partytracker.uk

Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,699 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Rishi Sunak
Fire and Search and Rescue Services
Following the complex rescue of a lady at Aysgarth Falls earlier this year, I want to pay tribute to Swaledale mountain rescue and the North Yorkshire fire and rescue service. In particular, Swaledale mountain rescue relies on dedicated volunteers to respond to emergencies right across the Yorkshire dales. Will the Secretary of State join me in praising its contribution to our rural community and continuing to support close co-ordination between its volunteer efforts and local statutory emergency services?
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Paul Holmes
Topical Questions
Since I last asked the Minister about the Liberal Democrats’ £620 million-worth of debt at Eastleigh borough council, it has got bigger, the external auditors have said that there have been financial misstatements and a lack of management financially, and the Government have now given it £150 million for social housing. What will it take for this Minister to come down on Eastleigh borough council and get that debt down?
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Ms Nusrat Ghani
Immigration: Earned Settlement
Order. I urge colleagues to keep their questions short and for the Home Secretary to be as on point as she can be.
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Ms Nusrat Ghani
Immigration: Earned Settlement
Order. Marvellous. I call the Home Secretary.
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Ms Nusrat Ghani
Immigration: Earned Settlement
I think you made your point. Well done.
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Ms Nusrat Ghani
Budget Resolutions
I call the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Ms Nusrat Ghani
Budget Resolutions
Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, more than 84 Members are hoping to speak, so every minute we can give Back Benchers will go down well.
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Ms Nusrat Ghani
Budget Resolutions
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Ms Nusrat Ghani
Budget Resolutions
Order. Because so many colleagues wish to contribute, Back Benchers are on a five-minute speaking limit.
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Ms Nusrat Ghani
Budget Resolutions
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Ms Nusrat Ghani
Budget Resolutions
I call the Father of the House.
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Mr Mark Francois
Park Homes
I have over half a dozen park home estates in my constituency, so I welcome the fact that the Minister and the Government are reviewing whether to get rid of the 10% charge that owners have to pay if they sell their park home. No other property owner has to pay such a charge, and my constituents feel very strongly that this is iniquitous. May I make a submission to the review on their behalf? They would be very grateful if the Minister were to abolish the charge.
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Mr Gagan Mohindra
Houses in Multiple Occupation
Earlier this year, Liberal Democrat-run Three Rivers district council put in a notice for an article 4 direction. However, it will not come into effect until June 2027, with the council citing financial concerns, despite repeated calls from me and local Conservative councillors to do it sooner and protect my residents from overcrowded and unwanted HMOs. What advice can the Minister offer my residents, such as those who live in Muirfield Road in South Oxhey, who have already been affected by this issue?
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Lincoln Jopp
Topical Questions
West Surrey unitary authority wrote to the Secretary of State asking her to change the name of that authority to West Surrey and South Middlesex—a move that I thoroughly support. The local government Minister wrote back to them and said, “It’s nothing to do with me; just change your name yourself.” Will the Minister confirm what his spokesman said to the BBC, which was that, “West Surrey Council has the power to change its own name to include Middlesex if it chooses to do so, and we’ve set this out in a letter to them”?
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Lewis Cocking
Houses in Multiple Occupation
To residents across the country, a standard family home being converted into an HMO for a large number of adults is a material change. It changes the character of an area, and it places pressure on parking and local services. Too many HMOs are being used to house people who come to this country illegally, and we know for a fact that many of these men are dangerous. However, the current rules do not reflect the negative impact an HMO can have, with landlords not needing to apply for planning permission if it is for less than five occupants, and the article 4 direction does not go far enough. What work is the Minister doing to investigate changing the rules so that all HMOs, regardless of size, require planning permission so that local people’s voices can be heard?
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Kit Malthouse
Topical Questions
As the Housing and Planning Minister knows, a planning inspector has made some outrageous decisions regarding the national landscape in my constituency over the past few months. Will he therefore please confirm from the Dispatch Box, for the benefit of all the planning inspectors out there, that his intention is to strengthen protections for our national landscapes in the latest edition of the national planning policy framework?
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Katie Lam
Topical Questions
Last month, it was reported that money from the Department’s community recovery fund had been funnelled to explicitly partisan groups, and had been used to train activists in how to influence the public to make them pro-migration and against the Conservative party, which was named in training materials. Can the Secretary of State please explain how on earth taxpayer money was spent on this kind of partisan political activity?
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Katie Lam
Topical Questions
In a statement issued by the Department last month, we were told that this money, which has been spent on partisan political campaigning, can be recovered if it has been used improperly—but that is not the same as doing it. Will the Secretary of State confirm that she will investigate and recoup every penny of taxpayer money funnelled to those partisan groups, either directly or by instructing councils?
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative John Cooper
House Building
<Question HRSContentId="{C78F2A38-4BDC-4A83-A955-4C17CEA22D08}">2. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{A5BAA4C3-95D1-4B3C-9920-FE3D9C0CCC65}">What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the rate of house building.</QuestionText> </Question>
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative John Cooper
House Building
Statistics are like bathing costumes: what they reveal is interesting, and what they conceal is absolutely vital. The statistics we heard in that answer conceal the fact that this Government are on line to build fewer houses than the last Conservative Government did in a parliamentary term blighted by covid, when many building sites were completely shut down. When it comes to housing, this Government are drowning, not waving, aren’t they?
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative John Cooper
Topical Questions
<Question HRSContentId="{4A560409-921B-41F8-9E98-C5F5C5E1DBDC}">T3. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{13873A39-4A4C-49DE-81A1-D912BB4957C8}"></QuestionText>This Government are facilitating a property grab by allowing councils to seize properties that have been left vacant for as little as six months. Rather than stealing properties, would not the Secretary of State be better using the powers of state to cut regulation, cut taxes and get more houses built?</Question>
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative James Wild
Social Media: Ban for Under-16s
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate, and I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on the way he introduced it and spoke up for those who signed the petition. I have some sympathy for the position that Leo and the other signatories set out opposing restrictions on social media for under-16s. When the debate on this issue began, I was initially sceptical that increasing the age limit was the appropriate response; there are many good uses of tech for young people that they should be free to explore. However, the wider debate has been running for some considerable time. Nearly 20 years have passed since I was working for T-Mobile on the Byron review, which looked at online child safety. The focus then was on platforms taking responsibility for protecting young people. Sadly, they have failed to do that. On balance, therefore, I agree that the evidence and experience demonstrate that increasing the age limit is necessary to protect children from harm. We know that social media platforms and the algorithms driving them are designed to be addictive. They can expose children to pornography, violence, bullying, sexual abuse and other extreme content, with damaging and, very sadly, tragic consequences. The Conservatives believe that parents have ultimate responsibility for their children, but we also acknowledge the challenge they face in keeping their children safe online. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) set out this point clearly: an activity that would not be tolerated in the real world has been normalised, monetised and amplified online. That is why the shadow Education Secretary, as well as my noble Friend Lord Nash and many hon. Members from across the House campaigned to secure restrictions on platforms, working with parents and bereaved families. I welcome the announcement the Government made in June to bring forward restrictions on platforms that will protect children and help parents. However, a theme throughout the debate has been that the success of the policy will depend on its implementation. In that context, I was concerned by Ofcom’s recent report on the Online Safety Act, which found no statistically significant reduction in the proportion of children encountering harmful online content during the first nine months after the new child safety duties took effect. That is clearly disappointing and worrying. Laws need to be implemented effectively. The Government have said they intend to publish the first set of regulations for the age limit before the end of this year, to take effect in the spring. Can the Minister confirm that that timetable remains the same? If it is, when will the regulations be published, given we are now in November? We should, as others have said, learn from Australia’s restrictions and where they have been bypassed. Last week, Ofcom published its review of age-verification tools and recommended four methods: photo ID, digital ID, face-age estimation technology, and banking-based checks. Supporting child protection does not mean endorsing any age-checking system or the unnecessary collection of personal data, so that review raises a number of questions that I want to put to the Minister. First, does the Minister agree that, as far as possible, information held by platforms should be used in the first instance for adults? How will they keep to a minimum the requirement to provide photo ID and use face-scanning technology as much as possible? Clearly, there are privacy issues at hand here, so what protections should be in place for users’ data? For the avoidance of doubt, will he rule out mandatory digital ID as a requirement for accessing social media? In that report, Ofcom estimates that around 150,000 16 and 17-year-olds across the UK hold neither a passport nor a provisional driving licence. How will the Government inform those young people of options such as a citizen card, which they can get for free? Is the Minister looking at age verification at app store level as a means not only of more reliable protection of children, but of reducing friction for adults accessing social media? Of course, we have to accept that no system is foolproof, but that does not mean that we should take no action. Having effective controls and penalties, which the chief executive of Ofcom spoke about in media interviews last week, will reduce the likelihood of under-16s being exposed to damaging content, which is our objective. Finally, in September, the Secretary of State made a statement regarding nude images and said that due to the lack of progress on voluntary measures, legislation would be introduced to “strengthen device-level protections” to prevent “children from taking, sharing or viewing nude images on phones and tablets.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 917.] What progress has there been in the last two months to prepare that legislation, or indeed secure commitments from major tech companies to develop and implement such protections to stop children being abused and groomed? Our role as legislators is to ensure that the laws we pass are necessary, effective and proportionate. Protecting children from harm is a duty that all Members take incredibly seriously wherever they fall on this specific issue. The public consultation and the conversations that I have had show that there is support for action to introduce effective age-based access to social media as part of wider measures to protect children. Now the focus must be on getting the implementation right.
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Gregory Stafford
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform
<Question HRSContentId="{ABAAC562-8C44-4F90-9F6B-4FC55094AFE5}">12. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{62D0C30E-0B2C-45E9-ACC7-14CB4453D65A}">What her planned timetable is for introducing the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill.</QuestionText> </Question>
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Gregory Stafford
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform
I recently met constituents in Grayshott and Haslemere who face poor communication from managing agents, with little transparency on where the service charges and costs that they are forced to pay go. Meanwhile, Surrey and Hampshire are set to lose out under the Government’s funding review, leaving many of those same residents facing higher council tax bills. Will the Secretary of State finally tell us when the leasehold reform Bill will be published, and give a guarantee that any savings delivered through that reform will not simply be wiped out by the higher council tax bills caused by her Government’s funding decisions?
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Gareth Bacon
House Building
In an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), the Minister said that there were “encouraging signs of progress”, but the truth is that the housing industry faces a bleaker and bleaker future under this Government: housing completions are at their lowest for more than a decade; planning permissions are down 31%; output is down 6%; London is at a standstill; and the Government are just 29% of the way through their target in nearly half the time allotted for it. Does the Minister agree that this broken record of failure needs urgent repair?
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Gareth Bacon
House Building
The Minister wants to talk about the OBR, so let us do that. Last week, the OBR was damning in its assessment of the viability of house building in England. It highlighted how regulatory and fiscal burdens are crushing viability. The Chancellor promised no new building regulations, but that is not enough. The Minister knows that viability—or, rather, the lack of it—is killing the house building sector. The existing environmental and net zero regulations and taxes are causing the viability crisis, so will the Minister join me in supporting the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), with her plan to cut £50,000 of regulation and taxes from the cost of building new homes to make sites viable again?
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Dr Kieran Mullan
Topical Questions
<Question HRSContentId="{8EE50CD6-38D3-4878-9308-02D4F4486013}">T7. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{CEF19128-F145-4F2F-B3ED-C6FF87CA4138}"></QuestionText>In Bexhill and across the country, homeowners are being fleeced out of thousands of pounds by a company called Asset Invest Ltd, which bought titles with restrictive covenants affecting thousands of homes for just £1. This exploitative practice has to stop. Will the Minister agree to meet me and a cross-party group of MPs who want to see the new leasehold Bill bring forward better protections for homeowners in that terrible situation?</Question>
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Dr Andrew Murrison
Immigration: Earned Settlement
Will migrants who come to this country and set up legitimate small businesses that employ people who pay taxes be advantaged under the scheme that the Home Secretary has announced for earned settlement, or will they be excluded because they are not working people, according to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s definition announced this weekend?
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative David Simmonds
Nolan Principles
The first of the Nolan principles is selflessness—acting solely in the public interest—but, according to feedback from councillors throughout the country, during the botched local government reorganisation process they felt that they were under pressure to put political considerations first: pressure that came from the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed). The new Secretary of State told the House recently that she could not say whether his decision making was even lawful. Can she now tell the House whether the pressure that was put on those councillors to submit to his reorganisation agenda left them at risk of breaching the Nolan principles as well as the law?
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Dame Karen Bradley
Immigration: Earned Settlement
The Home Secretary will know that the Committee conducted a piece of deliberative democracy work, in which we worked with the public to find out their attitudes to people who are coming in on work visas. It was very clear that the public want skills training so that those in the domestic population can take vacancies. Can she confirm what work she is doing across Government to make sure there is appropriate skills training for those who are here to take the jobs available, and can she confirm when she expects the new provisions to start?
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Chris Philp
Immigration: Earned Settlement
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. It took a year for the Home Secretary to build her reputation as tough on immigration, but what took a year to build she has just dismantled in 12 short minutes. I do not judge her by the actions we think she should take; I judge her by what she herself has previously said. She made announcements from the Government Dispatch Box on 20 November last year, and doubled down in a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research on 5 March this year. She repeatedly singled out social care workers as a particular problem. She said on 5 March that fraud in the social care sector was “rife”, with bogus sponsors. She said from the Government Dispatch Box that it was right that “more stringent” restrictions should be applied to social care workers. Now, she stands there and says the exact opposite. A Home Office document that the Home Secretary published on 5 March said that social care workers alone, because they work on low wages and have brought in many dependants, will cost the taxpayer £10 billion. Those are her figures about social care workers that she specifically chose to publish. She went on to say on 5 March that failing to implement her plans would be “an affront to the idea of fairness” in our society. That is exactly what she has done in the changes she has announced today. The Home Secretary now proposes to allow every single care worker and their dependants who arrived prior to May 2025—a number running into hundreds of thousands—to stay in this country beyond the expiry of their visa and, in the case of 75% of them, to stay permanently, even though she acknowledges that many of them arrived fraudulently. How can she justify allowing people who she acknowledges arrived in this country fraudulently to stay forever, at a cost that she herself has admitted is £10 billion? That is the cost of today’s U-turn: £10 billion. Outside of care workers, many of the so-called highly skilled workers who have arrived recently are not highly skilled at all. The Home Secretary did not mention this in her statement, but in her document she proposes to extend the soft terms on which those workers can stay until 2035, extending the previous sunset by five years. Her own document published today, which she did not refer to, forecasts that a staggering 1.9 million permanent settlement rights will be granted between now and 2030, and a freedom of information request has revealed where some of those people work. German Doner Kebab, a chain of kebab shops, sponsored 106 skilled worker visas. Khans middle eastern restaurant sponsored 28 high-skilled visas. A Domino’s Pizza franchise in South Yorkshire sponsored 78 high-skilled visas—Members get the picture. Just a year after getting ILR, someone can easily get full citizenship, and we know what that means: benefits, social housing, and free NHS treatment. [Interruption.] When the Home Secretary said in March that failing to implement her changes would be an affront, she was right, but now she has done exactly that. She also plans to give illegal immigrants who have arrived on small boats ILR and citizenship. We disagree with that. Why has the Home Secretary made those changes? It is because the Housing Secretary—who I notice has run out of the Chamber—the Energy Secretary and the Labour open-borders left oppose what she previously announced. The Home Secretary is no longer running the Government’s immigration policy—the Housing Secretary is—and her position is looking increasingly untenable. The Home Secretary has done no better with her announcements last year than Keir Starmer did with his welfare announcements, and we know what happened to him. We would go a lot further than the Home Secretary’s previous announcements, although they were a good start. If she wants to implement them in full, we will vote for them, because mass low-skilled migration must end. Those people who came here on a temporary visa and are working in low-skilled, low-wage jobs must leave when their temporary visa expires. We cannot allow them to stay forever, claiming benefits and social housing, yet that is what the proposals today will allow to happen. Ten billion pounds—that is the cost of today’s U-turn. To those who ask where we will find the workers, I say there are 9 million economically inactive adults in this country. Thanks to this Labour Government’s high-tax, high-regulation policies, there are now a million young people not in education, employment or training. If the Government had the courage to toughen up the welfare system, we would get some of those people into work, instead of relying on mass low-skill migration. If the Home Secretary wants to face down her nemesis, the Communities Secretary, and implement her own plans, we will vote for them. However, if she capitulates to the open borders left, her credibility as Home Secretary will not recover.
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Bradley Thomas
Immigration: Earned Settlement
One of the criteria to gain long-term settlement rights that the Home Secretary set out was no debt being owed to the state. What does that look like in reality? I have advocated for a student loan-style system for debts to be repaid. Will the Home Secretary address what steps she is taking to abolish the impact of rogue sponsors, namely chicken shops, Turkish barbers and vape shops, which all exist in plain sight and are an acute problem in the illegal immigration web?
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Ben Obese-Jecty
Immigration: Earned Settlement
The Home Secretary did not address the issue of the dependants of armed forces personnel. In June, the majority of Government Members voted down my amendment to the Armed Forces Bill, which included the waiving of visa fees. That has now been overturned in the House of Lords, and the Bill will be coming back here, but will she clarify exactly what will happen to the spouses and children of armed forces personnel? Will their visa fees be waived? If they earn less than £50,000 and do not work in healthcare or a professional job, will they have to find themselves—sorry, I have lost my train of thought.
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Andrew Bowie
Budget Resolutions
Growth in every postcode and breathing space—that is apparently the theme of this debate. That is what we are told the Budget will deliver. The sad fact is that it really could have been an opportunity to focus on growth and to support British businesses and people. It really was an opportunity to fix the mistakes of the past two years, to back business and unleash Britain—but the Government did not take it. All we appear to have had from the Secretary of State is the belief that more government will solve all of our problems. The Budget was an opportunity to end the smash-and-grab tax policies on working people—that includes employers, by the way—but Labour doubled down. The Chancellor could have demonstrated that when he resigned as Defence Secretary he did so out of principle and set out a road to 3% of GDP on defence, but we did not get that either. The Government could have taken steps to cut welfare and get Britain working, but, too scared of their Back Benchers, the Government are allowing the welfare budget to continue to spiral out of control. The Budget was a total missed opportunity. Far from growth in every postcode and breathing space, we saw a steady-as-she-goes Budget: a change of captain, a rearranging of the deckchairs, but no change of course—which would be fine if the vessel we were on were not the Titanic. One area we did see some action in the Budget—one issue that was mentioned considerably—was on the cost of energy and our energy security, or lack thereof. There was a slight but definite acknowledgment that the energy policies enacted by the Labour Government up to this point had been having a negative impact on the people and businesses of Great Britain. That was why I was more than a little surprised not to see energy as a theme of this Budget debate, and why I was surprised not to see the Secretary of State for Energy speaking as part of it. Or is she not too keen on this change of direction, and this moderate shift from the Government towards something resembling common sense does not sit well with her? Where is she? Absent from Parliament when they announced Jackdaw and absent from the Budget debate, she is either in hiding or being kept hidden. The words of the Chancellor last week that the Energy Secretary has “opposed” rather than approved Jackdaw was not so much a slip of the tongue as a lifting of the veil into the division at the heart of this Government when it comes to energy policy. The truth is that we have a Government totally divided on energy policy, between a Chancellor and a Treasury desperate for growth and some good news, and an Energy Secretary and parliamentary party still wholly signed up to a Milibandism approach to energy that values net zero and clean power 2030 above all else—above jobs, cost and our security. We have an Energy Secretary briefing out that she is inclined not to approve Rosebank, presumably on the basis that growth in every postcode does not include postcodes that begin with AB, and a Chancellor briefing that it will be approved soon. We have Labour Back Benchers claiming that Rosebank is oh so different to Jackdaw because it is oil, which is exported, not like gas, which we use at home—as if, somehow, generating revenue from exports, displacing Russian oil from the European market and backing British jobs are bad things. We also have the Office for Budget Responsibility including revenue from Rosebank and future discoveries as part of its projections for Government revenue over the next year. We have the Treasury cutting funding from carbon capture, utilisation and storage projects, Energy Ministers scrambling over themselves to insist that funding has not been cut, the Treasury announcing a cut to the warm homes fund of £1 billion, and the Energy Department insisting that the warm homes fund remains at the heart of the Government’s plans to support those on the lowest incomes insulate and decarbonise. This is utterly chaotic—no wonder the Energy Secretary is being hidden away or is in hiding. For over two years, we have been listening to various Ministers lecture and patronise those of us on the Conservative Benches that we were wrong, that we did not need more gas from the North sea, that it was clean power that mattered over the cost of energy, and that we must have consensus on energy policies. The Conservatives have been clear from day one that the cost of energy, the security of our energy supply, and the future of our North sea are the issues that should guide and shape our energy policies. It is good to see that that consensus may be returning, and not just on the entirely reasonable and sensible step of ensuring that one has a well-stocked fridge of sauvignon blanc ready for emergencies.
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Andrew Bowie
Budget Resolutions
It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to learn that I do not agree with him. In fact, what we have seen are billions of pounds generated for this country since the 1960s, driven by the private sector investing in jobs, investing in this country, creating wealth and making the North sea one of the cleanest and safest basins in the world in which to invest. I am very proud of the companies, and the men and women, who have driven that oil and gas industry to be the best in the world. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, and unlike the Government, we want to see that go further—we want to see further investment in our North sea oil and gas industry. As I was saying, consensus is welcome, because we are in an energy crisis and there is no escaping that. The people and businesses of this country face some of the highest energy bills, domestic and industrial, in the developed world, and it is getting worse. Under Labour, our energy system is becoming increasingly unreliable and intermittent, and more reliant on imported energy. The burden of expensive energy is bearing down on Britain in households, businesses and industry, and having severe consequences. While the Chancellor acknowledged that, which was as welcome as it was surprising, it was entirely underwhelming. Some of the announcements in the Budget may have seemed impressive, but they will not even touch the sides. There may be £100 for certain households, but when people’s bills are set to increase by over £500 in January, many will ask what was the point—will people even notice it? It is clear, however, that the Chancellor had at least noticed the Conservatives’ cheap power plan. Cutting VAT and scrapping levies on energy bills—I wonder where he might have got that idea?
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Andrew Bowie
Budget Resolutions
The hon. Member is absolutely right, but, as usual, the Labour party gives no regard to those with aspiration or who want to succeed and get on. All it cares about is handouts and subsidies for “Benefits Street”. The Conservatives are the party that will support those who are working hard to do the right thing and move forward.
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Andrew Bowie
Budget Resolutions
It is the cheap power plan, not the clean power plan, but I do not want to be too much of a stickler for detail. It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman’s notice that we are under new management now in the Conservative party, and I look forward to implementing our plan when we win the election. There was also the surprise announcement of the removal of standing charges on gas bills—well, only surprising for the SNP group leader, the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), who did not know whether he still supported the move that he called for in 2024. On the face of it the measure may appear to lower bills, but as ever, the devil is in the detail. If someone is a higher consumer—someone who uses gas for heating, cooking or hot water—then their energy bill is going to go up. Across Britain, temperatures are beginning to drop as we head into winter, and in large parts of this country—in the north of England and Scotland—it has just got more expensive to turn the heating on, thanks to Labour. Some 80% of households in Britain rely on gas to keep them warm, which is why the delay before making a decision on Jackdaw was so maddening. When the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero approved the decision, through gritted teeth, it was rightly justified on the basis of energy security. Getting gas out of the Jackdaw field is what is best for Britain, because every bit of gas from that field will go directly into the British gas network. However, the devil is in the detail. As I have said, we were all very surprised to see that revenue from Rosebank is still being accounted for in the OBR’s projections for revenue. Considering that the Secretary of State has suggested to the press that she is not minded to approve Rosebank, despite it being a quasi-judicial decision, does that mean that the forecasts are possibly misleading or wrong—or is the Chancellor about to get his way again, and Rosebank is about to get the go-ahead? We need to have that cleared up. We need to understand. The theme of today’s debate is growth in every postcode and breathing space. This Budget, however, did nothing for growth and gave no breathing space, save for a couple of gasps of cold air from those who will be too scared to turn on their heating this Christmas. It could have done, though. We could have seen a bold Budget: a Budget that said, without equivocation, that we support our North sea oil and gas industry; a Budget that got Britain drilling by removing the energy profits levy today, not in three years; a Budget that reduced the cost of energy by slashing the levies, charges and taxes that still make up too much of an individual’s or business’s energy bill; and a Budget that reindustrialised our country by incentivising investment and growth, not one that doubles down on net zero and linking the emissions trading scheme with Europe. That is the Budget we needed to see. It is the Budget the Conservatives would have presented, and it is the Budget we will present when we win the next general election.
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Alison Griffiths
Budget Resolutions
The one county that the Secretary of State did not mention in her very long list is West Sussex, which has been waiting through two and a half years of dither and delay. Will she take this opportunity to tell me the plan for West Sussex?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentGreen Siân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
My new clause 22 asks for a report on decision making in relation to asylum applications. My amendment 62 is intended to prevent the Bill from being brought into force until the report set out in new clause 22 is published. The new clause would require the Home Office to publish a report on decision making in the asylum system. Making asylum decisions as efficiently as possible, so that they are right the first time, should be the main function of the asylum system. It is noteworthy that there is no mention in any of the Government’s asylum reforms of improving the quality of decisions. As we heard from a range of experts during oral and written evidence, poor-quality initial decisions have had a corrosive impact on the asylum system, adding to the number of people appealing on decisions—people who should and eventually will be granted status—and contributing to the overall costs of asylum support. In the 2025-26 financial year, 64% of appeals processed were either granted by the tribunal on appeal or withdrawn before they were heard by the court. The majority of withdrawals are done by the Home Office after reassessment of the initial decision. As the chief inspector’s report indicated earlier this year, the Home Office makes those withdrawals because it feels that it cannot defend its decisions on appeal. That issue deserves further consideration before the Bill comes into force. We have heard officials say that the tribunal grant rate has gone down. That may be true, but their point is undermined if that is a result solely of the withdrawal rate going up because the Home Office is withdrawing its most poorly made decisions before the tribunal can consider them. New clause 22 would provide the data to support or refute that case. The chief inspector’s report did a quality check on about 47 cases and found that decisions had been made using insufficient evidence in over 75% of them. If that number were repeated throughout the system, it would mean that a significant number of initial decisions need improvement. What does that mean in practice for the system as a whole? According to the Government’s statistics, at the end of March, 87,450 asylum appeals—relating to roughly 113,000 people—were outstanding. Based on those numbers, the Refugee Council has estimated that between 27,900 and 33,480 of those people will be housed in dispersal accommodation while waiting for an appeal that will end with them getting status. The Government are looking to close hotels and are opening military sites in response, but it would be well worth focusing on making better-quality decisions. That would significantly reduce the number of people who, because their initial decision was rejected when it should have resulted in a grant of protection, need to be housed in those divisive and often horrible types of asylum accommodation for longer than necessary. Crucially, that is not about giving status to more people but about ensuring that those who are going to get status get it earlier in the process. That is better for the refugee, the asylum system and the public. The new clause lays out what needs to be included in the Government’s report to better understand how the process is working and how the Government can better address this urgent issue. That should be the top priority, before we have any more asylum system reform. The Minister may be able to address some of those points now, including how the Government intend to deal with these issues. Given that the provision would have such a significant effect on the appeals backlog, I have also tabled amendment 62, which would prevent part 1 of the Bill from being implemented until the report has been published, so that any learning from the report could guide the development of the independent immigration appeals authority. Finally, given that other parts of the Bill, including part 4, respond to some of the consequences of poor-quality decision making—the backlog and the need for asylum support in the longer term before people are allowed to work—it is important that the Government prioritise fixing that problem. That must happen before they take the scythe that this Bill represents to the spirit—and, I believe, to the letter—of so many of our international obligations on human rights.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentGreen Siân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I have worked on new clause 23 with the Latin American Women’s Rights Service and a wide coalition of groups that support victims, survivors and refugees, who have long wanted to see the introduction of protections for safe reporting. That is what the new clause would do. My new clause is a wider safe reporting amendment than new clause 15, which Lib Dems colleagues spoke to earlier. It would solve a number of important problems because migrant victims of many crimes, not just modern slavery, trafficking and exploitation, but also domestic abuse and many kinds of violence against women and girls, avoid reporting them due to the fear of the police sharing their data with immigration authorities. This problem limits and deters access to other statutory services for victims and survivors, including to GPs and social services. That needs looking at. We know that perpetrators and exploiters weaponise immigration status and immigration policy as a tool for coercive control, deterring reporting. Victims with insecure immigration status already fear the police will not support them, so when data sharing occurs, the fear is reinforced, which further harms trust in the police and compromises the rights set out in the victims code. Statutory independent watchdogs say that police data sharing causes significant public harm. It also obstructs the police’s own wider efforts to tackle modern slavery and violence against women and girls, if people do not report it. It increases the risk to all women and girls if perpetrators are left in the community. As we have discussed, the Bill already creates new fears that people may be targeted for immigration enforcement and increases the fear that people will not be treated fairly. We need to do something to mitigate the weakening of the protections for victims of abuse and exploitation in the Bill; now is the ideal time to introduce the safe reporting provision outlined in new clause 23. The principle at stake here is that no one should have to choose between remaining in an abusive or exploitative situation and risking immigration enforcement by seeking safety and support. It is important to note that a safe reporting mechanism—a firewall between authorities—is not an amnesty. It is not an immigration route in itself; it is simply an extension of people’s privacy rights. It is a safeguard designed to ensure that reporting crime and seeking protection do not, in and of themselves, trigger immigration enforcement. The police should not have to be involved in this work. Earlier, we discussed the separation of duties that needs to happen within the Home Office, and the sharing of data that occurs is a symptom of the mixing-up of security and immigration policy that currently happens in too many ways in the Home Office. The police should be able to focus on their job of investigating serious crime, protecting public safety and protecting victims of crime; immigration enforcement should be completely separate. As such, my new clause would introduce a firewall within the Department—a separation between the police and other statutory services and immigration enforcement, so that migrant victims can safely report crimes against them. There are successful international examples of safe reporting mechanisms, such as in Spain and Belgium. The Police Service of Northern Ireland has also recently implemented a safe reporting mechanism. Victims in England and Wales should receive the same level of protection. If victims do not report crimes, the police may lose access to evidence, intelligence and opportunities to protect victims and investigate perpetrators. Furthermore, it creates an environment in which the perpetrators of serious crimes feel they can act with impunity and continue their abuse. With a firewall such as the one in my new clause in place, the police would still be able to investigate crimes, protect the public and ensure that victims can come forward safely. It would enable them to build trust with communities and focus on their main job. That is one reason why safe reporting mechanisms have been supported for a long time by specialist violence against women and girls, anti-trafficking and migrant organisations. It is also one reason why the Government’s own violence against women and girls strategy admits: “We also recognise how immigration status can affect victims of VAWG and that many migrant and asylum-seeking victims will not come forward to report abuse out of fear about their future”, and promises that “this Government will introduce a requirement for police to seek a domestic abuse victim’s consent before sharing their information with Immigration Enforcement.” That is some progress, but the proposed consent-based model set out in that strategy will not work in practice to prevent migrant victims. It is limited to domestic abuse alone and does not cover the wider crimes associated with uncertain migration status, and it fails to recognise the power imbalance, lack of clarity and lack of safeguards that would come with what has been promised. We need wider safe reporting protection for these kinds of victims, and I hope the Government will look at this issue again. I hope they will listen to the groups that asked me to table the new clause, and could help to tell Ministers the real impact of the policy on the victims and survivors they represent. I hope the Government will also talk among themselves—that they will talk to everybody involved in the violence against women and girls strategy, who can hopefully persuade the Home Office to relent on this matter.
Hansard source

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

All parties, latest first

Fire and Search and Rescue Services

Topical Questions

Immigration: Earned Settlement

Immigration: Earned Settlement

Immigration: Earned Settlement

Budget Resolutions

Budget Resolutions

Budget Resolutions

Budget Resolutions

Budget Resolutions

Budget Resolutions

Park Homes

Houses in Multiple Occupation

Topical Questions

Houses in Multiple Occupation

Topical Questions

Topical Questions

Topical Questions

House Building

House Building

Topical Questions

Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform

House Building

House Building

Topical Questions

Immigration: Earned Settlement

Nolan Principles

Immigration: Earned Settlement

Immigration: Earned Settlement

Immigration: Earned Settlement

Immigration: Earned Settlement

Budget Resolutions

Budget Resolutions

Budget Resolutions

Budget Resolutions

Budget Resolutions

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)