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. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jen Craft

   Highways (Financing) Bill

   My hon. Friend mentioned Thurrock services. Thurrock is an area that will be heavily impacted by the lower Thames crossing, so I am very glad that she mentions the lack of a service station built into the plans. We already have significant issues with lorry drivers parking in inappropriate places on roads that are not built for that purpose, in order to get the rest that they need because they cannot get into a service station. Does my hon. Friend believe that the lack of a services facility as part of the lower Thames crossing will exacerbate that issue?

   Hansard source
2. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jen Craft

   Highways (Financing) Bill

   I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to this Bill and to talk in particular about its primary focus on the financing of the lower Thames crossing. My constituency will be one of the two areas most impacted by both the operation and the construction of the lower Thames crossing. I will not spend too long dwelling on the question of the road itself. I have been quite vocal in my reservations about the wider scheme—the two Ministers on the Front Bench are nodding along—but that decision has long been taken, and with £1 billion of public money already invested in the scheme, it seems unlikely that it will be reversed. However, the finance mechanisms in the Bill will provide much-needed clarity for the many thousands of people who will be directly impacted by the lower Thames crossing that the project will go ahead. After decades of uncertainty, a number of my constituents will find that most welcome. I am determined that my constituents will benefit in as many ways as possible from the construction of one of the most significant national infrastructure projects in a generation on their doorstep. However, I seek the Minister’s reassurance on certain aspects of the regulated asset base model that the Bill provides for, particularly how the model allows for an operator to recoup the costs of construction and maintenance via a toll mechanism—mitigating the financial and construction risk of an operator building the lower Thames crossing in a kind of private-public partnership. That potentially creates a natural monopoly, which the Office of Rail and Road, as the regulator, will oversee. My constituents and I have some probably fairly justifiable concerns about a private enterprise levying tolls, particularly via the use of automatic number plate recognition at tollbooths. Many have had experiences with the current Dartford crossing toll operator in which, when things go wrong, it is hard to get redress. Owing to faulty ANPR, a not insignificant number of drivers have found themselves accruing hefty fines, sometimes into the thousands of pounds, for journeys they have not even undertaken. They can find it very difficult to get redress or to get the fines cancelled or written off. When I attempted to contact the operator of the scheme, I discovered that it was an offshore entity—operating, I think, out of the United States—and it was all but impossible to see transparently who was running the tolls or hold them to account. I would therefore be grateful for the Minister’s assurances around the transparency and accountability of any toll operator for a future Thames crossing, particularly as to how we get redress if things go wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) raised the Office of Rail and Road’s potential lack of teeth. We all know the difficulties that Ofwat has had in regulating the water industry; rightly, there is now a national outcry about the effectiveness of that regulator in holding private companies to account. It is fair to question whether the Office of Rail and Road is sufficiently equipped to hold to account a private toll operator for the lower Thames, particularly when it comes to redress, or to look at how the tolls are operated. I also seek reassurance around congestion. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) spoke about the congestion caused by the Dartford crossing. Believe you me, I know that all too well. I am a lifelong resident of the place that I have the honour of representing, Thurrock, and the congestion at the Dartford crossing—or, as we affectionately know it in my patch, the bridge—is legendary. It causes misery for people, particularly when they are crossing from the Kent side to the Essex side. Every day, the tunnels create a back-up of up to four hours for motorists. When something goes wrong, it does not just prevent people from crossing; it causes congestion around my whole constituency. I know of people spending eight hours making a 10-minute journey. People spend hours trying to get home from school because they are stuck in traffic for hours on end. It is complete and utter misery. I am concerned about whether the lower Thames crossing will mitigate that congestion. My other concern relates to the tolls levied. If there is a disparity between the charge for using the lower Thames crossing and that for using the Dartford crossing, it is fairly obvious which one most people will use. My predecessor, the former Labour Member of Parliament for Thurrock, Andrew MacKinlay, was instrumental in getting a discount for the Dartford crossing for residents of Dartford and Thurrock. That has proved invaluable, and is an acknowledgment of the fact that we probably bear the brunt of the journeys made on the crossing. When it comes to a residents’ discount for the lower Thames crossing, there should be equal consideration given to the impact that the crossing will have on my constituents. I am concerned that people may opt to use the Dartford crossing if it is cheaper than the lower Thames crossing. That would exacerbate a number of the issues we face. There are wider issues with the Thurrock road network. Junction 31 of the M25, which leads directly on to the Dartford crossing, is a key part of national road infrastructure. When it goes wrong, it absolutely messes with our logistics industry and people travelling to and from work. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) asked why he should be talking about something that affects a constituency in the east of England. The truth is that the traffic backs up all the way to the midlands, around the south and around the east of England. It is such a tiny junction—it has so much potential to go wrong. Recently, before the recess, someone spilt a large quantity of oil at junction 31 in the early hours of the morning while we were experiencing a heatwave. That took National Highways close to, I believe, 20 hours to address. The road remained shut for the entire time, and the congestion it caused in my patch was completely insurmountable. I discussed with National Highways and the police afterwards what we can do to properly get to grips with the fact that when this crucial bit of infrastructure goes wrong, it impacts so many people in my patch. One of the things they suggested, which I would be grateful to discuss with the Roads Minister, is potentially having a dedicated traffic police force for the Dartford crossing. I imagine that it would cover the lower Thames crossing as well given its proximity to many crucial parts of our industry. It is only right that my constituents, who will be most impacted by the lower Thames crossing, must be those who benefit most from it. I would like to flag a few places where the lower Thames crossing project is currently falling short in some of its commitments to ensuring social value in the most impacted communities. I do not believe that these difficulties are insurmountable. There is a commitment to employ a significant amount of local people in the build and construction of the lower Thames crossing. However, the geographical area for that is far too broad. It encompasses most of the Greater London area. My constituents, who are a small proportion of people within that area, will struggle to get a look in. I would like the geographical area for local jobs to be restricted to those constituencies that are most impacted, namely Thurrock, Gravesham and Dartford. Similarly, there is a commitment to use and involve small and medium-sized enterprises in its construction. However, a number of small businesses in my patch, including Labour Base Solutions, have been unable to engage with the project so far, despite trying on numerous occasions. They have instead seen that national contractors seem to be getting priority. I would be grateful to discuss with the Minister what he can do to help change that, because this is enterprise, money, industry and growth that should be coming to my area, given that we will be the most impacted. I believe that the Bill has the potential to go further and to deliver something that is completely key for transport in my constituency: the return of the Tilbury ferry. If my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) were here, she would call it the Gravesend-Tilbury ferry, but in my patch we know what it is properly called. This ferry has been running for the best part of 600 years, having been given the charter by Henry VIII to provide a river service. It was, up until its closure—

   Hansard source
3. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jen Craft

   Highways (Financing) Bill

   I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is a bit like “Beetlejuice”—you mention ferries and he appears; it summons him. He is absolutely correct that ferries should prove a vital part of public transport infrastructure. Let me turn to the huge and important role that the Tilbury ferry played in our public transport infrastructure locally. It ran continually until 2022 when, unfortunately, due to historic bankruptcy by the then Conservative council, it was unable to pay the subsidy needed to keep the ferry running, and it came to a close. That was an absolute tragedy for my area. Not only did the ferry provide a vital commuter route for a number of people, but a number of my constituents used it to attend schools in Kent, for example—they are now having to make a journey that is about an hour and a half each way, and they are encountering problems at the Dartford crossing that could have been avoided by a quick 10-minute hop across the water. Gravesend High Street in Gravesham used to lead directly on to the ferry terminal, and those businesses have been hit so hard by the loss of this vital transport link. In my patch, there are fond memories of the ferry, not just for myself and my family but for so many of my constituents. I put a call out for people to share their memories of the Tilbury ferry and to sign my petition, and the numbers hit the thousands within a couple of days. People are desperate to see it return. The main issue with the return of the ferry is the cost of the subsidy for running it. There is public will to get it back, and there is will from businesses in the area—the Port of Tilbury, Forth Ports, DP World and a whole host of others really want to see it, because they know it provides that link and enables them to encourage people to come and work for them from both sides of the river. Furthermore, if we are trying to get people off our road networks, a large number of people who use the Dartford crossing are projected to use the lower Thames crossing for short hops either side of the river, and the ferry would allow them an alternative, so that they could make that journey in a much more sustainable way, which is much better than adding to the congestion that already exists. It is a much greener way of travelling. I ask the Minister to seriously consider putting aside a very small proportion of the tolls to be paid on the lower Thames crossing—I am talking about 0.01%, which is less than a penny—to enable the Tilbury ferry to be funded in perpetuity. There is precedent: the Dartford crossing used to fund the subsidy for the Tilbury ferry, until that was given over to the two local authorities at the time, Kent county council and Thurrock council. A levy on the lower Thames crossing would allow the Tilbury ferry to be insulated from potential shocks, such as we saw with the bankruptcy of Thurrock council. It would allow the ferry to keep running well into the future, so that it can serve my children and my grandchildren. It would take people off the already overloaded road network. It would bring life back to Gravesend High Street. It would make sure that people on my side of the river can visit their relatives, go to their hospital appointments, go to work, go to school and just enjoy a really nice day out, and it would prove to people in my patch that we can have nice things and we do deserve them. This ferry is a crucial part of our infrastructure, and given that people in my patch will be bearing the brunt of the construction and operation of the lower Thames crossing, I believe that they deserve this. I ask the Minister to seriously consider allowing this piece of infrastructure to fund a critical part of the local transport infrastructure and to help me bring back the Tilbury ferry for good.

   Hansard source
4. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jayne Kirkham

   Topical Questions

   Truro lost its post office last week as well, without a temporary alternative. Will the Minister consider consulting with the Post Office on alternatives when this happens in main cities and looking again at the franchise model, which seems to leave post office branches very vulnerable?

   Hansard source
5. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jayne Kirkham

   Business of the House

   Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the financial impact on local authorities and Government of the loophole that allows retrospective reclassification by the valuation office of second homes as holiday-let businesses? It has led to councils having to refund years of council tax—up to £10 million in somewhere like Cornwall—and central Government having to reimburse councils for future shortfalls.

   Hansard source
6. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jas Athwal

   Jagtar Singh Johal

   I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) for resolutely leading the charge in Parliament to bring British national Jagtar Singh Johal back home. Earlier this month, after almost nine long years behind bars, Jagtar finally walked out of prison and into the arms of his loved ones. After nearly a decade of anguish and uncertainty, his family could finally experience a moment of relief. It is frankly shameful that our great country has allowed a British national to languish in a foreign prison, reportedly to face torture, in what the UN has confirmed is arbitrary detention. More shameful still is that despite this long overdue breakthrough, Jagtar’s nightmare ordeal is far from over. He may be out of jail, but he has had to surrender his passport. He remains trapped in India, thousands of miles from home, and still faces eight outstanding cases—cases that, in nine years, have yet to reach a conclusion or, in some cases, even a start. Britain has failed Jagtar, and frankly India has, too. India, which prides itself on being the world’s largest democracy, has dragged its feet for nearly a decade, failing to bring those cases to a conclusion within a reasonable timeframe, and trapping a British national on foreign soil for nine long years without conviction. I ask two questions to the Minister—I appreciate that other Members have raised similar matters. What concrete diplomatic steps have the Government taken, and what further action will they now take to secure Jagtar’s safe return to the United Kingdom? Secondly, what does it say about Britain if we cannot secure the freedom of one of our own citizens after such a long time? Jagtar’s case is a matter of deep national humiliation. His bail must spur urgent action to bring him home; it should not become another milestone that we merely welcome before turning to the next item on the UK-India agenda, or a trade deal.

   Hansard source
7. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jacob Collier

   Hospitality Sector Support

   I thank Ministers for their engagement following Carlsberg’s devastating news about the closure of Marston’s brewery next year, which risks 310 jobs and the future of heritage ales from Burton, such as Pedigree and Bass. Hospitality relies on brewing, but brewing was left out of the industrial strategy and industrial energy schemes. Will that now be changed?

   Hansard source
8. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Lavery

   Topical Questions

   The Royal Mail sorting offices in my patch are in absolute chaos—they are in meltdown—and I am really concerned that someone will end up in a tragic situation because of the lack of service. I have met Royal Mail on numerous occasions and there has been no change whatsoever—in fact, the service is getting worse. What can the Minister do to remedy the situation before somebody needs to be held accountable for a very serious situation?

   Hansard source
9. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Lavery

   Business of the House

   On 1 January next year, the Government will rightly ban the disgraceful practice of fire and rehire, yet some employers appear determined to exploit the situation before these protections take effect. In the north-east, Taylor Wimpey has just issued dismissal notices to 31 joiners and 19 scaffolders in an attempt to force them on to worse terms and conditions, leaving hard-working families facing uncertainty in the run-up to Christmas. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on this shameful practice and join me in urging Taylor Wimpey to withdraw those notices and return to meaningful negotiations with the workforce and Unite the union?

   Hansard source
10. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Henry Tufnell

    Topical Questions

    I welcome the Government’s support for British industry, including through the British industrial competitiveness scheme. However, the fact that the oil refinery sector is not included in that scheme threatens thousands of jobs and our national energy security. Will the Secretary of State consider expanding the scope of the scheme and reviewing its broader eligibility requirements?

    Hansard source
11. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Gordon McKee

    Business of the House

    Residents in Cathcart in my constituency have been waiting more than five years for a gate to Linn Park to be fixed and reopened by Glasgow city council. Thanks to the work of the Friends of Linn Park group, progress is finally being made. Does the Leader of the House agree that it has taken far too long, and will he join me in recognising the work of the Friends of Linn Park?

    Hansard source
12. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Euan Stainbank

    Joint committee on Human Rights

    This is a fast-moving topic that has continued to be of deep concern to my constituents since the publication of the report. Subsequent to its publication, has my hon. Friend seen any further evidence of the need for mandatory testing of AI frontier models?

    Hansard source
13. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Euan Stainbank

    Smoke-free UK

    It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I commend the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for securing this timely and important debate about progress towards a smoke-free Britain. I also welcome the Minister to her place, and declare an interest as the chair of the responsible vaping APPG. I made the daft decision at a slightly older age than the unique exposure that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) had to pick up a cigarette at a party when I was 16. I have managed to progress to a point relatively early in life where I am no longer a smoker, but that was due to the availability of alternatives, not because I had the willpower to overcome the strong addiction to nicotine that quickly took hold after that juvenile mistake. When we talk about ending smoking and addiction, we need to talk about how to enable effective off-ramps for those who are addicted to nicotine. It was great when I visited one of the specialist retailers on Falkirk high street, VPZ, that they had a carbon monoxide test, which checks how much carbon monoxide is in someone’s lungs. The level in mine has returned to relatively normal, but many of my constituents with preventable smoking illnesses face substantially worse outcomes because they have not been given that effective off-ramp in their quit journey. In this debate, I am thinking about those who are suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, heart failure and all other types of preventable illness. Diminishing that harm must continue to be our focus as we seek to sustain the progress that has enabled a significant fall in smoking rates. There is no other legal product sold that does the same amount of damage as tobacco. I wholly support the Government’s Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, which introduced a generational ban that will cut off those who turn 18 from January from ever being added to the 4.9 million smokers in our country. In the short time I have, I want to focus on the simple argument that, in seeking to achieve a smoke-free Britain, we should not prematurely regulate out of existence any of the tools that help combat tobacco smoking. Occasionally, rhetoric on this topic has drawn an equivalence between vaping and smoking, because we are rightly concerned in this country about youth uptake of any nicotine products. Although I agree with that instinct, I must warn against the march towards an arbitrary equivalence of regulation between tobacco and vapes. We know from the data that the vast majority of vape use is among ex-smokers and current smokers, with 33.8% of current smokers and 20.7% of ex-smokers vaping daily or occasionally, compared with only 2.9% of those who have never smoked. We also know from established public health data that vaping is 95% less harmful than smoking, yet—in no small part, I believe, due to the moralistic tone of the debate that emerged around vaping—around 90% of smokers still do not know that vaping is substantially less harmful for them. If we were to fully ban flavour or significantly restrict its availability as a result of the Government consultation on vaping flavours, which has closed, we may inadvertently limit the effectiveness of our most effective smoking cessation tool. ASH data indicates that 14% of ex-smoking adult vapers would return to smoking if flavours were restricted, and over 70% of vapers say that flavour variety helps them quit and, most crucially, sustain their efforts to quit. I would appreciate an update from the Minister on how the Government’s response to the consultation will retain the right balance by permitting flavours, as vaping is a quit aid. I welcome the fact that the consultation is distinct from the question of packaging, display and appearance; far too much of the debate on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill focused on the appearance and names of vapes rather than the value of flavours to smokers who are seeking to quit. We have tacitly acknowledged that vapes are important in ensuring a smoke-free Britain; we can see the success of the “swap to stop” scheme. Overzealousness in curtailing the variety of products that are available to those seeking to access those services may undercut the sustainability and viability of that effort. With my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon), I sponsored an amendment to the Bill that would have introduced age-gating technology into vapes, which I think could be a helpful tool for the Minister. It would have practically addressed Members’ concerns about youth vaping while retaining the benefits for smoking cessation. As the technology is achieving more mass adoption, especially in the United States, I would be interested to hear how the Minister thinks it could be utilised under the powers available to her in the Act. We see the worst practices in shops that would not think twice about selling similarly age-gated products to under-age people, including alcohol and fireworks. On the display ban, I believe that restrictions on what can be displayed at the shop front could inadvertently harm specialist and bespoke retailers more than the shops we are attempting to tackle, so we need a full list of specialist retailers to make sure we support smoking cessation efforts. The Minister’s predecessor put it very well: if you do not smoke, do not vape, but if you do smoke, switching to vaping is a far preferable choice. The regulation that is being considered should follow that principle.

    Hansard source
14. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Euan Stainbank

    Topical Questions

    With Syngenta ending its Grangemouth operations despite the Government’s substantial offer to intervene, we have a narrow window to avoid this incredibly well-positioned site lying vacant. What interventions are the Government prepared to make to seriously secure new industry and new jobs for this site and, more broadly, the Grangemouth industrial complex this side of 2030?

    Hansard source
15. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Euan Stainbank

    Business of the House

    This year marks the 25th anniversary of the Millennium Link project, which restored the Forth & Clyde and Union canals as the arteries of Falkirk’s economy, and built the iconic Falkirk Wheel, connecting the two canals. Will the Leader of the House commend the staff at voluntary canal associations, and everyone else involved in the project over the years, and join me to visit the new traditional skill centre currently being built at Lock 16? It will regenerate the former AG Barr factory, provide new jobs and opportunities for young people, and is supported through the Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal and the Pride in Place impact fund.

    Hansard source
16. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Zubir Ahmed

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fifth sitting)

    As a matter of record, it is important for my right hon. Friend to outline why the amendments and new schedule have been tabled now and why they were not included in the original Bill. I know my constituents take a keen interest in this matter, as my constituency has one of the highest amounts of asylum seeker housing in the country.

    Hansard source
17. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Zubir Ahmed

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    Does the hon. Lady accept that article 8 was never intended to be interpreted as it is now, and therefore that if we do not provide guidance or adjust it, we will further dampen the British public’s confidence and trust in the immigration and asylum system? I can tell her from personal experience that when that happens, it is people from minority communities that are already here, sometimes for many generations, such as my father, who are first in the firing line. Does she therefore agree that if she, like me, wants Britain to be a compassionate, welcoming country, we must acknowledge that those articles are in some cases not being interpreted in the intended manner and that the adjustment is appropriate?

    Hansard source
18. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Zubir Ahmed

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    It is the hon. Lady’s contention that those of us on the Government Benches were somehow manipulated by others to arrive at this Bill. Will she at least concede that toxic rhetoric and hatred do not occur in a vacuum, as I know personally, but often exploit structural deficiencies in systems, and that sadly there are structural deficiencies in this system? Is fixing them not therefore the responsible thing to do, so that we can turn the tap off that these haters and racists use to fire abusive language at Members of Parliament and members of the public who do not look like them?

    Hansard source
19. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Zubir Ahmed

    Jagtar Singh Johal

    I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, especially as he is getting into the substance of his speech. I want to place on record my appreciation and that of my constituents in Glasgow South West, where there is a large Sikh community, for my hon. Friend’s efforts. He has been tireless since the first day he was elected to this place in trying to secure the release of Jagtar. That resonates very strongly with my constituents in the Sikh community across Glasgow South West. Does my hon. Friend agree, though, that although we are slowly starting to move in the right direction, there is still deep concern because Jagtar faces the death penalty? The Johal family—which includes friends of mine, such as Gurpreet, who is a local councillor in the west of Scotland—must be filled still with trepidation. Does he further agree that there is also a wider context, whereby someone born in this country—a British citizen, a second-generation Indian—has found himself in this situation, incarcerated for nearly a decade? That sends shivers down the spines of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people in that situation living in Britain today who would wish to visit India.

    Hansard source
20. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Peter Prinsley

    Online Marketplaces: Safety of Products

    4. What steps his Department is taking under the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 to hold online marketplaces accountable for the safety of products sold on their platforms.

    Hansard source
21. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Peter Prinsley

    Online Marketplaces: Safety of Products

    Residents of Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, like millions of us across the country, increasingly rely on online marketplaces for everyday purchases. However, the consumer magazine Which? continues to uncover dangerous products being sold on those platforms. Will the Minister ensure that forthcoming regulations place a clear legal duty on online marketplaces to identify and remove unsafe products, backed by meaningful penalties for those that fail to protect consumers?

    Hansard source
22. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Peter Prinsley

    Highways (Financing) Bill

    I welcome the measures in the Bill to invest in our road system, but will the Minister comment on the technological advances to vehicles over the next decades? Most vehicles will eventually become self-driving. That will mean much less congestion, and vehicles will communicate with each other, so there will be much simpler junctions and fewer accidents. What account are the Government taking of the technical changes to vehicles?

    Hansard source
23. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Peter Prinsley

    Highways (Financing) Bill

    Is the shadow Secretary of State opposed in principle to the concept of tolls for any of these projects?

    Hansard source
24. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Lauren Sullivan

    Highways (Financing) Bill

    Gravesham will bear one part of the length of the tunnel, so it is important that the people who will be the most affected are able to hold to account toll regulators. There must be accountability for ensuring that toll roads are properly cared for and enhanced for local residents.

    Hansard source
25. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Lauren Sullivan

    Highways (Financing) Bill

    Gravesham will be one half of the centre point. Yes, it is a nationally significant infrastructure project, but the people of Gravesham need to ensure that there is accountability, so that the things we saw and learned in Dartford do not happen there. Will there be local representation and local voice, so that the ORR can look at what can make it work better?

    Hansard source
26. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Douglas McAllister

    Jagtar Singh Johal

    I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the urgent case of my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal, a British citizen from Dumbarton who is facing the death penalty in India on trumped up political charges. Jagtar was arbitrarily detained in an Indian prison for 3,254 days. He has been released on bail but continues to face capital punishment in eight dubious cases against him, which duplicate allegations on which he was acquitted last year. Though Jagtar has now been released on bail, he is by no means free. He faces restrictions on almost every aspect of his life and is at great risk while he remains in India. Justice may only be served by returning him to his family and his home in Dumbarton.

    Hansard source
27. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Douglas McAllister

    Jagtar Singh Johal

    I agree entirely with my hon. Friend’s comments and I will touch on those points during my speech. May I take this opportunity to thank him for his continued and long-standing support and encouragement of me with respect to the fate of my constituent? He never lets a day pass when he does not ask me for an update, and he has shown great solidarity to me and to Jagtar Singh Johal—I thank him for that. This case has attracted concern from parliamentarians across this House, from human rights organisations, from legal experts and from the United Nations.

    Hansard source
28. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Douglas McAllister

    Jagtar Singh Johal

    I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who makes a powerful point about the ongoing position of my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal. I thank my hon. Friend not only for his intervention, but for his continued support for me and my constituent, Jagtar. He has been unfailing in his commitment, on behalf of Glasgow South West, to demonstrating the ongoing support across the west of Scotland and the nation for securing Jagtar Singh’s safe return home. In opposition, my party rightly called for Jagtar’s release on the basis that he was arbitrarily detained. It is my hope that through effective diplomacy, we will be able to deliver that outcome. Above all, this case has deeply affected Jagtar’s family in Dumbarton, who have spent nearly a decade fighting for justice and searching for answers.

    Hansard source
29. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Douglas McAllister

    Jagtar Singh Johal

    I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I place on record my thanks to her and, as she validly says, the British Sikh community across the United Kingdom, Sikh Federation UK and the all-party parliamentary group on British Sikhs. Without that collective support, we would not have secured what we have today, which is his release on bail, but the fight continues. Jagtar, of course, is from my West Dunbartonshire constituency. His ordeal is a matter of huge concern to many of my constituents, who have urged me to continue pressing Jagtar’s case in this place. I am grateful for the continued efforts of campaigners in my constituency and beyond to keep me updated on developments. Although I have never spoken to Jagtar, I hope one day to meet him as a free man, shake his hand and have that long-awaited conversation. Jagtar travelled to India in 2017, shortly after his wedding. What should have been one of the happiest periods of his life turned into nine years of unimaginable suffering. While shopping with his wife in Punjab on his honeymoon, he was abducted from the street by hooded men who were later identified as police officers. He was held incommunicado for 10 days. During that period, he was subjected to electric shocks, sleep deprivation, stress positions and threats against his life. It is now known that a forced confession was extracted from Jagtar through torture. Following that, he was sent to prison, where he remained arbitrarily detained for almost nine years. The highly political accusations against Jagtar are not supported by any material evidence—no bank records, no email trail, no CCTV or anything of that kind. In fact, the case against him is based on that forced confession, obtained under days of torture. These deeply concerning events are not simply claims made by campaigners or family members. They have repeatedly been the subject of international concern and scrutiny. In May 2022, the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention concluded that Jagtar was being detained arbitrarily and called for his release. In April this year, 10 UN special rapporteurs and independent experts issued an even stronger statement. They found that there was “no rationale” for Jagtar’s continued detention and stated: “Eight and a half years of arbitrary detention without a clear path to trial is not justice, it is unlawful suffering.” They went on to say that the prolonged uncertainty surrounding his case amounted to a form of psychological torture. These are exceptionally serious findings from the UN. The same experts raised concerns regarding the apparent duplication of charges, the presumption of innocence, the misuse of counter-terrorism legislation and the continued reliance on evidence allegedly obtained through torture. They stated: “International law is unequivocal: torture includes severe mental suffering caused by prolonged uncertainty while awaiting trial…It also prohibits the use of evidence obtained through torture in proceedings and requires prompt, transparent and fair trials”. Those principles should guide every justice system. They should also guide our response when those principles appear to have been breached in the case of a British citizen, as has happened with Mr Johal. There have been hundreds of hearings over the course of these proceedings, yet judges recently observed in a written order that the trial is not likely to conclude anytime soon, which is incredibly worrying. There was a significant development in March 2025 when a court in Moga acquitted Jagtar of all charges. Prosecutors had spent seven years pursuing the prosecution of that case and ultimately failed to present credible evidence. Yet despite that acquittal, Jagtar remained imprisoned because he continued to face eight other cases, which are essentially duplicates. They all have similar underlying allegations, the same disputed confession and the same questionable evidence. That is backed up by UN experts, who have raised concerns about the similarity of these charges, as well as issues around double jeopardy, the presumption of innocence and the use of evidence allegedly obtained through torture. This month, there has finally been progress. Following a bail order granted on 18 September, Jagtar was released from Tihar jail on 1 October—after almost nine years in custody. This is very welcome news, and I know it has brought enormous relief to his family, friends and supporters.

    Hansard source
30. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Douglas McAllister

    Jagtar Singh Johal

    My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I will touch on towards the conclusion of my speech. I agree entirely with her comments, and would like to take this opportunity to thank her not only for her intervention but for the support she has shown me over the last two years in our joint fight for justice for my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal. Jagtar remains subject to strict bail conditions. He remains on trial in eight outstanding cases. He remains under the threat of serious criminal charges and potentially the death penalty if convicted. He is unable to return home to Scotland. While his release represents an important step forward, it does not bring this case to an end. This debate is not intended to undermine the relationship between the United Kingdom and India. I am very aware that India is a hugely important partner to us and a valued friend. Nor do I underestimate the complexities involved in consular cases overseas. I recognise that Ministers and officials have intervened on this case over the years and that representations have been made at various levels. Indeed, a number of previous Foreign Secretaries have raised Jagtar’s case with their Indian counterparts. Most recently, the current Foreign Secretary spoke to India’s External Affairs Minister, Minister Jaishankar, last month and stressed that Jagtar’s case had been a concern for a long time. I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for raising this, but the response from Minister Jaishankar was not good enough. As he has done in the past, he insisted that he cannot interfere with the courts, but after almost nine years, concern alone cannot be the measure of success. Raising Jagtar’s case at any opportunity is not good enough, and his family saw little evidence of progress coming from these supposed discussions. The measure of success must be whether Jagtar is finally able to return home. In September 2023, a Government Minister argued that publicly calling for Jagtar’s release was not in his best interests. The Government therefore chose not to call for his release at that stage. Now, the circumstances have changed. The opportunity before us has changed, and the Government’s approach must change, too. I was pleased to see the appointment of a UK envoy for complex consular detentions, who is responsible for supporting British nationals detained overseas in complex cases. I know that he has met Jagtar’s brother Gurpreet, whose commitment throughout this campaign has been extraordinary. Since the very start, he has spoken up for his brother with determination, dignity and resilience. I thank Gurpreet for being Jagtar’s biggest supporter and advocate, and for relentlessly fighting for his release. I also wish to thank the team at Reprieve, who fight for people facing torture, unlawful detention and the death penalty—

    Hansard source
31. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Douglas McAllister

    Jagtar Singh Johal

    I thank the team at Reprieve for their diligent support and assistance to me and to Jagtar over the last two years. However, since the meeting with the envoy, the family have received little information about what concrete action is being taken. I hope the Minister can provide greater clarity today. Can we have a timeline for action, given that Alistair Burt was appointed to the envoy role some months ago? This week, the Scotland Secretary, the Business Secretary and the Environment Secretary were in India on a trade mission. That is a clear illustration of the fact that our Government are developing an increasingly strong working relationship with India. Given the strength of that relationship, there is no reason why we should not be raising Jagtar’s case at every opportunity. While I understand that this week’s visit was a trade mission, and that Jagtar’s situation may be an inconvenient truth, our Government need to do everything they can at this crucial time to ensure Jagtar’s safety. The predominant fear is that Jagtar’s release on bail could be treated as the conclusion of this case, rather than the beginning of a critical new phase. Jagtar is not out of the woods yet: the threat of further proceedings is a reality, and the threat of the death penalty remains. The uncertainty and injustice prevail. That is precisely why our Government must act now. They could have intervened when he was first detained; they did not. They could have intervened when the UN working group on arbitrary detention ruled that Jagtar was wrongfully imprisoned; they did not. They could and should have intervened when he was acquitted of all charges in the Moga district trial, but they did not.

    Hansard source
32. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Douglas McAllister

    Jagtar Singh Johal

    The right hon. Member is 100% correct: that would be a very potent signal, and I am sure that that point has not been lost on the Minister. I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention, and for his long-standing and continued support for my constituent, which is greatly appreciated. I am not here today to point the finger of blame at anyone specifically. We must work together with the Indian Government and use our close relationship. Right now, we have the best chance we will get to bring Jagtar Singh Johal back home to his family in Dumbarton. For years, Ministers could point to the fact that Jagtar remained imprisoned, and that court proceedings were ongoing. Today, the situation is different. Jagtar is no longer behind bars. The international pressure surrounding his case is growing, and the UN has repeatedly called for action. All the allegations against Jagtar have been tested in court, and Jagtar has been acquitted, yet with the duplicate cases against him remaining, a court has essentially acknowledged that proceedings may continue indefinitely. If there was ever a moment to intensify diplomatic efforts, it is now. This is not the time for routine engagement and simply “raising” the case with Indian counterparts; it is the time for a co-ordinated, sustained and determined effort to bring the case to a conclusion and bring Jagtar home. The Government cannot change what happened in 2017, but they can help to determine what happens next. This may well be the best opportunity we have had in years to secure a just outcome, and I urge Ministers to seize it. Jagtar’s case is not the only case of a British national arbitrarily detained abroad. Ryan Cornelius has been imprisoned in the United Arab Emirates since 2008. The UN working group on arbitrary detention found that his detention, like Jagtar’s, was arbitrary. His original sentence was extended by a further 20 years through the retrospective application of legislation, despite serious concerns regarding due process. Similarly, Jimmy Lai, a 78-year-old British citizen in Hong Kong, has now spent more than 1,800 days in detention. He was sentenced earlier this year to a lengthy prison term on national security charges, and faces what is now essentially a death sentence. Those cases are all different, but they share a common theme. When British citizens face arbitrary detention, unfair legal proceedings or serious human rights concerns overseas, our Government may be the only institution capable of advocating effectively on their behalf. Every year, significant numbers of British citizens report torture or mistreatment while detained abroad. In many cases, diplomats are the only link between those individuals and the outside world. Parliament has a duty to ensure that such cases remain visible, and that Ministers continue to pursue them with determination. Jagtar’s release on bail is welcome, but it is crucial to remember that this case is not over. For too long, his case has been characterised by delay, uncertainty and missed opportunities. Now more than ever, there is a genuine opportunity to move things forward. The Government should treat this moment with the urgency and seriousness it deserves. I recognise that Ministers cannot direct foreign courts, and I recognise the importance of maintaining a strong relationship with India, but friendship between nations should never prevent us from standing up for the rights of our citizens. I strongly urge the Government to seize this opportunity and make resolving this case the diplomatic priority it should be. Jagtar Singh Johal has lost almost nine years of his life. His family have lost almost nine years with their son, brother and husband. We cannot give those years back to them, but we can ensure that nine years does not become 10 years or more. I urge the Minister to please use every diplomatic channel available, engage at the highest levels of Government, press for a swift conclusion to the remaining proceedings, and work to secure Jagtar’s safe return home to my constituency of West Dunbartonshire.

    Hansard source
33. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Deirdre Costigan

    National Care Service

    I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud member of Unison. For too long, care workers in Ealing Southall have lived on rock-bottom wages with no chance to progress in their jobs, so I hugely welcome the Government’s half a billion pound investment in the first ever fair pay agreement for social care. Does the Minister agree that we will never have a good quality social care service in this country unless we value our care workers properly? Will she set out how far the half a billion pounds will go in achieving that?

    Hansard source
34. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Deirdre Costigan

    Jagtar Singh Johal

    I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on his tireless campaigning for his constituent, which is an example to us all. I wrote to the former Foreign Secretary and to Ministers on several occasions to raise Jagtar Singh Johal’s case on behalf of many of my British Sikh constituents in Ealing Southall, who have been hugely concerned for his safety and legal rights. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a testament to many in the British Sikh community in his constituency, in mine and in many constituencies across the country, who have rallied behind Jagtar Singh Johal, and that that is part of the reason that he has now been released on bail from prison?

    Hansard source
35. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·David Smith

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fifth sitting)

    It is obviously not on the face of the Bill, but does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the Government’s intention to introduce safe and legal routes would ultimately solve the problem that he is describing, as raised by the witnesses?

    Hansard source
36. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·David Smith

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I understand the point the hon. Gentleman seeks to make about the potential pool of people, but is that not theoretical? The pool of people around the world who may be refugees is tens of millions. Ultimately, it is up to the Government of this country to determine the criteria for someone to be accepted as a refugee. It seems like a slightly philosophical point, if he does not mind me saying so.

    Hansard source
37. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·David Smith

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I thank the hon. Lady for being so generous with her time. I want to build on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk. The hon. Lady spoke about the Bill referring to core cohabiting family, but does she accept that there must at some point be a limit on what we define as family? If I were fleeing to another country, would it be reasonable for me to say, “I desperately want my third great uncle on my mum’s side to be part of my family”? Does she accept that there has to be a definition and parameters for what family actually is, which the Bill seeks to establish?

    Hansard source
38. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·David Smith

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I was one of the Members who referred earlier in the debate to safe and legal routes, which are a very good idea. May I ask a very simple question: are there any specific restrictions at all that the hon. Lady would like to add to our immigration system?

    Hansard source
39. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·David Smith

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I have a fundamental question. The hon. Gentleman is outlining the word “normally”; if, to his estimation, all asylum lawyers or whoever is involved in the process would look at their individual case and say, “That’s not normal,” surely none of it would be exceptional.

    Hansard source
40. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·David Smith

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    Does the Minister agree that unless we introduce a definition of a family, the term becomes entirely subjective?

    Hansard source