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. ParliamentLabourBrian 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
  2. ParliamentLabourBen 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
  3. ParliamentLabourBen 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
  4. ParliamentLabourBen 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
  5. ParliamentLabourBen 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
  6. ParliamentLabourAntonia 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
  7. ParliamentLabourAnneliese 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
  8. ParliamentLabourAnna 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
  9. ParliamentLabourAnna 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
  10. ParliamentLabourAnna 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
  11. ParliamentLabourAnna 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
  12. ParliamentLabourAnna 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
  13. ParliamentLabourAnna 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
  14. ParliamentLabourAnna 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
  15. ParliamentLabourAnna 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
  16. ParliamentLabourAnna 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
  17. ParliamentLabourAnna 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
  18. ParliamentLabourAnna 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
  19. ParliamentLabourAnna Dixon

    Non-domestic Stalking: Prosecution

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

    Hansard source
  20. ParliamentLabourAnna 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
  21. ParliamentLabourAndy 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
  22. ParliamentLabourAndy 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
  23. ParliamentLabourAndy 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
  24. ParliamentLabourAndy 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
  25. ParliamentLabourAndy 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
  26. ParliamentLabourAndy Slaughter

    Whistleblowing

    The consultation that I mentioned is the widest consultation on the most comprehensive Government review of the whistleblowing framework since its introduction in 1999. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and others will feed into it, so that we can make a sea change in the way that whistleblowers are dealt with.

    Hansard source
  27. ParliamentLabourAndy Slaughter

    Whistleblowing

    I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing our deepest condolences to Simon and his family. It is right to say that the Financial Conduct Authority is conducting an investigation into the allegations of wrongdoing, and I therefore do not think it would be right for me to comment in detail at this time. I know that concerns have been raised about the inquiry, but it is being conducted by a new non-exec director. It will report, and the chief executive of the FCA has said that she will have carte blanche to look across the piece at the dealings between Simon and the FCA. In the first instance, I think we should wait to see the outcome of the inquiry before going any further.

    Hansard source
  28. ParliamentLabourAndy Slaughter

    Restriction of Jury Trials: Rule of Law

    The Government inherited a justice system on the brink. The record backlogs mean that victims are facing devastating delays for justice. This Government continues to invest in our courts, but vital reforms are needed too. The Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary have rightly listened to the strength of feeling from victims and this House and have decided not to establish the Crown court bench division, but we will now act more quickly to implement the rest of our vital reforms, delivering swifter justice for victims, whom the Opposition appear to have forgotten about entirely.

    Hansard source
  29. ParliamentLabourAndy Slaughter

    Restriction of Jury Trials: Rule of Law

    It seems to me that the Opposition oppose every one of Lord Leveson’s recommendations. The Conservatives are the party that created the Crown court backlog, and yet they oppose every measure that we devise to deal with it. When are they going to come up with proposals of their own? Why do they continue to oppose for opposition’s sake?

    Hansard source
  30. ParliamentLabourAndy Slaughter

    Restriction of Jury Trials: Rule of Law

    This will be complete news to the Opposition, but we do occasionally listen to what this House and the professions have said. We are going forward with proposals that will tackle the backlog. The Opposition never want to talk about the backlog because they caused it. We are looking for solutions to that; they are welcome to put forward their suggestions.

    Hansard source
  31. ParliamentLabourAndy Burnham

    Engagements

    I add my tribute to Sir David on the fifth anniversary of his death. David was someone of whom I was very fond and with whom I worked very closely on the Health Committee when I arrived in this House in 2001. We send our deepest condolences to David’s family. There is more work to be done on the security of Members of this House, and we will do it. I look forward to welcoming President Zelensky to Downing Street later this afternoon. Our support for Ukraine is unwavering. I have asked for further military and financial support to be drawn up ready for the coming weeks. Later today, I will also meet Archie Goodburn, an incredible athlete and inspiring campaigner for brain cancer research. Finally, I also pay tribute to Councillor Pat Karney, who served north Manchester for almost 50 years as a councillor in such a dedicated way. He saw the city through some of its greatest challenges and has fittingly been called “Mr Manchester” on the front page of the Manchester Evening News today. Thank you, Pat, for your contribution to Manchester and to politics in our country. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

    Hansard source
  32. ParliamentLabourAndy Burnham

    Engagements

    They did not raise those issues with me. I am very happy for everything to be set out in full, Mr Speaker. That is why I asked the Greater Manchester combined authority, in response to a call from the Leader of the Opposition and others, to set out a full statement of my key dealings with the owners of Manchester City football club. That statement, which was published on Monday, includes the issues in the news today, and that is the position.

    Hansard source
  33. ParliamentLabourAndy Burnham

    Engagements

    I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and pass on my sympathies in relation to his grandparents. Any family in this country who has lived through the journey of dementia and experienced the social care system will know that we should not accept the status quo. The failure of this House to fix social care through the decades does not reflect well on any party. We will fix it. We will create a national care service. In laying out the path to that national care service, I can give him my word as the Labour and Co-operative MP for Makerfield that co-operative principles will be at the heart of the new national care service.

    Hansard source
  34. ParliamentLabourAndy Burnham

    Engagements

    I am glad that the right hon. Lady raised my comments, because it gives me an opportunity to say to the whole House how I intend to lead this country. We have lived through a decade of division, and we know that hostile actors have been seeking to interfere in our democratic process. That is a matter of fact. We need to call that out and look straight at it in a way that the Conservatives did not. I have a quote here from the right hon. Lady when she stood at this Dispatch Box when she was responsible for steering through the Elections Bill. She said: “I have not read the Russia report”.––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 384.] They did not want to see it. They wanted to look in the other direction. I will not do that. I will draw a line. I will defend our democracy, and I will lead this country forward with positivity, unity and hope in the next decade.

    Hansard source
  35. ParliamentLabourAndy Burnham

    Engagements

    I could ask the Leader of the Opposition whether she has even read the Russia report yet. I also wonder whether she has read the full comments from Sir Ken McCallum or whether she heard the comments from the former head of MI6. If she had, she would not have made the statements that she just made in this House. I think it is important that we are clear-eyed about what happened in the past. There is incontrovertible evidence that outside actors—enemies of this country—have interfered in our democratic processes, and it is inconceivable that that was not taking place across the whole of the last decade.

    Hansard source
  36. ParliamentLabourAndy Burnham

    Engagements

    The right hon. Lady asked me what I am waiting for. I have had to wait for the Government process, which was struck down by the courts under the Conservative Government, to be fixed. They messed it up, and we inherited that situation. I will take a pragmatic approach on oil and gas. We will set out our decisions shortly.

    Hansard source
  37. ParliamentLabourAndy Burnham

    Engagements

    We commissioned the Milburn report because we do not want to see a country where young people in their 20s are stuck on benefits. I want a system where we give the right support to young people up front so that they can be in training, education or employment from 16 onwards. They do need better mental health support, and I have argued for a different education system that gives parity to technical education alongside the university route. We will bring forward the Milburn report soon. We will set out our response to it. We will bring down the welfare bill.

    Hansard source
  38. ParliamentLabourAndy Burnham

    Engagements

    As I said, I am meeting President Zelensky this afternoon. We will honour our commitments to him and his country, and we will honour our NATO commitments, as I have said every time that I have appeared at this Dispatch Box. The right hon. Lady will have to wait for the Budget. The right hon. Lady comes here every week and poses as the world-leading authority on defence. She talked about interviews. I recall a recent interview she gave about the Conservatives’ plans for an iron dome. Then she said, “It isn’t our plan.” Then it emerged that it was briefed by her team, which does not sound like she is in control of her own policy on defence. Then, under questioning from Mr Ferrari on LBC, she said “you’ve got to speak to a defence expert about exactly how it works.” Obviously, we worked out in that interview that she was not a defence expert, and I think Mr Ferrari is still waiting for an explanation.

    Hansard source
  39. ParliamentLabourAndy Burnham

    Engagements

    I used my conference speech to face up to difficult decisions. I faced up to a difficult decision on supporting older people in later life, related to adjusting the triple lock so that we can lay the ground for a national care service. I took a difficult decision about developing closer ties with Europe, supported by a majority of people in this country. Why? Because we have the chance to do a deal before the end of the year that can add growth to the British economy and support our farmers and our food industry. Let me finish today in a spirit of problem solving, not point scoring; in a spirit of unity with the right hon. Lady. I will make one further point about her conference speech. I commend her for drawing a line under a decade of division when she drew a line between her and Reform for suggesting that her children were not British. That is wrong in every single respect. She was brave and she was right to call it out. That is what I want to see more of in the next decade, as we go forward.

    Hansard source
  40. ParliamentLabourAndy Burnham

    Engagements

    My hon. Friend puts her points very powerfully. High streets across the country, including in Southall, have for too long been a symbol of the decline of our towns, and I am determined to do something about it. Immediately, I cut business rates for pubs, clubs and music venues by 20%, working with the Chancellor when I came into office. We are bringing forward a high streets strategy later this year. We have announced a £210 million package for councils to reopen empty buildings. I will look at the specifics on the police hub. This issue should be one that unites this House and one where we can work together.

    Hansard source