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·Lib Dem·Caroline Voaden

   Topical Questions

   Torbay hospital, which serves my constituency, is one of the oldest parts of the NHS estate, and the Devon and Cornwall fire services recently ruled that its tower block would now be unsafe in the event of a fire. A quarter of the beds in the hospital are in that tower block, so patients are now being moved. Staff are extremely worried about what will come next, and this is making the hospital much less viable. Will the Minister meet me, and other Devon Members, to discuss its future funding, and the need to make it safe and secure and ensure that it continues to operate?

   Hansard source
2. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Anna Sabine

   Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)

   I intend to press to a vote all the amendments relating to the additional condition to be met in the case of domestic sporting events set out by Government amendment 30. I also want to speak to Government amendment 28 and press that to a vote. In the other place, Liberal Democrat colleagues pushed for the Bill’s scope to be extended so that the sporting events framework could be applicable to all major domestic events. That amendment received great support from the industry, with bodies including the England and Wales Cricket Board, Formula 1, the Lawn Tennis Association, the Football Association, the London Marathon and the Rugby Football Union signing our letter to push for this amendment, which was voted through. I was pleased that the Minister accepted that amended scope on Second Reading. However, I am concerned that these Government amendments will not deliver it. I understand the Government’s intention—not every premier league match should receive the specific benefit of this Bill—but Government amendment 28 will remove “national interest” from the sporting events framework. That will significantly change the intended scope that the Liberal Democrats pushed through in the other place. This matters in particular for women’s sports and emerging sports, where a national profile has to be built before they can attract international attention. I am seeking clarification: can the Minister confirm that major national events such as Wimbledon will remain covered by the provisions in this Bill?

   Hansard source
3. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Anna Sabine

   Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)

   I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 3, page 2, line 35, leave out “two” and insert “three”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 16.

   Hansard source
4. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Anna Sabine

   Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)

   Any sporting event falling under this Bill, and especially any sporting event receiving financial support from the Government, should be free to air. Sport is a huge part of our culture. We will get to the topic of tickets later in this debate, but the reality is that it is expensive to see sport live. We can all agree that being able to watch England play football at the world cup should be free for everyone to watch on TV. Our amendments would ensure that everyone can watch a sporting event that falls under the Bill and that, especially when Government funding is going towards that event, it is free to do so. Public service broadcasters have pioneered free-to-air coverage and have demonstrated that it has significant social value. Televising the Lionesses, for example, has been huge for girls, who are increasingly taking up football after watching it on live TV. Research by the Women’s Sport Trust shows that whether sport is free-to-air has a direct impact on how many people are watching women’s sports. These amendments would ensure not only that every fan can watch their team play, but that emerging sports funded by the Government or provided for through the Bill are accessible for all to see.

   Hansard source
5. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Anna Sabine

   Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)

   I do not represent a home county, and I would like to press the amendment to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.

   Hansard source
6. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Anna Sabine

   Sporting Events Bill [HL] (Second sitting)

   I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. We all know what happened the last time England hosted the world cup. Not only does hosting the world cup appear to result in English victory, but it boosts the economy, brings fans together and inspires people around the country. We see the framework in the Bill as an opportunity to give fans what they want: the world cup hosted right here in the UK in 2042. To make that a reality, we need a proactive strategy, and that is what the new clause would provide: a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a feasibility study and a bidding plan.

   Hansard source
7. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Anna Sabine

   Sporting Events Bill [HL] (Second sitting)

   On that basis, and with much enthusiasm in return, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 10 Prohibition of ticket touting and regulation of resale platforms “(1) A person commits an offence if the person resells, or offers to resell, a ticket for a major sporting event at a price exceeding the original cost. (a) For the purpose of subsection (1), the original cost of a ticket is the original ticket price plus any unavoidable fees, including service charges. (2) A person operating a ticket resale platform must not charge service fees exceeding a statutory cap prescribed by regulations. (3) A person commits an offence if the person resells, offers to resell, or lists for resale a number of tickets exceeding the number they were entitled to acquire in the initial primary market sale for that event. (4) A person who operates a ticket resale platform has a legal duty and strict obligation to— (a) monitor listings on the platform, and (b) enforce compliance with subsections (1), (2), and (3) to ensure the rules are adhered to on the platform. (5) The Competition and Markets Authority may impose a financial penalty on any person or ticket resale platform found to be breaching the provisions of this section, up to an amount not exceeding 10% of their annual global turnover.”—(Anna Sabine.) This new clause implements ticket touting protections by making it illegal to resell major sporting event tickets above original cost, capping resale platform service fees, placing legal duties on resale platforms to monitor and enforce compliance on their sites, and empowering the Competition and Markets Authority to enforce penalties of up to 10% of global turnover. Brought up, and read the First time.

   Hansard source
8. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Anna Sabine

   Sporting Events Bill [HL] (Second sitting)

   I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

   Hansard source
9. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Anna Sabine

   Sporting Events Bill [HL] (Second sitting)

   No fan should miss out on watching their favourite team play, but at the moment that is the reality every single time tickets come on sale. I am sure many of us know the heartbreak of waiting in an online queue for hours with no luck, only to see tickets pop up minutes later on resale sites at extortionate prices because bots and serial bulk buyers got there first. Every year, fans lose £145 million to greedy touts. It is clear that the system is broken and is not working for the everyday fan. Labour promised in its manifesto and in the King’s Speech to tackle ticket touting, which we welcome—and yet here is a Bill with the framework to deliver that, and the Government are choosing to kick the can down the road. Fans should not have to wait for change. That is why the Liberal Democrats want to make it illegal to resell tickets above face value. We want to ban surge pricing and cap resale platform fees at 10%. The Sporting Events Bill is the perfect vehicle to make those changes, and that is what new clauses 10 and 11 would do. I urge the Government to back them.

   Hansard source
10. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Anna Sabine

    Sporting Events Bill [HL] (Second sitting)

    I thank the Minister for her comments and I hear what she says, but in the absence of planned, timed legislation to take the matter forward, we would like to press the new clauses to a vote, starting with new clause 10. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
11. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Anna Sabine

    Sporting Events Bill [HL] (Second sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Some 30% of children aged 11 to 17 spend their own money on gambling, and up to 2.7% of adults could be considered problem gamblers. Behind those figures are real people whose mental health, finances, family life and relationships are being harmed. The Liberal Democrats have long been calling for reforms to protect people from gambling harms, and we believe that the events covered by the Bill should be free of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship. This new clause is the right thing to do, as it will help prevent the harms that gambling is causing by keeping adverts out of major events hosted in the UK.

    Hansard source
12. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Anna Sabine

    Sporting Events Bill [HL] (Second sitting)

    I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their comments, but we respectfully disagree. The Liberal Democrats would like to press our new clause to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
13. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Anna Sabine

    Sporting Events Bill [HL] (Second sitting)

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset for tabling new clause 13. In my constituency of Frome and East Somerset, we have loads of fantastic community sporting groups. I recently visited the Frome Flyers and the Somer Valley Strikers, two women’s walking football clubs in my constituency that represent everything that is great about local community sport. Community groups could benefit enormously from increased funding, and that is exactly what the new clause would deliver. As my hon. Friend said, there are clear examples of major international events leaving lasting community benefits when local funding is built in, particularly for women and girls and disadvantaged groups in sport. This Bill is our chance to make sure that international events do more than bring a few weeks of business to a host area; they should leave a lasting legacy for the people who live there. The new clause simply makes sense, and I hope that the Government will support it.

    Hansard source
14. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Andrew George

    House of Lords Reform

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) not only on securing the debate, but on the manner in which he introduced it. I thank him for intervening on the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) to expose the case that he was making. Indeed, the hon. Member for Romford indicated that he was happy to join a party that proposed to abolish the thing that he wants to protect. He wants to depoliticise the thing that he wants to politicise further, and he wishes to maintain continuity of a body by changing it quite radically, according to his proposals. One of the reasons we are here today is that a small number of Lords made a very eloquent and strong case for their own abolition through the manner in which they treated the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill earlier this year. They spent many months filibustering in order to effectively block that Bill, exceeding the powers that the House of Lords should have. I have often raised the question of why we want a second Chamber, and I think that most people, even the hon. Member for Romford, agree that it is there for sober, independent scrutiny of the legislation that we send down to the Lords. Their role is to encourage us to take a less tribal view on the legislation that we seek to take forward, and to provide expert scrutiny that is helpful for the processes we are engaged in. However, as the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) put so articulately, the system of patronage is both corrupting and extremely corruptible. Clearly, that needs to be swept away in any reforms to the House of Lords, but the question is: what do we put in its place? I entirely understand the emotional response, which is to say that we should have an elected Chamber, but I want to challenge that idea. I have often said that we want to retain the best of the House of Lords Appointments Commission because it provides at least a template of a helpful function, particularly if we can attract the kind of people that the hon. Member for Romford described, so that a sliver—a proportion, a minority—of Members are selected according to the qualities that they can bring to the place. The rest of it should be on a jury service basis—or in other words, a citizens assembly. That has been proposed by a large number of people and organisations over time. Of course, I can entirely understand the laudable and emotional response that one elects the Chamber, but there is a risk, which the hon. Member for Romford mentioned, that it becomes either a lapdog or a logjam to this Chamber. In those circumstances—we saw it with the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill—the Lords would argue that they have the democratic legitimacy to challenge the decisions of the primary Chamber. We do not, for example, say that because board members for the Environment Agency, Natural England, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Climate Change Committee or the Low Pay Commission have power and political influence over the decisions that are taken in our country, they should be elected. On that basis, I am sorry to say that the arguments for an elected Chamber evaporate away. We need to find other ways of ensuring that we have the genuine and sober second-thought and independent scrutiny that this Chamber needs and deserves. Otherwise, quite frankly, it would be better to turn the place into a museum.

    Hansard source
15. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Alison Bennett

    Diethylstibesterol

    I am pleased that the Minister is talking about ensuring that medical professionals are more aware of DES and the risks for those who were potentially exposed to it, but what is her assessment of the feasibility of tracking and informing those who were potentially exposed? My constituent Heather did not realise that she—or her mother—had been exposed until long after her mother’s death.

    Hansard source
16. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Alex Brewer

    Step-down Intermediate Care: Community Hospitals

    Our community hospital in Fleet is doing a brilliant job, but it could be a much more established resource for local people, especially given the delays in rebuilding our local hospitals. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can make the best use of community hospitals in North East Hampshire while we wait another two decades for the rebuild of Basingstoke hospital?

    Hansard source
17. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 19, page 17, line 1, at end insert— “(3AB) It is in the public interest, and in particular in the interests of the elimination of violence against women and girls, that due regard be given to circumstances arising from a person who seeks to enter or remain in the United Kingdom being a victim of violence against women and girls, including domestic abuse (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021).” This amendment inserts a new public interest consideration into section 117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, requiring a court or tribunal to take into consideration the effects of violence against women and girls when deciding whether an interference with a person’s Article 8 rights is justified.

    Hansard source
18. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

    It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. My amendment would introduce a public interest test for survivors of violence against women and girls, domestic abuse and sexual violence into the considerations. I will also speak to the matter of leaving out the clause. I will start with the clause and what it does. The clause will fundamentally alter the balance that has long existed between article 8 rights and the public interest by restricting the courts’ ability to assess the individual circumstances of each case. Our courts and tribunals carefully balance the right to private and family life against the public interest in an effective immigration system. Our judiciary performs that task every day, helping to deliver justice, uphold the rule of law and guard against abuse. Yet the clause assumes that the balance is being struck wrongly, without the Government having demonstrated that. The main evidence is only a 2022 internal sample of Home Office decisions. The existing statutory framework already strongly favours the public interest, in particular in deportation cases. While preserving the ability to consider individual circumstances, the clause will replace that with a more prescriptive framework. Here are my views on the main changes in the clause: first, it will require courts to predict whether a person will remain financially independent. That is an inherently speculative exercise, because it fails to consider the uncertainties of ordinary life, including illness, disabilities, caring responsibilities or economic downturns. The effect is likely to discriminate most heavily against disabled people, as well as those with long-term health conditions and caring responsibilities. Secondly, the clause will discount genuine family life, because of immigration status. Family life formed while a person was here with no leave to remain would be given no weight at all, and family life formed while people’s status was precarious would be given little weight. Precarious migration status covers everyone with anything short of indefinite leave to remain or citizenship—care workers, skilled workers, international students, refugees and partners on the family route. Under the earned settlement proposals, the qualifying period to become eligible for settlement would be extended to a baseline of 10 years, and in some cases 15 or even 20 years for refugees. Many people will therefore remain on in a precarious position for years, during which the relationships they form and the children they raise would count for little or nothing under the clause. The reality is that family relationships do not cease to exist or be formed just because an immigration status is uncertain. Strasbourg accepts that precarious status can reduce the weight that is given to family life, but it has not said that it counts for nothing. In an important case, Jeunesse v. the Netherlands, the European Court of Human Rights found a violation—even when the applicant had remained without leave for years—because of the impact on her children. With a “No weight” rule, as in clause 19(4), there will be no space to assess such cases and to retain flexibility. It will weaken protection for children. Finally, and perhaps most alarmingly, when courts assess a child’s best interests they do not look at one factor in isolation—they examine the full picture: a child’s age, health, education, friendships, cultural identity, family circumstances, personal development and connection to the UK—and the children are not defined by a checklist; yet clause 19 would introduce a closed checklist, under which it would be unreasonable “to expect a child to leave the United Kingdom if (and only if)” they would receive no education abroad, face “very significant obstacles” to integrating in the new country, or suffer “a very significant and long-lasting adverse effect”. Each is a very high bar. Remarkably, the Government’s impact assessment describes those factors as a “non-exhaustive” list, but subsection (7) uses the phrase “if and (only if)”. It is very clearly a closed list. The Bill therefore goes even further than the Government say they intend, in terms of its effect on children. I am also concerned that the clause applies to British children too. As drafted, it could result in a British child with a migrant parent either being separated from their parent or having to leave the UK to preserve the family unit. That results in two-tier British citizenship. The Government’s own impact assessment lists family separation among the consequences of these reforms, and says—with little humanity—that the new test will allow decision makers “to consider whether parents can maintain their relationship with a child from outside the UK” or whether a British child can “successfully adapt to life abroad”. The existing framework is not perfect, but it already places substantial weight on the public interest and has safeguards allowing courts to consider the facts of each case. Clause 19 risks upsetting that balance. At its heart, the issue here is a simple one: do we trust our courts to weigh the facts before them, or do we seek to predetermine the outcome through statutory presumptions? I believe that the existing approach better serves both justice and the rule of law, and for that reason clause 19 should not stand part of the Bill. Amendment 61 would reduce the harm of this clause, if it remains, by inserting a new public interest consideration into section 117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, requiring a court or tribunal to take into consideration the effects of violence against women and girls when deciding whether an interference with a person’s article 8 rights is justified. In my view, without the amendment the Bill will remove or weaken application grounds or causes of appeal relied on by many women living in abusive or exploitative conditions, making them even more vulnerable. That may leave victim-survivors at risk of being refused leave to stay, removed or deported for factors that are a direct consequence of the abuse to which they have been subjected. To bring that point home, I will provide some examples from organisations that are currently supporting such women. My first example shows how the stricter public interest considerations risk undermining evidence for financial dependency and contact with the criminal justice system being usual results of an experience of violence against women and girls. Julianne was living in another country when she began her relationship with a British man. While visiting him in the UK, she became pregnant with his child and he encouraged her to stay, promising to support her and secure her immigration status. Trusting those assurances, Julianne stayed and became an overstayer. Once her status became insecure, her partner’s behaviour changed dramatically. He subjected her to domestic abuse, isolated her from friends and family overseas, and exploited the fact that she had no support network in the UK. The abuse escalated after the birth of their child. Julianne eventually fled with her child after a violent assault. She sought medical treatment, reported the abuse to the police and received emergency support from the local authority. Traumatised and destitute, Julianne was left to navigate a complex immigration system alone, as she had been unable to secure legally aided advice and could not afford to pay for a solicitor. She lives with the constant fear of removal. I have changed Julianne’s name. Julianne had a pathway to regularisation as the parent of a British child; however, if clause 19 becomes law the barriers to regularising her immigration status would be raised significantly, potentially preventing her from qualifying to remain in the UK as the parent of a British child. Re-emphasising the weight of financial independence without reliance on state support and public services will create pressure on victim-survivors like Julianne to stay in abusive and exploitative situations instead of leaving and claiming support, as she did. Women who have been subject to economic and immigration abuse will be penalised due to their lack of financial independence. The public interest considerations would weigh heavily against Julianne because she accessed support from the local authority while protecting herself and her children from domestic abuse, and because no weight would be given to her family life, as it was established when she overstayed. Without amendment 61, there would be no discretion to consider the role her abuser played in causing her to overstay. In respect of the redefinition of family, I have a further example of where limiting family life to core cohabiting family and replacing a judicial assessment with a checklist will ignore nuances and external factors forcing a family not to cohabit, such as coercive and controlling behaviour. More broadly, women who are convicted of criminal offences would also be put at increased risk of deportation, as a high evidential standard is needed to prove a disproportionate impact on them or a family member. That includes women who are coerced or pressured into criminal activity—those driven to engaging with the criminal justice system due to unmet needs, such as being unable to afford food or having unaddressed mental health problems, and those who retaliated against the person abusing or exploiting them, or who had a counter-allegation made against them falsely. All those women are vulnerable and deserving of protection and support, not the further punishment of possible deportation. My second case study is Blanca. Blanca came to the UK with a visa to work, and while here, she married a British man and had a baby. He had a good job, so they agreed she would stop working, and they then had two more children together. Over time, he became more controlling. Although the children’s benefits were registered in her name, he controlled the payments and did not give her access to the money. As Blanca did not have her own income, he gave her money for the family’s food, but he would demand that she provide receipts and the exact change. If she bought anything he considered unnecessary, he would be angry and make her return it. That included sanitary products, which Blanca found humiliating and confusing. He also became verbally and later physically abusive towards Blanca, and she became more and more scared of him. One day, when she was in the supermarket, her period started. She did not know what to do, and she was scared of her husband seeing that she had bought something he thought was unnecessary. She stole a box of sanitary pads, but on her way out of the shop, she was stopped by security who reported her to the police. She was charged and later convicted of theft. If part 2 of the Bill were fully implemented, Blanca’s conviction would put her at high risk of deportation. No consideration would be given to the abuse that she experienced, which pushed her to commit the crime, nor would it be given to her vulnerability and trauma. In addition, as she did not have lawful status for much of the time she was in the UK, her private and family life may be deemed to hold no weight—or, at best, little weight—if it were held to have been established when she arrived with precarious status. The Committee can see that clause 19 has all these knock-on effects into further parts of the Bill, and that this additional public interest consideration is necessary. I hope the Committee will discuss and support amendment 61, if clause 19 is to remain in the Bill. I am happy for this to be a probing amendment, if the Government will consider these risks and make their own similar changes to the Bill later.

    Hansard source
19. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

    I am very interested in the fact that the Minister has just talked about going further on good character in some guidance. Will that guidance take into account factors that might otherwise weigh against the character of someone making an appeal if they have been exploited or abused? Is that the kind of thing that the Minister is thinking about in terms of deviating from the 1981 guidance?

    Hansard source
20. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

    Further to the discussion with the Minister about ensuring that victims of abuse and sexual violence are protected, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed: 105, in clause 19, page 17, line 3, leave out “should” and insert “must”.—(Blake Stephenson.) This amendment would require, rather than advise, that no weight is given to private or family life established while a person is in the United Kingdom unlawfully, with leave obtained by deception or in serious breach of their conditions. Question put, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
21. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

    I will speak very briefly on clause 20, specifically subsection (4). At present, it will expand the scope of section 117D of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 so that it automatically applies to everyone whose deportation the Home Secretary has decided is conducive to the public good, regardless of the objective seriousness of their offence, under the Immigration Act 1971 and its use of the word “deems”, which I think is very important. I hope the Minister can answer three questions on the clause. First, do the proportionality qualification and the exceptions in the clause offer any protection for those whose criminality is as a result of exploitation or abuse, particularly those who face immigration-related domestic abuse and have been convicted of crimes related to that? On that theme, the new clauses tabled by the official Opposition would clarify the word “serious” so that some offences would be considered serious automatically. I see the point they are trying to make, but if we made that automatic, it would not be possible for those who are exploited and drawn into criminality to face a proportionate, human-rights-based public interest test. I do not support those new clauses, nor do I support amendments 108 to 111.

    Hansard source
22. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

    I am asking the Minister these questions, so it would be marvellous if we could wait to see how she answers them. Thirdly, does that approach not allow the Home Secretary to unilaterally stack the deck against an appellant in an appeal, on an arbitrary basis? Does that take away from the objective seriousness of the offence that they have committed? Does the approach therefore impermissibly limit the ability of the appellate body to decide an article 8 ECHR claim on its merits, as is required under the Human Rights Act 1998?

    Hansard source
23. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 75, in clause 21, page 19, line 19, at end insert— “(2A) In making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare and best interests of any children in respect of whom a protection claim is made or who are granted protection status.” This amendment would require regulations under Clause 21 to take into account the best interests of children.

    Hansard source
24. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eighth sitting)

    It is great to have you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Barker. Amendment 75 was tabled to the original clause 21. The Government published amendments on 13 October that removed clause 21 and added new clauses 35 and 36, a new schedule and some additional amendments linked to the new core protection status. However, the issues raised in my amendments 75 and 74—as well as in amendments 51 to 54 tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough—continue to be relevant to this debate. Amendments 75 and 74 are focused on the broad nature of the powers in relation to conferring rights and obligations or requirements on someone with or claiming protection status. That was set out in clause 21(3)(c) and is retained in subsection (3)(c) of Government new clause 36. My concerns remain relevant, as I said. I will not press my amendments to a vote, but the Government need to consider those issues seriously and respond to my points. Government new clause 35 will remove clause 21(6)—the sunset clause—which limited the time period for regulations to be made under the clause to one year after the Bill comes into force. New regulations can therefore be made indefinitely under that new clause, and I would like the Government to justify that change. Amendment 75, which was tabled to the Bill as introduced, sought to ensure that regulations must have regard to the best interests of a child. No child rights impact assessment has been produced on any aspect of this corporate action model, despite the fact that the shortening of refugee leave to 30 months already applies to children and families seeking asylum for over six months. The amendment would make sure that, before making regulations, the Government look properly at the impact of corporate action, including the short periods of leave and the long route to settlement in this—I think downgraded—protection status. I am particularly worried about this in relation to the ability to settle, make family life and all the kinds of rights that children have. When the Government do this, they need to pay particular attention to the Home Office’s legal duties under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. Applied to children and young people, corporate action and the 20-year route will undermine children’s well-established need for stability, particularly refugee children as they recover and rebuild their lives following what is probably life-changing trauma and distress. In addition, repeated immigration status reviews and uncertainty around long-term residence will drive avoidable school and college moves as families are forced to relocate at short notice or potentially lose housing as a result of insecure employment status and other impacts of this shorter period of leave and the resulting uncertainty. For children, each move disrupts attendance and their ability to get pastoral or potentially special educational support. It can set back attainment or harm social integration, particularly at a stage when continuity is most important for children and young people. Temporary leave cycles and renewal windows are inevitably going to risk coinciding with exams, including GCSEs, highers, A-levels and vocational assessments. Anxiety about imminent status decisions could undermine revision and therefore exam performance, and in some cases, young people facing disruption will miss exams completely. This must be looked at very closely. I also want the Government to think about children who are getting ready for higher education; they are just about to become adults and are potentially looking to study in this country. Unstable status also makes it harder for young people to secure home fees and student financing. Short grants of leave could push refugees into the overseas fee category for a long time or leave them ineligible for maintenance support. The rights of children growing up in this country would be impacted because they would have university access and progression closed off to them. They might be forced to defer going to university, which might stall their integration into the community or harm their earnings potential. I do not think that any of those impacts are in the public interest, and I want Government to at least commit today to conducting a child rights impact assessment that will look at all of these things in part 3 of the Bill before Third Reading—and certainly before any of the regulations in this part are made. Amendment 74 would ensure that there was no regression of rights and entitlements. It is needed because the broad regulation-making powers contained in clause 21 currently have very few limitations on scope. The delegated powers memorandum says that the powers will not be used to reduce the entitlements of refugees, and this amendment would seek to reflect that by requiring that they do not reduce rights and entitlements below what was in place on the day that the Bill was introduced. The amendment merely reflects what the Government have said their intentions are: in part 48 of the delegated powers memorandum, the Government state that the measure will not be used to reduce “the entitlements currently held by refugees” or persons with humanitarian protection. The amendment seeks to reflect this commitment in the Bill: that people who have already been granted protection status before the Bill is introduced retain the rights, entitlements and protections that currently exist. That would include family reunion with no additional eligibility criteria and a five-way pathway to settlement, if interpreted correctly according to what the Government have said. That clarity is very much needed for refugees who are currently in the UK and need certainty of their situation so that they can focus on developing their life in this country—integrating, earning and all the things that will help their family life and their children. I have a question about a particular part of new clause 35. I welcome the detail in schedule 1 and I appreciate having it at this stage so that we can scrutinise the Bill. However, part 7 of new clause 35 gives the Secretary of State the power to “revoke a person’s protection status.” That is literally all it says. While a whole section of the immigration rules covers the situations where a person’s refugee status and humanitarian protection can be revoked, on the face of this Bill, the Government are creating a very broad ability to revoke that status, which is currently unconstrained. Why are the Government not listing suitable uses of that power on the face of the Bill? This issue is particularly relevant because in the last few weeks other parties—not represented on this Committee—have announced their desire to revoke the right to asylum and revoke refugee status for some who have already found protection in the UK. The Government rightly stood up for the right to asylum and stood against those proposals. It would be good to have that on the face of the Bill, so that we have better protections against the risk of the power being taken over by another party or future Home Secretary who would abuse it. I would like the Government to clarify that. Finally, it would be useful to hear how the Minister believes the change in new clause 35 will simplify decision-making processes since we have heard in oral evidence that the convention grounds cannot be done away with. Merging them with what had previously been known as the humanitarian protection grounds is potentially complex and confusing for people. Will the Government clarify how people will be told on what grounds they have been granted protection, in order to make sure that the Bill is very clear?

    Hansard source
25. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I would like further clarity on why those grounds—the reasons for which revocation could be made—which the Minister read out very clearly, are not simply added to the Bill at this point to make the situation incredibly clear.

    Hansard source
26. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eighth sitting)

    It is important to know whether the 30-month process will be more like a simple renewal—like me renewing my TV licence or something like that—or whether it will be a reinterrogation of the person seeking protection all over again? Will the onus be on the Government to say, for example, that a country has suddenly become safe, that there has been a new Government, that major changes have occurred and, therefore, that we will look more closely at a number of cases, but that in countries where the situation has remained the same, we will not be looking in depth? How simple the process will be is really bothering people. Having all their circumstances reinterrogated and having to prove themselves over and over again is something people have learned to expect from the Home Office. It is up to the Minister to reassure us on this point.

    Hansard source
27. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eighth sitting)

    For clarity, will the onus be on the Government to prove the change, or will it be like reapplying from scratch each time? Again, my casework shows that we are more used to the Home Office asking for chapter and verse from the applicant each time. If the Minister is prepared to promise that it will be for the Government to prove changes, that would mean a lot to many people listening.

    Hansard source
28. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 21 disagreed to. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jade Botterill.)

    Hansard source
29. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Hannah Spencer

    Manufacturing Skills

    Students in Gorton and Denton tell me they often have to spend two to three years on a course before they can even be considered for an apprenticeship. Make UK reports that 39% of manufacturers do not think our education system can deliver the skills that they need. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to make apprenticeships more accessible and flexible so people are not held back from skilled jobs and manufacturers can get the workers they desperately need?

    Hansard source
30. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Dr Ellie Chowns

    House of Lords Reform

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this important debate. I represent the Green party. For many years, we have supported the abolition of the House of Lords and its replacement by a fully elected second Chamber. I am personally fairly agnostic about the exact format of how that should be done, but I fundamentally believe that a basic principle of democracy is that the legitimacy of the lawmakers comes from the trust put in them. I am talking about the authority entrusted in the legislature by the people, the voters—not by the people in charge of a political party who draw up a list from time to time, some of which is clearly related to the amount of money donated for years by some of the people who end up in the other place. It is not even through the legitimacy that an individual achieves within their specialised field of expertise because of many long years of practice in that field. We should absolutely as a Parliament draw on expertise from across the full panoply of sectors in our country, but we need to ask ourselves who should be making the laws. It should be people who work on the basis of the trust given them by the voters, by the people, and on the basis of every vote having equal weight. That is why I am equally passionate about the importance of a proportionally elected Parliament. Fundamentally, we have a system in the House of Lords that is undemocratic and hugely unrepresentative in all sorts of dimensions and areas of demographics. It is untransparent because so much of the decision making about who becomes a Member is done behind closed doors. How can that be suitable for the 21st century? We have a huge problem with not only the composition but the functioning of the House of Lords. It is, of course, important that legislation is properly scrutinised and that there are full opportunities to amend it. We have questions to ask ourselves in the Commons about how well we do those things and how well our system enables us to, but we do not fix them with an institution such as the House of Lords—no matter how effective individual Members of the Lords may be. Like colleagues here, I pay tribute to the work of so many Members of the Lords who take their role seriously, bring expertise and pay attention to the job that they are there to do. However, as the hon. Member for Stroud has pointed out, there has been a huge failure in the functioning of the House of Lords because, effectively, the will of a few of its Members has overridden the will of the House of Commons. That cannot be right, so we desperately need reform. I welcome the proposal from the hon. Member for Stroud of a national commission on reform of the House of Lords. To address a point raised by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), I should say that I would strongly favour the inclusion of a citizen’s assembly as part of that process. I fundamentally believe that a representative sample of the British people, representing all demographics and engaging in the detail and questioning of how we construct our political system, so that the people’s voice is heard, must be a fundamental part of any reform process. We cannot continue as we are—with an undemocratic, unrepresentative, untransparent second Chamber. We must have reform.

    Hansard source
31. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Topical Questions

    Constituents in North Herefordshire and across the country want an end to the current postcode lottery in access to adult social care. The King’s Fund published a report on equal access just last week. Has the Minister read that report, and does she agree that social care needs to be locally delivered, but nationally funded?

    Hansard source
32. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Wendy Morton

    Topical Questions

    The Government propose to abolish Healthwatch and bring its functions inside the Department and local NHS bodies, but patients need an independent champion who can challenge things when they go wrong. What savings does the Minister believe will result from abolishing Healthwatch? How will she ensure that this does not result in the loss of an independent voice for patients?

    Hansard source
33. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Stuart Andrew

    Maternity and Neonatal Care

    On maternity, two things will stick with me. First, there was the briefing from Donna Ockenden on her report, which was shocking. The other was listening to bereaved mums saying how they are tired of telling their story over and over again, and I hope we can find a better service for those parents; equally, there was the treatment of dead babies in the mortuary in Nottingham. Will the Secretary of State update us on the work being done to ensure that those shocking things never happen to any family ever again?

    Hansard source
34. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Hayes

    Heathrow Airport Expansion

    I will now call the Front-Bench spokesman for each party. I suggest that the Liberal Democrats and the Opposition speak for eight or nine minutes and the Minister speaks for 10 minutes or so, and then there will be time for Fleur Anderson to speak for a few minutes at the end, and for me to put the question.

    Hansard source
35. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Hayes

    Heathrow Airport Expansion

    The hon. Gentleman should familiarise himself with “Erskine May”, page 488, which makes it clear that when you have not been present for the bulk of the debate, it is not polite to intervene. The right hon. Gentleman who has the floor now needs to bring his remarks to a conclusion to give maximum time to the Minister.

    Hansard source
36. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Hayes

    Heathrow Airport Expansion

    Before I call Fleur Anderson to wind up the debate, let me say that the Minister has stepped in for the Aviation Minister, who I appreciate is on other ministerial business and has committed to writing to a number of colleagues to deal with specific issues. I want to put it on the record that that commitment has been made, and I expect it to happen.

    Hansard source
37. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Hayes

    Kinship Carers: Statutory Paid Employment Leave

    I will call Melanie Onn to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for a 30-minute debate.

    Hansard source
38. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Hayes

    Kinship Carers: Statutory Paid Employment Leave

    I do not think you get a chance to wind-up, Melanie, in half-hour debates, but as we have extra time, you can have 30 seconds.

    Hansard source
39. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Hayes

    House of Lords Reform

    I remind Members to bob if they want to be called to speak. I see that a number of Members are bobbing, so I will give priority to those who applied early to speak in the debate.

    Hansard source
40. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Hayes

    House of Lords Reform

    I shall call the Front Benchers from 5.10 pm. As you can see, a lot of people are standing, which gives you a feel for how long you have got. So, it is three or four minutes each, I am afraid.

    Hansard source