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. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Murray

   MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

   Over the last two years, we on the Home Affairs Committee have looked into the cost of this to the taxpayer. Does the Minister share my outrage that huge amounts of public money have gone to private companies, some of whose owners entered The Sunday Times rich list while our communities suffered? Does she also agree that the author and signer of those contracts was the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), on the Reform Benches?

   Hansard source
2. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Murray

   MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

   It is good that we are having this debate in the House of Commons today, because this is an issue the public care about profoundly and they want to see substantive action to address their concerns. To understand how to do that, we have to understand how we got here. I do not propose to relitigate the disastrous asylum system that this Government inherited, under which huge numbers of asylum seekers were housed in hotels across the country. That was terrible for local communities, where hotels were opened in town centres with no support and often without even telling the police or local authorities. It was terrible for genuine asylum seekers and it was terrible for the taxpayer. The only ones it worked for were the private companies, which extracted massive profits. The Prime Minister has talked about the scandal of outsourcing and privatisation in modern Britain. The most glaring example of that is the asylum accommodation sector. The public are right: we cannot tolerate that and we must fix it, so it is good to see the Government putting in the hard yards to achieve that. There are three components that we have to tackle as a country. First, we have to drive down the number of asylum seekers coming into the system. That is why it is good to see small boat crossings down by 40% and the French preventing 48,000 crossings. Obviously, more must be done. We need to prevent people from coming in, but secondly, we also have to increase the number coming out of the system. There has been a big increase in decisions and an increase in removals of more than 80,000. Again, there is more to be done, but it is good to see the hard yards starting to be put in.

   Hansard source
3. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Murray

   MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

   My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. Whenever I have spoken to law enforcement or the military, that is exactly the issue they raise. Moreover, making gestures that we know are never realistic is what the traffickers want us to do, because it encourages them to encourage people to come here. The third component of what we must tackle is that of dealing with people while they are in the asylum system. That means we have to drive down the costs, deliver the economies of scale required, mitigate the impacts that infuriate communities and increase safeguarding for communities. We need to do that if we want to close the hotels, and we cannot close the hotels without dealing with people in the system. Let me make a defence of large sites in the asylum system. In 15 years working on immigration and during two years on the Home Affairs Committee, I must have visited more asylum accommodation than anyone else in the House of Commons. Large sites have an important role to play, particularly in alleviating the issues that local communities find challenging. First, on cost, they are much cheaper than hotels. On efficiency—

   Hansard source
4. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Murray

   MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

   I will get to the end of my point and then I will give way. Secondly, on efficiency, having people in one place, where Home Office officials and the relevant people can be brought in, can speed asylum seekers through the process and get them out of it faster. Thirdly, on community engagement, yes, asylum seekers are free to come and go, but short of imprisoning them, such sites are as much as we can contain them in British society.

   Hansard source
5. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Murray

   MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

   Let me make some points and then I will take interventions. Charities and groups can go to large sites, which are far away from town centres, unlike hotels and HMOs, and the authorities, by providing things such as transport, can practically organise when people will be in one place, stopping the issues of hotels and people hanging around town centres late at night. Finally, on safeguarding, one of the issues with hotels is that the police were not informed. At larger sites, we can have trained professionals who can spot depression, isolation, re-traumatisation or worrying behaviours, understand the dynamics in groups, and find opportunities to observe, supervise and intervene. Engaging with police and social services is how we tackle those risks. Let me share what persuaded me about that. I was sceptical of large sites until I went to Wethersfield, which opened under the previous Government—I think it was opened by the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman). There, they told me that the work they can do around mitigation and safeguarding is far more effective at a large site than a small site.

   Hansard source
6. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Murray

   MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

   I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) and then I will come back to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan).

   Hansard source
7. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Murray

   MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

   I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument at all. My argument to the Minister would be that large sites vary. Wethersfield did not work until it was reformed; Northeye did not work. I am going to do something unusual and say something positive about the Scottish Government for a second—I know the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) is going to have a heart attack over there. [Laughter.] When the Scottish Government opened large sites for asylum seekers from Ukraine on two cruise ships, they were very cost effective compared with the Bibby Stockholm. The argument is not about the principle, but about whether the Home Office can orchestrate it and achieve it through public procurement.

   Hansard source
8. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Murray

   MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

   I absolutely understand why people say that; it is a perfectly reasonable response to risk. However, the role of Government is to mitigate risk. The role of Government is to intervene through public policy and deploy public resources and capacities. That is the best way to mitigate risk. That is normal across policing and all kinds of Home Office security, but in this case it is quite right. The Government of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle placed asylum seekers in hotels without telling anybody in the local community—without social workers, the police or anybody else knowing. The local women had no clue. Most of the cases quoted by the shadow Minister came from that system. He cannot say to the women in Piddington that will leave the ECHR and it will solve everything. That is not realistic and it is not treating them with respect. Far better to say we will try to solve this problem, mitigate the risk and do the stuff required to actually deal with it. I should have expected to hear what we have heard from the Tories and Reform in this Opposition day debate. These are the people who broke the system and let it spiral, yet they are somehow arguing that leaving the ECHR can happen tomorrow and will solve any issues in Piddington and Bicester—that is for the birds. But I am particularly disappointed in the Liberal Democrats and their amendment. They say that they oppose asylum hotels and they want a better public debate on immigration, but whether it is in Cameron barracks, in Crowborough or now in Bicester, they oppose every large site. They say we should welcome asylum seekers and have a humane system, but it is “not in my back yard” the minute there is one near them. Are they really saying that is for the working-class communities of Britain to tolerate asylum seekers in hotels and in HMOs, but not their constituencies in secure, well-resourced, large public sites? I think that is wrong. The public are fed up of posturing, point scoring, pointless gesturing and nimbyism on this. They want the issue solved, they want it gripped, and if the Government can get large sites to solve the problem, that could be a big part of solving this country’s asylum accommodation challenges.

   Hansard source
9. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Kane

   Engagements

   Q12. On a recent visit to Stirling high school, senior pupils studying politics and modern studies asked me about everything from climate change to war in the middle east. One young woman asked how young people can know they are being heard by politicians, so I have brought her question here so that she and her classmates can see that a question asked in their assembly hall can get an answer from the Prime Minister. Whether we are discussing mental health, housing, jobs, our relationship with Europe or the upcoming report on NEETs—those not in education, employment, or training—we are discussing their future. How will the Prime Minister ensure that we talk with young people, rather than just about them, and show them that their ideas and opinions shape the decisions that we take in this place?

   Hansard source
10. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Elmore

    Nepal: UK Government Support

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Ms McVey. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) for securing this debate to discuss the devastating floods that struck Nepal in August. I thank Members for their contributions to what has been a thoughtful and well-informed debate and for the way in which they have spoken about the impact of this tragedy on the people of Nepal and communities here in the United Kingdom. May I pay my own tribute to the British Nepali community in the UK? Our long-standing friendship is one that we are deeply proud of, and I pay tribute to not just the people here today but those across our communities in the United Kingdom. The UK stands with Nepal in its time of grief. Our deepest condolences are with those who have lost loved ones and their livelihoods. The scale of this tragedy has been immense. Thousands of families have been affected, communities destroyed and critical infrastructure damaged across some of Nepal’s most vulnerable regions. More than 1,455 people have tragically lost their lives, including British nationals, and many more remain missing. Our thoughts are with the thousands of Nepalis living in the UK, who have watched events unfold with deep concern and personal anguish, and I join Members in acknowledging the dedication of the search and rescue teams, emergency responders and volunteers who have worked tirelessly in extremely challenging conditions. Against that backdrop, the United Kingdom moved quickly to support those affected. An FCDO rapid deployment team supported the consular response in the region. We are co-ordinating closely with Nepali and Chinese authorities, while specialist police family liaison officers are supporting British families in the UK. As many Members have referenced, we also announced £5 million in humanitarian assistance to support the immediate relief efforts. That funding is helping trusted humanitarian partners to provide emergency shelter, clean water and sanitation services, protection support, health assistance and other lifesaving interventions for those affected by the floods. To answer one of the shadow Minister’s questions, we are tracking the funding through those trusted UN partners and ensuring that the money is going to where it is needed. Humanitarian and engineering experts have also supported the response and assessment effort. I would like to recognise, in particular, the remarkable response from the Government and people of Nepal. Faced with one of the most devastating disasters in the country’s recent history, Nepal’s authorities mobilised rescue operations at scale, supported displaced communities and began the immense task of recovery and reconstruction. We pay tribute to their professionalism, resilience and determination. In answering Members’ questions as I go through my speech, I start with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I thank him for his warm words about me; they are reciprocal. He is a constant force in this House and a constant advocate for freedom of religion and belief. He knows of my personal commitment as the Minister responsible for this particular area of policy. Nepal is officially a secular country, but I want to reassure him that we do offer support to communities, including Christian communities, to ensure that the humanitarian funding and aid we are allocating is received in the correct way in different communities. The UK and Nepal have a long-standing partnership on climate action. Many Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) and for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy), mentioned the need for us to have more collaboration in this space, both bilaterally and multilaterally. In Nepal and globally, climate change is increasingly becoming a national security issue, and it has been at the forefront of the new Foreign Secretary’s focus. Melting Himalayan glaciers and more extreme weather across the Hindu Kush Himalaya are driving cascading disasters, threatening lives, infrastructure, energy systems and economic growth. The recent Rasuwa-Bhote Koshi floods showed how a single climate-related event can disrupt trade, hydropower, transport and livelihoods simultaneously. To answer questions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West on climate and disaster resilience, the UK Government believe that is central to how we deliver reconstruction and build our partnership with Nepal. That is not just through reconstruction but science, modelling, engineering and practical hazard intelligence and resilience. I assure all Members that the next steps mean working bilaterally and multilaterally in a period of recovery on how we can build resilient infrastructure. Later in my speech, I will go further into how we can work multilaterally with the international financial systems to offer more support on wider reconstruction. As climate shocks become more frequent and unpredictable, they risk eroding hard-won development gains, as has been mentioned, increasing vulnerability and imposing significant economic costs. My hon. Friends the Members for Reading Central and for Harrow West challenged me on the point that climate damage does not happen only in coastal communities but in countries impacted by melting glaciers and the wider challenges of climate change. For Nepal, that could not be more stark. Nepal is a mountainous country, and climate resilience is, therefore, not just an environmental priority but a foundation for future prosperity and stability. That is why we are repositioning elements of our development partnership to support Nepal’s recovery and resilience agenda. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, as a former Indo-Pacific Minister. She is right to highlight some of the challenges that we must now put in the multilateral space. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East also challenged me on multilateral development banks and international financial institutions. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), challenged me on words to action. That is why I am pleased to confirm that on 24 September, during UN High-Level Week, the Foreign Secretary convened a multilateral meeting of Ministers from Australia, Kenya and across the European Union, and announced a specific fund from the UK Government of £333 million for climate-driven instability and resilience projects for vulnerable communities impacted by climate change. That will, of course, apply to countries such as Nepal. No bilateral donor can finance construction at the scale required. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke mentioned the World Bank; it has estimated that damage and reconstruction costs run into billions of US dollars. Our role is, therefore, not simply to provide aid but to help shape much larger flows of international finance. The Foreign Secretary has made it clear that climate and development finance must increasingly focus on preparedness and resilience. Through our engagement with the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and other institutions, we are encouraging approaches to invest earlier in resilience with early-warning systems, disaster-risk finance and climate adaptation, which are key to how we move our work forward internationally.

    Hansard source
11. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Elmore

    Nepal: UK Government Support

    It is the absolute focus. I will talk further about the Foreign Secretary’s engagement with the World Bank this week, and hope to answer her in more detail. We want international financial systems to become better at helping countries at risk to prepare for foreseeable climate shocks. That was an important part of the United Kingdom’s engagement at the UN General Assembly in September. I was pleased to meet the Nepalese Foreign Minister to discuss some of the challenges they are experiencing post the climate event, and how we can work more collaboratively. The Foreign Secretary highlighted the strong links between environmental pressures, climate vulnerability and broader security and stability challenges. The World Bank annual meetings this week provide another opportunity to advance progress on that agenda. The Foreign Secretary will speak alongside Nepal’s Finance Minister to highlight UK support for strengthening hazard intelligence and early-warning systems in Nepal, and for ensuring that crisis financing is available when countries need it most. To answer the Liberal Democrat spokesperson’s question, I do think so, because that work is being led by the Foreign Secretary at the World Bank this week with the Nepalese Finance Minister. Alongside our work through international institutions, we have maintained close engagement with Nepal through the communities here in the United Kingdom. Many Members rightly raised that today. As has been mentioned, the Minister for Indo-Pacific visited Nepal in the immediate aftermath of the floods, becoming the first foreign ministerial visitor and demonstrating the UK’s solidarity with Nepal at a difficult moment. As our response has evolved, Ministers have maintained regular dialogue with Nepalese community leaders, group representatives and the all-party parliamentary group, to whom I pay tribute. On 2 September, the Minister for Consular Services, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), visited the South London Sanatan Mandir in Coulsdon to convey condolences to the affected temple community. The Minister for Indo-Pacific, my noble Friend Baroness Winterton, also held an online meeting with representatives of the Nepalese diaspora in the UK on 4 September to update them on the UK’s support. Those conversations matter. The Nepalese community in the UK maintains deep family, cultural and economic ties with Nepal, and many have been personally affected by these events. Their experiences, insights and concerns continue to inform our understanding of the situation on the ground and of the support that will be required in the months and years ahead. Many Members have paid tribute to the Gurkhas. I would like to add my own tribute for their long-standing solidarity, not just through the British military but through our shared history across conflicts since the first world war. On pensions, I will ensure that every Member, including the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central, will get a written response from the Ministry of Defence. It is led by the Department, but I will ensure that a response is given to all hon. and right hon. colleagues. Consular support is ongoing. UK police family liaison officers continue to support affected families in the UK where appropriate. FCDO officials continue to liaise with Nepalese and Chinese authorities to establish facts and support families, and we are aware of 36 British nationals who remain missing. As reconstruction progresses, we will continue to work through what more we can do to support families in the UK, particularly as we wait for the missing to hopefully be found. I have some brief final points on trade and investment between Nepal and the UK. I reassure hon. Members that we are working with Nepal on what is important to them and I will keep the House updated on that work. Rather than committing to something today, it will be an ongoing piece of work that we will do with Nepal to see what works between us. In moments of crisis, friendship is underlined not only through words of sympathy but through practical action. We will continue to use our voice in multilateral institutions and international forums to ensure that Nepal’s needs remain firmly on the international agenda. The Nepalese people have shown extraordinary courage in the face of immense tragedy and the United Kingdom stands with them as they begin to rebuild and look to the future.

    Hansard source
12. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Catherine West

    Inheritance Tax

    It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate and to reflect on the question of inheritance tax brought to the House by the Conservative party. It affects about 4% of the population. On the Government Benches, we are rather more concerned with the 63% of the population who are facing tough times. Labour will therefore be voting against this Opposition day motion. I think we all remember where we were in the summer of 2022 when Liz Truss crashed the economy. The mortgages that ordinary families around the country were paying went through the roof. A shiver went down the spines of all the people who had pensions invested, as civil servants were sacked and the general reputation of the economy in the UK was trashed. Sadly, we have been paying the Truss penalty ever since. However, those of us on this side of the House fought to stop the chaos, restore hope and deliver change. In two years a lot of progress has been made, and even more has been made over the summer. I look forward to the Budget that will be presented in two weeks’ time, which will have more to offer those who are struggling with the cost of living crisis. Today, His Majesty’s official Opposition are asking the House to vote to bring back that version of chaos. Independent analysis suggests that the Conservatives’ inheritance tax proposals could cost up to £10 billion a year. Most families would rather see that money used to tackle the cost of living for everyone and to increase the wealth of the country as a whole, rather than being used to provide tax cuts for the 4% proportion of the population affected by this particular tax. The Conservatives say that theirs is the party of home ownership, but after their 14 years in government, home ownership fell out of reach for too many young people. The only growth was the growth in homelessness, which, sadly, increased by 74% during those 14 years. Working people look to the Government to tackle the cost of living crisis and give them some breathing space, but unfortunately the Conservatives’ priority is cutting tax on inherited wealth. As my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) pointed out so eloquently, we should be looking at all possible options to establish the meritocratic principle that no matter where you are born or what your background is, you should have an opportunity throughout your working life to make the very best of it and to be successful.

    Hansard source
13. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Catherine West

    Inheritance Tax

    As the hon. Lady knows, a commitment has been made not to tax those who only receive the state pension. Those who earn a lot, whether through pensions, inheritance or other things, will be taxed proportionately, which sounds like a pretty fair principle to me. In the meantime, we on this side of the House are getting on with building a fairer country with a new political and economic model, but we also need to help people right now. That is why Labour has taken immediate action to provide breathing space for people and businesses. A couple of Members have mentioned the IMF report. As so often with the work of economists, it is a bit of a curate’s egg. Some people may prefer the text that was on the opposite side, but the bit that I preferred came from the economist Ms Tenreyro: the world economic outlook report gave the UK’s GDP an upgrade. That, I think, gives us some hope. It sets a fairly positive background for the Budget that is just two weeks away. We on this side of the House have woken up to a little bit of positive news, which is also quite a good background for the decisions that will come in two weeks’ time. I know that many other Members wish to speak, so I will be brief. I am particularly pleased about the scrapping of VAT on electricity bills for the winter, and I know that there is more to come for households that use a lot of electricity, perhaps owing to disability or because a large number of people live in the same home. The capping of bus fares at £2 for the whole of 2027 will help people travel to work or to job interviews. The change in the rules on branded items of school uniform will ease costs for families. Business rates for pubs, social clubs and music venues have been reduced by 20%, and in London all children will have a hot dinner in the middle of the day at school. The public procurement rules have been changed to back British businesses and jobs. So many things have been introduced in the short two years for which Labour has been in office, and there is much more to come. These measures build on work that Labour has done to restore stability and growth to the economy. Difficult decisions have been taken, and I was pleased to note that the Prime Minister had announced a further difficult decision on the triple lock. This, I think, is a moment when we have to be a little bit gutsy in our politics. I was pleased that the Prime Minister announced that very difficult decision; it is coming down the track, but he did at least announce it, so that we can start talking about the difficult challenges that we face in respect of social care. There is a ring of chaos to the proposals flung out by the Conservatives. I know about this, because I was in opposition for 14 years. I know how tempting it is to have a giggle in Opposition day debates, but we have to face the truth. We have to make some difficult decisions in order to restore the reputation of our economy with the markets internationally, but also to build the important foundation with some innovation that has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield and others who I am sure will speak in this debate.

    Hansard source
14. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Catherine West

    Inheritance Tax

    I will not, because I have only 40 seconds and I know that other Members want to speak. We will get on with delivering the difficult decisions and the change that our communities are longing to see.

    Hansard source
15. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Brian Leishman

    Nuclear Energy: Scotland

    Good afternoon. It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Stuart, as always. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. From the outset, I notify Members of my membership of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; I am most definitely ideologically opposed to nuclear, although it irritates me when the phrase is used as some sort of insult, such as indulging in student politics. Let me explain some of the reasons why I am opposed. It is utterly ludicrous to suggest that nuclear is a green energy source. How can it be when it produces radioactive waste with long-term toxicity that is hazardous for thousands of years? Nuclear is certainly not a low-carbon source either. The powerful and wealthy pro-nuclear lobby, which we in this place are very familiar with, ignores the large carbon emissions arising from the uranium fuel cycle and, of course, from nuclear waste disposal. It is proven that nuclear power generation produces up to 20 times more CO2 per megawatt-hour than renewable sources, while the actual construction of nuclear stations releases enormous quantities of CO2. Compared with renewables, nuclear power is definitely not a low-carbon source. What about the astronomical construction costs? Initially, those for Hinkley Point C were estimated at £18 billion, but that has increased several times over the years; now EDF says that the cost is £32 billion and rising because of inflation. Clearly, nuclear construction costs are massively higher than those for renewable energy. The bottom line is that nuclear is just not value for money. Why does anyone think that Scotland having more nuclear sites will be any different? The ongoing Hinkley saga also proves that it takes ages to build nuclear sites. On average, to plan and build a nuclear reactor takes nearly two decades. New nuclear power is not coming anytime soon. Nuclear is no quick fix or solution for families struggling with energy bills in this cost of living crisis—not now, and not for many years to come.

    Hansard source
16. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Brian Leishman

    Nuclear Energy: Scotland

    I agree that we need an energy mix and yes, of course, in the testing circumstances we face now, we should look at exploring a wide variety and assortment of different energies—but not nuclear. No real technological advances or fundamentally new designs have been made to nuclear reactors or processes in this century. Large reactors have the same generation III+ designs of the past 25 years. Even the nuclear industry admits that reactor construction and design are cheaper for companies when done on a bigger, not a smaller scale, so the idea that lots of small reactors dotted around the country will be more affordable or safer, or the answer to lower energy costs, is pure fantasy. Finally, politicians say that the UK will likely be at war with Russia by 2030. If the war hawks are correct, big nuclear power stations or hundreds of small reactor sites up and down the country would surely make communities a target. Other truly green, more affordable and definitely safer energy sources are out there. Renewable energy sources are largely an untapped market. That is an industry the Government could create, shape and control for the benefit of our people. To finish—ahead of time as well—I make no apologies for thinking that that is a far better ideology than having toxic radioactive waste.

    Hansard source
17. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Goldsborough

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    Will the hon. Lady join me in congratulating this Labour Government on shutting down the Brook asylum hotel—which is just 200 yards over my constituency border, and was opened on 28 September 2022 by the Conservative Government—thus ensuring that the constituencies of South Norfolk and Norwich South took into account the concerns of women, girls and all other constituents within our area?

    Hansard source
18. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Goldsborough

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    Today we are being asked to support a motion calling for the United Kingdom to leave the European convention on human rights. I am going to do something slightly unusual and speak about the detail of a law that we are considering in Committee. While the Conservatives are busy demanding that we tear up an international agreement—an agreement written by one of our greatest wartime Prime Ministers, Winston Churchill—this House is already considering substantive reforms to how human rights law is applied in immigration cases. The Immigration and Asylum Bill is currently being scrutinised in Committee. That is where we should be having serious discussions about how the system works, what needs to change and how we ensure the law serves the public interest. Clauses 17 to 20 are central to that work. They are not cosmetic changes or empty promises; they are detailed legislative provisions designed to change how courts and tribunals consider human rights claims in an immigration case.

    Hansard source
19. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Goldsborough

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I am a proud member of the Public Bill Committee, and at the moment we are looking at things such as the ouster clauses that are included in the Bill. We are giving the detail that is needed for the Law Lords and everyone else involved in this process to integrate what needs to be done. These are not cosmetic changes that we are looking at. Clause 17 addresses sponsor human rights claims. It creates a route for a person based in the UK to appeal the decision refusing entry clearance to an overseas family member where the decision engages their right to family life under article 8. That is a specific change to the operation of the appeal system, with clear rules about how such claims are considered. Clause 18 goes further by establishing a clearer statutory definition of “family life” for the purposes of article 8 in immigration cases. It provides that “family” would normally be limited to core cohabiting families, partners, and in relevant circumstances children and parents living together. Where someone seeks to establish family life beyond those core relationships, the legislation sets out the circumstances and evidence that courts should consider. For relationships between adults, that includes whether there are additional elements of dependency beyond normal emotional ties between them. It also makes it clear that the courts must first determine whether article 8 is engaged before going to consider the public interest. That is an important distinction. The existence of a human right does not automatically determine the outcome of an immigration appeal. The court must consider the circumstances and apply the relevant legal test. Clause 19 strengthens the public interest consideration that courts and tribunals must take into account. It reinforces the importance of financial independence and being able to support and house oneself and one’s family without relying on state support. It also introduces further considerations relating to criminal convictions, co-operation and immigration processes and good character. It clarifies the weight that should normally be given to a private and family life established by people who are in the UK unlawfully having obtained permission through deception or are in serious breach of the conditions of their immigration status. It also strengthens the considerations that apply when decisions could affect a child, including whether removal would have a “very significant and long-lasting adverse effect” on them. Those are important changes to a framework within which immigration decisions are made. Clause 20 addresses cases involving foreign criminals and others liable to deportation. It strengthens the statutory framework for considering deportation, making it clear that the public interest in deporting those liable to deportation must be given significant weight, particularly when such offending is serious. It also sets out exceptional circumstances in which a deportation may be disproportionate, including the impact on qualifying partners and children, and cases involving very compelling circumstances. Those provisions matter, because the public rightly expect a system that takes criminal offending seriously, enforces immigration rules and makes decisions that reflect the interests of our country. I ask the Conservatives again: if they believe that the law needs to change, why are they not engaging seriously with the changes already before Parliament? If Conservative Members do not think those clauses go far enough, they should explain why, table amendments, test the legislation and make a case using evidence and legal arguments—that is what parliamentary scrutiny is for. Instead, we have a motion before us calling for full withdrawal from the convention as though leaving an international agreement—Brexit, anyone?—would somehow make every difficult question disappear. It would not. Leaving the ECHR would not by itself clear the asylum backlog, it would not automatically speed up decisions, it would not make every removal straightforward and it would not erase the consequences of years of Conservative mismanagement. The Conservatives had 14 years in government to get a grip on immigration and the asylum system, and they had 14 years to improve decision making, tackle backlogs and ensure that public money was spent effectively, yet they left behind a system beset by delays, mounting costs and a reliance on asylum hotels. Now they want to present themselves as the people with the answers—it is truly extraordinary. The Conservatives created the conditions of many of the problems the Government are still dealing with; now, they want to distract from that record with another dramatic announcement. Our constituents deserve far better than political theatre. They deserve an asylum system that makes decisions promptly, removes people who have no right to remain, tackles criminality and treats people fairly. They deserve effective enforcement and value for taxpayers’ money. That requires practical solutions, competent administration and legislation that works. It requires a Government who will get on with the job rather than pretending that one grand gesture can solve everything. A practical example is the Brook hotel in Bowthorpe just outside my constituency: it opened under the previous Conservative Government and closed under a Labour Government. That is what effective management of the asylum system does when a Government are serious, instead of making large grand gestures. The convention is not beyond reform—there is so much we are doing and so much more to be done—but leaving the convention altogether would be a much wider step than reforming how article 8 is applied. We have already heard about the impact that would have on the Northern Ireland peace agreement. We cannot just singly pull ourselves out of the ECHR. Sadly, the Conservative party that we all knew when growing up is no longer with us. The action that we are taking in government is what we must do.

    Hansard source
20. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Goldsborough

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    What solution would the hon. Gentleman come up with? It has been stated by the Republic of Ireland Government and Governments around the world that by pulling out of the ECHR, we would be fundamentally undermining the Good Friday agreement, which means that we cannot operate a safe country and borders.

    Hansard source
21. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Antonia Bance

    Inheritance Tax

    Has my hon. Friend taken a moment to work out the example put forward by one Conservative Member of the £3.5 million-worth of assets belonging to a family business in his constituency? After taking into account the threshold of £2.5 million and the further £1 million of assets, the actual inheritance tax due by that business is £20,000. That will be what is payable—£20,000 per year for 10 years, an amount that ought to be manageable for a business with £3.5 million-worth of assets. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister has set out why this tax is important to rebuilding the public finances?

    Hansard source
22. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anneliese Dodds

    Nepal: UK Government Support

    It is a real honour to speak in this important debate, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), and particularly pleased to follow such powerful speeches setting out the proud relationship between our countries, the UK and Nepal, which has existed for such a long time: the steadfast contribution of gallant Gurkhas over many decades, right to the present day; the interpersonal links between our countries, which are incredibly strong; and the contribution made today by Nepali-British people to our public services, economy and culture. I am very proud of Oxford’s Nepalese community, who contribute so much to my city. That community—our neighbours, friends and workmates—are now grieving the loss of many family members and friends. Of course, their loss happened in such shocking circumstances, and speakers have referred to the images we saw, which looked like they were out of some horrendous feature film, not like events that were really taking place and affecting people in circumstances that had been so peaceful—people on pilgrimage, for example, in one of the most beautiful places on Earth and people in their homes and workplaces. We in the UK and in my city now have a window on to the sharpest end of the climate crisis. Many Nepalese people live on the Rose Hill council estate, where I live. Oxford’s Nepalese people have made a huge contribution to our city. Many retired Gurkhas live in Oxford, and we are always moved to see that reflected in our remembrance service every November. However, many Nepalese people also serve in academia; healthcare, as in Reading; childcare; businesses, such as the many Nepalese restaurants we are very pleased to have in our city; and many forms of public service, including by volunteering to support the community, with the Nepalese contribution to OxClean being particularly notable. There is a long and strong history of us working together over so many decades—indeed, centuries—and we have to intensify that now. I recently had the privilege of meeting Mr Tulasi Paudel, from Help for Nepal and the Nepalese community in Oxfordshire. I am very grateful for that group’s work and for that of the Gurkha Nepalese Society Oxfordshire. Retired Captain Paudel explained the human impact of the devastating recent events my colleagues and friends have just talked about. As others have done, I express my sincere condolences to all those affected and the many thousands who still do not know what has happened to their families. As has been mentioned, we still see damaged roads and bridges, which have cut off entire communities. Survivors are still in need, often of shelter, despite the best efforts of those who have come to their aid. Clean drinking water is still a huge problem, as are medical supplies and food. The UK’s £5 million package of humanitarian assistance to support those affected was most welcome. The UK has historically provided support to strengthen Nepal’s resilience to climate-related disasters, but Mr Paudel and I believe that more can and must be done. Yes, of course this relates to humanitarian support, and we have heard helpful comments on that subject from other speakers in the debate. That assistance will be particularly important as people seek to rebuild their lives after such a horrendous set of circumstances—losing everything. But we have to work together politically and multilaterally as well. During the UN General Assembly session that has just ended, I, along with Mr Paudel, wrote to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, calling on him to work with the Nepalese Government on their calls for practical global action to tackle climate change and for climate justice. We also pushed for our countries—the UK and Nepal—to work together in the run-up to the COP in Antalya and at every international event at which climate action is discussed. The Himalayas are a vital water source for a large part of Asia. What happens to the Himalayan cryosphere has consequences far beyond Nepal. The people living beneath the Himalayas should not have to pay the greatest price for a climate crisis that they contributed so little to creating. The UK has an important opportunity to stand alongside countries such as Nepal, given the strong historical and present relationship. Nepalese people have given our country so much. Now we have to stand alongside them. We must help to ensure that the voices of vulnerable Himalayan communities calling for climate action are heard and acted on, so I call on my hon. Friend the Minister and our Government to seek out every opportunity to develop common positions on climate action with Nepalese counterparts and to use their voice to amplify that of our Nepalese friends.

    Hansard source
23. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) for calling this debate. I place on record my thanks to all hon. Members in this House who have engaged with me in the few weeks since I took on this role about asylum accommodation in their constituency. It is really important that we continue that powerful dialogue, including with you, Madam Deputy Speaker; you have engaged with me often on this issue, and I appreciate that engagement. I particularly thank the shadow Minister because I really do welcome this opportunity to update Members on the Government’s work to fix our country’s broken asylum system. The system was in a state of absolute chaos and disarray when we took office two years ago. We are dealing with the legacy left by the hon. Lady and her team today. I will shortly come on to the action that we are taking to restore fairness, order and control, but it is really important to put any debate on asylum in its proper context, and that means recognising the situation that we inherited. It was this Government who picked up the pieces after the general election, following years of inaction and ineptitude. There has been mud-slinging, finger pointing and blaming from the Opposition today, but we are getting on with fixing the mess, and fixing the flow that the Conservatives allowed. The hon. Lady referred to their 14 years and our two years; I look forward to setting out in my speech the difference between those 14 years and the last two years. In 2018, about 300 people arrived here by small boat. In the years that followed, an entire criminal industry built up along our borders, on the Conservatives’ watch. Ruthless smugglers sent people on dangerous, unnecessary and—far too often—fatal journeys, making a fortune in the process. The consequences of all this are well known in the House, but they bear repeating. Between January 2021 and June 2024, 110,000 people came here by small boat. Meanwhile, the asylum system ground to a halt. Decision making collapsed, leaving thousands in limbo for years at the taxpayers’ expense, and so did the return of those with no right to be in the UK, while a further 175,000 people claimed asylum by other routes. As the numbers rose, so did the cost to the taxpayer. In just a single year, spending on asylum support under the Conservative party was £4.7 billion. That is an incredible cost to the taxpayer—money that we could and should be spending on the other priorities we debate in this place.

    Hansard source
24. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Under the last Government, £9 million a day was spent housing people in 400 asylum hotels. That was costly and inefficient. The evidence has shown that it was part of the draw that people knew they could come here and be put in a nice hotel. It was one of the pull factors that we are trying to deal with and tackle today. As we have heard, all we had in response to this people smuggling on an industrial scale was the farce of the Rwanda scheme, in which £700 million was spent on sending four volunteers to Rwanda.

    Hansard source
25. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I do not know how much good money the right hon. Gentleman wants to throw after bad, but £700 million on four volunteers was an incredible waste of money. The British people have a natural sense of fairness. We are a nation that has benefited from centuries of facing outwards towards the world, both reaching out across the globe and welcoming people in. There can be barely a Member here who does not have some historical migration in their family, or family ties to other nations. The British people will always accept those who are genuinely fleeing peril. They will welcome those who come here legally and who contribute. They know we are a place where people can come to build their life and aspire to do great things. Even this House, its representatives and their stories reflect that; we have seen that in the last week or so. However, the British people will not accept chaos at our borders. They will not accept a lack of control over who comes in. They will not accept the unfairness of a broken system, in which those who break the rules are the ones who benefit from our welcome. Nor will they tolerate expensive and often iconic hotels across their communities being used to house asylum seekers at vast expense to the taxpayers.

    Hansard source
26. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I will make a bit of progress, if I may. The British people will not tolerate illegal migrants placing pressure on our public services, while efforts to remove them are frustrated. There is no quick fix, but the task of ending the chaos and, crucially, of restoring fairness falls to this Government, and we embrace it. It is only a Labour Government who will fix the broken system, restore control at our borders and bring back fairness to our public services. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) is chuntering from the Opposition Benches, but I am coming to the exact subject of our progress so far, which I hope she will see contrasts nicely with what happened in the previous 14 years.

    Hansard source
27. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I appreciate my hon. Friend drawing attention to that. It was a privilege—in, I think, 2003—to work for the now Lord David Blunkett to close the Sangatte refugee centre, put juxtaposed controls on French shores and end the situation of people coming through as clandestines in the back of lorries with the Bill that we took through at that time as civil servants. It was a privilege to play that role. Here we are, yet again, fixing the legacy of the previous Government. As I said, the British people will not tolerate illegal migrants placing pressure on our public services while efforts to remove them are frustrated. It is only the Labour Government who will fix the broken system, restore control and bring back fairness, but we will do so without performative cruelty, without the deliberate fomenting of grievance and without destroying our international reputation. Thanks to the action the Labour Government are taking, the picture today is improving, with crossings down, removals up and the system now finally on a more stable footing. Over the last two years, this Government have acted to restore fairness and control to our asylum system, first by taking the fight to the criminal gangs and bearing down on illegal crossings. One of the first steps the then Home Secretary took following the general election was to establish Border Security Command. The command has had a significant impact, especially in its efforts, alongside a strengthened National Crime Agency, to ramp up law enforcement action on organised immigration crime.

    Hansard source
28. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I appreciate the hon. Gentleman raising the point about deterrence. It is extremely important but, as I said, the Rwanda deterrent was not effective. [Interruption.] Millions of pounds and a handful of volunteers. It has been disproven and clearly did not have any impact. I will come on to the deterrent that is actually working. We have also given our agencies counter-terror style powers via the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. In the last financial year, organised immigration crime was disrupted on over 3,700 occasions, up by 46% over the same period. This includes organised immigration crime arrests, which were up 74%, as we took down the criminals behind this vile trade. For example, just in June, two men became the first to be jailed under the new “endangerment at sea” offence for piloting dangerously overcrowded small boats across the channel—that is a deterrent, that is working. We are also denying gangs the equipment and infrastructure they rely on. In May, an operation involving the National Crime Agency and German, French and other international partners seized more than 30 boats, over 20 engines, 360 pumps and more than 9,000 life jackets. Since entering office, we have seized over a total of 1,100 boats and engines.

    Hansard source
29. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I appreciate the hon. Lady. Of course, I will come on to Piddington—that is the content, the subject and the title of this debate—but it is really important to understand the people we are talking about having to house, how we are having to house them and the issues we are dealing with. I am proud of the steps we have taken to reduce that number so that we can hopefully reduce the number of people dependent on asylum accommodation as we go forward. In partnership with French law enforcement, we have now stopped more than 50,000 attempted channel crossings. As a result, small boat arrivals are down around 40% on last year and asylum claims are down by 20%—real action, real results. The task of responding to large-scale movements of people is one that we share with many Governments across the globe. It is, without question, one of the defining challenges of our age and to meet it we must work with source, transit and destination countries alike. That is why the Government have made it a priority to strengthen our co-operation with a range of international partners, striking new agreements and strengthening existing partnerships. Just last month, the Home Secretary signed an agreement with her Belgian counterpart to intensify UK-Belgium co-operation and tighten the net around criminal gangs behind small boat crossings. We are taking our partnership with France further, following the new deal signed in April. French boots on the ground have already increased by 24% and a further 50 specialist officers will now be deployed on high-risk red days when conditions indicate crossings are likely, doubling the size of the current unit. First, by disrupting the movements of goods and infrastructure, tackling the gangs across borders and working with our international partners, we are reducing the flow of people heading towards our borders. Secondly, as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) flagged, we are addressing the pull factors that fuel illegal migration, and we are enforcing the laws of this land. To live in this country is a privilege, but it comes with responsibilities. When people abuse our hospitality, staying for longer than they are entitled to or committing criminal offences in our communities, the public rightly expect every effort to be made to remove them from British soil. That is why the total failure to remove illegal migrants and foreign offenders in the years before the general election was so damaging, and why the Government are putting right the wrongs of the past.

    Hansard source
30. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I think we are in danger of having a rare moment of cross-party consensus and agreement, because that is something the Government are already taking many steps towards. We are looking at visa enforcements. We have already had a number of successes on that front and will continue to use that, because where we see countries refusing to take people back, we have those levers within our power and we are using them.

    Hansard source
31. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I am afraid that one moment of consensus has already broken down. I disagree. We are undertaking a range of consultation and engagement on measures with those partners. The Albania agreement was important, but the Home Secretary is making a number of arrangements, and we look forward to announcing them. I hope hon. Members will be patient with us, but I look forward to making more announcements in the weeks and months ahead.

    Hansard source
32. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I am going to move on. Forgive me. We have driven up removals to the highest level in a decade—an important point to stop and reflect on—because of the progress we are making, with 80,000 individuals returned since the general election, including immigration offenders, people in the country illegally and foreign criminals. We know, too, that the ability to melt into the illegal economy too often lures people here, so we have raised illegal working enforcement to record levels. As we rebuild our shattered asylum system, we are also lightening the burden on local communities. The Government committed to ending the use of asylum hotels within this Parliament and we will do so. Two years in, we have already emptied one in three, reducing the hotel population by 50% in the last year and by 71% since the peak under the previous Government. We have cut asylum costs from hotels by £1 billion. That is £1 billion that we can spend on the other priorities of the British people and I think that that should be recognised. We have made significant progress on the chaos we inherited two years ago, but we know there is more to be done to restore fairness to our asylum system: fairness for genuine refugees, who deserve our sanctuary and wish to contribute to our society; and fairness for British citizens, our constituents, who shoulder the current burden in their taxes and in their communities. That is why we continue to work relentlessly at home and abroad to prevent people from coming here illegally in the first place, dismantle the criminal networks that facilitate dangerous and unnecessary crossings, remove those who break our laws and have no right to be here, and ensure that this country maintains its proud tradition of helping the world’s most vulnerable people where it can, but in a secure and orderly way through new safe and legal routes. That is why we have introduced the new Immigration and Asylum Bill. It will cut the asylum backlog by making decisions faster and fairer, close loopholes so that those with no right to be here can be rapidly removed, and ask those who have benefited from public support to contribute to their costs where they are able. I thank the Members who are currently scrutinising the Bill in Committee. I turn now, as the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) implored, to the issues around MOD Bicester. For too long, the way in which we house asylum seekers has not been fair. Billions of pounds have been spent putting them up in hotels, while communities have seen those hotels, often at the centre of their towns or cities, become a symbol of a broken asylum system. Areas where housing costs were low and that already felt left behind were asked to bear more than their fair share, which has been a source of anger and frustration for many people—and understandably so. As well as reducing the backlog, we are working with local authorities on a fairer distribution of asylum seekers across the country. That means ending the use of costly hotels, and instead, moving asylum seekers into more appropriate accommodation.

    Hansard source
33. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I am going to make some progress, because I have detained the Chamber a little too long. That appropriate accommodation includes former military sites, which are basic, safe and self-contained by their nature. As I have said, that approach has already saved the taxpayer £1 billion. But, of course, we recognise the concerns of certain communities. While the Home Office has submitted a planning application to use the MOD Bicester site for asylum accommodation, no final decision has been made. As part of that planning process, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government provided members of the public and local organisations an opportunity to give their views, ensuring we can fully understand the impact on the local community. I want to pay tribute to the campaign in Piddington. It has been an incredibly imaginative and forceful democratic campaign, which I recognise and respect. There are many facets to the process and a lot of different considerations to take into account, but I am clear that public safety is and always will be at the forefront of our thinking. If the site is taken forward, there would be specialist security onsite 24/7, supported by CCTV. Everyone must sign in and out, and we would work closely with the police, the council and other local organisations to address concerns. It is important to note that this is not the first proposal of its kind. Similar sites such as Wethersfield have operated for years with no evidence of any significant increase in criminality attributable to the operation of that site. In fact, in September this year, the chief constable of Essex police confirmed that crime linked to the Wethersfield site is very low, and that there is no reason for the public to be concerned about possible criminality in the area associated with the site. I emphasise that I fully understand the important desire of Members across the House to press for what they see as the best outcome for the areas and people that they represent. That is their democratic duty, and it is right that any Government are held to account for the decisions that they make. At the same, it is the duty of Government to act in a way that reflects the needs of the whole country. The approach we are taking is in the national interest, and it is the fairest way to restore order and control to our asylum system: ending the use of hotels; reducing the numbers in the system by addressing pull factors; removing those with no right to be here; and opening safe and legal routes, underpinned by community sponsorship, so that those with genuine claims can come to this country in an orderly and controlled way. Finally, I will address the reference in the Opposition motion to the European convention on human rights. As I have set out, removals of those with no right to be in this country are at the highest level in years. That is thanks to the work that this Government have done and continue to do. But there is much more to be done. The idea that leaving the convention is the way forward is not born out by reality. Not only is it unnecessary to restore effective control of the immigration system, but it would be counterproductive given the risk of undermining crucial co-operation with European partners—something we are already dealing with as a consequence of Brexit. Let us be clear: the convention delivers for people in this country too. It guarantees their right to privacy, a fair trial, free speech—permanent privileges that cannot be chopped and changed. In an increasingly dangerous and uncertain world in which conflict and cross-border crime present shared challenges, a close relationship with our European allies has never been more important. It is for those reasons that we remain committed to the ECHR and those relationships. Of course, commitment does not mean complacency. This Government have worked hard to listen to the concerns of the public with respect to the ECHR and the immigration system. That is why our focus is on reforming the domestic application of article 6 and restoring the proper balance between individual rights and public interest. The UK is proud of the role that we played in drafting the convention, and now it is our responsibility to ensure that it is strong and relevant for today’s world. That requires honest conversations and continued evolution, not turning our backs when it matters most. We have ahead of us what I expect will be a wide-ranging debate. I conclude by recounting the central facts about our record. Crossings: down. Asylum hotel use: down. Removals: up. Order and control: returning at last. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) has chuntered from a sedentary position for a while, but I remember that when he was in the Home Office his Government began the use of many similar large sites, such as Wethersfield. [Interruption.] I am just reminding him that Wethersfield was opened under his watch. Let us remember the “why” as well as the “what.” The reason underlying all that we have done, are doing, and will do in this area is fairness—fairness to those in genuine need of sanctuary from tyranny, conflict and persecution; and fairness for the British public, who rightly expect their Government, not criminal gangs, to determine who can come to this country, and who expect asylum seekers to be fairly housed across the country. Fairness is the principle on which our progress to date has been built, and the work continues relentlessly.

    Hansard source
34. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Dixon

    Non-domestic Stalking: Prosecution

    4. What steps she is taking to help increase prosecutions for non-domestic stalking.

    Hansard source
35. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Dixon

    Non-domestic Stalking: Prosecution

    I thank the Attorney General for her response. I recently spoke to two of my constituents, Julie and Jodie, about the repeated harassment they had experienced at the hands of a former neighbour. The police failed to link the incidents and reports, and to identify a pattern of behaviour as stalking. Could the Attorney General give additional assurance to me and my constituents that she will urgently look into how the CPS and the police assess and deal with non-domestic stalking, and ensure that training and standards are improved?

    Hansard source
36. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy Slaughter

    Fraud and Economic Crime: Prosecution

    We are determined to make the UK a more hostile environment for all forms of economic crime, including fraud. In the last financial year, the Crown Prosecution Service completed more than 8,000 fraud and forgery prosecutions—an increase of about 10% on the year before—and we are not stopping there. In June, the CPS launched its new serious economic and organised crime strategy, which is modernising its response and strengthening capability to address increasingly sophisticated crime.

    Hansard source
37. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy Slaughter

    Fraud and Economic Crime: Prosecution

    As the hon. Gentleman will know, organised crime is an important part of fraud, and the two go hand in hand. The Serious Fraud Office investigates the most serious types of fraud and bribery, and other matters. However, we are very conscious of the fact that tens of thousands of individuals—our constituents—are affected, and that will be central to this aim.

    Hansard source
38. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy Slaughter

    Fraud and Economic Crime: Prosecution

    We have taken considerable steps along that route. As well as securing convictions, prosecutors can use confiscation and asset recovery powers to seize the proceeds of offending. Between 2020 and 2025, the CPS recovered more than £530 million through confiscation orders, of which £102 million was paid to victims in compensation.

    Hansard source
39. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy Slaughter

    Whistleblowing

    Whistleblowers can reveal criminal activity that would otherwise go undiscovered, help unravel complex cases, speed up investigations and deliver justice for victims more quickly, but we believe that more can be done. On Monday, the Government launched a consultation on the whistleblowing framework, which will involve seeking views on a proposed scheme to reward financially whistleblowers who report economic crime to the Serious Fraud Office.

    Hansard source
40. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy Slaughter

    Whistleblowing

    Yes, and I am sorry to hear of the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent. I encourage him and his constituent to share that experience in the whistleblowing consultation that I mentioned. Whistleblowers can dramatically cut the time and resource that it takes to get to the heart of a case by providing the necessary information to focus investigations, and I invite my colleagues on both sides of the House to feed into the consultation.

    Hansard source