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

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

Sitting MPs
404
Entries, last 7 days
973
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 4 Nov 2026

Conservative and Unionist Party

Sitting MPs
118
Entries, last 7 days
345
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 4 Nov 2026

Liberal Democrats

Sitting MPs
71
Entries, last 7 days
216
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 4 Nov 2026

Reform UK

Sitting MPs
8
Entries, last 7 days
20
Members
270,000 CLAIMED

Latest entry 6 Nov 2026

Scottish National Party

Sitting MPs
8
Entries, last 7 days
10
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 4 Nov 2026

Green Party

Sitting MPs
5
Entries, last 7 days
20
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 4 Nov 2026

Plaid Cymru

Sitting MPs
4
Entries, last 7 days
10
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 4 Nov 2026

All parties, latest first

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

  1. ParliamentLib DemClive Jones

    Smoke-free UK

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for securing this debate. Tackling cancer must be a national priority. Lung cancer is one of the deadliest forms of cancer and is often caused by smoking. It accounts for about 35,000 deaths every year—approximately one in five cancer fatalities—and causes suffering and heartbreak in communities across the country. I know at first hand the impact that smoking can have, as my father was a very, very heavy smoker. He began smoking at around the age of 14. It was fashionable; everybody did it. Serving in the second world war, there was a plentiful supply of cigarettes. He could not give them up and continued smoking for the rest of his life—often 60-plus a day. It eventually killed him at the very early age of 63. That is why the ambition of a smoke-free Britain is so important to me. For that reason, I welcomed that Tobacco and Vapes Act, which passed earlier this year. It introduces a progressive generational ban on the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after 1 January 2009, which means that future generations will never legally be able to buy cigarettes or other tobacco products. That is particularly important because, although overall smoking rates have fallen over the past 15 years, the proportion of children who have tried smoking has increased from 14% to 18% since 2023. The Act is an important step forward in trying to stop young people taking up the habit of smoking, but legislation alone is not enough. Experts have rightly raised concerns about enforcement, and the decade of cuts to public health under the previous Government impeded smoking cessation services. The 2022 Khan review warned that, without further action, England would miss its smoke-free target by at least seven years, with some of the poorest areas not becoming smoke-free until 2044. That is why the Liberal Democrats have called for a return to the 2015 levels of public health spending and for renewed investment in smoking cessation services, funded in part by a levy on tobacco company profits. Tobacco is a uniquely harmful product, and smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the country. It claims about 80,000 lives every year from lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. It is linked to at least 16 different cancers and countless other illnesses, and it kills up to two thirds of its long-term users. It is also the leading cause of lung cancer. Too many patients still face unacceptable waits for diagnosis and treatment. More than 106,000 cancer patients waited longer than 62 days to begin treatment in 2025. Freedom of information requests revealed that most NHS trusts reported patients waiting more than six months for cancer treatment, with some waiting considerably longer. Such delays have serious consequences. Evidence suggests that every four-week delay to treatment can significantly reduce survival rates. For lung cancer patients, early diagnosis and rapid access to treatment can mean the difference between life and death. Given the need to improve outcomes, I welcome the Government’s national cancer plan. The ambition to meet all cancer waiting time standards by 2029 is positive. That includes the target of all patients beginning treatment within 62 days of an urgent referral, for which the Liberal Democrats have been calling for some time. I am particularly pleased that the plan includes dedicated specialist cancer nurses for patients, but that is a massive ask because of the huge shortage of specialist cancer nurses. The Liberal Democrats would recruit 3,000 additional cancer nurses, doubling the current workforce. Will the Government commit to doing that? In addition, the Liberal Democrats would introduce 200 fully staffed radiotherapy machines across the country, but particularly in areas of deprivation and areas that are currently poorly resourced. These measures would help to tackle the inequalities that continue to drive poorer outcomes in areas with the highest rates of lung cancer and smoking-related disease. By bringing together prevention, early diagnosis, treatment and addiction support, we can reduce both smoking rates and the harm that smoking causes. There is a strong economic case for action. Smoking costs society annually an estimated £44.8 billion through healthcare costs, lost productivity, social care pressures and smoking-related fires. Those costs far outweigh the £7.5 billion a year of revenue generated through tobacco taxation. If smokers spent their money elsewhere, it would support up to 135,000 full-time equivalent jobs and boost economic output by billions of pounds. A smoke-free Britain should be an ambition shared across the House. Reducing smoking, preventing lung cancer and ensuring equal access to high-quality treatment are goals that should transcend party politics. To finish, I have a couple of quick questions for the Minister. Can she provide an update on progress towards offering opt-out smoking cessation support as part of routine hospital care and explain what further support is being provided to help current smokers to quit? Can she also confirm that local authority funding for smoking cessation services will be protected throughout this Parliament and that the ringfence around the public health grant will remain in place?

    Hansard source
  2. ParliamentLib DemClive Jones

    Business of the House

    While the Government have committed to a workforce plan for social care, many carers are pleading for urgent action to help resolve the high vacancy rate and to incentivise people to stay in the sector. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate on delivering the skills and professional development that social care needs to retain its workforce?

    Hansard source
  3. ParliamentLib DemClive Jones

    National Care Service

    I welcome the Minister’s statement on the national care service and thank her for early sight of it. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I believe that everyone deserves to be able to live independently with dignity and to receive the care they need in their own home when possible. Hundreds of thousands of people are desperately waiting for the care they need and 13,000 people every day are left stranded in hospital beds, unable to leave because their care packages have not been put in place. One in seven people over 65 now pay more than £100,000 for their care in their lifetime. Spiralling social care costs have left many councils, such as my own in Wokingham, struggling to fulfil other basic services that residents want to see. Social care services are in crisis and have been for too long. That has been recognised for many years by Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats and a carer himself.

    Hansard source
  4. ParliamentLib DemClive Jones

    National Care Service

    Apologies for that, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are pleased that the Prime Minister has recognised from his own experience that social care needs fixing. The Liberal Democrats are keen to work on a cross-party basis to fix social care. Failure to act on social care would be a catastrophe for families, for the NHS and for local services. The Liberal Democrats have set the Government three tests for the social care reforms. First, they must put family carers front and centre, with guaranteed rights for every carer, and replace the broken carer’s allowance system. Secondly, the reforms must include a universal safety net of care, including free personal care. Thirdly, the Government must protect people from catastrophic costs so that family finances are not decimated and people do not have to lose the family home. I am pleased that the Prime Minister committed yesterday to arranging another round of cross-party talks to fix social care. The Liberal Democrats will engage in those discussions and we urge others in the House to do the same.

    Hansard source
  5. ParliamentLib DemChristine Jardine

    Topical Questions

    A lot of work is being done in Scotland—in Edinburgh, Glasgow and elsewhere—to develop a space culture, with space technology and satellite technology. With the controversy this week about potential interference in the Ukrainian war effort using satellite technology, do the Government intend to step up investment and support for research and development in this area, in the interests of our own national security?

    Hansard source
  6. ParliamentLib DemCaroline Voaden

    Data Centres: South-west

    9. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of data centre developments on resource capacity in the south-west.

    Hansard source
  7. ParliamentLib DemCaroline Voaden

    Data Centres: South-west

    Water UK says data centres in England are using about 6.6 million litres of drinking water a day and that is set to triple by 2030. Meanwhile, households in Devon and Cornwall have been under a hosepipe ban since August and businesses are now facing water restrictions. Given the dry weather that we have had and the fact there is probably a lot more to come, have the Government considered legislating to require new data centres to operate with low water dependency, particularly when they are being built in the south of England where water shortages will become even more pressing?

    Hansard source
  8. ParliamentLib DemCaroline Voaden

    Sustainable Farming Incentive

    The Minister recently visited Dartmoor. Richard, a farmer on Dartmoor, was just one of the many farmers who wrote to me following the SFI scheme to say that his farm, which protects and enhances the beauty and environment of Dartmoor, has been in a scheme for 30 years but lost out on this application. He and his wife are now seriously wondering how they are going to make ends meet. I have heard from numerous other farmers who have lost out and whose schemes will now end. They do not know how they are going to survive. It would be good if the Minister could show a little more contrition and humility, and just say, “Yeah, it didn’t work. We’re really sorry and we’re going to do better next year.” Can the Minister guarantee that the scheme will be better designed next year? Will it operate better, support the smaller farmers who rely on it for their future, and be adequately funded?

    Hansard source
  9. ParliamentLib DemCalum Miller

    Sustainable Farming Incentive

    My constituent Anthony Henman farms Pegtop farm at Woodeaton. He has SFI agreements that expire in March next year. When I spoke to him this morning, he told me that these are “vital to us. We can’t survive without them.” Does the Minister understand the huge pressure facing our farmers, not least in the light of the extraordinary global price of fertilisers, and that many of them are simply on the edge? What assurances can I give Anthony and other farmers in my constituency that SFI27 will be announced early, and will be adequately funded and properly managed?

    Hansard source
  10. ParliamentLib DemBobby Dean

    Business of the House

    I join the Leader of the House in this tribute to Sir David Amess. It is clear how well loved he was across the House, and our thoughts are with his family. The Leader of the House mentioned the party conference season. The Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the Prime Minister moving towards our positions on Europe, social care and electoral reform at conference. We urge him to go further and faster on all three fronts. [Interruption.] Not appreciated by those on the Conservative Benches, but we certainly appreciate progress on Europe, social care and electoral reform. There is an emerging scandal that relates to the treatment of Hongkongers entitled to British national overseas status. The UK has a historic commitment to those people, with the promise of democracy being maintained in Hong Kong or a pathway to UK citizenship, which many of them have taken up. However, we have received reports that many BNO applications are now being refused on the basis of past convictions in Hong Kong. UK rules state that if the conviction is an offence in the UK and the sentence is for longer than 12 months, that should result in an automatic refusal. Some Hongkongers were convicted for longer than 12 months for the offence of rioting, which is an offence in the UK but, of course, they were not really rioting; they were engaging in peaceful democratic protest. We have raised these concerns directly with the Home Office, which says that discretion can be applied, but the guidance we have seen says otherwise. The fact is that people are now being rejected on this basis. To add insult to injury, the rejection letters say that these decisions have been made by a competent foreign court. I hope the Leader of House will agree that this would be a betrayal of the UK’s historic commitment to those people, so can he organise for Ministers to issue clear guidance about the specific discretion that is required in these cases?

    Hansard source
  11. ParliamentLib DemAlison Bennett

    Unpaid Carers

    I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of support for unpaid carers. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. This is an important debate, and I am grateful to hon. Members from across the House for taking time to attend it. I thank Carers UK, Carers Trust and the many other fantastic organisations working in this space. I also thank all the contributors to the Petitions Committee survey that went out nationally in anticipation of the debate: the words, wisdom and experience of those contributors, from every part of the country, including my own constituency of Mid Sussex, are gold dust if we in this place are going to make the right changes. Even in the short window the survey was open, hundreds of people shared stories and ideas for change. I am sorry I cannot read them all out, but plenty of those stories paint a picture of a country that is failing its carers and those they care for. That is having horrendous consequences. Last night a harrowing case from my area was brought to my attention, and I will share it as it brings to light what happens when we get this wrong. Two young boys were living with their mum, who had multiple health issues and regular emergency hospital admissions. The mum told the hospital and medical staff multiple times that her sons would look after her at home. Despite this, neither boy was ever identified as a young carer. Eventually, in February 2025, one of the boys found his mum dead following a medical incident at home and had to call emergency services. I would like the Minister to share what steps the Department is taking to improve identification of young carers by health services. Lots of the contributors to the Petitions Committee survey talked about carer’s allowance, with varying opinions as to its efficacy. Some said they had never heard of it. I would like to share a short extract from the contribution of a former human rights lawyer who gave that up for her caring responsibilities. She wrote in to the Petitions Committee survey with a poem that ends: “You have the privilege of debating important things every year, But when my day of caring is particularly gruelling or heart breaking, I sometimes debate whether to go on in this life. That’s when the strongest and kindest pair of hands curl around my neck, And say ‘Mum, why are you sad, I love you, it’s going to be all right.’ Carer’s Leave Act 2023 now puts some new responsibility on employers, So, we ask our employers—and it’s maybe fair to say this is the state In the most democratic, fair and established country in the world in terms of governance, rights and liberties, Why do up to 16.2% of the population get just 19% of the national minimum wage—and how is this still even up for debate?” Unpaid carers are the people who look after family members, friends and loved ones who cannot manage alone. They are partners, parents, children, siblings, friends and neighbours. They provide care in all our communities, often without support and at considerable personal cost. According to the 2021 census, 5.8 million people provide unpaid care across the UK. Some 1.7 million provide at least 50 hours of care every week. Their contribution is extraordinary. The value of unpaid care across the UK has been estimated at £184 billion a year. Those people sacrifice sleep, put their own health needs aside, limit their career prospects, use up their savings and worry about what will happen if they can no longer cope. Carers UK research estimates that 1.2 million unpaid carers live in poverty, including 400,000 who are in deep poverty. Its 2025 State of Caring survey found that 74% of respondents had felt stressed or anxious, while almost half had cut back on essentials. No one should be pushed into poverty because they care for someone they love, and no one should have to sacrifice their own health, financial security or future simply because the support they need is not available. This is an issue of financial security, employment, health and wellbeing, and equality of opportunity. It affects people of every age and background in every constituency represented in this House. We are right to keep saying these things: that unpaid carers do extraordinary work, that without them our entire health system would collapse and that, too often, they go unsupported. However, we also have to make tangible changes that move us on from a status quo that is not good enough—words and actions, not words and inaction. There have been some welcome developments in recent months. The Government’s carers action plan, the announcement of a dedicated Government champion for unpaid carers, the review of carers’ employment rights and the work to reform carer’s allowance all offer opportunities for meaningful progress. I welcome those steps, but what matters is whether they lead to practical improvements in the lives of carers and those they care for. We must ensure that unpaid carers are at the heart of the new plans for adult social care, including the work of the Casey commission and the development of a national care service. A new system must recognise that unpaid care cannot be taken for granted. Carers must have a genuine say about what they are willing and able to do, and there must be dependable alternatives when they cannot provide care. Their voices must help to shape the design of services and the decisions made about them and the people they support. When we get this wrong, we see terrible injustices, such as the carer’s allowance overpayments scandal. The reassessment exercise is welcome, but so far the Department for Work and Pensions has reviewed just 1% of identified cases in six months, which is a woefully slow pace. I would like to hear from the Minister about the Department’s plans to resolve what is clearly an inadequate pace of redress. As we approach Carers Rights Day next month, this debate is an opportunity for colleagues of all political persuasions to ask the Government to give us a clear and credible plan for unpaid carers. I hope it will be constructive and cross-party. There is much on which we can agree: carers deserve recognition, financial security, access to breaks, support for their health and a fair opportunity to remain in paid employment if they wish to do so. I would particularly welcome the Minister setting out what concrete improvements carers can expect over the next 12 months, how progress will be measured and how Parliament can hold the Government to account for delivery. Unpaid carers make an enormous contribution to our national community. They should not have to struggle alone, and they should not have to wait indefinitely for the support they need. Properly supporting carers means properly supporting our NHS, our fellow Britons and the nation as a whole. I look forward to hearing colleagues’ contributions and the Minister’s response.

    Hansard source
  12. ParliamentLib DemAlison Bennett

    Unpaid Carers

    I appreciate the opportunity to wind up. I realise that I was remiss in not declaring an interest at the start. As the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) pointed out, I am the new chair of the APPG for young carers and young adult carers—so new, in fact, that I forgot to declare it. I thank all hon. Members for their speeches and interventions. I can say to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) that I have had a similar surgery, in which somebody asked about carer’s allowance and the state pension. I was very pleased that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned the work of Siobhan O’Dwyer at the University of Birmingham. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) talked about her family’s experience of dementia. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his constant kind words and support, and for giving us the Northern Ireland perspective. The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) talked about Carers Week and the Rochdale carers’ hub. I did a similar event for Carers Support West Sussex. The hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) talked about Freda and her mum, and her own lifetime of working to support carers. I thank the hon. Member for Harlow—I will call him my hon. Friend—for his work fighting for young carers, both as a teacher and now in this place. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) shared stories of her own caring responsibilities, and my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) set out the Williams family story, which gets repeated everywhere. I thank the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) for putting those clear questions to the Minister. Finally, I appreciate the Minister recognising that, although there is consensus in this Chamber, there is still much more work to be done. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

    Hansard source
  13. ParliamentLib DemAlison Bennett

    Science and Research Investment

    Universal Quantum, born out of the University of Sussex, is based in my constituency. It is developing a unique trapped-ion modular technology for quantum computing at scale. It received $77 million from the German Government in 2022, and last week secured $100 million of Series A funding from investors, including the Singaporean Government. However, it has been unsuccessful in getting any funding from our own Government. Can the Minister explain how that tallies with their Department’s commitment to investing in exceptional home-grown companies?

    Hansard source
  14. ParliamentLib DemAlison Bennett

    National Care Service

    I appreciate being called at this point, because at 1.50 pm there is a debate in Westminster Hall on support for unpaid carers; I encourage all hon. Members to join us. Does the Minister think that the national care service can be funded through efficiencies in the NHS?

    Hansard source
  15. ParliamentLib DemAdam Dance

    Sustainable Farming Incentive

    Because SFI window 2 funding closed within hours, many Yeovil farmers were shut out, despite being prepared. That included Tim, who was awarded Water Quality Farmer of the Year on literally the same day. Does the Minister recognise that even farmers awarded for environmentally-friendly land management are now being left in a financial hole? What are the Government going to do to encourage sustainable farming in Yeovil?

    Hansard source
  16. ParliamentLib DemAdam Dance

    Business of the House

    Yeovil’s new police station will not have a custody unit, after it was shut under the Conservatives, because years of under-investment in Avon and Somerset police means there is not enough money or staff, so officers have to keep wasting hours a day going to Bridgwater station. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the need to give rural police forces like Avon and Somerset a fairer funding boost, so we can get a custody suite back in Yeovil?

    Hansard source
  17. ParliamentLib DemAdam Dance

    National Care Service

    I welcome the Minister’s statement—there was a lot of good in there—but if we are not getting a national care service in this Parliament, what steps will the Government take now to ensure continuity of social care across local authority borders? One constituent’s mother moved from Dorset to a care home near her family in Somerset. They sought support from the council, because their personal funds were running out. Sadly, the constituent’s mother passed away before the complex dispute over which council should pay was ever resolved.

    Hansard source
  18. ParliamentGreenSiân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I am afraid I still cannot find the updated impact assessment, either on the website, by email or on the table in this Committee Room. I would very much like to see the new information that the Minister referred to yesterday.

    Hansard source
  19. ParliamentGreenSiân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair today, Mr Twigg. I take completely the opposite position from the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire in almost every respect. I am going to speak against clause 18 and its inclusion in the Bill, and I am going to oppose the Government amendments that would put further tests on parent-child relationships and parental involvement for refugees. I will also be opposing the Conservative amendments, which would put even tighter constraints on family life. I am here to defend our article 8 protections—I say “our”, because I believe it is really important that we set laws for refugees and asylum seekers that we would happily be subject to ourselves. That is absolutely at the core of the universal nature of human rights and the international agreements we have made to respect human rights around the world in the way that we would want them to be respected should we be in the horrible position of needing to claim asylum. Article 8 protects the right to family life specifically for us under the European convention on human rights. Although it is not absolute, it requires any state interference in these rights to be lawful, necessary and proportionate. I do not agree with the Government when they say in their human rights memorandum that they are taking “proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims.” To me, paragraph 26 in the memorandum clearly admits that there is interference in our rights with this legislation. The Government are using the argument that they are taking “proportionate means” of “achieving the legitimate aims”, but the legitimate aims they lay out are: “maintaining effective immigration control, economic wellbeing and the prevention of disorder or crime.” I honestly do not see how clause 18, on family life and people making claims for reuniting their families and maintaining this essential human right protected under article 8, comes into those “proportionate means”. It is about reducing the ability of families to reunite. The impact assessment clearly says that many thousands of people who would be able to come here under current laws will be denied their claims. This is a reduction in human rights and it seriously needs looking at. I am neither equipped nor planning to add further arguments relating to Northern Ireland and the Windsor framework, but further conversations are needed about what is currently in the Bill, never mind what would happen if we withdrew from the ECHR. Everybody on the Committee wants a fair, robust and effective immigration system—one that works and upholds the rule of law and on in which people have confidence. Article 8 is not an abstract concept within all this; it is the law that decides whether a parent can stay in the country where their children live or whether a British child grows up with both parents. We do not want to see families separated or children separated from the parents who care for them, yet that is precisely the risk posed by clause 18, according to the Government’s own impact assessment.

    Hansard source
  20. ParliamentGreenSiân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I thank the hon. Member for his perspective. He must appreciate through his constituency casework, as I do, the general principle that article 8 claims need to be assessed on an individual basis. The Bill tries to codify and generalise things in ways that reduce the ability for anyone making decisions to look at the genuine family lives of those making the claims. Bad decisions can result from people misunderstanding different cultures, from unconscious biases and from all kinds of things like that. It is really important that we do not try to prescribe family life under state definitions. I will come on to talk more about that and about the toxic rhetoric and the awful anecdotes, such as the examples we have heard from Ministers, which increase the toxicity of the debate. We can do much better than this Bill to reduce that. Clause 18 would replace the reality of family relationships with statutory presumptions. Families today come in many forms. We have single-parent households, blended families, grandparents raising children, and parents who do not live under the same roof through circumstance rather than choice. A family does not stop being a family because it fails a cohabitation test. I will always stand up against people trying to define what a normal family is. The Government’s stated objective is to confine family life “normally” to the core cohabiting family unit. A parent who does not live with their child must prove that the relationship is genuine and be judged on how often and how recently they have had contact, even where work, shared care or the immigration system itself has kept them apart.

    Hansard source
  21. ParliamentGreenSiân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I thank the hon. Member for making those points, but as we spoke about on Second Reading and in earlier debates on this topic, the muddle lies in the bad initial decision making in the Home Office. If it is not clear what kind of evidence people need to establish family life, it should be dealt with through better processes, better information and more support for legal representation. Codifying it, as is done in the Bill, is not the right way to deal with that.

    Hansard source
  22. ParliamentGreenSiân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I disagree wholly with that. During the speeches made by Opposition Members earlier in the debate, I kept thinking about the people who, due to natural disasters or wars, are left without core family, and have to find another family member who will take them in and take that place. There is an inherent danger in putting in place these limits, and in the amendments tabled by Conservative Members that would add rigid definitions. Given the stories about the different ways in which people have experienced refugee status over the years, which all hon. Members will have heard about in casework and read about in memoirs and novels, the need for this change does not ring true. We should keep the system as it is now, where the reality of every single case needs to be looked at.

    Hansard source
  23. ParliamentGreenSiân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Member. We need to look at individual cases individually, as no two families are the same. We could imagine many circumstances for which we would want exceptions to this rule. The Government have rightly left caveats in the Bill, but the Opposition are arguing against them. Putting in rigid criteria on top of what is already in the Bill is absolutely the wrong way to go about addressing the issue. The best way to deal with any problems we might see is to do so in the initial decision making. Clause 18 says that financial or emotional dependence, illness, or living in a conflict zone alone is not enough to establish family life, yet families routinely support each other financially, emotionally and practically. Ministers say that those factors can still be weighed at the public interest stage, but once family life is ruled out, that stage is never reached. What will that mean in practice? As I have hinted at, the Government’s impact assessment says that their article 8 reforms will mean 14,000 more refusals every year. Even after appeals, around 11,700 people more will be refused each year. Under the law as it stands, those people would succeed. That shows that clause 18 does not simply clarify existing principles, but is intended to change outcomes at a substantial scale. The clause does diminish human rights for refugees in this country, as is admitted in the Government’s human rights memorandum. The way the clause is doing that is very troubling for two main reasons. First, it suggests that family relationships deserve protection only when they fit a model chosen by the state, but article 8 has never worked that way. The European Court has always looked at the substance of an individual relationship, not its form. Indeed, the very cases the Government cite require an individualised assessment of all the circumstances. As the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire said, we have been here before. The examples we are hearing from the Home Secretary and the Minister come as part of what is now a mini-tradition of Home Secretaries using exaggerated anecdotes to add to toxic rhetoric about migrants.

    Hansard source
  24. ParliamentGreenSiân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I thank the hon. Member for trying, but he is talking to a person who cannot read the universal declaration of human rights without welling up, and I will never give up making arguments of this sort. Previous legislation on these matters, to which the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire referred, followed on directly from the infamous 2011 party conference speech of the then Home Secretary—now Baroness May of Maidenhead. She repeated false claims from newspapers that judges had permitted a man to escape deportation because he had a pet cat—something she says she did not make up. In reality, neither of the judges’ decisions in the case was based on the man having a pet, and the second and final decision was not based on any human rights consideration at all. It was straightforwardly based on a failure by the Home Office to apply its own policy. Amnesty International gave us more information in its written evidence: “This—together with the readiness of many political commentators to cherry pick often minor or irrelevant facts that are mentioned in tribunal or court judgments and present these as if the main or sole reason for a decision that may have little or nothing to do with them—continues to underpin criticism of Article 8 in immigration-related decision-making. That criticism is plainly misinformed, often careless and, in some cases, on its face, clearly ill-intended—including out of dogmatic hostility to the ECHR and other political motivations.” On Second Reading of the Bill, the current Home Secretary summarised an unnamed case. She said: “In 2025, an Albanian man jailed for growing cannabis escaped deportation not because he had any right to be here, but because it was deemed unduly harsh on his partner to deport him. She was not his wife or life partner—instead, this relationship began only after a deportation order had been served. Why was the deportation deemed to be unduly harsh? The partner spoke no Albanian and had never visited the country before.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 675.]

    Hansard source
  25. ParliamentGreenSiân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    Yes, I will respond to that shortly with some data. To return to the anecdote from the current Home Secretary, Amnesty again corrects the record: “A key error in this summary is the statement that the relevant relationship had only begun after a deportation order had been served. That is not correct. The judge’s decision makes clear that it began significantly before the order. Of especial relevance was that the notice that such an order might be made was served in December 2019, but no order was then made for more than four years. By the time it was made in January 2024, the relationship had developed over a relatively lengthy period.” The Home Secretary mentioned the criminal conviction. Amnesty also corrects that information. It says that he was jailed for four months for a relatively minor offence, and was now “working lawfully and supporting himself.” It also says: “There was no suggestion of any risk of reoffending. His partner, who had no connection and had never been to Albania, was working and providing daily support to her sister and mother. Whatever may have been the position in 2019 was clearly not the position in 2024; and the relevant facts were clearly not adequately presented in what had been reported or at Second Reading.”

    Hansard source
  26. ParliamentGreenSiân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I have said that, based on my own casework, my experience of the Home Office’s errors, and the cases that I have seen, I would like to see investment in Home Office decision making to make it better in the first place. That would be the best way to deal with this issue, particularly when more than half of appeals are being approved.

    Hansard source
  27. ParliamentGreenSiân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    It is pretty clear that I think the Bill is a result of the Government responding to toxic rhetoric coming from other parties, and that it is an attempt to be seen to be doing something.

    Hansard source
  28. ParliamentGreenSiân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I will finish my point. In an evidence session, we challenged the National Crime Agency on the roots of the organised crime that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes mentions, which is doing huge harm. I will not argue that the small boats system is the best way to bring people to this country. Small boat numbers started to grow the moment safe routes were closed. We need safe routes, and that is the approach the Government could take to reduce small boat crossings. The law that protects our rights does not need to be undermined. I would absolutely argue that.

    Hansard source
  29. ParliamentGreenSiân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I am happy to clarify that I am talking primarily about Reform UK. That party is not represented on this Committee and can answer for itself in other ways, but it has, until recently, been taking votes from the Government on the right. I am happy to come back in future sittings with further examples of anecdotes being used instead of evidence. I chose to highlight two examples of Home Secretaries doing that, because the Minister is here to represent a Home Secretary.

    Hansard source
  30. ParliamentGreenSiân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    This is turning into a very broad debate, but I give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West.

    Hansard source
  31. ParliamentGreenSiân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    Much appreciated, Mr Twigg. I would say that the best way to stand up to toxic rhetoric is to stand up to it. We are familiar with the concept of the Overton window, and I am distressed that a Labour Government have been moving in this direction through their immigration policies. As I said at the beginning of my speech in the previous debate, the Government ought not to bring forward this Bill or row back on other civil liberties and human rights legislation—that would be the right thing to do. I am a lone voice on this Committee, but that cannot be right when we know that people around the country want migrants to be welcomed and want to see more unity, inclusion and social cohesion. The way to build that is not to hear the argument about how article 8 and the ECHR need to go and then do a little bit of that. The answer is to stand up to the rhetoric and build a better country.

    Hansard source
  32. ParliamentGreenSiân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    One more time, then I will press on to the end of my speech.

    Hansard source
  33. ParliamentGreenSiân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I do not concede that we are taking in too many refugees. As I said at the beginning, we have an international obligation to take our fair share of people seeking asylum, because of all the causes around the world that the hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier—he left out climate change, but I will forgive him that. There are many, many reasons why we ought to take a humane approach to asylum. Some Government Back Benchers talked earlier about safe routes. There have been good schemes, aimed at particular conflicts in particular countries, and I hope the Government will continue to bring in more such schemes, but it is not good enough to cherry-pick particular conflicts or the kinds of refugees that we find acceptable. The volume of Ukrainian refugees has been absolutely huge, and has not caused social cohesion problems. We can make that work for many other countries as well, but the volumes in other schemes have always been too low. We need a universal framework of law that will work for all kinds of refugees.

    Hansard source
  34. ParliamentGreenSiân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any. I really think that the current law needs to be administered better, and that we need better decision making, more humanity in all of this, and more support for people to get good decisions made the first time. I would be very happy to receive from the Government any clear evidence of abusive claims under the current law that does not rely on anecdote, but I am absolutely sure that, in clause 18, the Government are seeking to prevent people who would currently succeed from achieving asylum in this country and from being reunited with their families. Let me move on to more things that the Government have said. The Government tell us that clause 18 is consistent with Strasbourg case law, and they even cite the cases, but, as other hon. Members have mentioned, they cannot have it both ways. If the clause simply restates the law, it is unnecessary. The Government’s impact assessment says that they expect grants to be cut by a third by those reforms. If the clause goes further, it risks putting the country in breach of the convention and inviting years of litigation. Either way, the clause does not deliver the clarity that Ministers promise, and I think that Opposition Members are united on that today. I believe that a fair immigration system should tackle abuse while protecting genuine family life, and that it should put the best interests of children first and reflect the reality of modern families. Clause 18 does neither. It risks real hardship for genuine families, with little evidence that it will achieve anything else. I urge the Government to think again. We can maintain effective immigration control without using this clause to break up thousands of families. We can protect our borders without sacrificing the fundamental British values of compassion and fairness. For those reasons, I ask the Committee to agree that clause 18 should not stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
  35. ParliamentGreenSiân Berry

  36. ParliamentGreenHannah Spencer

    Jodrell Bank Observatory

    2. What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of the withdrawal of UK Research and Innovation funding for Jodrell Bank observatory from 2028.

    Hansard source
  37. ParliamentGreenHannah Spencer

    Jodrell Bank Observatory

    Funding for the e-MERLIN radio telescope network is due to end in 2028, putting Jodrell Bank’s future at risk. People across Gorton and Denton have made clear to me the vital role the observatory plays in opening science up to people of all ages. Many of us went there on school trips as kids. The Prime Minister assured us that his Government will find a funding solution, so will the Secretary of State explain how the Government intend to honour that heartfelt commitment and secure Jodrell Bank’s long-term future as an active sovereign scientific facility?

    Hansard source
  38. ParliamentGreenDr Ellie Chowns

    Sustainable Farming Incentive

    The Minister knows, because I wrote to him the day after this latest SFI shambles, that farmers in North Herefordshire are livid about the problem. Farmers in Ocle Pychard, Pudleston, Linley Green, Kimbolton, Dilwyn and more have all written to tell me that they are not only hopping mad; they are distressed and depressed at the devastating impact that this situation is having on their livelihoods and the prospect of them continuing to run their farms. Will the Minister recognise that farmers need to hear “sorry”? They need support, sustainability and certainty, not a lottery of fingers on buzzers. Fundamentally, they need direct answers to the following questions. Why is there less money available under the scheme than there was previously? Why did the Government not learn the lessons from the failure last year? And what are they going to do to genuinely own the problem?

    Hansard source
  39. ParliamentGreenDr Ellie Chowns

    Business of the House

    Last week I was contacted by a constituent who faces a £300 a month shortfall between her rent and her local housing allowance. She is deeply concerned about the rent arrears and the risk of her and her family being forced into homelessness. That situation is affecting people across the country. On the very same day, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a report showing how rent controls could reduce the cost to the Exchequer of the unfreezing of local housing allowance by more than a billion pounds by 2030-31. Can we have a debate in Government time about the urgent need to unfreeze local housing allowance and to institute rent controls so that we can avoid the risk of homelessness and the devastating impact, worry and distress that it is causing to so many of our constituents?

    Hansard source
  40. ParliamentGreenDr Ellie Chowns

    National Care Service

    I welcome the statement from the Minister, as I am sure will many people in North Herefordshire—people who draw on care and people who provide care, both paid and unpaid. Does the Minister agree that we need to end the lottery of care—the postcode lottery of care being provided in different ways in different places, the life lottery of people’s access to care being partly determined by their circumstances, and the lottery of whether someone ends up having catastrophic care costs at the end of their life and potentially losing their life savings? Can we agree that we need to ensure that care is locally provided but nationally funded, and will she lobby her colleague the Chancellor to include fair taxation of wealth in the mechanisms considered to fund that?

    Hansard source