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·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

   It is very good to have you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Twigg. From the discussions we have had today, I think it is clear what a mess the proposals in clauses 23 and 24 are. If it is not an itemised recovery of costs, it is a refugee tax—worse, it has become clear that is only a poor refugee tax. As such, the philosophical basis for the proposals is broken. The Government have set a terribly high bar for being excused, and they are not seeking any payment from successful refugees who have the means to support themselves while they wait for a decision. That is despite the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes likening the proposal to NHS surcharges for those on work visas, to which the Minister also referred. The Government have been clear that they are setting a flat charge rate, but they will not apply it to all asylum seekers. Why not? If one accepts the premise of the charge—I do not—would that not be fairer across the board? The Government propose to charge it only to those people who are destitute when they arrive here. This will do much harm to these people’s ability to settle in the future. Why would the Government drive them into poverty for extended periods and cause that kind of problem? It seems unfair to impose this on people. The Government have introduced this in clause 23, while amendment 141, tabled by the Conservatives, tries to codify it further. In my view, any kind of refugee tax should not be an additional barrier to stability. These clauses are reckless, unfair, cruel and irrational. Without my amendments, they become even worse. I will seek to divide the Committee on them. Question put, That the amendment be made.

   Hansard source
2. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

   I beg to move amendment 77, in clause 23, page 22, line 9, leave out “18 at all times” and insert “21 at any time”. This amendment would extend the exemption for repaying asylum support from any person who was under the age of 18 at all times they were in receipt of support to any person who was under the age of 21 at any time they were in receipt of support.

   Hansard source
3. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

   I have four amendments in this group, and I will speak as briefly as I can about each of them. They are in the spirit of trying to improve the clauses even though I oppose them in principle. Amendment 77 seeks to strengthen the exemption on children and increase the age to 21. As the explanatory statement says, it would “extend the exemption for repaying asylum support from any person who was under the age of 18 at all times they were in receipt of support to any person who was under the age of 21 at any time they were in receipt of support.” It is welcome that the Government have already acknowledged that children should not be counted within this policy, including that parents should not have to pay £10,000 for any dependants who are children. However, there are two concerns that this amendment is seeking to address. First, on the face of the Bill, an individual has to be: “under 18 at all times at which they received asylum support” That implies that if someone turns 18 the day before they are granted status, they would still be liable for the full payment of up to £10,000, which the Government have confirmed they want to charge at a flat rate. That seems particularly unfair, especially when one considers that applicants have no control over how long it will take for their application to be processed. Additionally, the Bill does not reflect that when someone turns 18, they are still a young person just starting their adult life. Through measures announced elsewhere, such as the work and study protection framework, the Government have made it clear that they want people to be encouraged into study and work opportunities. It therefore seems both harsh and counterproductive to be giving a young person thousands of pounds of debt when they are taking their very first steps in building a new life in a new country. The change in amendment 77 would therefore better protect children and young people who have gone through the asylum system and allow them to have the best start at rebuilding their lives in the UK. Amendment 78 adds further exemptions to those that the Government have outlined. The only exemption on the face of the Bill is currently for children who are under 18, although more amendments could be added through regulations. I am happy for amendment 78 to be a probing amendment, provided that the Government are prepared to give some clarity on further exemptions that they might be prepared to add.

   Hansard source
4. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

   Does the hon. Member have any insight into the gap that I think the Minister left in the discussion on the last group, between claims that repayments will be affordable and what it says in the Bill, which is that it will only avoid destitution? Does the hon. Member agree that there is a gap between those two definitions?

   Hansard source
5. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

   I have spoken quite a lot about my overall position on these clauses, but I would like to say a little more about the fact that clause 23 gives the Home Secretary the power to require these unfair payments from a minority of asylum seekers who are destitute when they arrive here. The Minister needs to consider the lack of safe routes and the extent to which people wanting to claim asylum here end up more destitute as they are exploited the entire way by the kind of organised criminals that are currently running the only routes into this country. We need to see much more detail than is on the face of the Bill about how the system will work. I essentially wish to speak in support of amendment 140, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire. He makes a good point. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary promised that Parliament would have the opportunity to see draft regulations, but we have not seen them yet. The Committee is being asked to assess and approve a system when we are not able to scrutinise the details. We deserve to see more of them now. They are not minor details. We have already spoken about the fact that £10,000 is the amount that the Government are talking about, but that is not on the face of the Bill, and neither is the payment threshold nor how much people will have to pay over that amount. All of that is information that we would need to assess the impact that this policy would have on individual refugees at the point they are trying to rebuild their lives, not just on the public purse, as the Opposition amendment seeks to set out. Although the Government have indicated how they might recover those payments, the detail of the Bill does not cover everything. They say it will enable the Home Office to have its own cost recovery mechanism, supported by HMRC, which will apparently play its part. How will that work, how will it sit within other parts of the Government’s core protection system, and how much will it cost? That is especially important when weighed against the fact that the policy might bring in only limited amounts and may even reduce the overall tax take from this group. Without knowledge of the decisions about the system, the Government may be proposing something that costs the public purse large amounts in cash terms, let alone in its wider impacts. I think we need to see the Government’s analysis of all this. It is also important to acknowledge that individuals claiming asylum have fled war and persecution and are not responsible for the overall cost of asylum support. That cost has grown, often as a result of policy decisions or failings of this Government and the previous one. Earlier, we discussed the difference in cost between nightly paid hotel accommodation and properly settled dispersal accommodation in genuine homes. The Government are not spending their money wisely at present, and I think Ministers are seeking to address that. Would tackling that not be more cost-effective than trying to recover money from close-to-destitute asylum seekers? The Home Secretary has also said this policy is introducing a “contributory principle”. What she ignores, however, is that refugees do contribute, and have always done so, through working, paying taxes and contributing to their local communities. In fact, on wider impacts, the refugee tax is not introducing the idea that refugees should contribute. In my view, it is making it harder for them to do so, while also harming community cohesion and integration. A policy that was truly focused on increasing refugee contributions could look at how barriers to employment can be removed, so that people can access work more easily, progress in a career and transfer their qualifications to this country. I have had casework on those matters, which are barriers to refugees contributing to society through their taxes and making the most of the skills they can bring here by accessing education and further training. That would all help the Government to address asylum support costs, but it would do so by supporting vulnerable refugees, not targeting them with this tax. Has the Minister really addressed, in any of her comments today, the facts in the letter she wrote to us at the end of the oral evidence session, which admits fully that three in five of the people currently awaiting a decision are not claiming support? Why are those people not being asked to contribute in any way, if recovering the costs from people is the most important thing to the Government? Amendment 140 gets to the heart of that: what is the balance of payments? Finally, I believe this policy is cruel. It seeks to deter people from coming to this country, and that is the key reason why it is so targeted at the most vulnerable refugees, and not at those who can pay their own way. However, will it actually work as a deterrent? In general, the Home Office already has evidence that punitive measures such as the refugee tax have little impact on where people choose to seek asylum. Furthermore, in the oral evidence session, when asked about this, the Refugee Council highlighted that people will be able to avoid these payments simply by not applying for asylum support while their application is being processed, a risk also recognised in the Home Office’s impact assessment. Although that may reduce asylum support costs, I do not think that such a result is the Government’s intention, as it will push more people seeking asylum into vulnerable situations in which they can be exploited further. Do the Government not think that policies from this and previous Governments have already done enough of that?

   Hansard source
6. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

   My question is more about the revenue and its spending. We have heard from local authorities concerned that they might have higher costs as a result of the measures. Can the Minister give us any reassurance that the costs will not spill over into services that might be affected by some of the things in the impact assessment?

   Hansard source
7. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Carla Denyer

   Black History Month

   It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate marking Black History Month, and I thank the Minister for opening the debate with a speech so powerful that it gave me the chills. I do not think that is because I might have caught a cold off her on Monday, although that may be the case. In my maiden speech, I talked about how the story of my home city, Bristol, cannot be disentangled from the UK’s shameful and immoral history of colonialism and slavery. That is a history that we cannot and must not turn away from. Bristol merchants financed over 2,000 slaving voyages between 1698 and 1807. These ships carried over 500,000 enslaved Africans from Africa to face slave labour in the Americas. This shameful trade is an ongoing stain, and it is why my party backs slavery reparations. Since 2020, we have supported the idea of a UK Government-backed all-party parliamentary commission of inquiry for truth and reparatory justice, aligned with the United Nations frameworks, to address the legacy of the transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans and colonialism. I am proud to say that my city also backs that call following a motion brought by my former colleague, Green Councillor Cleo Lake, five years ago. This is work that I hope to continue to push on as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for Afrikan reparations. The UN’s declaration earlier this year, which said that the trafficking of enslaved Africans is the “gravest crime against humanity” and called for reparations as a “concrete step towards remedying historical wrongs”, is therefore very welcome. I hope this strong UN stance will encourage the UK Government to mark Black History Month by acknowledging the inhumane crimes that Britain inflicted on African people for centuries, and the ongoing impact of those crimes on the global south today. My constituency, Bristol Central, is home to a blue plaque at the Seven Stars inn in Redcliffe that marks how Thomas Clarkson, an anti-slavery activist, together with the landlord of the Seven Stars, collected testimonies from sailors in 1787 that were used as evidence in Parliament. These statements played a role in the passing of the Slave Trade Act 1807, which eventually led to the end of the transatlantic slave trade. Fast-forwarding 150 years, we have already heard extensively today about the 1963 Bristol bus boycott, which was a landmark moment in race relations in the UK. On the same day that Martin Luther King gave his famous “I have a dream” speech in the US, the Bristol Omnibus Company agreed to end its racist hiring practices following a successful boycott campaign. As we have heard, the boycott was widely cited as a turning point for racial justice in the UK and ultimately led to the Race Relations Act 1965. Bristol’s more recent history saw 15,000 Black Lives Matter supporters gather in the city in 2020 and the toppling of a statue of Edward Colston, a 17th-century slave trader who is believed to have transported about 80,000 men, women and children from Africa to the Americas between 1672 and 1689. That statue, in its damaged state, is now displayed in a glass case in the M Shed Museum, in my constituency, where it is surrounded by some of the placards held by protesters on the day it was toppled. Bristol city council’s culture team say this about the exhibit: “This is not erasing history, this is recording history. History isn’t something that can remain static and preserved—that moment was history in action.” Those words feel particularly salient to this debate, because in celebrating those people in our communities whose contributions are all too often unseen, we are—as Cherron Inko-Tariah MBE, the editor of Black History Month UK Magazine, puts it—also writing history. We are making the history that we want recorded, and keeping it alive. To that end, I want to give a special shout-out to one of the many people making black history in Bristol today: the first lord mayor of Bristol to come from the Somali community, Councillor Yassin Mohamud. Yassin brings his experience as a refugee, his experience as a member of the black and minority ethnic community, and his work representing one of Bristol’s more deprived areas to the role of lord mayor. As he said shortly before taking up the post, his focus is on unity “to bring people together, to celebrate the diversity and strength of our city, and to ensure that every community feels recognised and valued.”

   Hansard source
8. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Carla Denyer

   Black History Month

   I will indeed. The now Lord Rees, who was the first black mayor of Bristol and one of the first in Europe, also featured in my maiden speech, and I recognise the great contribution that he made to our city. Finally, I want to highlight the campaign launched last year for Bristol to become the UK’s civil rights capital. The fact that two Members from outside Bristol have already told the story of the city’s pivotal role in British black history supports the case for that very strongly. The campaign brings together academics, business leaders and politicians, including Lord Rees. I will quote directly from one of the campaign’s lead organisers, Julz Davis. He said: “Bristol has never waited for permission to lead. This city has shown the country what change looks like. Activism has always been the lifeblood of systemic change here.” Black History Month is a much-needed chance to remember the importance of systemic change and how many people are making that change happen. To quote Cherron Inko-Tariah again: “There is still so much we do not know. So many stories waiting to be uncovered. So many names waiting to be spoken. So much history waiting to be reclaimed, recorded and shared.” That potential is very alive in this Chamber today, in my home city of Bristol and across our communities, and I look forward to continuing to work cross-party to help realise it.

   Hansard source
9. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Adrian Ramsay

   Flood Preparation

   9. What steps her Department is taking to prepare communities for flooding in winter 2026-27.

   Hansard source
10. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Adrian Ramsay

    Flood Preparation

    I thank the Minister for her reply. We have already seen unprecedented climate impacts this summer, and with the super El Niño on its way, we will see threats to global weather patterns, including a forecasted colder, wetter and stormier winter for the UK. How is she working across Government to ensure that preparedness for flooding risks this winter are stepped up, to keep our communities safe?

    Hansard source
11. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Victoria Atkins

    Topical Questions

    The Conservative DEFRA team met more than 100 farmers in Berkshire this week, ahead of the Budget, to continue our two-year campaign against the family farm tax and the family business tax. One farmer told us: “I’m sat with a ticking time bomb and it’s unsurvivable for me. I would have to sell the farm to pay the bill.” That is despite the Government’s humiliating partial U-turn. With six days to go before the Budget, can the Secretary of State explain why this Labour Government are putting families through that?

    Hansard source
12. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Victoria Atkins

    Topical Questions

    I can tell the Secretary of State now that I am not on the side of this Government. While Labour was complaining about black labradors and pubs at its party conference, the Conservatives were listening to rural business owners. They are being squeezed at every turn; the cost of energy, water, heating oil, petrol and diesel, as well as food prices, and the amount of red tape and taxes, are all up under this Government. The Secretary of State may have heard of two of them: Jeremy Clarkson and Cheerful Charlie—in fact, the Secretary of State has stood up Cheerful Charlie three times. They asked a question at our party conference that I hear in market towns and villages across the country under this Government: why would anyone start a business in this country right now?

    Hansard source
13. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Tom Tugendhat

    Saudi Arabia: RAF Support

    (Urgent Question:) To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of RAF Typhoon aircraft to defend Saudi Arabia, and the extension of air-to-air refuelling support for the Saudi air operations, including those against Houthi targets in Yemen.

    Hansard source
14. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Tom Tugendhat

    Saudi Arabia: RAF Support

    Thank you for granting this UQ, Mr Speaker. I am sorry that it was necessary, as there is a long-standing convention in this place that shadow Ministers—and, in fact, spokespeople from other parties—are briefed on a Privy Council basis in order to understand what is going on before there are military deployments overseas, but that seems to have fallen out of practice. Those of us—including my friend, the hon. and gallant Minister sitting across the Dispatch Box from me—who have served in uniform and have briefed members of the Opposition should remember that we may find ourselves on the opposite Benches in a few years’ time, and it is good to get back into these habits. I will just say briefly why this is so important, and why I am asking this question and not my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), sitting beside me. This is a political decision and a political judgment. This is not purely a military deployment; it is a judgment on how to use the defensive arm of His Majesty’s Government and where it should go. It is a question that the Foreign Office is best placed to co-ordinate. The reality is that what we are getting is a parcelled-off process, and not a strategy for success. Where is, for example, the action in the United Nations? Where are the sanctions on the Houthis, who should be designated as a terrorist group? Where are the co-ordinating actions with others in the region? We have the state visit of the Sultan of Oman—one of Britain’s most important regional partners—but where are the voices co-ordinating our actions around not just Yemen, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, but the whole of the Arabian peninsula in response to Iran’s hostility? We have seen the regime in Tehran killing hundreds of thousands—perhaps even millions—of Sunni Muslims over the past half century since the poisonous creed of Khomeinism infected Tehran. This recent incident is not an isolated one; it is part of a pattern of violence. We have seen it pushing up energy prices in the United Kingdom, leaving us with our energy low and our storage short as winter approaches. Although the Jackdaw decision is the right one, it is a bit late, and it will not make a huge difference this winter, making Rosebank all the more urgent. Let me just ask a few direct questions. First, what actions have the Minister or his Cabinet colleagues taken to co-ordinate actions with allies in the region? Secondly, what support has been given to the defence of Cyprus, given Iran’s proxy Hezbollah’s attack on our bases recently? Thirdly, what plans are there to designate the Houthis as a terrorist organisation? Fourthly, what actions are planned at the UN to call out Iranian aggression, alongside its Russian and Chinese neighbours? Fifthly—[Interruption.] Last one, Mr Speaker. Fifthly, will the Secretary of State commit to giving briefings before deployments? Finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that despite his predecessor saying—

    Hansard source
15. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Tom Tugendhat

    Saudi Arabia: RAF Support

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance and advice on ensuring that the Government inform this House before military operations, and that they do not have to be dragged here with your indulgence for an urgent question when there is a clear need for this House to be able to debate the actions of His Majesty’s Government in order to support our forces? We all support our forces. I respect the Minister’s service and I am sure that he respects all those on the Opposition Benches as well.

    Hansard source
16. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Whittingdale

    Wine Production

    8. What steps her Department is taking to support the wine production industry.

    Hansard source
17. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Whittingdale

    Wine Production

    Is the Minister aware that Essex is now a centre of English wine production, with producers such as Danbury Ridge, Missing Gate, New Hall, Crouch Valley and Crouch Ridge all producing in my constituency? A number of them also offer vineyard tours, which are an important source of revenue. Will he support WineGB’s campaign for a wine tourism relief, to reduce the excise duty on cellar-door sales?

    Hansard source
18. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Whittingdale

    Topical Questions

    T3. As well as producing extremely fine wines, Maldon produces excellent oysters—I would be delighted to welcome any members of the ministerial team to visit. Will the Department do more to promote the shellfish industry? In particular, will it look to introduce a specific aquaculture qualification to try to attract more apprentices into the industry?

    Hansard source
19. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Whittingdale

    Saudi Arabia: RAF Support

    I support the deployment of British forces in support of our Saudi Arabian allies, but, as has become clear, the distinction between “offensive” and “defensive” support is pretty fuzzy at best. Can the Minister say what assessment has been made of the possible increased threat to British nationals in the region, both civilian and military, and what is being done to meet that threat?

    Hansard source
20. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Local Government Reorganisation

    The Local Government Boundary Commission paused boundary reviews in areas affected by local government reorganisation proposals in February of last year, so the Government’s recent review of those proposals has not had any immediate practical impact. The commission will return to those boundary reviews when the reorganisation proposals are resolved.

    Hansard source
21. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I will write to my hon. Friend if there is anything to add to what I am about to say, but as he will appreciate, the delay will have a practical impact because all those waiting for such a review will have to wait rather longer. The boundary review can only review proposals for change when a new authority is legally established, which has not yet happened.

    Hansard source
22. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Jeremy Hunt

    Topical Questions

    Thank you for squeezing me in, Mr Speaker. On 7 September, Natural England submitted the legal orders for a 30.5% expansion of the Surrey Hills national landscape, which would transform biodiversity and nature protection in my area. The decision is now on the Secretary of State’s desk. When will she make that decision, and would she like to come to Surrey Hills to announce it and try out some of our fantastic local pubs?

    Hansard source
23. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Saudi Arabia: RAF Support

    I say to the Minister—I do not mean this personally—that I do not know what has happened to the Government. When they deploy British servicemen and women abroad, they should make a statement to the House, no matter what time of the day or night it is. In 1999, when Prime Minister Tony Blair deployed RAF aircraft to Montenegro, I remember the then Deputy Prime Minister coming to the Dispatch Box at about 9 pm. He knew his responsibilities. The Government have failed on this quite explicitly. Why are the Government misusing the word “defence” endlessly now, not wanting to talk about what they have to do? How do we defend against a ballistic missile once it is launched unless we attack the site that is launching it? This is nonsense. At the end of the day, we need to be honest with the British public. I am not against deployment to defend by offensive action, but surely that is more logical than pretending that personnel are there only to defend.

    Hansard source
24. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Geoffrey Cox

    NHS Maternity Services

    I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and on his indefatigable efforts on behalf of Barnstaple hospital; as he knows, although it is in his constituency, it also serves thousands of people in Torridge, which I have the honour to represent. Does he agree that the question the Minister needs to answer today is what the Government are going to do to ensure that isolated rural maternity services are resilient and can withstand the departure of a single consultant and prevent hundreds of mothers having to make a trek—in this case of 60 miles to Exeter, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well—to give birth. We need a policy that looks closely at how isolated rural maternity units can have built-in resilience, and trusts must have a duty to ensure it.

    Hansard source
25. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

    On the issue of stalwart supporters, the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) has been a magnificent supporter. I have come along to these debates for several years, and what I am looking for is at least some prospect of a result, because we have done this year in, year out. I have affected constituents, and I still support them, but what we need from the Minister is at least some sign that we are not flogging a dead horse.

    Hansard source
26. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Christopher Chope

    Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. Does he agree that one of the fundamental issues is who regulates the regulators? When the regulators failed in this case, ultimately the ombudsman tried to regulate the regulators, but the regulators were too stubborn to accept the ombudsman’s recommendations. So who is going to regulate the regulators?

    Hansard source
27. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Christopher Chope

    Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

    Let us put the issue in context. The headline today is that we now have £3 trillion of national debt, which represents an increase of £1 trillion over the last six years. That debt has accumulated largely because of Treasury neglect and bad policy. The Treasury continues to talk about having low interest rates and an inflation target of 2%, but as we now know, it consistently allows inflation to be above 2%, with the most recent figure being 3.5%. That erodes the value of people’s pensions. Under successive Governments, the Treasury has behaved appallingly on the Equitable Life pensioners. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing this debate and introducing it so well. He asked four pertinent questions—nice, easy, simple questions—and I hope that the Minister will answer each of them affirmatively in his response. My interest in this subject goes back many years, not only because my constituents were badly affected by the collapse of Equitable Life, but because I was a shadow Treasury Minister when the Treasury set up Lord Penrose’s inquiry into the scandal. That inquiry is another example of the Treasury delaying the process to try to kick the can down the road. Although the inquiry was initiated in 2001 and Lord Penrose reported to the relevant Treasury Minister at the time, Ruth Kelly, in December 2003, it was three or four months before the Treasury deigned to publish his report, and another four years after that before the publication of the ombudsman’s report. In setting up the inquiry, the Treasury deliberately prevented Penrose from finding issues of maladministration. The Treasury has been complicit in denying the victims of regulatory failure the compensation to which they should have been, and still are, entitled. Successive Governments are responsible for allowing this appalling saga to continue. Today, the Minister has the opportunity to change that and restore public confidence in the Government, the blob and the way in which such things are administered. Earlier I asked the question: who regulates the regulators? If a regulator is in place and that regulator falls down on his responsibilities, people expect that there will be some redress, but that does not seem to be accepted at the highest levels in Government, so I hope that that can change. This issue is not going to go away. That is a tribute to the persistence of parliamentary colleagues, the EMAG campaigners and our constituents, who are behind all this and who are saying, “What has happened to this extra money? Why can’t we have it paid out to us?” I said at the beginning that in the context of where we are with the national debt, this is very small beer, but it is not the money so much as the principle that is important, and I think that the principle is overridingly in favour of paying out what is due to these people, who were victims of Government maladministration.

    Hansard source
28. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Christopher Chope

    Places of Worship Renewal Fund: Second Application Round

    The right hon. Gentleman will know that the places of worship scheme is massively oversubscribed. If people can have VAT allowances against repairs to historic places of worship in Scotland, why can we not have them in England? Would that not be a much more direct way to help with the cost of repairs for historic churches, and will he ensure that such a provision is included in the Budget?

    Hansard source
29. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Ashley Fox

    Fly-tipping

    Waste crime and fly-tipping affect rural communities across Somerset. While I welcome the action that the Government are taking, does the Minister agree that the very substantial increases that we have seen in landfill tax enable rogue waste operators to undercut legitimate businesses? Does she accept that those substantial tax increases are fuelling waste crime, and will she join me in asking the Chancellor to cut those taxes?

    Hansard source
30. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Robbie Moore

    UK-EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement

    The EU summit is to take place in just 28 days’ time, but the Farming Minister cannot answer key questions, not just from us but from our farming community. We still have no confirmation that the precision breeding Act—widely recognised as a huge success—will be 100% protected. We have no reassurance that our current freedom to innovate in gene editing and bovine TB vaccine development will be a red line, and we have no acknowledgment that the alignment with the EU on plant protection products could slash £810 million from farming incomes in the first year alone. What guarantees can the Farming Minister give our farmers right now that this Labour Government will not sell them out to the EU, just like they sold out our British fishermen last May when they previously negotiated with Brussels?

    Hansard source
31. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Robbie Moore

    Business of the House

    Skipton Road in Ilkley is being dug up yet again—I think for the fourth time this year—by Yorkshire Water. The biggest frustration for many of those who pass by is that there is seemingly no one ever undertaking the works when the traffic lights are on red. Can we have a debate in Government time that puts pressure on the highways departments at local authorities, such as Bradford council, to ensure that they sign off the works with a proper plan in place to cause as little disruption as possible to visitors, residents and local businesses whose trade is impacted, and that when utility companies do undertake the works, they do so around the clock?

    Hansard source
32. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Rishi Sunak

    Waste Crime

    Waste crime and fly-tipping are a blight on rural communities and, as the Secretary of State said, are increasingly linked to organised crime, so I commend Ministers for building on the work of the previous Government to increase penalties, tighten up restrictions on carriers and speed up the digital tracking of waste. Communities play their part, too, so will the Secretary of State join me in praising the work of the Wombles of Hambleton, whose volunteers do an excellent job of organising monthly litter picks, collecting hundreds of bags of rubbish and ensuring that North Yorkshire remains the most beautiful part of the country?

    Hansard source
33. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Richard Fuller

    Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. We know that issues of injustice can take an awfully long time to reach a resolution in Parliament. It is important that people who have or feel that they have suffered an injustice at the hands of the state should have worthy champions who have the doggedness and stamina to continue to make their case, so I am delighted to congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing today’s debate. As has been noted, the issue goes back through this Labour Government, previous Conservative Governments, the coalition Government, the Brown Government, all the way back to Blair. Let us take a moment to think about the individuals who have already been waiting two decades and more for what they would see is a full resolution. As a Member of Parliament myself for periods of that time, I have had a sense that this matter is unfinished business. I was interested to listen to some of the comments. One issue that was raised, most notably by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), was on regulation and the role of regulators. On the different perspectives and remedies, I think I am closer to the one suggested by my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth made the point that regulators are being hollowed out. I would say that on average they have greater scope, greater funding and more people. There is an issue with their focus, but more importantly, the structures to hold regulators to account are insufficient. There is no annual review of each regulator that is performed as effectively as in other areas, so I would encourage the hon. Member to press that point to improve our system of regulating the regulators.

    Hansard source
34. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Richard Fuller

    Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

    I do not want to go too far off the topic, because I am a bit of a nerd on regulating regulators. We can find time later to talk about that. It was an important point, as was the point made by the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). I am glad he did not make a party political point, but it is a relevant point that the Labour party’s position in opposition was that the compensation was not sufficiently substantial. I want to make three broad points in the lead-up to questions on each to the Minister. The first point I want to establish is that making changes to the settlement is not set in stone; it is a matter of Government choice. I want to give an example, which I raise solely for the purposes of talking about choice on pensions, not to talk about the decision that was made, because it is about choice. This is about mineworkers’ pensions. The incoming Labour Government made the choice in the case of the mineworkers’ pensions to move the surplus that had been accumulated in their fund to the mineworkers rather than back to the taxpayer—back to the Government. So it was a use of otherwise public funds that resulted in a boost to mineworkers’ pensions of about 30% to 32%. That was a choice. I just ask the Minister to consider this. It was a choice by the Government to boost pensions that were already being paid “in full”, and yet the Government seem to have no choice about people who had an 80% decline in their pensions. It might strike some as odd, with a different set of values, to treat one differently from another. I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on that, but the point that I am trying to make is that this is a matter of choice for the Government. My second point leads from a quote given by the Minister’s colleague, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who said on this matter in September 2026: “There are no plans to reopen any decisions relating to the Payment Scheme or review”. That is an interesting phrase, because part of the conditions around those decisions are couched in different wordings of the phrase—that the settlement amount was determined in consideration of the “position of public finances”. That was stated way back in 2008 and also when the settlement was announced in 2011. It was alluded to again in 2016. Given that the Minister’s colleague said there are no plans to reopen any decisions, can the Minister confirm that it is still the case that considering the state of the public finances is a live factor that is encapsulated in that? What I mean by that question is, should there be a change in the public finances, would there then be scope for the Government to change their mind? That is an important point. I do not want to lay out a false hope, but the settlement amount was decided specifically in consideration of the public finances at the time. Times now may be better or worse, but they are certainly different. When we hear the Minister’s response or read the statement made by the Minister’s colleague saying that there are no plans to reopen any decisions, it is important that it is clear that they are still open to consideration if the public finances change. I want finally to return to what the hon. Member for Leeds North East said in his excellent speech about unallocated and unspent moneys. He said that if funds have been allocated but are not needed to meet the liabilities for which they were intended, then they should be used to compensate people who have still not received full redress. That really is a question about what those unspent funds would do. That partly encompasses the reserve and partly encompasses unallocated moneys. In the big scheme of things, it would be very helpful if the Minister could confirm that it is the intention that those moneys in that envelope will be reallocated to policyholders, rather than being swept back into general taxpayer money. The last thing we want to come out of this debate is the Minister being unclear with Equitable Life policyholders, who in some cases have lost 80% of their pensions already, or suggesting that if there are moneys left in the envelope, which was set at a particular level at a particular time because of the state of public finances, any surplus moneys will be squirrelled away and given to the Government again. I would be very grateful if the Minister could answer those three questions.

    Hansard source
35. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Richard Fuller

    Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

    The Minister is making the case that the position when that settlement was made about balance between taxpayers and policyholders was a matter of fault and responsibility. Does he not also recognise that a substantial part of that balance was to do with the state of the public finances? Will he confirm that that is still a live consideration in the Treasury that could in future lead to the settlement being reopened?

    Hansard source
36. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Rebecca Smith

    Topical Questions

    T2. Since the Iran war began, fishermen have seen their fuel costs roughly double, but the Minister has offered no tailored support, instead pointing to schemes that existed long before the conflict began, including rebated red diesel, marine voyages relief and the fishing and coastal growth fund. Meanwhile, Ireland, France, Spain, Italy and Germany have provided millions in fuel support to help fishermen catching food for their tables. When will the Government stop making excuses and back Britain’s fishing industry?

    Hansard source
37. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Rebecca Smith

    Black History Month

    I have thoroughly enjoyed sitting through the debate this afternoon. Last year I listened to just some of the debate, as I could not be in for the whole time. It has been a really enjoyable afternoon, and some powerful points have been made. I will reflect on a few before I get to the main body of my speech. The first thing I want to talk about is the role of pioneers in the black community in Britain—none more significant than the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who has been mentioned by so many Members, including, first, by the Minister. I was reminded of how important pioneers have been to the House of Commons. I am an MP for Plymouth, and in 1919 the first female MP to take her seat was Nancy Astor, who also represented Plymouth. It was 68 years before there was a female black MP. Putting it in that context highlights the work that the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington has done. The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) spoke about Windrush and its role in our education system. Probably about 15 years there was an exhibition at the Southbank Centre; I was living in London at the time, and that was the first time that I really engaged with the story of Windrush. As part of the shadow education team, I know that talking about an entire British history is incredibly important. I studied history myself, and always looked particularly at the immigration history of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston mentioned the role of black footballers today. It would be remiss of me not to use that as a hook to mention that the first man to be selected to play for England was part of the Plymouth Argyle football team. Due to the racism he experienced in the 1920s, although he was selected for England he was not then allowed to play. But while playing for Plymouth Argyle—indeed, he captained the team—he scored 137 goals in 400 games. It is good to get Jack Leslie’s name on the record once again. I found the contribution from the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) particularly inspiring, especially the story of resilience she told. Something similar was said to me early on in my career. Someone said that I never win people over when I speak publicly. Well, I hope that after my speech this afternoon, people—at least those in this Chamber—will disagree with that comment. Regardless of our race, resilience is something that most of us have had to build up to get here. I think that is incredibly important to mention. We also heard speeches from the hon. Members for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy)—with that gentle mayoral competition that he mentioned—and for Brent East (Dawn Butler). All the points made by those Members were particularly important. The hon. Member for Brent East mentioned the role of stolen labour. That is not something that I will touch on directly in my speech, but it is part of the theme of commemoration that we need to embrace going forward. The people who fought for this country have not always been remembered for the role that they played. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) made a particularly powerful speech that prompted me to remember two midwives I know well in Plymouth who are of Caribbean heritage. They came over here and served the city of Plymouth for many decades, delivering many babies. It is a real privilege to be able to mention Liz and Yvonne today. Right across our country, we have stories of people who have served—people who came from far-flung places and made the United Kingdom their home. Finally, we heard from the hon. Members for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey). It has been a pleasure to hear everyone’s contributions this afternoon. It is a privilege to respond to this interesting and inspiring debate on behalf of the official Opposition. We have heard many times this afternoon how the theme of Black History Month 2026 is “Honouring Our Communities” —sharing inspiring stories of black British life. I believe that there is no better way to do that than by reflecting on the lives of those men and women from the Commonwealth who served during the first and second world wars. Anyone who knows anything about me, right back to my maiden speech, will know that I had the privilege of working for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission before I was elected—indeed, I declare an interest as chair of the APPG for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and Commemoration. I hope Members will forgive me for using my time to talk about this, but I think it is an incredibly important story that we should be telling. As I am sure Members know, the allied forces were comprised of many nations, including, importantly, a significant number of what are now Commonwealth countries. The imperial forces, as they were known, saw personnel serving together from India, South Africa, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom. In addition, serving under those six flags were men and women from the West Indies and other African nations such as Rhodesia, Nigeria and Kenya. Indeed, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme told us of his grandfather, who would have been one of those men who came from Rhodesia to serve—[Interruption.] Jamaica, sorry. But there was also family from Rhodesia—I was listening. More than 700,000 black Africans served in the first world war, with tens of thousands more coming from the Caribbean, and over half a million black and mixed-ethnicity individuals served in the second world war. Many of those individuals are commemorated in places like Plymouth’s naval memorial on Plymouth Hoe. There are tales of black and mixed-ethnicity servicemen and women in many theatres worldwide, from frontline first world war combat in east Africa and the middle east, to labour and support units working worldwide, to action in Burma during the second world war, to the merchant navy and planes soaring in the skies with the Royal Air Force. It is the role of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to commemorate each man and woman who lost their life serving in the Commonwealth forces with no distinctions. Each casualty should be commemorated by name on a headstone or memorial. Each casualty should have a single point of commemoration. Headstones and memorials should be permanent, and, importantly, headstones should be uniform; it does not matter where somebody was from, we cannot tell by looking at the shape of the headstone—instead we have to go and read their story. There should be equality of treatment for war dead, irrespective of rank or religion. This means that right across the world, in 153 countries, war dead are commemorated. I will use my brief time this afternoon to highlight some of the black Britons who were included in the British forces who fought in the first and second world wars. There are many stories of the contributions of black Britons who served so faithfully during both world wars. The examples that I wish to share can be found on a new online portal hosted by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, where families and historians can share the stories of those recorded on war graves and memorials across the world. It is called the For Evermore project, and I encourage anybody who has a story or wants to advertise the project in their constituency to do so, because ultimately, by knowing more about the names, we have a much bigger picture of the cost involved in those two wars. I am grateful for those stories, and I have effectively lifted three of them from that portal to tell the House this afternoon. Second Lieutenant Walter Daniel John Tull was one of the British Army’s first black commissioned officers and one of England’s first black professional footballers. Born in 1888 in Folkestone, Walter was orphaned young and brought up in an orphanage in Bethnal Green. Before the war, he played for Tottenham Hotspur and later for Northampton Town, where he remains a club legend. Shortly after the outbreak of the first world war, Walter joined the Footballers’ Battalion of the Middlesex Regiment and fought in the battle of the Somme in 1916. He was a natural leader and in May 1917 was commissioned as an officer—a remarkable achievement, given the prejudices of the time. He was mentioned in dispatches for “gallantry and coolness” while leading his company of 26 men on a raiding party into enemy territory. He returned to France in 1918 and was killed in action on 25 March while leading his men into battle during the German spring offensive. He is commemorated on the Arras memorial to the missing. He was a true pioneer whose military service challenged the racial barriers of his age. Lance Corporal Horace Wilfred Miller from the Leicestershire Regiment was born in Hinckley, Leicester as the eldest of 10 children. His father hailed from St Helena, a British overseas territory off the coast of south-west Africa. Aged 19, Horace joined the Army in January 1913, enlisting with the Shepshed Company of the Fifth Battalion, Leicestershire Regiment. He was sent to France a year later and was known for being a keen musician and singer. Horace was killed on 10 September 1915 by a German sniper in the Ypres salient. Newspaper reports noted that “Miller was a fine man, greatly loved and admired by all his many pals”. Finally, Victor Emmanuel Tucker was born on 22 December 1916 in Jamaica to parents Adrian and Lydia Tucker. Victor emigrated to England in the 1930s, and the Oxford-educated Jamaican qualified as a barrister. In 1940, he was living in Highgate, London with his wife Wilhelmina. He enlisted in the RAF in August 1940 and earned his pilot wings in early 1941. He was also promoted to sergeant at that point. His Spitfire was painted with a yellow island of Jamaica symbol on the nose, representing Victor’s homeland. Sadly, Victor would not survive the war. He was shot down by a Messerschmitt FW109S on a raid over Le Havre in France. The Spitfires were escorting Boston bombers to Le Havre and turned away before the bombing run. By order, they flew a left turn, to which the pilots had protested, as that enabled the Germans to attack from the sun. Victor was one of the RAF pilots shot down in that encounter. His body was never recovered and, as he has no known grave, he is commemorated on the Runnymede air services memorial in Surrey, England.

    Hansard source
38. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Rebecca Smith

    Black History Month

    I hope that in all the stories I have shared, those men—women will have played a role, too, but in the early days it was often men—did what they did in spite of where they came from, their race and their background. We are incredibly grateful. That is why the Commonwealth War Graves Commission exists: to highlight their contribution. This afternoon I have sought to highlight not just Commonwealth people, but those who fought under the United Kingdom’s flag. They were black British men who served and tragically lost their lives. Many survived, and no doubt they are the family members of many Members in this House, but sadly, the men I have highlighted paid the ultimate price. These stories remind us that black history forms a part of our shared national story. These people came from different places, yet they shared the same values of duty, courage and service. They fought under the same flag, faced the same dangers and made the same ultimate sacrifice. That is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was right to state, during her tenure as Equalities Minister, that the achievements of black Britons “belong to us all, whatever our skin colour.” Black History Month is at its best when it reminds us of what unites us: a shared inheritance and a shared commitment to the country we all call home.

    Hansard source
39. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Peter Fortune

    Jarrow Crusade

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse—I think for the first time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) on securing this debate to recognise the 90th anniversary of the Jarrow march. Her predecessor secured an Adjournment debate on the 75th anniversary; I am pleased that the hon. Lady went down the route of a Westminster Hall debate so that more colleagues had the opportunity to contribute. I note that some of the Members who contributed to the 75th anniversary debate are here today—I am, of course, referring to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I asked my team if they could find out whether he was there and they said, “He’s not that old!” I said, “I didn’t mean the march—I meant the debate.” He spoke with eloquence and integrity about the need to get young people back into work, which is something I recognise, as I have a 20-year-old and a 17-year-old. I confess to being very jealous that the new Prime Minister has had a hug with him and I have not. I must ask the forgiveness of the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East, because Jarrow is over 300 miles from my Bromley and Biggin Hill constituency, so it is not a place that I am overly familiar with. However, as the former home of the Venerable Bede and the original home of one of the most important Bibles in the world, the Jarrow codex, the town is steeped in historical significance. In the early 19th century, a coal industry developed before the shipyard was established in 1852, becoming the first armour plate manufacturer in the world. Over the next 80 years, more than 1,000 ships were launched from Jarrow. Jarrow has had a lasting impact on the direction of our country, and the Jarrow marchers on that crusade undoubtedly played their part in that. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for bringing some of the families of the marchers to Downing Street this week alongside a copy of the original petition. I also pay tribute to the Prime Minister for receiving them at No. 10. It will surprise nobody that I rarely speak ill of Stanley Baldwin, but failing to receive the original marchers was wrong, so I am pleased that the current Prime Minister received their families. That rights a historic wrong, and I would like to hope that any Prime Minister of any party would have done the same. While it was an inherently political event, what makes the Jarrow march stand out in my eyes is how it avoided being too partisan. All the local political parties—Labour, Conservatives and Liberal—gave their support to the march, as did the town’s churches and business community. On top of that, during the journey down to London, the Jarrow marchers received sustenance and hospitality from local branches of all the main political parties. The Jarrow march was triggered by industrial jobs being lost following the collapse of Palmer’s shipbuilding and iron company and the closure of the shipyard. That is a lesson for today. When we look at the news of the recent 4,000 job losses at Britain’s biggest car manufacturer, the risk of losing our industrial base could not be clearer. Once those industries are gone, it will be incredibly difficult to get them back. This has been a good-natured and well-intentioned debate, so I say the following out of respect. I want the current Government to consider the chemical, automotive, steel and many other factories and plants that are shutting down because of crippling energy policies, £66 billion in tax rises and burdensome red tape, such as the Employment Rights Act. As a result of that, there are 176,000 fewer jobs available now than when the Government took office. Our industries need to be supported and currently many feel they are not. Opposition Members do not want to see communities go through what Jarrow experienced in the 1930s, but I fear that we risk seeing our country deindustrialising before our eyes. As we remember the Jarrow march today, I hope the Minister can set out how the Government plan to create the conditions in which countless businesses across the country can manufacturer competitively in Britain. Cornelius Whalen, who at his 2003 was the last survivor of those who marched the full distance, described the march as “a waste of time”. I respectfully disagree. His family and the families of all the marchers should be proud. History now remembers the march very differently; the Jarrow marchers rightly have an immovable place in our country’s history. Their legacy is far-reaching and will continue to inspire people for years to come. I am proud to be here on behalf of the Opposition to recognise their important contribution to our national story and to hold the Government to account on delivering for British industry and manufacturing.

    Hansard source
40. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Peter Fortune

    Business of the House

    I recently visited the Demelza hospice, which cares for children with life-limiting conditions and supports families across Bromley and elsewhere. It is simply extraordinary. Some 84% of its funding comes from charitable donations and it has been hit particularly hard, as have other hospices, by the Government’s changes to national insurance contributions, which will lead to the loss of specialist nursing provision. May we have a debate in Government time on the taxation and funding of hospices?

    Hansard source