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

Showing every spoken contribution, including 11,997 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eleventh sitting)

   This clause, building on the group we have just discussed, strengthens the operation of slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders by allowing courts to include additional notification requirements and electronic monitoring when orders are renewed or varied. It ensures that such measures may be applied only when the court is satisfied that the requirement is necessary for the purpose of protecting persons from physical or psychological harm, and it introduces safeguards governing the use of electronic monitoring, including limits on the duration of monitoring extensions.

   Hansard source
2. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eleventh sitting)

   As I laid out earlier, we want to ensure that law enforcement and the courts have the tools required to prevent harmful behaviour, including when orders are renewed or varied. Put simply, clause 34 strengthens the operation of slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders by allowing courts to include additional notification requirements and electronic monitoring when orders are renewed and varied. That will enable orders to respond to changing risks, help law enforcement manage those risks effectively and better protect potential victims. The hon. Gentleman asked an earlier question about resource, and it is important to re-emphasise that electronic monitoring can often reduce the resource wasted in trying to trace offenders. Instead, it can allow forces to effectively respond to the risk posed by offenders. He also asked who will be involved, but it will follow the existing process already undertaken by those police forces. I want to further discuss the balance between the powers given under the clause and human rights, as I think it is important to get this on the record. Electronic monitoring would only be applied by a judge to orders where it is appropriate within the confines of the European convention on human rights. There are also restrictions on the specified length of the electronic monitoring <span id="387" class="column-number" data-column-number="387"></span>period that can be applied, based on the circumstances of the individual cases—for example, it could be up to 12 months. The decision to electronically monitor a subject will only be made following great consideration by the courts, and it will be applied only where there is justification and it is demonstrated to be proportionate in that case. Providing the courts with this explicit power to require electronic monitoring as a condition of a slavery and trafficking order does not mean that what constitutes an acceptable threshold for electronic monitoring will be lowered. The provision will only allow for it to be quickly put in place where merit is identified. If I have not addressed any of the hon. Gentleman’s questions, I commit to write to him further on those, but I am grateful for his support. The clause introduces important safeguards governing the use of electronic monitoring, and I commend it to the Committee. <em>Question put and agreed to.</em> <em>Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.</em> Clause 35 Authority responsible for deciding if a person is a victim etc <em>Question proposed, </em>That the clause stand part of the Bill.

   Hansard source
3. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eleventh sitting)

   I will speak to clauses 35 to 43. Since the modern slavery system was established, the nature and volume of referrals have changed. Compared with 2014, referrals into the national referral mechanism—the system for identifying potential victims of modern slavery—have increased by 900%. In 2025, modern slavery referrals from those who arrived by small boat were the highest since records began in 2018, and more than half of referrals now relate to exploitation that took place overseas. Our system seeks to identify, support and protect individuals at the earliest opportunity, and that is in everyone’s interest. However, we cannot ignore the fact that, because of the protections offered by the system, there is value for some in seeking to misuse it. In 2025, over a third of chartered flight returns that failed to go ahead involved a modern slavery referral lodged after that return was arranged. That type of action undermines the integrity of the system and creates disproportionate operational pressures. We need a robust end-to-end system—one that supports earlier identification of victims, delivers clear and timely decisions and addresses opportunities for improper use. Importantly, it must be one that works effectively for those who it is intended to protect. This Government have been particularly clear in our commitment to embed protections for those who are most vulnerable, including exploited and trafficked children, and the clauses will bring balance and order to the system to do just that.<span id="388" class="column-number" data-column-number="388"></span> First, clause 35 clarifies a key part of our modern slavery system: who can make decisions about whether an individual is a victim of modern slavery for the purposes of part 5 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. For adults, it will formalise the existing operational model where the Secretary of State acts as the competent authority or decision-making body for all modern slavery decisions. For children, it will enable the Secretary of State to nominate other public authorities to act as the competent authority in relation to reasonable and conclusive grounds decisions on a case-by-case basis. We know this model can be successful; we have been piloting the approach since 2021, enabling local safeguarding partners, who will often be involved in the child’s care, to make decisions about whether the child is a victim of modern slavery. Stakeholders have told us that embedding decisions with those working directly with a child removes the perceived disconnect between identification and support and delivers a more sustainable model of decision making aligned with existing safeguarding frameworks. However, legislative change is required to implement this approach on a greater scale. That is what this clause delivers: the legal foundation to devolve modern slavery decision making for children nationally, ensuring decisions are made by those best placed to safeguard them. By embedding these responsibilities within existing local safeguarding structures, the clause will strengthen partnership working, increase awareness of exploitation, support earlier identification of vulnerable children and create greater opportunity to prevent harm before it occurs. Schedule 4 will play a critical role in implementing the changes made through clause 35 of the Bill, making consequential amendments to reflect the definition of “competent authority” and ensure consistency across the statute book. It will enable the Secretary of State to lay regulations on the making of reasonable or conclusive grounds decisions by all competent authorities and issue guidance on the processes to be followed by nominated public authorities. Together, the measures will enable consistent, high-quality devolved decision making for children by local safeguarding partners. First, schedule 4 updates definitions to reflect the change in who can make decisions set out in clause 35. Secondly, the regulations ensure persistent decision making across all decision-making bodies, setting a clear framework for the making of modern slavery decisions, what bodies should make them and how they should do so. This will be underpinned by guidance that makes it clear what is expected of public authorities while also providing transparency on how their competence will be addressed. That will help ensure consistent and quality decision making, and that public authorities are trained and supported to deliver to the required standard. Thirdly, regulations will make it clear that information sharing and joint working across multi-agency safeguarding partners is paramount to strong decision making, enabling the Secretary of State to require public authorities other than the Home Office to engage in decision making. That is crucial not just for information sharing for partners with the Home Office, but to deliver the tried-and-tested approach to decision making for children, which will see responsibility embedded with those best able to make decisions for children and ensure it is done in a consistent and controlled way.<span id="389" class="column-number" data-column-number="389"></span> Turning to clause 36, the Government are committed to ensuring that decisions made under the national referral mechanism are robust, preventing opportunities for improper use of the system and providing clarity in legislation. To deliver that, it is essential that the factors that a decision maker must consider to negatively impact a person’s credibility are clear. Currently, decision makers can consider factors such as the timing of disclosure and consistency in the information a person has provided, which may have an impact on the credibility of a person’s account. This assessment can be used to inform the outcome of a reasonable grounds or conclusive grounds decision. However, there is no legal requirement for this credibility assessment to inform part of the decision making. The clause will place those credibility considerations on a statutory footing, making it clear that those factors, which can often be an indicator of a lack of veracity, will be considered to be damaging to a person’s credibility unless good reasons are put forward. That will provide a more robust framework supporting consistent decision making and a clear understanding across potential victims and those representing them. We recognise that there may be factors that explain the presence of credibility indicators. For example, a person may be suffering from coercion, fear or trauma. That is why the legislation also requires decision making to assess whether there are good reasons that could explain the presence of factors that would otherwise impact on an individual’s credibility. Detailed guidance will be set out on what will constitute good reasons, recognising that these are non-exhaustive. It will support decision makers in considering each person’s individual circumstances and experience. This is a key safeguard that balances the importance of preventing improper claims with the recognition that some factors that point to a lack of credibility are the result of individual circumstances that require consideration. By setting out a statutory duty to consider credibility considerations and the impact of those factors on decisions, the clause will strengthen the legal robustness of decision making and provide greater clarity for decision makers, potential victims and those representing them. I commend clauses 35 and 36 to the Committee.

   Hansard source
4. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eleventh sitting)

   I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. This is a really important discussion because these are important clauses. Clause 35 clarifies who can make decisions about whether an individual is a victim of modern slavery for the purposes of part 5 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. For adults, as I have said, it will formalise the existing operational model, with the Secretary of State acting as a competent authority for all modern slavery decisions. For children, it will enable the Secretary of State to nominate other public authorities to act as the competent authority. That will allow modern slavery decisions relating to children to be devolved nationally, ensuring that decisions are made by those best placed to safeguard and support them, building on the success of the pilot. Schedule 4 complements these changes by making important consequential amendments to reflect the definition of competent authority and ensure consistency across the statute book. It will enable the Secretary of State to lay regulations on the making of reasonable or conclusive grounds decisions by all competent authorities and issue guidance on the processes to be followed by nominated public authorities.<span id="395" class="column-number" data-column-number="395"></span> Clause 36 places on a statutory footing credibility considerations that are already set out in guidance. That will make it clear that these factors will be considered to be damaging to a person’s credibility unless good reasons are put forward. That will provide a more robust framework—one that supports consistent decision making while recognising factors that could impact credibility indicators, such as a person suffering from coercion, fear or trauma. I come back to the points raised during the discussion. I am afraid that I take issue with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for talking as if the purpose of the Bill is just to drive rhetoric or a political argument. These important measures will give our constituents confidence in the immigration and asylum system, and they will make sure that these important provisions, which are a credit to the Conservatives, are genuinely there to protect those who require and deserve support having faced the horrendous issue of modern slavery. It is really important that we protect them from abuse. I go back to some of the facts and evidence I have already mentioned. The hon. Lady seems to dismiss the evidence out of hand, but there are some important factors here. I mentioned in my introductory remarks that modern slavery referrals have gone up 900% since 2014. Of arranged returns that failed to go ahead, 34%, or over a third, involved a referral for modern slavery made after the return had been arranged—not prior, but after. That is people who have gone through numerous appeals processes and have had numerous opportunities to highlight issues or concerns, but who had a return arranged because they have no right to be in this country. Of cases raised through the national referral mechanism’s out-of-hours decision-making service ahead of a charter flight, 76% were raised between the hours of 3 pm on the day prior to the planned removal and 6 am on the day of the planned charter removal. Of the total referrals, 15% were raised after 11 pm.

   Hansard source
5. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eleventh sitting)

   I am just addressing the hon. Lady’s point. She said that those are not big statistics, or she dismissed them. They might appear small in scale, but they place a hugely disproportionate pressure on operations. Home Office officials are getting all the paperwork in place and liaising with different countries and airlines. These cases are hugely expensive and damaging for operations. They delay removal action due to disingenuous claims, prevent proper decision making and impact support for those who need it most. That is what the Bill aims to address.

   Hansard source
6. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eleventh sitting)

   I appreciate the hon. Lady’s intervention. I will come on to trauma and the exemptions that we have, because this is really important. We want to make <span id="396" class="column-number" data-column-number="396"></span>sure that genuine victims are protected, but I want to outline another fact—the facts are really important here—because the UK refers more victims of modern slavery than the whole of Europe put together. In 2023, the UK referred 17,004 cases, yet there were 10,907 referrals in the whole EU. I do not think anyone can accuse us of not living up to our obligations on modern slavery. The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Wimbledon have both mentioned victims of trauma. As a Government, we have engaged extensively with organisations working to address modern slavery. We have had a call for evidence and lived experience forums. We have had a range of expert insights, including survivor voices, to ensure that we have informed policy development. That has helped to ensure that the reforms reflect how the system operates in practice and take a trauma-informed approach to identifying and supporting victims. We will continue to engage with stakeholders as the Bill progresses, to ensure that the system remains responsive to victims’ needs. I reiterate that individuals have opportunities throughout their immigration process to raise any modern slavery-related information, or any other information.

   Hansard source
7. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eleventh sitting)

   I will give way, and then I will make the point I had intended to make.

   Hansard source
8. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eleventh sitting)

   The hon. Lady must not misinterpret us; we are absolutely clear that individuals do not make those claims. However, they raise information. If they raise information on the plane’s steps, it is very clear that many individuals are knowingly gaming the sorts of information that will be relevant to a modern slavery claim. Individuals can raise, at any point in the immigration process, not a referral but any information relating to any concerns they may have about their experience of modern slavery. That could be at the moment they arrive at a UK port, when they are encountered by immigration officials, or it could be to the police, a local authority, a community group or a charity. All this information can be flagged. If modern slavery information is raised, or if it is identified through general immigration screening processes, a trained first responder—in these circumstances, from UK Visas and Immigration, Border Force, Immigration Enforcement or the police—will make a national referral mechanism referral. Adults must consent to such a referral being made. The referral process includes questions designed to surface any modern slavery experience, to aid decision making by the single competent authority and the immigration enforcement competent authority. People are trained specifically to ask questions throughout the process to identify victims of modern slavery.<span id="397" class="column-number" data-column-number="397"></span> Returning to the issues of trauma, the Government recognise the horrific experience that many victims of modern slavery have endured. We understand that trauma can have a profound effect on their ability to raise and discuss it, which is why decision makers are trained and must consider whether there are good reasons to explain the factors that might otherwise be viewed as undermining an individual’s credibility. Detailed guidance will support decision makers in considering each person’s individual circumstances and experience. That will be trauma-informed, and it will ensure that credibility assessments are made fairly and on a case-by-case basis. First responders are also trained to recognise any signs of modern slavery and identify potential victims, to use trauma-informed approaches to help individuals disclose their experiences and, where appropriate, to refer them to the national referral mechanism. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion asks about the provisions applying to children. The Bill’s credibility provisions will apply to individuals of all ages, but specific safeguards will be in place with regard to age. The Government recognise the specific vulnerabilities that children can have, which may affect their ability to disclose relevant modern slavery information. That will be factored into decision makers’ consideration of whether there are good reasons to explain the factors that might otherwise be viewed as undermining an individual’s credibility. This could include, for example, a child’s developmental stage and emotional maturity, which could have an impact on their ability to disclose information. Detailed guidance will support decision makers in considering each person’s individual circumstances and experiences, ensuring that credibility assessments are made fairly and on a case-by-case basis. The hon. Lady also asks whether the credibility provisions will apply to British nationals. Yes, they will apply to all individuals, including British nationals. We recognise that some individuals, including British nationals who have experienced modern slavery, may have reasons for being unable to disclose information at an early opportunity. For example, victims of historical exploitation may not have previously come into contact or had repeated interactions with authorities, resulting in delayed disclosure. Equally, victims might not recognise themselves as victims of modern slavery or might be reluctant to be identified as such. That is why our first responders are trained to understand and identify signs that may indicate that a person is a victim. The clause also requires decision makers to consider all relevant circumstances and evidence when assessing the credibility of an individual’s account on a case-by-case basis. As I said, where they identify that there are good reasons for the delayed disclosure, they will not draw a negative credibility finding on that basis alone. The hon. Lady mentioned the al-Fayed cases. We are absolutely committed to supporting victims to come forward and disclose their experiences, including victims of historical exploitation, victims of grooming gangs and al-Fayed trafficking victims. Those are horrendous cases. Under the modern slavery system, first responders must refer consenting adults and children to the national referral mechanism when modern slavery indicators are present. This is true regardless of how long ago the incidents may have occurred. Decision makers will take this into account when considering cases. Where there is <span id="398" class="column-number" data-column-number="398"></span>an explanation for the time taken between the exploitation and disclosing it, the delay in disclosure will not result in a negative credibility finding on that basis alone. The credibility provisions on delayed disclosure focus on where individuals have had repeated opportunities to disclose and did not do so. It is not a blanket provision on all lateness. Hon. Members have asked for more detail on why good reasons are not listed in the Bill. The Bill sets out a pretty exhaustive list of five specific factors that decision makers are required to consider as having a negative impact on credibility when assessing the account of an individual referred to the national referral mechanism, while recognising there might be legitimate reasons for these issues arising. Where the competent authority is satisfied that there are good reasons for the issues with an individual’s account, such as delayed disclosure and inconsistency of account, this will mitigate against any adverse credibility finding. The legislation does not include an exhaustive list of good reasons, primarily because the range of potential mitigating circumstances is so broad that any attempt to provide a closed list would inevitably fail to capture the full range of potential mitigating circumstances. Decision makers should not be restricted to a set of good reasons. Having these reasons in guidance will retain flexibility for decision makers to consider individual factors that appear to impact on an individual’s credibility. Those decision makers should consider all relevant factors in the round on a case-by-case basis before making a credibility finding. In terms of good reasons, relevant consideration may include the impact of trauma, fear of authorities, cultural or gender-related barriers to disclosure, a lack of self-identification as a victim or, for children, factors such as developmental stage, maturity and the effects of grooming, coercion and control. The hon. Member for Stockton West asked about consistency across local authorities and local decision-making structures. It is important to say that any individual would receive a consistent decision and outcome. That is important to us, irrespective of which competent authority makes the decision. Regulations will be put in place to establish a clear framework that all competent authorities will be expected to operate within in order to ensure that decisions are taken consistently across all areas. All decisions will be made in line with modern slavery statutory guidance that will be consistent across all competent authorities. For decisions made by local public authorities, there will be separate additional guidance setting out the process and timelines for decision making through this model. The shadow Minister also asked who might be nominated. Ahead of any public authority being nominated as a competent authority, it will be provided with a comprehensive programme of training to ensure that it understands its responsibilities as a competent authority and is able to make timely and accurate decisions. In addition, the Home Office will put in place clear oversight processes, including clear intervention steps that will be taken should concerns be raised about performance. The shadow Minister also asked how the measures will apply in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The intention is for this model of decision making to apply to children across all parts of the United Kingdom. We already have successful pilot sites operating in all four nations, as the model allows for local safeguarding <span id="399" class="column-number" data-column-number="399"></span>partners to have flexibility over how they deliver many elements of the decision-making process. This means that decisions can work alongside any differences in legislative framework across the UK, while ensuring that all decisions are made to a consistent standard. We will continue to work with local safeguarding partners and devolved Governments on this approach and implementation.

   Hansard source
9. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eleventh sitting)

   This Government are clear that we must be able to move individuals more efficiently through the system without unnecessary delay, and ensure that those who are deemed not to be victims of modern slavery do not receive protection and support that they do not need and are not entitled to. Clause 37 makes it clear that a negative conclusive grounds decision ends the modern slavery recovery period, so there will be no requirement to wait for the 30-day recovery period to end before confirming that an individual is not a victim. At present, after referral to the national referral mechanism, if an individual receives a positive reasonable grounds decision, they receive a statutory 30-day recovery period. That protects them from removal and enables access to support. Even where a decision maker has the evidence to issue a negative conclusive grounds decision within 30 days, and so conclude that the individual is not a victim, that would not end the recovery period nor these entitlements.<span id="400" class="column-number" data-column-number="400"></span> Clause 37 rectifies this problem. Where there is enough evidence to conclude that an individual is not a victim of modern slavery, a negative conclusive grounds decision can be issued within the recovery period, and the issuing of that negative decision will end the recovery period. This is important to ensure that we remove inefficiencies in our system and do not retain unnecessary barriers to removal. It will also ensure that support resources remain focused on supporting and protecting genuine victims. I commend clause 37 to the Committee.

   Hansard source
10. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    I appreciate the contributions that hon. Members have made. As I have made clear, the Government are committed to ensuring that the modern slavery national referral mechanism operates efficiently and effectively. Clause 37 is an important part of that. It will remove inefficiencies and allow for support to be targeted at those who are recognised as victims, rather than having an arbitrary period to wait when we have conclusively identified that an individual is not a victim. As I am sure hon. Members would agree, support should be removed in a recovery period when there is sufficient evidence to conclude that an individual is not a victim of modern slavery. Let me respond to some of the points that colleagues have made. I have heard language describing people whose conclusive grounds decisions state that they are not victims of modern slavery described as “survivors”. It is important to note that the conclusive grounds decision is that they are not a victim of modern slavery, and therefore that they are not considered to have recovery needs stemming from modern slavery. It stands to reason that those individuals should not be entitled to the recovery period or to modern slavery-specific support—nor would they need them.<span id="403" class="column-number" data-column-number="403"></span> For someone who does not receive a negative conclusive grounds decision in the recovery period, those protections will continue for the duration of the 30 days or until such time as a conclusive grounds decision is made. During the recovery period, when there are still reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is a victim of modern slavery, protection from removal and entitlement to support will be ongoing. The recovery period itself is not being reduced; the new provision merely makes it clear that, where there is sufficient evidence to warrant making a negative conclusive grounds decision during that time, doing so will end the recovery period. The quality of decision making has been flagged by a number of Opposition Members. We are talking about highly trained staff, and negative conclusive grounds decisions are always checked by a second pair of eyes, so there is quality assurance and effective decision making. In 2025, of the 17,560 negative decisions, only 1,467 were accepted for reconsideration. Changing the outcome, however, does not mean that the original decision was incorrect. In most cases, additional information was provided that was not available originally, so that is not an issue of decision-making quality.

    Hansard source
11. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 114, in clause 38, page 40, line 16, leave out— “except where the person is within subsection (1A)” and insert— “in a case where the person is aged 18 or over”. <em>This amendment limits the duty of the Secretary of State to disqualify potential victims of slavery or trafficking from certain protections when they are a threat to public order so that the duty will apply only in respect of adults.</em>

    Hansard source
12. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    Our modern slavery system is generous in the rights and protections it provides those who require them to recover from that abhorrent crime. The Government remain committed to ensuring that such protections are available to those for whom they are intended. It is right—indeed, it is within our international obligations—that the Government can deny modern slavery protections to those who pose a threat to public order or seek to misuse the system through dishonest claims made in bad faith. The practical operation of the disqualification mechanisms has long-standing challenges, including in cases involving foreign national offenders. The current disqualification framework does not always provide sufficient clarity on when disqualification should apply and what the consequences of that decision are, or on when a claim should be treated as having been made in bad faith. Such ambiguities have created operational <span id="405" class="column-number" data-column-number="405"></span>uncertainty and complicated decision making, and ultimately mean that the disqualification framework does not operate as effectively as it should. Clause 38 addresses those issues by strengthening and clarifying the public order and bad faith disqualification frameworks, while maintaining appropriate safeguards for children and those at risk of re-trafficking. First, it expands the grounds on which a person can be disqualified, based on the national security or public order threat that they pose, to include suspended sentences, reflecting the changes made in the Sentencing Act 2026. Secondly, it clarifies the consequences that follow a decision to disqualify, making clear that no onward modern slavery decision making is required, rectifying an existing lack of clarity. Thirdly, it clarifies that where an individual is at an immediate and significant risk of re-trafficking in the UK, the national security or public order disqualification will not apply. That necessary and targeted safeguard provides clarity for decision makers, potential victims and professionals, and balances the need to protect people at significant risk with the duty to disqualify. That exemption ensures that, where there is a direct risk of someone being exploited or exploited again in the UK, they retain access to NRM support for protection. Clause 38, combined with amendment 115, also introduces a specific, targeted exemption from disqualification for all children on public order grounds, while maintaining the disqualification where the national security criteria are met, to ensure that the acute vulnerabilities of children are appropriately recognised. Importantly, the clause also separates bad faith from public order, and, for the first time in statute, defines circumstances in which a claim is to be treated as having been made in bad faith. That includes claims based on falsified documents or claims made only after removal action has commenced without compelling justification, thereby disincentivising people from trying to misuse the system. Those measures will provide a more consistent and robust approach to disqualification decisions, helping to ensure that the modern slavery system safeguards the public interest, commands public confidence and strengthens the Government’s ability to respond where individuals pose a threat to public order or seek to misuse the system. The clause therefore addresses existing uncertainty that underpins the current disqualification framework, strengthens and clarifies the circumstances in which disqualification will apply, embeds more appropriate safeguards, and ultimately supports a more effective modern slavery system. Amendment 115, which is consequential on amendment 114, ensures that all children are treated equally under the public order disqualification in clause 38. Presently, clause 38 exempts children with leave to remain or right of abode in the UK from disqualification based on public order threat based on criminality. Amendments 114 and 115 recognise the vulnerabilities <span id="406" class="column-number" data-column-number="406"></span>of all children and make an important change to ensure that all children under the age of 18 are treated consistently. The same exemption from the public order disqualification on criminality grounds will therefore be afforded to all children regardless of their immigration status. The amendments do not affect disqualification on national security grounds, for which all children remain in scope. I hope that Members will agree that the amendments are sensible and proportionate, and ensure that the public order disqualification provision, and our safeguarding duties, can operate as intended. Amendment 118 is a technical amendment to provide greater clarity win the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 on how the public order disqualification, bad faith disqualification and temporary permission to stay provisions operate together. Amendments 116 and 117, which are consequential on amendment 118, remove references to temporary permission to stay from the public order and bad faith disqualification provisions in section 63 of the 2022 Act. That will create a clearer distinction between a disqualification decision and a temporary permission to stay decision under section 65 of the same Act, the latter of which can be considered only after a positive conclusive grounds decision has been made. Importantly, section 65 already makes clear the circumstances in which the duty to grant permission to stay does not apply, including where public order, national security or bad faith concerns arise. The amendments therefore improve the clarity and consistency of the legislation, without changing the underlying policy intent.

    Hansard source
13. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Gelderd

    SEND Provision: Rural Communities

    In my rural community of South East Cornwall, I had the honour of visiting the Learning Paddocks, which is a specialist provision that worked very hard to get set up but faced many barriers to being a specialist provider of care. In areas such as mine with huge transport problems and when mainstream education is not the right choice, how are the Government going to work with providers to support specialist provision such as the Learning Paddocks?

    Hansard source
14. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Angela Rayner

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. Nine years ago, 72 people, 18 of them children, died in the Grenfell Tower tragedy. It was a deadly betrayal and a national tragedy that must never happen again. Let me start by remembering those who lost their lives and paying tribute to the bereaved families, the survivors and members of the Grenfell community. In the time since, the community has campaigned to fix the building safety crisis exposed by the tragedy. That is why we are all here today—so that no one suffers as they have. A decent, safe and secure home is not too much to ask for, but for many it is still out of reach. Despite nine years passing since the Grenfell tragedy, up to 380,000 residents are still living in buildings with unsafe cladding. Every single one of them tells a story of someone unable to move on with their life, stuck in an unsafe home, unable to sell, and often unable to sleep at night. There are even stories of families evacuated without any guarantee of when they can return home. The mental and financial burden can become unbearable. We have taken action, and we have accepted our responsibilities, but the truth is that others have not. There are still people and companies out there who are not acting quickly enough to make homes safe. Of the 4,724 buildings where unsafe cladding has been identified, work has been completed on only 1,849. Regulators have so far had to take enforcement action on over 900 buildings where those responsible were not taking their responsibilities seriously. As a Government, we will stand up for every leaseholder who is stuck in an unremediated flat, unable to move on with their lives and facing huge costs in the meantime. When this Government came to power, the pace of remediation was unacceptably slow. That is why in December 2024 I announced the remediation acceleration plan—our blueprint to identify all buildings with unsafe cladding. We are now delivering on that plan, which means that buildings will be fixed faster and residents will be supported better.

    Hansard source
15. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Angela Rayner

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we need to ensure that we have the skilled workforce this situation requires. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, alongside other Departments, has put more investment into ensuring we have the people in post, and we will continue with that piece of work. We also launched a national identification drive to understand the scale of the problem.

    Hansard source
16. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Angela Rayner

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He is right to highlight the devastating impact on communities. The Bill will I hope go some way towards doing the things he wants to see for his constituents. Anyone who has deliberately failed to mitigate or remediate buildings that are over 11 metres will face tougher consequences as a result of the Bill, including fines of up to £500,000 and, where needed, criminal prosecution. Since we launched the national identification drive to understand the scale of the problem, over 200,000 building records have been reviewed. That is significantly improving our understanding of the affected building stock and enabling remediation activity to be targeted more effectively. To drive the pace of remediation work, we also gave social housing providers equal access to Government funding schemes for the first time.

    Hansard source
17. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Angela Rayner

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    I thank my hon. Friend for that. Hopefully, as we go through the Bill she will see how we are changing the emphasis in particular to ensure that the buildings most at risk will be remediated first. As I said, we have given social housing providers access to Government funding schemes for the first time, investing over £1 billion to ensure that the most vulnerable residents have safe homes. We have also ended the binary approach to remediation funding based on building height.

    Hansard source
18. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Angela Rayner

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I hope that in the passage of the Bill she will see we are hoping that we can do that piece of work, because we do understand the devastating impact on people’s lives. All buildings are now considered based on the risk presented to those living in them. As part of that, we have announced targeted funding for buildings under 11 metres with the highest risk so that the cost of fixing cladding on those buildings does not fall on the leaseholders. We will always ensure that developers pay their fair share towards making buildings safe. We have already agreed stretched targets for developers to accelerate work to assess and remediate buildings and we will hold them to account on their progress.

    Hansard source
19. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Angela Rayner

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    I am really sorry to hear about the situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Since the Grenfell tragedy, many hon. Members across the House have had similar experiences of fires, including fatalities. As I outlined in terms of the thousands of buildings that need remediation, that is one thing that weighs heavily on my mind every night as Secretary of State. I would not want my family to be in a property that was unsafe. That is why the Bill is so important. He made an important point about waking watches, which I will come to further into my speech.

    Hansard source
20. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Angela Rayner

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    We are trying to ensure that those who are responsible will be part of that. We know that manufacturers and so on have been using routes to try to get out of paying their fair share and doing what they <span id="217" class="column-number" data-column-number="217"></span>need to do. This remediation Bill is about closing some of the gaps we see. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman as the Bill goes through the House. We have also ensured that social housing providers have ambitious targets for the completion of all remediation work for which they are responsible. The data is clear that the action is working: since we published the remediation acceleration plan, remediation has been reported to be completed on over 470 more buildings. That is about 35,000 more residents who can at least feel safer in their homes.

    Hansard source
21. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Angela Rayner

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    My officials will have heard that call, and I or the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith, who is in her place, will be happy to meet my hon. Friend. Coming back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) about residents paying for costly waking watch patrols, we have provided an additional £62 million for fire alarms in buildings with defects. That will keep residents safe until remediation work is completed and save leaseholders about £280 a month. We are also taking action on insurance. We will introduce secondary legislation to do two things: strengthen transparency and bring the insurance commissions ban into force. The ban will stop people—including freeholders and property managing agents—from passing those commissions on to leaseholders. That will end the incentive for unscrupulous landlords and agents to seek out unearned profits and simply pass the cost on to innocent leaseholders.

    Hansard source
22. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Angela Rayner

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    We are establishing a single, consistent approach to assessing external walls so that buildings are judged on the same basis. Central to that is PAS 9980, which will become the required standard for fire risk appraisals of external walls. Before the end of the year, we will bring forward the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which will put power back in the hands of residents and tackle unfair costs and charges. We will cap ground rents at £250 a year before reducing them to a peppercorn after 40 years, and also cap administration fees.

    Hansard source
23. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Angela Rayner

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    This is about meeting the challenges that we face, and making sure that those who are not taking responsibility, do. I am happy to continue the conversations with my hon. Friend to make sure that we get that balance right; that is what we want. We want those people to take responsibility and carry out the remediation. The remediation Bill before the House is the next major step in ending the building safety crisis.

    Hansard source
24. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Angela Rayner

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    We are working on that. PAS 9980 is the established approach used across Government remediation programmes. It provides a robust and proportionate way of identifying the risk of fire spreading through a building’s external walls and the action needed to keep residents safe.

    Hansard source
25. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Angela Rayner

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    I will give way one last time.

    Hansard source
26. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Angela Rayner

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    My hon. Friend’s intervention shows that the remediation Bill is crucial to us meeting our ongoing challenges with the remediation acceleration plan. The relevant Minister will be happy to meet her to go through the specifics relating to fire safety and the regulations on that. The Bill will help us complete the task of identifying all remaining buildings that require remediation. It will introduce a register of 11 to 18-metre buildings, giving <span id="219" class="column-number" data-column-number="219"></span>Government a complete record for the first time of all medium-rise buildings in England. It will also mandate how external wall assessments are carried out, to ensure a nationally consistent approach to remediation. Also, for the first time, the Bill makes it indisputable that responsible entities have to remediate building safety defects with urgency through a new legal duty to remediate. They must take action now or risk severe consequences, including criminal charges where appropriate. It is unacceptable that enforcement is too slow and penalties are too weak to compel those responsible to act. We will give regulators the tools that they need, including the ability to issue escalating financial penalties, and to pursue criminal prosecution in the worst cases. From now on, no building and no resident will be left behind. Our new remediation backstop will allow public bodies to step in and carry out remediation work themselves. That will mean that residents have a route to remediation, even when the responsible entity is determined to ignore its duty to keep residents safe.

    Hansard source
27. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Angela Rayner

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that case and the incredible work that the family have done. Today, I wrote to Amanda’s mother, who has been tremendous in making sure that some of the measures in this Bill were included. It is a devastating case. Our measures will be backed by tough sanctions, including provisions for cost recovery and the sale of responsible parties’ interest in the building, so that they cannot benefit. We will also bring an end to indefinite decants, in which residents are evacuated from their home and given no assurances about when they can return. We will empower residents to make sure that their buildings are safe, even when the responsible entity is absent, neglectful or insolvent. The Bill is not just about getting the work done, but about making sure that the cost of the remediation work is borne by those who are responsible for the building safety crisis. That brings me on to construction product manufacturers who produced unsafe cladding, released it on to the market, and have yet to meaningfully contribute towards the remediation work. As well as being unjust, that puts additional financial pressure on those who are getting on with doing the work. The Bill will fix long-standing gaps in the law: developers, contractors and others who have paid to make buildings safe will be able to properly pursue manufacturers, rather than being blocked by technical legal barriers. That is not all. I intend to table amendments, as the Bill passes through Parliament, that go further on construction product redress. Through the Bill, for the <span id="220" class="column-number" data-column-number="220"></span>first time, we will require relevant construction product manufacturers to contribute towards remediation costs that are met by the taxpayer. It is not right that taxpayers should shoulder the burden on their behalf. At the heart of everything that we do to make buildings safe are the residents and leaseholders who bear absolutely no responsibility for the building safety crisis, but who feel its most acute consequences. The most important thing that we can do for residents is remediate their homes as quickly as possible, to ensure that they are safe. This is not just a safety crisis; for many leaseholders, the presence of unsafe cladding on their home has had a terrible financial toll. Although the Building Safety Act 2022 protects the majority of leaseholders from substantial building safety costs, there are some groups who remain excluded, and who are exposed to remediation bills. Some are forced to pay higher insurance premiums until their buildings are made safe. As a member of this Government, who are committed to lowering the cost of living, I am not prepared to let that continue, so I can announce that the Government will go further than ever to shield leaseholders from the financial burden of this crisis. I am pleased to announce that this Government will commit grant funding towards the remediation of high-risk, high-cost internal fire safety defects in eligible collectively owned and enfranchised buildings. Those buildings do not benefit from existing protections because there is no separate freeholder to carry the cost. The funding will narrow the gap between leaseholders in such buildings and those already protected from remediation costs under the Building Safety Act, giving them greater certainty and support in making their home safe.

    Hansard source
28. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Angela Rayner

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    Again, I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Hopefully, what I have said today goes some way to reassuring those who have raised that issue with us. Since my return to Government, my noble Friend Baroness Blake, who is watching the debate, and I have met End Our Cladding Scandal. We have heard the requests of its members and other leaseholders to expand the leaseholder protections in the Building Safety Act. We have also heard from those who bought their first home, only to find it was a non-qualifying lease. The Government will investigate whether we can extend the protection to any leaseholder who owns a lease on their only or principal home. We have also heard those who have spoken about the plight of those with small portfolios who were excluded from protection. As the Bill passes through Parliament, I will table amendments to expand the protection from three to six properties. In our manifesto, we committed to reviewing how to better protect leaseholders from costs. These actions show that we are a Government who are committed to keeping our promises.

    Hansard source
29. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Angela Rayner

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    We are hoping to make sure that nobody is left out, or left feeling those pressures. My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I outlined before that many of the groups we have met recently are making the case that we need to push harder on doing everything that we can. As the Bill goes through Parliament, the Building Safety Minister is happy to meet Members to see how far we can go, so that we can make sure that we are doing everything that we said we would do in our manifesto. We committed to accelerating the pace of remediation, better protecting leaseholders, and ensuring that those responsible for the crisis pay towards putting it right. Our record since 2024 shows that we are getting on with the job, but there is still work to do, which is why, through the Bill, we will go further than ever before. Every building that we make safe helps to give those living in these flats and those looking to buy a home confidence that they are safe. This is about restoring trust in our housing market, protecting our communities and bringing an end to the building safety crisis, once and for all. I pay tribute, once again, to the Grenfell community—the survivors and the families who were affected—and to all of us who have contributed to getting to this stage, with the Bill in front of us. I commend it to the House.

    Hansard source
30. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Amanda Martin

    Council Housing

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for securing this debate. I want to speak up for Portsmouth today, a city that at its peak had 27,000 council homes and now has fewer than 16,000. Our city is in the grip of a housing crisis, with too many people struggling to find a secure and affordable home. We have a waiting list of almost 3,000 households, with almost 50% of those being exceptional or urgent priority. Yet in 2024-25 Portsmouth built just 40 new homes—not 40 social homes, but 40 new homes in total. In the same period, only 15 units for social rent were added to the council stock, with just six more being started. Behind those figures are families waiting for a home, young people struggling to find somewhere they can afford, and residents facing the insecurity of unaffordable rent or moving from temporary accommodation to temporary accommodation.<span id="96WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="96WH"></span> I know personally what a council home means. I grew up in one and many of my aunties and uncles, and my own parents were born and lived in council housing. For my family it meant stability, security and the opportunity to build a future. Council housing is more than bricks and mortar. It gives people a foundation in life, a community and a place to call home, and every family deserves one. That is why I am proud that this Labour Government have committed to the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. We are invigorating council house building and taking action to protect existing social housing, but that national ambition must translate into homes on the ground in Portsmouth. More families need the security I experienced growing up in a safe, affordable home, and the chance to build a better future. Cannock Chase and historical Norwich city council have shown what can be achieved when a council creates opportunity, and I commend their vision. Portsmouth should look at what works elsewhere and how we can translate that to my city. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what practical support the Government can provide to help Portsmouth city council overcome barriers to planning, building, developing derelict sites, regenerating empty homes and unlocking investment to deliver the council houses and social rented homes my residents desperately need? Portsmouth city council must act; my residents cannot afford to wait any longer to have a secure place to call home.

    Hansard source
31. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alice Macdonald

    Council Housing

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for securing this debate. Norwich was at the birth of social housing, building its first council house on Angel Road 100 years ago. Shortly after, came the Mile Cross estate, one of the first of its kind. By the 1970s, our city had a higher proportion of council housing than any other in the country. Labour in Norwich continued that delivery. We delivered Goldsmith Street—105 council homes built to Passivhaus standards and the first council housing project to win the Royal Institute of British Architects Stirling prize. At the old Mile Cross depot in my <span id="94WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="94WH"></span>constituency, a Labour council planned and funded 67 new council homes for rent, with more on the full site. Anglia Square stood undeveloped for years, then a Labour Government gave a Labour city council the funding to unlock the site and get building, delivering 1,100 homes, with a commitment that at least 50% will be affordable, many at social rent. I pay tribute to the former Labour council leaders, including Mike Stonard, Alan Waters, Brenda Horner and Steve Morphew, for their work driving that vision forward, and Carli Harper, who has put housing at the centre of her campaign to be Mayor of Norfolk and Suffolk. That is what delivery looks like, but it is not finished. We have to do much more to ensure that the council homes my constituents need are delivered. Since May, the Green party has run Norwich city council. I want them to succeed and not squander Labour’s legacy on housing. My message is simple: see those schemes through; do not let them slip and do not dilute them. The need is real, with almost 4,000 households in Norwich waiting for a home. Those are not statistics; they are people who have done everything right and are still waiting. What needs to happen? First, we need investment, so I welcome the Government’s £39 billion programme for social and affordable homes. I declare an interest as the chair of the East of England housing delivery group. The region is expected to deliver 227,000 homes to support the Government’s targets over the course of this Parliament. If we are to do that, we must get our fair share of investment. Houses do not build themselves, so we need to ensure we have the skills in the pipeline to accelerate construction and deliver them. Our need for homes must be recognised as urgent. Secondly, with others, I welcome the decision to let councils keep their right-to-buy receipts, which will make a huge difference. Thirdly, it is not enough to build homes; they have to be of good quality. People in council housing deserve high-quality homes, such as the ones Norwich Labour built on Goldsmith Street. Too many constituents still contact me with concerns about the quality of housing. Fourthly, homes must be eco-friendly. Goldsmith Street proves that warm, low-energy homes with bills tenants can afford are not a luxury; they are what council housing should be. Every new council home we build, should be built to the same ambition. Fifthly, community is important. Mile Cross worked a century ago because it was never just about housing; it was also a community. Its centenary in 2023 was beautifully celebrated by The Common Lot. A home is only as good as what surrounds it: the bus that turns up, the GP we can book, the school within walking distance, the park, and the shop on the corner. When we build homes, we must build that community, too. The Norwich Labour party still believes that, and I know Labour in government believes that, so we must keep building to deliver the council homes that so many people still desperately need.

    Hansard source
32. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alice Macdonald

    Council Housing

    Obviously we are in government now, but will the hon. Lady reflect on her party’s policies in terms of not letting councils keep right-to-buy receipts or the fact that nearly 200,000 homes were lost in one decade under the Conservatives?

    Hansard source
33. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alice Macdonald

    “No Choice But Childhood” Campaign

    In Afghanistan, children, particularly girls, simply cannot enjoy their childhood. This summer marked a grim anniversary: it is five years since the Taliban began an assault on women and girls, banning girls from education. We have to stand with Afghan women and girls. Will we support calls from Afghan women to recognise gender apartheid as a crime against humanity, and will the Minister, or the relevant Minister, meet me, other MPs and, importantly, Afghan women to discuss what more can be done?

    Hansard source
34. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alex Sobel

    Council Housing

    Leeds is one of the biggest local authorities in England. We have 27,000 households on the waiting list for council housing, 5,000 of which are in priority need. So many constituents come to me saying that they just cannot afford private rented homes. The main issue is that there is just not enough council housing. I welcome the Government saying that they are building more houses, but there needs to be specific help for Leeds, including both more funding for land remediation and the purchasing of city centre developments that are unoccupied or under-occupied. What additional support can the Government provide for that type of housing?

    Hansard source
35. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alex Sobel

    Topical Questions

    Have any funds been allocated to Ukraine’s water infrastructure—for instance, within the UN WASH cluster project? Has the UK provided funds for defence barrier systems for water infrastructure and/or for a consistent power supply for water and sewerage systems? My counterparts in Ukraine said to me that this is a top immediate priority to ensure that water and sewage do not overwhelm them.

    Hansard source
36. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alex Ballinger

    Strengthening Community Resilience

    I welcome the Government’s serious approach to civil preparedness. I want to push back slightly against some Members on the Opposition Benches who implied that there was a difference between being prepared for natural disasters and for some of the hybrid attacks we are seeing across Europe. In recent months we have seen attacks against energy infrastructure, railways and supply chains; the same preparations will help folk in the UK be prepared for both those attacks and natural disasters. I was in the Finnish embassy a few days ago to talk about that issue. As other colleagues have mentioned, in Finland they talk about businesses working together with the voluntary sector and public bodies. Will the Minister say more about how we are learning from countries such as Finland on the whole of society working together?

    Hansard source
37. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·SNP·Seamus Logan

    “No Choice But Childhood” Campaign

    <Question HRSContentId="{55C8BE2F-1ED7-4E23-AAAA-DF121F320449}">11. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{AFC29981-2CAA-4374-92E0-F1391B993D08}">What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of UNICEF UK’s “No Choice But Childhood” campaign.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source
38. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·SNP·Seamus Logan

    “No Choice But Childhood” Campaign

    A significant number of my constituents have written to me expressing support for UNICEF’s “No Choice But Childhood” campaign. When reductions are made to the UK’s aid budget, it is the most vulnerable children around the world who face the consequences of that decision first. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister commit to working with UNICEF to increase funding in the aid budget for children at this critical point? Conflict is increasing around the world, yet so many countries are decreasing their aid for those in conflicts.

    Hansard source
39. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·SNP·Pete Wishart

    Strengthening Community Resilience

    The area I represent has the biggest river system in the UK and some of the most inclement weather in the UK, so my constituents and I are fully familiar with being prepared and being ready for what could possibly come. What I struggle with a little bit is the other stuff in the statement. I am baffled by the lumping together of storm readiness and other undefined threats that cannot be properly outlined in name. Does the Minister not agree that storms and weather events are critical known stand-alone threats, and that there should be distinct and separate strategies for them? Lumping them together with national security, subsea cables and cyber-threats is confusing and perhaps even unhelpful to people who just want to be prepared.

    Hansard source
40. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·SNP·Chris Law

    West Bank: Illegal Settlements

    The Foreign Secretary pledged to take action against specific companies that provide services for settlement expansion in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Delek Group, which supports illegal settlements through the provision of refuelling services to Israeli military vehicles and the operation of fuel stations in East Jerusalem and the west bank, has been flagged by the UN for human rights concerns and could receive more than £200 million <span id="158" class="column-number" data-column-number="158"></span>in revenue through its majority stake in Ithaca Energy if the Rosebank field is approved. Given that the Foreign Secretary has already said that approval of Rosebank would be “climate vandalism”, what does he have to say about profits from Scotland’s oil supporting illegal settlement expansion in the west bank?

    Hansard source