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

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

Sitting MPs
404
Entries, last 7 days
973
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 4 Nov 2026

Conservative and Unionist Party

Sitting MPs
118
Entries, last 7 days
345
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 4 Nov 2026

Liberal Democrats

Sitting MPs
71
Entries, last 7 days
216
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 4 Nov 2026

Reform UK

Sitting MPs
8
Entries, last 7 days
18
Members
270,000 CLAIMED

Latest entry 3 Nov 2026

Scottish National Party

Sitting MPs
8
Entries, last 7 days
10
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 4 Nov 2026

Green Party

Sitting MPs
5
Entries, last 7 days
20
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 4 Nov 2026

Plaid Cymru

Sitting MPs
4
Entries, last 7 days
10
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 4 Nov 2026

All parties, latest first

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

  1. ParliamentConservativeJoy Morrissey

    Black History Month

    I will indeed. I organised the first Somalian community day on the South Acton estate, though we then had to change the name to the wider “South Acton community day”, to be inclusive. That is wonderful, and I congratulate the new mayor. As a fun fact, I used to ride the 207 bus from Acton all the way to Southall and back—for anyone who has not been to Ealing, it is a fun journey. Like the Minister, I started as a councillor. It was a wonderful way of meeting the community and understanding it from the grassroots up. I will never forget that, and I believe it makes us better parliamentarians when we have had that experience on the ground. In 1963, Bristol’s black community, led by young people like Paul Stephenson, refused to accept a bus company’s ban on black workers. Their boycott helped to pave the way for Britain’s first race relations laws. Today, black people continue to play a key role in communities across our country, helping to bring people together. One of the reasons why black history is British history is that our black communities show that we can be an integrated, cohesive and multiracial Britain. We can celebrate the same values and be proud of who we are together. There will be black Britons who play a vital role in all our constituencies, offices and community groups. I pay special tribute to a family in my constituency, Rotimi, Marylene and Naomi Isaiah, for being my right hand in everything in Beaconsfield. I could not do my job without their incredible community support, and I thank them for everything they have done; I am sure that all Members across the Chamber could pay similar tributes. They do so much to support and encourage me personally in my work as a Member of Parliament. I was going to have them here today, but it will have to be next time. Turning to my work on women and equalities, I also want to recognise Nimco Ali, a survivor of female genital mutilation who has done so much to highlight that vital issue, to try to make sure that no other girls experience what she did. This year, the aim of Black History Month is to look beyond famous people and reflect on the contributions of everyday black Britons, but given that this is the first time I have spoken at the Dispatch Box in Black History Month, it feels only right that I should recognise someone famous—just one person, but a genuine role model for black female Britons. In 1987, the very same year that Black History Month began here, a young woman from Paddington walked into the House of Commons as Britain’s first black female MP. Today, she is the Mother of the House. When she arrived, there were only 41 women in the entire Commons. She was told in a hundred ways that she did not belong. She stayed anyway. For nearly four decades, she has represented the people of Hackney, championed black children in London schools and chaired the West Indian and sickle cell disease parliamentary groups. She has faced more abuse than almost any politician of her generation—and she has never stopped turning up. We do not have to share her politics to recognise what her presence meant. For millions of black Britons, especially black girls, she was proof that the doors of power could open and that someone who looked like them could walk through. Black history is not one month; it is being forged every day by people who see themselves first as proud Britons—I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), who I am very proud to have leading my party, for leading the way and opening opportunities for us all. It is British history that they, including those across this House, are writing, and it is a privilege to recognise all of them today.

    Hansard source
  2. ParliamentConservativeJohn Glen

    Fly-tipping

    A constituent got in touch with me last week to point out that farmers are often the ones who are left to deal with fly-tipping, but I note in the Government’s response on Tuesday that insurance is one option that could be available. What progress is the Minister making in talking to insurance companies about making fly-tipping part of a routine farm policy that farmers could take out against this scourge?

    Hansard source
  3. ParliamentConservativeJohn Glen

    Business of the House

    This week in London, the British Argentine Chamber of Commerce is promoting investment opportunities in Argentina, at a time when companies linked to the Falklands Sea Lion project are being pursued by Argentina with sanctions and criminal proceedings. Could we urgently have a statement from the relevant Trade Minister on what the British Government are doing to protect legitimate British businesses operating in the Falkland Islands?

    Hansard source
  4. ParliamentConservativeJohn Cooper

    UK-EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement

    6. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the UK–EU sanitary and phytosanitary agreement on the farming sector.

    Hansard source
  5. ParliamentConservativeJohn Cooper

    UK-EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement

    CropLife UK warns that the heedless rush to align with the EU could cost British farming £810 million. That is £810 million off bottom lines, which are already very marginal. Further, it could also hit production in this country, so we cannot export what we are not even growing. What assessment is the Government making of CropLife UK’s report that says this EU alignment could be dangerous for farming?

    Hansard source
  6. ParliamentConservativeJohn Cooper

    Business of the House

    One of the great sports in this place is who has the best constituency. Well, National Geographic magazine’s verdict is in and the only place in the UK to get a mention in its “Best Places in the World to Travel to in 2027” is Dumfries and Galloway. This news is absolutely delightful. VisitScotland has already picked up on it and promoted it on its website. Can the Leader of the House advise me on how I can get VisitBritain, which is financed from this place, to follow suit?

    Hansard source
  7. ParliamentConservativeJoe Robertson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I will speak briefly about two of the exemptions to requiring someone to make a payment for their asylum support. They have been referred to already; they are in clause 23(6)(a) and (b). Subsection (6)(a) states a person is exempt for the purposes of this section if they “were under 18 at all times at which they received asylum support”. I accept that if someone was a child throughout the entire period they received asylum support, they would be fully exempt, but I think I disagree with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion on an interpretation point. That is the problem with the Bill; it is badly drafted and unclear in places. If someone under the age of 18 was receiving asylum support, then turned 18 and sought it afterwards, they would not be exempt—of course not, because they also received asylum support as an adult—but one would assume that they would not be charged for the portion of time that they had received asylum support while under 18. The Minister needs to clarify that point, but giving clarity in Committee is not sufficient when it is unclear in the legislation. She would do better to clarify it in the legislation. The second exemption I want to briefly refer to, as the shadow Minister has, is subsection (6)(b). It gives an exemption to someone who “started to receive asylum support before the day on which this section comes fully into force”. As a counterpoint to what I just said, I do not understand why, if someone received asylum support for a year—let us say; typically it is a lot longer—and day one was before this section came into force, but day two and 364 of the 365 days were after it came into force, they would be exempt from making contributions for their asylum support. They would receive the vast majority of that support after the legislation comes into force, so I would have thought it a fairly obvious pro rata exercise to say that they do not pay for the portion of time they spent receiving support before the law was in place— I take the point that we do not have retrospective law in this country—but they do thereafter. It makes me wonder whether my understanding of the child-becoming-an-adult element is wrong. The Government need to be clear about whether a pro rata approach is being taken when a child becomes an adult. If so, why is that not being applied when someone starts receiving support before the Bill comes into play and continues to receive support after? I hope the Minister can give us some clarity.

    Hansard source
  8. ParliamentConservativeJoe Robertson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

    It sounds like the Minister is saying that when a child becomes an adult and is still receiving support, they will then be liable to pay for the support they received as a child and it is their choice whether to continue with their asylum application.

    Hansard source
  9. ParliamentConservativeJoe Robertson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I take the point that the scheme should not be applied retrospectively, but let us take the example of student loans: students take out loans on terms that are then changed in the future. If UK students have to deal with that, why should it be any different for asylum provisions?

    Hansard source
  10. ParliamentConservativeJesse Norman

    Business of the House

    Will the Leader of the House give the House the forthcoming business?

    Hansard source
  11. ParliamentConservativeJesse Norman

    Business of the House

    I thank the Leader of the House very much for that business. As the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and others said yesterday, in this week of the 60th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster, let us never forget its victims, including 116 children, and its terrible cost to their families and their community. On a far happier note, the House will shortly come together in celebration of the Clerk on his retirement, but let me pay a personal tribute to Tom now for his unfailing genius, sense of service and courtesy to the House, and the assistance he has given us all as Members over 30 years. As a jobbing trumpeter, coming very much from the opposite end of the quality spectrum, I can testify that Tom is a superb jazz pianist. Like any great jazzer, he has a remarkable ability to improvise under pressure while never losing sight of the underlying material—as in the gig, so at the Table. That is no small achievement with 650 would-be Miles Davises all playing in different keys.

    Hansard source
  12. ParliamentConservativeJesse Norman

    Business of the House

    Some are more in tune than others, Mr Speaker. Among Tom’s heroes is Art Tatum, who was famous for taking a familiar tune and turning it into something almost unrecognisable. Tom has often performed the reverse feat with Members’ legislative amendments: taking something almost unrecognisable and turning it into something more familiar. Mr Speaker, I hope that you and the Leader of the House will forgive another toot from me on my constituency trumpet. This week has seen the publication of a brilliantly positive new report by Policy Exchange on our new engineering university in Hereford, NMITE—the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering. Among other things, the report highlights that, thanks to the university’s accelerated degrees, it offers at least 20% better value for money for students than elsewhere. For local students, it is almost half the cost of an equivalent chartered engineering degree anywhere else. The report goes further—I think this is a matter of general interest to the House—by identifying 57 suitable towns and cities across the UK, including Hartlepool, Grimsby, Barnsley, Burnley and Scunthorpe in the north alone, in which the model could be rolled out across the country. I would be delighted to discuss with colleagues how we could do so with any areas and constituencies that may be interested. I end, if I may, on a more serious note. In May 2024, Lord Walney’s report, “Protecting our Democracy from Coercion”, made more than 40 recommendations to tackle political intimidation and disruptive extremism. More than two years into their term of office, this Government have yet to respond fully; indeed, Ministers abolished Lord Walney’s position last year. When they did so, they promised that his report would continue to shape the Government’s approach to political violence, yet they rejected key recommendations in passing the Crime and Policing Act 2026, including stronger powers to prevent particularly harmful marches. They did that despite very strong appeals from Jewish community groups facing the present rising tide of antisemitism—groups that are still more concerned, be it said, after the Green party’s appalling resolution that Zionism is racism. The threat is clear, and I know that this is an issue of particular concern to you, Mr Speaker, on behalf of all of us. Ninety-six per cent of Members of Parliament responding to the Speaker’s Conference in 2025 reported harassment, intimidation or abuse. It is a matter of public record that, last September, arson destroyed the constituency office of one of our colleagues, and that another and their son received death threats. Peaceful protest is fundamental to democracy, of course, but so is the right of every person to live free from intimidation, and the right of every elected representative and their staff to be able to serve without intimidation, abuse or coercion. Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to publish a full, recommendation-by-recommendation, response to Lord Walney’s report, and will he arrange a debate in Government time on that response so that the House can collectively scrutinise what the Government are doing and propose to do to meet these dreadful threats?

    Hansard source
  13. ParliamentConservativeJames Wild

    Saudi Arabia: RAF Support

    In April last year, the RAF joined the US’s Operation Rough Rider to degrade Houthi ballistic missile and drone attacks. At the time, I asked the then Secretary of State to ensure that that was sustained action, rather than ad hoc action. Does the Minister regret that it was not sustained? If defensive action does not include striking potential launch sites, how will it make any difference at all?

    Hansard source
  14. ParliamentConservativeDame Karen Bradley

    Business of the House

    Mr Speaker, may I join the Leader of the House in his comments about Helen Haines, who is a close personal friend of our mutual friend, Speaker Milton Dick? I am in touch with Milton for progress on her condition, and our thoughts and prayers are with her and her family. Mr Speaker, I know how important it is to you that Ministers are scrutinised properly by this House, so I am sure that you will join in my disappointment at learning that the Home Secretary’s diary office claim that there is not a single moment between now and Christmas when the Home Secretary can come in front of the Home Affairs Committee. If that is the case, then since her appointment in October 2025, she will have appeared only twice in the period up to the end of the year. The Liaison Committee wrote to the Leader of the House about this matter and I know that he has responded to those comments, but will he use his good office to sit down with the Home Secretary’s diary secretary to see whether he can find a space for her to come and see the Home Affairs Committee? We will be very flexible—we can find a time and date that suits her—but we would really like to see her before Christmas, and I hope that the Leader of the House can help us facilitate that.

    Hansard source
  15. ParliamentConservativeCharlie Dewhirst

    UK-EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement

    4. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary agreement on the farming sector.

    Hansard source
  16. ParliamentConservativeCharlie Dewhirst

    UK-EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement

    England has become a world leader in gene editing and precision breeding. That has increased crop yields and eradicated diseases, and it helps to protect domestic, and potentially global, food security. But much of this technology is banned in the European Union, and dynamic alignment will mean that we cannot use it. What representations has the Minister made to the Cabinet Office and to Ministers in negotiations with the European Union to ensure that gene editing and our world-leading technologies are protected?

    Hansard source
  17. ParliamentConservativeCharlie Dewhirst

    Saudi Arabia: RAF Support

    I support the decision to stand alongside our allies in Saudi Arabia, but additional deployment requires sufficient resourcing. Will the Minister confirm that despite the former Secretary of State, now the Chancellor, saying in his resignation letter that the Ministry of Defence needs 3% by 2030, the MOD spokesman’s comments yesterday state that that commitment will not be met by that date?

    Hansard source
  18. ParliamentConservativeCharlie Dewhirst

    Business of the House

    On Saturday afternoon, Bridlington Town FC will take on Curzon Ashton in the FA trophy first round proper—the first time the club has reached that stage of the competition in 22 years. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing Brid all the very best on Saturday afternoon in the FA trophy, and can we have a debate in Government time on the importance of sports clubs and local communities?

    Hansard source
  19. ParliamentConservativeBob Blackman

    Places of Worship Renewal Fund

    8. What assessment the commissioners have made of the adequacy of the places of worship renewal fund in supporting churches in suburban areas.

    Hansard source
  20. ParliamentConservativeBob Blackman

    Saudi Arabia: RAF Support

    The Houthis in Yemen were largely quiet for four years, but Yemen is one of those disastrous areas where humanitarian aid is desperately needed. Now that the Houthis have come out and attacked at the behest of Iran, what action are the Government taking to build a coalition of forces to defeat the Houthis—not contain them but actually defeat them—so that the threat that they pose to the region is minimised or eradicated? The reality is that Iran is ordering their position in order to disrupt the shipping lanes of the world.

    Hansard source
  21. ParliamentConservativeBob Blackman

    Business of the House

    I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business. Clearly, apart from Monday, Backbench business will be coming up in the Chamber only after we come back from the recess. If we are granted time on Thursday 12 November, we will have Select Committee statements from the Health and Social Care Committee and the Defence Committee, followed by a debate on the 110th anniversary of the battle of the Somme, followed by a debate on the Nolan principles, which many people have asked for. In Westminster Hall on Tuesday 27 October, there will be a debate on recognising the production and serving of cask ale as intangible cultural heritage. On Thursday 29 October, there will be a debate on mandatory safeguarded 24/7 helipads at major trauma centres, followed by a debate on the role and effectiveness of Ofcom. On Tuesday 3 November, there will be a debate on the findings of the Milburn review. When we come back after the recess, on Tuesday 10 November, there will be a debate on antisocial behaviour. I remind Members that because the House will be sitting Monday hours on that day, that debate will start at 11.30 am and not 9.30 am as usual. May I gently nudge the Leader of the House? We are still awaiting the extra Labour member of the Backbench Business Committee. One of the Government members is on long-term deployment in our forces, and another colleague had a terrible accident and therefore is on crutches and finds it difficult to get the meetings, so we have challenges making sure we are quorate to consider the business. The situation in Nepal continues to be catastrophic. Often, when there is a disaster such as flooding, everyone says, “We must do something,” and then nothing else happens. I pay tribute to Benji and Nic Gould, two boys aged 11 and nine, who at the HarroWall climbing centre climbed the equivalent of going to Everest base camp and raised £3,500 for charity. I think we should congratulate them—I am sure the Leader of the House will join me in doing so—and also say that we need to continue to our work to assist the great people of Nepal.

    Hansard source
  22. ParliamentConservativeBlake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I will try to be as efficient as I can, given the time. As we have heard, clause 23 gives a new power to the Home Secretary that requires people to pay towards the cost of any asylum support they have received, once they are able to do so. In contrast to the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion—Members will not be surprised to hear this—this does not make me uncomfortable. I reject the notion that it is a refugee tax; I think that is just scaremongering Green campaign nonsense. [Interruption.] I said I was going to be efficient, so I will not take an intervention. Our constituents pay considerable amounts of taxation, and we are spending incredible sums on the asylum support system. It is entirely reasonable, and fair to the British taxpayer, that people who have received support should contribute to that cost. This group contains three amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about how much people should pay, three Government amendments about waivers and insolvency, and amendment 141, which I tabled, about what happens when people do not pay; Members will not be surprised to hear that we will be opposing the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. Together, they give the Minister an opportunity to tell the Committee something that the Bill does not: what the scheme will actually charge and how it will operate.

    Hansard source
  23. ParliamentConservativeBlake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    The hon. Member has proved my point: if you turn up to scrutiny meetings and make your point, sometimes the Government listen. They did so by taking on one of my earlier amendments. Turning up and contributing is helpful.

    Hansard source
  24. ParliamentConservativeBlake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is not a refugee tax. On 18 March 2025, Labour Members voted down that new clause 37. The then Minister told that Committee that it was not sufficiently developed to be put into primary legislation. Interestingly, we heard the same criticism from witnesses about clause 23 of this Bill, and even the Government’s own impact assessment rates the impact of these measures as “uncertain”. I ask the Minister what amount and what income threshold the Government intend to set. The Home Office has spoken of £10,000; will that be a flat rate per adult, and over what period? How will the threshold be set so that the charge does not deter people from taking work or declaring their earnings—a risk that the Government’s own impact assessment identified? Amendment 76 would prevent any payment that would leave a person or household with below 60% of median household income. Clause 23(5) already provides that no one will be required to pay if it would make them “destitute”. Amendment 76 would go far beyond destitution: with a 60% median test, very few people who had been supported by taxpayers would ever pay anything; it would turn into a repayment scheme in name only. Amendment 81 would cut the amount owed by 20% for every 30 days beyond six months that the Home Office took to decide a claim. I understand the point being made—delays cost money and are not the claimant’s fault—but it is the taxpayer who has paid for those months, and the answer to delays is making faster decisions, not giving a discount. What is the current average time to an initial decision, and what is the Government’s target? Amendment 79 would cap repayments at the cost of the support received. I would be surprised if the Government intend anything else. Will the Minister confirm that nobody will be asked to repay more than the support they receive, which is the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion? If so, the amendment is unnecessary. Government amendment 124 will enable repayments to be reduced, waived or refunded, including by giving the Secretary of State discretion. Amendments 125 and 126 deal with insolvency. The supplementary memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee says that the powers will be subject to the negative procedure because they can only benefit individuals. The Opposition will not oppose the measures, but the use of a discretion to waive, exercised on a case by case basis and never reported, is how schemes like this quietly stop working. What criteria will govern waivers? Will the number and value of waivers be published each year? Will a person be able to clear the debt by making themselves bankrupt? The Committee is entitled to know whether the scheme will ever recover meaningful sums. Migration Observatory expects that unless the threshold is set significantly below the minimum wage, the number of people earning enough to reach it will be relatively small. That is set against the enormous cost to the British taxpayer. Around 97,500 asylum seekers receive taxpayer-funded support, costing the taxpayer roughly £4 billion in 2024-25. Simple division of that figure suggests that the costs are close to £40,000 a year per person supported. A £10,000 contribution, if it were ever collected, would recover only a small proportion of the initial cost. During the Committee’s oral evidence session, when my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West asked the Minister what measurable difference the Bill will make, she said: “I do not want to put a specific figure on it.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 72, Q127.] Can she do so now? How many people do the Government expect to pay? How much will be recovered each year, and over what period? How much will it cost to build and run the system? Given that the Government do not have a good history of running systems, can she assure us that the scheme will raise more money than it costs? Amendment 141, tabled in my name, would ensure that where an individual has been required to repay asylum support costs, any unpaid amount can be considered when deciding applications to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, including for settlement. That would give the scheme more weight by providing that the debt will influence settlement decisions until it is paid off. If amendment 141 is not made, the consequence of not paying will depend on earned settlement rules that have not been laid before Parliament. Will the Government support the amendment? The Opposition oppose amendments 81, 76 and 79, but not Government amendments 124 to 126. As I mentioned, the principle of clause 23 was originally in a Conservative proposition, so of course we support it, but our concern is that a repayment scheme with discretionary waivers and no consequences for non-payment will be ineffective. We look for assurance from the Minister on that. I will be pressing amendment 141 to a Division.

    Hansard source
  25. ParliamentConservativeBlake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. This group is about who should be exempt from the duty to repay asylum support and when a debt should be cancelled. Five of the grouped amendments—four in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion and one tabled by the Liberal Democrats in the name of the hon. Member for Wimbledon—would widen the exemptions or write off the debt. The Opposition take the opposite view, unsurprisingly. The exemptions in clause 23 are already too wide, which is why I tabled amendments 139 and 142. Clause 23(6)(b) exempts anyone who “started to receive asylum support before the day on which this section comes fully into force”. That is not an exemption for support received before the law changes; it is an exemption for all the support that a person will ever receive before or after commencement. The Government tell us that about 97,500 people are receiving support and, as the Bill is drafted, every single one of them will be exempt for life. Between now and the commencement date, which the Government have not yet given us—with appeals taking over a year, the first charges under this clause may be many years away—how many people will be exempt under subsection (6)(b)? Why not exempt only the support received before commencement, so that people already in the system contribute to the support they receive once the law has changed? When do the Government intend to bring clause 23 fully into force and levy the first charges? Clause 23(6)(c) will allow the Secretary of State to exempt “any other description” of a person by regulations. The explanatory notes tell us that victims of modern slavery will be exempt. Under clause 50, those regulations will be subject only to the negative procedure. The Government’s reasoning is that exemptions do not disadvantage the people affected. They may not disadvantage the people exempted, but they certainly affect the taxpayer. A series of negative instruments could hollow out the scheme without a debate in the House. Which further categories do the Government intend to exempt, and why do Ministers not think that Parliament should be able to approve those? Amendment 139 would remove subsection (6)(b), which is the exemption for everyone who started to receive support before clause 23 is fully in force. As I said, that will exempt around 97,500 people for life for the support that they receive, as well as anyone who enters support before a commencement date that nobody has given us. The Opposition’s intention is simple: people already in the system should contribute for the support they receive once the scheme is in force. Amendment 142 would make regulations creating further exemptions under subsection (6)(c) subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government say that the negative procedure is enough because exemptions do not disadvantage the people exempted. That may be the case, but it certainly is not the case for the taxpayer, who is burdened with the cost. A series of negative instruments could hollow out the scheme, as I mentioned earlier. Amendments 77 and 50 would exempt anyone who was under 21 or 18, respectively, at any time while they were supported, rather than those who were children throughout. That would mean that someone who arrived at 17 and was supported for years as an adult would pay nothing. We will oppose both those amendments. Amendment 82 would exempt anyone granted leave after a successful appeal. Mr Featonby of the Refugee Council made the point for us. He said that “the majority of people who will ever be in a position to even start to pay back that money are people who are going to go on to get protection.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 32, Q53.] Exempting those who win on appeal would remove a large share of the people who could pay, and would reward the cases that took the longest. Amendment 78 would add exemptions for people over retirement age, recognised victims of trafficking, survivors of sexual or gender-based violence and domestic abuse, and victims of torture, rape or serious violence. Those are sensitive cases, and the Government have said that victims of modern slavery will be exempt. The right way to decide those exemptions is in regulations that the House has seen and approved, not by negative instruments that can hollow out the scheme, as I mentioned earlier. Which categories will the Government exempt, and will draft exemption regulations be provided before Report? Amendment 80, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, would require the Home Secretary to cancel a person’s liability upon death or permanent incapacity, when they reach 65, or 10 years after their support ended. There is a fair question underneath that. Student loans, which are the basis for the model that we proposed, are written off after a set period, but a 10-year write-off that starts when support ends would allow anyone to wait out the debt and simply not pay. The amendment is far too wide, and we will oppose it. Do the Government intend to have any write-off period at all, and if so what? Finally, the Opposition will oppose amendments 77, 50, 78, 82 and 80. The clause already exempts everyone now in the system for life and allows further exemptions by negative instrument. Amendment 139 would close the first gap and amendment 142 would close the second. I will press amendment 139 to a Division.

    Hansard source
  26. ParliamentConservativeBlake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 140, in clause 23, page 22, line 13, at end insert— “(7) This section may not be brought fully into force until the Secretary of State has published and laid before Parliament— (a) a draft of the regulations which the Secretary of State proposes to make under subsection (4), and (b) an estimate, for each of the first five years after this section comes fully into force, of— (i) the number of persons expected to be required to make payments under subsection (3), (ii) the sums expected to be recovered, and (iii) the cost of administering the requirement to make payments and of collecting those payments.” This amendment would require the Government to publish its draft regulations for the asylum support repayment scheme, together with an estimate of how many people will pay, how much will be recovered and what the scheme will cost to run, before the scheme is brought into force.

    Hansard source
  27. ParliamentConservativeBlake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

    Clause 23 gives the Home Secretary a new power to require people who have received asylum support to pay towards its cost once they are able to do so. Clause 24 is the machinery that sits behind it. The Opposition supports both clauses, so my questions are not about whether clause 23 is right in principle; they are about whether, as drafted, it will recover anything at all—and when. Amendment 140 would mean that clause 23 could not be brought fully into force until the Government have published and laid the draft regulations and a five-year estimate of how many people will pay, how much will be recovered and what the scheme will cost to run. That is not an obstacle to the scheme—it is the minimum that Parliament needs in order to judge whether it will work effectively. Will the Minister commit to publishing the draft regulations and those estimates before the clause commences? If she does, I will not press the amendment to a vote. Clause 23(1) applies the scheme to anyone who has received asylum support and is not exempt. Subsection (2) defines asylum support. Subsection (3) is the core power: the Secretary of State “may” require payments. Subsection (4) leaves everything else to regulations. Subsection (5) provides that no one can be required to pay if it would make them destitute. Subsection (6) exempts people who were children throughout, anyone who started receiving support before the clause comes fully into force, and anyone else the Secretary of State specifies in regulations. Clause 24 is the machinery that sits behind clause 23. It sets out how the charge can reflect support given to dependants, allows His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to collect it, allows information to be shared with the Home Office for that purpose, and makes unpaid sums recoverable as a debt. Clause 23 is the principle, which we support; clause 24 is where we assess whether any money will actually be collected. We agree with the principle, but the Government have not provided the detail that we expect. There is no amount detailed in the Bill. There is no threshold. There is no repayment period. There is no collection model. All of that is left to regulations that we are yet to see. If our new clause 37 to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 was not developed enough for primary legislation in March 2025, I invite the Minister to explain what makes clause 23 in this Bill developed enough now. The explanatory notes state that the power applies to those “who have had their case concluded”; but that condition is not in the clause. Can payments be required while a claim or appeal is outstanding from people with savings, for example, and how does that relate to the separate contributions mechanisms announced in November? The Home Office says that the measure will ensure that refused asylum seekers “take responsibility for the financial impact of their presence in this country”, but a refused claimant who remains here unlawfully is not going to be paying through pay-as-you-earn. How much do the Government realistically expect to recover from refused claimants who stay? Why does the definition in clause 23(2) leave out section 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999—initial accommodation, including hotels—so that time spent there appears to be free of charge? Subsection (4) allows regulations to provide for HMRC to collect amounts due. We believe that this is the correct model. It is how student loans are recovered—automatically, through the pay packet, once earnings pass a certain threshold. It is the model the Opposition proposed. However, subsection (4) is only an enabling power; it says that regulations “may” provide for HMRC collection. Under clause 50, those regulations will be subject only to the negative procedure, and the Government describe collection as a more technical and administrative matter. Has HMRC agreed to collect the charge? Will collection be through PAYE by default, as it is for student loans, and from what date will it happen?

    Hansard source
  28. ParliamentConservativeBlake Stephenson

    Local Government Reorganisation

    7. What assessment the Local Government Boundary Commission for England has made of the potential impact of the pause of local government reorganisation on boundary reviews in the areas involved.

    Hansard source
  29. ParliamentConservativeBlake Stephenson

    Local Government Reorganisation

    The Government’s management of local government reorganisation must have cost the taxpayer millions of pounds. Can my right hon. and learned Friend advise, if not on the Floor of the House, in writing, whether there is also a financial cost to the Local Government Boundary Commission?

    Hansard source
  30. ParliamentConservativeAphra Brandreth

    Sustainable Farming Incentive: Application Process

    After 18 months of dither and delay, and cuts to the farming budget, Labour’s shambolic SFI scheme closed within hours, leaving farmers unable to access funding to protect and restore nature. We now know, through freedom of information requests, that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs knew the scheme could collapse within hours, yet the Government pressed ahead regardless. Now, environmental charities, including the Rivers Trust, are warning that that will undermine nature recovery. Does the Secretary of State recognise that by failing the custodians of our countryside, she is failing nature too?

    Hansard source
  31. YouTubeReform

    EXCLUSIVE Interview with Laila Cunningham.

    Reform UK's London mayoral candidate, Laila Cunningham, gives an exclusive interview discussing the state of public safety in the UK, knife crime, violence against women, shoplifting, and antisocial behaviour.

    Watch on YouTube
  32. ParliamentLabourYasmin Qureshi

    Engagements

    The Prime Minister will remember that, in 2013, he met me to discuss the hormone pregnancy test drug Primodos, and he has supported the affected families since. One of them is his own constituent Marie Lyon, who has led this fight for decades. More recently, Marie suffered a heart attack—a stark reminder that time is running out for the families who have already waited a lifetime. Now that he is the Prime Minister, will he meet me and Marie to finally deliver the justice that these families deserve?

    Hansard source
  33. ParliamentLabourWarinder Juss

    E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation

    Many people in my constituency feel frightened and intimidated when just walking on the pavement runs the risk of them colliding with an e-scooter or e-bike. I have raised the matter with the police, but they say they are unable to take action unless the riders are caught riding the vehicle. Does the hon. Member agree that we need greater enforcement powers, clearer national guidance and stronger controls on the sale of illegal e-scooters and e-bikes, so that we can better protect our residents and restore confidence in our neighbourhoods?

    Hansard source
  34. ParliamentLabourTorcuil Crichton

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I welcome the Minister’s announcement and remind others that this is not just a question for the north-east or for Aberdeen South. There are only two postal code areas in the UK that do not have a jobs connection to the North sea, so despite the scant appearance of the Opposition Benches, this affects every constituency. I welcome the £2 billion investment in the transition, because we need those skills, that workforce and that supply chain as stepping stones to the transition to new industries. I caution my hon. Friends to ensure that we are not remembered as the Government who let down the North sea workforce in the way in which the Conservatives let down the coalfield workers. May I ask the Minister to detail, and encourage him to rush through, the tiebacks and the decommissioning that will keep us in the North sea for years to come?

    Hansard source
  35. ParliamentLabourTony Vaughan

    Engagements

    My constituent Joe Bennett, who is in the Public Gallery, has not seen his parents Craig and Lindsay Foreman since January 2025, when they were arrested and detained by Iran, and presented with fake charges of espionage. I thank the Foreign Secretary and his predecessors for their work on this case, but will the Prime Minister consider additional action, including a clear public condemnation of their detention as arbitrary and unlawful in international law, and provide them with diplomatic protection, as we have in other cases, to increase the pressure on Iran to bring Craig and Lindsay home?

    Hansard source
  36. ParliamentLabourTonia Antoniazzi

    Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023: Replacement

    The previous Government’s legacy Act failed to command the confidence of victims, survivors and many veterans. Will the Secretary of State join me in thanking the organisations that represent them that have engaged with my Committee, with Members across this House and with him?

    Hansard source
  37. ParliamentLabourTom Hayes

    Antisemitism in Schools and Colleges

    I pay tribute to Sir David Bell for his review into antisemitism in schools and colleges. Unfortunately, Bournemouth has recently seen antisemitic incidents, and I want my constituents to know that I stand against that every single time, and we must root out that ancient evil in Bournemouth. I also want to ask about what the Government will do to encourage positive engagements with Jewish cultural experiences. The Russell-Cotes gallery and museum in Bournemouth is about to open a new exhibition about Jewish Bournemouth called “waves of change”. My right hon. Friend is of course very welcome to come and visit; equally another Minister from the Department for Education is very welcome to come and see the exhibition. What more would she like to see happen to encourage positive engagement with Jewish cultural experiences?

    Hansard source
  38. ParliamentLabourTerry Jermy

    Support for Farmers

    I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to her place. I am so pleased to see her there, and I know that her rural credentials are strong. As the Member of Parliament for South West Norfolk, one of the most productive farming constituencies in the country, it has been a privilege to spend a significant amount of my time over the past two years meeting farmers, landowners, growers and rural businesses across the area. Farming is not simply another sector in South West Norfolk; it shapes our landscape, supports our local economy, underpins food production, contributes to environmental stewardship and helps to define the very character of our communities. Since being elected, I have made a conscious effort to get out on to farms and to listen, and I firmly believe that good policy starts with understanding the reality on the ground. That means standing in fields and walking farmyards, and hearing directly from the people who deal with the practical challenges and the opportunities facing farming every single day. I welcome that our Farming Minister has been undertaking that engagement, too, and I know that it has been valued by the industry. I have now met more than 100 South West Norfolk farmers, and from those meetings I have been struck by their resilience, dedication and innovation. Agriculture today requires farmers to balance a growing range of responsibilities. Alongside producing high-quality food, businesses manage environmental outcomes, adapt to changing weather patterns, embrace new technologies and respond to market pressures. The scale of that challenge demonstrates the professionalism and adaptability of modern farming, and many are doing that while operating on extremely fine margins. The concerns of a farmer in Weeting will likely differ from those in Nordelph. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for farming, and one clear theme from my visits is how important confidence, clarity and certainty are for farming businesses making long-term decisions.

    Hansard source
  39. ParliamentLabourTerry Jermy

    Support for Farmers

    The vast majority of farms in my constituency are small family farms. It was campaigning from constituency MPs like myself and others that got the changes to that policy so that it now works for the vast majority of those impacted. Over the past decade or so, farmers have been at the sharp end of changing political landscapes, with Brexit and its fundamental change to farming policy being the most profound, because farming is an industry that plans years ahead. Decisions made today on investment, machinery, water infrastructure, environmental delivery and succession have consequences that last decades. Farmers can adapt to change and seize new opportunities when there is a clear direction of travel, but it becomes difficult for businesses to plan with confidence when there is a lack of certainty. In countless conversations, farmers have told me they are desperate for that clarity, consistency and long-term thinking from Government. I hope that the farming roadmap developed under this Labour Government is the start of that approach. One of the biggest issues raised has been around profitability. The fundamental challenge that remains is in ensuring that farming businesses can generate sustainable returns. While discussions often focus on environmental schemes or regulation—this scheme or that scheme—as is the case with the Lib Dem motion before the House, neither environmental ambition nor long-term investment can be achieved if a farm business itself is not financially viable. Farming continues to be treated as a political football. Cosplay Reform Members may have a Barbour jacket and a flat cap, but do they actually have a single farming policy? I note their absence from today’s debate. And what of the Tories, desperate as ever to be the face of rural Britain like it is some divine right, while completely ignoring the demise of farming under their watch? It was their withdrawal from the common agricultural policy that left our farmers exposed with no plan in place. It will be some years before many farmers will forgive that level of betrayal by the Conservatives. Many farmers tell me that despite producing world-class food, margins are often squeezed by factors beyond their control. That limited agency over their destiny feeds into their frustration and the poor mental health of many farmers, which is a real concern. Looking forward, I remain optimistic about the future of British farming. There are many significant challenges, but there are opportunities too. We have some of the most productive farmland to be found anywhere in the world, we have farmers who are innovative, entrepreneurial and committed to producing high-quality food, and we have growing opportunities around technology, precision agriculture, water management and sustainable food production. However, success is not guaranteed. It will require a recognition that food production and environmental improvements are not competing objectives. Done properly, they can and must go hand in hand. To conclude, I have three main asks of the Government. First, with the Budget looming, we must raise the annual investment allowance and consider what I have called the green investment allowance, because incentivising investment in rural areas into things like reservoirs and revamping poultry sheds will deliver greater environmental benefits than many SFI schemes.

    Hansard source
  40. ParliamentLabourTerry Jermy

    Support for Farmers

    I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Government cannot pay for everything, but we can and should create an investment framework that encourages famers. Secondly, we must significantly improve the availability of on-farm water collection and storage through amending planning laws and providing capital grants. Without that, land currently farmed will become unviable, with increasing drought and water scarcity. Thirdly, we must also focus on supply chain fairness, turbocharging a more co-operative model, such as that in New Zealand, using public procurement powers and tackling imports that have lower environmental and animal welfare standards than those that we permit here in the UK. I could go on, but if food security really does mean national security, there needs to be tangible action and we need it now.

    Hansard source