partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Vince

   Black History Month

   I thank my hon. Friend for making an incredible speech and talking about a really trailblazing man in Dr Minns. I think we should all celebrate what he achieved in Thetford; it is a really wonderful story. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) about her experience of getting involved in politics. Does he share my concerns that, if Dr Minns put himself forward in politics now—with the horrible things that black MPs and black elected officials have to put up with online—it would be very difficult, and does he agree with me that it is the duty of everybody in this House to challenge the vile racism and disinformation that we see online?

   Hansard source
2. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris McDonald

   Jarrow Crusade

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) for securing this debate. She follows in the proud footsteps of her predecessor Ellen Wilkinson, who was the MP for both Jarrow and Middlesbrough. As we have heard, there is an incredible history of the Jarrow march. For anyone interested, I can strongly recommend Ellen Wilkinson’s book, “The Town that was Murdered”. My own copy is at home on my bookshelf, so I have borrowed the House of Commons Library’s copy. I will be returning it later today, so Members may wish to take it out and study more about the social conditions in Jarrow at the time. As we have heard, in October 1936, around 200 unemployed men set out from Jarrow and walked almost 300 miles to London asking for the opportunity to work. They carried with them the hopes of a community and a petition signed by 12,000 of their neighbours, but they were ignored by the Government of the day. Those men and their community will not be ignored by history, nor by this Government. The story of the Jarrow crusade cannot be separated from the story of British industry and shipbuilding. Today, we recognise the UK’s civil maritime sector as it should have been recognised then, as a strategic national asset underpinning prosperity, resilience and security. Shipbuilding ended in Jarrow, but the wider Tyneside retains ship repair capability at Hebburn—a yard recently acquired by Balaena Tyne during my tenure as the shipbuilding Minister. I am pleased to offer reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East that as Minister for Investment, I am concerned with ensuring that we continue to attract investment into British shipyards. I am working with ministerial colleagues to maximise the opportunity of Government procurement, including opportunities for Hebburn. Those areas where modern shipbuilding, ship repair and marine fabrication continue benefit from highly skilled, well-paid industrial jobs, and they are often areas of the country that are otherwise lacking in alternatives. That contributes to the growth in every postcode scheme that the Prime Minister has committed to across the whole of our United Kingdom. When I was the shipbuilding Minister, I was pleased to visit Harland & Wolff in Belfast and learn from the managing director. When I asked him, “What is your greatest concern?” he said, “The lack of space,” which is quite remarkable at Harland & Wolff. It shows the strength of British shipbuilding and the opportunity for new orders. The pride in skill that we saw in Jarrow and that I have seen in British shipyards was demonstrated during the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders dispute of 1971 to 1972. Faced with liquidation and threatened job losses, shop stewards representing 8,000 workers staged a disciplined work-in: they kept the yards operating and continued to build ships under contract. The campaign helped to secure Government investment and preserve shipbuilding employment on the upper Clyde. A firm tradition of shipbuilding continues today. The sector supports more than 38,000 skilled jobs across the country. The Government are expanding the role of the National Shipbuilding Office to oversee civil shipbuilding decisions and to use procurement more strategically to give British yards and supply chains a clearer pipeline. The forthcoming shipbuilding and maritime technology action plan will seek to align procurement, innovation and industrial capability, to improve pipeline visibility, to accelerate technology adoption, and to strengthen UK supply chains across defence and civil maritime markets. The Government are investing £440 million in UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions research and development between 2026 and 2030: the largest Government investment yet in the UK commercial maritime sector, including £150 million for zero emission infrastructure and vessels, and £120 million for clean maritime demonstration projects. The tragedy at Jarrow—for it was a tragedy—was that the shipbuilding industry and the community that depended on it were left at the mercy of the market, not to improve efficiency or productivity but to effect consolidation that would raise prices. For shipbuilding, a project-based industry with high fixed costs and high economies of scale, that was a disaster. The community in Jarrow understood the need for industrial transition; they had already transitioned from mining to shipbuilding. They were asking for a transition from shipbuilding to steel. The Government of 1936 took a free market approach; this Government take a different approach: supporting a transition. Alongside our plans for shipbuilding we are reindustrialising the UK, building on our industrial strategy. Reindustrialisation is creating more, better, well-paid jobs in manufacturing and industry, including in those sectors critical to the UK’s resilience. It is bringing back jobs, pride and decency to the places that deindustrialisation most badly affected. But saying what we will do is not enough; we also know how we will address the situation. The jobs plans that we have set out will ensure that workers have the opportunity to develop the skills they need for the jobs in growing areas, and there are opportunities across the whole country. We have published job plans for digital and technologies, clean energy, life sciences, financial services, construction, and professional and business services. They set out practical actions to tackle workforce and skills challenges. The jobs plans for professional and business services and for construction were published on Monday and will support 22,500 new under-25 apprenticeships a year in businesses such as accountancy, legal services and consultancy. That comes alongside 40,000 construction placements annually, as part of a previously announced construction industry ambition to create 100,000 jobs a year. Over the next year, the Government will further cut industrial energy costs, roll out further jobs plans in partnership with employers, see our new apprenticeship units and technical excellence colleges train people for growing industries, and strip back unnecessary administrative costs to businesses. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), was generous in his remarks, particularly those relating to the Prime Minister, and in his criticism of Stanley Baldwin, but it has been nearly a century so I do not think he is going to get any comeback from that. He also expressed his concern about deindustrialisation in the UK, so I remind him that under the previous Government we lost around 50% of our automotive output, 30% of our chemicals output, 50% of our steel output, and around 30% of our ceramics output. This Government have made efforts to support those industries, to reinvest and to reindustrialise. Last year, as Industry Minister, I announced a £350 million chemicals resilience fund, a ceramics support scheme, £2.5 billion of support for the steel industry through the steel strategy, the critical minerals strategy, and of course the nationalisation of British Steel. This Government remain committed to supporting the growth of and investment in our industry. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) mentioned the issues affecting young people and their employment. That was also a great concern for those who marched in Jarrow. The social conditions in Jarrow were quite appalling and were the sort of social conditions that can be found today in parts of the country where there are high levels of unemployment. Unemployment and poverty also result in cramped and squalid housing conditions, such as those found in Jarrow at the time. There were high levels of ill health among young people, particularly tuberculosis, and there was a shortage of food, as was noted at the time by the very low consumption of milk by children in the local area. This was compounded by the inability of the local council to raise local taxes sufficiently high enough to provide relief for local people—a product of the inequality of land values in places like Jarrow compared with other parts of the country. In fact, Ellen Wilkinson, in her book, makes a direct comparison with the property taxes that were able to be raised in Westminster, a comparison that my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) made in his own area, so the problem persists until this day. What the town council in Jarrow did do with the resources that it had available was always put education first because it knew, as we know, the success of our country and industry depends on the next generation of people who will build, design and operate the industries of the future. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East has made a particular point during this anniversary of working to include young people in the commemorations of the Jarrow Crusade. It is vital that our young people have the opportunity to understand the histories and values of their forebears. I do hope that Elise and Imogen had a very memorable meeting with the Prime Minister at Downing Street. It is also important that we support our young people to access work opportunities, which they were asking for, but were rejected, in 1936. With around 1 million young people not in education, employment and training, this Government will not leave an entire generation of young people behind. Our measures are helping more young people take their first step into work. Since announcing an additional £2.5 billion to create up to 500,000 opportunities to earn and learn by 2029, we have begun rolling out youth guarantees across Great Britain. The youth guarantee gateway is now available in jobcentres. We are expanding youth hubs. We have launched the £3,000 youth jobs grant and are rolling out the jobs guarantee. Youth hubs are a crucial part of our youth guarantee. They bring together the employment skills and wider support that young people need to move into work, training or education. By expanding the network to over 360 locations across the country, more young people will be able to access personalised and wraparound support in their local community.

   Hansard source
3. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris McDonald

   Jarrow Crusade

   The hon. Member makes an important point. The solutions that will help young people get into work are understood well in local communities, because they need to respond both to the needs of that local community and the needs of local industry. There are, both in Northern Ireland and in many places around the country, excellent collaborations between industry and local colleges, particularly in Northern Ireland with the work being done around the Short Brothers aerospace location, where there are excellent opportunities for young people and close working with local further education colleges, for instance. I am sure there are lessons there that could be learned in other parts of the country, too, so I thank him for making that point. We commissioned Alan Milburn to independently review the crisis of young people not in employment, education or training, and we will consider the findings in the interim report to continue to build our reforms. We look forward to the final recommendations being received shortly. We remember not only the men who marched, but, as the shadow Minister said, the people who provided them with support and assistance along the way. Those working people showed solidarity, offering shelter, food and medical supplies. Just like the marchers in 1936 and all the people from around the country who supported them, this Government recognise the value of secure work, fair pay and opportunities to progress. Employment laws have not kept pace with modern working patterns. Too many workers lack the protections that they need at work, and responsible businesses face unfair competition from those willing to exploit gaps in outdated employment laws. That is why this Government came up with our plan to make work pay, which will modernise employment rights to respond to a changing labour market and create a fairer, more secure economy for workers and business. Evidence drawn from UK and international research, alongside economic modelling, suggests that the Employment Rights Act can support a better-functioning labour market, more secure work, better job quality, improved productivity and fairer competition, and will have a positive, direct impact on economic growth. More than 18 million employees are expected to benefit from the new protections, with lower-paid workers in sectors such as social care, hospitality and retail seeing the biggest gains. Analysis suggests that the north-east is likely to be one of the UK regions that benefits the most from the measures in the Employment Rights Act. Many of our reforms are already making a difference for workers. Employees now have access to family-friendly rights from day one of employment, up to 1.3 million more people are eligible for statutory sick pay, and we have made it easier for workers to connect with trade unions. We also created the Fair Work Agency, bringing the enforcement functions of three predecessor bodies together so that employment rights can be enforced more effectively and efficiently. Together, our reforms ensure that economic progress is shared by the people and communities who create it. Ninety years ago, the men of Jarrow walked to demand something fundamental: the chance to work, to contribute and to build a better future for their families. Their journey stands as a reminder not only of the consequences of economic decline, but of the resilience, determination and solidarity of working people. I share that belief in the dignity of work, as do all working-class communities. As we commemorate the Jarrow crusade, we have the responsibility both to remember their story and to learn from it. Through investment in industry, support for skills, stronger workers’ rights and renewed opportunities for young people, we will build an economy in which every community can succeed.

   Hansard source
4. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Catherine Fookes

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

   Does the hon. Member not agree that we are currently a proud member of the European Court of Human Rights and, with that membership, we have still managed to deport 12,000 foreign national offenders to other countries that are signed up to it? It is absolutely no barrier and, in fact, it helps us to fulfil our obligations. We are a proud nation of sanctuary in Wales and we are also going to have safe and legal routes for immigrants. Surely he agrees that being part of the European Court of Human Rights does not prevent us from deporting people.

   Hansard source
5. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Catherine Fookes

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

   I gently remind the hon. Member for Wimbledon that his party has abstained at every Division. What does that mean about their partaking in democracy? They cannot seem to choose a side.

   Hansard source
6. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Catherine Fookes

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

   I understand where the hon. Lady is coming from in relation to local authorities, but does she agree that clauses 23 and 24 exclude certain groups of people, including under-18s and those whom the payments would make destitute?

   Hansard source
7. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Catherine Fookes

   Flood Preparation

   As hon. Members will remember, it is almost a year since devastating floods hit Monmouth, and parts of the town have flooded several times in the past few years. I spoke to a constituent yesterday who had been flooded in a previous flood. Such was the damage, they were not able to get back in their house for two years. Will the Minister look at upstream flood resilience measures, over the border in England, to reduce the risk of flooding to communities like mine?

   Hansard source
8. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Cat Eccles

   Business of the House

   At Russells Hall hospital, which serves my constituency, many patients, visitors and staff have reported receiving parking charge notices despite correctly registering and paying for their parking. The hospital car park is managed by Group Nexus, a private company, and those receiving fines include blue badge holders and even a priest who was administering last rites. Does the Leader of the House agree that Dudley group NHS foundation trust needs to investigate this urgently and ensure that the Government’s new private parking code is followed, so that my constituents are not unfairly penalised by private parking enforcement systems?

   Hansard source
9. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Callum Anderson

   Topical Questions

   Farmers across north Buckinghamshire tell me that rising input costs and global pressures on grain prices are eroding their profit margins and their ability to produce food, so they welcome the Government’s food road map. Will my right hon. Friend explain how she is working with farmers to boost profitability, and might she consider a trip to north Buckinghamshire to hear from my farmers directly?

   Hansard source
10. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Goldsborough

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    This is a huge concern in rural constituencies like mine. There is no support any more for the immigration and asylum system. Will the Minister explain how she believes that these changes will assure people that there is a safeguard in place to make sure that those who are threats not only to individuals but to our nation will not be welcomed here?

    Hansard source
11. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Goldsborough

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    Is not one of the risks with the Opposition’s proposition that, by disapplying the European convention on human rights, we would have to strike a new deal with other nations every single time? That is the reason for the slow returns processes we currently have with countries that are not in the ECHR.

    Hansard source
12. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Goldsborough

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    That gets to the crux of the issue that we are trying to combat within the Bill. The issue itself is not necessarily the principles behind the ECHR; it is the over-interpretation—the juridification—of the law. What we are seeking to do through the Bill, which my constituents greatly welcome, is rein in the courts and make them understand that Parliament sets the rules of the game. We will ensure that they are firm but fair for all residents, as well as for those stuck on waiting lists who need swift action.

    Hansard source
13. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Goldsborough

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    One really important aspect of the Bill is the focus on avoiding destitution. This is not about asking people to pay a never-ending tax or preventing them from living and working in the UK. When they can afford to, they can pay back to the state. I would just like the hon. Lady to bear that in mind, because the system we are proposing is fair but firm.

    Hansard source
14. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Goldsborough

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    The hon. Lady is being very generous with her time. She said that if we changed definitions, it would save the state money. Could she elaborate on that and give evidence that that is the case?

    Hansard source
15. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Goldsborough

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    In my South Norfolk constituency, I have the Norfolk and Norwich University hospital trust, which has a huge number of people contributing to our society and making sure the NHS in my area is performing some of the best cancer services available. It is an issue that they are paying the NHS surcharge. It would surely be unfair to continue down a line of thinking where there are two tiers in our immigration system.

    Hansard source
16. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Goldsborough

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

    It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I will speak in favour of clauses 23 and 24 stand part. The clauses reflect an important principle at the heart of the Government’s approach to immigration. We must have a properly managed system that commands public confidence and treats people fairly, while ensuring that taxpayers’ money is used responsibly. My South Norfolk constituents want a firm but fair immigration system. They want rules to be enforced, decisions to be made promptly and public money to be spent wisely. They also want a system that operates with humanity, upholds the law and does not allow people to exploit weaknesses in its administration. Those expectations are entirely reasonable. Indeed, they are complementary. Fairness and effective enforcement are not competing objectives; they are both essential to rebuilding trust in our immigration system. That is why I welcome the principles behind clauses 23 and 24. They have established a framework through which the Government can require appropriate payments from certain people who have received asylum support, while providing protections for those who cannot afford to pay. That is a practical measure designed to ensure that, where someone has received support at public expense, their circumstances can be taken into account and a contribution can be sought where it is appropriate and affordable. That demonstrates that this Government are serious about responsible management of our asylum system. We are not simply talking about reform: we are putting in place the powers and mechanisms needed to make the system work better. Clause 23 establishes the central power for the Secretary of State to require payments from people who have received asylum support.

    Hansard source
17. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Goldsborough

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

    My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As it says on the face of the Bill, deprivation has to be taken into account. Again, that reinforces the idea that the Government are putting forward a firm but fair immigration system.

    Hansard source
18. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Goldsborough

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

    What was really important in the Minister’s closing comments on that group was that this is obviously not something that is taken into account for our own constituents who have not sought asylum themselves. There is no definition of destitution versus poverty. What we need to do is have a fair system, not only for those that are seeking asylum, but for our constituents as well. We need to ensure we do not create this two-tier running that then undermines the confidence in the system that we need. Subsection (2) makes it clear that provision covers support provided through several existing statutory routes, including sections 4, 95 and 95A of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as well as accommodation in accommodation centres under section 17 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. That is an important foundation for a coherent approach. Asylum support is delivered through different statutory arrangements, and the Government need a framework that can operate across those routes rather than leaving gaps in the system. Subsection (3) provides the power to require payments, while subsection (4) allows regulation to establish how those payments will be calculated, when they will be required, the timeframes for payment and how individuals will be notified. I welcome that approach, because effective reform requires more than setting out a principle in legislation; it requires practical machinery to implement the principle consistently. Taxpayers rightly expect public money to be managed responsibly across our public services. We have to make difficult decisions about how resources are allocated and ensure that money is used where it is needed most. The asylum system should be no exemption from that. Where someone has received support at public expense and is subsequently in a position to contribute towards those costs, it is reasonable for the Government to have the power to require an appropriate payment. That is not about penalising people for seeking asylum; it is about recognising that the public support comes with responsibilities where an individual has the means to meet them.

    Hansard source
19. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Goldsborough

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As he rightly said earlier, as a former homelessness support worker, he has seen the difference it makes when people want to provide support and repay the UK for giving them refuge. This is precisely the kind of practical reform that can help restore confidence in the immigration system. It demonstrates that the Government are prepared to address the detail of how the system operates, rather than relying on grand announcements that do little to resolve the underlying challenges. One of the most important features of clause 23 is subsection (5), which states that a person cannot be required to make payments where those payments would render them destitute, as defined under section 95(3) of the 1999 Act. I strongly welcome that safeguard. A responsible Government must be able to pursue appropriate payments, while recognising that there is a fundamental difference between someone who has the means to contribute and someone who does not. The purpose of the clauses is to establish a fair and workable payments system, not to create further hardship for those who are already unable to meet their basic needs. The protection against destitution ensures that the Government’s approach can be firm without being indiscriminate. It allows the system to take account of financial circumstances and to distinguish between those who can reasonably pay and those for whom a payment would put their basic welfare at risk. That is an important distinction. I also recognise the practical value of allowing regulations to take account of a person’s financial means. Circumstances can change, and a system that is capable of recognising those changes is more likely to operate effectively. I look forward to the Government setting out how the regulations will ensure that payment requirements are clear, proportionate and based on the relevant circumstances. That will help to ensure that the scheme delivers its intended benefits, while maintaining the safeguards Parliament has rightly included. Subsection (6) sets out the exemptions from the payment requirement, which include people who were under 18 throughout the period in which they received asylum support and people who began receiving support before the relevant section comes into force. It also allows additional exemptions to be specified in regulations. I welcome those inclusions and exemptions as part of a balanced legislative framework. The exemption for children is particularly important, and I know it will be important to my constituents as well. Children should not be expected to carry the financial obligations arising from support provided to them during their childhood. Their circumstances are different from those of adults and the legislation appropriately recognises that difference. The provision for people who began receiving support before commencement also establishes a clear distinction between existing recipients and those who enter the system once the new arrangements take effect. That is important for a fair implementation of the policy. Taken together, these provisions demonstrate that the Government are seeking to establish a system with clear expectations and appropriate protection. That is the right foundation for lasting reform. Clause 24 builds on the framework established by clause 23, setting out further provisions relating to the calculation and collection of payments. The Government are right to provide a framework that can account for the circumstances in which support was provided, rather than assuming that every case is identical. That flexibility should help to ensure that payment requirements are based on relevant factors and that the scheme can be administered fairly. Subsections (4) and (5) provide for HMRC to undertake preparatory work ahead of regulations that may give it the responsibility for collecting payments. I welcome the Government’s intention to establish a workable arrangement for collection. There is a strong practical case for making use of existing administrative expertise and infrastructure where doing so can help to deliver policy effectively. Subsection (6) amends the UK Borders Act 2007 to permit HMRC information to be shared for the purposes of determining liability for payments and requiring them. Appropriate information sharing can support accurate assessments and effective administration. It can help to ensure that decisions are made on the basis of relevant information and that payment systems operate as intended. Of course, that information must be handled lawfully and securely; public confidence depends on people being able to trust public authorities to use information for legitimate purposes and in accordance with the law. Those safeguards are compatible with effective administration—indeed, they help to underpin it. Finally, subsection (8) allows consequential regulations to be made in support of the operation of clauses 23 and 24. That is a necessary part of creating a coherent framework. Legislation of this kind needs to work alongside existing arrangements, and the Government must be able to make the consequential changes required to implement it effectively.

    Hansard source
20. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Bell Ribeiro-Addy

    Black History Month

    It is always a pleasure to speak in the Black History Month debate. It is educational, it is inspiring, and while I know of many of the black Britons we celebrate, I always love hearing about those I have never heard about before, especially when Members tell us about black Britons from their own constituencies. That is what makes this debate matter.

    Hansard source
21. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Bell Ribeiro-Addy

    Black History Month

    We are all extremely proud of the Serjeant at Arms. I start by congratulating my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on her powerful opening speech. I hope that there is some pepper soup in her future to help with her cold. I join her in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare), who has, in our time in this place, led this debate on a number of occasions. I also pay tribute to her because earlier this week I read out a list of names and inadvertently missed her off it. She may wonder why this is the fourth time I am apologising. Perhaps it is the death stare she gave me on the day, or perhaps it is how she has looked at me from out the side of her eye ever since. It might be because I cannot allow the idea that I would shadily forget her, of all people. She is my fellow British-Ghanian MP, of whom I am extremely proud. When we err publicly, we should atone in the same way. I put on record that my hon. Friend has been a huge support to me, particularly in the past few months, as I have dealt with a challenging time as the Member of Parliament for the Arday family. I know her well enough to know that she will look at me from out the side of her eye until at least 2027, which is not too far away, but I hope that this House now knows that she is somebody who I celebrate in my community. As we celebrate our friends and community members, it is important that we do not lose sight of the dangerous times that we live in. Online hate is rising, and foreign billionaires such as Elon Musk pour time, money and energy into far-right movements, such as the one led by Tommy Robinson. Racism is no longer whispered; it is amplified, monetised and making its way into our politics. That is why this debate is not a nicety, but a necessity. Despite what some in the Reform party would like to suggest, black Britons are British, our history is British history and our contributions are equal to those of other Britons and equally worthy of celebration. Before the online trolls pile in with the inevitable, “Why do we have Black History Month? What about White History Month?”, I remind them that had they paid attention in school, they would know that the history of other Britons has dominated our curriculum and that happens all throughout the year. We have a Black History Month as just one month to honour those who were clearly written out of our history books. Black History Month is intended to exist until such a time as those Britons are truly incorporated. It is a means to an end. It was never intended to be an end in itself. We say that black history is British history simply as a call to action. Black History Month was first marked in October 1987, as we have heard repeatedly, and it was specifically done on the 150th anniversary of Caribbean emancipation. It was organised by Akyaaba Addai-Sebo, a Ghanaian-born special projects officer at the Greater London council. He has been trying tirelessly, particularly as we move to the 40-year celebration next year, to get in touch with Ministers, the Mayor of London and others to make sure that he is included in the celebrations. I hope Members have heard that and will encourage that, as he was the person who led on this. I was pleased to hear the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), saying that black history is British history during her opening speech, because I understand from comments left on my own social media that that is not the view of everybody in the House. I posted a video of me speaking during Black History Month perhaps a couple of years ago, making that specific point that black history is British history. Her colleague commented that that was not the case. They did not make a racist comment, but they made a point about how it was divisive. On the same post, I received a lot of racist abuse—some of a kind that I had not necessarily seen in that volume before. I had people calling me the N-word, people telling me to eff-off and go back to where I came from, and people sending monkey photographs. All those sorts of things show just how turbocharged things are. The hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) said that things seem to be going backwards, and I think we need to keep an eye on it. As we look forward to the 40-year celebration of Black History Month next year, I hope a lot more effort is put into challenging racism, right from the top in this House. We have to remember that Black History Month began as an act of resistance, a way to challenge racism and inspire young people, and a way to repair the record. Today it is a fixture in our national calendar, with thousands of events every October. That is why we find that some Members are losing their voice because of all those events every October. It became a fixture not by accident, but because campaigners, activists and educators fought for it, and they still do. They make sure that our young people learn things that we were never taught. They lift up names that would otherwise be forgotten, and they push back against those who profit from dividing our communities. Every year, however, black Members are forced to play a guessing game. We look on the Order Paper with no idea whether this month we will be honoured with a debate in this Chamber. While I am pleased that this debate is being held in Government time, Black History Month has happened every October since 1987. That means it is almost as old as me and, as my aunt reminded me last week, I am much older than she thought I was. There is absolutely no reason why this debate should not be a permanent fixture, and I hope that the Minister will take that request to the Leader of the House. We cannot talk about black history without talking about reparations. I say that because the existence of black history is reparatory in itself. I pay tribute to those Members in this House—the first black Members in this House—who made that point repeatedly. There was Bernie Grant MP, who was the first to ask a question in Prime Minister’s questions on it. He was the founder of the UK reparations movement. Our Mother of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), has led many meetings in Parliament on this issue, including when I worked for her. Lord Paul Boateng continues to lead the charge in the other place on the restitution of artefacts and human remains. My old history teacher, Mr Melvin Smart, passed earlier this year. He said that we study the past to live the present with an eye on the future, and that is just it. Reparations are not meant to be about guilt, but repair; looking at what we did wrong and attempting to fix it. It is not meant just to be about money, but that is what always happens. We talk about it in financial terms, and we talk about paying. We talk about who gets paid and all the things that can easily be slammed down, instead of talking about all the things that we could move forward with.

    Hansard source
22. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Bell Ribeiro-Addy

    Black History Month

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The idea of reparatory justice is to acknowledge that the reason we have to have a month even to celebrate black history is that we have not addressed the harm. We have not gone about repairing all the things that are wrong, including in our education system. We talk about all the different elements of discrimination that black people face in this country, and that is because we have not gone about repairing those institutions that lead to that discrimination. She is absolutely right about that. We need to make people understand that reparations cannot possibly just be about money. Money is perhaps the smallest part of it, because there would be no point in giving any individual or any country a whole heap of money if we were not first going to repair the institutions and the relationships, because otherwise things would not change. That is the reality of the situation, and I think people are beginning to realise that. That is why there has been a huge move forward this year with the campaign globally for reparations. In March, the United Nations General Assembly declared the transatlantic trafficking of enslaved Africans as “the gravest crime against humanity”. That was 123 nations declaring that. In Accra, Governments and campaigners have gathered to decide what comes next. The Jamaican Government gave a petition to the King, which has now been referred to the Privy Council. CARICOM—the Caribbean Community—has revised its 10-point plan. In the UK, we had our largest conference ever on reparatory justice, with grassroots campaigners, scholars, parliamentarians and Heads of State speaking, all with one demand: understanding where a country like ours built its wealth, why that led to the discrimination faced by people in terms of enslavement, and asking that as a country we first apologise and then seek to do what we can to repair the damage. That can be done in a number of ways, including education—what we are doing right now is a form of reparatory justice—and returning artefacts, as was discussed, or even just human remains. Some hon. Members may remember that earlier this year I had a ten-minute rule Bill when we found that numerous human remains are being held in boxes or sold on auction sites, and many of those have come from colonial times. It is a disgusting practice. To deny peoples of African descent dignity even in death points to the discrimination they still face. It is so important that this movement can no longer be ignored; it cannot be ignored by the Government or by the House. We need to think as a country about how we will go about the work of repair. Black History Month cannot be only for talking about these issues and perhaps celebrating, as we have throughout the debate, although that is really important. It must also be about honesty and what we are still getting wrong. This year, our community lost Professor Jason Arday, the youngest black professor in Cambridge’s history, my constituent and my friend. How he died is a matter for the coroner—I will say nothing that gets in the way of that—but how he was treated is a matter for all of us. It is not right that we have not been given the opportunity to discuss that. Nearly 30,000 people stood in Trafalgar Square for Jason and vigils were held across the country. The public did not stay silent, yet when a few weeks ago at business questions I stood to ask the House why it had not discussed him, I was asking a question that I should never have had to ask in the first place. The House has debated other issues in relation to press conduct—it has done so for Milly Dowler, Lucy Meadows, Caroline Flack and others—and Jason deserves no less. I put it to the Government that it is still not too late for them to come to the House with a statement. We cannot stand here every October and celebrate black excellence and then look away when black excellence is torn down in front of us. We cannot honour the names in the history books and ignore those being dragged through the newspapers today. Celebration without reflection is just performance, and we are no one’s minstrels. Those who are good at maths will know that next year marks the 40th anniversary of Black History Month in the UK. Plans are already under way, with resources being prepared for schools and communities across the country. Again, I encourage the Government and the Mayor of London to be in touch with the founder of Black History Month in the UK, Akyaaba Addai-Sebo, and his team, who really want input into the conversation and the plans we have.

    Hansard source
23. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Bell Ribeiro-Addy

    Black History Month

    I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right: that should be the case, and the Government should be leading the charge by providing resources to others and supporting them in doing so. As I said, those 40 years deserve a momentous celebration. I hope that when the Minister responds she will tell us exactly how the Government intend to mark the anniversary. I hope that the celebration will be honest about the whole of our history, with the pain, the resistance and the repair.

    Hansard source
24. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Baggy Shanker

    Topical Questions

    T5. Given the failures of the privatised water model, what steps is the Department taking to explore alternative ownership models, such as mutualisation, to put the interests of people and communities first? That would give communities a meaningful stake in the governance and accountability of water companies to ensure that people, not profits, are put first.

    Hansard source
25. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ashley Dalton

    Waste Crime

    Illegal waste dumping at the Simonswood industrial estate in my constituency has long blighted the residents in West Lancashire and Kirkby. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) and I have worked together on tackling the Simonswood stink, and we welcomed the Environment Agency’s permit revocation earlier this year, but the mound remains, as do the odour and dust. What assurances can the Government give that Simonswood will be considered in the next phase of the illegal waste site clearance scheme?

    Hansard source
26. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anneliese Dodds

    Digital Government

    I very much appreciated this excellent report from the Select Committee. Does my hon. Friend feel that we can learn lessons from other European nations? I understand that the French Government have eschewed Palantir for their intelligence services, at least partly because of concerns about digital sovereignty. Does she agree that the UK Government should be working with our European allies on these questions of sovereignty?

    Hansard source
27. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 133, in clause 22, page 21, line 1, leave out paragraph (b). This amendment would omit the transitional provision for clause 22. Amendment 135 would provide for clause 22 to be commenced by regulations, and that would mean that the transitional provision could also be included in the regulations rather than in the primary legislation.

    Hansard source
28. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. If the Committee will bear with me, I will set out some reminders of the purposes of the clause to which amendment 133 refers, to give some context to the discussion and debate that I look forward to this morning. Clause 22 provides that those who are excluded from the protections of the refugee convention because they have committed a “particularly serious crime” or who are a danger to the security of the UK cannot expect the same entitlements as refugees who comply with our laws and contribute positively to life in this country. The UK has a proud tradition of providing protection to those who need it, in accordance with our international obligations. It is right that we help individuals from around the world who flee conflict and oppression, but the asylum system must be fair and effective so that we can better protect, support and focus our efforts on those in genuine need of protection. Those who break our laws and undermine our way of life do not deserve to have our support or indulgence any longer. Those granted refugee or human rights protection status are provided with the rights and support necessary to rebuild their lives, to integrate into our communities, to support themselves and their families, and to contribute to the UK. That includes access to employment, education and, where appropriate, public funds. However, we are equally clear that those who commit serious crimes are not welcome. Those who can be deported will be deported, and those we are unable to remove will be denied the benefits of protection status. They cannot expect the same treatment as refugees who respect our laws. Through their serious offending, they have demonstrated conduct that justifies a different approach to the benefits and entitlements associated with protection status. All those who claim asylum undergo a series of security checks against immigration and police databases, and they are screened to identify individuals who may have been involved in criminality, both inside and outside the UK, or are of national security interest. Under the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, we have already acted to ensure that those guilty of the most serious crimes will not be welcomed here. We have expanded the definition of “particularly serious crime” so that any registered sex offender or any individual convicted of a schedule 3 sex offence can be denied protection status, alongside individuals who have received a custodial sentence of 12 months or more.

    Hansard source
29. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, and one that my constituents share with his. There is real concern that anyone who comes here and breaks our rules should not enjoy the benefits that we provide to those genuinely fleeing persecution who abide by the rules and standards we expect of them. No member of this Committee should be in any doubt about our intention to ensure that those who have committed serious offences are deported. We have deported more than 12,000 foreign national offenders, up 41% on the two years before we came into power. As I say, no one should be in any doubt about our determination. The clause focuses particularly on those who have committed serious crimes but cannot currently be removed. Where removal is not possible, those individuals are already granted shorter, more restricted leave, with conditions attached, and are subject to regular review until they can be removed at the earliest opportunity. We are clear that we will continue to monitor and review these individuals until removal is possible. They cannot qualify for settlement, and their continued presence in the UK is permitted for only so long as the barrier persists. We are determined that protection from removal, where required by international obligations, should not automatically confer the broader benefits associated with protection status. It is right that there is a clear distinction between those who commit serious crimes and those who do not—those who make the effort to integrate into the UK and those who do not. Certain rights under the refugee convention are owed only to individuals who are “lawfully staying” in the UK. The Secretary of State’s policy is that refugees who have been excluded from the protections of the refugee convention under article 33(2) are not lawfully staying in the UK. Clause 22 puts that policy on a statutory footing for the first time, so that it must be applied by courts and tribunals. That will support efforts to distinguish between those who commit serious crimes and those who do not. I hope the Committee agrees that it cannot be the case that those who have committed those crimes against the public are automatically able to access the same benefits and entitlements as refugees who have respected and complied with our laws. New clause 61, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, would enable the removal of refugees who pose a danger to national security or who have been convicted of a particularly serious crime and pose a danger to the community. I look forward to hearing his argument for the new clause, but it is important to clarify that we would always seek to remove any foreign criminal convicted of a serious crime. My initial response is that simply disapplying the Human Rights Act 1998 does not address the point about international law or customary international law, and that any attempt to ignore those obligations would likely result in people being removed to places where they face torture or death. That would not comply with our obligations under the refugee convention, which we ourselves established, to ensure that we never again see the kinds of scenes we saw under Nazi Germany.

    Hansard source
30. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why, in every experience I have ever had in this portfolio and others, international co-operation has been the solution, not the problem, whether it is driving down fraudulent asylum applications or dealing with those who break the rules when they are here. Finally, Government amendment 133 will simply allow for transitional provisions to be included in the commencement regulations, rather than being on the face of the Bill.

    Hansard source
31. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    I thank Members for their contributions. It has been a lively one this morning; I think colleagues have had their Weetabix, and I welcome that. As I said in my introductory comments, clause 22 shows the Government’s determination that those who are excluded from the protections of the refugee convention because they have committed a particularly serious crime or who are a danger to the security of the UK cannot expect the same entitlements as refugees who comply with our laws. When an individual is released from prison, clause 22 will allow the Home Office greater distinction and flexibility to grant shorter periods of leave, restrict access to work or public funds, and impose additional requirements such as reporting and residence. To pick up on the challenge from the hon. Member for Stockton West, some of the conditions could include restricted leave, a constant renewal of their status every six months, not being able to come back if they leave the country, no access to public funds, restrictions on work, being tagged and reporting requirements. Hopefully that gives him some indication of the steps those people will have to take. The clause will allow a greater distinction between those individuals and those who respect the values of this country and refrain from committing heinous crimes. I will pick up on the challenge from the hon. Member for Wimbledon. I welcome him to his place on day four; I hope that he has had the chance to read—[Interruption.] I have good intentions. I genuinely hope that he has had the opportunity to read the transcript of our previous sessions, because they have been incredibly constructive. I have welcomed the challenge, the Divisions and the nature of discussion and debate we have had in this Committee.

    Hansard source
32. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about democracy in this country. The Government have a majority because that is what the British people voted for in 2024, but the importance of this Committee for us is to listen to challenges and criticisms. I hope Opposition colleagues will recognise that we may not always agree, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we listen and take things very seriously. There is a long process to go through on this Bill yet. There may well be more changes as we go. I hope he feels valued and respected within this Committee, because his presence is certainly welcome.

    Hansard source
33. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    I appreciate that, but I will make some progress, because I want to maintain our focus and seriousness, showing the hon. Member for Wimbledon that we respect and will respond to his challenges. He asked about the status of people who are not “lawfully staying” and cannot be removed. At the moment, there is a vacuum and a free-for-all. The purpose of the Bill is to introduce clarity to the law. They will be a refugee who is present but not lawfully staying, as clarified in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman also, rightly, mentioned the challenge from the UNHCR that this clause conflates two issues: article 33(2) and “lawfully staying”. We are confident that our interpretation is compatible with the refugee convention. The convention refers to a variety of attachments that a refugee may have to the UK. Where a refugee commits a particularly serious crime, we are satisfied that they have forfeited the lawfully staying attachment, even if states have reached similar interpretations in their own provisions of entitlements under EU law. I turn to new clause 61, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire. The new clause concerns enabling the removal of refugees who pose a danger to national security, or who have been convicted of a particularly serious crime and pose a danger to the community. Article 33(2) of the refugee convention allows this sort of refugee to be removed, notwithstanding the convention’s usual protection against refoulement. Removal, however, may still be prevented by the UK’s wider international obligations. The hon. Gentleman’s new clause seeks to address that issue. In practical terms, new clause 61 would disapply the Human Rights Act, including articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR, thereby enabling the Secretary of State to remove any person who falls within the ambit of the proposal under clause 22 of this Bill, and prevent a UK court from treating any such removal decision as unlawful. The trouble with new clause 61 is that disapplying the Human Rights Act domestically does not disapply our international obligations, nor does it remove the jurisdiction of the ECHR, address interim measures issued by that court, or remove other relevant international obligations, including under customary international law or the prohibition on refoulement set out by the UN convention against torture. Conservative colleagues may reach for the easy response of, “Leave the ECHR.” We have had interesting discussions throughout Committee on that. Although I completely understand the emotion and desire to ensure that those who commit crimes in this country are not protected by human rights courts, it is important to understand how we got here and the situation into which the ECHR was born. As the Minister for Migration and Citizenship, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White), powerfully put it in a debate last week, a previous member of the Conservative party, Sir Winston Churchill, was the first champion of the convention, which upheld basic human rights following his experience of standing up to the tyranny of the Nazis during the second world war. Some 13 million people were murdered, and in the face of that, the European convention of human rights defines what we mean by “never again”. The ECHR includes freedom of assembly, freedom to a fair trial, the prohibition of torture, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the right to life, including the right not to be murdered in one’s own state. That is what the Nazis did and that is where the ECHR comes from. Those principles remain essential. The only two countries that have chosen to stay out of the ECHR are Russia and Belarus. By leaving the ECHR, we throw away protections against show trials and political persecution. We will not hand over our freedoms to the whims of tyrants and dictators. That said, the current situation is not perfect. Many of our constituents are concerned that their human rights are being violated by individuals in this country, and we know there has been over-interpretation. Through the Bill, we are seeking to correct the problem. Last year, the Home Secretary committed to overseeing reforms to bring the ECHR into the modern age. She committed to make the ECHR work for everyday people and ensure that the human rights of individuals who have been wronged are upheld above the rights of those who choose to commit unspeakable crimes. This Government intend to stand with the principles of Churchill. This Government will continue to build a fair and controlled immigration system that is free from abuse. The issue is not the existence of the convention but the way in which it has been applied over time. That is partly what the Bill seeks to address. We do not fix it by walking away and leaving the UK isolated—by throwing away our global moral and ethical leadership. We sort it out by restoring the right balance and ensuring that the system works as intended. That is why all 46 members of the ECHR adopted the Chişinău declaration in May, which creates a solid basis for reform. That gave us a really good opportunity to go further in terms of removals and deportations. It was a shared view on maintaining public confidence. That is really important—this is about ensuring that the EHCR operates as it was intended.

    Hansard source
34. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the crux of the Bill: ensuring that we define matters for courts so that we do not see the free-for-all of over-interpretation that we have seen before. I see this as a binary choice: reform the ECHR and have greater control over our borders, or leave and lose our ability to return illegal migrants and foreign criminals. I choose the powers that the ECHR gives us, which protect our individual rights and freedom.

    Hansard source
35. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    I would put that back to the hon. Gentleman and ask whether he thinks that Winston Churchill would have desired the British state to seek to remove people to places where they will face almost certain death, torture and war.

    Hansard source
36. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the purpose of the clause. We have taken plenty of action on deporting people, and we are pursuing plenty of other provisions. The clause sets out that people who we cannot deport should not have the same rights and entitlements as people who are genuinely fleeing war and persecution and abide by our rules and laws—we are making a very clear distinction. Although I am questioning it now, I am sure that his intent would not be to create a situation whereby this country removes people to places where they face death. I will leave it there in the hope that he will not pursue new clause 61.

    Hansard source
37. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    I will be generous and give way again, but then we have to move on.

    Hansard source
38. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    The hon Gentleman’s new clause appears to override those protections and would very likely result in people being removed to places where they face torture, inhuman treatment or even death. That is very clearly the consequence of his new clause, whether he intends it or not.

    Hansard source
39. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is what we seek to do. We seek to show leadership, just as Winston Churchill did in Europe after the second world war, by working with our partners—all 46 members of the ECHR. This year, they agreed a declaration to give us a stronger platform to drive change through the courts, improve our outcomes in removals and deportations, and have a shared view of how that can be applied in the modern world.

    Hansard source
40. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    That Act is the interpretation of these principles in our domestic law, so it is the same outcome. I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate this morning. Clause 22 ensures that our protection system remains fair, and preserves our commitment to providing sanctuary and the benefits of the refugee convention to those who genuinely need them. At the same time, it recognises that those who commit serious crimes should not be entitled to the same benefits and privileges as those who respect our laws. We are rightly obliged not to send them back to face death or torture, but that does not mean that we should give them the package of support and entitlement that other decent law-abiding refugees get. In so doing, the clause delivers a clearer, fairer and more meaningful distinction between those who deserve our protection and those who have fundamentally abused it. Amendment 133 agreed to. Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 23 Power to require payments from recipients of asylum support

    Hansard source