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

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

1. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Dr Murrison. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate on the clause and amendments in this grouping. Before moving on to the amendments, I will give some background on what the clause will do. The balance between an individual’s family rights and the public interest in maintaining an effective and controlled immigration system has shifted, and it needs to be reset. Without greater clarity from Parliament on how that balance should be struck, the domestic interpretation of article 8 has expanded beyond what our international obligations require, resulting in inconsistent decision making and high volumes of article 8 grants to people who cannot meet the rules to come or to stay in the UK. More than half of those who stayed in the UK for family reasons last year did not meet our criteria to be able to stay here, instead relying on their article 8 rights. That undermines public confidence in the immigration system and the rules-based international order. It also comes at a significant cost to the UK taxpayer. As has already been mentioned, the average net lifetime fiscal cost for each first-time grant is £141,000, equating to approximately £4.9 billion for those granted on the basis of article 8 in 2025 alone. Colleagues have asked about the evidence base behind those figures, so I will give a bit more information about it. We undertook a deep dive cohort analysis to examine a representative sample of 3,252 article 8-related applications, in order to support the policy development of these measures in the Bill. Further details are in the impact assessment. I am afraid that the unpublished internal sample that was referred to will not be made available due to the personal data sensitivities involved, but we will obviously keep under review any further analysis that we would be keen to share with the Committee throughout the course of the Bill, for example other statistics that have been mentioned. This trend has been driven by high volumes of people who have arrived illegally or overstayed in the UK, at 71% of first-time grants, or by people who are unemployed and are making a minimal economic contribution—76% of first-time grants. It is clear that the system is not functioning fairly and effectively. That is why the British public feel exasperated that such exemptions are being abused to enable people to circumvent the system. Clause 19 will help to restore a fairer balance between an individual’s right to family life and the public interest in maintaining an effective and controlled immigration system. It will provide a clearer statutory framework that places greater emphasis on compliance and contribution, resulting in more consistent and robust outcomes. These reforms will realign UK legislation with Strasbourg, ensuring that our domestic approach to article 8 is within and, crucially, not beyond our international obligations, as it is now.

   Hansard source
2. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

   My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. That is why the drafting of clause 19 has been very clear and specific, which I will say more about later. It is important that we comply with our international obligations. We have a proud history of doing so—we helped to devise, draft and create these obligations—but we also have a history of overinterpreting them. It is not a free-for-all, but it is important that we act within the requirements we are obliged to meet and do not go beyond them. That is what the provisions in the Bill seek to achieve. That includes a clarification that judges must consider the economic impact on the taxpayer of allowing people to remain in the UK, including by considering whether they can support themselves and their family. It is only fair to all those who work hard in this country to be financially independent and to house themselves, and who are not overly reliant on public services, that they do not see others who otherwise have no right to be here imposing avoidable burdens on society and public services.

   Hansard source
3. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

   I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions and I will say a lot more about those issues when I respond to the contributions by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. However, we are absolutely clear that we are not going to penalise people for experiencing hardship. These reforms preserve protections for vulnerable people and children, but it is vital that we make it clear that immigration control and the wider public interest should be given proper weight in any consideration. This is about restoring balance, not removing safeguards. That is critical.

   Hansard source
4. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

   My hon. Friend raises a critical issue that is, of course, dear to all of our hearts. Again, I will say more about it later, but these reforms absolutely do not remove protections for children. The best interests of children will continue to remain a primary consideration in immigration decision making, as they should be. The reforms in clause 19 ensure that children’s interests are considered alongside other important factors, including compliance with immigration law and the wider public interest in maintaining an effective immigration system.

   Hansard source
5. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

   Forgive me, but I have not addressed these issues yet, so if the hon. Gentleman can be patient for a little longer—I am sure he will have more questions afterwards—I would like to make some progress, if I may. The clause also introduces character and conduct as a factor in the public interest test. This will require judges to have regard to harmful conduct, including criminality below the deportation threshold and outside the mandatory suitability refusals. This is an important element of tackling abuse and takes us one step towards a fairer system that the public can have confidence in. The clause further reduces avenues for abuse by requiring that no weight—instead of little weight, as now—should be given to an article 8 claim established when someone is here illegally, or legally but only by deceiving the Home Office, or if they have seriously breached the conditions of their permission to be in the UK. That will enable us to more effectively enforce our immigration rules and prevent people from unfairly benefiting from time spent in the UK in violation of our rules, and will avoid the creation of perverse incentives for people who are here unlawfully to try to deliberately establish article 8 claims. Although it is right that essential protections for children are retained, it is not right that adults who abuse our immigration system are almost guaranteed to be allowed to stay if they can prove a parental relationship with a child in the UK. Currently, there is no need to carry out a full balancing exercise if there is a child. This is the main source of successful article 8 claims, two thirds of which result in residence rights being granted. The clause clarifies which factors should be considered when determining whether it is in the public interest to remove the parent of a qualifying child from the UK, and introduces a provision to assess the impact of removing a parent where a child remains in the UK. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for amendment 61, which sets out a new public interest consideration, under which specific regard would be given to the circumstances of victims of violence against women and girls when assessing whether interference with an individual’s article 8 right is justified. Of course, we absolutely recognise and take seriously the importance of tackling violence against women and girls, and the devastating impact that it has on victims. However, the Government do not consider the amendment to be necessary. Clause 19 already preserves a case-specific assessment in which courts and tribunals can consider all relevant facts and evidence, including experiences of domestic abuse, violence and exploitation, and the safeguarding concerns that the hon. Lady mentioned in her case studies. The holistic article 8 assessment that the clause retains ensures that protections exist for vulnerable people and that support remains available for those who genuinely need it. In addition, existing provisions in the immigration rules, including “Appendix Victim of Domestic Abuse” and the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession, provide specific protections. Those safeguards are there to ensure that victims’ experiences are properly recognised and taken into account. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire for tabling amendment 104. I understand the intention behind it, but I am afraid that the Government do not consider the amendment to be helpful. I agree that good character is an important consideration in article 8 cases. Including that factor in the public interest test ensures that protections are focused on those who have acted responsibly. That is an important element of creating a fair system that the public have confidence in and that is not open to abuse. The clause establishes that and requires the courts and tribunals to have regard to harmful conduct, including that below the deportation threshold and outside mandatory suitability refusals. We will set out further detail on that in published guidance and the immigration rules. Let me be clear that the existing guidance, including the guidance mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, will be a useful comparator and will play an important role in shaping this. We do not want to be tied exclusively to the 1981 guidance, but want to develop ours further. Our approach will therefore reflect that already taken in nationality legislation, where good character is not exhaustively defined on the face of the Bill but is addressed through the guidance.

   Hansard source
6. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

   The guidance will set out very clearly what we will ask the courts and tribunals to have regard to in relation to harmful conduct. We will also make sure, as I have already mentioned, that there is sufficient protection regarding issues around domestic violence. That will be in our immigration rules, and it is in our existing provisions. We will ensure that courts and tribunals consider all relevant facts and evidence. I place this on the record in Committee: we will expect experiences of domestic violence, abuse and exploitation, and safeguarding concerns to be a key part of that. To go back to amendment 104, our approach will reflect the approach already taken in nationality legislation, so that good character is not exhaustively defined in the Bill, but addressed through guidance. Everything raised by colleagues in Committee will be on the record.

   Hansard source
7. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

   I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but it is important for cases to be considered on a case-by-case basis. We can be as specific as possible, but the reality is that courts and tribunals have to maintain the flexibility to determine cases based on the individual facts and circumstances before them. It is important that our drafting enables that.

   Hansard source
8. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

   I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but we absolutely cannot bind the courts’ hands in this situation. The reality is that they have to be flexible. We can set a very clear steer—that is on the record, in the Bill and in legislation—but it is important that we allow the courts flexibility, because their role is to establish the facts, case by case.

   Hansard source
9. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

   As my hon. Friend rightly flags, “no weight” is the starting point for the weight that should be given to a person’s private or family life established in the time that they were in the UK without permission. That is a clear definition for the court. Applying the “no weight” rule to all breaches of leave could mean minor or technical breaches leave cases open to challenges of disproportionality. Amendment 106 is in a similar vein. Although we agree that non-compliance must have consequences, it is appropriate that we distinguish between serious breaches and less significant or technical non-compliance, because we always have to have proportionality. Removing “serious” would considerably widen the provision and could require the same approach to be taken to conduct of very different gravity. The Government’s reforms already substantially strengthen the public interest side of the article 8 balancing exercise. The inclusion of “serious” helps to ensure that the reforms are focused on the cases of greatest concern.

   Hansard source
10. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

    I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s attempts to define this, but it is important to say that we are keen not to include specific definitions in the Bill, as we are worried that they could result in disproportionate outcomes. Our approach is to be robust, targeted and, crucially, legally sustainable. We do not want to allow ourselves to be open to challenge.

    Hansard source
11. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

    Again, we have to look at each case on its individual merits, and we cannot bind the court’s hands in such a situation; the family rules will be taken in their entirety.

    Hansard source
12. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

    I am not going to rule that out here in the Committee, but I can come back and clarify that point for the hon. Gentleman. My expectation is that if someone is deported, and they wish to take their child with them, they are perfectly entitled to do so. It is not for the Government to say that the child has to stay in this country, rather than moving with their family. I will not rule that out here in the Committee. In conclusion, clause 19 tightly defines the public interest test to ensure that individual rights are properly balanced against the public interest in effective immigration control, and to eradicate the abuse that has crept into our system.

    Hansard source
13. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

    I thank hon. Members for a very full discussion of the amendments. I have a lot to respond to, so I hope colleagues will bear with me while I try to pick up on all the points and make as much progress as I can. I think all of us in this room will share a real commitment to the clause and this group of amendments. The clause is a huge priority; it really underlines the issue of the deportation of foreign national offenders and the exemptions through which they have sought to remain in this country. As the hon. Member for Stockton West expressed, the issue causes huge concern, fear, anxiety and outrage. This is such an important clause and such important part of the Bill and of what we are trying to do. I also put on record the Government’s commitment on this issue; that is not to make a political point, but we have deported more than 60,000 foreign national offenders since we came to power at the 2024 elections—the highest number in a decade, and 41% higher than in the previous two-year period. I say that not to make a political point, because we are in Committee, but to underline our determination and commitment on this issue, should there be any doubt, given some of the concerns raised by Opposition Members, about our absolute determination on this issue. It is extremely important to us. Clause 20 reforms the application of article 8 in deportation cases, restoring a proper balance between individual rights and the public interest. The current framework contains different, sentence-based tests, which act as exceptions to deportation. Where a person can meet the private and family life exceptions, or the higher test, which applies for the most serious offenders, they will not be deported. That means that, in some cases, deportation can be avoided by meeting the family or private life exceptions, without the court conducting a full consideration of all factors weighing in favour of the public interest in deportation. The clause addresses that by requiring the courts to conduct a full proportionality assessment before it can find that deportation would be disproportionate. The public interest will therefore be considered in every deportation case before an article 8 breach can be found, rather than only in some categories of case, as at the moment. Judges will be able to block deportation only in certain exceptional circumstances. The clause retains important existing concepts, including “unduly harsh”. I appreciate some of the concerns expressed by Opposition Members, which I will come to, but the concept is well understood by the courts and supported by extensive case law. Under the new framework, showing that deportation would have an unduly harsh effect is insufficient—without further consideration—to demonstrate a breach of article 8 and will no longer be the point at which an article 8 claim succeeds automatically. That is a fundamental change. The court will now have to go on to consider whether the interference with private or family life can be justified when weighed against the public interest in deportation. The new framework establishes a clear statutory framework for assessing whether deportation will be disproportionate, requiring proper weight to be given to factors such as the nature and seriousness of the offending, the person’s immigration status, the economic impact of allowing them to remain in the UK, and the wider public interest in public safety and the prevention of disorder and crime. The effect of the reforms is to establish a clearer and more consistent framework, in which deportation may be avoided only in truly exceptional cases. For the record hereafter, I clarify that emphasis in Committee. A person will still receive an individual assessment of their circumstances, but the courts will be required—I emphasise “required”—to give proper weight to Parliament’s view that deportation is strongly in the public interest. Before I speak to the amendments, I will refer to some of the points made in the debate. I was asked whether the clause weakens provision for more serious offenders. No, it does not; they must still meet the same tests as other offenders, and face a proportionality test. The clause provides that the more serious the offence, the greater the public interest in deportation. Again, I will say more on that when I come to the specific Opposition amendments. I was asked why sentence thresholds are being removed. We do not need sentence thresholds if we are going to treat all deportation cases the same. The courts can still, and indeed must, take account of sentences and seriousness of offending in considering proportionality. That is required on the face of the Bill by subsection (2) of proposed new section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire asked, why not cover family deportation under section 3(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971? The key point is that the exclusion of section 3(5)(b) is deliberate. Clause 20 is concerned with how article 8 is to be interpreted in cases involving the deportation of a foreign national whose own conduct has made them liable to deportation. A family member liable to deportation under section 3(5)(b) of the 1971 Act is not being deported because of their own criminality or conduct. Even if that power were used, it is appropriate that any article 8 claim made by that family should continue to be assessed under the framework set out in section 117B of the 2002 Act, rather than the deportation framework. The hon. Member for Stockton West made a number of points. On his point about the House of Commons Library briefing, those with a sentence of over four years would previously need to establish that they meet very compelling circumstances over and above the exceptions. Now they must establish that they meet an exception and that their deportation cannot be justified. We would expect such cases to fail the proportionality assessment even if they meet the exception. Our provisions enhance those deportation provisions. I would also like to refer to some of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East. He criticised proposed new section 117C of the 2002 Act. It is important to make it clear that the public interest is in deportation unless it is not justified. That is enhanced in proposed new section 117C(2) by making it clear that the more serious the offending, the stronger the public interest is. The hon. Gentleman is right that the first exception under proposed new section 117C(4)(a) means the person’s whole life, not just their adult life. That is the same as under existing law. To his points on social and cultural integration, the onus is on the applicant to establish that. Again, that is already covered in existing legislation. Caseworkers are experienced in how to deal with that and familiar with that understanding. I want to make some more points on the “unduly harsh” test. Again, that is in existing legislation. The Supreme Court has already interpreted it extremely narrowly. On the issue of court latitude, which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East raised, proposed new section 117C makes it clear that deportation is in the public interest and, as I have said, that the more serious the offending, the stronger the public interest will be. It is important that courts have a clear steer on Parliament’s view of public interest, and the process of the Bill will establish that. To resist deportation, someone must meet the exceptions and establish that their deportation cannot be justified in the light of the public interest. Deportation can therefore be resisted only in clearly defined and limited circumstances. I will move on to the amendments, and I hope to provide a bit more clarity. Amendments 107, 109 and 111 seek to impose a higher threshold for deportation for foreign criminals who receive a custodial sentence of four years or more, or who commit certain more serious offences. The amendments would require such persons to demonstrate something more than meeting the private or family life exceptional circumstances test. There should be no suggestion that we are seeking to lower the threshold for foreign criminals who are given sentences of more than four years. That is misplaced. Clause 20 amends the current deportation framework by introducing a full proportionality exercise before an article 8 breach can be found. That will ensure that the courts are required to consider and take account of the overall public interest in deportation. All foreign nationals subject to deportation will now have to meet a two-stage test to succeed in their article 8 claim. The first stage of the test requires the person to satisfy one of three exceptional circumstances tests. Where that exceptional circumstances test is met, they must also show that the interference with their private or family life rights—as demonstrated by an exceptional circumstance—cannot be justified. The second stage of the test requires a full proportionality exercise, weighing all the factors in favour of deportation. As I have said, clause 20 specifically states that the greater the severity of offending, the greater the public interest in deportation. That is clear. It will make it less likely that the interference with article 8 rights will outweigh the public interest in deportation. We expect the courts to give significant weight to the public interest in deporting persons with long custodial sentences and those who have committed serious offences. I also clarify for the record that exceptional circumstances are not exceptions to deportation. Now, when someone demonstrates an interference with their family or private life, they will no longer automatically avoid deportation. There will be an assessment of the public interest test— 11.25 am The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).  Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

    Hansard source
14. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eighth sitting)

    It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. This morning, we were debating clause 20 and amendments 107, 109 and 111, and I will pick up where I left off. There will be an assessment of the public interest in every case before an article 8 breach can be found, taking into account not only the seriousness of someone’s offending, but other relevant factors such as their immigration status. The aim of the new article 8 test is to take a broader view of the public interest and move away from the sentence-based or offence-type focus when assessing the severity of offending. Conservative amendment 109 seeks to elevate the test of “very compelling circumstances” in the third set of exceptional circumstances, requiring circumstances above and beyond what would be demonstrated by meeting either of the other two exceptional circumstances tests. The exceptions in the current article 8 framework are different from the three sets of exceptional circumstances, and it is through that new framework that very compelling circumstances must be viewed. The third exceptional circumstance does not replace the current “very compelling circumstances” test and does not operate in the same way. The three sets of exceptional circumstances are intended to be exactly that: exceptional. They serve as a gateway to a full consideration of whether the public interest in deportation is outweighed in the individual case. Under the current framework, the exceptions operate as exceptions to deportation. If a foreign criminal meets one of the exceptions, or can show very compelling circumstances over and above those exceptions, deportation will be prevented. Under the new framework, the third exceptional circumstance, which refers to very compelling circumstances, simply ensures that a person has a sufficiently strong article 8 claim before the courts consider whether the interference with their article 8 rights outweighs the public interest in deportation. Meeting that threshold does not mean that deportation is automatically avoided—it is not a pass or a threshold to get over. It acts a filter to ensure that, where a person cannot meet one of the three sets of exceptional circumstances, their article 8 claim will fail without the court proceeding to a proportionality assessment. This is not a watering down of the very compelling circumstances test as it applies under the current framework. Rather, under the new framework, “very compelling circumstances” operates as a gateway to a full consideration of whether the public interest in deportation is outweighed in the individual case. Amendment 110 would bring those being deported as the family member of a foreign national offender into scope of clause 20. Although the Immigration Act 1971 makes provision for the deportation of family members as a matter of policy, that is not a course that Governments have pursued in practice. Instead, where a family member’s permission to stay in the UK depends on the status of the person being deported, the usual approach is to consider their removal under administrative removal powers. Where a family member raises an article 8 claim, it will be considered under section 117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The exclusion from clause 20 of section 3(5)(b) of the 1971 Act is deliberate. Clause 20 is concerned with how article 8 is to be interpreted in cases involving the deportation of a foreign national whose own conduct has made them liable to deportation. A family member liable to deportation under section 3(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971 is not being deported because of their own criminality or conduct. Even if that power were used, it is appropriate that any article 8 claim made by that family member should continue to be assessed under the framework set out in section 117B of the 2002 Act, rather than under the deportation framework. The amendments are unnecessary. Clause 20 already ensures that no foreign criminal will avoid deportation simply by establishing an impact on their private or family life. Instead, every case will require a full assessment of whether any interference with article 8 rights is outweighed by the public interest in deportation, with particular weight given to the seriousness of offending. The clause therefore strengthens the deportation framework while preserving individual assessment in genuinely exceptional cases. Before I move on, I will come back to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion this morning, as I did not get the chance to respond. In our debate about financial independence and public service pressures, she mentioned discrimination and concerns about vulnerability. I want to be clear that the intention is not to penalise people for hardship. The reforms preserve protections for vulnerable people and children while making it clear that immigration control and the wider public interest should be given proper weight. It is about restoring balance, not removing safeguards. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion also made points about the best interests of children. We are clear that the reforms set out in clause 19 do not remove protections for children. The best interests of children will remain a primary consideration in immigration decision making. The reforms ensure that children’s interests are considered along with other important factors, such as compliance with immigration law and the wider public interest in maintaining an effective immigration system. The reforms ensure that all relevant factors are properly weighed and that immigration decisions are fair, proportionate and consistent. Where a decision is taken to remove a child’s parent, it is ultimately for the parents to decide whether to relocate together as a family or to live separately. In every case, the Government will continue to consider fully the best interests of any child involved. The hon. Member addressed the word “precarious” and questioned whether clause 19 would mean that little weight is given to family life in cases in which a person has anything short of settled status. Let me be clear: the reforms do not penalise people for following our immigration rules. They place greater emphasis on the public interest in fair and controlled immigration systems, with greater weight given to compliance with the rules and with the public interest test. Article 8 rights developed while someone is in the UK without settled status are given less weight, in recognition that the ability to maintain family or private life in a country where the individual does not have permanent status is naturally precarious. I was also asked what constitutes a serious breach. We expect everyone to comply with the conditions of their permission to stay, but I want to be clear that not every breach is equal. It would not be right to treat a minor or technical breach in the same way as deliberate or repeated non-compliance, or to equate it to illegally entering or staying in the UK. Whether a breach is serious will depend on its circumstances. The nature of the breach, why it occurred, its frequency and duration, and whether the individual disclosed it and engaged with the Home Office will all be taken into consideration. Should someone who knowingly and repeatedly fails to comply with reporting requirements be treated the same as someone who misses a single appointment for a genuine reason and informs the Home Office? I think we know the answer. The distinction allows us to take a firm but proportionate approach, including where multiple breaches taken together amount to serious non-compliance. On the impermissibility limit and whether the circumstances of offending are taken into account, proposed new section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 expressly allows for the “nature and circumstances of…offending” to be taken into account. I am grateful to the Committee for allowing me to clarify those points from the earlier discussion. On new clause 45, the Government are clear that foreign nationals who commit serious crimes should be deported. The automatic deportation provisions already provide a firm statutory framework for foreign criminals who meet the relevant thresholds. They require that a deportation be made wherever the law permits. Outside the automatic deportation regime, there are legal powers to consider the deportation of any non-British citizen whose deportation is conducive to the public good. The new clause is not a proportionate or workable way to strengthen that framework. It would make any conviction, however minor, sufficient to trigger automatic deportation. If a foreign national had resided lawfully in the country for over 40 years but received an absolute discharge on conviction for a minor motor offence, the Home Secretary would be under a duty to deport them unless an exemption applied. Such deportations would likely be unworkable in practice because they would be disallowed on appeal on article 8 grounds under the European convention on human rights. The new clause would also bring a person within the definition of a “foreign criminal” merely because they had been charged with an immigration offence before a court had determined guilt. That would be fundamentally contrary to our legal system, in which an individual is innocent until proven guilty, and it would represent a substantial expansion of the auto-deport regime. The new clause would also remove statutory exceptions and delete the word “knowingly” throughout section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. Those changes could have consequences well beyond the stated aim of the new clause, including for criminal liability, fairness and the UK’s international obligations. Decisions to deport must be robust, lawful and capable of withstanding challenge. A measure that is drafted too broadly risks delay, additional litigation and outcomes that cannot be lawfully implemented. For those reasons, I ask Conservative Members not to pursue new clause 45. I turn to new clause 66. Forced marriage is an appalling crime, as the Committee would agree. The Government are clear that people who commit that offence must face the full force of the criminal law and, where they are foreign nationals, deportation—I want to be absolutely explicit about that in this Committee. However, we do not consider that the new clause is the right way to achieve that aim. Under the UK Borders Act 2007, the Secretary of State is already required to make a deportation order where a qualifying foreign criminal receives a sentence of at least 12 months, subject to the statutory exceptions. If that threshold is not met, the existing power to deport where conducive to the public good—of which I think this crime would be clear evidence—remains available. The new clause would make a conviction for one specified offence sufficient to trigger automatic deportation, regardless of the sentence imposed. It could therefore apply even when the sentencing court considers that a non-custodial sentence is appropriate. That would cut across the existing structure, which uses the sentence and other statutory criteria as indicators of seriousness. Although I recognise the intention and understand the purpose of the new clause, it is not feasible to specify on the face of the Bill all the crimes that we would like to carry that result. We use sentences to indicate seriousness, and we would be in danger either of missing out or of diminishing other horrendous offences if we did not also put them in the Bill—I am sure that that is not the intention of the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire. The new clause is also confined to the England and Wales offence and does not address equivalent offending across the whole of the UK. Automatic deportation would in any event remain subject to the exceptions in section 33 of the UK Borders Act, including our international obligations. I understand the objective of the new clause, but for those reasons, and although I acknowledge the abhorrence of forced marriage, I ask the Committee to reject it. I turn to new clause 67. Before considering it in detail, I draw attention to the fact that, despite what is asserted in the explanatory statement provided by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), the new clause would not achieve her aims. It amends the test for disapplying the prohibition against returning refugees to danger, rather than amending the threshold for auto-deportation. It sets out that convictions for offences under the National Security Act 2023 should be presumed to be particularly serious crimes under section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Article 33 of the refugee convention already allows refugees to be returned to their country when they have committed a particularly serious crime and, as a result, constitute a danger to the community. There is no definition of “particularly serious crime” in the convention, and no universal uniformity in the interpretation adopted by other states parties. It is open to the UK to interpret the term in good faith, which requires consideration of the ordinary meaning of the words, and it is clear that national security offences are particularly serious crimes. Article 33.2 of the refugee convention also allows refugees to be refouled where they are a danger to the security of the UK. That may include individuals who engage in unacceptable behaviours in the UK or abroad, or who undertake or espouse extremist views, as well as those who foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence to further particular beliefs or provoke others to commit terrorist acts. There is no requirement in the convention for a criminal conviction. The new clause would therefore have very little impact in practice; if anything, it would set the threshold too high. It is already Home Office policy in cases involving national security threats, or where there is a conviction for a particularly serious crime and the individual is considered to pose a threat to the community, to refuse refugee status and to seek to remove the individual from the UK. It is imperative that any asylum seekers and refugees who have been convicted of particularly serious crimes, or who constitute a danger to UK society, do not benefit from protection status. Not only have they failed to respect the laws of the United Kingdom by committing heinous acts, but they have also undermined public confidence in the ability of the state to protect the public. For the reasons that I have outlined, I respectfully request that hon. Members do not pursue their amendments and new clauses, and I commend clause 20 to the Committee. Question put, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
15. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I really appreciate the contributions from all the hon. Members this afternoon. Before responding directly to the clauses and amendments that we have discussed so far, I hope the Committee will allow me to set out why this approach is being taken. As part of the wider core protection reforms set out by the Home Secretary last year in the “Restoring Order and Control” statement, the UK’s asylum policy statement published in November 2025 set out the new approach to protection in the UK. That marks a significant change in direction away from an assumption of offering permanent protection towards protection that is granted for the duration of need, which we call “core protection”. Put simply, replacing the two categories of protection—refugee and humanitarian protection status—with one single form of protection status will simplify the asylum decision making process and prevent unnecessary and tenuous appeals. It is important to reflect on how we got to where we are. Those two protection statuses are essentially a historical relic from separating those in danger on return to their countries of origin from those in need of protection for political or identity reasons. As time has evolved, the two statuses have become functionally identical, except in some small areas such as travel documents. That creates an administrative burden for the Home Office for no good reason. We are therefore proposing to merge those two statuses. Clause 21 will reconcile those two statuses so that the system is administratively simpler for refugees and decision makers. In order to do that, we are also taking a limited power to deal with the existence of terms such as “refugee”, “refugee protection” and “humanitarian protection”, which exist throughout our extensive immigration and asylum statute book and will need replacing with a single term: “core protection”. Under the current system, those who qualify for refugee or humanitarian protection status are granted similar entitlements—30 months’ permission to stay and the same route to settlement. Where there are differences, such as in relation to travel documents, we are making changes to ensure that all those who are granted core protection are eligible. One of the points raised in the debate was about whether we are more expansive than other European countries. That is absolutely right; as the Home Secretary set out in “Restoring Order and Control”, our offer to refugees is more expansive than that of other European countries. Once they are granted refugee status, the current system grants leave to remain for five years. At the end of that period, refugees can immediately apply for settlement, giving them an indefinite right to live in the UK. This application is fee-free and essentially automatic, being almost entirely absent of requirements. When compared with that of some of our European neighbours, this approach to protection is generous. In Denmark—a country that has tightened its asylum system in recent years—residence permits are issued to refugees for just two years, and they are designed to be temporary. Settlement can typically be obtained only after eight years of residence and is subject to multiple conditions, including full-time employment, meeting an earnings threshold, language proficiency and active citizenship. Clause 21 sets out what constitutes a protection claim and who will qualify for protection status. A person has protection status if they have been granted permission to stay in the UK because removing them would breach our obligations under the refugee convention, or if they would be at real risk of serious harm. The UK is proud to offer sanctuary to those in need, for as long as it is needed, in line with our international obligations. We believe that all those who face persecution for a specified reason, as contained in the 1951 convention, as well as those who fear torture or indiscriminate violence due to war, should receive protection, and that this country should play its part. This measure is part of simplifying the current system, which has two forms of protection status that grant similar entitlements, namely refugee status and humanitarian protection. Under the new system, individuals who qualify for protection will be granted core protection status. As such, this change will streamline asylum decision making and reduce unnecessary appeals. Before I turn to the amendments themselves, I want to draw the Committee’s attention to Government new clauses 35 and 36 and new schedule 1. I will discuss them in detail in a moment, but it is the Government’s intention—quite unusually—that these new clauses will replace clause 21, as we have essentially updated it. I know that this is unusual, so I would just like to explain it to members of the Committee. Having included a limited power in the Bill upon its introduction, we now want to narrow that power with more detail, as we work through the technicalities of how this part will interact with what I know Members will agree is a very large volume of legislation on the statute book. I thank the hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough and for Brighton Pavilion for tabling amendments 53 and 54 and amendment 74 respectively, and I will address some of the questions they raised before I go into their specifics. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion suggested that there was the potential here to reduce entitlement, but that is absolutely not the case. If anything, there will be a minor levelling-up of humanitarian entitlement when it comes to travel documents. So there will be no reducing of entitlement. We do not think that the origin of the claim should matter for the grounds for protection. We believe that there should be consistency across the two, so the entitlement is therefore the same. We want to be clear that, in all the amendments we have made, there is to be absolutely no levelling-down. As we heard, the Home Secretary’s delegated powers memorandum itself was clear that the powers would not be used to reduce entitlement. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion mentioned the best interests of children, which builds on a debate we had earlier today. Of course, their interests are absolutely the priority throughout this process. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 places a duty on the Home Office to ensure that its immigration, asylum, nationality and general customs functions are discharged with regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in the UK. The Home Office takes its section 55 duty seriously, and every child matters, as set out in our statutory guidance. We are committed to ensuring that we have regard to this duty in the development and implementation of new policy, including core protection, as well as when decision makers apply these policies to children within the UK. The hon. Member asked about a sunset clause and why we have removed that in the existing powers. The key consequential amendments to primary legislation will be on the face of the Bill through new schedule 1. However, significant additional changes will still be needed for secondary legislation, which is why that was removed.

    Hansard source
16. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I appreciate the hon. Lady’s question. The reason is that immigration rules are not normally put on the face of primary legislation. It would be unusual to do that on the face of the Bill. I can clarify that shortly with the hon. Lady, but that is my understanding of why this is not on the face of the Bill—because it is done through the usual route of immigration rules. The hon. Lady asked what applicants will be told and how this will support those going through the process in simplifying their decision making. The decision-making process will be simplified in all decisions that would not currently be a grant of refugee status, because they will no longer refuse refugee status and then go on to separately consider serious harm. Instead, a single decision on risk on return will be made. Officials are already working with non-governmental organisations in the sector to identify the precise wording most appropriate in a new grant letter. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough asked what the 30-month renewal will involve. We are committed to ensuring that our policies are sustainable and do not place unnecessary burdens on the taxpayer, and this policy is no different. In terms of resources and processing, only those who do remain on core protection will have their protection needs regularly reviewed. Reviews will be targeted based on objective country information and any other new information that comes to light, allowing us to make the most efficient use of resources. We will continue to monitor staffing levels and will deploy our workforce flexibly, subject to business needs, as we have done in the past. The approach to reviewing status will be efficient and targeted, and we will reassess where country conditions or personal circumstances change.

    Hansard source
17. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I appreciate the hon. Gentleman raising that point. He will understand that this decision making is part of the core business for the Home Office. I can come back to him during the Committee with more specific detail on what that process will look like, but it is important to reassure him that we will continue to monitor our staffing levels and deploy our workforce flexibly, subject to business needs.

    Hansard source
18. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I appreciate the hon. Lady raising that point. I was intending to come to it; she will be pleased to know that I still have quite a lot to get through in my speech. To reassure her, individuals will need to meet the relevant suitability requirements for ongoing permission to stay. If someone is convicted of a criminal offence that meets the relevant thresholds, they will be excluded from protection and will not be eligible for core protection. If there has been a significant and durable change in their country’s situation or a change in their personal circumstances, their ongoing need for protection will be reviewed. For anyone who has returned to the country of persecution or serious harm, or obtained a national passport, their circumstances will be reviewed. I hope that that gives the hon. Lady a degree of clarity, but I am happy to go back and clarify that in more detail during the Committee—I can see that it would mean a lot to both her and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. Amendments 53 and 54, tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, would revert to the previous position of granting five years’ leave to remain to refugees and placing them on a five-year route to settlement, and would allow automatic entitlement to family reunion. In recent years, the number of people seeking protection has significantly increased, placing unprecedented pressure on housing, public services and communities across the UK. From 2004 to 2020, between 22,000 and 46,000 people were claiming asylum in the UK each year. However, there has been a huge increase since the second half of 2021, reaching a peak of 110,000 in the year ending September 2025. Although the numbers of people claiming asylum fell to 85,891 in the year ending June 2026, it still remains high compared with levels seen in the decade to 2021. I know that many of our constituents have huge concerns about fairness, how the system operates and whether it supports those who truly need protection. That is why the Government published a new asylum policy statement in November last year that set out significant reforms to the UK’s asylum system. Core protection is one of the key elements of the asylum reforms. Under this new policy, protection will be granted for the duration of need and will be renewable where a person remains at risk on return. Greater entitlements, including a shorter period to settlement and a route to sponsor family members, will be accessed by demonstrating contribution to and integration into UK society. Settlement will no longer be automatic. Instead, there will be a 20-year route to permanent residency, crucially with the ability to reduce that period by switching into the protection work and study route to ensure long-term commitment, contribution and integration. As a first step towards that, the Government changed immigration laws on 5 March 2026. Any adult or accompanied child who claims asylum from 2 March 2026 onwards and qualifies for a grant of refugee status or humanitarian protection will be granted leave for 30 months. At a 30-month review, refugees with a continuing need of sanctuary will have their protection renewed, while those who no longer have a protection need will be expected to return home. The safe return review will consider whether there has been a fundamental and durable change in their country of origin. We recognise that, when a country situation changes, not everyone will be safe. Of course, as occurs now, individual circumstances will be taken into account, and each case will be assessed on its own merits. The overthrow of one political party in favour of another might only be transitory. The changes must be such that the reasons for becoming a refugee have ceased to exist and there are no other reasons for an individual to fear returning to their country.

    Hansard source
19. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eighth sitting)

    The hon. Lady pre-empts my next paragraph. To clarify for her, once the individual acquires protection status, the burden of proof is on the Home Office to demonstrate that protection is no longer required. It will be us who will demonstrate that; it will not be for the claimant to make another asylum claim, unless there are new grounds that have not been raised before. Any decision to revoke protection status will continue to have a right of appeal. As always, we will continue to uphold the fundamental principle that we will not return anyone to a country where they are at risk. Refugees with a continuing protection need will have to wait 20 years for settlement unless they switch to protection work and study as part of the core protection model. A new, bespoke work and study route will allow access to family reunion and settlement rights, with new fees and conditions in accordance with the rules of that route. That will enable refugees to earn down the length of time before they can settle in the UK, and demonstrate that they are contributing to the UK and can support their family before they may bring their partner and children over. Further details will be set out in future immigration rule changes. This route will not include a safe return review.

    Hansard source
20. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eighth sitting)

    The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the provision we are debating gives power to the Secretary of State to make changes to immigration rules. We will make changes to the immigration rules through the usual process, so he will have the opportunity to debate them when they come before the House for affirmative resolution, but this debate is about the power. I am sure that debate will continue in the weeks and months ahead, and I look forward to engaging with the hon. Gentleman on it. For the people who claim asylum and are granted protection in the UK, our new regime providing support for refugees will be entirely in accordance with our international obligations, but it does not exceed them. These are significant reforms. They are designed to ensure that our asylum system is fit for the modern world and, crucially, that public consent for having an asylum system at all remains. Genuine refugees will receive the protection they need. We therefore oppose the amendments. Amendments 51 and 52, tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, set out to limit the power to make regulations about protection status and claims. Due to the drafting of clause 21(3), the amendments would not prevent the Home Secretary from making such regulations about protection status and claims because the power in clause 21(1) is a broad one. However, without this explicit provision, such regulations would be more vulnerable to challenge on grounds that they were ultra vires. Government new clauses 35 and 36 will replace clause 21. They aim to set out on the face of the Bill the provision that would otherwise have been made under the power in clause 21. They also give the Secretary of State the power to make further consequential and related amendments, including to primary legislation. The amendments are therefore unnecessary. The Government new clauses ensure that the key consequential amendments to primary legislation are made on the face of the Bill. However, as I am sure hon. Members will agree, many references to asylum and humanitarian protection legislation require simplification following the introduction of the single concept of protection. The narrow power here is considered the most efficient way to bring the rest of the statute book in line with that change. Regulations amending primary legislation must be made by affirmative procedure, which allows an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny because any legal challenges can be debated and authorised by Parliament. Amendments 74 and 75, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, also seek to limit the power by preventing regulations from restricting the rights and entitlements available to those with protection status and by requiring the Home Secretary to take into account the best interests of children when making regulations. The Government have tabled their own amendments to replace clause 21 and define the single concept of protection on the face of the Bill. The purpose of the single concept of protection is to create a single definition of protection claim and a single form of protection status. It will replace and amalgamate the two separate forms of protection: refugee status and humanitarian protection. Anyone at risk of persecution or serious harm due to third-party actors on return to their home country will be granted protection status and all the associated entitlements. We recognise that all those who face persecution for a specific reason in the 1951 convention, as well as those who are at risk of torture or indiscriminate violence due to war, should receive protection and the same entitlements. To the extent that we retain a power to make amendments, many references to asylum and humanitarian protection legislation require simplification following the change. The power is the simplest and most efficient way to bring the rest of the statute book in line with that change. Regulations amending primary legislation must be made by affirmative procedure, which allows the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. As I have mentioned, the Government have already committed in the delegated powers memorandum that the power will not be used to reduce the entitlements currently held by refugees, and the Home Secretary is already under a duty to have regard to the need to safeguard the welfare of children in the UK under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. The Government consider that there are ample safeguards on the exercise of the power, and the amendments are therefore unnecessary. Amendments 137 and 138, taken together, set out to add additional requirements to clarify the powers in clause 21. In order to respond, it may be helpful to set out the purpose of clause 21 and the Government amendments I am introducing at this stage. The Government are introducing amendments to replace clause 21. These new clauses aim to set out on the face of the Bill the provision that would otherwise have been made under the power in clause 21. They also give a power to the Secretary of State to make further consequential and related amendments, including to primary legislation.

    Hansard source
21. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy McDonald

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    It is an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood). I thank her for her eloquence and advocacy. She communicated with such power, conviction and sense, and I thank her for what she has said. I thank all hon. Members, right hon. Members and gallant Members for the incredible contributions that have been made over the last two days. People have come to this vexed and troubling issue with a great deal of commitment and determination to get to the right outcome for a better future and a better understanding of the past, and I thank the hon. Lady for that. I was not born in Northern Ireland, and I do not live there, but my grandparents were from Belfast. They were a Protestant and a Catholic who left for the perfect, peaceful idyll that is the west of Scotland. My maternal great-grandparents were from Carrickmacross in County Monaghan, and all my wife’s family are from Tyrone. That part of the world supplied the working-class labour that brought about the burgeoning iron and steel industry. Our connections and associations with the island of Ireland are deep, and there is a passion for people to see a positive outcome and resolution and to include the many working-class men who found themselves on the streets in Northern Ireland in their tender years. I thank again the hon. Member for Lagan Valley. I welcome this Bill as an important improvement on the previous Government’s deeply flawed legacy Act. Repealing the conditional amnesty scheme and restoring civil proceedings are significant steps towards delivering truth, justice and accountability. I recognise the vital importance of treating former service personnel fairly, including by acknowledging the extraordinarily difficult circumstances in which many served. I had the pleasure of being one of the founding members of the Royal British Legion’s Solicitors Group, which is pro bono. I have worked with service personnel at close quarters, and I am overwhelmed and overawed by their commitment and dedication to their duty. It has been said in recent hours in this debate that nobody is questioning the performance of our service personnel who found themselves in that situation, and that it is not veterans against civilians. I met two senior retired Army officers last month—Lieutenant Colonel the Reverend Nicholas Mercer and Brigadier John Donnelly CBE—thanks to Amnesty International and the Centre for Military Justice. Both of them challenged the suggestion that British forces have faced a flood of vexatious litigation under the European convention on human rights, and I worry about the scaremongering that has been perpetrated in that regard. As Nicholas Mercer has argued, the application of the Human Rights Act is vital, because it means that the guilty can be held accountable and the innocent exonerated. That is an important principle. Human rights protections are not the enemy of fair treatment for veterans; they are part of what makes that fairness possible. However, I must express my concerns. The Government have chosen to publish such a voluminous package of amendments with barely seven days’ notice and have given us just two days to consider them, and that is a concern. I am also concerned about some of the tonality, which has explicitly presented the Bill as providing additional legal protections and safeguards for veterans. Whatever the Government’s intentions, some of these measures may be viewed very differently by victims’ families, particularly those who spent decades seeking answers about the actions of the state and the circumstances in which their loved ones died. What is presented to veterans as reassurance may be experienced by those families as another barrier to justice. That matters enormously. The Secretary of State has a responsibility to not only improve the legal framework for dealing with the past, but rebuild confidence among communities whose trust in the institutions of the state has been profoundly damaged by their experience of the troubles. He said yesterday—I think I am quoting him correctly—that the principle of the duty of candour will be imported into this legislation when the Public Office (Accountability) Bill passes. I hope he will intervene on me, because I am seeking some clarification. Surely the duty of candour will be imported into this legislation, not simply the principle.

    Hansard source
22. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy McDonald

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    I am enormously grateful to the Secretary of State for that clarification. That is immensely helpful, but I revert to my point that in seeking to reassure one constituency, there is a risk of undermining the confidence of others—not only in the Government’s approach to reconciliation, but in their ability to secure truth, accountability and access to justice. Most seriously, I fear that some of these proposals risk cutting across the detailed institutional safeguards established through the Good Friday agreement and the reforms that followed it. The first is Government new clause 50 and the Attorney General’s consent to prosecutions. That new clause would require the Attorney General’s consent before proceedings could be instituted for the most serious troubles-related offences. What is the compelling justification for introducing this additional political safeguard into the prosecution process? That question has been raised by other Members, and I join them in asking it. It is not simply a technical adjustment; it risks undermining a central reform arising from the Good Friday agreement. The 2000 criminal justice review specifically sought to protect prosecutorial independence by removing the Attorney General’s power to direct prosecutors in individual cases or on policy matters. That reform was particularly important because of the history of political interference and concerns about the prosecution of members of the security forces during the conflict. The independent Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland already applies evidential and public interest tests when deciding whether to prosecute. Why should a further decision now rest with a Government-appointed law officer who is potentially exposed to representations from ministerial colleagues? The de Silva report into the murder of Pat Finucane documented political pressure on the then Attorney General over the prosecution of state agent Brian Nelson. That history demonstrates precisely why those institutional safeguards were introduced. Government new clause 50 also appears to impose no requirement on the Attorney General to explain a refusal of consent, while the availability of judicial review may be limited. How can families have confidence in a process where an independent prosecutor might conclude that a serious offence should be prosecuted, only for a Government law officer to prevent that prosecution without adequate explanation or scrutiny? The Good Friday agreement was not simply a political declaration of peace and reconciliation. Its implementation required detailed reforms to institutions, including the criminal justice system, designed to establish independence and to instil public confidence. We have to tread with the greatest care not to undermine the Good Friday agreement in any way. We should be extremely cautious about disturbing those safeguards, particularly when it would risk reviving precisely the concerns that they were intended to address. I therefore urge the Government to reconsider new clause 50. Fairness for veterans must not mean creating a new mechanism through which serious criminality could escape prosecution.

    Hansard source
23. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andrew Lewin

    Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    The Liberal Democrat spokesperson referred to Wimbledon, an event that attracts clear international interest. I have been watching the tournament for 30 years, and there are players from all across the world. I hope the Minister can reassure us that that is precisely the type of event that will be protected under the Bill.

    Hansard source
24. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andrew Lewin

    Topical Questions

    As we approach winter, it is even more important that we minimise pressure on hospitals. In Welwyn Garden City, we have an urgent treatment centre at the new QEII, but it is in a modern building, and I believe that it has the capacity to do more. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to look at the resources that we could provide to the new QEII to provide greater community care?

    Hansard source
25. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Amanda Martin

    Manufacturing Skills

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. For many people growing up in Portsmouth, the shipyard was a constant visual reminder that we are a city and a country that made things, and that we made important things: ships that defended our country, protected our freedom and protected British expertise around the world. The Portsmouth that people remember was full of people with skilled jobs—men and women who took pride in their work, in what they produced and in the contributions that they were making to their communities. There was a clear connection between effort, skill and opportunity. Young people could see a future for themselves. They could look around the city and see where hard work and talent could take them. Unfortunately, over the years, that connection has been weakened. The loss of shipbuilding and other industrial jobs under the Conservatives has meant that too many young people today are not seeing the same opportunities as previous generations. But it is not just a challenge for young people; it is also a challenge for British business. Manufacturers repeatedly tell us that they struggle to recruit people with the right skills. Before entering politics, I was a teacher for 24 years. Throughout that time, I saw countless young people with enormous potential, but too often those talents were not valued in the way that they should have been. This has to change. We need an education system that values technical excellence just as highly as academic achievement—a system that recognises that our country needs first-class engineers as much as it needs lawyers, accountants or academics. If we truly want to reindustrialise Britain, we must first rebuild the pipeline of skills that make industrial success possible. That is why this Government’s reforms are so important. I am delighted that from the age of 14, young people will have the opportunity to combine core academic subjects such as English, maths and science with high-quality vocational subjects. They will be able to spend more time with employers, gain real-world experience and develop the practical skills that businesses are looking for, but more importantly, they will be able to see a pathway. That connection matters enormously. The local connection means opportunity for young people and confidence for employers that they can invest, expand and create jobs, knowing that the skilled workers they need will be available. I have long argued that apprenticeships and training need to be more flexible and more responsive to the needs of different sectors, so I am pleased that the Government are taking these steps with manufacturing. Fixing the skills shortage is not about filling vacancies; it is about building our national capability. Nowhere is that more evident than in a sector that is extremely important to my constituency: the space sector. The next iteration of the Skynet satellite programme is currently out for procurement. This is a crucial decision for our national security, sovereign space capability and industrial future—and for my city’s future. At Airbus in Portsmouth, highly skilled workers manufacture the payloads, the brains of the satellite. Airbus remains the only company capable of building large spacecraft end to end in the United Kingdom. The Skynet programme sustains 3,000 highly skilled jobs directly and supports 18,000 jobs across the supply chain. These are skills and capabilities built over decades and they cannot be easily recreated if lost. If we are serious about reindustrialisation, we must be serious about protecting the skills and industrial capabilities that we already have. We cannot simply create shiny new jobs; we must protect the ones we have already. It is not enough to talk about creating skilled jobs if we fail to safeguard the jobs that still exist. I share the Prime Minister’s ambition to back British industry, strengthen our capabilities and create good jobs in every part of the country. That includes my city. I ask the Minister to impress upon colleagues in the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence the importance of protecting and sustaining these world-class space manufacturing skills in Portsmouth. We know that rebuilding British manufacturing strength begins with investment in skills, but it must continue with supporting the skills and industry that we already have. Ultimately, it is about ensuring that the next generation can once again look at my city, just as I looked at Portsmouth shipyard growing up, and see a future full of opportunities, purpose and pride.

    Hansard source
26. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Amanda Martin

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    Portsmouth is home to serving personnel, veterans, military families and many who carry the memories of operations undertaken in the service of their country. I want to take this opportunity to thank all those who have contacted me and spoken to me about the Bill and the amendments, and to thank all those who have served and who are in the Gallery today. I was surprised not to have received more correspondence from local veterans about the Bill. I do not think that is because they are not interested, or because they are fully satisfied with the Bill. I fear that for some it is because confidence has been worn down over many years. They have heard assurances before and they have been misled by those trying to score political points. Too often they have experienced uncertainty, repeated processes and a system that they did not feel was designed for them. New clauses 49 and 50, and yesterday’s amendments, will, I hope, start to rebuild some of that trust. In the tone struck by the Secretary of State yesterday, he recognised the important truth that peace without justice is not truly peace and that, equally, justice must be pursued in a way that is balanced, credible and capable of commanding confidence across the community. I particularly welcome the Government’s efforts to address long-standing concerns raised by veterans organisations. Many of those organisations have, quite rightly, argued that there must be a clear recognition that there is no moral equivalence between those who sought to uphold the law and those who sought to destroy it through terrorism. Personally, I am sorry for the time it has taken, and the pain and the agony that has caused. As the Secretary of State reminded us, we honour the overwhelming majority who served with distinction not by defending the indefensible, but by being honest about the past. We must also honour our current serving personnel, and our cadets and future cadets, the men and women who will serve our country. Although it is not related to the Bill, I am moved to note that I do not recognise—in my city, in Government data or in Government policy—the picture painted by the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman). I am the proud mum of serving personnel. The work we have done as a Government to support our armed forces with pay, housing, legal changes to their court system and so many other things about family life are not as she represented them. Those members of the armed forces are proud to serve their King and their country. They are what we call patriotic. I also need to set the record straight so that people can see that the previous Government left a legacy Act in 2023 that made false and undeliverable promises, which left veterans in legal limbo and which could have enabled immunity for members of terrorist groups. That was not okay and they should be sorry for that, too. I know that this Government do not believe there is any equivalence between the lawful service of our military personnel and indefensible acts of terrorism. It is my Prime Minister who has said that we must sometimes put aside political point scoring and have problem solving. To be fair, the majority of the debate in this Chamber has been conducted in that way. I welcome the contributions from across the House and I am proud to be a part of this debate. This is a challenging area that was left unworkable. This Government have had to work hard to fix what was left. I would like to have gone further, but I recognise that we have moved in the right direction and I want to address some of those points. The overwhelming majority of those who served during Operation Banner did so honourably, courageously and under extraordinarily difficult conditions. More than 300,000 members of our armed forces served in Northern Ireland. They operated under sustained threat from terrorist organisations. They faced split-second decisions in circumstances that few of us in this Chamber can fully comprehend. Any process examining actions taken during the troubles must, therefore, take proper account of the operational context in which those decisions were made. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), I am concerned about the number of amendments and the time that we have had to review them, but I welcome the Government’s determination to ensure that the operational context is reflected in the legislation. I also welcome the Government’s amendment 240, which is intended to prevent unnecessary repeated investigations where matters have already been thoroughly examined. One of the concerns that I hear most from veterans in Portsmouth is not opposition to accountability but frustration at the prospect of being repeatedly drawn back into processes concerning events that have already undergone intensive scrutiny. Veterans are asking for a system that distinguishes between a genuinely new line of inquiry and the unnecessary repetition of work that has already been completed. That is a reasonable request, and one that the legislation must answer clearly. Many veterans are now elderly, and some have spent years believing that matters were resolved, only to face renewed uncertainty. Their families carry that burden. Providing clear safeguards against unnecessary repetition is therefore both humane and sensible. Amendment 277 would widen the definition of family members to nephews, aunties, uncles and grandparents. Consideration of the removing provisions is an opportunity to ensure that the safeguarding that Parliament intends is clear, workable and capable of giving veterans confidence that they will not face repeated investigations. We see that in the wording of amendment of 240. However, I would welcome clarification from the Minister on where the bar will be set, what criteria will be used, what guidance will be published, how veterans will be able to understand whether the test has been met, what assurance will they receive that an early investigation will be properly considered before a new one begins, and when they will know how long it will be before new evidence is brought. The manner of contact matters as well. Veterans should not be cold called about events that may have taken place decades ago. Initial contact will instead go through the Ministry of Defence, so that the individual is informed and supported. Evidence may be given without travelling to Northern Ireland, and anonymity may be requested. Decision makers will have to consider the person’s age, health and wellbeing—all things that were made important to me. I was pleased to see that addressed in amendments yesterday. I would welcome an assurance from the Secretary of State that the support will be proactive rather than merely available on request, and that veterans will have a clear and consistent point of contact. It cannot become a new procedure to be followed; veterans and their families must be treated with dignity, clarity and care throughout the process. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) so eloquently put it, we must avoid framing the debate as veterans versus victims’ families, because in many cases those categories overlap. As the Secretary of State rightly said yesterday, veterans have families seeking answers as well. Service personnel were themselves killed, injured and traumatised during the troubles. Their widows, children and relatives deserve truth and dignity just as much as any other family affected by that conflict. No legislation dealing with the legacy of the troubles will satisfy everyone—the wounds are too deep and the experiences too varied for that—but I believe the Government have moved significantly towards a more balanced framework. I welcome the conversations that I have had with Government Ministers and my veteran community. Although not perfect, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) said, the Bill is a last chance for something that is needed. From the perspective of a constituency with a large community of veterans, I welcome the Government’s recognition of the unique role played by those who serve, their commitment to ensuring that operational realities are properly considered and their efforts to prevent unnecessary repetition, while continuing to pursue truth and accountability. We all know that for too long it has been empty promises and words on a page. Veterans will and should judge the Bill by not the promises made about it, but their experiences of the system it creates. We therefore have a continuing responsibility, in this place and the other, to listen to them, explain the changes honestly, and ensure that safeguards approved by this House are honoured in practice for all who have been affected.

    Hansard source
27. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Amanda Hack

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    I appreciate the contribution already made about the provision for individuals who require wheelchair accessibility. Could the Minister elaborate on how we will protect travellers with allergies? As someone with personal experience of travelling with a child with an allergy, I know how stressful that can be.

    Hansard source
28. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Amanda Hack

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    To add to that, travelling with an EpiPen is also incredibly problematic. Airlines often have different regulations setting out what a person should take and how they should prove that they need to carry an EpiPen. Families often need to get a receipt from their GP, which can cost up to £50, to prove that they are EpiPen carriers, so looking at this issue in the round is really important.

    Hansard source
29. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Amanda Hack

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [LORDS] (Second sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. My constituency is the home of East Midlands airport, where just a few weeks ago there was an increase for rapid drop off from £5 for 15 minutes to £8 for 10 minutes. One of the briefings that we received on the Bill identified an interesting rationale for the charges, and I am sure that will come out in the review. I have some reflections on choice and fairness. When parking or getting a loved one to drop someone off there are a number of variables. In my constituency, just 9% of the public travel to East Midlands airport using public transport because the options are just not available. At East Midlands Parkway, the closest train station, passengers cannot get a public bus; instead there is a demand-responsive transport option. There is a free one-hour car park and the airport claims that people can get a free shuttle bus—which they can until early November, after which they will have to walk in the dark. I did that without any luggage and it took me about 14 minutes and I was quite speedy. I can imagine how inconvenient that would be for individuals who do not have the ability to pay. The ability to pay at the point of use and simply forgetting to pay is also very much a part of my casework. When someone has dropped off a loved one at the rapid drop off, they are often doing so at unusual hours—early in the morning or late at night. By the time they get home, they have simply forgotten to pay. I have been asking the airport that a pay terminal be installed inside the airport for a person being dropped off and with the ability to pay, but it simply continues to refuse to do that. For me, it is about choice and fairness, and there does not seem to be much choice or much fairness there. The fear is that it is using the £100 penalty as a way of making up the cost. There is also the question of whether the cost is proportionate. It is clearly too expensive. What is really frustrating is that Manchester Airports Group also operates Stansted and, as a direct comparison, 50% of people travelling to Stansted use public transport. We are talking about choice and fairness. People there can choose to use other methods, but at East Midlands airport that is simply not the case. The other additional benefit of Stansted is that people who live within a 10-mile radius get an 85% discount on the rapid drop-off fee. There is no such discount at East Midlands airport—an airport with such poor transport links that only 9% can choose public transport as an option. Not to pre-empt the consultation, but I would welcome the Minister’s views on how we can start making sure that rapid drop off and the fairness to use it is equated with the use of public transport in the locality.

    Hansard source
30. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alistair Strathern

    Kinship Carers: Statutory Paid Employment Leave

    I thank my hon. Friend for being such a powerful champion for kinship carers across the country. Those crucial early moments are vital for any parent but, unlike with traditional parental leave, kinship carers often have to understand the caring responsibilities they are taking on at incredibly short notice, and likely against a much more traumatic backdrop than most parents have to wrestle with. It cannot be right that they do not have any access to paid leave, so they can be there for the child’s formative moments. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s parental leave review is a powerful opportunity to put that injustice right?

    Hansard source
31. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alison Taylor

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    It is a pleasure to support the Government in this important debate. For my generation, it seemed as though the troubles were an intractable problem of the age. It was hardly possible for a week to go past without hearing about one atrocity or another. Growing up in the west of Scotland, we were aware of the troubles; we had friends with lives that had been impacted. Northern Ireland was geographically so close, and culturally close, but remote and unfathomable at the same time. That is why, after more than 30 years, the Good Friday agreement represented such a massive breakthrough. Many Members will know better than me just how much went into reaching that agreement—compromise on all sides, a willingness to move forward in good faith and hope for the future. The Bill will continue the work of the Good Friday agreement, and it fulfils a manifesto commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act. It is about creating a mechanism that has the capacity to shed light on the darkest moments of the troubles. It does so while being respectful of the families affected and providing a route to the truth in an honest and sympathetic way. I know there are concerns from veterans and veterans’ families, but genuine protections for veterans ensure that they can speak their truth with dignity and respect. In my constituency, we have many veterans who have served across the world with courage and distinction. Their service is appreciated. Nothing in this Bill will detract from that service. It will ensure that veterans are not faced with repeated demands to provide accounts of events over and over again. It respects the operational realities that existed for service personnel at the time and the practical realities of being asked to provide recollections of events so many years after they occurred. Importantly, veterans’ voices will be heard in a process rooted not in blame and recrimination but in truth and reconciliation.

    Hansard source
32. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alison McGovern

    Young People’s Health

    We commissioned the independent Fonagy review, which made it clear that mental distress has increased for young people and particularly young women. That is why we have already improved mental health support in schools for young people, and we will publish a new mental health strategy by Christmas.

    Hansard source
33. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alison McGovern

    Young People’s Health

    Of course my hon. Friend can meet me to discuss stand-up comedy—I would like nothing more. Clinical services are important. We are already asking ICBs to reduce the longest waits for children and young people, and we have had a 14% decrease, but good mental health for young people goes way beyond that. My hon. Friend knows that I love art, sport and culture as much as he does.

    Hansard source
34. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alison McGovern

    Young People’s Health

    As you know, Mr Speaker, I always meet any Member who asks me to, but it may be that another Minister would be more relevant for the hon. Member’s health centre. We will check that and ensure he has the right meeting, because it sounds like a great community resource.

    Hansard source
35. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alison McGovern

    Young People’s Health

    I refer the shadow Minister to the Fonagy review. It details the causes, which started before covid, of the rise in mental distress for young people. As I mentioned a moment ago, we are already asking ICBs to reduce the longest wait, and we have seen some successes with that, but we have way more to do to address this challenge. We will have more to say in the mental health strategy that will be published soon.

    Hansard source
36. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alison McGovern

    Topical Questions

    It is no surprise to me, given my hon. Friend’s record of campaigning on this and many other issues, and the work that she did in opposition and in government, that she would be in such august company to discuss this matter. I pay tribute to her and all the campaigners, because osteoporosis can have a devastating impact on health. She knows we are committed to improving care, in particular by rolling out state-of-the-art scanners, and I am sure we will meet soon to discuss it.

    Hansard source
37. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alison McGovern

    Topical Questions

    I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all her work with hospices and others on palliative and end-of-life care. I think everybody right across this House wants to see it improved. We have a modern service framework on its way, and as part of the national care service that we are working on, we will make sure that we care for the dying in a much better way in this country.

    Hansard source
38. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alison McGovern

    Topical Questions

    I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. On such an important issue, I will of course meet him. We have had a number of very important debates on this issue, which shows how important Members across the House think this is.

    Hansard source
39. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alison McGovern

    Topical Questions

    I would like to thank my hon. Friend for his question and, through him, to pass on my concerns to the family he mentions. I will write to him on what the CQC is doing. Baroness Louise Casey has recommended some safeguarding steps that we should take urgently, which we are doing—we have a new national safeguarding board—and I will draw the chief social worker’s attention to the case he mentions.

    Hansard source
40. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alison McGovern

    Topical Questions

    The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. The research is good, and the crisis we are seeing in some hospitals as we turn the ship around is because we have not grappled with the issue of social care. We must make sure people are cared for in their own homes, and we must do that consistently to help our NHS.

    Hansard source