What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I would put that back to the hon. Gentleman and ask whether he thinks that Winston Churchill would have desired the British state to seek to remove people to places where they will face almost certain death, torture and war.
The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the purpose of the clause. We have taken plenty of action on deporting people, and we are pursuing plenty of other provisions. The clause sets out that people who we cannot deport should not have the same rights and entitlements as people who are genuinely fleeing war and persecution and abide by our rules and laws—we are making a very clear distinction. Although I am questioning it now, I am sure that his intent would not be to create a situation whereby this country removes people to places where they face death. I will leave it there in the hope that he will not pursue new clause 61.
I will be generous and give way again, but then we have to move on.
The hon Gentleman’s new clause appears to override those protections and would very likely result in people being removed to places where they face torture, inhuman treatment or even death. That is very clearly the consequence of his new clause, whether he intends it or not.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is what we seek to do. We seek to show leadership, just as Winston Churchill did in Europe after the second world war, by working with our partners—all 46 members of the ECHR. This year, they agreed a declaration to give us a stronger platform to drive change through the courts, improve our outcomes in removals and deportations, and have a shared view of how that can be applied in the modern world.
That Act is the interpretation of these principles in our domestic law, so it is the same outcome. I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate this morning. Clause 22 ensures that our protection system remains fair, and preserves our commitment to providing sanctuary and the benefits of the refugee convention to those who genuinely need them. At the same time, it recognises that those who commit serious crimes should not be entitled to the same benefits and privileges as those who respect our laws. We are rightly obliged not to send them back to face death or torture, but that does not mean that we should give them the package of support and entitlement that other decent law-abiding refugees get. In so doing, the clause delivers a clearer, fairer and more meaningful distinction between those who deserve our protection and those who have fundamentally abused it. Amendment 133 agreed to. Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 23 Power to require payments from recipients of asylum support
I thank Members for their important contributions to this debate on asylum costs and the mechanism the Government are creating to recover some of them. As we heard from my hon. Friends, fairness is at the heart of this debate. We are discussing the concept that individuals who have benefited from the sanctuary and generosity of this country and its taxpayers should contribute towards the support that they received. That is not about punishing anyone; it is about those who have received support having a stake in the success of this country and contributing to the cost of that support, and thereby to the sustainability of giving it to others, once they are financially able. The right to receive support must come with responsibilities. Each year, the taxpayer funds £4 billion of asylum costs. While it is right that we support those fleeing war and persecution, it is also right that those who have received that support make a fair and proportionate contribution when they can. The measures will ensure that they put back into the system that supported them and contribute towards the provision of that support to others, as well as ensuring that others who are paying for that support consent to doing so. We have heard examples of our constituents contributing to many different forms of collective support, including through national insurance, and through tax to fund access to healthcare. Contribution is an important principle of the social contract in this country. For that reason, the Bill introduces a new power, under which asylum seekers will pay back a portion of the cost of their support when they are financially able to do so. It will be possible to recover those costs through tax receipts, benefit payments and/or as a debt to the Home Office. That mirrors the way in which the Department for Work and Pensions deducts from universal credit where people have child support payments due, owe money for hardship payments, or have unpaid bills or tax. Amendments 81, 76 and 79, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, seek to prescribe in the Bill how and when asylum support contributions should be calculated and reduced. The Government cannot accept the amendments because they would be too complex to enable effective delivery of the policy and would move us away from the policy intent of a fair and proportionate contribution towards the costs of support once a person is financially able to pay. Clause 23 establishes an important principle that, where someone has received asylum support at public expense and later has the means to contribute, it is fair that they do so. Of course, any contribution must remain affordable and not push a person into destitution. Clause 23(5) already requires regulations to include provisions to ensure that nobody pays where it would leave them destitute. Further details of this important safeguard will be set out in the regulations that we have committed to sharing during the passage of the Bill.
I have a huge pile of responses to the points the hon. Lady made, and there are some important clarifications I want to make. If I do not answer her questions sufficiently, I will be happy to take an intervention. I want to pick up the hon. Lady’s point about destitution and poverty. I think it is right to set the provision at this level, and I do not think it is appropriate to define poverty in the statute book. Given I have wards in my constituency where as many as 60% of children are growing up in poverty, as per the definition that the hon. Lady set out—I am sure the same is true for the constituencies of other Members present—I am afraid I cannot accept an amendment that says that people in my area can be below that poverty line but asylum seekers cannot. All my constituents have obligations to pay that are contributing to the challenges that they face, and I do not think it is appropriate to safeguard one group and not another, as much as we all have a desire—an absolute commitment—to reduce poverty, particularly child poverty, in this country. The hon. Lady also raised the matter of whether the Bill breaches article 25 of the declaration of human rights. We are absolutely confident that it meets our international obligations, including under the refugee convention. We believe it is compatible with both the letter and the spirit of our international obligations, while maintaining a sustainable system for the future. The convention does not anywhere require states to provide indefinite support, free of charge and irrespective of an individual’s circumstances. What it does require is that people fleeing persecution be given protection and access to support, which we are doing. Asylum seekers receive a comprehensive package of taxpayer-funded accommodation support, which is very different from the state support provided to destitute British nationals. Nothing in the refugee convention prevents us from requiring asylum seekers to make a contribution, when they can, towards the system that they benefit from. Protecting refugees and ensuring fairness to taxpayers are not mutually exclusive—we can and will do both. The hon. Lady also asked how we got to the figure. The figure is an indicative amount. The exact figure will be set out in regulations. I want to reiterate that we have committed to publishing the regulations during the course of the Bill’s passage, and I undertake to do that as soon as possible. I am sure that colleagues will understand that it requires a lot of complex engagement with the Treasury and others. We want to make sure that we have got this absolutely right and that we do not fall foul of the situation Opposition Members found themselves in when they tried to introduce this Bill—the workings out had not been done. The hon. Lady asked why anyone should pay more than the cost of the support they received. This policy is intended to generate a contribution towards the overall cost of asylum support, not to be an itemised recovery of the precise costs incurred by an individual. That would be extremely difficult—nigh on impossible—and it would undermine the ability for us to raise any money through the measure. The flat rate will be calculated by reference to average support costs and the average time spent in asylum accommodation. A flat rate is clearer and more feasible to administer, while payments will remain linked to affordability. The hon. Lady also asked about the Home Secretary’s power to make exemptions. I want to flag that it is very similar to an existing power that the Home Secretary has that is covered by the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015. It is really important to maintain the ability to make exemptions in extreme and unusual circumstances. I want to pick up the point about forcing people into destitution. That will not be the case. Payments will apply only where someone has the means to pay. Safeguards will ensure that no one is pushed into destitution. Payments will be linked to income and affordability thresholds. Deduction rates and exemptions will be designed to protect those without the means to contribute. As I said, further guidance will be set out throughout the course of this Bill’s passage. Could a person be penalised where a payment could cause destitution? No. Clause 23 requires regulations to contain provisions that ensure that a person is not required to pay where doing so would cause destitution, as we have already flagged. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Jade Botterill.)
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I appreciate all the discussion and debate we have had so far today. I will pick up my response to the various Opposition amendments, starting with amendment 141, in the name of His Majesty’s Opposition, which would allow outstanding liabilities to be considered in immigration applications, including for settlement. The Government are already considering the wider approach to settlement, as hon. Members will hopefully have seen from some of the media debate. That is currently undergoing a lot of discussion, so it would not be appropriate to pre-empt that work through this amendment. For those building a life in the UK, paying towards the cost of their asylum support will form part of their wider contribution to society. People with outstanding asylum support debt will be prevented from returning to the UK until that debt is repaid. It is our intention that those who receive support will be expected to make contributions when they are financially able to do so. The detailed operation of the scheme will be set out in secondary legislation. As I have mentioned to hon. Members already today, we have committed to sharing draft regulations during the passage of the Bill, providing them with the opportunity to scrutinise the detail of the policy and how those provisions will operate in practice. That approach ensures appropriate parliamentary oversight, while retaining the flexibility needed to develop the scheme in the light of wider decisions on settlement policy. The draft regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure and will afford a further opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny before they are made. I will take this moment to respond to some of the questions that the hon. Member for Stockton West raised this morning. He asked whether the scheme would raise more money than it costs, which I think is an important challenge. The Government are determined to reduce the cost to the taxpayer. That is part of the principle of this, although the primary objective is fairness and sustainability, with any revenue generated reducing the burden on the public purse. As I have said, details of the scheme are under development and will be published in draft regulations. We will look for as much transparency as possible, not just in the process but in how we can publish data in our regular asylum statistics. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned amendment 124, which is about the powers given to the Home Secretary for exemptions, and the circumstances in which they might be used. The amendment enables regulations to confer a discretion on the Secretary of State to waive, reduce or refund liabilities arising under the asylum support contribution scheme. As I mentioned this morning, that is commensurate with article 8 of the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015, which gives the Secretary of State for the Home Department the same discretionary power to reduce, waive or refund part of that charge. The power will of course be at the discretion of the Secretary of State, and we anticipate that it will be used only in exceptional cases. The hon. Gentleman asked about the amount payable and how the income threshold will be set. Hon. Members have raised the £10,000 figure, which is an indicative estimate of the standard contribution that may be required. The final flat-rate contribution will be set in secondary legislation. As we discussed this morning, it is intended to reflect average asylum support costs across the system, rather than the precise costs incurred in an individual case. That is how the figure was reached. The estimates will depend on the final design and implementation of the scheme, including collection mechanisms. We will continue to assess the expected costs and benefits as the scheme is developed. However, we do not consider it appropriate to make commencement legally dependent on five-year forecasts, which may be subject to considerable uncertainty. I hope I have addressed the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. On Government amendment 124, the policy intention remains that those with the means to contribute towards the cost of the support they previously received should do so. However, there may be circumstances in which it would be fair and proportionate to depart from that general principle. The amendment provides flexibility to respond to such circumstances and supports the fair and effective administration of the scheme. The detailed circumstances will be set out in regulations and will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The amendment therefore complements the wider contribution scheme, while ensuring that it can operate fairly and proportionately in individual cases. Government amendments 125 and 126 are technical amendments that deal with how the requirement to pay back a contribution towards asylum support operates if the recipient becomes bankrupt or enters another form of insolvency process. The amendments enable the Secretary of State to make regulations that set out the effect of a person becoming insolvent on their liability to make payments. They also define when a person is to be treated as insolvent across the jurisdictions of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That will allow the Government to set out in regulations that, where appropriate, liabilities under the scheme are not extinguished by bankruptcy or certain other insolvency processes. In addition, the amendments provide a power for regulations to make consequential provision in relation to insolvency legislation where necessary. The amendments provide the flexibility needed to ensure that the asylum support scheme can operate effectively alongside existing insolvency frameworks across the United Kingdom. They make no changes to the safeguards that will be built into the scheme.
I thank hon. Members across the Committee for tabling the amendments in this group and for the explanations that they have given. The Committee will forgive me if I once again stress that clause 23 establishes an important and fair principle of contribution and reciprocity: where someone has received asylum support at public expense and later has the means to contribute to help to maintain that system and the public consent for that system, it is reasonable that they should do so. That ensures that those who have a right to support still receive it, but that comes with responsibilities and expectations.
Apologies for any misconception. A person will not have to pay for the support they received entirely as a child. I will make sure that I clarify the wording of that for the Committee’s understanding. The Bill also includes a power to establish further exemptions through secondary legislation. That is the appropriate mechanism. It provides flexibility, allows clear definitions aligned with wider frameworks, such as in relation to debt, and enables the approach to be kept under review. The amendments do not establish consistently how eligibility would be evidenced, when liability should cease or how particular circumstances should interact with an individual’s current means. Those details are critical to protect the policy’s aims and mitigate against abuse, so such exemptions should not be in the Bill. In relation to amendment 82, which suggests an exemption for those granted status on appeal, the policy in the Bill seeks a contribution from all recipients of asylum support, regardless of the outcome of their claim. I note the wider areas of interest of hon. Members in terms of those exemptions. We will consider everything discussed and heard in Committee when preparing the secondary legislation to which the Government have committed during the passage of the Bill. I will respond to some of the issues raised in the discussion. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion mentioned targeting those who are destitute. I want to be clear: we are still providing support to those who need it most. The repayment begins only later, when individuals have the means for it. There are clear safeguards, such as income thresholds and exemptions, to protect the most vulnerable. There will also be a grace period after support finishes but before repayment is required to allow individuals time to establish themselves. Far from being punitive, the policy reflects a principle that when someone can contribute, they should. The hon. Member also mentioned exemptions for vulnerable groups. Those exemptions are not in the Bill because that is the wrong place for them, but we will make those regulations. Hon. Members’ contributions and concerns have been heard and will form part of that discussion. For the reasons I have outlined, I respectfully ask hon. Members not to press their amendments. Amendments 139 and 142 concern the scope, enforcement and parliamentary oversight of the asylum support contribution scheme. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire for tabling them, but we cannot accept them. Amendment 139, which aims to allow liability to arise for support received before the scheme is fully commenced, goes against the principle of this legislation. The Government’s approach is deliberately prospective: liability should arise only once the detailed rules, notification arrangements and safeguards are in place. Applying the scheme retrospectively to earlier support would create uncertainty, move the goalposts and not provide people with sufficient clarity about the potential consequences of receiving support.
That example is about changing the level of a loan that has been provided. I do not think we can expect people who may have fled war and persecution to come to this country on one understanding, only to have that changed while they are here. This is an entirely new system; it is not about changing the level of a loan or a return. It is important that we do it only going forward; trying to apply it retrospectively would be open to an extreme amount of legal challenge. Amendment 142 would require any regulations that specify further exemptions under clause 23 to be subject to the affirmative procedure. We will reject the amendment, but again, with an emphasis on consensus, I say that I firmly believe in the principle of parliamentary debate and discussion, particularly on important regulations such as these. Although we are rejecting the amendment, I undertake to review the matter during the passage of the Bill, because such important exemptions need appropriate scrutiny, and these regulations will need the full scrutiny of Parliament. As I say, I am open-minded about considering that as the Bill progresses. As we have already committed, the detailed scheme will be published in secondary legislation during the passage of the Bill, so I hope that will give hon. Members plenty to engage with during the process. Question put, That the amendment be made.
I thank hon. Members for their amendments in this group, as well as for the discussion and interest they have shown in this provision, which we have debated at length today. Clause 23 enables the Secretary of State to require those who have received asylum support and accommodation, known as section 4 and section 95 support, to pay a contribution towards those costs. The clause contains an important safeguard: it requires the regulations to ensure that individuals are not required to pay when doing so would cause them to become destitute. That means that people will not be required to pay if it meant they could not meet their essential living needs or if it would place them at risk of homelessness. The clause exempts children. Other exemptions will be set out in secondary legislation to ensure safeguards, thus protecting vulnerable groups. I look forward to working further with Members on that throughout the course of the Bill. Details of how the charge will be applied and how the system will operate will be set out in regulations and the Home Secretary has committed to sharing a draft of those regulations with Parliament. The Bill is built on a balance of rights and responsibilities. This reform protects support for those who need it most, while reinforcing the principle that support should come with an expectation of contribution when that is affordable. When confidence in the asylum system is low, and with asylum support costing the taxpayer around £4 billion, it is right to take steps to reduce costs and ensure that those who can make a proportionate contribution do so. This policy achieves that. The measure is not a tax on asylum seekers or refugees. It does not affect a person’s right to claim asylum nor their entitlement to receive support when it is needed. The clause reflects the broader principle that, alongside the rights and protections afforded to those seeking asylum, there are responsibilities that our constituents would expect one another to undertake: to contribute towards public costs where it is fair and reasonable to do so. This aids integration, helping to foster a shared sense of fairness, responsibility and belonging. It says to our constituents who contribute for their entitlement that no one should be entitled to a free pass. Building on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, the measure is also about asking people to contribute for those who come after them. My hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland mentioned the desire that he heard expressed by asylum seekers coming to this country that they want to pay and contribute. Many of them will want to enable the system to continue, so that other people fleeing war and persecution can benefit. Clause 24 enables asylum support repayments to be recovered through the tax system. It provides a power for regulations to make provision for HMRC to collect repayments on behalf of the Secretary of State from individuals who are liable under clause 23. The clause also creates the statutory framework for information sharing between HMRC and the Home Office where that is necessary for the administration and collection of repayments. Hon. Members asked whether HMRC will be responsible for collecting payments. We are ensuring a range of repayment mechanisms, including options that could make use of the tax system. Decisions on the final repayment model will be taken in due course, informed by our discussions. We will continue to work across Government to identify the most effective and proportionate response. The powers we are introducing will help ensure that, should the Government decide to use the tax system as a collection mechanism, repayments can be administered effectively and efficiently. The clause therefore provides the legislative framework necessary to support recovery of asylum support costs through the tax system. I listened carefully to the points made by hon. Members and their detailed questions on the set-up of the scheme, its processes and the collection mechanisms. The Home Secretary has committed that information on those factors will be published during the process of the Bill. I undertake to ensure that hon. Members continue to get more information as the drafts are published. Moving on to the amendments in this group, amendment 140 and new clause 62 concern transparency and reporting on the asylum support contribution system. The Government recognise the importance of scrutiny, but we cannot accept these provisions. On amendment 140, the Government have already committed to sharing draft regulations during the Bill’s passage, allowing Parliament to discuss the detailed operation of the scheme. Building on the conversation we had on the previous group, I will review whether exemptions will be subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. I hope hon. Members will take that commitment. The amendment would also make commencement of the scheme conditional on publishing five-year estimates of the number of people liable, sums recovered and administrative costs. Those will depend on the final design and operation of the scheme, and may be subject to considerable uncertainty. For example, the numbers of asylum claims in this country are coming down, so five-year estimates would not necessarily give us any degree of certainty. We will provide relevant analysis through the impact assessment, and are committed to providing data to support transparency on the effectiveness of the scheme as implemented. However, we do not consider it appropriate to make commencement dependent on such five-year forecasts. Likewise, we do not think that a separate reporting scheme on liabilities, recoveries, write-offs, exemptions and administrative costs, as set out in new clause 62, should be prescribed in primary legislation. We will explore what appropriate information on the operation of the scheme can be incorporated into Government asylum statistics and reporting once the scheme is operational. To conclude, the Government are committed to ensuring that the scheme is transparent and deliverable, and provides value for money.
I moved to my conclusion too quickly; forgive me, Mr Twigg. I still have a number of points to respond to—I thought we were getting an early escape. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and one that I wanted to cover, regarding asylum support. Section 98 support is temporary emergency accommodation, which is not within the scope of clause 23. Section 98 is the immediate emergency support, and asylum seekers then apply for section 95 support, which is what the clause addresses. He asks why that is not included, and I take his point. We are trying to move away from the kind of expensive and unsustainable emergency support that we saw explode under his party’s Administration. We have already saved more than £1 billion by closing hotels, so that will not be part of this measure. The asylum support that people apply for is what is covered by the clause. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire asked about repayment thresholds. As I said, the Bill establishes the principle and the key framework for the recovery of asylum costs; the detailed operation, including thresholds, will be set out in secondary legislation. That is a common and proportionate approach to drafting such legislation, for which operational detail may be adjusted over time. The policy intent is that repayment will begin only once an individual reaches a defined threshold for repayment, and that deductions will be set at a manageable rate, so that recovery remains proportionate and does not cause hardship or destitution. Any regulations will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and there will be clear safeguards. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion asked whether we expected to raise any money. The answer is yes. As I have mentioned, the asylum system represents a significant cost to the taxpayer of about £4 billion. The Government are determined to bring those costs down. The policy of recouping asylum support is a world first. It is about ensuring that those who benefit from this specific, targeted form of support contribute towards its cost, when they can. Our objective is fairness to everyone in this country, as well as sustainability, with any revenue generated reducing the burden on the public purse. It is about not just recovering costs, but contribution. Costs will be recouped over time from individuals who have moved into employment or otherwise have the means to contribute.
I was going to mention work and study, but I will come back to that.
The hon. Lady makes an important point, but I do not see that the implications will fall on local authorities. As I said, in the course of publishing regulations as a result of the passage of the Bill, we will explore the mechanisms for bringing the money in and for where it will go in the Exchequer. However, at this point I do not want to commit to any undertakings to local authorities. The measure is about ensuring that people contribute and pay their fair share. The hon. Lady mentioned work—we share that commitment. We all want to see those who have come here fleeing persecution move as quickly as possible into work and into contributing to this country. That is why our new work and study routes will allow people to get off core protection, off dependency and as quickly as possible into the work and study routes that we will provide and encourage asylum seekers to use.
The hon. Gentleman’s first point is not correct. We ask immigrants to pay a number of other things, including the health surcharge. Asylum seekers have the opportunity to contribute not just through taxes, but by making a significant contribution to these substantial costs. There are very few benefits that our constituents get and would not be expected to pay back in some form.
I think the hon. Gentleman completely misses the point about the principle of fairness. I invite him to come and talk to some of my constituents, who might feel differently from his. Some of them feel extremely aggrieved that a huge number of people create this £4 billion burden on the taxpayer. I invite Members to think about what we could do with that money. Of course, we want to fulfil our obligations to those who come here fleeing war and persecution, but we are giving them quite substantial support, and I do not think it unacceptable or inappropriate to ask them to contribute towards those costs when they are integrated, in work and earning enough to do so. The Government are committed to ensuring that the scheme is transparent and deliverable, and provides value for money. As we have discussed, this debate is, at its heart, about fairness. What we are discussing here is the concept of individuals who have benefited from the sanctuary and generosity of this country and its taxpayers making a contribution to the support that they have received. This is not about punishing anyone; it is about those who received support having a stake in this country’s success, and contributing to those costs—and thereby to the sustainability of that support for others—when they are financially able to do so. The right to receive support must come with responsibilities. It is right that we provide support to those fleeing war and persecution, and that those who receive our support make a fair and proportionate contribution when they can, putting back into the system that supported them, contributing themselves to such support for those who come after them, and ensuring that the consent of the British public, who pay for that support, remains. Our constituents would expect nothing less. I therefore invite the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire to withdraw his amendment, and I commend clauses 23 and 24 to the Committee. Question put, That the amendment be made.
This weekend, the clocks go back, and overnight we will be plunged once again into darker and gloomier evenings, but there is another way: we could embrace our wartime predecessors. Winston Churchill set up a system whereby we had lighter evenings all year round. It would cut energy usage, and so cut bills, and would boost the tourism and hospitality sector. Would the Leader of the House consider granting a debate, in Government time, on a proposal that I think would really bring hope into every heart?
7. What steps she is taking to help tackle fly-tipping.
Trafalgar Square—not the one down the road, but the much smaller one back home in Erewash—is a private road with a persistent fly-tipping problem. There are signs up that ask people to stop doing it. I have reported it loads of times to the council, and so do local people all the time, but if the piles of bulky waste in the area get cleared, they come back almost immediately, so today I am escalating this. Could the Minister elaborate on how the Government are working to get a grip on fly-tipping, particularly in hotspots like Trafalgar Square in Long Eaton?
I am enjoying listening to the hon. Lady. I do not agree with everything she has said, but I will touch on that if I catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will the hon. Lady extend her tribute to the current Lord Mayor of Bristol to my noble Friend Lord Rees of Easton in the other place, who has set an amazing example as a black leader in local government?
I congratulate the Minister on persevering through her speech; she was croaky in voice but stood tall at the Dispatch Box, and we are all proud of her. I am grateful that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), is still here, as she is always the very example of courtesy to me. We enjoyed the festive tune earlier, but I think she ought to choose “God Rest Ye Merry, Gentleman” for her alarm, as there is talk of comfort and joy in that song. I also thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for her contribution. We have heard excellent speeches from colleagues across the House. I do not really like germs, and there has been lots of coughing and sniffing in this debate. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) needs some form of medication. I wish all colleagues who have the sniffles a speedy recovery. I hope I do not upset some Members who are not here by pointing out that I am English. I am a rare breed, in that I am a black British man, born and raised in England with English roots, and I am a Member of this House. I have said this before, and I will say it again: each and every person who lives, learns and works in our United Kingdom—each and every person who moved here to work in our national health service, on our railways, in our schools and on our building sites—deserves to have their issues, concerns and needs heard, listened to and celebrated. I am proud to be English, proud to be British, a proud son of a Zimbabwean-born Dad and the proud grandson of a Jamaican who came to our country in the 1940s to help us win world war two, as many other black and Asian men did. Indeed, many came to help in both great wars and have done so in the years since. I am proud to be a black British Member of Parliament, born and raised in England with a constituency in the county of Staffordshire, which has been home to my family for approaching a century. As the House knows, I am the first black man to represent a seat anywhere in the west midlands in this House. I do not say that because I am obsessed with myself, I promise—
I say that because I do not want anyone else to have to say it. I will happily give way to my hon. Friend. [Laughter.]
My hon. Friend should be careful what he wishes for, because he will be caught out if he is not careful! I want it to be normal—to be a given—and for it to happen right across this island home of ours that someone like me can serve in this House. We all know that black history is British history, and that is certainly true in the context of our United Kingdom. That should not be a controversial or difficult thing to say, so I will say it again: black history is British history. I am tired of people who should know better—some who sit in this House—who appear determined to tear our communities apart; people obsessed with division rather than unity; people who profess an empty and meaningless care for and commitment to this country. It is not British to walk by on the other side, and those political leaders who seek to tell us otherwise should know better. Let me also say to some in this House, although I note they are not in the Chamber, “If you have an identity crisis and do not know who you are, if you are unsure how to be comfortable in your own skin, I am really sorry for you, but please do not project your insecurities on to the rest of us. Do not infect our national life with your complete and utter rubbish.” I am proud of who I am and where I am from; I was blessed to be born into a family who made sure that me and my siblings felt that. I am proud of my white English grandmother who had some Irish in her too, of my Jamaican grandfather who made this country his home, of my dad’s parents born in Southern Rhodesia when it was run by this Parliament: I am proud of my Englishness, my African routes and my Caribbean heritage. Nobody—and I mean nobody—is going to make me feel otherwise, tell me otherwise, or make me question that. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] As we approach Armistice Day and Remembrance Sunday in a couple of weeks’ time, when our United Kingdom comes together to reflect and acknowledge the sacrifices of all the men and boys who went to war—and all the women who kept the show on the road at home—nobody in the Chamber today, in any political party, in any community in our country or in any corner of this land should ever forget that we would never have beaten the fascists on the beaches of Normandy or at Gallipoli without the bravery and valour of young men—black, white and Asian. Their bravery won the day. For many of those who returned from the frontline, our United Kingdom became their home. Those black men and women rolled up their sleeves, put their shoulders to the wheel and helped rebuild a nation ravaged by war. As I have acknowledged before, with their skills and smarts, homes were built, our buses were back on the road, railways worked once again—though I say as someone who has to get the Avanti train back to North Staffordshire every Thursday that we could do with more of their railway working today. Our national health service was established, and as a husband to a nurse, that is particularly important to me. Restaurants opened and sold food with spice, seasoning and everything nice; fabric shops and tailors ensured that our country had some of the best dressed people on the world stage, and our United Kingdom bounced back. So much more happened, and we as a country would and could not have done it without the sacrifices and contribution of the black British community. And you know what, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is okay for us to say that. I have said this before to the House, and I will say it again: that does not take away from white people, Asian people or those of mixed heritage. We all have a contribution to make, and we all deserve to have that contribution acknowledged and celebrated. It is that blend, that connection and that understanding that we must use Black History Month this year and every year to hold on to. For me, this is as much about class as it is about race. The black families I represent in Chesterton, Silverdale or Madeley in Newcastle-under-Lyme who moved there to build a life and raise their families have not had the same experiences as people like Kwasi Kwarteng, for example. Those families live in exactly the same economic situations as their white neighbours. We have a wider challenge before us: how do we build an economy that works for all of our people? How do we uplift, enrich and empower all of our people? While I absolutely believe that the contribution made by the black British community must be acknowledged every single day of the year, I welcome the focus that Black History Month provides for all of us to celebrate, enjoy and recognise that. As we celebrate Black History Month, I like to reflect on the promise of our country—to think that my grandfather arrived here on a boat during the war, and here I am today. My grandfather came to this country before Windrush. Everyone who has spoken in this debate has, quite rightly, mentioned Windrush. I do not say this to them, but I say generally that there were black people in this country before 1948. The experiences of my grandfather and the men who came with him on that boat in 1941 made it ever so slightly easier for those who came after them, and it is important that we remember those people, too. My standing here today would not happen in many other parts of the world, but it happened in this, our United Kingdom, and we should never forget that. I am proud of my race, but it does not define me. It inspires me every single day. It has opened doors for me; regrettably, I suspect it has closed a few, too. It allows me to show those who come after me that anything is possible. My hon. Friend the Minister touched on online racism and the fact that some seek to normalise it, as did the hon. Member for Chichester when talking about our friend, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). I have never been so conscious of the colour of my skin as I have been when calling out the racists throwing abuse towards the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), and the hon. Members for Eastbourne and for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty). While listening to colleagues, I have been looking through the responses on Twitter to when I called out that racism, and I want to share a couple with the House. I was called “another foreigner” in British politics. I was born here. Boris Johnson, another former Prime Minister, was born in the United States, but I do not think he is called a foreigner. What does that tell us? Another called me a “parasite”. My favourite was being told that “with a surname like that, you cannot be English.” It is a real shame that there are some in our country who have so little going on in their lives that they have the time to talk such garbage. As my near-ish neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) pointed out earlier, no one is born racist. But it is important that I give this snapshot of what happens when someone who looks like me in this House calls out that racism. Racism is not just online; it happens on our streets, too. Look at what we saw earlier this year in Northern Ireland—a place I know well, as my wife is from there and we spend as much time there as we can. The streets of this country saw black and Asian people chased out of their homes and hospital workers hiding in the boots of their white neighbours’ cars because they were scared they would not get home. [Interruption.] In 2026, that is an utter disgrace. It is not who we are, and it must never be who we become. [Interruption.] This is quite good going for me—I did actually cry when I gave my speech at my wedding, so this is an improvement. I spoke for 28 minutes when I got married, though, so I will have to see how tolerant you will be of me this afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker. Over the past decade, I have had the honour of attending Black History Month events at local schools, churches and community hubs. I have listened to children speak of their lived experiences, good and bad, and heard pensioners recall the stories of their ancestors. The overwhelming feeling I come away with every year at the end of this month is how proud we should all be of the black British contribution made to our communities. There has been talk of reparations in this debate and in recent weeks, ahead of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Antigua. I am the descendant of slaves, and I want to share my view. I say this, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, as someone who is very proud of and aware of who he is, where he is from and what he is on earth to do. Who do we pay? What value do we put on the lives of those disgracefully, immorally and forcibly removed from their homes? Where does it stop? I know where I think it can start: with a British Government who take the Commonwealth seriously and who stop lumping together the Africa and development briefs in the Foreign Office. We have to stop looking at our relationship with Africa through the prism of making ourselves feel better with a development policy approach—there is more to Africa and our relationship with Africa than just development. It starts by ensuring that we reflect on the legacy of the British empire and our collective and complicated history and by properly and effectively trading with the Caribbean and Africa—as much as I love Canada, Australia and New Zealand, we must do more and go further. We should be establishing genuine and real links between our leaders, and I hope that my more senior colleagues in government will lead by example. I want to see more ministerial visits to the former colonies—I say this word consciously—because it is on those visits that we can show our equal partners the respect that they deserve. That would go so much further in acknowledging the contribution that our forefathers made and that the black community is making today, and it would show that this Government get it. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) became Prime Minister, I was asked to become Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Education. I was told that that, on paper, is the first step on the ministerial ladder—in reality, on occasion it feels a little different. But it is an important role, because through it, I am determined to ensure that everyone who needs the skills to succeed is able to get them, that everyone who wants to seize the opportunities before them is able to do so, and that we give our young people—all our young people—the tools to succeed and thrive. I said in my maiden speech that my becoming a parliamentarian “was not inevitable, but it was possible.”—[Official Report, 29 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1122.] The fact that I am a parliamentarian tells me how far the black community has come—from my grandfather getting off the boat in a cold Liverpool in 1941 to me this morning, late, getting off the tube at Westminster station and taking my seat on these green Benches. The fact that I am in Parliament reminds us of what we need to do to lift everybody up, and is a reminder of the age-old value that I have repeated on many occasions: anything can be possible in this United Kingdom of ours. We all know that the black community has made an unbelievable contribution to the life and soul of this country, from music and the arts to film and sports—and, yes, to food, although the hon. Member for Beaconsfield mentioned the House of Commons jerk chicken earlier, and let me tell her: that is not jerk chicken. There are a couple of places we can go if she wants to taste some. Having said that, my white English grandmother was born and raised in a white working-class family in Birkenhead in the 1920s, but after having been with my grandfather for half a century, her rice and peas was second to none. I just wish she had passed that down to all of her 10 daughters—
No, no—we will talk about that later. [Laughter.] Some things are complicated. Under this Prime Minister, there is a renewed determination and focus to bring our country together, to tackle injustice wherever we find it, and not to let the haters win. Let us get on with it.
My hon. Friend and I have known each other for a long time, but I think this is the first time I have intervened on her—this is quite something, thinking back to when we first met. She makes a really important point about engagement with the Mayor of London and the Government. May I, through her, encourage local authorities up and down our United Kingdom to engage? I think of the Staffordshire Black Business Network in my community, which can play a really important role in helping ensure that we acknowledge that 40th anniversary in as effective a way as we can.
The shadow Minister is making a thoughtful and appropriate speech, and I thank her for it. I thank her specifically for mentioning Victor’s story. It is one that gives voice to many of the points that have been raised on the Government Benches, and that some on the Opposition Benches could learn from.
On the subject of meetings, a second ago the Minister described my constituency as Newcastle upon Tyne—we are Newcastle-under-Lyme. To make up for it, will she come and meet the Staffordshire Black Business Network, which I feel sure would like to see her?
I hear the Minister saying that the decision had no impact, but in a written response to a question from a colleague recently, the Minister failed to clarify whether an impact assessment had been carried out. Will he confirm whether such an impact assessment was carried out and its impact on the Scotch whisky industry?
May I, on behalf of all SNP MPs past and present who have had the tremendous good fortune to work under the guidance and tutelage of Tom as Clerk of the House, express our gratitude and support for the motion? We have been guided by Tom since 2021, when he became Principal Clerk in the Table Office, where he advised us on Opposition day topics, Brexit and the upcoming 2021 Scottish general election. In fact, certain Members of this House took issue with our use of the term “Scottish general election”, but thanks to Tom’s even-handed approach, we were able to retain those words in our motion at that time. Since he became Clerk of the House, Tom has assisted us over the years with matters of sub judice, Committee compositions, questions of order and manifold conventions within this place. Indeed, Tom’s support was so instructive, so comprehensive and so helpful to the SNP that I had no option but to conclude that he, too, must be a freedom fighter committed to the cause of Scottish independence. Accordingly, I scoured the SNP membership list to check for his entry—alas, his name appeared not. That leads me to conclude that he does not, in fact, hold the SNP in a special place within his professional courtesy and boundless knowledge. He is, rather, a committed and consummate professional who allows all Members and all parties in this place to benefit from his patient and even-handed wisdom, without fear or favour. I thank him for that, and the SNP wishes him all health and happiness in his future.
Southwell Minster, the cathedral of the diocese of Nottingham, is, in the words of the dean, facing the greatest financial crisis in its history, due to an enormous backlog of repairs. The dean and chapter are in touch with the Church Commissioners seeking an emergency financial support package, or else there is a very real prospect that the doors of the cathedral will have to close next year, which would obviously be a terrible step for all of us who love the building and see it as the centre of worship for our county. If the Leader of the House were able to put some gentle pressure on the Church Commissioners to help us, that would be very much appreciated.
We desperately need to reduce rainwater run-off into our sewage system to prevent storm overflows. In Bath, Wessex Water runs community water butt schemes and flood mitigation pilots, which prevent rainwater run-off from entering our sewers, ensuring they are not overwhelmed. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that more customers and householders can have access to water butts?
A constituent of mine withdrew from a police investigation into historical sexual abuse because of fear of disclosing their identity. That was logged as “outcome 16”. Last year, Avon and Somerset police recorded nearly 39,000 cases of outcome 16, but we do not know the reasons why there was a withdrawal because the data is not held centrally. Is it not time that we debated how to improve the recording of outcome 16, to better understand why victims withdraw and help victims, like my constituent, get justice?
A Gazan student who is currently displaced in Egypt has been offered a place to study at the University of St Andrews and, following her acceptance, has been granted funding from several foundations. However, the Home Office has declined her student visa application on the basis that it does not believe that she is a genuine student. That effectively means that her place is lost, because the appeal process will take in excess of 12 months. We need an explanation for why the criteria for student visas seems to have changed without anybody being informed. What are the Government doing to remove the backlog in administrative reviews? Will the Leader of the House raise this case with the Home Secretary?
I am very grateful to both the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) for allowing me the opportunity to contribute to this debate, and I am glad that we have a little bit of time for me to do so. I have to admit that I have interpreted the title of the debate, “NHS Maternity Services”, a little broadly, but I represent a rural constituency in Scotland, and I recognise many of the things that my hon. Friend has referred to in his speech, as well as the contributions of other right hon. and hon. Members. My hon. Friend has demonstrated not only a real understanding of the acute needs in his constituency, but a broader understanding of the challenges that maternity services face. That is why the issues he has described are replicated in many parts of the UK, including Scotland. In the UK, a baby is born roughly every 50 seconds. Given that, we might expect maternity services to be among the best-resourced and best-supported parts of our NHS, but we know, as we heard this afternoon, that this is not the reality. In Scotland, nine in 10 midwives report chronic staff shortages, and nearly three quarters of maternity units are not staffed at levels that are considered safe. In rural areas such as mine in North East Fife, those pressures can be even more acute. Despite the extraordinary dedication of our midwives, nurses and support staff, an overstretched system too often leaves women and families without the care and support they deserve. In the limited time I have, I want briefly to share the stories of two of my constituents. The first is Kristie Haldane, who has shown immense courage in speaking publicly about her experiences so that others do not have to suffer in silence. She experienced both an incomplete abortion and a traumatic miscarriage. On both occasions she received treatment that, for a variety of reasons, fell far below the standard anyone should expect. It is important for us to remember that this is not just about the experience itself, but the impact it has on people’s mental health, as it has on Kristie’s. It has impacted her employment and her confidence. Following her experiences, she lost her job and experienced homelessness, and struggled to access the support she desperately required. What struck me was not only the grief that Kristie endured, but the loneliness and isolation that accompanied it. After her miscarriage, she was discharged from hospital and feels that she, her partner and her wider family received little support. At the moment when compassion and care were needed most, she felt abandoned by our system. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the patient experience team at NHS Fife. As constituency MPs, we all support constituents when they are making complaints, and the reconciliation process that Kristie has gone through—with my support and that of my team —has helped in some ways to understand what happened, but also to ensure that we learn lessons. Turning to my second point, we talk about maternity care in the context of pregnancy and birth, but we know that there are key challenges in reproductive health more broadly. I have another constituent whose experience highlights the importance of informed patient safety. Tammy Payne was prescribed the contraceptive injection Depo-Provera more than a decade ago, but was not warned about the potentially increased risk of developing meningiomas, a type of brain tumour. After experiencing persistent double vision, she was diagnosed with multiple meningiomas and subsequently underwent surgery to relieve pressure on her optic nerve. When one of the tumours returned, she required a craniotomy, a major operation involving the temporary removal of part of the skull to access the brain. She has been left without the use of one eye, and feels betrayed by a system that was supposed to inform, protect and support her. I place on record my admiration for both Kristie and Tammy, because it takes enormous courage to relive those kinds of deeply traumatic experiences in public. I hope the Minister will engage with me, particularly on Tammy’s case, to discuss Depo-Provera and the risks it poses more widely. The truth is that neither of those women should have gone through what they did, which is one of the reasons why my party has long called for an independent maternity commissioner for England. We welcome the Government’s commitment to establish one. In Scotland there has been constant, long-term campaigning by the Caithness Health Action Team, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and the new MSP for Caithness, David Green, for the SNP Government to finally provide better maternity services in the far north of Scotland. We welcome Professor McCourt’s independent review, which has a focus on the far north and will look at maternity services in Scotland. That will take into account the unannounced inspections of all 18 acute maternity units in Scotland that are currently being carried out. That is really important, but I think it demonstrates that we have much more to do across the UK to provide reproductive health support and maternity support. Women deserve better, families deserve better, and our maternity services deserve the resources that they need to deliver better care.
Last year, there were 392,000 sewage spills across our country, 4,000 of which happened in the precious waters of Cumbria’s lakes and dales, and meanwhile companies rewarded their shareholders for that failure with increased dividends of £845 million. Isn’t it time instead to put failing water companies into administration? In the forthcoming water Bill—it would be good if the Minister could tell us when we might expect it—will the Minister bring forward a plan to create a new watchdog, with teeth, and transform our water companies into being mutually owned, so that money stops leaking out of the system and instead funds a clean-up of our waterways and water industry?
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for the debate. Exactly the same thing happened to me: I have had my nine-year sabbatical and we were talking about this for five years before I left. I pay tribute to the late Michael Oliver, who lived in my constituency. He is one of the 1,500 people who were affected by this absolute scandal. I am disappointed to find that I am back here, 16 years later, running through the same flipping arguments. Does my hon. Friend agree?
The Church’s lead safeguarding bishop has said that mandatory reporting should take precedence over confidences passed under the seal of confession, which is to be lauded. Confession is not a regulated activity, as defined under the Crime and Policing Act 2026, so does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Bishop of Tewkesbury when he says: “the responsibility is firmly in our court”? Can the right hon. Gentleman set out what steps the Church will take to ensure that that happens?
We are constantly reminded of the importance of plans and planning, so what specific political and diplomatic conditions would need to be met for the Government to withdraw this defensive support, and how will Parliament be kept informed on progress?