What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
My hon. Friend is rightly interested in ensuring the plans are delivered. We are working flat out to deliver them on time—or, where we can, ahead of time. I will certainly look into the issues he raises. These are complex projects, but we are determined to get this right. I am happy that he has raised the issue, and we will look into it further.
About 80% of Millsike’s capacity is in use. Occupancy will continue to increase as and when that is appropriate and safe, and as and when we have the correct culture and processes established on the site. Clearly, this issue is pressing. We are working as hard as we can. We brought forward £110 million in investment to bring onsite any available space that is not currently in use. We will continue to do so, while making up for the staffing shortages that were left by the previous Government.
The Prison Service absolutely needs to be modernised, which is why we are building new digital prison services that will support the transformation of core prison operations and offender management; developing tactical AI-enabled tools for frontline staff to improve accuracy and efficiency; and exploring the use of biometric technology to improve public safety.
My hon. Friend raises an interesting case. There is so much work going on with technological development that can support a more efficient Prison Service. We are investing £82 million, following the Dame Lynne Owens review, because there was chronic under-investment by the previous Government in technology, and we want the Prison Service taken into this century and beyond.
I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman asks his question, and he has my assurance.
This Government are determined to give offenders the tools to move away from crime. To do that, we need to address issues such as housing, employment, and substance misuse, and to help offenders develop personal skills and behaviours. We are continuing to work on strengthening practice in that area.
The hon. Lady raises an important point, which I am very much working on. I am working with officials in the Department to understand exactly why vetting is taking so long, because we need those people employed, on the frontline and working to reduce reoffending. I reassure her that I am on the case.
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and an issue that I have identified as being a priority if we are to support people in not reoffending and going back into our prison system. Alongside the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, we have committed to halving the proportion of those released homeless from prison. We need to support people into settled accommodation, so that they can get into employment and stay out of crime.
Such courts are to be seen not only in Texas, but in Stockton, Teesside; I visited an intensive supervision court there and saw for myself the value of this approach in ensuring that we really tackle the challenge of prolific offending among the relatively small group of people who commit a significant number of crimes. We are operating this approach in four locations in England, and will do so in a further seven by 2029, including in London.
My hon. Friend will hopefully not doubt my commitment, as a former Minister for Schools, to education as a life-changing force. Indeed, I want to see it employed to reduce reoffending and protect the public while changing lives.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. Restorative justice is clearly a vital part of our system, and we need to ensure that it works to the fullest effect. I would be more than happy to have the meeting that he suggests.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She has raised some of the practical issues surrounding this matter with me, and she can be assured that I have taken them forward; indeed, I will take forward the request she makes today. We work with other Departments to ensure that these support services are available to reduce reoffending and keep the public safe. I will take on board the suggestions she has made today.
The distribution of property used by the Probation Service’s accommodation service is regularly reviewed to meet local need, operational requirements and community considerations, as we need to ensure that the properties are allocated appropriately and that there is sufficient capacity.
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and that has to be a consideration. Clearly, the accommodation is demand-led. Ideally, offenders should be resettled back into their communities, where they have community ties and are able to build their life and find stable accommodation so they do not reoffend. That needs to be done on a local and case-by-case basis to make sure that it is appropriate within the setting.
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I am working with Cabinet colleagues to make sure that prison officers who have worked hard all their lives in, as he says, incredibly challenging circumstances get the retirement they deserve.
The hon. Gentleman will know the importance of ensuring that we build the prison capacity that was so lacking under the previous Government. Officials continue to regularly meet the local council, elected councillors and parish councils to agree all traffic management and address challenges around the site. I am visiting as many prisons as I can get to, and I will certainly endeavour to visit HMP Grendon in due course.
I absolutely recognise the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. We have a review ongoing into these issues within prisons, led by Amber Rudd, and we will continue to ensure that we have the deterrence, to stop drugs getting in, and that the right actions are taken when they do.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Government’s progress on deporting foreign national offenders is welcome, but how will the Minister work with the Home Office to ensure that receiving countries are informed of the convictions of offenders, particularly those involving violence, sexual offending or exploitation, so that countries have the information they need to keep their public safe?
Court backlogs in the south-east have trebled over the last decade, placing extreme pressure on our criminal justice system. A new justice quarter in Milton Keynes could provide extra capacity that would deliver faster access to justice for my constituents in the Buckingham and Bletchley constituency and a modern justice hub in one of the fastest-growing cities in the UK. Will my right hon. Friend grant me a meeting, alongside my Milton Keynes colleagues, to discuss how we can take that proposition forward?
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing the debate, and introducing it ever so comprehensively and well. One of the first emails I received when I was elected in 2024 was from Tillicoultry residents who had been told that reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete was present in their roofs. I remember being really moved by how those people have been affected in so many different ways. They have experienced immense stress and uncertainty at being evacuated at short notice. Three years later, they are still separated from their personal possessions: family heirlooms passed down through generations, photo albums, souvenirs and jewellery—items that cannot have a financial price put on them. Some people have had to move to temporary accommodation, such as hotels or rented properties that will never feel like home. The feeling of being unable to put down roots has taken a toll on their mental health, and having to still pay mortgages on uninhabitable properties has taken a toll on their financial health. These people’s lives have been turned upside down, but the most heartbreaking and scandalous part of their story is them feeling like they have been ignored. Confusion over repairs and the cost of them has been a hallmark of years of substandard communication from the council. Homeowners have struggled to get responses to emails or phone calls about their ongoing situation, meaning that people have been unable to make informed decisions—and these are huge decisions to make. Some homeowners have ended up selling their property at a vastly reduced price just to get it all over and done with in an attempt to move on with their life. After a recent meeting at the start of this month, the council accepted that information in some instances could have been presented more clearly. That was welcomed, but it is not enough. I have to say that the SNP administration that run the council need to reflect on the lack of leadership displayed during this whole sorry saga. Both the council leader and the local Clackmannanshire and Dunblane MSP, who is deputy leader of the Scottish National party no less, have been found utterly wanting. They have been so ineffective at getting the Scottish Government to step up and do the right thing for Tillicoultry residents. The SNP Government have utterly abandoned Tillicoultry residents. It is a disgrace that it took two years for the Cabinet Secretary for Housing to meet with the residents, and the outcome of that meeting was a dereliction of duty. Instead of taking meaningful action to sort this mess out, they just wanted to blame Westminster, but the Tillicoultry residents know that housing is a wholly devolved matter. This is the Scottish Government’s responsibility. The Tillicoultry RAAC residents just want the council and the Scottish Government to treat them with empathy, compassion and fairness. That is not too much to ask. These people are in their hour of need.
2. What recent assessment he has made of the potential merits of establishing a royal commission on the criminal justice system.
Just a fortnight ago, the Justice Secretary said that “we have to build a new criminal justice system.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 86.] After the damage done by a decade and a half of austerity, I wholeheartedly agree. Nobody knows how far our justice system has fallen better than the hard-working frontline workers who are desperately trying to hold it all together, and who have watched and warned about this dangerous situation coming down the track for years. Will the Department listen to the leaders of the six national justice trade unions, who are calling for a royal commission on prisons and the wider criminal justice system?
It is 100 days until Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker, and in the last 15 to 20 minutes we have just had a little glimpse into pantomime season. Let me move on to business. Decades of Governments taking wrong political decisions have made climate change not just an environmental emergency, but a crisis rooted in social and economic inequality. Major oil and gas corporations made nearly $93 billion in profits in the second quarter of 2026. Saudi Aramco made $33 billion in net income. ExxonMobil made $14.5 billion in profit. Shell’s net income was just under $10 billion, and BP made quarterly profits of nearly $6 billion. This is an international oligarchy benefiting from war and conflict, holding Government and citizens hostage just so that record profits can be made. That rampant capitalism has created dire economic inequality and growing poverty, and it is ultimately leading to climate destruction. Companies that want to frack care only about making profit and pursuing shareholder dividends; they certainly do not care about workers or communities. The need for a change in political direction could not be greater. Climate protection, environmental sustainability and the provision of a genuinely just transition for workers and communities all demand the restructuring of our economy. We absolutely do not need fracking; we need a green industrial revolution, and Grangemouth in my constituency is the ideal location to house it. I am in complete agreement with the new Prime Minister’s diagnosis of the societal consequences of mass deindustrialisation and deregulation. We have seen working-class communities and ex-industrial heartlands decimated. I have been heartened in these last couple of weeks that the Prime Minister has made enthusiastic contributions at the Dispatch Box about a future for sustainable aviation fuel in Grangemouth.
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is 100% correct. That is exactly the sort of action we all need at Grangemouth and in the wider Forth valley area, which he so ably represents. Let me focus just on my community, which has been the victim of corporations amassing phenomenal wealth on the back of the talent and skill of workers. Those corporations then decide to move on, which means mass redundancies, and leave behind an asset-stripped community. I say to the Minister that our Labour Government have the chance to change that. Let us move away from fossil fuels and fracking and instead accelerate building the renewables industry in Grangemouth. Let us use state funds, such as the £200 million dedicated from the National Wealth Fund and set aside to finance the green industrial revolution. Quite frankly, that money has sat untouched for far too long. We could do something amazing in Grangemouth. We could combine the pressing need of the environmental agenda that is upon us with providing genuine social justice. Now it is time for a little more socialism: the Government could take some form of ownership of these new industries, which is a popular policy among the general public. We could create new, green, well-paid, secure jobs, and apprenticeships that would transform the life chances of local young people. With public ownership, we could reinvest profits back into the local Grangemouth community, regenerating and re-energising life in the town and lifting living standards for generations to come. That is the sort of corporate social responsibility that has been so missing in recent times from Grangemouth industry. I have said many times—and you have heard me say this many times, Madam Deputy Speaker—that Grangemouth is a blank canvas for us to build something truly special. The crucial question is: what kind of country do we want to live in? Is it one that continues to allow oligarchs and international capital to exploit people, place and planet, or do we use politics—our opportunity in government—to be bold and transformative? I say to the Minister: let us build Grangemouth for the future in the image of a Labour Government who want the best for workers and communities, let us make Grangemouth the example—the shining example—of what can be done and let us do it quickly.
Q Good morning, everyone. My question is to Eleanor. I think we can all agree that prevention is better than cure. In a passing comment just now, you mentioned transparency in supply chains being added into the Bill. As it stands right now, and if no action were taken, are we in a good enough position on transparency to tackle modern slavery in our supply chains? Eleanor Lyons: The UK imports more than £20 billion-worth of goods every year that are at risk of being produced using forced labour. That is tomatoes you see in a supermarket that say they are from Italy but that are from China, or fish from North Korea. All our G7 partners have either introduced mandatory human rights due diligence or forced labour import bans into their legislation. The requirement in the Bill will ask businesses to report on forced labour in their supply chains, not to take action to prevent the harm from happening. We are hugely behind international partners in this space and we are at risk of becoming a dumping ground for the world’s goods that have been made with forced labour. There is an opportunity to hugely enhance the measures in clauses 44 to 49 in part 5 of the Bill to turn it more towards mandatory human rights due diligence and to ask businesses to actually take steps to prevent harm from happening in their supply chains. That is something that businesses have been calling for. I worked with FTSE 100 partners last year and submitted work to the Office for Responsible Business Conduct. Businesses want this change, because they are being asked to do these things in other jurisdictions. When it comes to their supply chains, us being hugely behind in what we are asking them to do does not work.
Q The Bill seeks to dramatically increase the reporting by companies and individuals. At the National Crime Agency, you work with a plethora of different organisations across the United Kingdom. Do you believe that that increase in reporting will help you to find the illegal routes that are being used in the United Kingdom? Helen Rance: Any increase in intelligence will certainly help the intelligence picture. It will allow us to identify vulnerable victims and help with the intelligence on organised crime networks.
Q One of the issues on which I think everyone will agree is the fact that we need to have a confidence-based immigration and asylum system. We need to have the public’s full support to ensure that it can continue. At the same time, we need a fair system—a system that supports those going through the actual application system or appellate system so that they feel like they are getting their fair day in court at the same time. However, one of the issues that both of you have raised is backlogs, which we have seen increase under the Rwanda scheme and others. One of the concerns that many people have, especially my South Norfolk constituents, will be that the courts simply do not have the ability to keep up with the amount of casework coming to them. That is because we have a system that does not have enough clarity, especially on article 8. The Bill obviously has a goal and ambition to give clarity to the courts on that issue. Is that something to be welcomed? Jacqui McKenzie: Possibly, but you are conflating some issues. The numbers for Rwanda are tiny, as most of the people who were carded for Rwanda have been granted asylum, so are not in the backlog at all. Article 8 will not really affect those sorts of people; it will affect families, and children, many of them born in the UK—as you know, under the British Nationality Act 1981, since 1 January 1983, you do not automatically become British by being born here. There are people here in this country without any status whose families go back decades, for example families from the Commonwealth territories. That has happened for all sorts of odd reasons, usually because parents left children behind and brought them to the UK when they were over 18, so they had no status, and they then had children who have no status. In my practice, and those of many of the people in my jurisdiction who I have networked with, those are the sorts of cases we use article 8 for, and for which we see article 8 being successful. I do not think that anybody would want to see those families being removed from the UK.
Q Do you not believe that any clarity needs to be introduced in article 8? We have seen a number of cases where it should not have been applied, but because Parliament has not set out with clarity a legal structure to the judiciary, there can be some perambulation or wandering on what the interpretation should be. Is it not in the interest of such cases as those you highlighted, which you took forward and which needed to be covered by article 8, that the article has the full confidence of the public because they know it is being used for the right reasons? Jacqui McKenzie: The Bill does not do that, though. If that is what you want to see happen, the Bill will not do that. Instead, we have this popular culture, mainly perpetuated through the media, around article 8. Every now and again, you get a story about somebody and their cat, or somebody who did not like chicken nuggets in Albania. First, those are very minor cases, and secondly, they are never the whole story. That is usually just one feature of a number of grounds on which someone has been granted leave to remain under article 8, but that is the one that the journalist sat in the back of the court decides to write about. Because that is happening, the public have a concept of article 8, but they do not understand it. It is our job, and the job of parliamentarians, to try to educate them. Professor Singer: We already have quite a detailed domestic legislative framework around article 8, introduced in the Immigration Act 2014. That is very detailed and sets out in statute the different factors the courts should take into account. This Bill adds further complexity to that, and in many senses is more restrictive on interpretation. It does not add any clarity, as such. As I mentioned, according to the Home Office’s impact assessment, the impacts are expected to be minimal.
Q Many people have heard the old adage that justice delayed is justice denied. That is very obviously a situation that we are currently in within the asylum process, with the backlog having grown to the size that it has. In your view, do you believe that the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority will help us with that backlog and move that concentration away from, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West said, some very qualified people—overqualified for what is needed—and into the hands of those who can efficiently deal with cases as and when they come up? Daniel Flury: Well, it is certainly the intention that the new body will speed up appeals through the system, but I could not say. As Neal said, you would need to ask a Minister, or maybe the Home Office would like to offer a view. Neal Barcoe: My short answer is yes—that is absolutely the intention and the systems are being designed to deliver it in that way. I do not know whether my Home Office colleague wants to add anything more. Alison Hewett: Clearly, my responsibility here is to support the delivery, as laid out in the Bill. The IIAA will have ownership of its own procedural frameworks. Those will be set in train. We have quite a large transformation programme, and we are working very closely together, as my colleagues have indicated, because this is a whole-of-system effort. We will put mechanisms in place and, because it is an independent authority, the transformation programme will transfer its responsibility over to the chair at a certain point, once it is set up. From then on, the authority will establish its own detailed practices and processes. I can say a little more about the statutory roles that will support that. There is a lot on the face of the Bill that is hardwired to protect the integrity of the overall system, provide justice and address, at pace, some of the issues that colleagues have already referred to.
Q That is brilliant, and it leads to the next part of my question. As you say, it is all well and good having speed and accuracy, but we also need to ensure that the systems are independent and have the ability to manage themselves without too much political interference. Could you expand a little on that? Schedule 2 to the Bill goes into greater detail on how much independence is afforded to the chair and other appointees, so could you expand on what, within the Bill, would achieve that independence when needed? Alison Hewett: You mentioned the chair, and of the four statutory roles—the chair, the chief executive, the chief appeals officer and the PSO—the chair and the PSO will be independently appointed through the public appointments process. As the Committee will be aware, that is a standard process, and it will be the Home Secretary who makes the initial appointment. It is important to note that the chief executive and the chief appeals officer are independent from the Crown, and that is hardwired into the Bill. They are employees of the IIAA, and the chief executive will be responsible and accountable for achieving the goal and aim of the IIAA, which is, as we have said, to increase efficiency while protecting the integrity of the decisions being taken through the adjudicators. He will be accountable to the chair and will ultimately be required to present annual reports to Parliament, and the IIAA will have to go through an annual review process undertaken by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. There are a number of mechanisms throughout the Bill that allow for that independence.
Brilliant. Alison Hewett: Forgive me—the PSO is the professional standards office. My colleagues will be cringing as they listen to this.
Q That is always the way. It goes out of your head when you need it most. You just raised an interesting point about parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. Comparing and contrasting the system we live under now with the proposed system under the Bill, would you say that it will give Parliament more tools to scrutinise the effectiveness of the system, in terms of reporting? Alison Hewett: I am probably not best placed to comment from a delivery perspective. I can say that under the Bill, as the SRO, I will be required to deliver a programme that gives effect to these changes and requirements. It is probably for our policy colleagues and, potentially, Ministers to opine on that.
Q One piece of evidence that we were given earlier was that, as much as modern slavery legislation is a good thing for the United Kingdom, we have not necessarily been pulling our weight as we go forward. I am interested to hear from the panel, perhaps starting with the Minister, what progress you believe will be made by this Bill becoming law. Anna Turley: It is good to have the opportunity to talk about the modern slavery aspect because it is something we are obviously proud of in this country. It is important to us and we are committed to ending modern slavery. As a Government, it is really important to us, but we want to ensure that we support and protect the processes that support and identify modern slavery victims. The number of modern slavery referrals has increased by more than 900% since 2014, which shows us not only the growing scale of identification, but its growing application in immigration processes. We are very concerned about the number of late claims—it feels deliberately used to thwart returns. As we heard, a third of the failed removals involved modern slavery referral. Three quarters of those were raised between 3 pm on the day before removal and 6 am. We are keen that we give people the opportunity all the way through their experience to raise such concerns with us. Sometimes trauma and experience lead to a delay in reporting, but individuals going through this process have multiple opportunities to disclose exploitation from the moment they arrive, such as through contact with first responders—we have heard about them, and they are highly trained in identifying modern slavery—immigration enforcement, police, local authorities and NGOs. Those people come into contact with a vast range of individuals. We always encourage people to identify; we want people to identify the issue earlier in the process, as soon as possible, so that we can deal with it and not have it thrown in at the last minute as a means to thwart removal. As I said, just to conclude, I am very proud of our record on modern slavery, but something definitely does not quite stack up for me when I read that the UK refers more victims than the whole of the rest of Europe combined. In 2023, the UK referred 17,000 victims of modern slavery, compared with 10,907 for the rest of Europe. That says to me that we care very passionately about this—we want to get it right—but that we must also ensure that we protect the integrity of the process as well.
Q Any thoughts from the rest of the panel at all. Bas Javid: My starting point is, first of all, just to acknowledge that the national referral mechanism plays a vital role in safeguarding and supporting victims. That, even in an operational sense, is right at the forefront of my team’s training and focus. What we have seen increasingly, year by year, is what the Minister just referred to: some of the timings of the late claims. The statistic that I would share—I mentioned it before, but I will reiterate it—is that if we take just the year 2025 and all our charter operations, which is up to nearly 100 that year, one third of all the people we had to remove from flights were because of late claims. To give the context of an average case—I have case studies that I can speak to—there are a number of first responders, both statutory and non-statutory, with whom people have the opportunity to raise their claims, but they just do not do it. They do not do it for one simple reason: doing it late will absolutely thwart the process. We have to make a very quick judgment on reasonable grounds, which in itself means you have to remove people from the process and obviously consider their grounds and case. More often than not, the reasonable grounds are not met, so you then go back and it is a waste of effort and cost. Operational dysfunction could be avoided by the improvements that are being made through the Bill.
Q I think that just follows on into my next point. Obviously the Bill is not just focusing on the individual; it is also taking action on businesses. This is quite important for South Norfolk, because we are a part of the country that is currently seeing a lot of speculation over solar farms, for example, and we know that we do not have domestic production of solar panels within the United Kingdom. There is huge concern in my constituency about modern slavery in the supply chains. What action in the Bill do you believe will help us to tackle that by introducing more accountability, responsibility and financial penalties for corporations that might have modern slavery in their supply chains? Anna Turley: I am pleased that the Bill introduces financial penalties for people if they fail to comply with transparency requirements in their supply chains. For me, that is just one step, and I know that the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade is in the process of conducting a review of responsible business conduct, of which modern slavery in supply chains is a key part. I look forward to seeing the evidence, and I hope that there will then be a strong lead on actions to drive out modern slavery from supply chains around the world.
Q Just to follow up on that, do you believe that compliance with existing modern slavery legislation will also improve because of the additional measures in the Bill? Anna Turley: Yes. I noted that one of the witnesses said that compliance and enforcement was an issue, so I undertake to take that issue away and have a look at it. For me, the key thing is introducing the legislative framework so that we can then start with the implementation. It is important to get these measures through, working with DBIST, and to ensure that we are not only introducing the legislative framework, but enforcing it.
9. What steps his Department is taking with the coronial system to tackle delays in coroner decisions.
I am very grateful to the Minister. The Government have been pushing for more use of medical examiners and CT scans where they are appropriate, but the reality is that many families are still experiencing delays and disruption at an extraordinarily traumatic time. It is even worse when they live far away from the court that is dealing with their beloved family member’s case. What more can the Minister do, working with the chief coroner, to try to get the delays down?
Oxford is a great place to visit, and I hope that many Members will enjoy coming to my great city. Many tourists agree with me, and £1 in every £6 spent in the city centre is spent by a visitor. However, many local residents and businesses, while they welcome tourism, do recognise that it causes additional costs. They have told me that they want to see a levy, which would improve the local environment for tourists and local people. Will the Minister move ahead and persuade Oxfordshire county council to back a mayoral strategic authority, so that we can get on with it?
Q Thank you all for coming to give evidence to us. More than a third of our charter returns that fail to go ahead have involved a modern slavery referral raised after the return arrangements have been made. Can you give us some indication of why you think that is and, building on your previous answer, what would help to challenge that? Eleanor Lyons: Thank you, Minister, for your engagement so far on the Bill. It is very much appreciated. Building on what I was saying, we really need a system that allows for early identification and support of victims of exploitation. That includes all victims of exploitation, UK nationals and non-UK nationals. When I first came into my role three years ago, the big conversation was about what mandatory training would look like for first responder organisations, so that they would know how to spot a potential victim of modern slavery. Many victims themselves do not even recognise that they are being exploited. To introduce early support into the system would make a huge change on that side of things. I am concerned about the Home Office data on already high-risk flights. Less than 2% of the total number in the national referral mechanism are on those flights. The Home Office has five days to make a “reasonable grounds” decision. It only protects a victim of modern slavery for five days if they are referred into the national referral mechanism. If the Government decide that, actually, they do not think that there are grounds for those people being a victim of modern slavery, after that point they do not get any extra enhancements for indefinite leave to remain, so I do not think that that provides extra protection for victims. All we try to do in that period is to provide them with the support and care they need in their recovery period, if they need it.