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·Lib Dem·Mr Paul Kohler

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

   That was not an attack on the hon. Lady at all. I have been in the Chamber on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill Committee for the last few sittings, which is why I have not been here. I still think we should try to work together on improving legislation, but I am a voice in the wilderness, as I said—[Interruption.] Well, we do not; we turn it into a political debate where we just make points against the other side. We replicate Parliament. It should be more than that. The UNHCR has been critical of this provision—this is not a political point; I am asking a question. I will read a paragraph from its critique as I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about it: “The proposed provision conflates two distinct concepts within the Refugee Convention: whether a refugee falls within the exception to non-refoulement contained in Article 33(2), and whether that refugee is ‘lawfully staying’ in the territory of a Contracting State. While a finding within the meaning of Article 33(2) that a refugee constitutes a danger to national security or, having been convicted of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community may give rise to removal proceedings, it does not, in itself, determine whether they are lawfully staying for the purposes of the Refugee Convention. Particularly where removal is not possible, including because of other applicable non-refoulement obligations under international human rights law, a refugee may remain authorised to stay in the UK under domestic law. At a minimum, such a person would remain ‘lawfully present’ in the UK for the purposes of the Refugee Convention. Accordingly, they would continue to be entitled to those rights and standards of treatment under the Refugee Convention that are contingent upon ‘lawful presence’ in the territory. Whether they also remain ‘lawfully staying’ is likely to depend on the nature of the leave granted and the extent to which it provides a sufficiently stable and durable basis for residence. UNHCR therefore encourages the Government to reconsider this provision.” If a refugee is not lawfully staying under these provisions, but cannot be removed for other purposes, what is their status? Are they lawfully present or do they have no status whatsoever?

   Hansard source
2. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Paul Kohler

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

   Has anything changed? In all those discussions, has any position moved at all?

   Hansard source
3. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Paul Kohler

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

   I am just trying to understand the hon. Lady’s point. When someone is in receipt of benefits because of poverty, we do not ask them to repay it, do we?

   Hansard source
4. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Paul Kohler

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

   Just to correct the record, I did not say that there is no point in scrutiny; I said that we need scrutiny. What we do not need is politicking, where you each stand up and say how wonderful you are and your position will not move. We need to move on as a Parliament. I know that none of you likes that, but that is what we should be doing.

   Hansard source
5. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Paul Kohler

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

   Amendment 50 addresses the fact that, according to the clause, children will become indebted on their 18th birthday—we have heard an indicative amount of £10,000, but it might be more. Clearly, no child has contributed fiscally when they reach maturity to the benefits they have received from the state—be that benefits or education—but the clause is othering child refugees and seems wrong in principle and wrong in practice. I ask the Minister: does it apply to all child refugees who reach maturity while receiving asylum support? Does it apply to victims of trafficking, for example? This seems wholly wrong. As I say, if we want refugees to integrate, othering them in this way does no good whatsoever and simply fuels the frankly toxic debate in this country that refugees are somehow not part of our community. We need them to become part of our community. Othering them in this way does no good.

   Hansard source
6. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Paul Kohler

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

   As we have heard, the Bill offers little detail on how the asylum support repayment system will work in practice, such as how repayments will be made, the exact amount that refugees will be expected to pay back, and how much refugees need to earn before they are required to make repayments. Can the Minister commit to a timeline for bringing forward those crucial details? Requiring refugees to pay back their asylum support is likely to create barriers to integration, leaving refugees in debt at exactly the point where they should be focused on rebuilding their lives. How will the Home Office ensure that this proposal does not undermine wider Government objectives on improving social cohesion? The Red Cross questioned that in its evidence. How will the Home Office ensure that the asylum support repayment system does not leave refugees vulnerable to exploitation if they are struggling the repay their debt? Hon. Members raised questions on clause 23(5). As the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion said, affordability is very different from destitution—destitution is such a high bar. If people are trying to integrate into society and they cannot afford these repayments, what will happen? They will become vulnerable to loan sharks. That is the kind of problem they will face. I would also like to focus on the consequences of non-repayment. If refugees are required to fully repay their debt before being eligible for settlement, that risks leaving the most vulnerable with prolonged insecure status. Can the Minister clarify that point? Will refugees who are unable to work through no fault of their own, for example due to medical conditions or care responsibilities, still be able to qualify for settlement? I would also like to hear an answer on that from the Minister.

   Hansard source
7. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Paul Kohler

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

   I wish to make two swift points about what the Minister has just said. First, does the tax system not allow people to contribute—is that not the whole point? When people are integrated, they contribute via the tax system. Othering refugees because they came to us as refugees strikes me as completely the wrong approach, and one that we do not apply to other forms of state help. Secondly, I am no doubt being obtuse here, but can the Minister point me to the consequences for non-payment? I am still not clear on that.

   Hansard source
8. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Paul Kohler

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

   The Minister mentions the health surcharge, but it is different for somebody who comes to the country on a work visa and goes in with their eyes open about what the deal is, how they will be paid and how the market assesses costs to them. We are talking here about supporting people who are desperate and have come to us for help, and then saying, “Oh, by the way, you now owe us a vast amount of money.” What we should want is for them to contribute by integrating into society and paying their taxes.

   Hansard source
9. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Alistair Carmichael

   Topical Questions

   As the Government start redesigning the sustainable farming incentive, can I draw their attention to an initiative launched today by Aldi and ABP, “Grounded in Goodness”, which is paying a premium to their beef producers? It is only £4.5 million and one supermarket, so it is not a panacea, but it is a good start, rooted in the principles of simplicity, accessibility and food production. As the Secretary of State redesigns the SFI, would that not be a good model to follow?

   Hansard source
10. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Martin Wrigley

    Sustainable Farming Incentive: Application Process

    1. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the application process for the sustainable farming incentive 2026.

    Hansard source
11. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Martin Wrigley

    Sustainable Farming Incentive: Application Process

    Yesterday, we heard in this Chamber many of the shortcomings of this year’s SFI window 2. Just one week after it closed, I visited Ross and Ginny Thomson at Smallacombe farm in my Newton Abbot constituency and their successful herd of milking goats. They described the SFI process as a fiasco. With 40 days and 40 nights of rain, the driest summer on record, multiple heatwaves, plagues of midges spreading bluetongue and now severe drought and yellow warnings of our first named storm, what will the Government do to help Devon’s farmers adapt to the changing climate?

    Hansard source
12. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Jess Brown-Fuller

    Black History Month

    The Minister will know that Munya Chawawa’s experience took place in my constituency. Chichester Festival theatre has been supporting the cast after they came forward and explained the racism that they saw. Munya also spoke about a “pipeline of hatred” that people are seeing on their screens and in their algorithms; it is shifting the Overton window and letting people think that things like that are okay when they are absolutely not. Does she agree that we need to call out the far-right rhetoric that is being pushed on to our teenagers’ social media screens, in order to protect people across the country who dedicate their life to creating wonderful art?

    Hansard source
13. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Jess Brown-Fuller

    Black History Month

    It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate on Black History Month and follow some incredible contributions from the Minister, the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). I thank the Government for ensuring that the debate takes place in Government time, as that is a clear indication of just how important the subject is. Britain’s black communities have enriched the social fabric of the United Kingdom, adding vitality to our streets, shops, frontline services and culture throughout the country. We would be a poorer, less dynamic, less exciting and less colourful country had individuals not boarded ships such as the HMT Empire Windrush and made Britain their home. As the Minister acknowledged, Black History Month has been marked for 39 years and when it was first celebrated, there were just three black MPs. Its purpose is to remember those who came before—as the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston said, we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us—but it also looks to the future to address the systemic issues that our black communities still face. In Chichester and throughout the country, we owe our black communities so much, yet, in truth, society has let them down badly and continues to do so. The lives of far too many people are still blighted by prejudice, discrimination and inequality. I thank the Minister for raising the case that Munya Chawawa has brought into the light this week. He is an actor, comedian and social commentator, and his social commentary about his experience in the past six weeks in Chichester has broken my heart. He spoke out about the experience of the cast of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”, who have been with us over the past six weeks doing a really cool production—it is one of the best versions that I have ever had the privilege of watching. It is also Munya’s first time taking to the stage—in a Shakespeare play—and it was incredibly inspiring to have kids from the BRIT School come and watch the performance. Munya has established the Black Boys Theatre Club, and it is his ambition to ensure that black children have access to theatre. I watched with delight all these young children talking about how much they had enjoyed watching Shakespeare in Chichester and how cool their first experience of theatre was in my constituency. Munya spoke about a homophobic attack—it has now been called a hate crime, and an arrest has been made—that caused the show not to go up. When that happened, the rest of the cast spoke about their experiences over the past six weeks of just walking through the city. When they went for a night out in Brighton to get out of Chichester, they experienced racism there. Munya has said that he experienced more racism and xenophobia in six weeks than he had experienced in his entire life. He has been a tireless campaigner against discrimination —he is very good at calling it out and doing so in a comedic way that lots of people identify with; that is why he has such a huge following on social media—and I am really grateful to him for calling it out. I declare an interest, as a trustee of Chichester Festival Theatre. The theatre has been trying to tackle this issue for years and years, and we have been having a conversation about it with the board. When we invite talented actors to Chichester Festival Theatre, we want them to feel like it is their home. We want them to feel welcome and included, so how do we make the environment around the theatre like that for them? I have been somewhat reassured by the outpouring of love both on social media and in my inbox from people saying, “I had no idea. What can we do?” One of the reflections that the cast shared with the theatre was that they were in the city centre when these things happened, but nobody called them out.

    Hansard source
14. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Jess Brown-Fuller

    Black History Month

    I appreciate that intervention. It is not the job of those who experience the abuse to be the only ones calling it out. Going forward, we are working as a community to bring voices together so that we can talk about and come up with actions to better support those experiencing abuse. That should not be the job of those experiencing intolerance and abuse day in, day out. We also need to do some work with the police, whom I have spoken to at length over the last couple of weeks. When I say, “This is happening”, they say, “It was not reported”—well, it was not reported because people get really tired of constantly reporting things and not seeing a change. A lot of the cast members did not share their experience with the theatre before the homophobic attack that caused the show not to go up. It was only then, in a safe space, that they were able to say, “Actually, that resonates with me, because I experienced this when I was out in the city centre. I experienced this when we went out to get food.” They had not reported their experiences to the police, and the onus should not always be on them to do so. We need to have a wider conversation about what businesses and individuals can do in the city. In truth, it feels like we are going backwards. Somebody said to me the other day, “It does not feel like the Overton window has shifted; it feels like it has fallen out of its frame.” Much of the abuse comes from individuals who are emboldened by the growth and increasing acceptance of the far right on social media, in the press and across other platforms. Those are spaces, often pushed by prominent politicians, that make individuals, particularly young people, believe that certain language and behaviours are acceptable. Racist abuse and far-right views gain even greater reach when they are associated with political leaders; the algorithm eats those views up and sends them into those spaces. We all have a responsibility to challenge those prejudices and behaviours, especially when we have important political debates about issues such as immigration, in which people too often conflate immigration, race and crime. I for one do not want racism to become normalised once more, or for people to feel that staying silent is easier than standing up for others. We all need to call it out whenever we see it. Moving forward, it is important that we in this place reflect on the scandals of the past that have left dark scars on our society. From Windrush to Grenfell and the crisis in maternity care, those scandals represent individuals and communities who have been let down, where systemic discrimination has played no small part. Those are individuals whose dignity and rights were disregarded because of failings in the state apparatus. I am proud that the Liberal Democrats are committed to fighting for racial equality, and that means unequivocally condemning racism in all its forms and tackling injustice wherever we see it. It is a shame that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) cannot be here today. I see how much abuse he receives online on social media. When he puts up a post about something he is doing to fight for Eastbourne general hospital, someone will write in the comments section, “Deport.” His response to that is, “There are no direct flights to Eastbourne general hospital, so I can’t do that.” I recognise that the proliferation of abuse that is then liked and shared means that his experience as a black MP is totally different from my experience as a white MP. The abuse he receives is off the scale and totally unacceptable. In the Liberal Democrat election manifesto, we committed to implementing a comprehensive race equality strategy aimed at reducing the disproportionately high maternal mortality rates experienced by black women and eliminating racial disparities in maternal health through a cross-departmental target and strategy. We also want to end the disproportionate use of stop and search and require all police forces throughout the country to adopt ambitious targets for improving the diversity of their workforces. We have also called for the reversal of the voter ID scheme, which disproportionately excludes minorities from democracy, and for all political parties to publish candidate diversity data. We must also tackle discrimination in the use of new technology, beginning with halting the use of facial recognition surveillance, which is much more likely to wrongly identify black people or women. On criminal justice, it is clear that the immense disparity in different ethnicities in our prison population represents a systemic failing across society. As of this year, 12% of the prison population are black, far exceeding the percentage of the general population. That is underpinned by the fact that black defendants receive on average longer custodial sentences than people of other ethnicities for the same crimes. It is clear that much more needs to be done across the system to begin to address those disparities, particularly on diversity and training in the judiciary. The Liberal Democrats tabled amendments to the Courts and Tribunals Bill in that regard. We must implement a new data strategy across the criminal justice system to ensure that capacity meets demand and that we understand the needs of all users, especially victims, vulnerable people and those from ethnic minority backgrounds. Black History Month is a vital opportunity to celebrate the immense contribution that black people make to our lives in Britain. There are those who ask why we need Black History Month; I hear that being said. That is the same argument used by people who say, “Why do we need Pride? Have we not got there?” No, we absolutely have not. What happened in Chichester just this week is a prime example of why it is all the more important to keep highlighting these things year on year. As the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston said, progress is not linear. It is very easy to slip backwards, and we all need to be alive and alert to that. We need to ensure that we represent all the wonderful qualities that we want our country to represent, not those that do not represent what we feel. We must carry on celebrating Black History Month, because we have an immense contribution to celebrate, but it also provides the chance to recognise the scale of the challenge we still face. I am very grateful to the Leader of the House for granting time for this important debate.

    Hansard source
15. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Jess Brown-Fuller

    Black History Month

    Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to stop politicians from profiting by sharing such views? The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) has declared earnings of over £100,000 from X since being elected to this place, so it pays to say more explicitly appalling things. Does the hon. Member agree with me that we should end that practice entirely?

    Hansard source
16. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Jess Brown-Fuller

    Black History Month

    Earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker mentioned the Serjeant at Arms. I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me for intervening to pay tribute to the Serjeant at Arms, because he was educated in my constituency at Bishop Luffa school. I want to put on the record how proud Bishop Luffa school is of how far he has come.

    Hansard source
17. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·James MacCleary

    Saudi Arabia: RAF Support

    The spiralling conflict between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia is deeply concerning. Further escalation risks intensifying regional instability when the wider middle east is already facing the devastating consequences of the US, Israel and Iran wars. While defensive assistance from the RAF is the correct response to Houthi attacks, the Government must be clear about the limits of British involvement. Can the Minister inform the House of how long it is expected to continue? What safeguards are in place to prevent the UK becoming embroiled in a prolonged regional conflict? Diplomatic efforts must remain the priority. Britain should be working alongside its allies and regional partners to reduce tensions and prevent this crisis from widening further. We must also protect vital shipping routes through the Bab al-Mandab strait, which is threatened by Houthi attacks. The disruption to the strait of Hormuz has shown us just how far reaching the consequences of threats to international shipping can be, affecting British households and businesses. What discussions are taking place with international partners to prepare for any future escalation and to ensure that freedom of navigation through the Bab al-Mandab strait is maintained?

    Hansard source
18. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ian Sollom

    Business of the House

    On Monday, the Children’s Commissioner—a statutory role created by this House to protect children’s rights—launched a report that declared a state of emergency for children across England. I am disappointed that the Education Secretary has not come to the House to make a statement on that report. Will the Leader of the House ask the Education Secretary to do so, and also schedule Government time for a debate on the Children Commissioner’s recommendations, so that we can discuss them fully?

    Hansard source
19. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ian Roome

    NHS Maternity Services

    On Monday, the senior management of the Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS foundation trust will meet again to make an important decision: whether enough consultants can be found to reopen maternity services at North Devon district hospital. North Devon’s desperate maternity staffing crisis is entering its 10th week, with all births still being diverted two hours to Exeter. Hundreds of families in my constituency deserve answers. NHS maternity services across the country face massive pressure, but the timeline of the past 10 weeks makes for sorry reading. On 27 July, the trust announced that it was about to fall below the minimum staffing level of obstetrics and gynaecology consultants needed to keep the Ladywell maternity unit open. From 11 August, all births were suspended, and the trust began sending expectant mothers to the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital until further notice. What followed has been agonising. The fear and anguish of frightened local mums has played out in regional and then national media. The outcry from the public has been furious: hundreds gathered in Barnstaple town square for the first of several Maternity Matters protests, more than 15,000 people signed my petition to get the unit reopened, and our TV and radio appeals have been answered by doctors as far afield as Australia. I have written to more than 50 maternity authorities, NHS public bodies, charities and women’s health organisations to ask for help in recruiting new consultants and holding the trust to account for its decisions. The suspension was extended again on 14 September, with seemingly no end in sight. Even as new doctors were found, I was on the phone to local landlords desperately trying to find them somewhere to live in North Devon, and getting the Home Office to urgently extend work visas. The tier 2 registrars rota has now been filled with two new permanent doctors. A new consultant locum started last week, and one candidate is in discussions to fill the final vacant post. Even if that is achieved, we are not out of the woods yet. When North Devon was merged into a wider trust back in April 2022, that was justified partly on the basis that it would make both trusts more resilient. We were told that medical staff in North Devon could be cycled through Exeter to boost training, and staff could be shared between North Devon, east Devon and Exeter to deliver extra resilience in a crisis, yet three years down the line we discover that the consultant rotas in Barnstaple and Exeter are not even interchangeable, and our maternity unit is still dangerously fragile. North Devon district hospital is the remotest acute hospital in mainland England, serving hundreds of square miles of north Devon, Torridge and north Cornwall. My constituents and I are left wondering whether senior figures in Whitehall, NHS England and even our own hospital trust actually understand the basic reality of the geography we are talking about.

    Hansard source
20. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ian Roome

    NHS Maternity Services

    I agree with the right hon. and learned Member and thank him for those comments. I hope the Minister has made a note of them. It is a 53-mile drive from North Devon district hospital to the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital. We are talking about a catchment area larger than Greater Manchester without an open maternity unit.

    Hansard source
21. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ian Roome

    NHS Maternity Services

    I agree with my hon. Friend. That is precisely the point I am making about rurality and the remote services that many people experience. Many of my constituents would not reach the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital inside two hours. If a hospital shuts down in London, neighbouring units can absorb some extra workload without a dramatically heightened risk to mother or baby, but in this case, no neighbouring hospital exists. Most of the road route is not even a dual carriageway. In terms of journey time, it is like announcing that women cannot have their babies delivered in London and that mothers going into labour must be diverted to Bristol. It is little wonder that would-be parents across northern Devon and Cornwall are terrified at the extra pressure of getting to Exeter. I have recently been able to get the trust to agree to move some of the triage back to Barnstaple for women over 37 weeks with suspected broken waters, but many of those warned to travel early to Exeter have ended up being sent back to North Devon—a round trip that takes many hours. Official trust figures record no “incidents” and fewer than five “births before arrival” over the past nine weeks. Will the Minister tell me the NHS’s official view on that? Is it credible to claim that a baby born in an ambulance or non-medical area of a hospital should not qualify as an “incident”? The Daily Mirror has reported that two babies have been born in the back of ambulances, two in accident and emergency, and one in a hospital reception, although I have not been able to verify that. The trust is clear that it reviews every one of those “births before arrival” carefully, and cannot give a more exact breakdown without breaching patient confidentiality. However, it also insists that: “There is a difference between the NHS definition and a patient’s definition of experiencing an “event-free” birth.” I am a father and a grandfather who remembers those tense few hours well, and I understand why trust senior management feel the need to be dispassionate about a baby arriving early, but when expectant mothers are travelling so far by ambulance, that kind of statement surely stretches the credibility of NHS guidance to breaking point.

    Hansard source
22. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ian Roome

    NHS Maternity Services

    I totally agree with my hon. Friend that the problem is extending and forcing problems on to neighbouring maternity units. I know that the maternity unit in Exeter is now under pressure because it is having to cope with the births coming from North Devon. I appreciate the Government’s maternity adviser meeting me last week. She speaks passionately about fixing the crisis in our maternity units across the country. When the new Prime Minister addressed this question in this House, he was up front that North Devon is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to structural weaknesses in NHS maternity services. Things have clearly come to a head in the south-west. First, Yeovil maternity unit suffered a staffing crisis and closure last year, and now Barnstaple has suffered the same. In Yeovil's case, a full reopening took almost a year. I am told privately by senior figures that there are other NHS trusts around the country that are also perilously close to something similar. Just like North Devon, their maternity units hang in the balance. The national maternity and neonatal taskforce’s new action plan is due in December, and I want the Government to treat this sorry episode as a case in point. Maternity units should not be suddenly suspended out of the blue. Our trust wrote its own continuity plan for our maternity services, set its own staffing benchmark below which closure would be needed, and decided its own reopening criteria. If the unit at North Devon district hospital can reopen with a fully staffed doctors’ rota, we are at least protected against this happening again in a few weeks’ time, but without national guidance on when suspensions should happen, we are running this unit on an operational cliff edge of the trust’s own design. We know that the trust was struggling with maternity recruitment since at least December last year, which continued right through to the spring. It is no wonder that my constituents are angry; it seems impossible that no emergency alarm was ringing months ahead of this crisis reaching boiling point. Why does it take a sudden suspension and a national media backlash, driven by me and local Maternity Matters campaigners, to get this issue to the very top of the chief executive’s to-do list? Secondly, the Government’s workforce plan is already overdue, and it needs to have a special focus on maternity services in at-risk areas. For example, I am told that when the deanery decides placements for trainee consultants, especially in their final years, the trend is towards large urban centres that offer them more specialised teaching. The unintended consequence is that many of those candidates stay in whichever area they last trained and already know well. That boosts the ability of urban hospitals to recruit, even while hospitals in remote areas such as North Devon are crying out for doctors. I ask the Government to work with deaneries to ensure that trainee consultants are able to do their final years in rural and coastal acute hospitals. I believe that that would help to tackle the maternity workforce crisis in smaller maternity units. On 2 October, North Devon district hospital’s consultant body passed a vote of no confidence in the trust’s senior management. When senior NHS staff with years of experience and dedicated service say that something is wrong, it should be a wake-up call. I am shocked to learn that senior figures in the trust have not even taken the opportunity to win hearts and minds by being present on site at North Devon district hospital during the crisis. Such things are completely symbolic, and that is entirely the point. Thirdly, my constituents are owed a full, independent review into how this crisis came about. We need the official record to show what led to the suspension in North Devon, what happened, how it might have been averted and how we ensure that it never happens again. The trust has appointed Audit South West Assurance to conduct the review, but a letter that I received from the trust’s chair of the board on 12 October implies that the terms of reference for a review are being set by a sub-committee of the trust’s board of directors. If that is true, I ask the Minister if the Department of Health and Social Care has an official standard for the impartiality of reviews such as that one. Many of my constituents will suspect the tell-tale signs of a whitewash in the making—something that does not improve health outcomes for anyone—and I hope that we can count on the Government’s support. Fourthly, what accountability exists for strategic failings in the NHS? A well-established structure exists to pursue clinical negligence and medical malpractice, but how can the NHS stamp out corporate failings, bad decision making or simply a lack of attention given by senior managers? I have asked that question of many organisations already, but I am yet to get a clear answer. If this crisis had been even worse, as it might be at someone else’s local hospital next month, what recourse would the public have? I was utterly shocked this week to read that the NHS Alliance’s lead director for acute care had told The Guardian that as many as 20 NHS maternity units across the country may be forced to close entirely. In more remote parts of the country, that should be unthinkable. When services are centralised again and again, it is always remote communities such as mine that pay the price. There are many more questions that my constituents need answering, but above all, the question is: how can it be that senior NHS figures feel less publicly accountable for suspending maternity services entirely than they do for staffing an open maternity unit? To answer that question, I am forced to turn to the ultimate policymakers in government. Short of defending this country from attack, I can see no greater duty for the British state than ensuring that the next generation can be born safely. Most people would struggle to think of any NHS spending that should take priority over that sacred responsibility. As such, my final question is whether the Minister understands that in remote rural and coastal communities such as mine in North Devon, which has suffered this nightmare for the past nine weeks, losing maternity services would be seen as the beginning of the end for the national health service itself.

    Hansard source
23. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Clive Jones

    Business of the House

    The carer’s allowance scandal saw thousands of unpaid carers unfairly pursued for debts caused by system failures. Five months into the review process, only about 1% of cases have been reassessed. Will the Leader of the House allow time for a statement from the Government on accelerating reviews and compensation and ending the unfair earnings cliff edge?

    Hansard source
24. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Claire Young

    Business of the House

    I have dozens of cases of constituents who have waited months for responses from the Department for Work and Pensions, including Dionne who has spent 18 months being routinely ignored and sidelined by the Child Maintenance Service. Will the Leader of the House ask a Minister to come to the House to make a statement on what steps they are planning to take to improve response rates?

    Hansard source
25. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Charlie Maynard

    Topical Questions

    Will the Minister meet me to discuss the legal opinion I co-commissioned, outlining the legal grounds for possibly putting Thames Water into special administration?

    Hansard source
26. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Bobby Dean

    Business of the House

    I join the Leader of the House in his reflection on the Aberfan disaster. Our thoughts are with all those affected and, indeed, the whole community. It was deeply concerning to hear a US envoy last night describe Vladimir Putin as a “humanitarian”, as Russia continued to bomb Ukraine. I sincerely hope that the Government will move quickly to condemn those comments and will make time to progress the Russian Frozen Assets (Seizure and Aid to Ukraine) Bill, brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller). Closer to home, the NHS Alliance sparked a row among health professionals this week when it said that up to 20 maternity units may have to close in England. The alliance made the case that the shortage of doctors and the increase in C-sections means that consolidation will be necessary to keep mothers and babies safe, but obstetricians and midwives are saying that having maternity services close to home is critical and that workforce issues must be addressed in a different way. In my constituency of Carshalton and Wallington, the women’s health unit, including the maternity unit, is facing closure not due to clinical reasons but because of ageing pipework and issues with the water quality. That is particularly stinging for our local community because we have known about issues with the building for years, and the promise of a new building keeps being delayed. Can the Leader of the House organise for a debate on the future of maternity services in this country? I am aware that there is an Adjournment debate on this issue today, but that does not give MPs across the House an opportunity to explore this issue in full, so I hope he will make Government time to have this debate in full.

    Hansard source
27. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Bobby Dean

    Retirement of the Clerk of the House

    I echo the tributes paid from across the House and express my gratitude on behalf of the Liberal Democrats to the Clerk of the House, Tom Goldsmith, as he retires from his role today. I would also like to congratulate his successor, Eve Samson, in her appointment as the new Clerk of the House. Eve will be the first woman to hold the role, and I am sure that she will continue Tom’s excellent work. Parliament is famous for its architecture, history and traditions, but all of us who spend time here know that it is the people who make Parliament’s status as a world-leading institution continue. From the Doorkeepers to the catering staff, cleaners and security, thousands of staff keep this place going and deal with us sometimes awkward MPs with impressive patience and positivity. The Clerk is the steady presence at the Table, who ensures that whatever the heat of the debate, our proceedings run with fairness, order and respect for precedent. Members from every part of the House have relied on Tom’s guidance, patience and deep knowledge of our procedures. Getting all the parties to agree is an achievement in itself, and the fact that today’s tribute motion is supported by parties from across the House is a testament to his ability. We thank him sincerely for his service to the House and wish him a long and happy retirement. Thirty years of duty to the House is an incredible achievement. That service goes all the way back to 1996, and given that the shadow Minister mentioned that he was eight at the time, I will say that I was six—I am not sure whether this will become a competition. From head of the Committee Office to co-author of “How Parliament Works”, Tom’s guidance has come in many forms and has been invaluable to us all across the House for several decades. He has navigated the House through periods of turbulent change. In his time as Clerk of the House, Tom has navigated three Prime Ministers from two different parties, as well as dealing with the largest intake of new MPs in parliamentary history, with such a huge proportion entering Parliament in 2024. I certainly had a lot to learn when I arrived in this House from Carshalton and Wallington for the first time, and I am very grateful for the support that Tom and all the wonderful House staff have provided and continue to provide. Tom has been a steady and impartial presence, keeping the business of the House running smoothly despite shifts in leadership and political direction. His calm authority and commitment to fairness have earned the respect of Members on all sides, and he has worked tirelessly to help newcomers learn the traditions and procedures of the Chamber. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are especially grateful for his guidance as we adjusted to becoming the largest third party in a century. We had always found him fair when we were the fourth party, but his support as we grew from 15 to 72 MPs was crucial, and his even-handedness, professionalism and advice have been hugely important to us throughout this period. I have always found Tom to be a diligent and calming presence, with a firm and fair hand, while guiding us through Commission meetings. Tom is ever dependable, and I think it is very telling of his character that all Members here, across the House, have found consensus today in our gratitude and praise towards him as Clerk. I and all the Liberal Democrats wish Tom the very best for the future.

    Hansard source
28. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Anna Sabine

    Business of the House

    At Sulis Down, a housing development in my constituency, residents have moved in to find that planning obligations and landscaping have not been completed by the developer, the Vistry Group. Once people move into new estates, they have very little leverage over developers; in this case, Vistry is refusing to meet them. Will the Leader of the House help me secure a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss how residents of new developments can be given real power to challenge developers?

    Hansard source
29. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Anna Sabine

    NHS Maternity Services

    On the point about rurality, I was alarmed earlier in the week to hear NHS chiefs talking about the fact that in order to consolidate services they may have to cut rural and coastal maternity services further. In Frome and East Somerset I have mothers who routinely travel over an hour to access maternity services. I know they are not the distances that my hon. Friend and other colleagues are talking about, but efficiency of maternity services should not come at the cost of women living in rural areas simply being able to access maternity care in a safe and timely way. Does he agree?

    Hansard source
30. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Andrew George

    Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for the way in which he brought the issue forward and articulated the case, which I thoroughly endorse. I could repeat the points made by all speakers so far, but I will not—there will not be time anyway. All I will say is that I was engaged on debates on this issue prior to starting my nine-year sabbatical from this place in 2015. At that stage, I thought we were making progress, particularly after the Government had at least accepted the ombudsman’s case, although they did not provide sufficient compensation at the time. I assumed that, by the time I came back nine years later, the matter would be resolved and there would no longer be an issue. However, we are no further forward than we were in 2015.

    Hansard source
31. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Andrew George

    Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

    Perhaps we should form the nine-year sabbatical club, and compare this issue with others that have simply not moved forward. As the hon. Member for Leeds North East explained, the situation is entirely down to regulatory maladministration and failure. It is Government failure. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth implied that there were crooks involved; certainly money was taken improperly, and there was a failure on the part of Government to protect investors in the way that they should have done at the time. I say gently that I remember at the time that the then Labour Opposition complained that the announced package of £1.5 billion was insufficient—Oppositions do this, and I am not making a Punch and Judy point, but here is an opportunity for a Labour Government to stand up to the criticisms they raised at that time and to address the issue. As the hon. Member for Leeds North East rightly said, there is still money in the pot. If more than a third of the £4.1 billion that was identified as needed in compensation was provided through the £1.5 billion package from the Government, why is it that my constituents who I talk to and who are still very embittered, understandably, about this situation, are only getting 22.4%? The sums do not add up. As the hon. Member for Leeds North East explained, it is because of the way this particular cake has been cut up. The Minister responding to the debate also replied to my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) in March this year, saying that the scheme is “on track to distribute the remainder of the £1.5 billion as planned” in annual payments to eligible policyholders. If that, at least, could be done, that would be great, so that those who should be receiving compensation actually receive it—although, again, it is insufficient. In my view, it is best to humanise the situation. For the many constituents who brought their cases to me, the situation has caused a strong sense of embitterment. My constituency has a large number of people who are self-employed but still live on the margins, and they have scrimped and saved to invest in their pensions and future. They looked for a reputable company, thought that Equitable Life was one and invested through it. One such person is Howard, who in 1978, started to save with what he understood to be the best company he could find: Equitable Life. He told me: “I was self-employed living and working in a Cornish village where I was born and brought up and still live after 86 years with my wife, who has dementia and is registered blind. We pay for and rely on others to do everything for us like food, cleaning, driving...even twice every day carers come attending both of us...THIS IS SHOCKING, THIS IS ROBBERY BY OUR GOVERNMENT!!” In 1995, Teresa opened an Equitable Life personal pension plan with a small monthly payment, as well as a separate bond. She told me: “When Eq. Life ceased business, I transferred the small pension amount to link it with a work pension I had.” She is supposed to be retired, but she now has to work part time to make ends meet. She said: “I have always endeavoured to save as best as able, which all governments encourage us to do. However, after all this time I don’t think we will ever receive what is owed to us.” Surely we can reassure people that they will get what they are due. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East and all other Members who have engaged with the issue; I hope that the Minister is listening and will address it.

    Hansard source
32. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Andrew George

    Fly-tipping

    Local authorities will be looking to the Environment Agency to set standards as far as enforcement action is concerned. Trevoole Moor in my constituency is the fifth largest illegal dump in the country, affecting a nature reserve, but the Environment Agency has decided not to take enforcement action. When I discussed this with the Environment Agency, it said that it deals with these matters on a case-by-case basis. Will the Minister ensure that the guidance the Environment Agency uses is published, so that we can properly understand where and why it makes these decisions?

    Hansard source
33. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 81, in clause 23, page 21, line 33, at end insert— “(3A) Subject to subsection (3B), where the Secretary of State did not make a decision on a person’s protection claim within 180 days of the making of the protection claim, any sums to be paid by the person under subsection (3) must be reduced by 20% for every period of 30 days that elapsed before a decision on the person’s protection claim was made. (3B) Subsection 3A does not apply where a decision on the protection claim was not made within 180 days of the claim being made due to the actions of the applicant. (3C) For the purposes of subsection (3A), ‘protection claim’ has the same meaning as in section 82(2)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.” This amendment would reduce the level of payments required from a person by 20% for every 30 days longer than six months that passed before a decision was made on the person’s asylum claim.

    Hansard source
34. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    It is pleasure to have you back in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I hope my voice holds out, as I will speak at some length on these amendments. The Committee has reached the part about charging refugees for the support that they receive, so I want to make some points about my overall discomfort with these proposals. Requiring retrospective payments from refugees after they have secured the right to stay is completely wrong. Many organisations, including the Refugee Council, are rightly calling the proposal a refugee tax, because it is a tax for successfully claiming asylum, and it breaks our commitments under the convention. The proposals do not guard against destitution, so I believe that they also breach article 25 of the universal declaration of human rights—my favourite article—which states: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” That absolutely applies to refugees. Local authorities have told us that the requirements will push more families into poverty and will place a greater strain on family support services, advice services, crisis response services and housing services at the local authority level, for which duties towards children will remain. I am not certain that the Government have properly considered the impacts.

    Hansard source
35. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    One of my amendments would raise the level for repayments beyond mere destitution, which is wise in the circumstances, given some of the feedback we have received from support services, charities and local authorities. The clause will also entrench inequality among refugees. Not all refugees applying for asylum in this country require support; some have managed to flee the circumstances that led to their needing asylum with some resources. In her letter responding to questions in the oral sessions, the Minister confirmed that “around two in every five people awaiting an initial decision on their claim were in Home Office provided accommodation”. She also said that some of them may have received accommodation in the past, but that figure is not a high proportion of refugees. The clause therefore targets the most vulnerable—those without the means to support themselves—in an already vulnerable population. The clause will apply only to those who use Home Office accommodation, but, given the randomness of the circumstances in which people become refugees, many come with skills from previous employment—jobs that have been torn away from them—and would be able to support themselves if they were simply allowed to work, as I propose in my new clause 24, which we will debate later. I believe the whole clause needs to go, but I have also tabled targeted amendments with constructive measures to mitigate its impact. Amendment 81 would reduce payments if the Home Office’s decisions are delayed. At the moment, the main driver of cost in asylum support is delayed decision making, and sometimes poor-quality initial decisions leading to appeals. The Bill reflects neither that nor the detrimental impact that delayed decisions can have on people’s ability to find employment and thus make repayments. The amendment would require that, once someone has been awaiting a decision for longer than six months, or 180 days, the charge intended to be levied against them—the refugee tax—would decrease by 20% for every further 30 days that passed. Amendment 81 is only fair, given that, according to the Home Secretary, the aim of part 4 of the Bill is partly to tackle the cost of asylum support. The Home Secretary must recognise that the drivers of those costs are delays in decision making and poor decisions. How long it takes to process a claim is not up to the individual, and delayed decisions will have a detrimental impact on their ability to find employment, integrate and make repayments. In some professions, continued practice is a condition of continued recognition in that role, so delays could have disruptive consequences on people’s ability to earn. The reduction in payments that the amendment proposes would also reflect those kinds of impacts.

    Hansard source
36. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The evidence we have heard about the impact on people’s ability to integrate and on community cohesion has been clear. Amendment 81 in particular would be a good measure because it would incentivise the Home Office to reduce those costs and make decisions on time. It would also mean that people kept in the system for longer than necessary are not unfairly penalised for overly long decisions. That is the focus of the amendment. If the asylum claim took longer than six months because of the actions of the applicant, this would not apply—the amendment covers that as well. On my amendment 76, as mentioned earlier, if the Government decide to go ahead with the payments, they cannot guard against destitution with their requirement. Poverty ought to be the defining measure. That would allay a lot of the fears of local authorities, which are nevertheless obliged to deal with the consequences of people being in poverty. It would also save money, reduce those impacts and be much clearer about what would happen. People are fearful that the word “destitution” is a very low bar. As defined in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, someone is destitute if they do “not have adequate accommodation or any means of obtaining it”, or if they have “adequate accommodation or the means of obtaining it, but cannot meet his other essential living needs.” The Government’s definition of “essential living needs”, as set out in the Asylum Support Regulations 2000, is extremely minimal. As the Bill is drafted, individuals or families could be required to pay this charge, regardless of whether they are deemed to be in poverty, or even deep material poverty, if we are to use those definitions.

    Hansard source
37. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    The evidence I have comes from local authorities that have given evidence to the Committee and are very worried that their obligations will be extended by this Bill. People will be driven into poverty by the Home Office taking this money away from the overall system in the local area. It would be useful if the Home Office told us where the money will be spent in order to alleviate that. I am not sure that the Bill sets out where the repayments are going to go, but the implication is that they will go to the Home Office, not to local authorities. Amendment 76 would change the provision related to the repayment of asylum support so that people would not be required to make payments if doing so would leave them or their household impoverished. It also defines impoverishment as having an equivalised net income of less than 60% of the median—a fairly normal definition of poverty that is also the Government’s own definition for whether a household is low income. Clearly, it is the Government’s intention to provide safeguards to ensure that people are not made destitute. This amendment would strengthen that safeguard on the face of the Bill so that people who fled war and have been granted protection are not plunged into deeper poverty, just as they are starting the process of rebuilding their lives and integrating into communities. Finally, my amendment 79 is fairly pragmatic. It sets out that payments may not exceed the actual cost of supporting an individual. Currently, there is no link in the Bill between the level of the charge and the cost of support provided to someone. I would like to hear what the Government’s intentions are in setting out those charges. There is a broad power in the Bill and it would come through regulations. However, we need reassurance that no one could face a charge higher than the cost of the actual support they have received. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that clause 23 creates a power “that requires those who have received taxpayer-funded support to pay back a portion when they can.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 13 July 2026; c. 678.] The implication is clearly that this should not exceed the cost of being supported. Government amendment 124 would allow the Home Secretary to reduce the payments owed. It would be useful to hear more detail from the Minister about the criteria for applying the power to reduce the payments and about the cases in which they would expect the amounts people owed to be reduced. If the Government plan on reducing them, in line with the amendment, would they consider putting that on the face of the Bill?

    Hansard source
38. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    That is an entirely fair point. There has been a focus on the lowest-possible-cost accommodation, and it is only right that people can stay closer to where they may have a connection and all the other considerations. It is important that those figures are just the current average. Overall, given the gravity of the impacts and the concerns from local authorities and many of my constituents about the problems, I want to see answers from the Minister on the amendments that would mitigate the impacts. I will be pressing my amendments to a vote if I do not hear good answers, and I will be opposing clause 23.

    Hansard source
39. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    I take the hon. Lady’s point that people who have claimed asylum should be regarded as akin to those here on work visas. However, does she understand the points in my amendments about how different groups of asylum seekers are being treated differently? People who needed accommodation due to poverty will be asked to pay back, while those who did not need accommodation, due to not being in poverty, are not. That distinction, which sets different asylum seeker groups against each other, is unhelpful.

    Hansard source
40. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    For clarity, if this is akin to those on work visas, why are the Government proposing that only those asylum seekers who were here in poverty should pay back those contributions? Why not have a more redistributive approach and also charge the most well-off people seeking asylum, or make it more progressive?

    Hansard source