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·Conservative·Lewis Cocking

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   I am coming to the end of my remarks. It is even worse for young British people moving to our capital for work, having to pay a fortune for a tiny room in a shared house with complete strangers, while the priority rules set by left-wing councils mean that some foreign nationals who have never paid a penny into the system get placed into social housing with a whole flat to themselves. On the Conservative side of the House, we will never shy away from standing up for the British people and ensuring that foreign nationals who come to this country do not get a free ride on the benefit system and subsidised housing at our expense. That is why I wholeheartedly support the shadow Minister and new clause 32.

   Hansard source
2. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

   Hansard source
3. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   I join the rest of the Committee in wishing the Minister a very happy birthday. One of the most common accusations against right to buy is also one of the most mistaken. We have heard it many times in this Committee: it is the idea that right to buy is a contributor to the shortage of homes in this country. That defeatist attitude masks a lazy analysis. As I laid out on Second Reading, the Government’s own impact assessment shows that weakening right to buy will mean fewer new social homes. The impact assessment shows that if the pre-November 2024 baseline remained, there would be 8,050 right to buy sales and 5,450 replacement homes in 2026-27. The document goes on to show that if the Bill passes, as I am sure it will, and the legacy impacts wind down in the period from 2031 to 2035, annual right-to-buy sales will fall to about 1,100 a year, with about 1,450 replacement homes.

   Hansard source
4. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   Not remotely. By the Government’s own analysis and admission, they would oversee a housing system in which 4,000 fewer new social homes would be funded every year. How does that help with the social housing waiting list, which all Committee members would like to be lower? How does building fewer new social homes remotely help? Of course it does not. As I showed on Second Reading, the Government’s data is not the only data available that disproves the justification for restricting the right to buy. The Government have argued that, under the Bill, around 3,000 additional homes will be retained each year, but research by the House of Lords Library shows that only a net 3% of social homes become available for new tenancies each year. That means that about 90 additional homes, instead of 5,000, will be available each year. That is the opposite of the Government’s stated aim and is completely incongruent with the pressing need for more social homes. The idea that the right to buy is taking homes away is a fallacy for another reason. The only people who qualify for the right to buy are long-term tenants. Government data has shown that 78% of new lettings remain lifetime tenancies. That means that, in more than three quarters of cases, the social homes are unlikely ever to be available to prospective tenants who need them. All those points clearly demonstrate that right to buy is not the issue, but part of the solution. I therefore urge the Committee to support new clause 25. My new clause 26 would require the Secretary of State to publish annual data on the social housing replaced once sold.

   Hansard source
5. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   No. Our new clauses would require the Government to conduct a review 12 months after the Act is passed, so that we know the figures for certain, and would require the Secretary of State to determine on the basis of that review whether to compel local authorities to do like-for-like replacements. That is the whole point of the new clauses. Rather than just letting things take their course, the Government should take control and make a decision about what local government should do. The data is expected to make sorry reading if the figures in the Government’s impact statement prove correct. We will press new clause 25 and new clause 26 to a Division.

   Hansard source
6. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   I have nothing to add. We respectfully decline the Minister’s invitation not to press our new clauses. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

   Hansard source
7. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Regenerating existing social housing is a vital pathway towards providing better, safer and more social homes. As I have mentioned before, nothing in this Bill goes anywhere towards delivering more social housing. That is why I tabled the new clause. According to the London Councils estate regeneration report in November 2025, London’s boroughs have the potential to develop more than 10,000 new homes in a city that is starved of supply but overflowing with demand. That is true not just inside the M25, but across the country, as Members across the Committee have noted today. Estate regeneration on its own is not a silver bullet, but it can certainly make a significant contribution. Regeneration also plays an important role in taking pressure off our green belt by prioritising the regeneration of brownfield sites, towards which the Government have done little but pay lip service since 2024. Instead of the undesirable urban sprawl encouraged by the Government, the Opposition believe in building where homes are wanted and needed and where they can be supported by existing and necessary infrastructure, such as in our cities and urban areas. Estate regeneration fits that rationale perfectly, so I encourage colleagues to support the new clause.

   Hansard source
8. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   Since the Minister has asked me so nicely, and as it is his birthday, I will agree to withdraw it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 28 Supported housing and stock management strategy “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament a strategy for the provision of supported housing within the social housing system. (2) The strategy must consider— (a) barriers to the delivery of additional supported housing dwellings within the social housing system; (b) integration of supported housing within social housing stock management; and (c) long-term demand projections.”—(Gareth Bacon.) This new clause would require a strategy on supported housing as part of social housing stock management. Brought up, and read the First time.

   Hansard source
9. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

   Hansard source
10. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    The Bill claims to be about social housing, and yet it says almost nothing about the people who rely on it most. Supported housing services some of the most vulnerable residents in the sector: the elderly, people with disabilities and people who have faced incredible hardship. New clause 28 would ensure that there is a strategy to support those groups through effective stock management, rather than leaving them without representation in the Bill. The new clause would also require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy within 12 months and lay it before Parliament. It would examine the barriers to delivery, how supported housing fits within wider stock management, and long-term demand. That is not a monumental task, but it can produce effective outcomes. If the Minister believes in delivering for vulnerable residents, he should have no reason to refuse.

    Hansard source
11. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    We will press new clause 28 to a Division, but I will let the cat out of the bag now and say that we agree with the Minister on the other new clauses. When the time comes, we will not press them. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
12. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Social housing exists to serve communities, yet too many families who have lived, worked and raised children in an area find themselves overlooked when homes are allocated. That is wrong and unjust, which is why my new clause 31 would require allocation schemes in England and Wales to give additional preference to people with a local connection. Local authorities would consider current residents’ employment and family ties. There is nothing exclusionary about supporting local people who contribute to, live in and work in their community. New clause 31 would also give armed forces personnel the respect and priority that they deserve. Through their service, our servicemen and servicewomen often find themselves posted far from home, sometimes in unsafe and unstable places, to protect Britain, British values and those in need internationally. We have a responsibility to protect them when they return home. I believe that service personnel should not lose their local connection because of their service, and that is why I tabled new clause 31.

    Hansard source
13. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I have heard the Minister. There was much in what he said, but I respectfully decline his offer. We will press new clause 31 to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
14. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
15. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Social housing is not abundant in this country, as we all know. It is a limited resource, and it is funded by the British taxpayer. The Opposition laid out in our alternative King’s Speech the stark and unfair reality of the British social housing system’s priorities. Too many struggling British families are far down the 1.34 million-strong waiting list for social housing. However, 72% of those who identify as Somalian in England and Wales live in social housing.

    Hansard source
16. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I come back to a point that I made earlier: if social housing were in abundant supply, there would be no need for this new clause, but it is not, nor will it be any time soon. The question is how British taxpayers’ money should be prioritised. I will come on to that in more detail in a moment. As I was saying, 72% of Somalis, 41% of Jamaicans and 34% of Bangladeshis live in social housing. Until recently, the First Lady of Sierra Leone was also living in a British-funded council house. We believe that those who are not British citizens should not be able to access social housing while British citizens sit on the waiting list. A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government response to a written parliamentary question revealed that every year around 33,000 new social tenancies go to households in which the lead tenant is not a UK national. At the same time, the Government are spending £4 billion a year on the affordable homes programme to build 30,000 new social homes—money that comes from British taxpayers. This means that the equivalent of the entire affordable homes programme budget is going to house non-nationals, and British taxpayers are footing the bill. New clause 32 is about creating a fairer system for British citizens and British taxpayers. It is not about exclusion, but about prioritisation, ensuring that British citizens are at the front of the queue for social housing in the country of which they are a citizen. It is not about race; it is about legal status.

    Hansard source
17. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    My hon. Friend makes a good point. As I said a moment ago, the point of the new clauses is prioritisation: how we prioritise the use of British taxpayers’ funding. We believe that making Britain your home should be earned by working, paying tax and integrating. New clause 32 emphasises these points without making them exclusive to one race, religion or creed. That was quite deliberate. I urge colleagues to support the new clause. Turning to new clause 37, confidence in an already strained system is never helped when people with significant overseas wealth or status slip through the system unchecked. Current rules do not give sufficient support to local authorities to assist in dealing with applicants who hold senior public office abroad or who are closely related to those who do. The new clause is proportionate and practical. It would allow the Secretary of State to issue guidance on such applications, including on disclosure requirements, the verification of overseas assets and the position of anyone subject to UK sanctions. Local authorities would be required to have regard to it, and Parliament would see it laid before it takes effect. New clause 37 would give councils the vital tools to protect public trust, ensure that homes go to those in genuine need, and make the system fair. I turn to new clause 43. One of the greatest pressures on the social housing system is the waiting list, with 1.34 million vulnerable people and families facing a seemingly immovable backlog ahead of them. It is essential that all social, economic and physical pressures on the system are identified and addressed, and one of those is net migration. As I said a moment ago, every year about 33,000 new social tenancies go to households in which the lead tenant is not a British citizen—the source for that is a written answer from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. At the same time, the Government are spending £4 billion a year on the affordable homes programme to build 30,000 new social homes. That means that the equivalent of the entire affordable homes programme is going to house non-British nationals, and British taxpayers are paying for that. It is clearly necessary to look into exactly how that pressure is suppressing the efficiency of the social housing system, and inhibiting its ability to help British families in need. New clause 43 would require the publication of estimates of social housing demand arising from net migration, because with that data the Government and local authorities would be better informed when making decisions regarding the allocation of stock, and there would be better determined decisions around housing those in need. It is vital that we do not ignore an issue simply because some people find it uncomfortable to discuss. New clause 43 does not alienate anybody, nor does it take away anyone’s rights to a social home. It is a simple, straightforward requirement that would leave decision makers better informed about the greatest pressures on an already strained system.

    Hansard source
18. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Will the hon. Member please point out where the new clause mentions where someone is born?

    Hansard source
19. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    The new clause is clearly written. It is not about where somebody was born, and we are very precise in what we have said on that. There is no reference to where someone is born in the new clause, for a clear reason. It is about who is or is not a British citizen, and therefore who should or should not benefit from British taxpayers’ contributions. That is precisely what the new clause is about. I said in my speech that it has nothing to do with race, religion, place of birth or creed; it is about who is or is not a British citizen. That is the point of the new clause.

    Hansard source
20. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Will the hon. Gentleman please point to where in the new clause it says that it is retrospective?

    Hansard source
21. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    We had a bit of a spat about this on Second Reading. The first Duke of Wellington was a British citizen, so the new clause would not exclude him. The hon. Gentleman is making a completely nonsensical argument. Go back and read some history.

    Hansard source
22. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I will push new clause 32 to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
23. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Antisocial behaviour blights lives. I am sure that we all find our inboxes filled with examples of it. Behind every statistic is a family afraid to use its own stairwell, an elderly resident who stops going out after dark or a child who cannot sleep because of the noise next door. Conservative Members believe that when a community protection notice has been issued against a social tenant or someone living in or regularly visiting a social home, the landlord should be required to carry out a tenancy review. That is what new clause 33 would ensure. This is a measured proposal; it does not dictate an outcome. However, it would ensure that landlords looked at the problem and acted. Guidance would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Responsible tenants should not suffer because the system looks the other way. I encourage colleagues to support new clause 33.

    Hansard source
24. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I do feel somewhat reassured, but we are still going to press new clause 33 to a Division. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
25. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. House building in this country is paralysed by the layering and complexity of a range of cumbersome regulations and taxes. According to the Home Builders Federation, at present house builders already face more than £7,000 in taxes and levies, including £2,000 in landfill tax, £2,320 from the forthcoming building safety levy, £2,055 in other taxes, and £985 from inflationary increases on existing charges such as section 106 agreements. Moreover, developers face over £23,000 in regulatory costs, including £7,780 from building regulations, £5,700 from biodiversity net gain, and £10,200 in costs linked to the future homes and buildings standards. That is not the end. Under this Government’s watch, house builders have seen material and labour costs reach heights of £37,000, alongside costs of up to £7,000 in additional potential site-specific elements such as nutrient mitigation requirements. We all heard what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget statement yesterday, but that was about no new building regulations, not looking at those that have exacerbated the problem. The cumulative impact of policy, taxation and regulatory pressures on home building means that it is so costly to build that, for many companies, it no longer makes economic sense to do so, not least when it comes to costlier and less profitable social housing. That is why I have tabled new clause 35, which would require a review of the regulatory requirements on social housing delivery. That would force the Government to confront the reality of these barriers, and work to identify the conditions preventing a renewed upspringing of social home sites.

    Hansard source
26. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    The Minister is right that we have had extended debates on the issue. He is tempting me to reveal our manifesto pledges before the election, but we are not going to do that. He is right that we will be making some recommendations about which regulations we think need to be refined or thought about again. I will decline his invitation, and we will press new clause 35 to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
27. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    This group is about transparency, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon has just explained. New clause 14 would provide for regular statistics on asylum appeals, and new clause 22 for a report on decision making. If Committee members care—or dare—to cast their minds back a few weeks, we Conservatives pressed for appeals statistics under clause 3, so we have some sympathy for both new clauses. Amendment 62, however, would stop the new appeals body starting until the report is laid, which I fear is a delaying tactic. We cannot support it. New clause 57, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), asks for the figure that matters most: how many people have been removed every month after failed asylum claims, as well as when they arrived and why they were removed. Monthly figures linked to date of arrival would allow the House to see whether refusal leads to removal. If removals are rising, the Government can of course take credit for it. If not, Parliament can use that data to hold the Government to account. Will the Government publish monthly figures on removals of failed asylum seekers, with their date of arrival? How many people whose claims and appeals have been finally refused are living in the UK today? I commend new clause 57, which I intend to push to a vote, to the Committee.

    Hansard source
28. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    New clause 15 would amend the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to prevent information about people identified as potential victims of modern slavery from being shared for the purposes of immigration enforcement or removal. We oppose it. The Conservatives’ borders plan to remove every year 150,000 people who have no right to be here, and to deport all foreign criminals, relies on the Home Office knowing who they are. A legal firewall, as has been proposed, around one of the main routes by which people come to the attention of the authorities would obstruct that. It would also invite abuse. The Committee has heard how modern slavery referrals have been made late in the process, after detention and removal directions, in order to delay removal. New clause 15 would make a referral not just a source of delay but a shield from enforcement altogether. Genuine victims deserve protection, and the referral process exists to provide it. However, being referred should not make someone invisible to the immigration system. We fear that the new clause would facilitate that. What proportion of referrals in the past year were made after the person had been detained or served with removal directions?

    Hansard source
29. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    New clause 16 would require the Government to set a deadline and a road map for implementing their own immigration White Paper of May 2025, including the rules on settlement—that has come up in previous sittings of this Committee. Unusually—I do not say this very often—I find myself with some sympathy for the Liberal Democrats in relation to this particular clause. I emphasise that I will not say that too often. The White Paper promised earned settlement and a 10-year route, but by my calculation we are 17 months on and only one element—a higher English requirement—has been pursued. It is worth noting that the Government’s weakening of that testing requirement will render it practically pointless. In March, the Home Secretary said that she would change the law in the autumn. On Thursday, the Minister told the Committee that the Government’s approach to settlement is “currently undergoing a lot of discussion”.––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 22 October 2026; c. 338.] We heard earlier a reference to the “media frenzy”. That is not delivery. Our new clause 49 would put a 10-year qualifying period into law today. Our borders plan goes further still, but whatever our differences on the content, the public are entitled to know when the Government’s promises will be kept. I ask the Minister again: when will the earned settlement rules be laid before Parliament?

    Hansard source
30. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    New clause 18 would require the Government to exercise the break clause in the asylum accommodation contract as soon as reasonably practicable. As we just heard, the public’s anger about hotels and their costs is entirely justified; £2.1 billion was spent on hotels in 2024-25 alone. The hon. Member for Wimbledon has made the case for triggering the break clause, but breaking the contract does not by itself reduce the number of people who need accommodating. Demand must be reduced at source. Basically, fewer people in the system would mean fewer beds needed. I know that the Government are planning to reduce dependency on hotels, but I ask the Minister: how many hotels are in use today? How many people are in them, and what is the daily cost? When will the last one close? Have the Government assessed the cost of exercising the break clause under new clause 18?

    Hansard source
31. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    New clause 19 would create what is sometimes called, as the hon. Member just called it, a humanitarian travel permit: a free visa with at least six months’ leave for anyone, anywhere in the world, who intends to claim asylum in the UK and has a realistic prospect of success. That would potentially open up access a huge number of claimants and we oppose it. The new clause would create an uncapped route to come here to claim asylum with no limit on the numbers and no fee. The judgment of a “realistic prospect of success” would itself generate applications, reviews and litigation. Safe and legal routes should be decided by Parliament, capped, and targeted at those we choose to help. I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government will not introduce such a scheme.

    Hansard source
32. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    The new clause would require legislation within six months to secure full compliance with the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, and we oppose it. The shadow Attorney General conducted a review for our party and concluded that withdrawing from the trafficking convention and amending the Modern Slavery Act would be prudent, because modern slavery claims—sometimes genuine, but too often not—have become one of the main ways of delaying removal and deportation, including of foreign criminals.

    Hansard source
33. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    Part 5 of the Bill, which we support, tries to correct some of the ways the system has been stretched. New clause 21 would undo that by entrenching the convention more deeply into our domestic laws. It would make it harder, not easier, to remove people with no right to be here.

    Hansard source
34. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    Again, I will attempt to be brief. As we have heard from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, new clause 23 would build a legal firewall so that personal information about victims, witnesses and people who report crime cannot be used for immigration purposes. To achieve our ambitions of removing 150,000 people a year who have no right to be here, the Home Office needs to know who and where they are. The police are one of the most important sources of that information. A blanket firewall, as has been described, would cut it off and apply whoever the person is and whatever their history.

    Hansard source
35. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to have you overseeing proceedings this morning, Mr Stuart. I will abstain on new clause 8, but I absolutely appreciate the sentiments behind it. I will not back it in full because the Green party has been thinking about this issue for some time, and we have our own alternative proposal. I will speak a little about the ways in which breaking up the Home Office—along the lines set out in new clause 8—would be a good idea. I refer in particular to the “No Way Home?” report, which was commissioned in June 2025 by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), and produced by Zoe Gardner, an independent researcher and campaigner on immigration and asylum policy. The report recommended that we make a new Department for population, infrastructure and immigration and a Department for community security from the Home Office. Previous Green party policy has used different names for those ideas—including in 2019, when we talked about creating a Ministry for sanctuary and a Ministry for the interior—but they follow the very same lines in splitting up the responsibilities. The “No Way Home?” report goes into more detail. It says in particular that cross-governmental work should be embedded in the remit of the new Departments, and that “A Department for Population, Infrastructure and Immigration” should be “taking on joint task forces with shared budgets with Department for Housing, Communities, and Local Government in order to ensure a long-term approach to the country’s population, workforce and infrastructure needs is built into the management of immigration policy.” On the other side, the new Department for policing and security matters—a “Department for Community Security”—should have “joint teams working across mental health, housing, homelessness and social services” to manage things such as addiction, rather than taking an enforcement approach to drug policy—allowing social services to deal with that—and ensuring that policing work is better integrated across the board with a preventive approach to crime. The report says: “The current remit of the Home Office does not include responsibility for long-term integration, infrastructure planning, and community cohesion”. Those are all issues that we have raised in this Committee as being harmed by the Bill, potentially because the Home Office is not tasked with being concerned about such harms. The report talks about the history of the Home Office as a Department, and how it has been “beset by repeated scandals”. Very famously, those have included the Windrush scandal, which emerged out of the policies of the former Prime Minister, now Baroness May of Maidenhead. Her hostile environment policies, which I think were enacted between 2012 and 2016, were “designed to make life unbearable in the UK for immigrants who were unable to prove their status”, and the Windrush scandal resulted. The “Windrush Lessons Learned Review” made it abundantly clear not only that the political direction set by the then Home Secretary but that the culture and internal structures at the Home Office were at fault for producing the crisis. Earlier, in 2006, a scandal emerged regarding the release of about 1,000 foreign national prisoners, which forced the resignation of the then Home Secretary, Charles Clarke. He was replaced by John Reid, who famously proceeded to describe the Department as “not fit for purpose”. We are nearing a consensus view on the issue, I believe, and the Department should be looking very closely at what it can do. The current work and remit of the Home Office “covers some of the most hotly politically contested areas”. I know that from my brief as my party’s spokesperson in the House on the Home Office and the Justice Department—we are constantly in the news on these issues. Every change is fought over in the public arena, because these are some of the most salient issues of the day. It is no wonder that “the role of Home Secretary is often viewed as a poisoned chalice.” Ministers—in the room today and more widely—might be interested in a more focused remit if they are to take on these responsibilities in future. Despite repeated attempts at reform, “the Home Office has continued to exhibit deep-rooted cultural and institutional problems in its management of the immigration brief, in particular…As a result, a growing number of voices from across the political spectrum have begun to call for an exploration of options for more radical reform. In most cases, the conclusion is that the Department should be split,” with immigration moved into a more dedicated department. The report concludes: “The remit of the Department itself contributes to negative outcomes by linking immigration with security, but neither immigration nor security with community cohesion, infrastructure, or the country’s economic needs”. It says: “The time is ripe for root and branch reform, and only a full break up and redistribution of the responsibilities of the Department has the potential to solve all the problems”. I hope that Ministers will look at that in the future, and that this new clause nevertheless stimulates some discussions in Cabinet and with the Prime Minister about how to improve those deep-seated problems and scandals and avoid them in future.

    Hansard source
36. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    The right to work does not impact only those seeking sanctuary; the impact also falls on their children and on communities. Giving people seeking sanctuary the right to work—or, rather, restoring their agency—is a matter of basic dignity and human rights. People who have fled war or persecution should have the opportunity to rebuild their lives in the UK with dignity and independence. That means that they need a safe place to live, access to support and a genuine right to work, as set out in new clause 24. It is important to stress that this debate is about restoring choice and agency to people seeking sanctuary, not imposing new requirements on those who are not ready or able to work. As it stands, the law permits a person seeking asylum to request permission to work if they have been waiting more than 12 months for a Home Office decision on their asylum claim through no fault of their own. That may be 12 months after they initially claimed asylum or 12 months after they made further submissions, which are then considered as a fresh claim. It has been more than two decades since those seeking asylum could apply to work after six months. People repeatedly raise the issue of enforced worklessness while claims are processed. My new clause 24 would simply restore the previous time limit and match the Home Office’s own targets for decision making. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 10 would grant the right to work at three months, which is also perfectly reasonable. New clause 24 goes into more detail about how the proposal should be implemented. It states that the right should be automatic, without the need for an application, and that there should be no restrictions on the type of employment. It also states when the right should end, if a decision on the application is made one way or the other. More often than not, vulnerable people are left waiting for months, and often years, for a decision. For that entire period, however qualified and willing they are, they are not permitted to work. That is profoundly felt by people who arrive with real skills, a keen willingness to contribute and a desire to rebuild their lives. Instead, the current rules require them to survive on a small weekly allowance. They are unable to contribute, build a life and often even volunteer in their communities without navigating endless bureaucratic red tape. The most potent and poisonous rhetoric of the far right plays up the dependence that people are left in; it stokes conflict between people in the asylum system, who are denied the ability to earn, and others in society. Members can hear the voices I am referring to in their heads right now. There is absolutely no need to leave in place the restrictions that fuel that kind of rhetoric and racism, and that badly harm the acceptance and integration of refugees. Work can bring not only integration and community strength but genuine benefits to people fleeing war, trauma or oppression. That is because people seeking sanctuary in the UK are five to six times more likely than the general population to have mental health needs. A review of the impact of asylum processes on mental health found that policies restricting work contributed to psychological distress and social exclusion. The mental health cost of robbing vulnerable groups of the ability to exercise their agency and provide for themselves and their loved ones is far too high. Many people seeking asylum in the UK and elsewhere are living with trauma. That contributes to their poor mental health. They might also be recovering from illness or caring for family members. It is important that a humane and just system recognises the structural barriers to finding work that many of these people will face. We must recognise that some people will want to work immediately, while others may need time and support to rebuild their lives. Therefore, my new clause is set out as a right to work. If the Government make any moves in this direction, they must refrain from making it a mandate to work. Despite the clear and mounting evidence in favour of the right to work, successive UK Governments have closed their minds to the idea and refused to implement it. The usual response, which has already been aired in this debate, is that permitting work sooner risks acting as a pull factor to further migration, but that does not hold water given the evidence. The UK maintains one of the strictest systems in Europe concerning the right to work for people seeking asylum. The international evidence is unequivocal and the difference in waiting times across comparable countries is enlightening. In 2018, Ireland opted in to the recast EU reception conditions directive and allowed work after nine months. That was subsequently reduced to six months in 2021. Comparable countries in Europe have far more lenient policies on the right to work. In Germany, it is granted after three months, with the only restriction being on self-employment. There is a similar policy after 60 days in Greece. In Italy the period is two months, in Spain it is six months, in Belgium it is four months, and in Denmark it is six months—all with no restrictions. In Sweden someone can apply to work immediately in limited sectors, and in France there are restricted types of work that someone can do after six months. All this is evidence that an alternative can be imagined that is intensely practical, would not have the knock-on effects that other parties have suggested, and can work. Alongside the moral arguments, there is a strong economic angle to be considered. The Lift the Ban coalition, which has already been quoted in this debate, estimates that lifting the ban could save the Treasury over £280 million per year, and recent research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research found that lifting the ban after six months could save the Government a total of £4.4 billion per year, increase tax revenue by £880 million and add £1 billion to GDP. Restricting access to legal work inevitably increases the risk of exploitation. When people are prevented from supporting themselves lawfully, they can be pushed towards unsafe and illegal forms of work. Granting people the right to work therefore extends itself to protecting vulnerable people from further exploitation and abuse, and extends the ability to maintain community cohesion and safety. In my view, though, the greatest cost of the current policy is the human cost—years of wasted potential, lost independence and lives left on hold while awaiting a decision. The Government should heed the approach taken by much of mainland Europe already and accept these amendments.

    Hansard source
37. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    On a point of order, Mr Stuart. I did not withdraw new clause 24. Am I allowed to press it to a vote?

    Hansard source
38. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    Of course! New Clause 11 Refugee family reunion “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes to the immigration rules for the purposes of making provision for refugee family reunion in accordance with this section. (2) Any changes to the immigration rules included in any statement laid before Parliament under subsection (1) must come into effect after 21 days. (3) Before a statement of changes is laid under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult with such persons as the Secretary of State deems appropriate. (4) A statement laid under subsection (1) must set out rules providing for leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for family members of a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection. (5) In this section— the ‘immigration rules’ mean any statement of rules, or any changes to such rules, presented to Parliament pursuant to section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971; ‘refugee status’ and ‘humanitarian protection’ have the same meaning as in the immigration rules; ‘family members’ include— (a) a person's parent, including an adoptive parent; (b) a person's spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner; (c) a person's child, including an adopted child, who is either— (i) under the age of 18, or (ii) under the age of 25 but who was under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum; (d) a person's sibling, including adoptive sibling, who is either— (i) under the age of 18, or (ii) under the age of 25 but who was under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum; and (e) such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to— (i) the importance of maintaining family unity, (ii) the best interests of a child, read in accordance with Article 3 of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, (iii) physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and another person, (iv) risks to the physical, emotional or psychological wellbeing of a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection, including from the circumstances in which the person is living in the United Kingdom, or (v) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; ‘adopted’ and ‘adoptive’ refer to a relationship resulting from adoption, including de facto adoption, as set out in the immigration rules.” —(Tom Gordon.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make changes to the Immigration Rules to make provision for leave to enter or remain in the UK to be granted to the family members of refugees and of people granted humanitarian protection. Brought up, and read the First time.

    Hansard source
39. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Wendy Morton

    Topical Questions

    T8. I think it is fair to say that there is disappointment on both sides of the House, following Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway’s open-access application being rejected because of concerns about capacity and reliability on the west coast main line. Is the Secretary of State confident that nationalising Avanti will result in the punctuality improvements and extra pathways needed to accommodate new services, which I hope can result in WSMR stopping at Aldridge railway station?

    Hansard source
40. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Stuart Andrew

    Topical Questions

    The village of Isham in my constituency is sandwiched between Wellingborough and Kettering, and for 40 years it has been battling to get a bypass. The situation has now got worse because of a huge development of warehousing, yet the bypass has been refused funding. May I invite the Minister to Isham, where I would give him a warm welcome? It is only when people see it for themselves that they can understand how desperately we need this bypass.

    Hansard source