partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)

   As I am sure the hon. Member will have imagined, I cannot agree, given the number of cases overturned. We have had some data from the Minister in her letter of 6 October, and 44% of human rights appeals are being allowed. Those are appeals where the initial decision was wrong. Emphasis needs to be on clearer processes, in which people can truly participate and get their information to the Home Office the first time, with the Home Office not losing it or reading it mistakenly, or any of the other problems. That is so important. These changes to the judicial process are the wrong solution to the wrong diagnosis, as with those in the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

   Hansard source
2. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)

   I agree about the growth in the backlog, but as I said earlier, the analysis is pretty clear that that growth comes from an increase in refusals as well as the increasing speed with which the Home Office is making decisions. To me, those two things go together. The increase in refusals is likely to represent an increase in mistaken refusals—refusals that should not have happened. We cannot get away with just looking at the proportions here, either. We have to recognise that this will result in a number of people being treated as badly as they possibly can be by a country in which they are trying to seek asylum, having already had to leave the country in which they would much prefer to stay due to human rights considerations that are not properly taken into account at the initial decision stage in 44% of cases.

   Hansard source
3. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)

   I have very nearly finished, so I will press on. At its heart, the IIAA fundamentally represents another ill-thought-through Government proposal to create a truncated legal process. It is part of the previous Prime Minister’s misconceived attempts to pander to the disturbing ideas of Reform UK and its even more unsettling offshoot, Restore Britain. We saw from Reform UK’s proposals yesterday that only standing up for asylum rights will do in the face of its politics, and that the far right of politics will never be happy with anything other than the total removal of asylum rights. Meanwhile, measures like those in clause 1 of this Bill will prove impractical, expensive and ineffective in addressing the backlog, and they will hurt the most vulnerable people in the world. These proposals must be dropped, if not today then well before the Bill leaves the House of Commons. I will vote against clause 1.

   Hansard source
4. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)

   I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 2, page 2, leave out lines 24 to 28 and insert— “(2) The executive and non-executive members of the IIAA specified in subsection (1) are to be appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission.” This amendment would require the Chair, Chief Executive, Chief Appeals Officer, Professional Standards Officer and adjudicators of the IIAA to be appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission.

   Hansard source
5. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)

   I will speak to amendment 66, about the appointments process to the IIAA, and amendment 67, about the legal qualifications and experience of adjudicators. Under the Bill, the chair of the IIAA will be a Home Office appointee. The chair will decide the IIAA’s chief executive, who will then appoint adjudicators. By contrast, I believe that the leadership and decision-making roles in the IIAA should be decided by the Judicial Appointments Commission, the body that appoints judges. That would plainly and simply ensure independence from the Government and Parliament, which the Bill does not currently guarantee. We cannot risk leaving policies like this under the day-to-day political control of anyone in Government. Every safeguard must therefore be in place to make sure that this or any future Secretary of State cannot direct the outcome, prioritisation or disposal of these cases. My amendment 66 would fix that and make appointments to the IIAA the responsibility of the Judicial Appointments Commission, not Ministers or their appointees. I will expand on some key points. According to the Bill, all members of IIAA, senior and junior, will be appointed either directly by the Home Secretary or by someone appointed by them. The chair of the IIAA, for example, will be appointed directly by the Home Secretary, and adjudicators will be appointed by the chief executive, who is given their role by the chair. The Home Office’s fingerprints will therefore be all over the membership of the IIAA, from top to bottom. As has been consistently clear, this Bill drags asylum appeals closer to the Home Office, risking the independence and fairness of appeals in a serious way. By contrast, tribunal judges, who currently hear asylum appeals, are appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission, which is independent, with no direct input from Ministers. Evidence has consistently shown over many years that Home Office officials face significant and sometimes inappropriate pressure to make decisions, including asylum decisions, in accordance with political goals. The independent chief inspector of borders and immigration found that that was the case as part of Operation Bridora in 2022, which was a Home Office strategy designed to speed up the processing of Albanian asylum claims. The chief inspector concluded that Ministers imposed an arbitrary and secret target on Home Office officials for only 2% of Albanian claims to be successful. In addition, in a report from the chief inspector this year, it was found that the Home Office was prioritising the quantity of decisions over their quality. The Home Office’s institutional history is anathema to the independence and fairness that is needed. The ties between the IIAA and Home Office could impose political pressure on the IIAA to operate in accordance with Home Office preferences rather than law and facts. If Ministers are sincere about creating a truly independent appeals body, the safeguards to ensure independence should be robust and tried and tested. My amendment would make all appointments the responsibility of the Judicial Appointments Commission, not Ministers.

   Hansard source
6. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)

   The hon. Member is right that, sometimes, appointments of supposedly independent commissioners are made—I had experience of that recently in relation to equalities—but there is often a political element to the appointment and the direction they seem to take. We must always appreciate that and guard against it. Taking the appointments one step away from the Home Office may not completely remove the possibility of that, but the Judicial Appointments Commission is a robust body doing a similar job already and should have this role. That is what my amendment seeks to introduce. The Judicial Appointments Commission has two decades of experience in appointing independent judges, and I think it is the body best able to ensure the independence of candidates for adjudicators.

   Hansard source
7. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)

   All I am pointing out is that the Home Office’s record on this kind of thing is not brilliant, and that there exists a body far more appropriate than the Government’s proposal for direct appointments. I do not quite understand why Members are arguing so hard against that, when I am certain that the Judicial Appointments Commission would be happy to take up the role.

   Hansard source
8. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)

   I do not agree with that at all. This body will be making legal decisions. I will talk in a moment about how the chief executive and chair, who will be under the Home Office’s wing, will not be legally qualified to make those appointments. I cannot understand why every single safeguard should not be introduced in the Bill. Furthermore, this is a judicial process, so why should it not be the Judicial Appointments Commission? I fail to see the controversy with the amendment. The adjudicators will be making judicial decisions and considering law, evidence and facts. The Judicial Appointments Commission has the experience, the processes and—I am certain—the willingness to fairly test candidates’ skills and aptitudes in judicial functions. Therefore, the amendment would be highly appropriate, and I hope Ministers consider it.

   Hansard source
9. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)

   I have heard arguments from Government Back Benchers and the Minister that, for example, Home Office officials are not required to be legally qualified. This is a notoriously complex area of law, and I cannot see how that does not reinforce the need for true expertise in appeals. We have also heard that magistrates are not required to be legally qualified, but magistrates’ decisions are backed up by appeals to a body of legally qualified people. The Bill seeks to remove that, so I cannot honestly agree with this measure. There are two extra points I want to make from the written evidence that we received from JUSTICE. The first is about training. The Minister talks about the fact that adjudicators will be properly trained. According to JUSTICE, Home Office asylum decision makers were given 22 weeks’ training, but it was found that that was inadequate and did not provide them with the necessary information to perform their job effectively. I fail to see how things are going to work out any better for adjudicators taking the place of legally qualified professionals. The Minister mentioned that legally qualified people advise magistrates and that legally qualified people will be available to advise the adjudicators. JUSTICE makes the point very well—

   Hansard source
10. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)

    I have not made the point yet, so I will carry on. JUSTICE makes the point that there is a paucity of specialist lawyers able to advise in human rights and asylum appeals, and that these lawyers are doing—

    Hansard source
11. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)

    It is great to have you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I was just summing up on my amendments 66 and 67. When we adjourned, I had only one further point to make, which is a practical one. I well remember the arguments and discussions we had on the Courts and Tribunals Bill: yes, taking things off judges and putting them on to magistrates seems efficient, and we would save on judge time, but a serious concern is whether magistrates could fill the gap, given the number of magistrates that we would need. In its written evidence, Justice stated that non-legally qualified adjudicators are going to require legal support. It raised the issue of the paucity of specialist lawyers able to advise in human rights and asylum appeals. A serious risk is that if those specialist legal advisers are brought into the tribunal system, they will be drawn away from their existing work, which is lower paid, of advising and preparing individuals in their appeals. That might even compound existing backlogs. The Minister has said, I think, that a new impact assessment has more clarity, and I hope that in future debates—because I am just winding up this one—she will be able to say more about what is going on with the practicalities and the obvious shortages of specialist people needed to advise the new legally qualified people. That is a real issue, and I will press my amendments to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
12. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 63, in clause 4, page 4, line 21, leave out “have regard to the desirability of” and insert “do so with a view to”. This amendment would make the requirements relating to the IIAA Procedure Board equivalent to those of the Tribunal Procedure Committee when exercising its power to make rules.

    Hansard source
13. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)

    The Bill currently states that the IIAA procedure rules board must “have regard to the desirability of” ensuring that justice is done and that it is accessible, fair and independent. The amendment would simply strengthen that duty and ensure that it must act “with a view to” securing those things rather than merely considering them “desirable”. Importantly, the amendment would make the IIAA’s duties equivalent to the duties of the Tribunal Procedure Committee, so it would prevent the watering down that the clause represents. Watering down and undermining fairness is a golden thread that runs through the Bill. We saw it originally with the watering down of the duty to be independent and fair, which was made an aim rather than a requirement, and we see it again in the IIAA’s powers over its procedure rules, which will govern the processes by which the IIAA hears and decides appeals. Currently, the Tribunal Procedure Committee, which makes rules for the tribunals, has an obligation in section 22(4) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 to make procedure rules “with a view to securing…that…justice is done”. By contrast, clause 4(5) of the Bill says that the IIAA will have an obligation only to “have regard to the desirability” that justice is done. That is clearly an attempt at watering down and weakening obligations of fairness—from “duty” to “aim”, from “duty” to “desirable”. The amendment would ensure that the IIAA has equivalent obligations to ensure fairness as the Tribunal Procedure Committee currently does—no more, but certainly no less. In such high-stakes appeals as asylum, that is the least of what claimants, Ministers and the public should expect. I will briefly quote the Bar Council’s written evidence, because it brings home that there are real people behind this. It says that on account of errors by the IIAA, “a British citizen may wrongly be deprived of British citizenship, a refugee be returned to a place where they risk persecution or torture, a British family with a foreign member may be broken up, or an EU citizen be denied Withdrawal Agreement rights.” Those are all serious consequences. We must strengthen this clause. It is not sufficient for this to be left to chance, to the courts or to later guidance on the IIAA produced by Ministers. It is so basic to fairness that it should be on the face of the Bill. Amendment 68 fixes an omission from the Bill by the Government. It proposes preventing an IIAA adjudicator from reviewing their own decision. Under clause 6, the IIAA currently has the power to review its own decisions. In principle, there is nothing objectionable in this. The mechanism could provide a cheaper, quicker way to overturn inaccurate decisions than an appeal to the upper tribunal and provides a way for mistakes to be corrected quickly and without fuss. However, there is no provision in the Bill to say that an individual IIAA adjudicator cannot review their own decision when it is challenged. I should note that the first-tier tribunal currently has the power to review its own decisions but adjudicators will not have the independence, experience and legal expertise of tribunal judges—at least if the Government have their way. It would be against fairness for such a non-judicial adjudicator to be in effect a judge in their own case. The adjudicator reviewing their own decision would also have an uncomfortable conflict of interest: either validate their own professional competence or vindicate the rule of law. No adjudicator should be put in that position and no asylum appellant should have their appeal dealt with in this unfair and potentially biased way. Any internal review of an IIAA asylum decision should be heard by a different adjudicator who is as independent as possible from the original adjudicator. Amendment 68 is the best way to secure the psychological and emotional distance needed to conduct a fair review. It is perhaps indicative of the lack of serious thought that has gone into the Government’s proposals that the Bill does not contain a safeguard so basic and so clearly needed. The amendment would prevent an adjudicator from reviewing their own decision in any circumstances, thus increasing the chances of a fair and independent review. I hope it will be supported by us all today. Government amendment 29 provides for information to be given on legal representation. That is an improvement on the original Bill, but a lot more should be done to prevent an appellant from being disadvantaged because they cannot obtain legal representation. I welcome new clause 2, which inserts some concrete steps to provide some assistance in some cases, and the Government’s recognition of the significant issues when it comes to the availability of legal advice for people in different parts of the asylum system, which I have seen with my own eyes. It would be helpful, though, to know more about the Government’s thinking and their plans for providing this advice. How much additional funding and resource will the Home Office provide to deliver it? Will the Government commit to consulting with relevant groups and organisations that support people seeking asylum on how this advice can best be provided and routed to those most in need?

    Hansard source
14. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)

    The Minister has not justified why the wording is different. She said that members of the board would be expected to comply; my amendment would simply make that even clearer. Why say that they should “have regard to the desirability of” instead of using the wording that I suggest in amendment 63?

    Hansard source
15. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)

    The Minister’s insistence that this is not a watering down of previous rules does not wash. In my opinion, it is a double watering down: clause 4 makes a change to “have regard to”, and clause 1 includes a double use of “aim to” rather than “must”. That is certainly a watering down of the previous duties, and I think we should go along with the wording in amendment 63. On amendment 68, we have heard a lot of assurances from the Minister that the quality assurance and rule-making processes are unlikely to do the opposite of what this amendment asks. We have heard the Minister say, “They can do this.” If she were prepared to say, “They will do this,” I could potentially withdraw the amendment, but in the absence of that assurance—with only “This is possible” and “We might see this,” and with only the negative procedure—I am afraid I will have to press it to a vote.

    Hansard source
16. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 83, in clause 8, page 6, line 32, leave out “the IIAA” and insert “individuals and organisations with an interest in how the IIAA operates, including— (a) the IIAA, (b) people granted protection status, (c) people with lived experience of the asylum system, (d) legal practitioners and organisations representing the interests of people with, or seeking, protection status, and (e) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.” This amendment would expand the list of those whom the Secretary of State must consult before making regulations about time periods for IIAA proceedings to include people and organisations with experience of the immigration system.

    Hansard source
17. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Clause 8 allows the Secretary of State to set time limits for the work of the IIAA. That is in notable contrast to all the claims of independence, and I think it is very wrong to do that. My amendment 83 therefore expands the list of people whom the Secretary of State must consult before making those regulations, although I would still be against the clause as a whole. I have worked on this amendment with organisations that represent people who claim asylum and with people with lived experience, including Freedom from Torture. It would require a wide consultation, including with people with lived experience, before any time limits are set. That is because clause 8 gives the Home Secretary the big power to set default time limits. I think it is concerning that the IIAA itself will not be able to decide those, based on the time that it thinks it needs to decide appeals fairly, as if it were a truly independent body. Clause 8 is a prime example of how, in fact, the new system will not be as independent or fair as is claimed. Through those regulations on time periods, the Home Office could overtly put pressure on the IIAA to fulfil a political wish for rushed appeals. There is a long history of seeking to rush immigration appeals through fast-track proceedings; every time that has been tried, it has turned out badly. In 2014, for example, the Tribunal Procedure Committee introduced fast-track rules setting time limits for asylum appeals. The Court of Appeal and the High Court both found those fast-track rules to be structurally unfair and unjust, because “the time limits are so tight as to make it impossible for there to be a fair hearing…in a significant number of cases.” The Court of Appeal explained in 2015: “The scheme does not adequately take account of the complexity and difficulty of many asylum appeals, the gravity of the issues that are raised by them and the measure of the task that faces legal representatives in taking instructions from their clients who are in detention”, and, as the Court of Appeal robustly summarised, “justice and fairness should not be sacrificed on the altar of speed and efficiency.” We need to make sure that history does not repeat itself. My amendment would, at the very least, require the Home Secretary to consult widely before issuing regulations about time limits, including with people with lived experience of the asylum system and professional bodies that represent individuals in asylum decisions and appeals. That should increase the chances that the time limits set are not politically driven only, but are realistic, workable and fair. Under the current version of the Bill, however, the Home Secretary is obliged to consult only the IIAA itself. Open consultations are essential for good government and good decisions. They make sure that decision makers get all the relevant information that they need, including information that they do not know they do not know, which comes from people experiencing the systems that they set up. It is incredibly important to ensure that the Home Secretary has access to the full range of external opinions and advice when setting those time limits. My amendment would mean that people with lived experience of the asylum system—the kind of people directly affected by the Home Secretary’s policies—could offer their views and explain what different time limits would mean for them in practice. When we took oral evidence in September, I asked the Minister about the issues around engagement and making sure that what is done is fit for purpose as far as people experiencing the asylum system are concerned. She said: “I am always a believer in service user feedback, including from people who have been through the process and have lived experience, to help us develop better policymaking.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 81, Q148.] In that light, I do not see why this amendment should not be fully accepted by the Minister. People with lived experience of the asylum system bring essential experience of how legal processes operate in practice and how they are felt by the people who are affected by them, and they can help policymakers to identify barriers, unintended consequences and gaps that may not be visible from institutional data alone. Meaningful consultation with people who have navigated the asylum appeal system strengthens the quality of policy and must be done.

    Hansard source
18. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)

    My arguments were not that it should be longer, but that it should be the right amount of time to achieve fairness and justice. I am sure that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East would not disagree that the right amount of time is essential, and that shorter is not necessarily better.

    Hansard source
19. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I will not labour the point any further. I will press my amendment to a Division, and I hope the Minister will keep looking at how this kind of consultation can be made more statutorily inclusive. Question put, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
20. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I agree with the shadow Minister that amendment 92 and new clause 28 are quite compatible. They both ask for more data from the Government and the IIAA about its work and what is going on. That is essential. My new clause 28 would require the Home Secretary to arrange for the publication, at least every quarter—that timing is the same as for the existing Immigration and Asylum Tribunal—of data relating to the work of the appeals authority. It sets out properly detailed requirements for quarterly data publication. It includes requirements for information on decisions, appeals and outcomes, including where the appeals authority has reviewed decisions ahead of appeals and where appellants withdraw; information about who has had legal representation; and information about backlogs, timelines and delays on decisions. The new clause also ensures that we can see that data broken down by nationality, gender and age, and what kind of appeal grounds are being made. Given the concern about the discriminatory and human rights impact of the Bill on people claiming asylum and our obligations under international agreements, all that information is essential. We cannot have a publication scheme only set out by the appeals authority itself or by Ministers. It is important that Parliament should put such essential reporting information into the Bill; otherwise, we will simply not know the consequences of those changes or their consequences will become a matter of contention and further politicise the lives of those seeking asylum here. I have a related new clause that asks for a report in a similar fashion on current decision making, and the comparison between the two is vital. I asked the Minister for some baseline data on the current situation during the oral evidence sessions. The reason I asked is that until March 2023 we had quite a lot of details, including around nationality, in the Home Office’s own quarterly statistics release. However, for over three years now, the appeal statistics have not been included, and we do not see the information about nationality broken down. The letter we received from the Minister on 6 October gave some information about the breakdown of different human rights grounds, which was useful, but unless comprehensive information is provided about the current situation and the changes that will take place when we introduce the appeals authority, we will not really see the impact of the Bill. This is absolutely essential.

    Hansard source
21. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)

    The Minister said, “efficiency and effectiveness”. One of the issues that I raised was equalities issues and discrimination. Will that also be in the remit?

    Hansard source
22. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Rosebank Oil and Gas Field

    The Secretary of State has previously said that if we are to have any shot at meeting our climate change targets, “we can’t have any new oil and gas”. She also said that new fossil fuel development was “irresponsible and short-sighted”. There is nothing pragmatic about pouring more fuel on the fire of the climate crisis. Does the Secretary of State still agree with herself? If so, why will the Government not rule out Rosebank and Jackdaw?

    Hansard source
23. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Pensions Triple Lock

    I welcome the Government’s stated commitment to tackling the crisis in social care. It does pensioners no favours if we kick the can down the road and continually fail to address it. This requires a cross-party approach and an honest and comprehensive conversation, including about the triple lock and other potential sources of funding. However, that conversation must be comprehensive. As the Secretary of State has pointed out today, this will not kick in until 2030, and yet the social care crisis is urgent. We need money now to fix it and much more money than will be released through the changes. Does the Secretary of State agree that funding to fix the crisis in social care also requires taxing wealth fairly?

    Hansard source
24. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Wendy Morton

    Falkland Islands

    I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, though it was somewhat belated. Let me start by welcoming Jack Ford, Chair of the Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly, to the Gallery. Yesterday marked 44 years since the Falklands Task Force victory parade, in which more than 300,000 people lined London’s streets to honour those who liberated the islands. Their sacrifice reminds us of our enduring responsibility to defend the Falkland Islanders’ freedom and right to self-determination. Argentina’s increasingly hostile rhetoric and threats towards the islands, their people and their economic interests are wholly unacceptable. The islanders have overwhelmingly expressed their wish to remain British. No amount of intimidation or economic coercion from Buenos Aires will change that. The Falkland Islanders deserve more than words of reassurance. They deserve to know that the British Government will stand firmly behind them, protect their interests and defend their right to determine their own future, so I welcome reports that the Foreign Secretary has signed off on the next steps for Sea Lion. The islanders have every right to develop their natural resources, but I am a little perplexed, because in Energy questions today, Ministers suggested that this was not a decision for the British Government. Can the Minister clarify the Foreign Secretary’s role, precisely what he has authorised, and whether further decisions are required? In fact, was the Energy Secretary even consulted? If the Foreign Secretary can support Sea Lion in the south Atlantic, why are the Government still leaving Rosebank and Jackdaw in the North sea waiting? But back to the Falkland Islands. We welcome the measures outlined today, but approval alone will not protect those involved from Argentina’s threats. British nationals and businesses operating under licences issued by the Falkland Islands Government should not face intimidation or threats of legal action. There are some questions that need answers and clarity today. The Minister has announced the Government’s intention to extend the protection of trading interests measures to cover Argentina. What will that mean in practice for companies and individuals facing Argentine legal action, and what risks will remain? Can she confirm reports that the Government have approached Interpol, and what assurances have they received that politically motivated requests will be rejected? Has the FCDO sought assurances from international partners that British citizens will not face arrest or detention when travelling abroad? What practical legal, consular and travel support is being offered to those affected, and how will the Government help companies to resist attempts to disrupt the project’s financing and supply chains? What direct support is being provided to the Falkland Islands Government to ensure that development can proceed without interference, because alongside these protections, there must be consequences if Argentina continues to escalate its threats? Has the Minister examined targeted sanctions, or other proportionate diplomatic and economic restrictions? That must also inform our wider economic relationship. President Milei cannot simultaneously threaten British interests while expecting Britain to facilitate closer economic co-operation. Argentina has applied to join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), has made clear that Britain should be prepared to oppose that application if Argentina continues to threaten peace and stability in the south Atlantic. Are the Government prepared to use Britain’s position in the CPTPP to make it clear that such behaviour carries consequences? These developments underline a wider point about Britain’s standing in the world. When Britain appears unwilling or unable to defend its interests, it risks encouraging those who would seek to challenge them. That is why we Opposition Members are committed to fully costed plans to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030. What discussions has the Minister had with the Defence Secretary about the resilience of Britain’s military presence in the south Atlantic, and are any additional measures being considered? Britain must bring together its diplomatic, economic and military strength to defend its interests and stand up to those who seek to intimidate us. Argentina should be working to strengthen its own economy, rather than threatening the livelihoods of the Falkland Islanders. There can be no question of bargaining away their democratic rights or their future. I will end where I began: the Falkland Islanders have chosen to remain British. We on the Opposition Benches will always stand with them and defend their fundamental right to self-determination.

    Hansard source
25. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Tom Tugendhat

    Iran: Threats to British Interests

    (Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if he will make a statement on the threats posed by Iran to British interests. I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting me an urgent question in this role for the first time. I fear that it will not be the last, but I am grateful to you for doing so.

    Hansard source
26. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Tom Tugendhat

    Iran: Threats to British Interests

    I am grateful to the Minister, whom I call a friend, for his response today. However, after almost a decade of consistent Foreign Office advice to reject photographs with Iranian officials, and particularly handshake photographs, because of the propaganda tool that it gives the regime, it seems that our Foreign Secretary has just been ambushed in New York. Either he was ambushed by a snapper, or there has been a change of policy. It is important that we understand which, because although it is certainly clear that the Foreign Secretary did not look happy, Araghchi was absolutely beaming. If that was not deliberate, has the Foreign Office changed its advice, and if so, why? Frankly, following the Iranians’ threats against UK airbases that both the Minister and the Prime Minister have mentioned, the state threats that the head of MI5 has listed, which have been reported today, the murder of 40,000 of their own people, their expansion of violence in Yemen by using the Houthis to target civilians in Riyadh, and their attacks on Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, I would be very grateful to know what made the Foreign Secretary believe that it was worth giving them a propaganda win. Perhaps the Minister will tell me that this does not matter, but he knows better than that. He knows that images project a message, and in this case they project the message that the Iranian regime is equal to the moment. Well, it is not. The reality is that the Iranian regime—and, in fact, Mr Araghchi himself—is merely a front for the IRGC, which is of course the terror group responsible for the murder of thousands in Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Iraq and elsewhere. I will finish by asking the Minister a few questions. Was the Foreign Secretary aware of his Iranian friend’s threats to the United Kingdom before he decided to shake hands with him and have it photographed? Was he aware that the US and Israel had given warning to the British Government that the Iranian regime’s threats to US airbases in the UK were credible? Lastly, has the policy of the UK now reverted to not giving propaganda wins to such a vile regime?

    Hansard source
27. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Roger Gale

    Peatland: Energy Infrastructure

    We do not have an abundance of peatland in east Kent, but we do have acres of wonderful marshland and sites of special scientific interest. On that land—[Interruption.]

    Hansard source
28. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Roger Gale

    Peatland: Energy Infrastructure

    I am most grateful, Mr Speaker. Let me go back to the beginning: we do not have acres of peatland in east Kent, but we do have acres of wonderful marshland and sites of scientific interest. On that marshland, National Grid is proposing to build a 90-foot-high converter station the size of five football pitches, floated on concrete 2 metres deep. The Secretary of State is due to determine the planning application in short order. When she takes that decision, will she give an assurance that she will take into account the irreparable environmental damage that that ill-conceived project will do to the environment?

    Hansard source
29. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Julian Lewis

    Prisoner Early Release Scheme

    If I understood it correctly, the Minister said earlier that past victims—and, therefore, presumably potential future victims—are being informed and supported. If they need that sort of information and support, does that not imply that the people who are being released pose a threat to them? What sort of category of person is being released? Is it a dangerous person? If it is not, why do the victims need the support that the Minister describes?

    Hansard source
30. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Julian Lewis

    Iran: Threats to British Interests

    Does the Minister agree with me that it sends a strange signal when people suspected of mounting a terrorist attack backed by Iran are let out on bail? Does he also share my concern at recent media reports of several—fortunately foiled—terrorist attacks that were being planned by people who came into this country illegally, on boats crossing the channel?

    Hansard source
31. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Julian Lewis

    Falkland Islands

    May I strongly welcome all three Front-Bench statements on this vital matter? I would like to say, as someone who was politically active in 1982, that I well remember the failure of deterrence, which was partly fuelled by mass agitation for nuclear disarmament—an unrelated subject—at that time. Although the Minister says that there is no connection or parallel with the Chagos dispute, let me assure her that the signals that have been sent by the Government over Chagos are undermining of deterrence. Will she therefore make it crystal clear to Argentina now that any military action against the Falkland Islands will be met with an overwhelming military response?

    Hansard source
32. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Hayes

    UK Coach Industry

    I apologise for missing the beginning of the hon. Lady’s speech. She is making a bold case and a welcome one, and I congratulate her on bringing this matter to the House. She mentioned the issue of recruitment; she will know that two of the barriers to recruitment relate to the restrictions on young people driving. First, Gary and Michele Salter from Long Sutton in my constituency, who run GDS Travel, tell me that young drivers cannot start their off-road and theory training until they have a provisional licence. That seems to be a nonsense. Secondly, young drivers are restricted as to where and how far they can drive. Changing those two things would attract more young people into the industry and deal with some of the issues the hon. Lady has raised.

    Hansard source
33. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Hayes

    UK Coach Industry

    The sort of people who travel on coaches are typically not the most advantaged—pensioners, for example, or children getting to school. Some people can afford coach travel but cannot afford other forms of travel. For the constituents I have mentioned already, as well as Fowler’s in Holbeach Drove, Cropley in Fosdyke and other local coach operators, will the Minister agree to the rebate on fuel that they have suggested? The industry has suggested a small short-term rebate to help it get over the hump of escalating fuel prices and therefore provide the service to the vulnerable people and many others whom I have mentioned.

    Hansard source
34. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Hayes

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)

    The right hon. Gentleman is right that the Secretary of State has tried to weave, with a certain degree of assiduity and dexterity, a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. We have ended up with something satin, and it may not be a purse at all, but what is certain is that we need more time to consider it. It would be preposterous to have such a short time to consider the Government amendments that have been tabled. I suggest that they were tabled in good faith, but good will needs to prevail. We need much more time to consider this matter than the very short time allocated next week.

    Hansard source
35. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    The hon. Gentleman is talking about complex and lengthy trials. Has he considered the effect on the Court of Appeal of making those types of trial judge-only? If I have correctly understood the Government’s proposals, they wish to require a judge to give reasons for conviction. Juries need give no reasons for conviction. Does he think that that will change the rate and frequency of appeals to the Court of Appeal in such cases?

    Hansard source
36. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    I recognise the hon. Member’s enthusiasm for making the criminal courts work more efficiently, but I put to her a practical problem with the solution she proposes of courts starting at 9 o’clock in the morning—especially if we were not able to resolve the problem she identified of prisoners not always being brought to court on time. She will recognise that those of us who represent criminal clients in the criminal courts do not start our day at the time the court starts; we start a lot earlier. The opportunity to speak to our client, discuss the case properly with them and perhaps find a way of resolving the case without the need for a trial is extremely valuable. Does she recognise that problem?

    Hansard source
37. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Geoffrey Cox

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    Is the hon. and learned Lady as concerned as I am about the backlog in the magistrates court, which is four times larger than that in the Crown court and growing at 16% a year, whereas the Crown court backlog is stabilised? If this really is a reform in the interests of efficiency, should she not be sparing the magistrates court at a time when their backlog is growing so fast?

    Hansard source
38. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Geoffrey Cox

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    I draw your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It has been a peculiar pleasure to listen to the two speeches made so far by Labour Back Benchers. Both the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and that of the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), have been treats to listen to, and I feel I can do no better than to say, “Listen to both of them.” However, it would be wrong of me to say that I oppose the Bill in its entirety. The truth is that some of its provisions contain very useful and reasonable directions of travel. Personally, I do not have the profoundest objection to grounds needing to be given for an appeal to the Crown court. I think that would be a reasonable thing to require, provided that the Chairman of the Select Committee’s warnings are heeded and those who have to fill out that appeal are given the opportunity of advice. As has been said, I think by Opposition Members, the problem is that there is a lack of legal advisers in the magistrates court—what we used to call magistrates court clerks. That brings me to another way in which I should commend the Minister and the Government. The initiative to enhance the resources of the magistrates court can only be a good thing, although I must warn the Minister that the recruitment of more magistrates is something that we looked at years ago, when I sat in the position that she now sits in. It is social and economic factors that are effecting the diminution in the number of those willing and able to put themselves forward for this onerous type of public service, so that diminution is not going to be remediable just by brave words and advertisements. It is going to have to be a sustained campaign, and it will not happen even in the term that she will serve as Minister—long may that continue. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That was not a wish—it was an observation—but nevertheless, it was heartfelt. With those cautious commendations given, though, I have to return to the very focus and centre of this Bill. It is a bit like asking us to be grateful to the crocodile who leaves us with our head after it has taken our legs. The reality is that the right of election of trial by jury is at the very heart of the right itself. Since the 17th century, Governments of all colours that have come and gone have continued to respect that as a right, not as a concession or a privilege afforded by the state to a defendant. It is perfectly true that in Scotland it is the court that decides whether or not the defendant should enjoy the right of trial by jury, but in England, it has always been a right—a right given, broadly speaking, to anybody accused of an offence serious enough to warrant more than 12 months’ imprisonment. For the first time in English legal and political history, a Government have decided to breach that right, and to make the decision reside with the representatives of the state. That places the decision out of the hands of a powerless defendant—some of the most powerless in our society. Some of them may very well be guilty. Many of them may very well be guilty, but the system we have adopted over the centuries does not legislate so much for the guilty, but for the innocent caught up in the system. So many examples in history have shown how the innocent can be caught up in this system, and it is for the innocent that the criminal justice system is ultimately designed. It is designed for their vindication, requiring against them the level, burden and standard of proof that the criminal justice system enforces, with the presumption of innocence.

    Hansard source
39. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Geoffrey Cox

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    Because time is short, I will give way to the hon. Lady, but only she.

    Hansard source
40. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Geoffrey Cox

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    That invites a long answer, which I do not have time now to give, but any defendant who appears before a court enjoys the presumption of innocence, and it is upon that basis that any system has to proceed. In England, the right has been accorded to those who enjoy this presumption of innocence to decide where they should be tried. Any abrogation of that right, such as for an offence that carries a sentence of more than 12 months’ imprisonment, removes the power from the individual and hands it to the state. In England—peculiarly in England—it has always been regarded as the right of a defendant. Make no mistake, this is an historic Bill for that reason. To remove and abrogate the right of a litigant to trial by a jury of their peers has exactly the effect that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East has said. A person of good character, a professional person or an employee in the workplace accused of theft from his employer—all of these would have had the right to say, “No, I wish to have the careful and meticulous process that the Crown court provides, not the swift and summary justice that the magistrates court provides.” That person may suffer for the remaining years of their life the most profound impact upon their history. A Member of this House accused could be tried before the magistrates court, despite the impact and consequences that that might produce. In the magistrates court, the only criteria will be whether it might receive more than two years’ imprisonment. Many such offences would not. That is broadly the criteria that is applied by the magistrates. If this egregious act is to be taken by this House, I strongly support that the Chairman of the Select Committee’s recommendation be taken on board by the Minister, because unless the magistrates have the express ability to consider whether someone is of good character, whether they have a profession, whether it would mean that they would be disqualified forever from whatever profession they are in, or expelled from their employment—with massive implications for the rest of their life—how can it be fair or proper to impose upon that person a system of summary justice that cannot, at its heart, achieve the levels of fairness of a Crown court trial? That is not only because legal aid is available in the Crown court, but because of the forensic scrutiny that the allegation is placed under. The automatic right of appeal has always been provided in the magistrates court, even where the sentence would be less than 12 months, because it has always been acknowledged that the kind of justice distributed in the magistrates court is necessarily swift and necessarily summary. There are not provisions for the disclosure of unused material in the magistrates court. What is to be done about those, if offences are now going to be tried that might carry a two-year imprisonment? None of these things have yet been thought through within this Bill. There has simply been a transference from the Crown court to the magistrates court, in breach of a provision and a right that has been respected in this country for 300 years. I therefore say that Members should listen to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East and to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Derby North. They spoke the milk of human wisdom, and I suspect the fact that it came from them is not wholly unrelated to the fact that each of them have years of experience in professional practice in the courts. Heed them. I urge the Minister—even if she is to take the step that I profoundly oppose and regard as an historic mistake: the abrogation and dilution of the right to trial by jury, making it, in fact, no longer a right but a concession made by the state to the individual—to listen, please, to the comments, the recommendations and the warnings given by those on her own side. For someone of good character to come before a court for the first time, facing a two-year sentence of imprisonment, and for the magistrate to be unable to consider such a factor would, in many cases, constitute the profoundest injustice. The risk is that over the coming years there will be all the appalling, wearisome, grievous experiences of realising that injustice has actually been done, although the whole system that we have devised over the centuries was designed to avoid that at all costs.

    Hansard source