What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Spadeadam is, of course, another amazing facility that I have visited in recent years. My hon. Friend is quite right: there is the potential there, and I agree that a full assessment of that potential must be made, alongside that of our other launch facility in the Shetland Islands.
The fundamental problem is that for years our country has not allocated enough of our national resources to growing food in a way that boosts biodiversity. We now have a nature crisis that is increasingly a threat to our national security. We need every farm that can to do more on nature-friendly farming. Can the Minister reassure me that his Department is talking to the Treasury about securing greater investment in the SFI going forward?
I thank the Minister for her powerful statement. Some 84% of care beds in England are run by private companies, and Baroness Casey has highlighted that private equity is often holding councils to ransom, so that they can extract maximum profit from the public purse. I note the Minister’s earlier answers on ownership models, but can she confirm that Labour’s national care service will put an end to the essential care of our parents and grandparents being used as a profiteering investment vehicle by private equity?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) for securing this important debate, his continued attention to the case, and his support for Mr Johal and his whole family. He has advocated relentlessly for Mr Johal since he became the MP for West Dunbartonshire in 2024. I also thank all hon. Members who have intervened during the debate. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) and for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), who made further contributions. I am grateful for all the thoughtful interventions. Most of all, I want to acknowledge Jagtar’s family, including his wife and his brother. This case has been a matter of deep concern for successive Governments for many years. At the outset, I want to recognise the immense toll that the long-running case has taken on Mr Johal and his family. Nearly nine years in detention without a resolution to his legal proceedings has been an extraordinarily difficult experience. As we have discussed today, Mr Johal was released on bail on 1 October after almost nine years in pre-trial detention in India. This welcome development in the legal process represents an important step forward in Mr Johal’s case, after such a prolonged period of detention. As this House knows, we have consistently raised our concerns about the length of pre-trial detention and other issues, which I will come to shortly. Since his release, officials at the British high commission in Delhi have met Mr Johal on two occasions. They will continue to provide him with consular assistance while he remains on bail, pending the conclusion of his trial. Additionally, officials at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire, our envoy for complex consular detentions, Alistair Burt, a former and highly respected Member of this House, have maintained regular contact with the family here in the United Kingdom. I should be clear that Mr Johal’s case is not over. While there has been progress in some respects—we welcome the progress represented by the earlier acquittal in the state court—eight cases against him remain outstanding before the Indian courts. It is crucial that those proceedings are resolved as quickly as possible within India’s independent legal system. I have already made this point, but it bears repeating that the Government have consistently raised concerns about Mr Johal’s case with the Government of India at every opportunity. Engagement has spanned successive Governments and Ministers and has stressed our legitimate concerns regarding Mr Johal’s prolonged pre-trial detention, his very serious allegations of torture and mistreatment, and his right to a fair trial. Most recently, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire has mentioned, the Foreign Secretary raised Mr Johal’s case with his Indian counterpart on 24 September during the United Nations General Assembly in New York. That sustained engagement demonstrates the importance that the Government continue to attach to this case, and our commitment to seeking a prompt and full resolution to the outstanding cases against him. At every stage, we have emphasised the need for due process, and for the legal cases to come to a resolution without delay. As I have emphasised, Mr Johal’s release on bail does not mark the end of these prolonged proceedings. The Government share the view of Mr Johal’s family and many hon. Members that the legal cases should now move forward without continued delays. India is a sovereign democracy with an independent judiciary, and Mr Johal’s legal proceedings are a matter for the Indian courts. We have made clear to the Government of India our interest in the legal petitions put forward by Mr Johal’s defence team, and our expectation that they will be heard. We continue to raise our interest and concerns with the Government of India at every appropriate opportunity, pressing for a full and fair resolution through the courts, and that must include an investigation into his allegations of torture and mistreatment. Let me cover some points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire and Members from across the House on two important areas. One is around the sustained campaign on Mr Johal’s case. I assure the House that I have seen the co-ordinated effort of Ministers, including many Prime Ministers. I do not say that in jest; it is a matter of fact that we have had a number of Prime Ministers in recent times. They go all the way from former Prime Minister Boris Johnson to the most recent former Prime Minister, Keir Starmer. The case has also been raised most recently by the Foreign Secretary. I argue that a sustained and co-ordinated piece of work is being undertaken by British Ministers of successive Governments of all colours to secure a way forward for Mr Johal. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire rightly challenged me, as the Minister with responsibility in this area, on the work on the UK-India trade deal. That issue was also raised by a number of my hon. Friends. I assure the House that any support or negotiations on consular matters are not connected to our work on trade deals, and we continue to raise Mr Johal’s case. Let me conclude by reiterating that the Government remain fully engaged in Mr Johal’s case. His release on bail after nearly nine years in detention is an important and welcome moment for him and his family, but significant legal proceedings remain outstanding. As I have said, we will therefore continue to press the Government of India for a prompt, full and just resolution to Mr Johal’s cases in India’s independent legal system, and we will continue to provide consular assistance. After nine painful years, Mr Johal and his family deserve to see these long-running legal proceedings move forward, and the Government will do everything that they can to support that outcome. Question put and agreed to.
7. What steps his Department is taking to help tackle late payments to small businesses.
Late payment destroys thousands of viable small firms each year, and poor practices have seen large firms using small suppliers as a free overdraft. In my constituency, the impact is felt by manufacturers and fabricators, with local metalwork and transport supply sectors facing the longest payment delays in the UK. How is the Minister ensuring that there is a change in payment culture and lifting that burden from small businesses?
T7. This summer, the Bletchley investment taskforce, which I established last year, finalised its investment prospectus, setting out all the opportunities that our town offers. Will the Minister meet me and the taskforce to discuss how we can work together to attract the new businesses and jobs that will ensure that we deliver growth in our postcode?
Over the conference recess, I had the pleasure of joining pupils, staff, and parents at Buckingham primary school to celebrate its platinum award for outdoor play and learning, which is so crucial to helping children foster a sense of creativity, independence and confidence. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the school on its achievement? Will he consider granting a debate in Government time on the importance of outdoor play for children’s health and wellbeing?
Syngenta in Grangemouth recently announced 377 redundancies. Along with the recent closures of Versalis, Fujifilm and, of course, the Grangemouth oil refinery, this means a real reduction in positive destinations for local young people. What can the UK Government do to accelerate the readiness of sites in Grangemouth in order to unlock the £200 million from the National Wealth Fund, so that we can build Grangemouth and Scotland’s industrial future?
The creation of a national care service is in the very best socialist traditions of the Labour party. However, pensioners funding its creation through the removal of the triple lock is not, especially when we have over 2 million pensioners living in poverty. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the £15 billion of savings from the removal of the triple lock is actually more like £4 billion. Making any savings is a bit of a speculative gamble, because if we see high inflation, there are potentially no savings to be made. If there is going to be a financial shortfall in providing the national care service, how will it be funded and realised?
The Government are determined to tackle the scourge of late payments, which causes the closure of 14,000 businesses and costs the UK economy almost £11 billion a year. The Commercial Payments Bill currently progressing through Parliament will give the UK the strongest laws in the G7 and represents the most significant reform of payment practices in over 25 years. The Bill will ensure that small businesses spend more time on growing, investing and creating jobs and less time on chasing late payments.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I know from personal experience how frustrating it is to have large firms use small firms as a source of free finance. The Commercial Payments Bill will clamp down on late payments by introducing maximum payment terms, providing stronger rights to interest and strengthening the powers of the Small Business Commissioner. She is right about the need for a culture change. The message from Government is that this legislation and this change is coming, and large companies should get their payment practices in order right now.
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue. I know it is a huge problem in Northern Ireland, as it is in the rest of the UK. One of the great problems with the current system is that a small business has to be aggressive towards its own customers to chase those late payments. The Commercial Payments Bill will turn that power relationship on its head, and people will expect to be paid on time. If they are not, there will be mandatory interest on that.
The industrial strategy sets out the Government’s long-term approach to boosting investment, productivity and growth, building on the UK’s industrial strengths, including advanced manufacturing. Through the complementary advanced manufacturing sector plan, backed by £4.3 billion of Government funding, we are helping manufacturers to grow and thrive.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the huge opportunities for manufacturers on the Isle of Wight. We are determined to use procurement strategically, as other nations do, to back British industry. It is particularly important with shipbuilding. We are expanding the role of the National Shipbuilding Office to oversee that. The renewed investment in defence and shipbuilding will create opportunities across the maritime supply chain, including for the Wight Shipyard Co. and other island manufacturers.
Place is central to the industrial strategy. We have been working with Plymouth and the south-west peninsula to support the development of distinctive nationally significant clusters. I visited Plymouth and Cornwall earlier this year to meet the freeport, understand the opportunities around marine autonomy and see for myself Cornwall’s incredible critical mineral potential.
My hon. Friend and the other Cornish Labour MPs are incredible advocates for critical minerals and their potential in the UK. Projects in that part of the world are essential to our ambitions. We are supporting lithium projects in Cornwall, including through an offer in principle of £9.8 million through DRIVE35 for Geothermal Engineering Ltd, as well as a £31 million equity investment in Cornish lithium through the National Wealth Fund. We will continue to work to ensure that we keep more of that value in the UK.
I, too, was in Scunthorpe recently meeting British Steel management and the unions. The positive news we can give them is that Alan Lovell is now in place as chair, and he is working hard to stabilise operations, improve health and safety, and develop the long-term plan that the hon. Gentleman has worked so hard on with to achieve.
My hon. Friend is a great champion for that sector. The British industrial competitiveness scheme is now open. In addition, we will be reviewing the British industry supercharger later in the year and we will be working closely with the food manufacturing sector as we do that.
I thank my hon. Friend for his consistent support for the refining industry. I have been meeting with the industry this week to discuss issues such as the energy issues that he mentions. We recognise that the sector faces real challenges. The work to consider the impacts and the feasibility of bringing refined products, for example, into the scope of the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism is ongoing, and we will certainly continue to engage with him on energy costs and other issues.
I spent a fantastic day with the aerospace industry last week. Over and over again, they spoke so enthusiastically about the Aerospace Technology Institute and the investment that we are putting into the sector. I pay tribute to the company that my hon. Friend mentions in her constituency. Advanced manufacturing of all sorts is one of the things that we are really great at in this country, which is why we are backing it with the industrial strategy.
My hon. Friend is a constant advocate for the Grangemouth site. Last night, I and my officials met representatives of the National Wealth Fund and the Office for Investment to push forward on this. We have a taskforce meeting on Monday at which, among other things, we will be pushing for faster action to prepare the groundwork for investment, so that we can deploy the £200 million from the National Wealth Fund that we have set aside.
We will absolutely discuss that. As my hon. Friend knows—because he talks to me about this issue at every available opportunity—we are determined to make sure that more of the value of that entire process remains in the UK, which is why we are putting £50 million on the table for exactly that sort of development work.
8. What steps he is taking to help protect consumers from rogue traders.
My constituent Joanne paid £11,000 for a new kitchen. Her house was left in a terrible state and she was unable to get the builder to return to rectify the substandard work. It also turned out that he was associated with 21 other companies mostly in the building trade, many of which have been dissolved. The Minister mentioned quite rightly the new code for the home improvement sector, which will give confidence to consumers and support to reputable traders. Is more not needed to go after the cowboy builders to ensure that constituents such as Joanne can get the remedy that they so need?
What is interesting about the subsections that the Minister has gone through is that one of the huge problems we face is the judicialisation of British law, where we see interpretation because the law has been too loose. Will she explain how the steps that we are taking will rein those powers back into the sovereignty of Parliament, so that we have more control and can represent our constituents on the issues that they care about the most?
I would be keen to hear the Minister expand on the issue of safeguarding particularly for victims of domestic abuse and domestic violence. Can she expand on the action the Government will be taking to protect people from that heinous crime?
I know that the Opposition place a lot of emphasis on the Lord Wolfson report on leaving the ECHR entirely, but that report states that doing so would terminate part 3 of the UK-EU trade co-operation agreement that was secured by the hon. Gentleman’s party, meaning that we would leave Eurojust, Europol and fast-track expedition frameworks. All that puts us at risk of not being able to manage the immigration system in the fair and transparent way that our constituents want. Does he not agree?
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Will the hon. Member give way?
As the hon. Member very kindly name-checked my speech yesterday, I need to thank him first of all. He says there is no issue of “Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels” when leaving the ECHR, but there is an issue concerning our colleagues and friends on the island of Ireland. What would be the result of leaving the ECHR when it comes to the Good Friday agreement? There is no question about it: Lord Wolfson may say that there may or may not be an issue with that, but the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has noted that there would be an issue, and we have the history as well. Anything that comes back with this idea that, “Well, Australia and New Zealand don’t operate within these systems,” does not take into account the history of the island of Ireland.
If we followed the hon. Lady’s line of thinking, my concern is that we would leave section 117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 completely unamended, which would mean that there is no clarity—not just for the state and our constituents, but for those going into the system who may be seeking refuge. Is there not also a moral case? If we leave this be, we will end up in a muddle, which will mean that backlogs continue to grow, people do not get the surety of an answer and the immigration and asylum system will not have the confidence of the public.
I thank the hon. Lady, who is being very generous with her time. It is important for us to hammer home that, through the Bill, we are passing legislation for all eventualities. I wish that everyone coming here was squeaky clean and had the best intentions in the world, but we have to pass legislation that takes those with bad motivations into account. Will she respond to that?
I chair the all-party parliamentary group for Afrikan reparations, and this Saturday 17 October will be our fourth annual conference. It has been an eventful year in the global campaign: the UN declared the trafficking of enslaved Africans as the gravest crime against humanity; the King referred a petition from Jamaica to the Privy Council; and a UK representative even spoke at a UN General Assembly side event on restitution. However, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office still has not accepted our invitation to address the conference. Given the changing global landscape and the likely focus at the upcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government summit on reparations, will the Leader of the House encourage his colleagues to send a Minister or at least to let us know when we might expect a slightly changed statement on the Government’s evolving position on reparatory justice?
On Saturday, I will be addressing a conference of co-operative movement members in Wales, and next year is the 100th anniversary of the partnership between the Labour party and the Co-operative party—a milestone that will be celebrated by having a Co-operative Prime Minister in No. 10. Will the Leader of the House therefore make time on the Floor of this House for a debate both celebrating that achievement and looking at how we can grow the co-operative movement, not least to the benefit of the members in Wales?
This House knows that in recent months, the issue of end-of-life care has been at the forefront of our discussions and debate. Will the Minister tell us how the national care service will dovetail with end-of-life care and support families and those at the end of their lives?
I beg to move amendment 130, in clause 17, page 13, line 30, leave out from “claim’” to “, at” in line 32. This amendment and amendment 131 are consequential on the repeal of section 12 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 2006 (which was never commenced) by the Schedule inserted by NS1.
It is good to see you again this morning, Mr Stuart, and good morning to all colleagues. We start our debate by moving on to part 2 of the Bill, which relates to article 8 of the European convention on human rights. Article 8, the right to a family life, is an important protection, but it is a qualified right. That means that it can be balanced against a public interest—such as the safety of the community or the security of our borders—where that outweighs an individual’s personal rights. We will not step away from our belief that the right to family and private life must be respected and upheld. However, we have been clear that we must strike the right balance between the rights of the individual and fairness to the UK public, and, crucially, bear down on abuse of the system. As set out in our impact assessment, each main applicant granted first time on article 8 grounds carries an estimated lifetime cost to the taxpayer of about £141,000, equating to approximately £4.9 billion for those granted in 2025 alone. Home Office analysis suggests that 71% of first-time grants on the basis of article 8 were to individuals who had entered illegally and/or overstayed. If the same applied to the estimated 42,000 first-time grants in 2025, this would mean that 30,000 overstayers and illegal entrants would have been allowed to stay last year on the basis of article 8. Between 1 April 2016 and November 2021, of 1,011 foreign national offender deportation appeals allowed on human rights grounds, 70% were solely on article 8 grounds. And with 77,000 applications granted on article 8 grounds last year, this is having a significant effect on our ability to enforce our immigration laws. Therefore, in this Bill, we are changing how article 8 is applied in the UK immigration system, to restore public confidence and ensure that the UK application of rights is in line with the Strasbourg court. The application of article 8 will be tightened to prevent misuse of the system and ensure that the public interest in maintaining effective immigration control carries proper weight in immigration decisions. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear, the abuse of human rights law does not just erode the public’s support for our immigration system; it erodes their support for the very idea of having such laws at all. For those who believe that those laws matter, it is essential that we reform them to end their abuse. The reforms will put more emphasis on compliance with our rules and contribution to our economy and to our society. Clause 17 aims to bring greater clarity and control to entry clearance applications that engage article 8, protecting genuine family relationships while preventing weak or tenuous claims from undermining public confidence. Taken with the reforms in clauses 18 and 19, which we will come to in forthcoming groups and which tighten key elements of the article 8 assessment, it strengthens our ability to enforce the immigration rules and create a fairer, more controlled system. The clause amends the definition of a human rights claim in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to create a “sponsor human rights claim”. This will lay the foundations to allow UK-based sponsors to make an entry clearance application for an overseas family member to join them in the UK if the application relies on the sponsor’s article 8 right to family life. It will also enable the sponsor to appeal to the immigration tribunal if the Home Office refuses their application. I want to be very clear that only individuals with a specified status, including British citizens and those with other lawful residence, will be able to make a sponsor human rights claim. They need to establish a genuine family life claim and show that refusal would disproportionately interfere with their article 8 rights. These reforms do not create a new migration route or entitlement to come to the UK. They simply ensure a correct process that is based on the UK sponsor, not the family abroad. The clause will affect sponsors who wish to rely on article 8 family life because their family member does not meet the entry clearance requirement under the family routes and immigration rules. Enabling the UK-based sponsor to apply will focus attention on the circumstances and article 8 rights of the sponsor, rather than the overseas family member. This reflects the established legal position that it is the sponsor who is within the UK jurisdiction for the purposes of article 8 decision making. The focus on the rights of the UK sponsor is intended to reduce expansive interpretation of where article 8 rights are found to exist, and to prevent article 8 becoming a route for those with tenuous family links to the UK. Too often, the focus can be on the circumstances of the applicants abroad, whereas the main legal question should be whether there is a disproportionate interference with the family life of the UK-based sponsor.
I thank my hon. Friend for asking a really important question, because it is right that we clarify this matter. The clause does not make it easier for overseas family members to enter the UK. Sponsors will still need to meet a very high threshold to argue successfully that it would be a breach of their article 8 rights if the Home Office refused their family member entry to the UK. Strict requirements for the procedure sponsors must follow to make an application, which will be set out in the immigration rules. The focus on the rights of the UK sponsor is intended to reduce expansive interpretation of where article 8 rights are found to exist, and to prevent article 8 from becoming a route for those with tenuous family links to the UK. Too often, the focus can be on the circumstances of the applicants abroad, whereas the main legal question should be whether there is a disproportionate influence on the family life of the UK-based sponsor.
The hon. Member makes a really important point. That is why we are trying to narrow the definition to those who are here in the UK, because for far too long it has been on the basis of a very tenuous link that family members can put in a claim from abroad to come to the UK. This measure narrows that definition while still ensuring that we maintain our obligations under article 8 rights. The recent Court of Appeal judgment in IA and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department provided helpful clarification around the correct tests to determine where article 8 family life exists, especially between extended family members. However, the judgment addressed an issue with article 8 family life being applied to a broader set of circumstances and relationships, which risked undermining our systems and rules. Despite these helpful findings, there remains a risk of inconsistent decision making, where the primary focus is not on the article 8 rights of the family member in the UK—the person within the UK’s jurisdiction according to ECHR case law. The clause will add greater weight to the findings of the Court of Appeal and bring more clarity to decision making for entry clearance cases that engage article 8 family life. In IA, the Court of Appeal also reaffirmed the importance of the Government’s immigration policy when striking the right balance between an individual’s rights and the public interest. In combination with the reforms in clauses 18 and 19, clause 17 makes it clear where the Government’s policy position lies in relation to the application of article 8 and where the Government expect the rules to be enforced. This will create a clearer, fairer and more controlled system. Details of the application process, including forms and evidential requirements, will be set out in immigration rules and supporting guidance. Given the complexity of the clause, I will give Members an overview of each subsection. Subsection (1) creates a “sponsor human rights claim” in law by adding to the existing definition of a human rights claim at section 113 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. This has the effect of permitting a UK-based sponsor to appeal against a decision to refuse a human rights claim for their overseas family member. That is the starting point for future changes to the rules, forms and guidance. Subsection (2) explains that further amendments are required to the 2002 Act for the clause to operate properly. Those changes are set out in subsections (3) to (7). Subsection (3) makes changes so that a sponsor human rights claim cannot be deemed inadmissible or not suitable to be considered, which is necessary because reforms in the clause mean that the UK sponsor is the applicant, not the overseas individual requiring entry clearance. As I will cover in relation to amendment 95, it would be inappropriate simply to refuse to consider a human rights claim because the UK sponsor is a national of a safe country. Such safeguards are designed to prevent improper protection claims from nationals of those countries. Subsection (4) makes further changes linked to the fact that the clause makes the sponsor the applicant, not the person overseas. In effect, at appeal, the courts will hear all matters relating to the family member seeking entry to the UK and not include any immigration matters related to the sponsor. Subsection (5) creates an exception so that sponsor human rights claims do not need to have their appeals considered within the timeframe set out in the statute. That is because an individual will not be able to act as a sponsor if they are liable to deportation action. Subsection (6) prevents a sponsor human rights claim being certified and denied an appeal simply because the UK-based sponsor is entitled to live in a safe state, primarily European countries. That would not be a fair application of the power where a right to family life was being relied on. The clause does not prevent a claim being refused and denied an appeal where the matters under consideration are clearly unfounded, for example because the relationship was a sham. Subsection (7) ensures that sponsor human rights appeals are not treated as abandoned or cancelled because the UK sponsor holds permission to be in the UK. Instead, an appeal is abandoned if the overseas family member is granted leave to enter or remain in the UK.