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

12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Business without Debate

   With the leave of the House, I will group motions 5 to 10 together. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), Electricity That the draft Contracts for Difference (Definition of Eligible Generator) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 14 May, be approved. Local Government That the draft West Midlands Combined Authority (Key Route Network) (Amendment) Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 19 May, be approved. Health and Safety That the draft Justification Decision (Generation of Power by the RR SMR) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 3 June, be approved. Environmental Protection That the draft Batteries (Placing on the Market) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 4 June, be approved. Electronic Communications That the draft Trade (Mobile Roaming) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 4 June, be approved. Urban Development That the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026, dated 3 June 2026, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4 June, be approved.—(Gen Kitchen.) Question agreed to. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), Dangerous Drugs That the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) Order 2026 (SI, 2026, No. 613), dated 8 June 2026, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10 June, be approved.—(Gen Kitchen.) Question agreed to. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), Trade Unions That the draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 22 June, be approved.—(Gen Kitchen.) The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 15 July (Standing Order No. 41A). Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) That the draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade Union Ballots, which was laid before this House on 22 June, be approved.—(Gen Kitchen.) The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 15 July (Standing Order No. 41A). Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will appoint Richard Lloyd OBE to the office of Chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority with effect from 1 September 2026 for the period ending on 31 August 2029.—(Sir Alan Campbell.) Electoral Commission Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will— (i) appoint Hywel Williams as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 October 2026 for the period ending 30 September 2029; (ii) re-appoint Chris Ruane as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 November 2026 for the period ending 31 October 2030; and (iii) re-appoint Sheila Ritchie as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 February 2027 for the period ending 31 January 2031. —(Sir Alan Campbell.)

   Hansard source
2. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Embodied Carbon: Buildings

   Order. We do not talk about colleagues by their first and second names. We mention their constituencies, and if we are mentioning them, we give them the courtesy of letting them know that we will do so. I say that for future reference, to make sure that it does not happen again.

   Hansard source
3. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mr Mark Francois

   Local Government Reorganisation

   Is it true that a statement was made in private to Labour councillors and activists in Essex at the weekend? I know this for a fact, because I was told by one of the Labour members who were there, but will the Minister confirm that it is true? Is she also aware that a YouGov poll has shown that, by 56% to 24%, the people of Essex do not want Labour’s plans for local government reform? Let us have a referendum.

   Hansard source
4. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mr Mark Francois

   Death of Ann Widdecombe

   I thank both Front-Bench spokespeople for their touching tributes to Ann. For the benefit of those outside this House, I place on record that we all know the absolute personal commitment of Mr Speaker and all the Deputy Speakers to the security of all Members and their families. Can we thank him and the rest of the team for that? We must not comment on the investigation, but can we at least wish the police Godspeed in bringing whoever was responsible for this utterly heinous act fully to book? We now have another fallen comrade; there was Jo Cox, Sir David Amess, and now Ann. Years ago, we lost others to republican terrorism, too. This is a challenge for all of us, and for our loved ones. As I said after Sir David was murdered, I believe that the social media companies also have a responsibility in this regard. We always needed a thick skin to come into politics; now we need the hide of a rhino. The social media companies could do something to calm down the level of hate to which hon. Members and their families are exposed online, and I look to the Home Secretary in the hope that something positive can be done. Ann Widdecombe was unmissable. She was a one-woman nuclear deterrent, whether she was debating in the House of Commons or arriving on “Strictly” by zipwire. I saw her only about three weeks ago at a breakfast meeting, and she was in fine fettle that morning. I knew her through Sir David. They were great friends; they arrived here in a similar era, in the 1980s, and they had a strong bond via the Catholic faith. They got on extremely well. I appeared in a number of photographs with both Sir David and Ann down the years, but for some reason, I was never asked to remove my shoes. I have one brief anecdote. In 2010, having obviously upset someone in authority, I was made the Government accommodation Whip, and it was my responsibility to hand out offices. Anyone who has ever done that job will tell you that it is not easy. Ann, who had retired from the House, had a very attractive office overlooking Parliament Square, which was on my list as one that I knew would be in high demand. When I went along to check it out, I found Sir David already neatly ensconced in the office, and when I asked him how this had come about, he told me that he was claiming squatter’s rights, and that, moreover, he had been bequeathed the office by Ann as a personal gift. When I sought to remonstrate, he told me that if I did not like that decision, I could take it up with her personally—at which point I decided that discretion was the better part of valour, and withdrew. Ann was remarkable. You could not argue with her; well, you could try, but you never got very far. She was the type of character whom people deeply respected, because she was absolutely consistent in her view, whether you agreed with her or not. We have lost a distinguished and incredibly remarkable colleague in the most awful of circumstances, but Ann Widdecombe would tell us to keep calm and carry on, and I believe that that is exactly what we should do.

   Hansard source
5. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Matt Vickers

   High Streets Organised Crime Unit

   Dodgy vape shops are a scourge on our high streets, but even more horrifying are some of the people who run them. Twana Jamal, convicted in France and described as the godfather of people trafficking, has reportedly been found running two vape shops in Leicestershire. Does the Home Secretary agree that that demonstrates the need for stronger powers to tackle rogue vape shops and organised crime? If so, why have the Government cut funding to regional organised crime units, and opposed stronger closure powers for the police and local councils.

   Hansard source
6. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Matt Vickers

   Police Officer Numbers

   Under the last Government, police numbers reached a record high. Labour promised to increase police numbers, but instead we have seen them fall. As the Minister was forced to confirm, they are down 1,318 in the last year. Is the Minister doing anything to protect the number of officers in response policing so that when people ring 999 in their hour of need, they are not left waiting?

   Hansard source
7. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Matt Vickers

   Immigration and Asylum Bill

   This has been an important and thoughtful debate, and I begin by thanking Members from across the House for their contributions. There have been genuine differences of opinion this evening, but I think there is broad agreement on one point: our immigration system is not working. Immigration is one of the defining issues facing our country. It goes to the security of our borders, the integrity of our laws, the pressure on our public services, and, ultimately, the confidence the British people have in the ability of the Government to keep their promises. The British people expect an immigration system that is fair to those who play by the rules and firm with those who seek to abuse them. They expect secure borders, swift decisions, effective enforcement and, above all, a Government to deliver. That is the test the Bill must meet. In many respects, today’s debate brings us full circle. Ministers stood at the Dispatch Box and argued that immigration policy should be about grip and control, not gimmicks and false promises, yet over the past two years, we have seen too many headlines, too many announcements and too many promises, while illegal migration has continued to undermine confidence in our borders. Let me be clear: I do not believe that anyone in this House wants to see people risking their life crossing the channel in small boats. Those crossings benefit organised criminal gangs, undermine confidence in our immigration system, place enormous pressure on communities, public services and public finances, and all too often end in tragedy. Nobody should accept them as inevitable. The question before us today is therefore a simple one: does the Bill contain the measures necessary to stop illegal migration? That must surely be the ambition. The Government’s own impact assessment recognises that deterrence is essential, but it also accepts that the deterrent effect of these proposals is too uncertain even to quantify. That uncertainty goes to the heart of the Bill. The fundamental principle should be straightforward: if someone enters the United Kingdom illegally, they should not be able to stay. Everything else flows from that principle. Without it, public confidence is weakened and genuine refugees lose out. Those who come here legally and contribute to our country are let down, and the criminal gangs continue to exploit the gaps in our system. To be fair to the Home Secretary, there are measures in the Bill that the Opposition welcome. It is right that the Government are seeking to recover more of the costs of asylum support. It is right that Ministers are finally acknowledging that the article 8 framework has frustrated removals. It is right that they recognise shortcomings in the operation of the modern slavery system. It is right that they acknowledge that the current appeals process is too slow, too cumbersome and too vulnerable to abuse. In truth, one of the most striking features of the Bill is that the Government have finally accepted many of the arguments that they have spent the last two years dismissing. Recognising a problem, though, is not the same as solving it. The Home Secretary and I agree on much of the diagnosis; we disagree on the cure. Time and again, the Bill identifies the right issues but stops short of the reforms needed to address them. The Government propose a new independent immigration appeals authority, yet they cannot tell us with any certainty whether it will speed up removals or simply replace one backlog with another. The Bill looks to narrow article 8 claims, while simultaneously creating a new, sponsored human rights claim that risks opening another avenue for litigation. It speaks about strengthening deportation powers, yet it leaves unanswered the wider questions about the legal framework that continue to frustrate removals. Despite repeated promises, the Bill contains no comprehensive reforms to settlement, no clear answer on preventing those who arrive illegally from obtaining citizenship, and no comprehensive removals framework capable of delivering the deterrence that Ministers say is necessary. That is why the Opposition have tabled our reasoned amendment. We believe that the Bill does not yet go far enough to restore public confidence or deliver the outcome that the British people rightly expect. Our alternative is clear: those who enter the country illegally should have no right to stay. Several Members have spoken about public confidence, and they are right to do so. Public confidence depends on knowing that the rules matter; that those who have no right to remain will be removed; that foreign national offenders can be deported swiftly; that endless legal challenges cannot frustrate the clearly expressed will of Parliament; and that those who come here legally, work hard and contribute are not disadvantaged by a system that appears unable to distinguish between those who respect the rules and those who seek to exploit them. As has been mentioned, the Home Secretary faces a political challenge from her own Benches. If she wants to come back and deliver real and meaningful reform that will properly secure our borders, and if she needs some support to do that, she can give us a call—[Interruption.] Give me a call. The British people do not want another cycle of announcements followed by disappointment. They want to know that criminal gangs will no longer profit from human misery; that dangerous channel crossings will end; and that those with no right to remain will not spend years exhausting endless appeals while the taxpayer picks up the bill. They want to know that Britain remains a country that welcomes those who come legally, while maintaining control over who enters and stays. Those are not unreasonable expectations, but the foundations of a fair immigration system. As the Bill progresses through Committee, the Opposition will scrutinise it carefully. Where measures meaningfully strengthen border security, improve enforcement and restore confidence, we will support them. Where they fall short, we will seek to strengthen them. The Home Secretary has moved some way towards recognising the scale of the challenge facing our immigration system, and I welcome that. The Bill identifies many of the right problems, but it still stops short of the bold reforms needed to solve them. For that reason, we have tabled our reasoned amendment. The British people deserve an immigration system that is fair to those who follow the rules, uncompromising with those who do not, and capable of restoring control of our borders. That remains the standard by which the Opposition will judge the Bill. I commend our reasoned amendment to the House.

   Hansard source
8. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mark Pritchard

   Topical Questions

   I thank the Asylum Minister for his professional courtesy in calling me on Friday to say that the asylum dispersal plans for Stoke Heath in my constituency have now been scrapped. I am grateful for that, and it is a great relief to many residents—it was a completely inappropriate location from the get-go. However, can I ask him to put on the record whether the Government have any plans to put asylum seekers into Clive barracks at Tern Hill in Shropshire, which is currently home to the Royal Irish Regiment?

   Hansard source
9. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mark Pritchard

   Death of Ann Widdecombe

   I thank Mr Speaker in his absence, and indeed all the Deputy Speakers, for everything that the Speaker’s Office and the Parliamentary Security Department do to keep all Members, of all political parties, safe. I thank the Home Secretary and the deputy leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), for their warm tributes. As a west midlands MP, I also put on the record my thanks to the fantastic people at Counter Terrorism Policing West Midlands and in West Mercia police’s special branch, who do a fantastic job. I have been in the House for 21 years, but it has only been in the last two or three years that I have had to take serious and substantive security advice. That is an unwelcome development, and we all need to work together to tackle it. Reference has been made to technology companies. Should we expect technology companies to act, given that some of their owners do not even believe in democracy? They want to undo democracy in order that they have ultimate power. That is not a conspiracy theory; it is on the record, because some of them have stated that. In defence of the mainstream media—particularly the so-called deadwood press, with whom I have had disagreements over the years—they have to regulate, with very limited resources, the comments that people put under stories. Why will tech companies not do so as well? For too long the mainstream media in this country have taken most of the blame, but the tech companies, which have more resources, should be doing more. On a lighter note, I want to give a couple of stories from Ann’s life. We spent five years together as Members of Parliament, but I knew her before entering the House. I have two stories. First, I remember when there was a move to stop the first ever appointment of a Catholic as the British ambassador to the Holy See. Ann, David Amess, myself and others worked to overturn that. To paraphrase a Times diarist, I was the only Anglican in the village, and a middle-wicket Anglican at that—a very poor one. I wasn’t literally poor—well, actually, it was both. [Laughter.] As the only Anglican in the village, I felt that it was completely wrong that there was discrimination against Catholics being appointed to the Vatican. Thankfully, the decision was overturned, and Tony Blair and others allowed the appointment to happen. Francis Campbell was appointed the first Catholic ambassador to the Holy See and did a fantastic job. I have a second story. Having seen David Austin—the founder of David Austin Roses, who has now passed—at the 2009 Chelsea flower show with the former Deputy Speaker Nigel Evans, we were coming back in a taxi when we heard that Michael Martin had resigned as Speaker. We both thought that Ann would be a great Deputy Speaker, but there was a problem: in 2007, she had announced that she was going to step down at the following election. We met with her and said, “Ann, we think you’d be a great Speaker. Would you do it?” She said, “Yes. What have I got to do?” We said, “Well, you’ve got to go and speak to all the different parties in Committee Room 14. Everybody’s stuffed in there, as usual, and you’ve got to do a pitch.” I said to her, “But whatever you do, don’t say you’re running for Speaker and then say you’re standing down in 2010.” As we all know, Ann was very wise. She completely dismissed that advice, stood up and said, “I’m running for Speaker, but I will stand down in one or two years’ time.” Of course, she did not have any success. I will conclude by saying that Ann was a lady of conviction, clarity, compassion, integrity and authenticity —a lexicon of virtue. Of course, she was recognised by His Holiness the Pope with a papal damehood—a DSG—but unfortunately she was, I think unfairly, never recognised in this country in the same way. I hope that is something that, in her honour and memory, could be considered.

   Hansard source
10. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Lewis Cocking

    Local Government Reorganisation

    The Minister and I have had many exchanges on this topic, and she knows that I am focused on securing the best outcome for my constituents. We know that reorganisation in Hertfordshire is coming, but the uncertainty is not helping my residents or local councillors, so can the Minister confirm whether an option for Hertfordshire will be included in her announcement on Thursday? Can she also confirm whether MPs will be informed before any public announcement is made?

    Hansard source
11. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Lewis Cocking

    Immigration and Asylum Bill

    We must reduce immigration to this country and get a grip of our asylum system. Unlike the MPs behind her, I do think the Home Secretary is starting to move in the right direction. But, as she will know, small boat crossings are on the rise since Labour came to power, with an average of 105 illegal migrants crossing the channel every single day for the last two years. Almost 100,000 people are being housed in asylum accommodation, with the numbers in houses in multiple occupation up 11% under this Labour Government. The case for urgent action is now overwhelming, but the measures in the Bill before us fail to meet the gravity of the situation. I will therefore be supporting the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Just look at the tinkering to the application of article 8 of the European convention on human rights. We all know that the protection to family life has been abused and twisted far from its original purpose. The public rightly expect foreign nationals who have broken our laws to be deported. The rights of the British people should always outweigh the interests of foreign criminals—no ifs, no buts. In 2023, a Nigerian man used article 8 to stay in this country despite a two-year prison sentence, but the tribunal ruled that deportation would breach his article 8 rights. Horrifically, he then went on to violently rape a teenage girl—whose rights were being protected then? Will these sorts of cases be a thing of the past as a result of the modest changes within this Bill? I am not convinced. The Government are allowing vague and ambiguous exceptional circumstances to be used by criminals to avoid deportation. The phrasing in the Bill leaves far too much room for legal argument, appeals and delays. No ifs, no buts—every illegal immigrant should be deported. By making changes to article 8, the Government have conceded that membership of the European convention on human rights places significant limits on the UK’s ability to maintain and control our borders. There is only one logical conclusion: the only way that we will truly end illegal immigration into the United Kingdom, deport all foreign criminals, and create a system that is genuinely fair and robust, is to leave the European convention on human rights in its entirety, and repeal the Human Rights Act.

    Hansard source
12. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Katie Lam

    Violence against Women and Girls

    Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to echo your tribute to a predecessor of mine, Ann Widdecombe. She was an exceptionally effective Member of Parliament, has been a really tough act to follow, and is very fondly remembered in the Weald. On behalf of my constituents, whom she served for decades—a role that she fulfilled with outstanding dedication—I would just like to say thank you. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Last week I met a group of victims and survivors of the most appalling sexual violence, like Angela. It is not her real name, but Angela was first raped by her stepfather at the age of eight. He then sold her to men for sex to pay off his gambling debts. He was sentenced to just 10 years in prison and, having served only six, is now being let out early by the Government. My question to the Home Secretary is one that those women were asking: why did they endure the years of pain and danger that it took to have their abusers put in prison, only for this Government to let them out again after such a short time?

    Hansard source
13. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·John Lamont

    Illegal Immigrants: Offshore Detention and Deportation

    I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 737105 relating to offshore detention and deportation of illegal immigrants. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg, and to open this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I will speak today in my role as a member of the Committee; in doing so, I am obliged to give not only my own views on the issue, but those of the petitioners and the campaigners who have sought this debate. I will set out what the petition seeks, its merits and some points worth considering further. Of course, I have my own views, which I will share throughout the debate. I congratulate the petitioner on setting up the petition. Unusually, he is one of our colleagues: the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). The petition calls on the Government to “establish offshore detention facilities for individuals who enter the UK illegally, to process them and arrange their deportation.” It closed in March with over 720,000 signatures from every part of the United Kingdom, including from a great many of my constituents in Galashiels, Hawick, Kelso, Jedburgh and across the Scottish Borders. The number of signatures that the petition attracted reflects the strength of feeling on immigration. Let me set out the scale of the problem that has prompted the petition. Each year, tens of thousands of people are entering the United Kingdom illegally, mainly travelling by small boat across the English channel. There is a process for those fleeing war and persecution to seek asylum in this country. The people coming here illegally are not following that process. They are not doing the right thing. They are breaking the law. When they get to this country, it becomes incredibly difficult for them to be removed. Nearly everyone who arrives here goes on to claim asylum, even if their claim is dubious. Even in circumstances in which it is clear that they should not be here, perhaps because of a criminal record, it is challenging to remove those who hide behind the process. Those abusing the process benefit from the fact that our asylum system is broken. Resolution of asylum claims takes far too long—often years for the initial case, and then potentially far longer on appeal. As of March this year, over 10,000 people were waiting more than a year, and nearly 100,000 people were in asylum accommodation, including more than 20,000 in hotels. As these claims go on, people are housed by the state. The policy of housing asylum seekers in hotels is one of the signatories’ main objections to UK asylum policy. They are correct in their assessment of the moral flaws of the policy. A system has been created that seems to encourage and reward those who make an asylum claim even if they have no real chance of success or fair basis for doing so. This is not about those who fairly claim asylum, but about those who abuse the system. The practice of using hotels for these people has led to justified public anger. At a time when normal British citizens are struggling to make ends meet and working hard only to pay huge sums in taxes to fund services that are declining, it is grossly unfair that people illegally entering this country are being put up in hotels at the public’s expense. The Government have started to use dedicated sites larger than hotels, on the basis that concentrating provision is more manageable than dispersing tens of thousands of people across hundreds of hotels the length and breadth of the country. In further information that the petitioner submitted ahead of today’s debate, he argues that if consolidation into larger mainline sites is already accepted as an improvement on hotels, the logical next step is to consolidate provision entirely. Offshoring at a single location with one integrated set of services, including accommodation, healthcare, legal support, translation and case management, would replace the costly current patchwork of provision. It would provide clearer entry and exit controls. Crucially, it is argued that it would have a genuine deterrent effect that dispersed mainland accommodation cannot deliver.

    Hansard source
14. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·John Lamont

    Illegal Immigrants: Offshore Detention and Deportation

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is about a sense of fairness. The system is not working in the best interests of our constituents, and I am sure that his 1,138 constituents who signed the petition feel that unfairness. With the incentive of guaranteed mainland accommodation removed, the numbers requiring processing at any one time would fall to the low thousands, rather than the tens of thousands currently housed. The petitioner has based his argument on evidence such as that gathered by the Public Accounts Committee, which reported last month that the asylum system in the UK is “under severe pressure, with high costs and persistent backlogs.” The same inquiry found that repeated attempts at reform had failed to fix long-standing problems, and that short-term fixes had tended to push pressure from one part of the system to another rather than resolve it. More strikingly, the Committee recorded that the Home Office could only say that it knew where “the vast majority” of failed asylum seekers were. The Committee called that “shocking and unacceptable”. The vast majority of British people agree. The Committee’s conclusion was that the current accommodation model is “poor value for money”. The Government response to the petition says that offshore detention would be “costly and impractical”. On that point, the Government seem to be grasping at straws and to be woefully underprepared. Two words that undoubtedly apply to the current system are “costly” and “impractical”. Offshore detention may well be costly and impractical, but the Government have not proven that point. What is worse, they have not come close to proving that it would be more costly or impractical than the current system, which was found by a cross-party Committee of this place not to provide value for money. The signatories to the petition would be well within their rights to ask the Government to publish all the relevant figures for the current system, break that system down on a cost basis and let people see how broken it is at every stage. Have the Government assessed the cost to every individual community of providing services to those claiming asylum? The answer is no. They certainly have not come close to doing so—nor do they want to, because the cost to local services is not a simple number. It includes the ongoing cost for already strained local services and the breakdown in community cohesion. Some of it cannot be captured on a simple ledger, but is nevertheless very expensive for our country. Many in the SNP, Labour and the Greens wish to portray an effective immigration system and a strong deterrent as somehow morally wrong. They regard any policy designed to protect our borders as outrageous. Yet internationally, offshore detention and similar measures have been effective and are increasingly being considered by Governments of all political persuasions. Australia’s move to offshore processing coincided with a sharp fall in boat arrivals from 2001, and the Australian Government maintain that offshore processing is very effective. Other countries, including Italy and Denmark, have brought in similar measures to those that the petitioner seeks. Many others, including Germany, Austria, Denmark and Greece, have considered return hub facilities outside the European Union. No matter what some politicians think, those policies are not far right. It is right that they be properly considered. This Government have not done so appropriately. They have not seriously considered an approach that other countries have implemented successfully and that others are now looking at. They dismiss the views of the signatories to the petition and the huge number of people across the country who support it. Their analysis is short on detail and long on assumptions about costs that do not seem credible. The truth of the matter is that our immigration system is broken beyond belief, and the British people know all about it. I represent a rural constituency in Scotland, but this issue fills my postbag and comes up time and again on doorsteps and in my advice surgeries. It comes up because my constituents, far from the English channel, can see that they are paying and that our country is suffering for this broken system. They see that we struggle to deport even serial criminals. That is why more than 700,000 people have signed the petition. They deserve to be heard, and they deserve to hear from this Government that all the substantive and reasonable options must be put on the table to fix this broken immigration system. This is not the time to dismiss, for political or ideological reasons, proposals that are grounded in evidence and that seek to provide a real solution to one of our country’s biggest ongoing issues. The Government should take the petition seriously. They should consider a new approach to immigration. They must consider establishing offshore detention facilities for people who enter the United Kingdom illegally.

    Hansard source
15. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·John Lamont

    Illegal Immigrants: Offshore Detention and Deportation

    I am not used to having 90 minutes to speak, but I promise not to detain colleagues long. I thank all Members who took part, particularly the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who was the petitioner, and the hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock), my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) and the various party spokesmen. I have been on the Petitions Committee since the last election, and it is quite telling that this petition has had, I think, the second or third highest number of signatures. I am surprised that more MPs are not participating. Is this an example of where Parliament is disconnected from what our constituents are telling us? I know that 2,500 constituents of my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) signed the petition, the second highest number in the UK. I have been at other petition debates here and there has not been enough space for all the MPs who wanted to participate. That is telling. Part of the problem, with the greatest respect to the Minister, is that although we hear all the achievements that he thinks the Government have achieved, the reality is that people out there in society do not see or feel those achievements. They feel the pressures in their society because of the broken immigration system. In the 12 months between 1 April 2025 and 31 March 2026, 43,806 illegal arrivals took place in the UK, and that was up on the previous year. That is why our constituents feel so frustrated and why so many people signed this petition. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 737105 relating to offshore detention and deportation of illegal immigrants.

    Hansard source
16. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·John Glen

    Local Government Reorganisation

    Before the hon. Lady makes her statement on Thursday, will she, when reflecting on the arrangement in Wiltshire that would embrace Wessex—although we have been told that that is not the Government’s view—address the prevailing concern that the people of rural Wiltshire will be considerably worse off without having the opportunity to embrace that mayoral region, to the tune of £240 per head? In the context of the wider reduced funding for rural England, those people need reassurance from the Government that they understand the shortfall.

    Hansard source
17. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Jesse Norman

    Business of the House

    I cannot come to the Dispatch Box without registering my sadness, and I am sure that of everyone across this House, at the dreadful news about Ann Widdecombe. I am sure that we will talk about this later, but I just wanted to start with that. The Leader of the House is a good and honourable man, and he will be deeply embarrassed by this fiasco of a procedure today. It is a gross breach of parliamentary protocol and timing to bring a Bill, let alone a Bill of this sensitivity and magnitude, to the House on this very abbreviated notice. Of course, there is concern across the House about the victims of the Hillsborough disaster and their families, but these matters must be properly debated in due season. To do so, with new amendments that have not even yet been published, on no notice and without the ability of Members to amend those amendments or to comment until now, is a further breach. Why has this happened? It is because the outgoing Prime Minister is desperate to preserve what he sees as a legacy. It is a tragedy that he should be so focused solely on his own political future, such as it is, and I think it is a pity that he has taken this opportunity to sideswipe the incoming Prime Minister, a man who arrives with no scrutiny and no accountability to this House. I want to raise a few key points. Of course, it is understood that this legislation was being discussed in the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is also understood that this legislation and its implications were being discussed with our Five Eyes allies, with our armed forces, and with the USA in particular. I know that this abbreviation of protocol will attract the attention of the Lords when it arrives in their House. Why has this Bill been brought forward now, on such an expedited basis? What has changed, and what of substance has caused the Government to want to abbreviate the consideration of these very delicate matters on such a timetable? Have our international partners been consulted on this change in procedure? Have the agencies been consulted? Above all, why, after seven months of grieving families being concerned about its passage, is the Bill suddenly now—as it may appear, with little or no change—being brought before this House?

    Hansard source
18. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Jerome Mayhew

    Topical Questions

    Given the reports in the press of yet another U-turn being forced on the Government by revolting Back Benchers, does the Home Secretary still believe that the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain should be increased from five years to 10 years?

    Hansard source
19. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Esther McVey

    Illegal Immigrants: Offshore Detention and Deportation

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for moving the motion and to the vast number of people—720,000, including 1,093 from my constituency of Tatton—who signed this important petition and prompted this debate calling for offshore detention and deportation of illegal immigrants. According to Home Office data, just under 77,000 illegal immigrants have arrived by small boat since Labour took charge in July 2024. The average number of daily arrivals under Labour has been about 104, some 94% higher than under the previous Conservative Government —an extraordinary increase. On Friday just gone, 10 July, another shameful record was set: the highest number of illegal immigrants on a single dinghy, 128, arrived in the UK. A total of 225 arrived in three dinghies on that day. That has happened under a Government who pledged to reduce illegal migration, promising to “smash the gangs”—but those promises turned out to be smoke and mirrors. I say it was just to secure a general election victory, because reducing immigration is just not in Labour’s DNA. A fleeting search online is enough to reveal images of Cabinet members clutching “Refugees Welcome” signs. Without doubt, one of the biggest mistakes that the Prime Minister made, in a strong field, was to cancel the Rwanda scheme—an offshore processing centre and permanent resettlement programme. We know that deterrence is an important component in tackling organised immigration crime. As Steve Rodhouse, director general of operations at the National Crime Agency, told the Home Affairs Committee in 2019, the “people willing to make the journey” across the channel know “that there is a very low risk that they will be returned.” I am sure that that is more true today than it was even then. The Rwanda agreement would have tackled the issue head on. It would have allowed for the forceful relocation of asylum seekers, people who had already been refused asylum, and those who made unauthorised illegal journeys to the UK. Rwanda would then have granted them asylum or permanent residence. The National Crime Agency described the scheme as a deterrent; in fact, we were starting to see dinghies from France heading to Ireland and other countries. There was a drop in illegal channel crossings in 2023, after the plan was announced: they went from 45,000 in 2022 to 29,000 in 2023—a 35% decrease. Without the Rwanda plan or deportation to another country, we have been left with no way to remove illegal immigrants—those who destroy their documents to hide their country of origin. Like much of this Government’s foreign policy, the weaknesses of this Labour Government have become opportunities for other countries. The United States has signed agreements with 34 countries to allow for third-country deportations, and, according to the Migration Policy Institute, the US Government have plans to contact at least another 50 countries about similar agreements, including—you guessed it—Rwanda. The model has expanded across Europe, too. The EU is now in the process of adopting legislation permitting EU member states to reach agreements with non-EU member states for the establishment of return hubs. Those are logical decisions and policies. But the Government failed to see that; as a result, illegal immigration has soared. As the petition rightly points out, the “current use of hotels and temporary accommodation is unsustainable, costly and dangerous.” We simply cannot have people breaking into our country and being rewarded for their criminality with hotel accommodation, healthcare, travel, translation services, recreational facilities and more, costing British taxpayers billions of pounds a year. We have seen just how dangerous that can be, as horrific case after horrific case has shown: the brutal and frenzied murder of Walsall hotel worker Rhiannon Whyte by a Sudanese illegal immigrant who had just arrived by small boat three months previously; Haybe Nur, a Somali national, walked into a bank and stabbed a father of three dead; Hadush Kebatu arrived by boat and was then convicted of multiple sexual assaults; and Ahmad Mulakhil was found guilty of raping a 12-year-old. That is the reality of not knowing who is coming into our country. These policy failures are not only putting communities in danger; it is downright unfair on society to prioritise illegal immigrants in this way. Look at the plan for Stoke Heath in Shropshire, where the Home Office was all set to move immigrants into brand-new housing. That was a kick in the teeth for local families, who were told that that estate would offer affordable or social housing for them—many had been waiting on the housing list for years. What about veterans? Where is their brand-new housing? Where are we housing them? Thankfully, the Stoke Heath community seems to have stopped the plan in its tracks, having put up fierce opposition to the Government. The Home Secretary now tells us that new-build estates like that will “never be considered again”; we can only hope that that is true. Labour has not “smashed the gangs” as it promised, but it is certainly succeeding in smashing our local communities, which are forced to play host to a sudden influx of illegal immigrants. This Government talk tough, but that is all they do: talk tough without action. The reality is that until the Government develop a spine, reinstate the Rwanda scheme, take the UK out of the ECHR and repeal the Human Rights Act 1998, we have no chance of deporting those who come here illegally.

    Hansard source
20. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Esther McVey

    Illegal Immigrants: Offshore Detention and Deportation

    The average daily arrivals of illegal immigrants under this Labour Government are 94% higher than under the previous Government, so can the Minister tell me exactly which policies are working?

    Hansard source
21. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Esther McVey

    Illegal Immigrants: Offshore Detention and Deportation

    How much time, exactly? The Government have had two years in office and have already changed Prime Minister.

    Hansard source
22. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Esther McVey

    Illegal Immigrants: Offshore Detention and Deportation

    I thank the Minister for being generous with his time. Can he clarify a point? The Secretary of State was trying to stop some of the pull factors, and I welcomed the extension from five to 10 years in the qualification period for indefinite leave to remain, but it seems that the incoming Prime Minister will now water those new policies down. Is that the case?

    Hansard source
23. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Luke Evans

    Topical Questions

    T5. The Home Secretary is boasting about the fact that hotel asylum seekers’ numbers are being reduced, but of course, they are being moved into houses in multiple occupation and the Government will not produce the figures of how many are going into HMOs. This means that places such as Hinckley and Bosworth are getting more HMOs. Will the Government commit to producing the data to show exactly where people are being moved from and to, so that we can see what is happening specifically around HMOs? That has not been released in the quarterly data, and I would be grateful for an answer.

    Hansard source
24. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Illegal Immigrants: Offshore Detention and Deportation

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank Members for their contributions and the more than 700,000 people who signed the petition, including more than 1,000 in my constituency of Bexhill and Battle. This is a very real issue in my part of East Sussex. The Government forced on us the Crowborough asylum camp, just over the border in the constituency of Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani), but very close to my own. We met the Minister just last week, alongside local residents and councillors, and heard at first hand about groups of young men gathering in this small rural town to drink on the streets, smuggling alcohol back into the detention centre and working illegally, and all the distress that that is causing. I am not surprised that the Government targeted Wealden for a camp, considering that it is run by Lib Dems and Greens, with their refugee asylum safe haven policy. At the heart of this debate is a question of control: whether the state and the people on whose behalf it operates have control of our borders or not. For the nation state to have meaning, a country must be able to remove people from within its borders who have no right to be there—whether to send them to offshore processing or detention, or to deport them entirely—and at scale. I welcome the opportunity to set out the overwhelming rational and moral argument for ending small boat crossings and the illegal people-smuggling trade, which is at the forefront of the petition. Whatever opponents of strong border controls say, and however much they attempt to demonise and caricature those of us who want to see control returned, I know not only that is this what the vast majority of the British public want, but that it is the right thing to do. We have to be clear-eyed about the status quo. Right now, not only is our asylum policy effectively determined by people’s ability to pay to get here, but the trade itself is putting money directly into the pockets of criminal gangs that are also involved in other crimes, such as drug dealing and violence. Whether someone makes the crossing is not a measure of their need, their comparative level of desperation or fear, or their vulnerability. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Small boat crossings favour the able-bodied, those with sufficient money to pay for the journey and those closest to Europe. They are not based on anything that Parliament or the Government have decided, nor are they a reflection of humanitarian crises. We know for a fact that every single person making the crossing from France—because they are coming from France—is not fleeing directly from a war-torn country where they are at risk of persecution. Decent, caring and compassionate constituents of mine say to me all the time, “They are safe; they’re in France.” People may have a preference—a desire—to be here instead of in France, but that is not what the asylum system was set up for. That is not what the laws and protections were intended to enshrine and make sacrosanct. However much defenders of those laws and regulations choose to ignore that, the British public can see through it. The first retort to those criticisms of the status quo is to say, “Well, that’s our fault. That’s our responsibility for forcing them to cross the channel”—as the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), said. But proponents of that argument entirely fail to play through the consequences of the safe and legal routes that they advocate for. I will do so now, in the hope that people might actually consider the matter. If we set up places whereby people can apply in third countries easily, what would happen? First, those places would themselves become a focal point for potentially large numbers of people seeking asylum, as there are quite literally millions of people living under conditions that would qualify them to seek asylum here in the UK. However much people pretend otherwise, we clearly would have to refuse some of those applications. Of course, the Green party advocates open borders and no restrictions, so maybe it would not refuse any, but let us assume we would not take everybody who applied by a safe and legal route. What would happen then? Would those people simply turn around and say, “Oh well, I tried to get in. I tried to use the safe and legal route; I’ll leave it there”? Of course they would not. Those people would then turn to exactly the same people-smuggling gangs and illegal crossings, and we would be right back to square one, only then they would be coming on top of the ones granted asylum through safe and legal routes. Even the most humanitarian-minded person would have to accept that there would be limits. If there are limits, we have to say no, and for “no” to mean anything, it has to be enforceable, or the whole thing collapses. Those opposed to deportation for those coming here illegally have no answer to that moral and logical question, so what must we do? We must make it absolutely clear that if someone comes here illegally, they do not get to stay—no ifs, ands or buts. Everything else, in terms of control and having a system that works, is underpinned by that. If we do not have meaningful control—because taking years to deport people will achieve nothing—then all the rest of the policies collapse. To stand any chance of actually delivering that, we have to come out of the European Court of Human Rights. Anyone who has studied the expansion of the powers of that Court cannot reasonably argue that it is fulfilling the same function intended for it. Some may argue that they are happy with that and welcome it, but it impossible to say that it is operating as envisioned by its creators. Let us take one example: article 3 of the European convention on human rights, which gives the right to be protected from “torture or…inhuman or degrading treatment”. That right was constructed in the wake of world war two, in which, as well as being murdered, Jews, political prisoners, homosexuals and other minorities were subject to the most horrendous treatment imaginable: medical experimentation, starvation, death-inducing slave labour. How is that article 3 right now interpreted? It is now used by potential deportees to successfully oppose their deportation if the standard of healthcare in the country they would be returned to is not sufficient to meet their medical needs—the same standard of healthcare that is all that is available to millions of their fellow citizens in the countries that we would seek to deport them to. When did a right to be protected from torture or inhumane or degrading treatment become a right to access a particular standard of healthcare? We know that the convention has now gone as far as to be applied to questions of whether a particular Government is doing enough to tackle climate change. That is why even some of our most senior and respected jurists, such as former UK Supreme Court Justice Lord Sumption, are clear about the need to leave. I recommend anyone sincerely interested in this topic to listen to his 2019 BBC Reith lectures on it. He explains clearly how human rights laws are increasingly used in place of the practice of politics, democracy and elections. They have increasingly become questions of balancing. They always were, of course, but the balancing has become finer and more nuanced, and at their heart, those questions are societal and political, not legal. We should ask how it has come to this situation. It has come about because, at its core, in its willingness to expand its remit and take expansionist interpretations of the law, the European Court of Human Rights is fundamentally misconceived. The law does not exist in isolation. In the nation state, there is an interplay between the courts and judges, the parliaments, the executives, and the people. They balance each other out. Courts are, of course, operationally independent, but if they act intolerably, and if they consistently and gravely make rulings out of keeping with the views of the public they serve, Parliament can step in, as the body accountable to the public. However much in very many ways we want our courts to be independent, it is vital that in the end, ultimately, they are not independent of the people. This delicate interplay secures legitimacy for each actor in the system, and there is no such interplay in the European Court. That is how it has found itself so clearly removed from the expectations and views of the millions of people of the member states it seeks to advocate for. We can see, over many years, member states seeking to oppose the Court’s expansionist rulings; it has ignored them to its own detriment. We also see other countries—Canada, Australia and New Zealand—that are able to manage fair and balanced rules of law with rights for individuals without the need to be part of any supranational body. Anyone who argues against these ideas must be careful what they wish for, because the patience and generosity of the majority of the public is at its thinnest, if not exhausted entirely. If we do not respond to that, others with views that we are more widely unhappy with will take control, and the Government who have failed to secure it will be as much to blame as anybody else. As our current Prime Minister completes two years of his premiership, I hope that Members can reflect honestly. The promises of the Government to take control of our borders and to smash the gangs have undoubtedly been a failure. They gave the impression that tweaks could be made to significantly alter the number of crossings, but that has proven simply not to be the case, and they now have very little time left. The only country with a proven track record is Australia, and it implemented a policy of not allowing people to stay. Tweaking will not help. One in, one out with France will not help. The sooner the Government realise that, the better for the taxpayer, the better for those who want to be compassionate but do not want to be exploited, and the better for the crime agencies fighting the people-smuggling gangs. Virtue signalling will not achieve anything. Doing whatever it takes to actually regain control of our borders is the only thing that will, and the Government must get on and deliver it.

    Hansard source
25. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Illegal Immigrants: Offshore Detention and Deportation

    Let us say that in a year from now, all this stuff has not worked and the Home Secretary has committed to doing whatever it takes. Does “whatever it takes” include withdrawing from the ECHR?

    Hansard source
26. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Illegal Immigrants: Offshore Detention and Deportation

    Does the Minister really think that Canada or Australia do not get to deport people? Those countries are not in the ECHR, but they have deportation agreements with third countries, so in no way is it a necessity to be in the ECHR to have deportation agreements.

    Hansard source
27. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Illegal Immigrants: Offshore Detention and Deportation

    But we do not deport all rapists and paedophiles, because some of them make successful ECHR claims and get to stay in the country. Again, unless the Government are willing to tackle that, they will not get to do the things that the Minister has so much rhetoric about.

    Hansard source
28. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Illegal Immigrants: Offshore Detention and Deportation

    I do not know whether hon. Members know this, but just for the record, we took more people than we sent back under the Dublin agreement. It did not act as any deterrent, because a person was more likely to get to the UK on the basis of the Dublin agreement than they were to be sent away.

    Hansard source
29. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Topical Questions

    I want to begin by thanking Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani), for securing a meeting with the Minister, local MPs, councillors and residents of Crowborough, where the Minister heard for himself reports of illegal working, groups of young men drinking on the street and the smuggling of alcohol on to the site. If the Government are to force this camp on people, the very least they can do is ensure that people there play by the rules. Can the Minister introduce breath testing and make it clear to anyone drinking on the site that if they are found to fail those tests, their asylum claim will be immediately thrown out?

    Hansard source
30. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·David Reed

    Topical Questions

    As the House will know, the Home Office does not routinely publish figures on the number of small boat arrivals who abscond or whose whereabouts subsequently becomes unknown. Given that the Department holds case records that would allow that to be calculated, will the Home Secretary commit to publishing that information periodically so that the House can properly scrutinise the scale of the problem?

    Hansard source
31. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·David Reed

    Local Government Reorganisation

    In Devon, local government reorganisation is taking up a great deal of bandwidth and detracting from what councils should be doing. My constituents want to know whether the announcement on Thursday will hold beyond the week. The Minister has avoided this question from multiple Members today: does the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham)—the future Prime Minister—agree with the proposed timelines and delivery for local government reorganisation in Devon?

    Hansard source
32. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Damian Hinds

    Local Government Reorganisation

    The Government’s proposed carve-up of Hampshire ignores their preset criteria, has no mandate and splits up East Hampshire. The benefits, if there are any, will come way off in the future, whereas the costs and the disruption happen now. Does the Minister think that the advent of a new Prime Minister is a good moment to stop in its tracks something that would otherwise make his fiscal task harder?

    Hansard source
33. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dame Karen Bradley

    Violence against Women and Girls

    May I associate myself with your comments, Mr Speaker, and those of the Home Secretary about Ann Widdecombe? She was a formidable human being, and someone about whom we are all thinking very much at this time. This week, in the light of that news, the safety of politicians is something that we should all consider. The Home Secretary may be aware of the situation of a district councillor in Staffordshire Moorlands, Councillor Jill Salt, who has been the victim of sexualised artificial intelligence images. I do not agree with Councillor Salt on many matters, but on this I stand with her in total solidarity. Will the Home Secretary join me in condemning the comments of a Reform councillor, Dave Poole, who said that Councillor Salt needed to grow bigger balls in order to do the job?

    Hansard source
34. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dame Karen Bradley

    Local Government Reorganisation

    In four days’ time, we will mark exactly two years since I first explained to Ministers how much the people of Staffordshire Moorlands do not want to be part of a greater Stoke local authority, do not want devolution forced on them, and want their say on who makes decisions about what happens there. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), may I implore the Minister for a referendum? We do not want this imposed on us in north Staffordshire; we want to have our say.

    Hansard source
35. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dame Karen Bradley

    Death of Ann Widdecombe

    Like many on this side of the House, I have very fond memories of Ann. She made the effort to travel to Staffordshire Moorlands—not many people do; we are quite isolated—[Interruption.] Yes, they come to Alton Towers—the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) is quite right. But Ann came to Consall Hall Gardens, as it was then, to do a fundraising dinner for me, and she delivered a tour de force, which I suspect the then Prime Minister, now the noble Lord Cameron, might not have entirely approved of. My association was totally enraptured, however, and thought it was the most wonderful event. It is still fondly remembered in the association, not least because Ann told me I had to take off my heels because it would not be appropriate to stand too tall next to her in the photographs. May I also thank Staffordshire police for contacting me this weekend and making a visit to my home to review my security arrangements? I know that police forces across the country will be doing that and I am grateful to them for taking that time. May I ask the Home Secretary to comment on what might happen in the longer term around the Prevent duty? She will know that the Home Affairs Committee produced a report on new forms of radicalisation and extremism, with some recommendations that, we hope, might help law enforcement and others to find those who have a tendency towards violence. Will the Home Secretary consider that in the longer term?

    Hansard source
36. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dame Karen Bradley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill

    It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon). He was absolutely right about the tone we need to employ. I recognise the comments he made about his constituents. I suspect that his constituents have a very similar view to my constituents—we are not too far apart. I refer him to the Home Affairs Committee report on asylum accommodation, which talked about the point he made about the disproportionate numbers of asylum seekers in lower-cost accommodation areas. We did ask the Home Office to look at that. I also suggest that he avoids X and Facebook in the morning. It will probably make his life a lot better. I rise to speak briefly on the Bill, which I broadly welcome. These are matters on which our constituents expect action to be taken. It may not go as far as some would like in some areas and it may go too far for others, but on Second Reading we look at the principle of a Bill, and I agree that it should have a Second Reading and then be considered in Committee and on Report. There are a couple of points I want to make before I move on to my main comments. On article 8 of the ECHR, the Chişinău declaration was very encouraging. It is a good step forward to see agreement across the Council of Europe area on the way article 8 and other parts of the ECHR are being abused. I suggest that the Minister look at section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which states that the UK courts “must” refer to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Perhaps the wording could be changed to “may” to make it easier for courts to disregard clearly ridiculous decisions that should not have any bearing on the decisions being taken in our courts. I also refer him to the work done in the coalition Government on the European arrest warrant, when we were still a member of it. We changed the rules in the UK so that only somebody who was guilty of a crime that would be a crime in the UK could have an arrest warrant applied to them. Previously, we had all sorts of spurious claims such as not paying tips to Greek waiters and so on. The Minister may want to look at that. On small boats, the Select Committee visited northern France. The hon. Members for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) and for Bassetlaw (Jo White) were all there to see the work being done. It is very impressive to see the work being done jointly with the UK. We heard a lot from UK law enforcement and others who were working closely with their French counterparts. I encourage more of that. However, I cannot stress enough how important ministerial oversight is. I pay tribute to our former colleague James Brokenshire, who as Immigration Minister insisted that he receive an update every single day on the number of people entering the country, the number who were in claims and the number of visas being issued. He kept on having a daily update. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a delight that you are in the Chair, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) was also an Immigration Minister and she employed a similar approach. It would be fair to say that the evidence we have heard on the Select Committee indicates that that level of ministerial oversight has not happened at all times, and perhaps that is why we saw some big spikes.

    Hansard source
37. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dame Karen Bradley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill

    I thank the hon. Member—my friend from the Select Committee—for an enjoyable visit. We learned a lot, but it was a challenging visit, as there was an awful lot to take in. This is a problem that affects countries across the world; it is not an issue that can be solved by one country alone. We have to work together. We also came away agreeing that if everybody who arrived from France was immediately taken back to France, it would kill the trade of the people smugglers. That is something that we should start trying to negotiate with our friends in France. In the short amount of time that I have left, I will focus on part 5. I declare that, as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking and modern slavery, I have some concerns. Apart from anything else, human trafficking and modern slavery is not an immigration crime. Someone’s immigration status may make them more vulnerable, but it is a financial crime—it is the exploitation of one human being by another for financial gain. Although I understand the reasons and we are grateful that there are some good points in the Bill, it is concerning that it keeps being put into the migration bucket, rather than being seen as the financial crime that it is. I am in contact with a number of organisations, and the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Eleanor Lyons, has been in touch with me. There is general agreement that there are some good things in the Bill—the strengthening of civil orders and the support for children are welcome. However, the abuse of the modern slavery protections needs to be looked at, because nobody can self-declare as a victim of modern slavery. A first responder has to say that this person is likely to be a victim of modern slavery, so what is going wrong with the first responders? Why is it that first responders are being dragged into, as the Government say, declaring people to be victims of modern slavery to avoid deportation? That is something that should be looked at without removing protections for victims. One has to have a victim-centred approach to this crime in order to solve it; it cannot be solved only by pursuing the bad guys. The victims have to be at the centre, because it is an extraordinary crime in which the commodity that money is being made from is the human being. It is not a drug, a firearm or any other product; it is a human being. That human being needs to be prepared and able to give evidence, to speak out and to recognise the crime that has been committed against them. Victim support is essential to solve this crime. If one wants to see the issue in a hard-nosed way, the only way we are going to kill the trade is by looking after the victims so that we can stop the bad guys. That is the basic point. I do not have time to go through the specifics, but I urge the Minister to engage with the many authorities—in particular, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner—to see where the measures that the Government have introduced may have unintended consequences that make it harder to tackle this crime. With that, I will sit down and let other Members speak, as there are many others who wish to do so.

    Hansard source
38. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Local Government Reorganisation

    In recent weeks in West Worcestershire, I have met local police and the police and crime commissioner; the police and crime commissioner is being abolished, and the police are being reorganised. I have met the local health commissioners; they are being reorganised, and Healthwatch is being abolished. I have met district councillors; they are being abolished, and their ability to make determinations on planning applications has been taken away. Can the Minister explain how any of this throwing everything up in the air is actually going to help my constituents, particularly the most vulnerable?

    Hansard source
39. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Business of the House

    Will the Leader of the House confirm that, given that the other place is sitting next week, there is nothing to stop him tabling a business statement to enable this House to sit next week? Given the enormity of the events happening in the Government next week, does he not think that would be a good idea?

    Hansard source
40. 13 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Chris Philp

    Topical Questions

    Mr Speaker, I join you in paying tribute to Ann Widdecombe. She was a formidable campaigner who served with huge integrity. She will be missed. I know that the whole House supports the police in delivering justice for Ann. Reports today suggest that the Home Secretary and the new Prime Minister plan to capitulate to some of their open-border MPs on the Government’s own indefinite leave to remain plans. Previously, the Home Secretary was clear that the changes will apply to those in the country already. Will she now repeat that pledge, or is the new Prime Minister doing his first U-turn before he has even entered Downing Street?

    Hansard source