea. The answer is to make the law clearer. Clauses 18 to 20 clearly define what constitutes family life and ensure that public safety and the prevention of crime come first. People in North Warwickshire and Bedworth are tired of politicians making promises on immigration without a credible plan to deliver.

They want border security, not slogans. They want an asylum system that protects the vulnerable without being open to abuse. I'm backing this landmark legislation because it will restore control of Britain's borders and deliver an asylum system that is fair to the British taxpayer, compassionate to those genuinely seeking safety, and tough on those who seek to exploit our country and its generosity.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. Your attention to my register of interest. I will focus in the short interest. I will focus in the short time I have on the question of part one and the immigration appeals reforms, specifically the question reforms, specifically the question of will it work to cut the appeals backlog? I want to start by just making the point that the Home Office decision making is a significant driver of appeal numbers. The Home Office's own internal quality checks show an
21:22
Tony Vaughan Portrait Tony Vaughan KC MP (Folkestone and Hythe, Labour)
-
-
internal quality checks show an error rate of around 48% in the most recently published figures, and around 45% of Home Office refusals were overturned on appeal, according to MoJ statistics for the year ending March 25th. And I think it's important to make the point that if those decisions were right first time, there would be substantially less pressure on the appeals system. But I fundamentally agree that the government, with the government, that the asylum appeal backlog must be addressed urgently. And in my view, the government was right to enact a six month target time frame for asylum appeals in accommodated cases in section 49 of the Border Security and Immigration Act 2025, and since then, around 71st tier tribunal judges have been recruited.

And so the first question I have for the Minister is, given the increase in FTT numbers, the increase in sitting days, section 49 and other measures, where can we find the Ministry of Justice and Home Office assessment, which explains why the FTT is unable to clear the backlog, because without this kind of assessment. Madam Deputy Speaker, the estimate and particularly an estimate of how much it would cost, it's impossible to understand why these far reaching reforms are better than improving the existing system. The second question I have is why the government are bringing forward a new model for appeals, which the Home Office's own impact assessment says will have an uncertain effect on the appeal backlog and does not contain evidence that the appeal reforms will actually work.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The friend. Give way? Yes. Would he agree with me that it's incredibly important with the reforms that have been brought reforms that have been brought forward, that there is that certainty to ensure that what we develop here is better and creates

**** Possible New Speaker ****

develop here is better and creates a better system, rather than potentially taking the risk that it could even get worse. I agree with the intervention, I completely agree. I think another completely agree. I think another hon. Member referred to the importance of evidence based policy making. And when we look at the making. And when we look at the impact assessment, that is not clear to me that the case has been made. Really, I think it's fair to say that the only basis evidential basis for these reforms is a is a hope that these reforms will be better than the current system.

But that, I would suggest, is not a basis to abolish an arm of the judiciary of this country and to undertake major structural changes, which are a key part of our asylum system. And on the other hand, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is evidence suggesting that a lay adjudicator system will not work. The Justice Committee last week we heard evidence that Denmark did try and bring in lay adjudicators around 15 years ago, but as non-lawyers they struggle to apply the law to the facts. They made lots of errors and ended up being either too sympathetic or too harsh, and they were got rid of.

And now Danish asylum appeals are heard by a judge, a lawyer and a civil servant. And another member has referred to the fact that Australia tried it some years ago, which was also got rid of because it increased the backlog. Which brings me to the third question to the Minister, which is what assessment has been done as to the impact of this new system on the upper tribunal. Because I believe that this new appeals body will simply shift the backlog or a major part of it, from the FTT into the upper tribunal.

That's because lay adjudicators will make more legal errors, which have to be corrected on appeal to the upper tribunal. And I say that based on 18 years of full time practice in the courts of tribunals of this country, when I appealed against decisions both of lay decision makers and judges. And it's not just my view. It's a view of a witness before the justice committee last week, including a former judge of the upper tribunal itself. I also want to add that the way this bill has been sold, for example, it's said to be to crack down on abusive appeals, is incorrect when around half of those appeals are allowed, and the idea that all unsuccessful appeals are abusive, as was said at the outset, is wrong.

The case if the case was clearly unfounded, it would not go to appeal. So we already have a filter to get rid of weak cases before they start. But in closing, I will quickly say that across every element of the reforms, the Home Office's own impact assessment says the effects are uncertain. And this is, I would suggest, a scant evidentiary basis for believing that these measures will actually

**** Possible New Speaker ****

work. Stella. Thank you. Madam Speaker. To have concerns.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Speaker. To have concerns. About this piece of legislation does not mean you defend the status quo. It does not mean that you want the boats to continue, or that you the boats to continue, or that you don't want to see Shabbir Ahmed deported. Nor is it not recognised that claims are down, channel that claims are down, channel crossings are down, that numbers waiting for decisions are coming down, that things are moving in the
21:26
Stella Creasy Portrait Ms Stella Creasy MP (Walthamstow, Labour )
-
-
right direction. It's to make the very simple case that actually this piece of legislation could take us backwards, could end up being more expensive as a result for the taxpayer. So I do not stand here raising concerns about this legislation because of my concerns about the approach to the sea and the importance of defending it as a fundamental component of our liberty, or as somebody proud to live in a community that welcomes refugees. Proud to have spent this morning talking to a refugee businessman.

If we're going to tell stories about refugees, let's tell the whole story about the contribution they make for our country. I stand here as somebody speaking up for the taxpayer interest, because the truth is, as my colleague from Folkestone just pointed out, much of the backlog is about poor quality decision making. That is where cost is mounting up for the British taxpayer. The idea that when two thirds of those appeals are accepted or indeed withdrawn by the Home Office, there are lessons to be learned about how we can save money doesn't bear scrutiny.

Frankly, it would be a decent thing if the Home Office could turn up to those first tier tribunals in the first place, because that would probably improve decision making as well. But we know that's been a problem. We also failing to go after the Eurodac data means it's harder for us to deal with asylum claims between Europe. And that's absolutely why Brexit has caused problems. But fundamentally, spending money getting it right the first time would be the best way to give people confidence in our asylum system.

So bringing in a new system that will add further complexity is only likely to add cost. We are creating a refugee system that will see us spending money repeatedly asking people whether they are still victims of torture, whether there is still civil civil war in their country. Testing and retesting these people for no apparent gain other than to prove that we have got a broken system. This bill introduces a Diet Coke version of refugee status, the Core Protection visa, which will require refugees to be retested every 2.5 years, potentially for 20 years.

Think of the cost the Refugee Council has estimated to be about £1 billion. And then there are all the people that we are forgetting in this process. We have already talked about the madness of introducing a ten zero zero £0 debt on people on low incomes, so they are never able to properly sort themselves out in the UK. If we do give them status in my final seconds, I want to refer to the overseas domestic workers in this country who are being exploited. The Member for Staffordshire spoke powerfully about the importance of not seeing everybody who comes here as a criminal, but actually recognising the criminal behaviour.

There are things that we could do so much better that would save the British taxpayer money, restore confidence in the system. I'm sad to say, I don't think this bill is going to take us in that direction.
21:29
Bell Ribeiro-Addy Portrait Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP (Clapham and Brixton Hill, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. seems inspired by the belief that hostility towards asylum seekers will deter them, whilst hostility towards migrants will not deter towards migrants will not deter those we need economically. It cannot have it both ways. There is a deeper problem with the bill's logic on citizenship provisions. logic on citizenship provisions. The only way to make this approach work is to create a second class of citizen. But what do we do with those we cannot deport? What happens when the person who has done the harm was born here, with no claim to another citizenship? The bill has no answer because citizenship deprivation was never really about safety.

It's about who this government treats as fully British. The proposed amendment on citizenship deprivation confirms this further, and to be absolutely clear, this is not at all an argument against deporting foreign national criminals. I think we fail at that too often. My concern is that the Home Office, with its full arsenal, cannot think of any other way so that we are safe from all groomers and all abusers, regardless of where they were born, their grandparents were born or anything. As such, the Home Office seems only able to resolve difficult cases by creating citizens with fewer rights, and that should trouble every single member wherever their view on deportation.

There have also been press briefings suggesting that the bill hands Ministers sweeping powers to strip British citizenship. It rather moves deprivation of pills out of the independent courts and into it into an independent immigration appeals authority largely controlled by the Home Secretary. That is a serious change to who judges these decisions, and a change of process, not of who can be deprived of citizenship or why. This appears to be blurred with a separate bill stopping citizenship being restored after the first successful appeal, letting this government sound tougher than it is whilst avoiding scrutiny of a power already used disproportionately against black, Asian and migrant heritage citizens and on asylum seekers, forcing them to pay £10,000 for their own shelter is purely punitive.

Ignoring the legal right to asylum, denying the right to work and rent, then demanding repayment is designed to punish, not uphold, human rights. The bill also deliberately ignores article eight, the right to family life, potentially tearing people from loved ones, including British citizens. It contravenes the Modern Slavery Act, imposing arbitrary disclosure deadlines and removing leave to remain for trafficking survivors, automatic deportation for custodial sentences introduces double jeopardy. A wrongful sentence can now also mean unjust deportation. The deportation system is already a mess, run by the same Home Office that is now asking for sole control without oversight.

If DEFRA, for example, oversaw food shortages, would we then accept a bid to take over all our farms? And finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, this government yet again has missed the chance to fix child citizenship. Please £1,214 for a child who was born here, has lived here their whole life to register as a citizen in the country that they call home, a fee that the Court of Appeal found unlawful, and between 85,200 and 15,000 such children remain undocumented because their families cannot pay.

These children are not migrants. They're not asking for anything that is not already theirs. If it wasn't clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, I don't support this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wish to briefly return to trafficking issue. I welcome Theresa.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome Theresa. May's proposals on legislation. When she introduced them on trafficking, it was a huge breakthrough, and I did so because breakthrough, and I did so because in my constituency with Heathrow, we had hundreds of children, unaccompanied children coming in at Heathrow being taken into care, then disappearing, and they'd wind up in often cannabis farms. We also
21:32
John McDonnell Portrait Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Labour)
-
-
up in often cannabis farms. We also had large numbers of young women being brought in for prostitution in the local hotels. Often they would be created a drug dependency. So I like the anti-slavery commissioner, who's criticised the government for the language that they've used and the contextualisation of this issue. I agree, I'm appalled at the way in which, first of all, trafficking has been included in this bill, but also in the narrative that's been developed by the Labour front bench. The trafficking to qualify is, as someone who's been trafficked is not a soft touch.

As the hon. Lady said, no one individual can claim there actually has to be a first responder. Usually in my my example is in my constituency. It's usually a police officer. And then there's an assessment in the national assessment process. And it's tough. There's. The first stage is about demonstrating. The first stage is demonstrating grounds. The second stage is conclusive grounds, and it's a tough assessment. It's a high threshold to get through. So I'm concerned that we've been dragged into this debate now.

And in a way, I think that undermines the whole process that we've been so proud of, that we've developed in recent years. But also, it doesn't seem to relate to the reality of traffic, because having a time limit and saying to people, well, you never claimed in the first instance or within a limited period of time, the people we're dealing with are traumatised. Some of them, as I said, were the young women in particular made drug dependent and often ashamed to even admit to what they've been doing it? The legislation that we're promoting today bears no reality to what is actually happening on the ground.

And as a result of that, some people who have been trafficked will made vulnerable. Again, I'm really disappointed. The the Home Secretary said that this legislation was all about the calculus of those people thinking about coming on the boats. I actually think it's electoral calculus. It's electoral calculus. That is a mistake in calculus, because I actually think it will lose the Labour Party votes. It will also lose the respect that we gained as a result of the cross-party approach we supported in tackling trafficking itself.

I'm extremely disappointed. I think this is a step forward and I can't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support it tonight. I will vote against it at every opportunity. Steve Witherden thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. I recognise the need for reform. To our immigration system. But many of the measures in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But many of the measures in this bill. Require further scrutiny. Existing legislation has long Existing legislation has long served as an important safeguard, ensuring powers are exercised properly. The Bill in its current properly. The Bill in its current form would make it significantly harder for families where a child
21:35
Steve Witherden Portrait Steve Witherden MP (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr, Labour)
-
-
is British or has lived here for seven years. This will affect large numbers of families. The numbers of families. The government's own assessment suggests around 11,700 people would suggests around 11,700 people would be affected. We pride ourselves on British values of decency, yet this British values of decency, yet this bill risks moving the goalposts and separating loved ones. Despite long separating loved ones. Despite long established ties in the UK. I welcome the open approach and accessibility of the department, but I would appreciate even further clarification from the Minister on how these changes can be reconciled with the UK's obligations under international law.

As we consider this Bill and the wider direction of immigration reforms, we must consider the enormous contribution migrants make to our communities and public services in NHS Wales. More than 1 in 10 staff are non-UK nationals. Across my constituency in Newtown, Rhosllannerchrugog, and the Dee Valley. Migrant workers play a vital role in our health and social care services. Their dedication and commitment deserve our gratitude, not policies that make life harder for them and their families.

This government should not allow anti-migrant rhetoric and division to shape policy. We should stand firmly on the side of the migrants who are our neighbours, friends, vital contributors to our economy and the people who help

**** Possible New Speaker ****

keep our essential public services running. Diolch yn fawr David Smith. Thank you. Madam Speaker. Let us be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Speaker. Let us be straight. Immigration is a good and necessary thing for our country. Successive waves of immigration over hundreds of years have helped over hundreds of years have helped make Britain the country we are with our Huguenots fleeing persecution in the 17th century, persecution in the 17th century, our West Indians answering Britain's calls for workers in the aftermath of World War Two. But it
21:37
David Smith Portrait David Smith MP (North Northumberland, Labour)
-
-
aftermath of World War Two. But it is also true to say that preceding waves of immigration have been comparatively small, as compared to the size of the population and the pace relatively slow. And so today many Brits hold two positions simultaneously. We want to be a generous, open and welcoming country, but we are also concerned that successive governments have had over our own borders. In the past five years, over 460,000 people have claimed asylum in the UK. A decade ago that figure was 165,000, and the last government allowed net migration of 2.5 million in just four years.

So we must be in no doubt if we fail to achieve a just and fair system, we will undermine public support for our asylum system with the risk that the general population turns away from the generous and compassionate country that most of us consider the UK to be. I could talk about many things in the bill that I think are good and necessary, but I will just talk about one. And that's the introduction of requirements for asylum seekers to contribute financially towards the cost of asylum system, as long as doing so would not push them into destitution.

When I was leading a homelessness charity before Parliament, we supported a young man called Mubarak, who was only 18. He'd come from the UK to the UK, from Sudan via Libya and Malta. When we asked him what he wanted to do, he was clear I want to be a plumber, he said. Let us not deny people like Mubarak the dignity they deserve. Let us give them the chance to contribute to the society that has taken them in as soon as they can. Indeed, in my experience, this is most often what people who have been welcomed into this country as refugees actually want to do that is make a contribution to the country that has welcomed them.

I give my full support to much else of what this government is doing to secure control of our borders, including community sponsorship schemes, creating the first ever safe and legal routes to this country. Now the government is picking up the pieces of the mess that the last government made, and the only way that we can restore the bonds of solidarity and compassion between citizens and asylum seekers is by restoring trust that the system itself is fair, effective and based on contribution.

That is what this bill is seeking to do, and I fully support it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm going to squeeze in one more speaker on two minutes. Doctor Peter Prinsley two minutes. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to speak about something very simple. The difference between being put somewhere and being welcomed somewhere. When Russia invaded Ukraine, we welcomed Ukrainians Ukraine, we welcomed Ukrainians into our home. Like many here, the questions were practical where's the nearest doctor? How does the bus work? That's why I recommend I
21:40
Peter Prinsley Portrait Dr Peter Prinsley MP (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, Labour)
-
-
bus work? That's why I recommend I welcome the Home Secretary's commitment to named community sponsorship the government retaining control over who enters in what numbers, and the welcome will come from the community. Canada has a similar system, and we've seen that the sponsorship works with the homes for Ukraine. More than 400 Ukrainians were welcomed into West Suffolk, so the people of Suffolk are keen to help. They proved it. I met with the parish council and the headteacher at Barnham Primary School.

They're concerned about the use of the RAF Barnham base. That doesn't make these people uncaring. Their concern is about how it's being done. They deserve to be properly consulted. Name, community sponsorship and asylum accommodation are not the same. One offers a refugees a safe and legal route while the other houses people as their asylum claims are decided. But the question is simple do we begin with a site and ask the community to accept it, or do we begin with a community and ask what it is willing to do to help? The second is a much better starting point now for sponsorship to work.

Communities need training, clear guidance and continuing support. But the people of Suffolk do not need lessons in compassion. They have opened their homes, but they must also be heard when they raise concerns about RAF Barnham. The Home Secretary's reforms can combine control with sanctuary, but to achieve that we must trust our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

communities and listen to them. Unfortunately, I have to go to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Unfortunately, I have to go to the front benches now called the shadow Minister Matt Vickers. Yes, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This has been an important and thoughtful debate, and I begin and thoughtful debate, and I begin by thanking members from across the House for their contributions. There have been genuine differences of opinion this evening, but I of opinion this evening, but I think there is broad agreement on one point our immigration system is one point our immigration system is not working.

Immigration is one of the defining issues facing our country. It goes to the security of our borders, the integrity of our laws, the pressure on our public services, and ultimately the confidence the British people have in the ability of the government to keep its promises. The British people expect an immigration system that is fair to those who play by the rules, and firm with those who seek to abuse them. They expect secure borders, swift decisions, effective enforcement and, above all, a government to deliver.

That is the test this bill must meet. In many respects, today's debate brings us full circle. Ministers stood at that despatch box and argued that immigration policy should be about grip and control, not gimmicks and false promises. Yet over the past two years, we've seen too many headlines, too many announcements, and too many promises. While migrant illegal migration has continued to undermine confidence in our borders, let me be clear. I do not believe that anyone in this House wants to see people risking their lives crossing the channel in small boats.

Those crossings benefit organised criminal gangs, undermine confidence in our immigration system, place enormous pressure on communities, public services and public finances, and all too often end in tragedy. Nobody should accept them as inevitable. The question before us today is therefore a simple one does this bill contain the measures necessary to stop illegal migration? Because that must surely be the ambition. The government's own impact assessment. Recognise recognises that deterrence is essential, but it also accepts that the deterrent effect of these proposals is too uncertain.

Even to quantify that uncertainty goes to the heart of the Bill. The fundamental principle should be straightforward if someone enters the United Kingdom illegally, they should not be able to stay. Everything else flows from that principle. Without it, public confidence is weakened. Genuine refugees lose out those who come here legally and contribute to our country are let down, and the criminal gangs continue to exploit the gaps in our system. Now, I want to be fair to the Home Secretary.

There are measures in the bill that we welcome. It's right that the government is seeking to recover more of the costs of asylum support. It is right that Ministers are finally acknowledging that the article eight framework has frustrated removals. It's right that they recognise shortcomings in the operation of the modern slavery system, and it's right that they acknowledge that the current appeals process is too slow, too cumbersome and too vulnerable to abuse. In truth, one of the most striking features of this bill is that the government has finally accepted many of the arguments that it spent the last two years dismissing.

But recognising a problem is not the same as solving it. The Home Secretary and I agree on much of the diagnosis. Where we disagree, it's on the cure. Time and again, this bill identifies the right issues, but stops short of the reforms needed to address them. The government proposes a new independent Immigration Appeals authority, yet cannot tell us with any certainty whether it will actually speed up removals or simply replace one backlog with another. The bill looks to narrow article eight claims while simultaneously creating a new sponsor.

Human rights claim that risks opening another avenue for litigation. It speaks about strengthening deportation powers yet leaves unanswered wider questions about the legal framework that continues to frustrate removals. Despite repeated promises, this bill contains no comprehensive reforms to settlement, no clear answer on preventing those who arrive illegally from obtaining citizenship, and no comprehensive removals framework capable of delivering the deterrence that Ministers themselves say is necessary. That's why we've tabled our reasoned amendment. We believe this bill does not yet go far enough to restore public confidence, or to deliver the outcome that the British people rightly expect.

Our alternative is clear those who enter the country illegally should have no right to stay. Several members today have spoken about public confidence, their right to do so. Public confidence depends upon knowing that the rules matter, that those who have no right to remain will be removed, that foreign national offenders can be deported swiftly. The endless legal challenges cannot frustrate the clearly expressed will of Parliament, and that those who came here legally, work hard and contribute are not disadvantaged by a system that appears unable to distinguish between those who respect the rules and those who seek to exploit them.

As has been mentioned, the Home Secretary faces a political challenge from her own benches. If she wants to come back and deliver real and meaningful reform that will properly secure our borders, and she needs some support to do that, she can give us a call. The British people do not want another cycle of announcements, followed by the British people do not want another cycle of announcements, followed by disappointment. They want to know that criminal gangs will no longer profit from human misery.

They want to know that dangerous channel crossings will end. They want to know that those with no right to remain will not spend years exhausting endless appeals while the taxpayer picks up the bill. And they want to know that Britain remains a country that welcomes those who come legally, while maintaining control over who enters and who stays. That is not an unrealistic, reasonable expectation. It's a foundation of a fair immigration system. As this bill progresses through, Committee will scrutinise it carefully where measures meaningfully, strengthen border security, improve enforcement and restore confidence will support them.

Where they fall short will seek to strengthen them. The Home Secretary has moved some way towards recognising the scale of the challenge facing our immigration system, and I welcome that this bill identifies many of the right problems, but it still stops short of the bold reforms needed to solve them. For that reason, we've tabled our reasoned amendment. The British people deserve an immigration system that is fair to those who follow the rules, uncompromising with those who do not, and capable of restoring control of our borders.

That remains the standard by which we will judge this bill, and I commend our recent amendment to the House.
21:48
21:49
Alex Norris Portrait Alex Norris MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Nottingham North and Kimberley, Labour )
-
-
which she put forth ways in which she put her views her way that she spoke, never fearing to tell people that they were wrong, always listening but keen to engage. And I think the debate that we've had has been in that very best tradition of been in that very best tradition of this House, and I've agreed with lots that colleagues have said and have disagreed with, lots too, and I hope to cover as much of it as possible. It is important to recognise where we started from as a government two years ago, inheriting a total lack of control and order at our borders and asylum system in which criminal gangs and not the government, decided who came into the country.

Hundreds of hotels being used to house vast numbers of people, enormous cost to the public and decision making quite simply ground to a halt. We have changed that reality. That is a system that didn't work for the collective, and it didn't work for those refugees who want to pay protection either. But it's a reality that's had to change and a journey that we are on. I will shortly, but I've got an awful lot I need to cover in a very short period of time.

We've made significant progress. Asylum decision making is up, costs are down. We're on track to close all asylum hotels. This parliament, we're seeing a reduction in demand for asylum, getting as much closer to more usual levels for this country. But we have got a long way to go in order to win back the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

trust of the British public, which is why this bill is needed. I'll give way briefly. Minister, for giving way. When

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister, for giving way. When it comes to trust, one of the issues that my constituents have is the sudden rise in planning applications for HMOs. Does he agree that that is really the agree that that is really the answer to the immigration problem, putting asylum seekers into HMOs in our local communities?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our local communities? Houses in multiple occupation have always been a part of providing refuge for other people with mental health issues, people fleeing domestic abuse and many other things. They can be right, but we want to find that right balance, you know, to make sure through our policy of full dispersal, that that burden is shared more equitably, but fundamentally to reduce demand. And that is at the heart of the debate. Now, the bill does. Five the bill does five things, and I'll try to group my the points from my hon.

Friends within those five. So part one, we heard lots from the members of Hammersmith and Chiswick, Hackney North and Stoke Newington. Westmorland and Lonsdale. Twickenham. Bury North, Bassetlaw, Nottingham East, Folkestone and Hythe, Clapham and Brixton Hill about the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority. I'd want to recognise the important work that judges do in the system. They work hard, they've been created to provide more capacity and I am grateful for them for doing so. Nevertheless, I want to be clear with the House, simply trying to sweat the existing model will not give us the capacity we need to have a functioning appeal system.

That's why we're making the changes that we are making. I can't accept that that lack of legal training in itself is a weakness in this model. We see it as my right hon. Friend said, for example, in the magistrates system, we also know that other countries, such as Canada and New Zealand have that layered adjudication as well. Colleagues have made really important points about the independence of this body and the blurring of potential blurring of lines with the executive. We have no desire to do that whatsoever.

I think that what's on the face of the bill shows clearly that separation, but nevertheless, we will work with colleagues throughout the stages of this bill to give them the confidence, because, as I say, we have no desire to blur those lines on the point on impact, just to take the the point on the impact assessment, a lot of that uncertainty relates to the fact that we are not setting an arbitrary timeline on when the new system must be fully operational.

We have to have, including a period of double running security, that the system will stand up properly. That is why there is a degree of uncertainty. But nevertheless, we need that greater capacity that the system will give with regards to the the section on the on the European Convention on Human Rights. And again, important contributions from colleagues from South Leicestershire, Great Grimsby, Broxbourne, Fareham and Waterlooville. Sunderland Central, Islington North, Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr and Walthamstow. Now, first of all, we have a contrast.

We have the empty calories offered by the opposition in their recent amendment. The idea that all our issues could be solved by leaving international agreements that would make all of us weaker. You know, these are rights for all of us. And there are domestic ones and international ones too. In lieu of serious answers, they try to offer us three word solutions that will not work in this case. And I say gently to colleagues, they talk about this in the context of returns.

Well, returns need two things. Yes, an individual to be barrier free legally, but secondly, for a place for them to return to. And having negotiated returns agreements around the world, I say gently to colleagues resigning from very important international agreements weakens that rather than strengthens it. But what I will say to my colleagues, perhaps on these benches and certainly not on perhaps not on the opposite benches, we must make sure and I didn't hear much of this, I'm happy to say in the debate that we don't defend a broken status quo and recognise that those agreements, particularly when they are being applied more broadly domestically than they are in Strasbourg case law, it is not unreasonable to seek to align those a little better.

I think that's an entirely reasonable thing to do. If heard from my right hon. Friend, the way in that the ways in which some people have sought to game it, let's close those loopholes so that we maintain public confidence and public consent for for the ECHR. The Member for Walthamstow mentioned core protection. I'm not going to give way, I'm afraid, mentioned core protection. It is right to simplify the protection status in this country. It is right to put what we put in Immigration Rules in the spring into statute.

I will say to those who are concerned about the 30 month status, as I have been clear from this Dispatch Box previously and in other forums, we do not want people to stay on protection for long period of time. If they switch to a protected work and study route, that will take them out of the 30 month renewal, as will coming via safe and legal means. And turning now to asylum support again. Important contributions made by members from Cheltenham, Perth and Kinross-shire, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, Brighton Pavilion, North Warwickshire and Bedworth and North Northumberland.

In its principle, you know, it is reasonable to recognise that the support for asylum seekers is a unique thing and that it is a significant contribution, a multibillion pound contribution made by the British taxpayer. It is right and perfectly in line with the Refugee Convention and our international obligations, that we ask for a contribution towards that. I cannot agree or recognise the concerns around destitution. We've been very clear that this is about when people have the means to earn. We don't want to choke off someone's life that they're building in Britain.

We certainly wouldn't want to push people into poverty, but I've heard from colleagues, particularly behind me, that they want to see greater detail. My right hon. Friend made the commitment in opening. We will publish that regime alongside this legislation as it goes through, so colleagues will know exactly what it is that we are seeking to to put into practice. And then on the fifth provision on modern slavery. Now, I would I'd say to colleagues, first of all, lots of colleagues have talked about their own personal records in this space.

Well, me too, I've been doing that for nine years in this place. I've always used my platform for better, better protections around slavery. We were asked, you know, colleagues. Staffordshire Moorlands Stone, Worcester Hayes and Harlington. Why is this in here? Well, first of all, it's an opportunity to strengthen the regime I've been talking about in section 54 for all my years in this place. This strengthens that, but also to recognise there are ways in which the system is being used in its in its interaction with the immigration system.

So those late disclosures. And again, I accept that not everybody's recovery from slavery will allow for an immediate disclosure to say there have been that they've been a slave, or even that they would recognise it themselves, or that they would have overcome their trauma. But what we are saying is that when that is used at the very, very last minute, multiple, hundred times in the last hours before removals, the court ought to take that into consideration as to whether that's really good, good faith or not.

That will still be a rebuttable proposition. But I think that that's right. And similarly, on the public order disqualification, I urge colleagues to look at what's on the face of the bill. It is totally reasonable for the government of the day to say, and that interaction of slavery protections should not trump considerations of national security. If people do seek to do terror and are convicted of terror offences, of course that must be taken into account on a couple of other things that aren't on the bill.

Just before I finish, I'm really sorry I can't on Zubir Ahmed my hon. Friend from on West and Rochdale made really important points. They heard me say last Monday, and they'll hear me say again that from the government's point of view, all options are on the table. This legislation provides, we believe, a really good vehicle to tackle this challenge, whilst alongside working on removal too, I'll be very keen to continue to engage with honourable and right honourable colleagues on this, but I'm glad, as I think everybody has been in this debate, that we have the the opportunity to move through on this shared priority on safe and legal means.

Honourable colleagues from Falkirk, from Great Grimsby, from Oldham, from Bury St Edmunds, talked about what the British people will do if given schemes that are ordered and controlled, and I totally agree. I've seen it in my own community Ukraine, Hong Kong, Afghanistan, Syria. But what they won't accept is that lack of order and control, and that is what's at the heart of this bill and this government's approach, the chance to pivot from that broken model to a fixed model that works within our values, keeps public confidence to.

Just very quickly on two final points, the hon. Member from Walthamstow talked about the overseas domestic worker visa. I would encourage if she hasn't talked to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley, she will know that we are reviewing that at the moment, but if she says she thinks this is a good vehicle for pushing that, the points that she makes very well, I would agree with that. And then just finally on contracts, I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. That's why we're going to reform them.

And with that in mind, Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. The original question was that the bill be now read a second time since when an amendment has been proposed, as on the Order Paper, the question is that the amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the question is that the amendment I. I. Know.
21:59
None Portrait Division
-

Colleagues Colleagues will Colleagues will see Colleagues will see that I'm on my feet, and they shall be seated at the bench. Mr. Witherden seated at the bench. Mr. Witherden at the back. Marvellous! The question is, as on the order papers may not say, I. I of the contrary, no. know. Tell us where the eyes are. Lincoln Jopp and Josh Simons Ashley Fox and Tellers for the noes O O order. O order.

The O order. The ayes O order. The ayes to O order. The ayes to the O order. The ayes to the right O order. The ayes to the right 97 the noes to the left.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

358 it's close.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

358 it's close. The ayes to the right. 97 the noes to the left. 358 The noes have noes to the left. 358 The noes have noes to the left. 358 The noes have it. the nose. Have it unlock. The it. the nose. Have it unlock. The question is that the bill be now read a second time. As many that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion say I of Of the contrary, no. O.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Doctor Doctor Caroline Doctor Caroline Johnson

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Doctor Caroline Johnson

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Doctor Caroline Johnson colleagues should be seated. The question is as on the order papers may say, I know no tellers for the ayes are Gregor Poynton and Jade Botterill Tellers for the noes of Order, Order, order. Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The 264. The Noes to the left 90.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The 264. The Noes to the left 90. The Ayes to the right 264. The Noes to the left 92. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. Program motion to be moved formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is, as on the order papers made that say I have of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Money motion to be moved formally. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. Question is, as on the order papers made that pin say I of the contrary, no. the ayes have it. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, no. the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Ways and means motion to move formally. I beg to move. The question is, as on the order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the order papers may that pin say I. I want to know. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. That is the end of that have it. That is the end of that bit of business. If Ministers wish to shuffle over on the front benches, please do so now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. We now come to a selection of SIS, and with the leave of the SIS, and with the leave of the house I will. Group size number five and ten together. Motion number five. Electricity. Motion number six on local government. number six on local government. Motion number seven on Health and safety. Motion number eight on Environmental Protection. Motion.
22:27
None Portrait Remaining Orders of the Day
-

Environmental Protection. Motion. Motion number nine on Electronic communications. Motion number ten Tamworth. >> I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. Question is as on the Order Paper as may not say a country. No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number 11 on dangerous drugs. Minister Tamworth. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order Paper as may say I. Contrary. No. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number 12 on trade unions. Minister Tamworth. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. Questioners as on the Order Paper as say I, I. Contrary no. No division is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Contrary no. No division is deferred until Wednesday. Motion number 13. Trade Union and Labour

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tamworth. I beg to move. Question is as on the order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is as on the order papers that say I. I no, no. The division is deferred until division is deferred until Wednesday. Motion number 14 on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. I call the Minister to move the motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move the motion. Move forward. The question is, as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as I can say, I. I no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number 15 on the Electoral Commission. I call the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister to move the motion. Move formally. The question is, as on the Order Paper as made that say I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paper as made that say I. I no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. I'm now moving on to petitions it. I'm now moving on to petitions with the front bench. Mr. Shuffle

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with the front bench. Mr. Shuffle over before I do so. Petition. Liam Conlon thank you, Madam Speaker. Across my constituency, a Beckenham and Penge a lack of action on road safety means that parents are afraid to let their children play out. Older people avoid using certain junctions, and some streets are plagued by unbearable noise. Just this week, it is likely that two people will have been seriously injured on Bromley's roads. Whilst there are particular issues at hotspots such as Kent House road, Kent House Lane, Blandford Road and Halls Lane, residents across all of Beckenham
22:29
22:30
22:30
Ellie Chowns Portrait Dr Ellie Chowns MP (North Herefordshire, Green Party)
-
-
communities have endured sweltering conditions that put huge pressure on our NHS, our infrastructure and on our NHS, our infrastructure and natural environment. Ambulance service has literally never been so busy. Tragically, lives have been busy. Tragically, lives have been lost as people have sought relief from the heat in rivers and lakes. And today we heard that it's been estimated there were 2700 excess deaths due to just the May and June heatwaves. In my constituency of heatwaves. In my constituency of North Herefordshire, dozens of schools have had to close due to overheating.

People are sweltering in hospitals, care homes and many other workplaces and farmers and communities alike are facing critical water shortages. Extreme heat is no longer an occasional inconvenience. Neither are extreme storms and floods. These are now part of everyday life and we know it is getting worse. So if we are serious about protecting future generations from climate breakdown, then every sector must play its part in reducing emissions. And today I want to focus on one that is rarely discussed.

Despite having an environmental footprint unlike any other. Now, globally, the construction of buildings contributes over a 10th of the world's carbon emissions, around four times the footprint of aviation. And here in the UK, the construction sector is responsible for fully 25% of the UK's carbon footprint. On a consumption basis, the built environment generates one third of the world's waste, a figure surpassed only by food waste, and it consumes nearly half of all the raw materials that we extract

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from the earth. So I will. Madam Deputy Speaker, can I thank the hon. Lady for giving such thank the hon. Lady for giving such a thoughtful speech and leading this debate today? As a chartered surveyor, I advised on some of surveyor, I advised on some of Scotland's first carbon neutral developments, and I wonder if the developments, and I wonder if the hon. Lady agrees that developers purchasing cleared sites often struggle to get the appropriate struggle to get the appropriate Breeam accreditation due to short shortcuts having been taken by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

previous owners of the site during the demolition process. I thank the hon. Member. She

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member. She makes an excellent point from a position of great expertise, and this is precisely what this debate this is precisely what this debate is about. You know, we need to recognise that we should be reusing buildings as much as possible. We buildings as much as possible. We should be reducing the destruction that is caused by failure to reuse, and we should be ensuring that regulations are put in place that enable those who are developing, but also those who have sites and have responsibility for them to to take account of the whole whole life cycle, life cycle, carbon assessment in deciding how to deal with a building, you know, the waste hierarchy, reduce, reuse, recycle.

Let's take that into account. In the construction sector, which is such a critical part of our our nation's carbon emissions. So I thank her for her point. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will indeed. I thank the Member for giving way. She's making a very compelling speech about the importance of speech about the importance of thinking on a whole life basis about the carbon of buildings. But does her argument also support the does her argument also support the view that for new buildings, as well as thinking of the whole life carbon impact of them, we have an opportunity to design buildings opportunity to design buildings properly so that they are cool in summer and warm in winter, rather than new schools such as aureus in than new schools such as aureus in my constituency.

Being only ten years old and incredibly hot even even now in the summer.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. Since I joined this place, I have been campaigning for homes for buildings that are for homes for buildings that are truly fit for the future. We need to take this into account when we build and design buildings. We build and design buildings. We don't want to be building buildings that we've then got to retrofit at huge expense later on, and we need huge expense later on, and we need to recognise that there are so many opportunities at the design stage and in terms of the materials that and in terms of the materials that we use in construction, that can play a crucially important role in reducing the need for active heating and cooling by incorporating passive elements, and, of course, recognising that measures to address the embodied carbon of buildings can also play a role in reducing the operational carbon impact of buildings.

So it's an excellent point and I thank him for it. So it's clear the construction industry has a huge impact on both climate change and indeed biodiversity loss. And we rightly spend time discussing how efficiently buildings operate once they are occupied. But we spend remarkably little time discussing the emissions that occur before anybody even walks through the front door of a new building. These emissions are known as embodied carbon, i.e. the greenhouse gases emitted when we extract raw materials and process them into building materials and use them for construction.

And according to the UK Green Building Council, embodied carbon accounts for around 20% of the UK's total greenhouse gas emissions, and embodied carbon is expected to account for fully half of the built environments emissions by 2035. But bizarrely, it has so far been ignored by central government policy. Building regulations only sets limits on a subset of operational emissions. The government's new future home standard ignores embodied carbon and only tackles energy use in new homes, a small fraction of total emissions from the built environment.

The standard is silent on material use, the construction processes and embodied carbon. And yet these are not marginal emissions. These are large gaps in UK climate policy, and the Environmental Audit Committee pointed this out several years ago, as have experts for years and years. And the huge irony is that the construction sector itself is crying out for UK government leadership in this area. Now we know we have a housing crisis in this country. We do need to build more houses, the right houses, in the right place at the right price, and it's crucial to ensure that when we build, we do so in a way that is genuinely fit for the future.

As we've discussed, that means using whole life carbon assessment to minimise both operational and embodied carbon emissions. Now, the hugely frustrating thing for the construction sector is that the absence of national regulation in this area is actually creating more bureaucracy, not less, because as a result of the government failing to provide national direction, local planning authorities are increasingly stepping into the vacuum themselves. Recent research, led by the University of Sheffield, found that 61% of local planning authorities now reference embodied carbon in their planning policies, and 7% are moving to mandate assessment.

Now I commend those councils for their ambition. They recognise the urgency of climate action and they are taking real, tangible action. But the consequence is fragmentation. Different authorities are adopting different reporting templates, different thresholds, different assessment requirements, different policy wording. And as such, national house builders and developers are being forced to navigate an increasingly complex patchwork of local rules. They have to learn a new set of rules every time they build in a different local authority. Planning officials are duplicating work, local authorities are developing parallel systems.

Everyone is investing time and money in solving the same problem dozens of times over. Now, the government wouldn't leave local authorities to tackle other aspects fundamental to building design, such as fire safety or equality. These areas have national minimum standards that authorities can build on. So why are carbon emissions not treated the same? Do we not take climate breakdown as seriously as safety or equality?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now, I attended, I'll give way. Yes. Thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She's making an excellent way. She's making an excellent speech. In my constituency we have the National Glass Centre building, a huge building built 30 years ago, a huge building built 30 years ago, which unfortunately doesn't seem viable for its current use any longer. But rather than demolish longer. But rather than demolish that building, as some are seeking to do, the council has been asked to consider article four, which to consider article four, which would remove implied permission to demolish without a full planning inquiry.

Does she agree with me that that is the sort of work that councils should be doing to make sure that there's proper scrutiny in place and that actually all possible alternative uses of a building such as that have been exhausted before demolition is considered.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for his point. Absolutely. As as we've discussed, you know, reduce, reuse, recycle. you know, reduce, reuse, recycle. Let us make sure that every part of a building, an existing building is reused in the best way possible. reused in the best way possible. Demolition should be the absolute last resort. And so I, I agree that the work that is planning authority the work that is planning authority seems to be doing sounds like absolutely the right the right direction. Now, I attended an direction.

Now, I attended an Embodied Carbon Industry Summit last year, held just over the road from this House. And at the summit, a simple question was asked of attendees. The question was without government intervention, will local embodied carbon rules become more consistent or more divergent? Now the response was absolutely resounding the rules will continue to diverge. Without government leadership, it is clear that national regulation on embodied carbon will reduce complexity for the construction industry, not increase it. It will. It will replace fragmentation with consistency, create a national carbon data set and provide certainty for industry while delivering meaningful carbon reductions.

Surely that is exactly the kind of planning reform that this government should want to achieve. As the Environmental Audit Select Committee highlighted in their 2022 report, Building to Net Zero Costing carbon in construction. Regulating embodied carbon would be, and I quote, the single most significant policy the government could introduce if the government wishes to tackle reuse of buildings, development of low carbon materials and a reduction in those emissions. So why are we still waiting? The encouraging news is that the construction sector is not waiting for government.

For more than four years, over 250 organisations from across the built environment sector have supported a campaign called part Z, named after the various other parts of the building regulations and calling for national embodied carbon regulation. Those companies are not asking government to invent something entirely new. Indeed, the same experts who developed parts Z have now produced the UK Net Zero Carbon Building Standard, a ready made framework that provides a practical route to compliance. This builds on the Rics whole life carbon assessment methodology, one of the most developed embodied carbon methodologies in the world.

So these documents could form the basis of future regulatory reporting requirements and in time, a new approved document. Government does not need to start from scratch. The construction industry has already done much of the hard work. Indeed, members of this government used to be in support of such action. When a private member's bill on embodied carbon was debated in 2022. Jonathan Reynolds now this government's chief whip, previously Secretary of State for Business and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Trade, said we support it. We do not talk about colleagues

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We do not talk about colleagues by their first and second names who mentioned their constituencies, and if we're mentioning them, we give them the courtesy of letting them know. So a quick, you know, just making sure it doesn't happen again.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

making sure it doesn't happen again. And for future reference, thank you. Thank you. I am so sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand entirely corrected. And the aforementioned gentleman said we support it. I agree with the proposition that industry would welcome further regulation in this area. He was right then, and that statement is right now, because this is not regulation that industry fears, it's regulation that the construction sector itself is asking for. Industry is calling for this because it provides a level playing field, because it creates local green jobs, and because it boosts investment into lower carbon materials.

Good regulation rewards innovation, provides certainty for investment and gives British businesses the confidence to lead. The rest of the world is moving ahead in this area. The Netherlands has regulated embodied carbon for more than a decade. The EU requires reporting from 2028 and will have limits from 2030. Turkey is requiring reporting from 2027. Several US states mandate reporting today. Meanwhile, Britain, despite having world leading engineers, researchers and designers, risks falling behind. This is not simply an environmental issue. This is an industrial strategy issue.

It's a planning reform issue. It's a housing issue. It's about whether Britain intends to lead or follow. So today I ask the Minister for one thing. Above all else, national leadership. I ask for a clear pathway towards national regulation of embodied carbon to measure and reduce embodied carbon, aligned with the direction already being taken by many of our international partners and by many in the construction industry themselves. I ask that embodied carbon is finally recognised within national planning policy, replacing today's fragmented patchwork with one coherent national approach.

I ask the government to consider using the UK net zero carbon building standard as the route to fast tracking the compliance requirements, finally giving industry the certainty it has been requesting for years, and I ask the government to tell us when it will finally release its long delayed circular economy growth plan, which offers an opportunity to ensure that embodied carbon is dealing with embodied carbon is at its core. Climate change is not hanging around as we can see around us all the time, and embodied carbon is only making things worse.

We can and must change this. We have the expertise, the methodology and the support from industry. Local authorities are crying out for consistency. The standards have already been written. The only thing missing is national leadership. I call on the Minister to provide it.
22:44
Samantha Dixon Portrait Samantha Dixon MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Chester North and Neston, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'd like to thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for securing this debate and for the securing this debate and for the constructive and the consistent way in which he has pursued the issue of embodied carbon in buildings. I of embodied carbon in buildings. I know this is an issue of particular interest for her and for many other members, including members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North wood, Didcot and Wantage and Sunderland Central. I'm sure that the member will continue to press the issue and keep it on the government's agenda.

Let me be clear from the outset the government agrees action on embodied carbon in new buildings is important. To meet our net zero targets. We can't just look at energy use in occupation. We recently introduced the Future Homes and Building standards, which will make sure new buildings become net zero. Sorry, zero carbon in operation. Once the electricity grid has decarbonised. But we also need to understand the embodied carbon associated with materials construction, maintenance, replacement and end of life treatment.

As operational emissions fall, embodied carbon will become an increasingly important part of a building's whole life emissions. I know the issue of embodied carbon in new buildings has been raised in the House before, and government is aware of proposals for embodied carbon assessments, approved methodologies, guidance and central reporting. The government recognises the aims behind those proposals better data, more consistent measurement, greater transparency and, over time, a pathway towards reduction of embodied carbon in the country's new buildings. Those are legitimate aims.

Better measurement is an essential first step because we cannot reduce what we do not understand. But embodied carbon is not a single simple number. It depends on a whole host of design choices, as well as assumptions about lifespan, data quality, construction methods, and end of life treatment. Different assumptions can produce different results for the same building. That's why the government must be careful in considering whether and how to intervene. In July 2025, we published research from Acorn on the practical, technical and economic impacts of measuring and reducing embodied carbon in new buildings.

It identified opportunities for industry to track and reduce carbon impacts, but it also identified challenges and barriers, including the need for better skills, more consistent methodologies, improved data and practical tools. Yes, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. As she has pointed out, there way. As she has pointed out, there is a need for more consistency. Does she not recognise that government is the institution that government is the institution that can provide exactly that consistency, that the sector

**** Possible New Speaker ****

requires? What I would say is that despite these challenges, the government recognises the excellent leadership recognises the excellent leadership already being shown by parts of the sector. As she describes in tackling embodied carbon, parts of the construction supply chain are already working to measure and reduce whole life carbon. And we saw this momentum in the conference that she mentioned earlier. At the end of last year, officials from Mhclg and DESNZ attended, as did the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, alongside industry and professional bodies.

The summit highlighted both the appetite for action and the importance of consistency, better data infrastructure and a phased approach to give industry appropriate time to adapt. The government also supports the work of the Future Homes Hub on embodied and whole life carbon in new homes. The hub is developing an industry led approach to reducing embodied and whole life carbon, including work on voluntary measurement and disclosure, benchmarking, environmental product data and practical tools for home builders. However, despite these excellent examples, there will be many and there will be many more I haven't mentioned it would be wrong to assume the whole construction industry is in the same place already for regulation, as is often claimed, while larger developers and consultancy teams may have the expertise and tools to carry out robust assessments, many smaller builders, local contractors and clients do not.

There can also be varied costs and even assessing the whole life or embodied carbon of a project for this. Sorry, for this reason, the government's taking time to consider the right approach. Taking time does not mean inaction. It means doing the work. Properly. Rushed policy could lead to inconsistent assessments, poor quality data, disputes about methodology and perverse incentives. It could also drive the substitution of materials without proper regard to their safety, quality, durability or cost. Members will understand that government needs to consider these issues in the round.

We have ambitious housing delivery targets. We are committed to making building safer a policy that reduces reported embodied carbon but undermines safety, increases defects or slows housing delivery, would not serve the public well. In considering our approach, the government must look at several areas the methodology, the quality and coverage of data, the capacity of industry, the sequencing between measurement and reduction, and the economic impacts, a hospital, a high rise block and a small housing scheme will not have the same constraints or carbon profile.

Any future framework must recognise this. Some have raised the role of planning, which can be an important lever. The planning system provides the freedom for local authorities and developers to carry out carbon accounting, and some are, as the hon. Member described, are already encouraging whole life carbon assessment. But we must also be mindful of the cumulative demands placed on the planning system. The government has also recently consulted on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system.

This consultation sought views on a revised framework, which would encourage applicants to reuse existing structures and materials and give substantial weight to proposed development for existing buildings, where this improves energy efficiency. We are analysing the feedback received and will publish our response in the summer. Any approach to embodied carbon must be considered alongside wider planning reform to make sure our policy is coherent, practical and capable of supporting both sustainable development and the delivery of homes and infrastructure the country needs.

I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will. I thank the Minister for the point she's making about the role of local government. I think she of local government. I think she heard what I said to the hon. Lady before about the National Glass Centre in my constituency. Would she encourage planning authorities she encourage planning authorities such as Sunderland City Council, to make sure they are fully considering whether alternative considering whether alternative uses for very large buildings like that have been made as they're considering whether whether considering whether whether planning permission for demolition should should be given.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend makes a very persuasive case, and I'm sure that the City Council will be listening the City Council will be listening to what he said today. I would endorse his his comments to turn to endorse his his comments to turn to building regulations. They have an important role in setting minimum standards, but when we regulate, we standards, but when we regulate, we need clear requirements, clear compliance routes and clear enforcement responsibilities. The enforcement responsibilities. The government is committed to reducing waste by moving to a circular economy and making significant reductions in carbon emissions.

To achieve this, all sectors must play their part for construction products. This includes increasing reuse and recycling of products, choosing more sustainable products and improving information about environmental performance. Our construction Products White Paper confirms an intention to remain consistent with the EU's revised Construction Products Regulation, where this meets our objectives, protecting supply chains and reducing burdens on UK manufacturers. This extends to environmental aspects, but reducing embodied carbon is not just about regulation or planning. Product innovation, digital tools, professional training, voluntary disclosure and better design practice will all have a role.

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is already taking forward work to grow the market for low carbon industrial products, with an initial focus on steel, cement and concrete. They've committed to developing guidance for buyers and producers of construction products on important embodied emissions, reporting, product classifications and green procurement approaches. This guidance will help buyers identify and compare lower carbon products and help producers market them. This matters for buildings because the choice made by designers depend on the products available to them and the information they can trust.

Better product level carbon data can support better building level decisions, but the two systems need to be aligned carefully rather than developed in isolation. The materials we use in buildings must be assessed in the round. Lower carbon products offer real opportunities, but they must also be safe, durable, sustainable for their intent, suitable for their intended use, and supported by reliable information. Government's work on construction products reform and DESNZ work on low carbon industrial products, therefore point in the same direction and are being developed to work together better information, greater confidence and a market capable of supporting both safety and decarbonisation.

Carbonisation let me be clear about what the government is not saying. We are not saying embodied carbon is too difficult to address. We are not saying government will have no role to play, and we are not saying complexity is a reason to put this issue in the too hard box. But we are saying complexity matters. Unintended consequences matter. Burdens on industry, local authorities and consumers, matter, housing delivery and building safety matter. Net zero matters. The right policy must hold these objectives together.

I therefore welcome today's debate, debate and the challenge from members who want government to move faster. But responsible government sometimes means resisting the temptation to immediately reach for a simple answer to a complex problem. The government's position is this embodied carbon in new buildings is important. The direction of travel is towards better measurement and reduction. Industry leadership is welcome and necessary, and government must take the time to design approach which is robust,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proportionate and deliverable. Yes. I thank the Minister for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way, and she's outlined the complexities of regulating in this area as in any other area, but I'm area as in any other area, but I'm glad to hear her say that it doesn't mean the government will do nothing. The government wouldn't say fire safety is a complex area, say fire safety is a complex area, therefore we won't regulate. But in this area, as I outlined in my speech, hundreds of industry experts have come together to create a framework that the government could use as the basis for regulating.

Does she recognise that so much of the preparatory work has already been done to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

address that complexity? I recognise the hon. Member's point. We are aware of the industry point. We are aware of the industry led part Z proposal, and setting expectations in this way is one possible approach to addressing possible approach to addressing embodied carbon of new buildings. There is. I recognise that there is a great deal of work already taking a great deal of work already taking place across industry, and we're aware of the parts of the sector have been coming together to have been coming together to encourage consistency and increase awareness and engagement.

We know it's a challenge across the built environment and construction supply chains, and that's why we're considering the next steps very carefully ahead of any potential intervention. We want to understand the impact on the sector. So we've commissioned research to help improve understanding of the data currently available on embodied carbon, and identify where gaps and challenges lie. We will continue to work with industry, local government, professional bodies, environmental organisations and parliamentarians to consider the right levers for action.

I again thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for securing this debate, and I look forward to continued engagement with her and with colleagues across the House as this important area of policy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

develops. Thank you. The question is this House do now adjourn as many that opinion now adjourn as many that opinion say aye. The ayes have it. The ayes
14:00
None Portrait Speaker's Statement Mr Speaker
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page