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
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) made a point about the Dublin agreement and its impact on increased arrivals. I think that he was right to make that point, but wrong to associate it with the EU, as countries such as Norway and Iceland are signatories. Has any consideration been given to joining multinational returns agreements to speed up decision making in the UK?
I welcome the 48 new neighbourhood officers and policy community support officers who have joined Cleveland police in the last year, but I want to see an overhaul of the national police funding formula to support the Cleveland area. The Policing Minister has committed to do that, but can she clarify the timeline for when we will see the formula changed and more officers back on our streets again?
Will the Minister give way?
Can the Minister confirm that Ministers will be considering representations from councillors and MPs on the interim warding arrangements? There is some concern in Basingstoke and across North Hampshire that urban areas could be disadvantaged by having a smaller number of councillors, as has been proposed.
I join the Home Secretary in paying my respects and condolences to the family of Ann Widdecombe. We might not have agreed politically, but I always greatly admired and respected her outspokenness, her fearlessness and her ability not to take herself too seriously. She was one of a kind, of the like that, frankly, we do not make any more. I think we can all agree on that. I hope that, at moments like this, we can come together across the House to talk about these issues with one voice. May I also place on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for your leadership, in all that you have done over many years, in making sure we are all kept safe and secure? Does the Home Secretary agree, though, that this is about not just our security and our safety but reducing the level of threat? Debate in this country is now highly politicised, highly polarised and highly personalised, which is bringing more and more threats on to all of us. Does she agree that we must do more to tackle, with urgency, the online algorithms and business models that heighten polarisation and hate towards those in public life?
1. What progress her Department has made on improving the police response to domestic abuse.
Kiena Dawes was pushed into taking her own life by her abusive partner. Before she died, she said that he had killed her. With domestic abuse-related suicides on the rise and women in abusive relationships being more likely to take their own life than to be killed by their abuser, will the Minister commit to the Home Office working with victims and campaigners to ensure that the law fully reflects the role that domestic abuse plays in the deaths of people like Kiena?
A couple of years ago, I went to Spain at the end of a severe heatwave, and what I saw devastated me. There were fields and fields of blackened crops. Now farmers in my constituency are increasingly experiencing drought, flooding, extreme heat, and a change in the seasons due to climate change. Does the Minister agree with me that acting on climate change is vital for securing Britain’s food supply, and farming’s future as an essential industry for our country?
Earlier this month, in my constituency of Beckenham and Penge, the River Pool was lined with thousands of dead fish, including critically endangered European eels, following a pollution incident. Thankfully, the water quality has now returned to normal, and the Environment Agency has agreed to restock the river with fish species. Will the Minister join me in asking the Environment Agency and Thames Water to urgently conclude their investigation into what caused the incident and share the findings? Will she support my efforts to ensure that whoever is responsible is held accountable and faces the full force of the law?
Across my constituency, a lack of action on road safety means that parents are afraid to let their children play out, older people avoid using certain junctions, and some streets are plagued by unbearable noise. Just this week, it is likely that two people will have been seriously injured on Bromley’s roads. While there are particular issues at hotspots such as Kent House Road, Kent House Lane, Blandford Road and Hawes Lane, residents across all Beckenham and Penge are let down by the wait-for-harm approach employed by Bromley council, under which it will take action only when five people have been killed or seriously injured. The petitioners “therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage the London Borough of Bromley to adopt a proactive, preventative approach to road safety, in line with the “Vision Zero” principles adopted by comparable London boroughs, and to make full use of the record £7.3 billion of Government funding made available to local authorities”— including Bromley council— “for road repair, renewal, and safety improvements.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Beckenham and Penge, Declares that road safety is a matter of serious and growing concern for residents of Beckenham and Penge with residents reporting that unsafe roads discourage children from playing outside, deter older people from using certain junctions, and blight streets with excessive traffic noise; and further declares that the London Borough of Bromley currently operates a reactive “wait-for-harm” approach, under which measures to improve road safety are only considered after multiple deaths or serious injuries have occurred, rather than in response to near-misses or the lived experience of residents. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage the London Borough of Bromley to adopt a proactive, preventative approach to road safety, in line with the “Vision Zero” principles adopted by comparable London boroughs, and to make full use of the record £7.3 billion of Government funding made available to local authorities for road repair, renewal, and safety improvements. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003222]
Asylum and immigration are key concerns for my constituents, and their judgment on the asylum system that this Government inherited is clear and correct: the system was broken, lacked control and cost taxpayers too much. By that, they do not just mean illegal and dangerous crossings of the channel; they mean that it was broken post-arrival, in the extended periods of time in which people have been accommodated in dispersal accommodation while awaiting decision or appeal outcomes. They are right to expect that the amount of public money spent on that system will reduce—an amount that has increased as a result of the failings of the system that the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) oversaw. It is on that basis that I welcome this legislation, along with the other steps that the Government are taking to restore control to the system while maintaining a proper offer of safe routes for those fleeing war and persecution. In the two years since the election, rather than chuntering on like those on the Opposition Benches, the Government have begun to get a grip. Small boat crossings are down by 12% compared with the equivalent period in 2024; initial decisions are at the highest level on record; and removals of people without a legal right to remain in this country are increasing. That is not happening by accident, and it is certainly not happening because of gimmicks and political game-playing. It is happening as a result of hard, unglamourous work: disrupting the gangs, deepening co-operation with our European partners, and actually making decisions on applications. Like others have said, I travelled to northern France last year with Home Affairs Committee colleagues and saw the significant UK-backed efforts to stop the boats. However, I also heard from the French a concern that we cannot dismiss—that there remain pull factors on this side of the channel, including a system that incentivises late appeals. Because of the lengthy appeals backlog, it is right that this Government take steps to reform the appeals system. I think the shadow Home Secretary said that no previous attempts to reform the system had worked. The Blair Government, faced with a broken appeals system, passed immigration Acts in 2002 and 2004. Against opposition from across the House, they ensured that, by slowly getting through appeals and making sure that decision-making was proper and streamlined, the backlog fell repeatedly. That is not glamourous work. It is not noisy work that seeks to score political points, but it is the real work of governing that my constituents expect. Our country has a proud tradition of offering refuge to those fleeing war and persecution, and Sunderland has lived that tradition, including the many families who offered their city of sanctuary to Ukrainian refugees. As others have said, in order to maintain that proud tradition, we need a system that commands public confidence, and it is right to reform it in the way that the Government are proposing.
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. In my constituency, we have the National Glass Centre building—a huge building, built 30 years ago, that unfortunately does not seem viable for its current use any longer. Rather than demolishing that building, as some are seeking to do, the council has been asked to consider article 4, which would remove implied permission to demolish without a full planning inquiry. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is the sort of work councils should be doing to make sure that proper scrutiny takes place, and that all possible alternative uses of a building such as the National Glass Centre have been exhausted before demolition is considered?
I thank the Minister for the point she is making about the role of local government. I think she heard what I said to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) about the National Glass Centre in my constituency. Would she encourage planning authorities, such as Sunderland city council, to fully consider alternative uses for very large buildings as they examine whether planning permission for demolition should be given?
8. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of the authorisation of 1,250,687 animals to be used in 90 projects over the next five years through licences granted between January to March 2026 under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
The statistics published just last week show that 2.45 million scientific procedures involving animals were carried out in Great Britain in 2025. That represents a decrease of just 4% compared with 2024, but a 9% increase in experiments on dogs, and a 13% increase on those using monkeys. Does the Minister agree that greater urgency is needed to accelerate the phase-out of animal testing, and will she consider the merits of a clear, long-term plan, as set out in Herbie’s law?
The latest heatwaves have been really unsettling; kids have been unable to learn in schools, and care homes have been unable to keep residents cool. One of the GP practices in my constituency had to shut its waiting area because the temperatures were dangerously high. We have heard the Minister talk about adaption and resilience measures. We are in this climate emergency, so can she say more about how those measures will help my constituents in Aylesbury?
A number of civil rights organisations are opposed to the changes to the appeals process, and the Bar Council has spoken out strongly against them. It has said that “it is in the interests of justice that the persons who decide immigration appeals are legal qualified”. Will the Minister listen to those criticisms, and the strength of feeling in this House, and remove these proposals so that we can ensure high-quality and legally sound dispute resolution for asylum appeals?
I thank the Minister for including land use and food systems within this outline. It is so important that that is included as part of the triple challenge of climate, nature and food. We know that we can meet our climate and nature goals only if we catalyse and incentivise private sector investment. I point to the example of Bristol, where through our strategic energy partnership city leap we have mobilised finance for city decarbonisation, and where the West of England combined authority has just launched a £5 million nature fund to help kick-start nature markets. What more are we doing at a national level to support nature and carbon markets and to incentivise that private sector investment?
I thank the Leader of the House for taking this action. I appreciate that these are not ideal circumstances, but much about the passage of the Bill has been less than ideal. Does he share my hope that tomorrow’s debate will be about the substance of the Bill and the important amendments, rather than the process?
I join the Home Secretary and other Members in sending condolences to the family of Ann Widdecombe. May she rest in peace. I have concerns not just about Members of this place, but about our party members, councillors and council candidates. Every week, volunteers go knocking on doors in my constituency; most of the responses we get are absolutely fine, but there is an increasing trend towards violence and aggression on the doorstep. These people are giving up their time to engage in the political process, and they should not be met with violence and intimidation. We need to do far more to tackle the causes of this division and aggression. I absolutely agree with what Members have said about social media companies and the algorithms that peddle hate, but we also need to look at what we can do. I have tabled some amendments to the Representation of the People Bill to deal with misleading information online and to provide for a statutory code of conduct to prevent abuse and intimidation in campaigns. I am concerned that intimidation on the doorstep is putting off the next generation of Members of this place. We need a wholesale review and real action to protect everyone who does their bit in democratic life.
Order. I am aiming to finish this statement at 6.40 pm, so please can we have short and snappy questions and answers.
The reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected.
Order. I am sure the Home Secretary has seen the number of people in the Chamber, and will be bringing her remarks to a conclusion shortly.
With the exception of the Front Benchers, we will be starting with an immediate seven-minute time limit. I call the shadow Home Secretary.
There is now a seven-minute time limit.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Order. I am imposing an immediate three-minute time limit.
11. When she plans to announce the number of seasonal worker visas available for 2027.
I am currently taking part in the excellent National Farmers’ Union food and farming fellowship. On a recent visit to a vegetable farm, I was told that the numbers of seasonal worker visas are announced far too late in the farming cycle for farmers to be able to plan in advance. If we are to have domestic agriculture, we are going to need some seasonal workers. Will the Government look at working with the industry so that we can plan in advance and actually run our farms and agriculture sector properly?
I represent a constituency at the frontline of the climate and nature emergency. Flood risks are part of our daily life. Moors for the Future has demonstrated that restoring peatland can slow waterflow on hills; water passing over restored peat goes 670 times slower than it does over degraded peat. Moors for the Future is working on projects with the Highways Agency to stop roads flooding. That is a win-win initiative that helps nature and infrastructure. Will the Government continue to support healthy peatland across the country?
I thank the Minister for her answer to my written question confirming that the Home Office does not collect data on post-traumatic stress disorder in police officers. Does she agree that either the Home Office or police forces need to have that data, so that we can understand the scale of the problem and support our officers accordingly?
T8. The Police Federation is the only staff association that police officers can join to represent them, and yet the chief executive has paid himself £1.4 million over two years from members’ subscriptions. Does the Minister agree that frontline police officers have lost confidence in the national leadership of the Police Federation and should be allowed to set up an alternative?
2. What progress her Department has made on improving the police response to domestic abuse.
One in five people experience domestic violence in their lifetime—around one in four women, and one in six or seven men—but it is thought that only 20% of it is reported. It is also thought that there is significant under-reporting of the domestic violence experienced by men, due to social stigma. What steps is the Department taking to understand the scale of the problem and to drive action?
The Minister was right when she said that climate change drives nature loss, and nature loss drives climate change. We are seeing the effects of that on people’s health, the economy and global security, so I welcome the work that the Government are doing to address that. There has been a national security assessment on global biodiversity loss. May I encourage the Minister to put as many as possible of its findings into the public domain, so that people understand the threats to our security? May I also invite her to give us some information about the relationship between the report’s findings and the new climate security taskforce?
To add to the list of my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), people who support a single unitary for Warwickshire include me as the MP for Rugby and the political parties at Rugby borough council and at Warwickshire county council. As the Minister considers her statement on Wednesday, could she give a little bit more thought to two important stakeholder groups in the new local government reorganisation world? One group is MPs—what role are we going to have when so much more power and responsibility is devolved? The other group is towns; we need to make sure that they have as much representation as possible. I know she has considered those things, and I would love to hear a little more about it.
I send my deepest sympathies and condolences to the friends and family of Ann Widdecombe, and I extend that to her former colleagues from the Conservative party and Reform UK, for whom I know this must be a very difficult and sad time. Mr Speaker, you chose the security of MPs, candidates and elections to be the subject of the Speaker’s Conference this Parliament. We have done good work in the Speaker’s Conference, but there is much more to be done, as I am sure we can all agree. Will the Home Secretary confirm that she will work closely with you, Mr Speaker, the parliamentary security department and all others who care about protecting our democracy from the threats that sadly are growing?
I wish to briefly return to the issue of trafficking. I welcomed Theresa May’s proposals and legislation on trafficking, which represented a huge breakthrough. I did so because in my constituency, we had hundreds of unaccompanied children coming into Heathrow, being taken into care and then disappearing. They would often end up in cannabis farms. We also had a large number of young women being brought in for prostitution in local hotels, and often they would have a drug dependency. Like the Anti-Slavery Commissioner, who has criticised the Government for the language that they have used and for their contextualisation of this issue, I am appalled at the way in which trafficking has been included in this Bill, but also at the narrative that has been developed by those on the Labour Front Bench. Qualifying for asylum as someone who has been trafficked is not a soft touch. As the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) said, no one individual can claim asylum in that way, because there has to be a first responder—in my constituency, it is usually a police officer. Then there is an assessment process, which is tough. The first stage is demonstrating grounds. The second stage is demonstrating conclusive grounds, and it is a tough assessment. It is a high threshold to meet. I am concerned that we have been dragged into this debate in a way that undermines the whole process that we have developed in recent years and have been so proud of. The debate does not seem to relate to the reality of trafficking. We are introducing a time limit, and are saying no to people who did not claim that they were trafficked at the first instance, or within a limited period of time. The people we are dealing with are traumatised. Some of them, such as the young women I mentioned, have been made drug dependent and are often ashamed to admit to what they have been doing. The Bill does not reflect the reality of what is happening on the ground. As a result, some people who have been trafficked will be made vulnerable again. I am really disappointed. The Home Secretary said that this Bill was all about the calculus of those people who were thinking about coming here on the boats. I think it is electoral calculus, and if it is, it is mistaken calculus, because I think it will lose the Labour party votes. It will also lose us the respect we gained for our cross-party approach to tackling trafficking. I am extremely disappointed, and I think this is a step backward. I cannot support the Bill tonight, and I will vote against it at every opportunity.
T7. I warmly welcome the Government’s swift introduction of the National Security (State Threats) Act 2026, which received Royal Assent last week. The activities of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have caused huge concern across the country and in particular to my Iranian and Jewish communities. Can the Home Secretary update the House on when these new powers will begin to be used to protect our country from hostile, state-linked organisations and threats?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that these agreements have come about through partnership working with our European partners, and that this has been a central part of the negotiations? There is a unity of purpose among other European countries that want to tighten their borders and prevent people abusing the system.