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

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

1. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Cat Smith

   Local Government Reorganisation

   I thank the Minister for his statement, but there remains some confusion in Lancashire, so I hope he is able to clarify a few things. Moving away from the different tranches suggests that there is now no timetable for what might happen in Lancashire. Councillors are asking me for clarity on a timetable for Lancashire. I also seek reassurance that the decision means that Lancaster will not lose its city status in any part of the reorganisation, and that the building blocks with which we are making the reorganisation do not have to be strictly borough councils. For example, Wyre borough council, which was already an amalgamation of other councils, might want to look in different directions.

   Hansard source
2. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Cat Smith

   Sodium Valproate

   It is not the first time that I have had an Adjournment debate on sodium valproate in my 11-and-a-bit years as a Member of Parliament. It continues to be an issue that affects so many, and for which justice still feels so far away. Given the history of this House debating the topic, I do not intend to spend much time going over the history of the drug, which has been used to treat epilepsy and bipolar disorder since the early 1970s. For the benefit of anyone who is tuning in for the first time, I will go over the brief facts of what happened. The drug is teratogenic and was known to be teratogenic from the time it was first licensed. Despite that, doctors were initially advised that the risk did not justify “discouraging a woman who needs anticonvulsant treatment from having a child or changing a satisfactory drug regimen when the epilepsy is well controlled.” The result has been that we have been playing catch-up ever since, with the Valproate Pregnancy Prevention Programme only being launched in 2018, following tireless campaigning from women affected, such as my constituent Janet Williams—who is in the Public Gallery—and her friend and colleague Emma Murphy. It is difficult to calculate the number of children exposed to valproate in utero since its 1973 licensing. The Patient Safety Commissioner has made an estimate of around 14,000 for the period from 1972 to 2017 in England. Diagnosis often gets picked up when clinicians, or in some cases parents, recognise facial dysmorphic features. Children born with foetal valproate spectrum disorder can have a wide range of physical and mental health symptoms, including but not limited to weak muscles, visual problems, hearing difficulties, difficulties with balance, social anxiety, low energy, heightened sensitivity to noise and difficulties in regulating emotions. One of the biggest health conditions facing people with foetal valproate spectrum disorder is autism. A significant number also have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, dyspraxia, sensory processing disorder and epilepsy. It can affect children in very different ways. In some of the most severe cases—I know that the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) has a constituent who is very severely affected—the individual can end up bedbound and very severely disabled. For some children, autism and sensory processing may be more of an issue.

   Hansard source
3. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Cat Smith

   Sodium Valproate

   I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the case of his constituent Karen and her daughter, Bridget. I agree entirely that the time is now. He raises an important point that because this scandal has been going on for so long—the drug was first licensed in the 1970s—the babies who were harmed are no longer babies or even children, but adults with disabilities, whose parents are getting older every year. When I speak to those parents, one of their biggest anxieties is about who will look after their children when they no longer can. That is why we need compensation to be paid out sooner rather than later, because it has frankly already been too long. I turn to the case for compensation. The case for redress from the Government for the families affected by this maladministration has been conclusively made. This is not the first debate we have had in this Chamber on this matter, and there have been multiple reviews on it. In 2020, the Cumberlege review, established by the previous Prime Minister, Theresa May, found that “the state and manufacturers have an ethical responsibility to provide ex gratia payments to those who have experienced avoidable damage”. These payments should be made to cover costs such as “travel to medical appointments, respite breaks or emergency payments where a parent has to stop working to cover care.” I pay tribute to the former Prime Minister for her work on this issue, because she really is a doughty campaigner on this.

   Hansard source
4. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Cat Smith

   Sodium Valproate

   I totally agree with my hon. Friend, but I would go further still. For parents of children with additional needs, the last thing they need is to be fighting a national campaign for justice. They already have enough on their plate trying to cope with their child and ensuring they are accessing the support they need without having to run a national campaign, but that has been the reality for many of the parents—primarily mothers—of children who have been harmed by valproate. That is exactly what they have had to go on and do. I turn back to the history of the reviews into this scandal. The Conservative Government initially rejected the recommendation that I have just set out; however, in 2022, they had a change of heart when the then Health Minister, Maria Caulfield, tasked the patient safety commissioner with providing options for financial redress. That felt like a real step forward for the campaign at that point. The commissioner produced the Hughes report in February 2024. It reiterated what we already know. It says: “The Government has a responsibility to create an ex-gratia redress scheme providing financial and non-financial redress for those harmed by valproate”. The Hughes report recommended that the Government create a two-stage—

   Hansard source
5. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Cat Smith

   Sodium Valproate

   The Hughes report recommended that the Government create a two-stage financial redress scheme, comprising an interim scheme and a main scheme, with the interim payments commencing in 2025. Those who are paying attention will realise that it is now somewhat later than that. The commissioner further recommended that the payments be made by an independent body that commands the confidence of patients. That point is particularly important. The patients who have been harmed have lost so much confidence, so it is really important to have an independent body administering the scheme, to give them confidence in it being done properly. Both the Cumberledge review and the Hughes report stressed the need for speed when responding to this issue. That is to a large extent, as the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) set out, due to the time and nature of the scandal. We now have a cohort of adults with foetal valproate spectrum disorder whose parents are finding it increasingly difficult to support their needs, due to their own health and care requirements. Sadly, over two years on from the Hughes report, the Government have yet to formally respond to it, despite a clear recommendation that interim payments were to have commenced last year. The previous Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), gave a television interview with ITV Granada’s Líse McNally in February this year in which he indicated that he wanted to commence compensation payments before the end of this Parliament. It is therefore troubling that, as set out in answers to parliamentary questions from me and colleagues, the Government’s line today remains that “a decision to provide compensation has not yet been made.” I want to touch on the responses that colleagues and I have been getting to our written parliamentary questions, because they are increasingly frustrating. It almost feels as though, when Ministers see a written parliamentary question come in with the word “valproate” in it, a stock answer gets lifted off the shelf and given to Members. Some victims have told me recently that they feel quite gaslit by some of the answers to written parliamentary questions; they keep referring back to the same answer. We really need to make progress on this issue. Does the Minister understand the considerable distress that such uncertainty and inconsistency causes, and will she today make it unequivocally clear that the Government accept the case for financial redress for the victims of sodium valproate, and put in place a clear timetable for delivering financial redress? My right hon. Friend is a good Minister and will want to do the right thing, but if she needs any more persuading, she can tune into BBC Two at 9 pm on 9 November and watch “Mums v Big Pharma”, which was produced by the same people who made the programme about the Post Office scandal. It shows the human cost of the scandal for so many families, some of whom are in the Gallery tonight. The programme is the perspective of two Lancashire mams who have absolutely had enough and are fighting for justice. If I know one thing about Lancashire women, it is that when we have got our teeth into something, we tend to stick at it, and we will persevere. That especially goes for Janet Williams, who has been campaigning for justice since 1996. It really is time that justice was brought forward for these victims. In addition to the conversations I have had with victims of the scandal, I have heard concerns raised by those living in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, who feel that the Government have not engaged as well with victims in the devolved nations. Part of that will be because health is devolved to those nations, but although health is a devolved matter, the regulation of human medicines and medicinal products remains reserved. Those victims, too, deserve to be taken seriously and brought with English victims on that journey towards redress, both financial and non-financial. The Government have previously put in place UK-wide schemes for redress, such as for infected blood, and I know that the Minister is well aware of that. Will the Government therefore commit to working closely with victims from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and with the devolved Administrations, on this matter?

   Hansard source
6. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Cat Smith

   Sodium Valproate

   I commend my hon. Friend for the work that she does, along with others, on the Public Accounts Committee. That report is right to stress both independence as a means of giving confidence to victims, and schemes being designed with victims. These families have already had so much done to them that it is important, when it comes to redress, that they are part of designing the solution. Part of redress, and of getting justice, is no longer having things done to them, and instead being part of designing the solution.

   Hansard source
7. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Cat Smith

   Sodium Valproate

   I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that she has done over a number of years on this issue. She has been a doughty campaigner on sodium valproate, and she has the confidence of many of the victims and is very well thought of. I entirely agree with what she says about the Hughes report. It is a very good report that should have been acted on already. It is frustrating that we have been waiting as long as we have. There were many things in the report on redress, including on non-financial redress. As part of that, we have the pilot clinics in Manchester and Newcastle, which support children and adults who have been affected by valproate. They are pilots, however, unlike some of the other clinics. In the case of mesh, the clinics are permanent, and they are able to provide psychological support as well. The clinics for the victims of valproate are still in trial, and we do not have any outside the north of England. As a north of England MP, I am very glad that the clinics are local to me, but victims of valproate live right across the United Kingdom, and accessing support should not become a postcode lottery. Will the Government update the House on whether the clinics will be made permanent and perhaps expanded to cover a wider geography? Finally, will the Minister meet me and victims, especially those from the campaign organisation INFACT, to discuss in detail the Government’s long-term intentions in this area? Many of the victims feel that they have been in the dark about what is happening for an awfully long time. We have been in government since 2024, and the time has come; we can no longer drag our feet. Justice needs to be done, and redress needs to be put in place. The families affected are owed no less than that. I am so glad that you are in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you, too, have been a doughty supporter of these victims, and I know that you are fondly thought of, especially by those in the Public Gallery, for your support on this. I am grateful for the interventions from Members on both sides of the House. This truly is an issue that cuts across party politics. Regardless of what colour rosette we wear, we cannot fail to see the injustice that has been done to these families. I would like it to be a Labour Government who deliver redress to these victims. This scandal has been going on since the 1970s. The time for just talking about this has passed—we need to start acting. The families who have been affected are owed nothing less. I hope that in the Minister’s reply, she will give them some hope, because I am told that hope is back. Let us make sure that means something, and let us have some hope from the Dispatch Box tonight.

   Hansard source
8. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Cat Smith

   Sodium Valproate

   I seek some clarity. The Minister says that the decision has not yet been made, yet a previous Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), told ITV that he was expecting financial redress by the end of this Parliament. Can the Minister just clarify that, because it seems inconsistent?

   Hansard source
9. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Callum Anderson

   Budget Resolutions

   I am very happy to contribute to this debate, and it is a pleasure in particular to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) and for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). I welcome this Budget for three reasons. First, it maintains the fiscal discipline that is a strategic imperative, and I think the fact that sterling, the FTSE indexes, and 10 and 30-year gilt yields have remained stable over the last 24 hours is a signifier of that. Given the risks that the UK economy faces—be it barriers to trade, the imposition of tariffs, volatile and rising energy costs, or higher Government borrowing costs everywhere—it is really important that this Budget remains within the fiscal rules. Secondly, it provides families, households and businesses in the towns, villages and cities that make up the Buckingham and Bletchley constituency with genuine breathing space as they manage ongoing cost of living pressures. Thirty-four thousand households in council tax bands A to D will receive a £100 household energy payment and even more will feel the extension of the electricity VAT cut. Businesses on Queensway in Bletchley and on the high streets of Buckingham and Winslow will gain from the higher small business rate relief threshold rise. Agricultural businesses in north Buckinghamshire will benefit from the extended red diesel duty cut. However, while fiscal responsibility is an absolute imperative, it should never be an end of itself. The third reason I welcome the Budget is that it does what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor sought to do, which is to back those “bloody-minded entrepreneurs”. It is not just me saying that; business groups such as Startup Coalition and UK Private Capital are, too. Fiscal responsibility enables Governments to help the people building Britain’s next generation of national champions and globally consequential companies. Be those in artificial intelligence, defence, clean energy, life sciences or advanced manufacturing, they are driving economic growth, job and wealth creation, and are ultimately underpinning the sovereign capabilities of the UK. Growth in every postcode is absolutely the right objective, and that means we need entrepreneurs in every postcode. Today is undoubtedly a better day and a better Britain in which to build a company than yesterday was. When it comes to helping people start a business, raising the trading allowance from £1,000 to £3,000 is a strong signal that people—young people in particular—can realise their dreams here in the United Kingdom. We have known for a long time that scaling businesses is where Britain could do much more and needs to go further quickly. Expanding the capacity of the British Business Bank and the National Wealth Fund, including by deploying £5 billion over the next four years in defence, recognises the role that public capital has to play in acting as a cornerstone investor alongside our deep pools of private capital—all £3 trillion of that. With all the blood, sweat and tears that go into building a business, we need to give founders a genuine, compelling reason beyond patriotism alone to remain anchored here and to stay here. That is why the founders’ relief is so welcome. I know that many business groups have been arguing and advocating for it across Government and Westminster for some time. We are giving entrepreneurs greater confidence that they can build and scale here and that they will be rewarded. Just as importantly, the relief will strengthen their ability to reinvest their wealth and reuse their expertise and experience in more ventures into the future. Growth and wealth creation, and fiscal responsibility, are intrinsically linked. Growth is the ultimate stabiliser of the public finances through stronger receipts that will help to reduce the budget deficit and reduce our borrowing costs in the long run. That will give us flexibility to let people keep more of what they earn and invest in the things that are particularly important to us, be they our national security, our schools or our police. The Budget is a very welcome step in the right direction. There is much more to do, and I look forward to the 10-year plan and the spending review in the long run. I welcome this Budget.

   Hansard source
10. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    I appreciate colleagues’ contributions on the new clauses and the amendment. New clause 22 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on asylum decision making within three months, and amendment 62 would prevent part 1 of the Bill from being commenced until that report is laid. These provisions seek to establish new statutory duties to publish data on the asylum system. From the outset, I want to make it clear that the Government fully recognise the importance of transparency and accountability in relation to the asylum system. The Home Office already publishes a significant amount of data, in line with the statement of compliance with the code of practice for statistics. As part of the Department’s commitment to transparency, that includes quarterly transparency data on asylum case length and the number of decision makers. The Ministry of Justice already publishes quarterly tribunal statistics for the first-tier tribunal immigration and asylum chamber, and those publications include information on receipts, disposals and outcomes. Those statistics are publicly available and routinely updated on gov.uk. The full set of official statistics published by those organisations is kept under review, in line with the code of practice for statistics. Consequently, any shortcomings between the currently published data and the additions suggested by the hon. Member for Wimbledon can be considered outside the legislative process. It is important that Members have the chance to register where they feel there are potential gaps in the process. In response to the National Audit Office’s recommendations, we have begun a programme of work to strengthen the coherence of asylum data across the system, including progress towards a more unified, single system of truth. We have been taking our time to ensure that we get that right in relation to some of the information that Members have mentioned. It includes a data discovery exercise and a wider end-to-end design system review, alongside strengthened cross-system governance, which will together improve data quality, consistency and transparency over time. The Home Office works closely with the UK office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to help improve the UK’s asylum system. Each year, the UNHCR and the Home Office agree and publish an annual work plan that sets out the areas of focus, objectives and activities of the quality protection partnership. The new clauses and the amendment simply seek to gather information similar to what already exists, and they are therefore unnecessary. In parallel with the legislative process, the Government are working on the operational delivery and changes required to establish the IIAA, and amendment 62 could delay that new body from starting its important work. I want to respond to a couple of the points that Members have made. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion suggested that a trade-off was happening between accuracy and speed in making asylum decisions. I refute that. The Department is committed to progressing asylum cases in an efficient and cost-effective way that will not compromise the integrity of the UK immigration system. According to the latest published data, 93% of decisions are considered correct against the agreed quality-marking criteria. The volume of decisions checked has more than doubled, and refusals exceeded grants in the year up to June 2026, with 73,478 people refused protection or other leave. That illustrates the checks and balances in place across our system to ensure that it operates effectively and fairly, with published data available to underpin our approach. The Home Office has committed to a 2% baseline minimum sampling rate for decision quality, and a 2% baseline minimum sampling rate for interview quality in asylum casework. We aim to identify trends and issues impacting quality assurance and customer service, thereby reducing costs, safeguarding our businesses and asylum claimants, and ensuring that we get decisions right the first time. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion referred to the quality of asylum decisions and asked whether that is impacting on appeals being overturned. Appeals are heard before an independent immigration judge, who may make a different assessment of the facts and has the advantage of listening to testimony, including that of witnesses, as part of the tribunal proceedings. The Home Office will robustly defend decisions where it is right to do so, and appeals are allowed for various reasons—for example, new evidence may be provided that was not available to the initial decision maker. The judiciary are independent and may come to a different conclusion based on their interpretation of the facts. As I have said, we are working at pace on operational delivery and changes to our collection and publication of statistics. For those reasons, I cannot accept the new clause.

    Hansard source
11. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    I referred earlier in the debate to the statistic that the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire requests, but, off the top of my head, I believe it was a third of modern slavery referrals. Actually, I do not want to mislead the Committee, so I will come back to him on that. I flagged that statistic earlier, so should be on the record, but I want to ensure that I get it right. I will perhaps come back to it during the course of this debate, as we have more to discuss on modern slavery. Since taking office in 2024, the Government have demonstrated their commitment to tackling modern slavery in all forms and to supporting victims. We have delivered on our commitment to clear the unacceptable national referral mechanism backlog in just two years. There are now tens of thousands fewer cases waiting for conclusive grounds decisions—the final decision on whether someone is recognised as a victim of modern slavery based on all available evidence—compared with the peak in 2023. Faster decisions mean fewer victims and less time waiting for recognition of their victim status, helping them with their recovery. We have improved identification of potential victims of modern slavery by strengthening the national referral mechanism referral form based on stakeholder feedback, the development of a first responder toolkit to support high-quality referrals and a distribution of approximately 150,000 awareness-raising materials across eight immigration removal centres, including posters, leaflets and a self-identification tool. Before I go into the specifics of the new clause, it is important to express how important it is that both the modern slavery system and the immigration system are interconnected. That is the reality: we have to ensure that they operate effectively together. It is not possible to separate them—nor would it be right to do so. Although the measures are included in this Bill, their primary purpose is to strengthen the modern slavery system and ensure better support for those who need it the most—that also has an impact across asylum and immigration. We want to ensure that victims of modern slavery are identified and supported based on their experiences of exploitation, and not just seen through the lens of immigration. That is why the Bill strengthens rather than weakens protections for victims by ensuring that the system works effectively to identify and support individuals and ensure that those who should not benefit are not able to do so. The Bill will rightly improve alignment with wider immigration support systems while maintaining protections for victims, including children. Changes made to support provisions ensure a coherent approach across Government—for example by preventing the modern slavery system from duplicating or undermining sanctions already applied through wider state services. New clause 15 seeks to create a firewall between authorities involved in the identification of potential victims of slavery or human trafficking, and immigration authorities or other relevant public authorities. That would prevent information shared following a notification about a suspected victim from being used to determine whether that individual has committed an immigration offence or may be liable to deportation. A firewall for potential victims of modern slavery or human trafficking would not be operable, as it would prevent immigration enforcement, in its role as a first responder organisation, from effectively identifying and safeguarding potential victims. Furthermore, appropriate information sharing is necessary to ensure that agencies have access to relevant health, welfare and safeguarding information, enabling them to understand an individual's vulnerabilities and fulfil their duty of care. Mechanisms already exist to support those with insecure immigration status who may be victims of modern slavery. Through the 30-day recovery period, the national referral mechanism protects individuals from removal and while a conclusive grounds decision is being made. Although I understand the intention of the amendment, it is unnecessary and risks undermining the joined-up approach that we are working hard to achieve. A firewall for potential victims of modern slavery would not be operable, as it would conflict with immigration enforcement’s responsibilities as a first responder agency that is required to identify such victims. Where no permission to remain is held, it would need to be aware of that risk to inform its duty of care. The impact on the immigration enforcement competent authority would be even more significant. That authority rightly has responsibility for processing referrals for migrants identified as potential victims, and would need to be aware of their immigration status to do so. For those reasons, I must respectfully ask the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.

    Hansard source
12. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    I am afraid I will have to reject the urging of hon. Members to disclose that information, but I assure them, as I said, that they do not have long to wait. New clause 16 seeks to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to lay a statement before Parliament that sets out “a final deadline and operational roadmap for the full implementation” of the commitments made in last year’s “Restoring control over the immigration system” White Paper. I thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for tabling this new clause. The Government are committed to delivering the reforms set out in the White Paper, which focused on restoring control to this country’s migration system. The Conservative Government allowed net migration of 2.5 million in just four years; under this Government, net migration has been cut to 171,000. We are making substantial progress. As we have discussed many times in this Committee, we are seeing a substantial decline—over 40%—in the numbers arriving by small boats. We are making progress towards our objectives in the White Paper. I have a spreadsheet in front of me of all of the substantial changes, many of which we have introduced and delivered through regulations, and I am happy to write to Committee members to set out our progress against the statement. We have achieved a huge amount that has perhaps passed their notice because it has been done through regulations and other things that they may not have been aware of. I am happy to set out our progress against the White Paper to them, because I can see from the information in front of me that we have delivered a huge amount of our promises and commitments. We have made substantial progress across work, study and sponsorship routes. We have introduced skilled worker thresholds, the temporary shortage list and higher English language requirements for certain routes. We are reforming study routes and have strengthened the requirements that all sponsoring institutions must meet to recruit international students. I recognise that hon. Members may be particularly interested in our reforms to settlement. These are significant reforms. We received more than 200,000 responses to the consultation, including responses submitted on behalf of organisations. which was apparently the highest level of consultation responses since the consultation on gay marriage. This will be a substantial and radical reform, so it is right that we take the time to get it right. Alongside the consultation, Ministers undertook targeted engagement with key stakeholders including We Belong and Barnardo’s, as well as trade unions, employers and other organisations representing those with lived experience and who may be affected by the changes. We have consulted widely and are carefully considering the responses. As I said, hon. Members do not have long to wait—I can reassure them on that front. On the scrutiny that hon. Members have mentioned, sufficient mechanisms already exist to scrutinise our delivery in Parliament without requiring an additional statutory duty on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Requiring a final implementation timetable for every White Paper commitment would risk imposing artificial statutory deadlines on significant and complex reforms while detailed policy development, consultation and, where appropriate, independent advice are still being considered. I think it might set quite a suffocating and inflexible precedent for Whitehall and Government policy development and enactment if we were to put something like this in a Bill that could then apply to every single White Paper—that could have a lot of intended consequences. We are determined to make progress and we are doing so, but speed should not come at the expense of getting these major reforms right. We will continue to keep both Houses updated as we deliver the remaining White Paper commitments. Ministers and officials will also continue to be accountable to parliamentary Select Committees. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough that we support the spirit of his new clause and recognise the importance of transparency and scrutiny. However, an additional statutory duty is unnecessary. Again, I assure Members that they do not have long to wait; I urge them to contain their anticipation a little longer. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.

    Hansard source
13. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    The impact of the significant increase in asylum seekers coming to the UK has been profound. To be granted refugee status is essentially to receive the ability to live in this country forever; until very recently, a refugee’s family could expect the same. Many refugees remain unemployed several years after being granted protection, and depend on taxpayer-funded benefits to live in the UK. We know that migration needs to be managed to support communities and cohesion. Where the pace of migration is too fast, it can make it harder to maintain community bonds and relationships. I know from the Committee’s discussions over the last couple of weeks that despite our different perspectives, all Committee members share the concern that public consent for the asylum and refugee system has fractured. It is urgent that we rebuild that, which is part of what the Bill does. The November 2025 asylum policy statement set out a fair and firm approach to restoring order to the system, which is essential to rebuild community cohesion and consent. By increasing public confidence in the integrity of the asylum system, the reforms will help to build trust and reduce tensions within communities. At the same time, the reforms support successful integration for those granted protection, enabling them to contribute positively to society. Integration is a two-way street: we all have a role in providing opportunities for people to participate, and our newcomers have a responsibility to engage with and embrace what it means to be British. As part of the MHCLG integration strategy, the Government will listen to people’s concerns and reset how we talk about in integration and cohesion, ensuring that it is grounded in shared values and meaningful action. At the same time, we have to restore order and control in a system for which public consent is so fractured. I thank the hon. Member for Wimbledon for tabling new clause 17, which would require the Secretary of State to publish an integration strategy, as announced in the social cohesion action plan, “Protecting What Matters”, and to address the impacts of the core protection model on integration in that strategy. In “Protecting What Matters”, this Government publicly committed to a new approach to integration that is based on values and that considers existing communities and new arrivals. That includes commitments to set clear national integration expectations, and to develop an effective cross-Government integration strategy. The Government have already committed to developing that integration strategy, so requiring its publication under primary legislation is unnecessary. The strategy, its scope and its content are still being developed, and its development is being led by MHCLG. The Home Office is working extremely closely with the MHCLG on the development of the strategy—including, crucially, on how it interacts with the new core protection model for refugees. The hon. Member for Wimbledon asked why we have not yet published anything, and that is partly why: it is important that we do not put the cart before the horse. Once we have published our new core protection model, that will help inform and support our cohesion strategy. “Protecting What Matters” is a strategy underpinned by strong collaboration with local government and the voluntary and community sector to deliver a community-led approach to integration. As such, the content of the strategy should not be legislated for at this stage before meaningful engagement with communities has been conducted. Our approach to integration covers existing communities and new arrivals. Requiring the strategy to address a specific policy in primary legislation would prescribe part of its content before wider development and engagement are complete. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.

    Hansard source
14. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    I appreciate the contributions from hon. Members on this important issue. New clause 18 would require the Secretary of State to exercise every available break clause in each asylum accommodation and support services contract as soon as reasonably practicable. I thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for tabling the new clause. The Government recognise the concerns about the current asylum accommodation system and are committed to securing better performance, better value for money and an accommodation model that works for communities and those who rely on it. However, a blanket statutory duty to exercise every break clause would not provide a responsible or sustainable route to reform. The Government have the contractual right to terminate the asylum accommodation and support services contracts. The seven regional contracts can be terminated on at least 270 days’ notice and that right may be exercised independently for individual contracts, allowing termination to be staged where appropriate. However, having the contractual right to terminate is not the same as having replacement accommodation immediately available at the scale required. The Government must retain the ability to consider service continuity, accommodation capacity, market readiness, value for money and the needs of residents and local communities before deciding whether and when to end any contract. The contracts provide more than accommodation alone; they support housing, transport, food and facilities management for people in the asylum system. Terminating all seven contracts would not remove the underlying requirement to provide those services. The Department would still need a safe, lawful and deliverable replacement capable of operating at national scale. Serving termination notices prematurely would compress the time available to confirm the future, obtain commercial and legal approvals, procure and mobilise replacement services, transfer operational data and responsibilities, and manage the impact on local authorities and existing suppliers. It could also cut across our immediate priority of reducing reliance on more expensive hotel accommodation. Existing providers remain central to growing dispersed accommodation and supporting the transition away from hotels. Hon. Members have already referred to that transition; it was a key manifesto commitment of this Government. It has already saved the taxpayer over £1 billion.

    Hansard source
15. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As I said, it is our manifesto commitment and I do not think that there is anyone in this Committee Room—or probably in this square mile—who spends as much time as I do each day desperately pushing and pressing to close hotels around the country. Every day hon. Members tell me about the challenges that their hotel poses to community cohesion, and about the quality and the expense of the accommodation. To us that is a key manifesto pledge. I will respond to the hon. Gentleman’s questions. We have said that we will be out of all hotels by the end of this Parliament. We remain absolutely on course for that. We are now at a level of 160 hotels, which is almost half the amount that we inherited. I cannot give the Committee the exact number of individuals in hotels—I do not have that to hand—but I am again happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. Rest assured, we will be out of all hotels by the end of this Parliament. We are on track to deliver that. Every day, we strain every sinew to make that happen. That does of course mean working with other providers of dispersal accommodation, but we are very clear in our engagements with those providers that value for money, community cohesion and other aspects are important. The hon. Gentleman mentioned standards and current contracts. We are not complacent about that at all. We can and regularly do challenge performance. We can enforce contractual standards and consider different future delivery models without accepting a blanket legal duty to terminate every contract. We are able to do all that within the existing framework. The issue for us is how to secure sustainable reform to the broader asylum accommodation process while protecting continuity and value for money. Ending the contracts without replacement provision ready to mobilise would disrupt essential accommodation and support, create avoidable cost and place additional pressures on local authorities and other partners. The new clause does not set out how those risks would be managed. Decisions on break clauses should be taken on the evidence and in the public interest, alongside work to improve the current service and develop future arrangements. The Government can pursue reform, stronger performance and different future delivery models through commercial and policy decisions without a statutory requirement to terminate every contract through its break clause. The Department is reviewing and improving the existing arrangements while developing the future model for asylum accommodation and support. Future contracts will focus on value for money, transparency and pricing. I reiterate to all colleagues that the Government are absolutely committed to restoring order and control in the entirety of the asylum system. Ending small boats arrivals, introducing safe and legal routes and all this reform will allow us to have a far more managed, controlled and sustainable approach to the asylum accommodation system, which in recent years has exploded and been completely out of control. That will enable us to restore the confidence and consent of the British people. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.

    Hansard source
16. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    I thank hon. Members for their important points and questions. I may be able to come back to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough with some more information in future. His new clause would create a new humanitarian travel permit. To reiterate, as we have many times in this Committee, the UK has a proud history of offering protection to those who are genuinely fleeing war and persecution. In recent years, this has included the operation of the Ukraine schemes and other UK resettlement schemes. The immigration rules do not provide for someone to travel to the UK to seek asylum. We appreciate that there are people in many difficult situations around the world for whom travel to the UK would be difficult or impossible and we sympathise with them. However, we cannot consider asylum claims from the vast numbers overseas who might like to come here. According to the UNHCR, there are 35.6 million refugees and other people in need of international protection, so I ask the hon. Gentleman how many he thinks would like to come to this country—I think would be a pretty substantial number. The fastest route to safety is claiming asylum in the first safe country that can be reached, and that is a principle that we support. The Bill is part of the Government’s policy to restore order and control to our immigration and asylum systems. We will do this by reforming the system to ensure that it operates swiftly, firmly and fairly. That means strengthening the border and protecting migrants from the systematic abuse that has caused so much damage. We will ensure that the rules are properly enforced. In order to restore control in the system, it is also imperative that we make the system fairer by providing alternative routes to dangerous journeys. That is why we are restarting referrals to the UK resettlement scheme and launching new safe and legal routes to enable communities, universities and employers to sponsor refugees to resettle in the UK. As I have said, more detail on that will come shortly, and I refer Members to a written statement that I have placed in the House this afternoon, so that they can avail themselves of it. I am happy to discuss the matter further. About one in four referrals to the UK resettlement scheme will be for Afghan women and girls and Palestinian refugees fleeing war and persecution. This will be carried out in partnership with the United Nations refugee agency—the UNHCR, which is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—and the International Refugee Assistance Project, IRAP, which identifies and refers refugees through established processes. The scheme builds on the UK’s long history of protecting people fleeing war and persecution. That includes refugees from the Syrian civil war, the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and historical commitments to the people of Hong Kong. The Government expect total arrivals across the UK resettlement scheme and the three new community sponsorship routes to number in the hundreds at first, but that will grow into the low thousands as levels of illegal migration fall. A cap will be set each year. Those who come to Britain on these routes will be placed on a five-year path to permanent settlement. This is, by design, more generous than provision for those who arrive by small boat or other illegal means, as the Government seek to disincentivise illegal routes and encourage capped, safe and legal routes instead. It forms part of the Government’s efforts to restore order and control to the immigration system. I now turn to the provision that would enable biometrics to be waived. Collection of biometric data in the form of fingerprints and facial images is essential to the UK immigration system in order to support identity assurance and suitability checks on those subject to immigration control. They enable effective checks to be made against immigration and criminality records in order to identify those who may pose a threat to our national security, public safety and immigration controls, and who are likely to breach our laws should they enter the UK. For the reasons set out, I cannot support a new clause that is so vast in scope and would undermine our efforts to restore order and control to the immigration and asylum systems. An uncapped route would add significant pressures for our decision makers and increase the cost of running our accommodation and support systems, as well as the justice system. The ability of local authorities and other services to support refugees is already under strain, and this uncontrollable scheme would only increase that pressure. The proposed scheme would quickly overwhelm the asylum system and its associated support services, requiring us to redistribute limited resources in order to support it. I therefore invite the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough to withdraw his new clause.

    Hansard source
17. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for tabling his new clause and raising this important issue. New clause 20 “would require the Secretary of State to ensure that law enforcement agencies have sufficient resources to undertake their duties in relation to the prevention of modern slavery and human trafficking”. We share hon. Members’ commitment to ensuring that perpetrators are brought to justice. The modern slavery programme was established in 2017 as a transformation programme. At that time, it was an interim measure; we were keen to see, and are now seeing, the longer-term intention of embedding modern slavery expertise and best practice in our policing as part of its core duties and business as usual. That has been an instrument in improving law enforcement response to modern slavery, and there are more investigations and prosecutions now than when the programme began. The Department will continue to work with police forces across England and Wales to support a strong, co-ordinated approach to identifying, disrupting and tackling modern slavery. As this Committee has discussed many times, the clauses relating to modern slavery are inherently complex to investigate and prosecute. Victims often may not recognise themselves as victims, or may be too traumatised, fearful of their exploiters or distrustful of authorities to engage with the criminal justice process. That is why support is available to victims, including through the independent child trafficking guardianship service, which helps child victims to navigate the criminal justice system and supports efforts to bring perpetrators to justice. We are also strengthening the tools available to law enforcement. Through this Bill, we are enhancing and strengthening the slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders. We have also created new offences of child criminal exploitation, cuckooing and internal concealment. These measures ensure that police and the courts have a full suite of powers to disrupt offending and hold perpetrators to account. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has developed a new framework for investigating modern slavery, which includes a suite of products to guide forces to identify and tackle these crimes. The framework provides a nationally consistent investigative framework to sustain progress and support forces in delivering a strong, evidence-based response to modern slavery. The framework and related guidance material are available to all officers in England and Wales through an online knowledge hub and have been incorporated into the College of Policing’s applied professional practice on modern slavery. That will ensure that policing retains a nationally consistent standard for modern slavery investigations. That also includes a Power app for policing, which has been developed for use on police-issued devices to provide officers with practical, accessible guidance on identifying potential signs of exploitation at the earliest opportunity, as well as information on making appropriate referrals to the NRM, which is helping to support a consistent and victim-centred response. Between February 2021 and June 2024, some 620 police officers attended the modern slavery and human trafficking officer training course, and many are continuing their own training. That is College of Policing-accredited, so it can be delivered where needed. Law enforcement agencies receive funding through established mechanisms including the annual police funding settlement for police forces in England and Wales, the police precept and dedicated funding arrangements for the National Crime Agency. The Government already keep policing and operational capacity under review and make funding decisions through the spending review and annual funding process. In the light of what I have set out, we do not consider it necessary to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to ensure “sufficient resources”, as that is par for the course and expected of every Secretary of State.

    Hansard source
18. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. The Government are very proud of our efforts on devolution, but I am not aware of funding relating to the Home Office being devolved in this area. I will have to pick the matter up with him separately, because I am not sure that what he is referring to would apply here. The funding settlement will continue to be decided nationally. Perhaps we can pick the matter up outside the Committee, but I do not think that is the case. In the light of what I have set out, we do not consider it necessary to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to ensure “sufficient resources”, as this would be unnecessary and duplicate existing responsibilities. The UK is represented at Europol and in the European multidisciplinary platform against criminal threats, and participates in relevant operational taskforce initiatives, joint action days and operational actions to tackle modern slavery. We will continue to work closely with the new National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for modern slavery, the National Crime Agency, and police forces across England and Wales to support a strong, co-ordinated approach to ensuring that modern slavery is effectively identified, disrupted and tackled. For those reasons, the Government cannot support the new clause, and I invite the hon. Member to withdraw it.

    Hansard source
19. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    New clause 21 sets out a requirement to introduce legislation within six months of Royal Assent to ensure the United Kingdom’s compliance with the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, known as ECAT, and, within 18 months, the laying of a report before Parliament setting out the steps taken and whether full compliance has been achieved. I thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for tabling it. This country has a long, proud history of meeting its international obligations. ECAT has played an important role in shaping the UK’s approach to identifying and supporting victims of trafficking and modern slavery. I put on the record that the Government are confident that the Bill and the UK’s system for identifying and supporting victims of modern slavery and human trafficking—the national referral mechanism—is fully compliant with ECAT. There are established processes in place that ensure consideration of compliance with our international obligations any time that new legislation is contemplated. The Bill reaffirms our commitment to the treaty and strengthens the modern slavery system, providing greater clarity to the obligations. The UK’s compliance is also assessed by the Council of Europe’s group of experts against trafficking in human beings. We also hold tier 1 status in the US “Trafficking in Persons” report, reflecting the fact that we continue to meet the highest international standards. Given those points, the requirements that would be imposed by the new clause are unnecessary; they would divert work into unnecessary reporting and would not add anything to the current system. As I have mentioned, we continue to work with international bodies to enhance the Government’s approach to tackling modern slavery. That includes working with the Council of Europe’s group of experts on action against trafficking in human beings—GRETA—with the US’s “Trafficking in Persons” report, and with the UN alliance. As mentioned in previous debates, we refer more people to modern slavery protection than the rest of Europe put together, so we are already in a strong position and do not need to restrict ourselves through a full replication of ECAT. Many ECAT signatories do not have a stand-alone, bespoke and comprehensive NRM similar to the UK. Other ECAT signatories identify and support far fewer victims than the UK. According to the 2025 US “Trafficking in Persons” report, France identified 362 human trafficking victims compared with the 16,938 referrals made by the UK in 2022. I therefore cannot accept the new clause and I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough.

    Hansard source
20. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling new clause 23. The Government understand that migrant victims of crime can be especially vulnerable. It is vital that victims and witnesses feel safe to come forward to the police so that perpetrators can be identified, victims safeguarded and future offending prevented. I want to say briefly that I really do refute the idea that the Bill weakens protections for victims of modern slavery. There are so many measures in the Bill to strengthen them in order to protect victims, but we must also protect the system from the abuse of those who exploit it to prevent removal. I wanted to clarify that up front. We need to ensure we maintain a fair and robust immigration system that can effectively seek to remove those with no permission to be in the UK. I cannot, and I do not think the public would expect us to, separate immigration enforcement from security and crime enforcement. I am afraid the two things are, in reality, interlinked. Information sharing is essential is to ensure agencies have access to welfare and safeguarding information.

    Hansard source
21. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    Conversely, I would say that we need law enforcement individuals to be able to understand vulnerabilities in modern slavery, so it works both ways. It is important that those agencies have the access to welfare and safeguarding information to enable them to fulfil their duty of care as much as anything, while also undertaking their key immigration enforcement and law enforcement roles. They need to prevent those who present harm to the public from being able to avoid removal—that is fundamental. We are keen to encourage migrant victims who are subjected to significant harm to be able to come forward, irrespective of their status. That is why “Freedom from Violence and Abuse: A cross-government strategy to build a safer society for women and girls” set out our ambition to introduce a requirement for police to seek a victim’s agreement before sharing their information with immigration enforcement in domestic abuse cases. We know that perpetrators of domestic abuse often exploit a victim’s immigration status as a tool of coercion and control, thereby discouraging them from reporting abuse or seeking help. Our policy seeks to reduce barriers to reporting for migrant victims of domestic abuse by requiring the victim’s agreement before any information is shared. It aims to give victims greater confidence to come forward and engage with the police, recognising that concerns about potential immigration consequences can deter victims. However, unlike the new clause, it also recognises the important role played by information sharing, which can support safeguarding, inform risk assessments, help victims to understand their immigration status, and assist the investigation and prosecution of perpetrators—which I am sure victims would also want to see—including, where appropriate, their removal from the UK.

    Hansard source
22. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    Witnesses are vital to our being able to enforce the law and ensure that perpetrators come to justice. I am not an expert on the violence against women and girls strategy, but I am happy to have a discussion with the hon. Lady outside the Committee. The new clause also risks undermining our immigration system. It is unclear how far the protection for victims and witnesses would extend. For example, it could allow individuals to avoid information sharing by claiming to be a victim of crime, thereby creating unintended consequences and making it harder to take action against those who may pose a risk to the public. Our “requirement for agreement” model for victims of domestic abuse will not prevent data sharing where the individual is identified as an offender in another criminal investigation, allowing officers to use professional judgment to decide whether data should be shared. The new clause would also apply to any offence, not just offences relating to abuse and modern slavery, which would make the block on data sharing extremely easy to abuse in order to avoid immigration enforcement. Far from protecting victims of crime, it would mean that immigration authorities may be unaware that an individual is a victim of or witness to crime, and therefore they would be unable to identify support needs, take account of their involvement in criminal proceedings or consider whether they should be referred or signposted to an appropriate immigration route. The new clause would also limit the ability of immigration authorities to investigate immigration offences or take action, including deportation, against individuals who pose a significant risk of harm in the UK. It would also severely limit the identification and investigation of modern slavery. The extremely wide casting of the new clause to prevent any party from sharing information from anyone involved in any criminal proceedings means that it would be extremely easy to abuse to avoid enforcement action. For the reasons I have set out, the new clause is unnecessary and risks undermining the balanced approach that we are working hard to achieve. I therefore urge the hon. Lady to withdraw it.

    Hansard source
23. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I thank hon. Members for tabling the new clause and for their thoughtful contributions to the debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Wimbledon that deeper international co-operation is important. That is why the Home Secretary is in regular contact with her counterparts across Europe, including in France, Germany and Belgium, and we are continuing to establish a more comprehensive relationship with Europe as a whole. However, I remind him that irregular migration is not an issue limited to EU nation states. That is why we as a Government are looking even wider and being even more ambitious: not only tackling the issue when it emerges within European territories, but working upstream to prevent the vile trade of organised immigration crime in the first place. For example, in August 2025 we signed an agreement with Iraq to bolster efforts to deter small boat arrivals. In October 2025, we signed an agreement with Vietnam to crack down on illegal migration and increase returns. In August this year, we signed a migration partnership with Egypt, which will continue to bear down on illegal migration and cut the time needed to return Egyptian nationals with no right to be in the UK by 90%. Those are just some examples of the importance of that broader co-operation and partnership. My hon. Friend the Minister for Migration and Citizenship also attended this year’s Berlin process meeting of Interior Ministers in Montenegro in September. It was a fantastic opportunity to strengthen international police co-operation and develop a joint response to cross-border security challenges not only with our EU counterparts but with representatives from the western Balkans. I agree that international co-operation is an essential strand of our overarching strategy to tackle illegal migration, and one that I am keen to highlight is bearing fruit. As hon. Members will know—I will say it again, just for the record—small boat arrivals have decreased by more than 40% compared with this point last year. I am not claiming that the job is done—far from it—but we are taking a holistic approach to this issue, of which the Bill is one part. However, the Government will not support the new clause. I want to pick up on a couple of the points the hon. Member for Wimbledon raised about the impact on returns and about Eurodac. We continue to work with our European partners on the shared challenge, including on returns, but joining the pact would not guarantee increased returns, and our focus is on practical co-operation that delivers real returns outcomes. Eurodac is a matter for the EU, not a unilateral UK decision. Eurodac is one example of a pact measure where our participation is not legally possible without EU agreement, and the Eurodac legislation makes that clear. Access to asylum data could, of course, help identify individuals who have previously claimed protection in an EU member state before travelling to the UK, but it is for the EU to decide whether it wishes to extend access to third countries. In the meantime, we are strengthening practical co-operation with European partners, including through intelligence sharing and our observer status in the European Migration Network, which delivered on a key PM commitment from the UK-EU summit, and I will come on to say a bit more about the work we are doing on that. Going back to the new clause, participation is not a straightforward proposition. The pact is not a single agreement that third countries can simply choose to join. It is complex collection of EU legislative measures, many of which are designed specifically for EU member states and Schengen countries. There is no established model for third-country participation, so any form of UK participation would require agreement from the EU and significant EU and operational change before extensive negotiations could commence. The pact is still being implemented across the EU and has been in application only since June this year. Member states are working to implement it, with the EU rightly focused on making it work for its own member states. That is a significant challenge, particularly for frontline countries that are facing the greatest migration pressures.

    Hansard source
24. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I would not want to get ahead of the discussions that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and others will be having at that summit. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are clear that greater co-operation and international partnership are crucial for us to manage the big global challenges that we face of immigration, migration and illegal migration. We believe that co-operation is the solution, not the problem, but it is about making sure that we do that in the right way that works for this country within our sovereign powers. We should also recognise that irregular migration still existed while the UK was part of the EU. Closer co-operation with our European partners is important, but experience shows that no single agreement or institutional framework can solve this challenge on its own. Under previous Dublin arrangements when in the EU, the UK become a net recipient of transfers between EU member states, as the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire mentioned, largely as a result of family reunification provisions, so we cannot pretend that UK participation in EU frameworks solves all migration challenges. However, we will of course continue to work closely with our European partners. As I have said, illegal migration is a shared challenge, and co-operation is essential, but it would be a mistake to suggest that simply signing up to the pact would provide a quick or automatic solution. There is no silver bullet, and I am afraid that the new clause is unworkable in practice. It would require the Government to open negotiations with the European Union, but Parliament cannot legislate for the EU to agree to such negotiations with us. Whether discussions take place, and on what basis, ultimately depends on both parties and is not for the UK to unilaterally dictate. It is therefore right that the UK retains the flexibility to pursue the forms of co-operation that best serve our national interest and respond to rapidly evolving migration challenges. The Government’s approach is clear: we will pursue practical co-operation with European partners wherever it advances the UK’s interests and delivers operational results. As the Prime Minister set out, we are already working with the EU to strengthen co-operation on migration, border security, data sharing and tackling the criminal gangs that profit from human misery. Our objective is not to focus on a single mechanism but to build a stronger and more effective long-term partnership with the EU on shared challenges, including illegal migration. That builds on the progress we have already made since the UK-EU summit in 2025, and I am looking forward to further partnership and co-operation with this year’s summit. For those reasons, we do not believe that the new clause is necessary, and I ask the Committee to reject it.

    Hansard source
25. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wimbledon for his new clause. I understand the case that he is trying to make. He is trying to build his evidence base to persuade us to join the EU pact, but, despite his earlier efforts, I am afraid we will not support his new clause. We agree that migration co-operation should deliver clear operational benefits, represent value for money and be subject to appropriate scrutiny. Indeed, that is already the case. Relevant spending and significant proposals are assessed under the established appraisal, assurance and accounting officer requirements. Ministers rightly expect officials to demonstrate that policies are deliverable, affordable and capable of achieving their intended objectives. I remind colleagues that we have already published an impact assessment for the Bill. I appreciate that there are details still to be refined, but colleagues will find in the impact assessment information that I hope will support their understanding of the Bill. I want to be clear that the value of migration co-operation is complex. Some agreements help to deter irregular migration, and some help to change behaviour and prevent dangerous journeys from happening in the first place. Those benefits can sometimes be difficult to measure directly, but they are no less important when considering the overall value of an agreement. Equally, the Government are not lacking in transparency. We regularly publish information on major migration partnerships—for example, we have published details of UK-France co-operation under the broader framework of the Sandhurst treaty and subsequent agreements, including funding commitments, operational activity and strategic objectives. UK-France co-operation is also subject to regular strategic review by the French Government and the UK Government. The hon. Gentleman’s new clause goes considerably further, however. It would require the Government to publish an annual assessment comparing our existing bilateral migration agreements against a wholly hypothetical model of UK participation in the EU migration and asylum pact. We do not believe that that is a sensible or proportionate requirement. The pact is an internal EU framework comprising 10 separate legislative measures. The UK is not seeking to participate in it, and there is no established mechanism through which non-EU, non-Schengen countries such as the UK can do so. That means that there is no settled understanding of what the legal route to participation might be, what obligations it might entail, what operational arrangements would be required, or indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes said, what costs might arise, yet the new clause would require the Government to produce an annual assessment based on assumptions and theories about all those issues, about which we would have no information. Any such exercise would be inherently speculative. It would require officials to assess a theoretical arrangement that does not exist, using assumptions that cannot be verified and for which there is no established evidence base. The new clause also appears to rest on the assumption that participation in the pact would somehow replace the UK’s existing network of bilateral migration arrangements and partnerships. There is no reason to believe that that would be the case. EU member states, operating within the EU’s common asylum and migration framework, continue to maintain bilateral arrangements with third countries to support returns, migration management and broader co-operation. The need to engage directly with countries of origin and transit does not disappear because a country participates in the EU system. At the same time, many of our migration partnerships are about far more than asylum processing or returns. They sit within broader bilateral relationships, helping us to tackle migration pressures at source, disrupt organised immigration crime, strengthen returns co-operation and support wider foreign policy objectives. Participation in the pact would not remove the need for many of the agreements that the new clause seeks to assess. In practice, the UK could find itself maintaining a significant proportion of its existing partnerships, while also incurring additional costs associated with participation in the pact itself. The new clause also takes no account of the cost of pursuing that proposed participation. As I have already highlighted, negotiating any bespoke arrangement with the EU would require significant official resource, extensive discussions with EU institutions and member states, and potentially substantial legislative and operational change. At the same time, the pact is still being implemented across Europe. Its impacts, costs and benefits are still emerging, and it will take time before there is a clear and reliable evidence base from which lessons can be drawn. Against that backdrop, requiring officials to construct and maintain an annual assessment of theoretical policy that the Government are not pursuing would not represent good value for money. As I said—and I hope the hon. Member for Wimbledon understands my values and intentions here—the Government are committed to deeper co-operation with European partners on tackling illegal migration. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the Prime Minister has set out that Europe is our neighbour and that stronger co-operation with our European partners is essential to tackling these shared challenges. That is why we will be using our engagement with the EU, including the forthcoming summit on 20 November, to pursue practical co-operation on border security, organised immigration crime and improved information and data-sharing, where that supports our national interest. However, none of that requires participation in the pact. We reject the suggestion that joining the pact is the only route, or the necessary route, to achieving these objectives. Our focus is on practical co-operation that delivers results, not a hypothetical arrangement whose terms, costs and obligations cannot be known. For those reasons—

    Hansard source
26. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and we are proud of those arrangements. The hon. Member for Wimbledon referenced agreements with Belgium; we are co-operating with all our partners on the frontline of illegal migration.

    Hansard source
27. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I think the number is around 1,200, but I would have to check the exact figures. That deal was a really important opportunity to pilot the idea of safe and legal routes. We learned a lot from that pilot, and it was disappointing that it could not continue, but we are taking what we learned from it further in our discussions and conversations with other countries.

    Hansard source
28. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I disagree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said today, but he is right on that point. There is opportunity for broader co-operation on many of these fronts, which is why we will continue to explore co-operation. However, signing up to these restrictive pacts would limit that opportunity. I think we have the best of all worlds here: not only can we have direct negotiations with other countries, but we can scale up things such as the one in, one out deal when we think there is potential to do so with other countries. On that note—

    Hansard source
29. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I will abide by the Chair’s ruling, but I am happy to pick that up with the hon. Member later and send him plenty of information backing up the statement that it was a temporary arrangement. On that note, I will not detain the Committee any further. I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Wimbledon not to press the new clause to a vote.

    Hansard source
30. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    New clause 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, sets out the desire for a new Government Department for immigration and border security to be established, and for the transfer of all the Home Secretary’s immigration, asylum and border security functions to that new office. I have to say that I really admire the hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough and for Wimbledon for attempting to reshape Whitehall through an amendment to a Bill—it is impressive, and I will do my best to respond to it. I appreciate that it is a thought-provoking new clause that of course warrants broader discussion.

    Hansard source
31. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wimbledon for raising this issue through his new clause, because it is a big priority for this Government, as he alluded to. I want to put it on record that I and the Government support the notion that no one should be sleeping rough. As the Prime Minister has set out, ending homelessness is his No. 1 priority. As Members will be aware, in the immediacy, the Government have committed £442 million to ensure that everyone who is sleeping rough is off the streets by Christmas. That feeds into the wider £4.4 billion being invested in homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years. This combines immediate accommodation support with longer-term settled housing and intensive support for people who have experienced prolonged rough sleeping. The Christmas ambition is the first phase of that wider effort. It is a programme of practical delivery and, as I have laid out, it is not one that depends on establishing a separate statutory taskforce. Looking beyond the Christmas delivery plan, the Government are already taking a cross-Government approach through the national plan to end homelessness in England and the interministerial group on homelessness and rough sleeping. That group brings together work on housing, health, employment and transitions out of public service with regular monitoring of delivery. A separate taskforce would duplicate existing co-ordination arrangements rather than address the practical barriers that people face. We recognise that newly granted refugees can face particular challenges. Asylum move-on liaison officers, where present, explain next steps, signpost housing and benefit support, liaise with local services and escalate barriers. They provide practical help with navigating the transition. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire asked what the move-on period is: it is currently 42 days. We regularly review the role of the liaison officer model to ensure that it meets the needs of users and to reduce homelessness among newly recognised refugees. This includes exploring earlier, targeted housing advice before an asylum decision, and working with accommodation providers to improve the quality and timeliness of information given to local authorities when asylum support ends.

    Hansard source
32. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I know that there is sometimes a lag in us being able to publish statistics on that, but I am hopeful to be able to share statistics with hon. Members shortly. In June this year—these are the latest published figures—there were 99 people sleeping rough in this country who had left asylum support in the last 85 days. Our internal data suggests that the numbers of people leaving asylum support are extremely low, but, as I said, information on that will be published. We are working closely with other partners and charity organisations, including Migrant Help, which offers positive move-on advice to all supported newly granted refugees through the advice, issue reporting and eligibility contract. That includes guidance on accommodation, finances and employment, and support for individuals to integrate into the UK when Home Office support ends. As we have discussed a lot during the Bill’s passage, it builds on the “Restoring Order and Control” statement that the Home Secretary made, and it is essential if we are to restore control to our immigration system. As the Committee will know, core protection is a key part of that, and will simplify the current system of protections. That will of course be shared in due course.

    Hansard source
33. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I thank the hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough and for Brighton Pavilion for tabling the new clauses, and I am grateful for the discussion. As we have heard, new clauses 10 and 24 would significantly change the Government’s policy on the period before asylum seekers can seek permission to work from the Home Office, reducing that period to three months and six months, respectively. New clause 24, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, would go much further and grant asylum applicants and their adult dependants an automatic and unrestricted right to employment and self-employment after six months of waiting for a decision on their asylum claim—a right that would continue until the claim and any appeal had been finally determined. Hon. Members will know that those who claim asylum are not normally allowed to work while their claim is considered. They may instead receive accommodation and support to meet their essential living needs if they would otherwise be destitute. Under our current policy, asylum seekers may be eligible to apply for permission to work in the UK where their claim has been outstanding for 12 months or more, through no fault of their own. Where permission is granted, employment is restricted to jobs on the skilled worker occupations at regulated qualifications framework level 6 or above. To respond to the question of the hon. Member for Wimbledon about legal entrants, it is important to flag that all legal entrants are prohibited from working. Some individuals who claim asylum after being here legally retain the right to work throughout their claim. An asylum seeker is allowed to apply for permission to work after 12 months, as I said, if they have not received a decision and will be employed in a high-skilled job. On the statistics he asked about, the Home Office publishes a vast amount of statistics regularly. The numbers for those who have permission to work will fluctuate constantly, as people move in and out of the system quite rapidly. Our focus has been on ensuring that people receive an initial decision on their claim as quickly as possible.

    Hansard source
34. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    New clause 11, tabled by the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, seeks to reopen the refugee family reunion route and greatly expand eligibility to wider family members. The Government took the difficult decision to suspend the refugee family reunion route in September 2025. That was done in response to immediate pressures placed on local authorities and public services by the rapid rise in arrivals in recent years. The family reunion route had grown exponentially, placing significant and unsustainable pressures on local authorities and public services. Grants rose from approximately 5,500 per annum between 2015 and 2022 to more than 20,000 in the year ending September 2025. As the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire said, we cannot have a situation where families are sending men on dangerous journeys, through other safe countries, to reach these shores with the intention to bring their families. We are extremely keen to prevent that. We want to ensure that there is a sustainable route for families that are genuinely fleeing war and persecution to come to this country, and that was not it. Suspension remains in place while we are developing the wider reforms to the family migration system. I know that colleagues are on tenterhooks, and I wish I could expand on that further, but I can assure them that they do not have very long to wait at all—as I am sure they can see from the increased media frenzy around these issues. I will not pre-empt the Home Secretary’s announcements, but I reassure colleagues that those announcements are well on their way and they do not have long to wait. The system we want to see will be fair, controlled and sustainable. The Government recognise the importance of family unity and the distress that separation can cause. We also recognise the contribution that families can make to helping refugees integrate. However, we must ensure that our approach takes account of the capacity of communities to support those arriving. I want to be clear that suspension does not mean that family members have no way of applying to come to the UK. Other family routes remain available where people meet the relevant requirements, with provisions such as fee waivers available, and a consideration of any exceptional circumstances where an individual may not meet the criteria set out in those routes. In addition, applications under the suspended route that were submitted before the suspension came into force continue to be processed. New clause 11 would go considerably further than simply restoring the previous arrangements. It would require the Government to establish a new and expansive refugee family reunion scheme within six months, and prescribe a significantly wider group of qualifying family members, including parents, siblings, unmarried adult children and siblings up to the age of 25 and other unspecified family members. This is highly likely to lead to considerably more people arriving than ever before, without any necessity for their sponsor to support them. The new clause would also cut across established routes that already make specific provision for these relationships, including Appendix Child Relative for vulnerable children joining a close relative with protection status, and the Adult Dependant Relative route for adults requiring long-term, personal care. Those routes contain carefully designed eligibility, dependency, care, maintenance and accommodation requirements. The new clause risks creating an overlapping route for the same cohorts without specifying any safeguards that would apply, potentially undermining the workings of our wider family migration system. The new clause would further enable children to sponsor their parents and siblings, which is something that was not possible under the previous route. We must consider the incentives that such a change would create. If a child reaching the UK alone could subsequently provide a route for other family members to join them, there is a real risk that smuggling gangs could exploit that expectation, leading to more children being sent on dangerous journeys, including on small boats. That would put children at greater risk of abuse and death. The proposals tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough should also be considered together. Amendment 54 would have provided that requirements being imposed must demonstrate that arriving family members could be suitably supported and accommodated by their sponsor. Together, these proposals, if accepted, would pre-empt the Government’s ongoing work that I have mentioned on our future family migration framework by constraining our ability to consider refugee family reunion alongside the wider reforms that we are making. It would be premature to prescribe the outcome of that work in the Bill. They are also likely to lead to a large increase in arrivals, which would further exacerbate existing pressures on local authorities and public services. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough should consider how the consequences of such a surge in arrivals, if these proposals were enacted, would be managed. Where would families live if suitable accommodation had not been secured? Who would meet their immediate needs if their sponsor could not support them? Do we expect already stretched local authorities and public services to support those arrivals? If children are allowed to sponsor, as he proposes, a child cannot be expected to obtain a sufficient income or secure suitable accommodation for an arriving family, so who would meet those needs? What assessment has he made of the additional resources that would be needed, and how does he propose these costs should be met? Those responsibilities simply cannot be left for local authorities to resolve after families arrive. They have practical consequences for homelessness services, temporary accommodation, children’s services and school places, as well as the local people who rely on those services. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough to withdraw the new clause.

    Hansard source
35. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Gelderd

    Business of the House

    Last weekend was the 65th anniversary of the building of the Tamar bridge. Local people are still paying to cross what is clearly critical national infrastructure. I marked the occasion by talking to local people in Saltash and Torpoint about my petition to end the tolls, which are a barrier to growth and to accessing essential healthcare, schools and jobs over the Tamar. Will the Leader of the House support me in securing a meeting with the Secretary of State for Transport on delivering a fairer toll system in the short term, and a toll-free Tamar in the long term?

    Hansard source
36. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Dixon

    Business of the House

    Last week, I attended the National Curry Awards in Parliament, and I was delighted to present Sizzling Lounge from Bingley in my constituency with its award for best restaurant. It is one of the highest-rated curry houses in Bradford and is run by two inspiring brothers who came to the UK as child refugees from Myanmar. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Sizzling Lounge and all the fantastic curry restaurants—particularly those in Bradford—that contribute so much to our high streets and towns?

    Hansard source
37. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Dixon

    Budget Resolutions

    Would the hon. Gentleman wish to add his thanks to the Chancellor for the new low-income tax-free allowance for pensioners, which will ensure that they can keep their state pension and hard-earned pension?

    Hansard source
38. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Dixon

    Budget Resolutions

    Like my hon. Friend, I have small breweries in my own constituency, including the Saltaire Brewery, the Goose Eye Brewery and SALT. Does she agree with me that, with rising energy costs, the £10 million annual alcohol duty relief for small brewers is very welcome from the Chancellor?

    Hansard source
39. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Dixon

    Budget Resolutions

    In yesterday’s Budget, the Chancellor put in place measures that will put money back into the pockets of my constituents in Shipley, support our brilliant independent businesses, and deliver for carers and families across Bingley, Shipley, Baildon and the surrounding villages. This Budget does that without endangering the strong economic foundations that were laid by the previous Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves). I echo the Defence Secretary’s tribute to her for her actions to restore economic stability after the Tories’ economic chaos. Against a backdrop of global uncertainty, the new Chancellor faced a tricky balancing act rebuilding our public services and maintaining fiscal discipline, but this Chancellor and this Budget got that balance right, delivering security at home, with better public services, and security from threats abroad. I echo what other hon. Members have said and welcome the new energy bills breathing space that will give 36,500 households in Shipley a £100 payment this winter. I am incredibly proud that, after years of campaigning, the carer’s allowance cliff edge will be abolished and replaced with a taper, so carers who earn just a little over the earnings limit will no longer lose their entire allowance. Carers should never be penalised for working an extra shift, so that unfairness ends under a Labour Government. I share our new Prime Minister’s ambition to reform adult social care, to ensure that disabled adults and older people get the care they need. I look forward to the spending review and hope that his ambition will be matched by the Chancellor in the spending review. Briefly, I would like to echo my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) and her enjoyment of the PDEL, the new protected prevention spend. It may seem a little geeky, but it could prove transformative. Let us stop paying for failure and crisis, and instead invest in early intervention. Just one example of where that could make a huge difference is in hospice and end of life care. If we funded our local hospices, such as Marie Curie and Sue Ryder, that are currently reliant on charitable funding, they could expand community support. This would deliver reductions in inappropriate and unnecessary hospital admissions at end of life, saving money in the NHS and ensuring more people die at home and in the community. Finally, I welcome the defence spending. I hope that some of the fantastic, innovative small and medium-sized enterprises in defence in Shipley, such as Radio Design and Slipstream Engineering Design, can use it to grow the number of high-skilled jobs in my area. This is a fantastic Budget. It shows that the Labour Government are listening to people in places like Shipley and backing workers, carers and our local businesses.

    Hansard source
40. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Dixon

    Budget Resolutions

    I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for her closing remarks and for responding to the points raised during the debate. Will she confirm that business rates relief will not apply to the vape shops that are popping up on our high streets and blighting them?

    Hansard source