5,750 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 18 Nov 2025·Parliament·Alex Burghart

   Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

   I think the hon. Lady is misunderstanding my point. The point that I am making is that when it is clear that vexatious complaints and vexatious investigations can begin, then everyone who served feels under threat—[Interruption.] For the benefit of Hansard, the hon. Lady said from a sedentary position, “Are they vexatious?” It is very clear that the case that was heard in Belfast last month was a vexatious complaint. The judge said it was “ludicrous” and that it should never have come anywhere near the court, but for four years a member of the special forces was pursued, and all his comrades and colleagues thought that if such a thing could happen, they might have the same legal action brought against them in future.

   Hansard source
2. 18 Nov 2025·Parliament·Alex Burghart

   Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

   As ever, my right hon. Friend is a bastion of good sense. He reminds us that there is no moral equivalence between the people who were sent to try to keep the people and services of Northern Ireland safe, and the people who were terrorists. Finally, we note that, under the terms of the agreement, the Republic of Ireland has committed to legislate to enable the fullest possible co-operation of the relevant Irish authorities with the Legacy Commission. We sincerely hope that this is true, as there are many secrets of the troubles that are yet to be disclosed from sources south of the border. From the huge number of extradition requests that Dublin refused between 1973 and 1999 to the long, long list of cases of collusion between the Garda and the Provisional IRA that have not been properly dealt with, it is clear that the south has never taken full responsibility for the blind eyes turned and the bad acts abetted. The test of this Government’s approach will be whether Dublin delivers, or whether this—as one representative of victims has said to me in the past few days—turns out to be another case of “tea and sympathy” with no action to follow. For the record, it is my party’s strong view that if this Bill receives Royal Assent, the Secretary of State should not commence the legislation until this House has at least seen the Irish legislation. In conclusion, this Bill contains no meaningful protections, it has no cross-party support, and there are no legal barriers to continuing what the last Government began. We find ourselves in a situation where retired generals, SAS veterans and the like are all telling this House not to proceed. They are telling us that there will be consequences—for recruitment, for retention and for national security. This morning in a statement, Soldier Z said that “the damage being done to the morale and fibre of UK special forces and armed forces…must be understood by the public, because it’s very well understood by the SAS.” When such people speak, this House has an obligation to listen.

   Hansard source
3. 18 Nov 2025·Parliament·Alberto Costa

   Reconsideration Mechanism and the Parole Board Rules 2019

   I beg to move, That this House has considered the reconsideration mechanism and the Parole Board Rules 2019. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. In 2018, the Parole Board decided to release John Worboys, the so-called “black cab rapist” who drugged and raped women between the years 2000 and 2008. It is believed that he assaulted more than 100 innocent victims. That was the wrong decision, and the Parole Board clearly made an error in assessing the level of risk that Worboys posed to the community, and particularly to young women. At the time of that decision, the then Secretary of State for Justice had no means to ask for a review, because he would have had to apply for judicial review proceedings against a public body over which he had ministerial responsibility. His hands were therefore tied. He had to wait powerlessly—those of us who were in the House will remember it—for the outcome of a separate third-party judicial review, which thankfully led to the quashing of that irrational Parole Board decision to release John Worboys. To avoid this happening again, that same Secretary of State for Justice, David Gauke, rightly considered and introduced the policy that became—I think under Sir Robert Buckland—the reconsideration mechanism in 2019. Those changes created a specific route, the reconsideration mechanism, that allows the Secretary of State to apply for an internal review of a Parole Board decision to release, on the grounds of either an error in law, irrationality or material procedural error—in other words, grounds similar to those for an application for judicial review. The so-called reconsideration mechanism is effectively a form of internal review, giving the Secretary of State an element of authority over the Parole Board, without in any way compromising its independence, but merely to request that it review a potentially flawed decision. The right to apply for reconsideration was also extended to prisoners. It is now clear, however, that what was intended as a safeguard to prevent dangerous prisoners such as Worboys from being wrongly released while a Secretary of State watched from the sidelines is now being deployed by such prisoners to mount effectively limitless, cost-free internal appeals against decisions they do not like. One example is the high-profile, nationally renowned case that occurred in my South Leicestershire constituency involving one Colin Pitchfork, who brutally raped and murdered two young girls, Lynda Mann in 1983 and Dawn Ashworth in 1986. For those who did not live in South Leicestershire at that time, as I did not, it is impossible to comprehend the anguish and worry felt in the areas of Narborough, Enderby, Blaby and beyond between 1983 and the day when Pitchfork was caught in 1987. Those were four whole years when parents were terrified to let their daughters out of their sight, women were scared to walk home alone and suspicion was rife, while families and friends grieved for the lives of those two young women, who would be around my age today had their lives not been taken so early and so brutally. Before Colin Pitchfork was caught, he forcibly manipulated one of his colleagues into giving DNA evidence on his behalf, to deceive police into thinking that his DNA did not match that of the killer. Pitchfork was eventually caught and the case was of national significance for English criminal history, because it was the first in which the embryonic DNA fingerprinting technique was used. Pitchfork received life imprisonment for the two offences of murder, with a minimum term of 28 years, and concurrent terms for rapes and perverting the course of justice. That is just one of the high-profile cases in which a dangerous, violent sexual predator and murderer has served their sentence and the Parole Board has had the unenviable job of deciding whether that prisoner is safe to be released into the public. On its website, the Parole Board explains that its role is “to determine whether prisoners serving indeterminate sentences, and those serving certain determinate sentences for serious offences, continue to represent a significant risk to the public.” The Parole Board has an incredibly important role in protecting us all, and our constituents the public, from the most dangerous offenders in the criminal justice system. The public and victims’ families need to know that when the Parole Board makes a judgment, it is definitive. If the Parole Board’s work is disrupted by repeated or opportunistic applications for reconsideration, the public understandably lose trust in its ability to deliver timely and conclusive decisions. Victims, their families and the wider public want clarity and finality. That is all they ask from the reconsideration rule and it is what they deserve. That is why I have raised concerns over many years about Colin Pitchfork, and over the last few years particularly about the reconsideration mechanism rule, with successive Ministers of different governing parties. Pitchfork has already once successfully used the mechanism to request reconsideration of an already reconsidered decision. After Pitchfork’s successful application for reconsideration last year, I wrote previously to my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), then the Minister responsible for justice and sentencing. He confirmed to me: “There is no limit to the number of applications for reconsideration which may be made.”— I repeat that statement; it is what the Minister said— “There is no limit to the number of applications for reconsideration which may be made.” He went on to state: “Consequently, there will be a final decision only where a provisional decision is not subject to an application for reconsideration (from either party) or where an application for reconsideration is made but then rejected by the Reconsideration Assessment Panel.” That is a problem, because there is no finality. Imagine the pain that my constituents and the victims’ family members have to go through when Colin Pitchfork, every couple of years, makes a bid for parole. That is his right, but none of us expected that the reconsideration mechanism rule would be used for never-ending challenges by the prisoner, repeatedly calling for a Parole Board decision to be reconsidered until effectively they get the decision they want. That potentially never-ending process has created legal uncertainty in the parole system, delaying finality and causing ongoing distress to victims’ families and friends. The public understandably feel that justice is now always hanging in a fragile balance, where a murderous sexual predator can exploit a loophole in a way that was never intended by David Gauke or Sir Robert Buckland when the rules were first introduced. The Parole Board—rightly, in my opinion—decided recently that Colin Pitchfork is not safe to be released to the public at present, but my South Leicestershire constituents are now in the unpalatable position of waiting to see whether Mr Pitchfork will challenge the board’s latest provisional decision, made only on 27 October. Pitchfork has until this Thursday to do so; if he does, not only will it be one of the first cases in English history where a prisoner who has committed such offences has asked for reconsideration, but it will effectively mean that he is being given the opportunity through these rules to request that a reconsideration of an already reconsidered decision is once again reconsidered. That is a farce. While I fully accept that there must be a route for prisoners to challenge genuinely flawed decisions, my view is that there must be a right to apply for just one reconsideration, whether by the prisoner or by the Secretary of State. I note that the Parole Board rules were updated last year to strengthen the system, for example by tightening the criteria for claiming a procedural error under rule 39. Those were welcome changes, and I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on their impact. If he is unable to do so today, I invite him to write to me on that point. I will raise two related further points. First, those changes, while welcome, do not change the fact that a prisoner can still apply for the reconsideration of an already reconsidered decision, as Mr Pitchfork did in 2024 on the grounds of irrationality. Secondly, the changes introduced last year were made through secondary legislation, just as the reconsideration mechanism itself was created through secondary legislation in 2019. It follows that, if the Government seriously consider limiting the mechanism to one application per parole decision—and I very much hope the Minister will take it into account, given the high profile nature of this case and the cross-party involvement in my campaign to highlight the issue—that too could be achieved through secondary legislation without the need for primary legislation. That is why I ask the Minister whether he agrees that the reconsideration mechanism should be limited to one application per parole decision, which would still allow a prisoner to apply to reconsider a decision, and would in no way detract from that prisoner’s having the right to issue an application for judicial review if the decision was generally irrational or unlawful. We must remember that the reconsideration mechanism is relatively new, and making this change would restore it to what it was always intended to be: a targeted safeguard against wrongful release, ensuring that the Secretary of State could respond to significant public pressure, as we witnessed with Worboys. It should not be, and was never intended to be, an open-ended appeal system for dangerous offenders. I end with the comment made by the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston: “There is no limit to the number of applications for reconsideration which made be made.” That is the mischief—but, if the Government are serious on this, they can attend to that mischief and rectify it.

   Hansard source
4. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

   Budget: Press Briefings

   Leaks, unauthorised briefing and speculation—or maybe not speculation—are creating instability, chaos, volatility and uncertainty for the markets, for businesses and for households in my constituency, so why will the Minister not answer the shadow Chancellor’s question about having an inquiry into what has actually happened? Let us get to the bottom of this.

   Hansard source
5. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

   Illegal Waste: Organised Crime

   The number of fly-tipping incidents per day is 3,157. That is equivalent to one every 27 seconds. We see fly-tipping all too often in the west midlands. In my constituency, despite the council’s great efforts to rid us of the scourge of piles of mattresses and fridges, what we see is absolutely shocking. The situation is not helped, of course, by the Birmingham bin strikes, which continue. Will the Minister support the introduction of penalty points on driving licences for those convicted of fly-tipping, to send a really strong message that those involved in organised waste crime will pay for the misery that they impose on our communities?

   Hansard source
6. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Steve Barclay

   Asylum Policies: Danish Model

   The Home Secretary likes to talk tough, while the numbers continue to rise. As part of the statement that she will bring to the House later, will she confirm that detailed modelling will be published and whether she has shared that modelling with No. 10?

   Hansard source
7. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Steve Barclay

   Budget: Press Briefings

   As the Minister will know, leaks of market sensitive data obviously carry a much higher premium than other leaks that may occur in Government. Again, could he address the shadow Chancellor’s question as to why the Cabinet Secretary and the permanent secretary have not been asked to launch an inquiry into these leaks?

   Hansard source
8. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

   Social Media Posts: Penalties for Offences

   There appear to be other attractions in the main Chamber today, and a number of Members who indicated that they wished to participate are not present. For that reason, I have no need, I think, to put any time limit on contributions.

   Hansard source
9. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

   Social Media Posts: Penalties for Offences

   As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) said, this is the first time that an e-petition debate has been instigated by a Member of this House, so it gives me great pleasure to call the culprit, Rupert Lowe.

   Hansard source
10. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Budget: Press Briefings

    (Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she will make a statement on briefings to the press about the contents of the Budget.

    Hansard source
11. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Budget: Press Briefings

    Given that response, the right hon. Gentleman might try a bit of stand-up in his spare time. The process around the Budget is meant to be the most closely guarded secret in Government, but in recent weeks, we have barely been able to pick up a newspaper without reading a fresh report of the latest policy movements. On 6 November, The Times reported that the Chancellor had included increases in income tax rates in the measures sent to the OBR for scoring. Then, last Thursday, the Financial Times revealed that those proposals have now been removed from the Budget package. The Chancellor and her officials may think this is a game that they are playing, but it has real-life consequences and impacts markets, as we saw on Friday. More than that, it shows utter contempt for this House. In this place, questions about the Budget are always met with the same answer: “Decisions on tax will be announced at the Budget”. That is right and proper, but it becomes hollow and absurd when those same matters are being openly reported in the national media daily. The Chancellor even delivered a pre-Budget address to the country—not in this House, but in the Downing Street press room. Given that the Chancellor has chosen not to come to the House today, I will ask the Minister the following questions. Has the Chancellor or any Treasury Minister sanctioned any briefings to journalists on potential Budget tax measures or the contents of the OBR’s forecasts? Have any Treasury officials or special advisers conducted such briefings? Has the Chancellor or the permanent secretary launched an investigation into the source of the leaks, and can the Minister explain why the Chancellor seems to have confirmed that the OBR has downgraded its productivity forecasts before the Budget has even taken place? Either the Chancellor has been knowingly allowing the Budget process to be briefed out, or serious unauthorised leaks have occurred from her Department. That has fuelled confusion and uncertainty, and disrespects this House.

    Hansard source
12. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Topical Questions

    It is often reported that a high proportion of people who enter the country illegally do so without any reliable identifying documentation. Can any Minister say, in percentage terms, roughly what the proportions are of illegal immigrants who do and do not have documentation?

    Hansard source
13. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Budget: Press Briefings

    I am disappointed that the Minister does not know of the example of the Chancellor who resigned from Attlee’s Government for inadvertently or otherwise leaking details of the Budget. Does he at least appreciate that there is a difference between speculating about the contents of a Budget and leaking a Budget, and does he think that there should be any punishment for people who leak a Budget, irrespective of whatever the details were?

    Hansard source
14. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Power Station: Wylfa

    No one likes to consider the prospect of international conflict, but we have seen from that between Ukraine and Russia how dangerous a situation can be when fuel supply installations are targeted. What thought have the Government given to affording the same level of protection against either sabotage or external attack for these new smaller reactors as those that are already built into the construction of the larger plants?

    Hansard source
15. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Asylum Policy

    We Conservative Members genuinely wish the Home Secretary well, because otherwise, in her own words, the country will start falling apart. It is a good effort—seven out of 10. She clearly has strong conservative instincts, but does she fear that the misery in many of these countries is such that asylum seekers are not really worried about how long they have to wait for their claim to be processed? Does she fear that unless we arrest, detain and deport people very quickly, this problem will just go on and on? The Home Secretary mentioned return hubs; could she say a bit more about those, and will she have an open mind about schemes such as Rwanda?

    Hansard source
16. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Budget: Press Briefings

    Given the blatant breach of pre-Budget purdah, will the Chancellor follow the proper example set by Hugh Dalton?

    Hansard source
17. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Asylum Policy

    As the Home Secretary struggles to find these return hubs, she should reflect on the fact that it was her Government who wasted £700 million by giving up an opportunity to Germany and the United States before we got the chance to use it.

    Hansard source
18. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Budget: Press Briefings

    Can I ask the Minister whether I have got this right? The Chancellor made a speech to try to reassure the markets that she was going to plug the enormous black hole in the Government’s finances. It reassured the markets to an extent, and the forecasted borrowing costs fell. The OBR adjusted its forecasts, and then the Chancellor decided that she did not need to take the measures she had announced in her speech, and the markets have now reacted adversely. This is all against the background of the cost of borrowing being higher today, as it has been all year, than the peak under the supposedly disastrous Budget of Liz Truss. What sort of confidence is that going to give the British economy?

    Hansard source
19. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Asylum Policy

    I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Labour’s change of course is most welcome, and she has outlined some useful steps. My constituents want to see the Holiday Inn in Bridgwater emptied of migrants and returned to commercial use. To achieve that, she will have to be bolder, so does she agree that anyone who arrives in this country illegally should be detained on entry and deported automatically?

    Hansard source
20. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Andrew Mitchell

    Parkinson’s Disease

    Thank you for calling me, Ms Lewell, and many congratulations to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing the debate. As many Members have already said, a huge number of families have acquaintance with Parkinson’s. My old dad, who served in this House until 1997, lived with Parkinson’s and I am hugely honoured to be the patron of the Royal Sutton Coldfield and North Birmingham Parkinson’s Group, which does so much good and hard work in the royal town and elsewhere. I pay special credit to Movers and Shakers, which is led by people living with Parkinson’s. Some of them are in the Public Gallery today. Movers and Shakers was started by Rory Cellan-Jones and Sir Nicholas Mostyn. The “Movers and Shakers” podcast has made a huge difference to so many people, and I am extremely grateful to Sir Nicholas for agreeing to come to Royal Sutton Coldfield next April. There are just two key points that I want to emphasise today. The first is that we need more specialists and better access to specialists. We do not have enough neurologists in this country. People are supposed to have to wait for only 18 weeks to see a neurologist, but there is clear evidence of people waiting for between one and two years to see one, and of course most of those people will not have any medication in that period. There are 720 neurologists in the UK. There are 4,400 neurologists in Poland, which has half the UK’s population. The second point is that we need more support for research. Inevitably, that is about funding. We need to harness the private and public sector together to maximise that funding. These two points seem to me to be two of the five key points that we are discussing in this debate.

    Hansard source
21. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Andrew Mitchell

    Budget: Press Briefings

    Does the Minister have any understanding at all of the impact of this incontinent briefing and leaking—the contradictory rumours about pensions, inheritance tax and housing—which is enraging so many of my constituents in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield? Does he not agree that normally an omnishambles happens once the Budget speech has been delivered, not while it is still being crafted?

    Hansard source
22. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    Asylum Policy

    The Home Secretary said that she was exploring “the possibility of return hubs, with negotiations ongoing.” Can she tell the House which countries she is negotiating with and how much it will cost?

    Hansard source
23. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Parkinson’s Disease

    Does my hon. Friend agree that the current pathway for innovative technology to be licensed is both costly and time consuming, meaning inventions that would help his constituents, such as BeechBand, which uses vibrotactile stimulation to decrease symptoms, face delays in testing and potential introduction, and that we need to find a way forward?

    Hansard source
24. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Nick Timothy

    Asylum Hotels

    The last Home Secretary said that we should judge the success of the Government in smashing the gangs by whether the number of channel crossings falls. By which date should we judge whether the Government have been successful? If the Home Secretary fails, will she resign?

    Hansard source
25. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Nick Timothy

    Budget: Press Briefings

    In some ways at least, this Chancellor is improving: her Budget last year unravelled within a day, and this year the Budget has unravelled before it has been announced. We know why the Chief Secretary is refusing to answer the question about the leak inquiry. It is because the Chancellor knows exactly who leaked the details of the Budget, because she sees that face every day in the mirror. This all goes back to last year’s Budget. Labour said in its manifesto that it would limit spending increases by the year 2028-29 to £9.5 billion a year. In the Budget, the Government increased spending by £76 billion a year. That is eight times higher. Before the Chief Secretary starts spouting about the £22 billion fiction, £9.5 billion plus £22 billion equals a lot less than £76 billion, doesn’t it?

    Hansard source
26. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Nick Timothy

    Asylum Policy

    Most on the Government Benches disagree with us, but I share the Home Secretary’s admiration for the Danish model. The Danish Finance Ministry publishes data regularly on the fiscal contribution of different profiles of migrants. It shows in Denmark that migrants from MENAPT—the middle east, north Africa, Pakistan and Turkey—are net recipients over the course of their lifetimes. Will the Home Secretary ensure that the Treasury publishes the same data in the same way in this country?

    Hansard source
27. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Delegated Legislation (Committees)

    With the leave of the House, I will take motions 7 to 10 together. Ordered, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs That Helena Dollimore be discharged from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Juliet Campbell be added. Environmental Audit That Anna Gelderd and Alison Taylor be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Alison Hume and Jonathan Davies be added. Northern Ireland Affairs That Leigh Ingham be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mike Kane be added. Welsh Affairs That Claire Hughes be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee and Gerald Jones be added.—(Jessica Morden, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

    Hansard source
28. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Asylum Policy

    I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement, most of which I read The Sunday Telegraph. I am pleased that she is bringing forward measures to crack down on illegal immigration. It is not enough but it is a start, and a change from her previous position in opposition of a general amnesty for illegal migrants. I praise the new Home Secretary. She is bringing fresh energy and a clearer focus to this problem, and she has got more done in 70 days in the job than her predecessor did in a year. She seems to get what many on the Labour Benches refuse to accept, and she is right to say that if we fail to deal with the crisis, we will draw more people to a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred. We will also allow our English channel to operate as an open route into this country for anyone who is prepared to risk their life and pay criminal gangs. That is not fair on British citizens, it is not fair on those who come here legally, and it is not fair on those in genuine need who are pushed to the back of the queue because the system is overwhelmed. Anyone who cannot see by now that simply tinkering with the current system will not fix this problem is either living in la-la land or being wilfully obstructive. It is a shame that it has taken Labour a year in office to realise there is a borders crisis—[Interruption.] I don’t know why Labour Members are chuntering. What was their first act in government? The first act of the Home Secretary’s predecessor was to scrap the Rwanda plan, which was already—[Interruption.] Yes, they are cheering. It was already starting to act as a deterrent before it even got off the ground, and before it started, Labour Members threw away all our hard work and taxpayers’ money—they are the ones who have wasted that money, not us. The statement is an admission that the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill of the Home Secretary’s predecessor will not work, but I am glad to see Labour Members now changing course. The powers they are using in the Bill are ones they all voted down when we were in government, and they would not be able to do that if we had not got those measures through. None of them know the work that was done; they are just cheering nonsensically, but we know what has happened since Labour came to office. The Home Secretary will know that 10,000 people have crossed the channel in the 70 days she has been in office, and we have seen record levels of asylum claims in the last year. The problem has got worse since Labour came into office, and it is getting worse by the day. I am afraid that what the Home Secretary is announcing will not work on its own, and some of these measures will take us backwards. I say that to her with no ill will, and I hope she believes me when I say that I genuinely want her to succeed. Conservative Members are speaking from experience: we know how difficult this is— [Interruption.] We do, and we will not take any lectures from the people who voted down every single measure to control immigration. Some of the measures that the Home Secretary is announcing today are undoubtedly positive steps—baby steps, but positive none the less. We welcome making refugee status temporary, and we welcome removing the last Labour Government’s legislation that created a duty to support asylum seekers—she is right to do that. However, some of what she is announcing simply does not go far enough. Conservative Members believe that anyone who arrives illegally, especially from safe countries, should be deported and banned from claiming asylum. Does the Home Secretary agree that anyone who comes to this country illegally should be deported? I would like to know, and I think the country would like to know, because this announcement means that some people who arrive will be allowed to stay—they just need to wait 20 years before getting permanent settlement. That does not remove the pull factor. The main problem is that for as long as the UK is in the European convention on human rights, illegal immigrants and those exploiting our system will use human rights laws to block anything she does to solve this. I know that because I saw it happen again and again over the last four years, and I know she has seen it too. We even saw it this year with the Prime Minister’s one in, one out scheme, which has seen people return to France and come back on small boats yet again. I guarantee that the Home Secretary’s plan to reinterpret article 8 will not work. We tried that already, and Strasbourg and UK case law will prevail. I agree with her that the definition of “degrading treatment” is over-interpreted, but renegotiating article 3 internationally will take years—years we do not have if it were even possible, but the fact is that it is not. We know that because a small group of EU countries tried that earlier, and they were dismissed by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Her Government did nothing to support them, so I am not convinced it is the Prime Minister’s negotiating skills that will sort out that problem. We have looked at this issue from every possible direction, and any plan that does not include leaving the ECHR as a necessary step is wasting time we do not have. Just like the Government’s plan to “smash the gangs”, or the one in, one out policy, it is timewasting, and it is doomed to fail because of lawfare. We have seen this all before. The tough measures will be challenged in the courts and blocked, the new legal routes that the Home Secretary is talking about will be exploited, and the numbers arriving on our shores and disappearing into the black economy will keep on rising. If the Home Secretary is serious about reducing these numbers—I do believe that she is—she must be bolder. She must take steps to deter illegal immigrants from coming to Britain, and deport them as soon as they arrive. Our borders plan does just that, and I know that she has studied it in detail. I have seen the looks, and I know that she knows that we would leave the ECHR and the European convention on action against trafficking to stop the Strasbourg courts from frustrating deportations, and establish a new removals force to ensure that all illegal arrivals are deported. We would end the use of immigration tribunals, judicial review and legal aid in immigration cases, as those are the things that are slowing us down, and we would sign returns agreements that are backed by visa sanctions to ensure that we send illegal arrivals back to their place of origin. I welcome what she says about Angola and Namibia, but we all know that those countries are not the ones that are creating the biggest problems. We need to be bold, serious and unafraid to do what the British people demand: secure our borders. That is what is in our borders plan, so I urge the Home Secretary to take me up on my offer to work together, not just because we have some ideas that she might find useful, but because judging by the reaction of her own Back Benchers today, she may find our votes come in handy. Earlier this year, we saw what happened when the Government tried to make changes through the welfare Bill: the Prime Minister was defeated by his own Back Benchers and ended up passing legislation guaranteeing that more money would be spent on welfare. It does not appear that his grip on the party has improved since then, so we can be sure that Labour Back Benchers are already plotting to block any serious changes that she tries to make, so we can help her with that—[Interruption.] Why are Labour Members shaking their heads? We have seen them do that time and again. Our offer to work together is a genuine one and in the national interest. We will not play the same game that Labour Members did by voting things down for no reason. However, the Home Secretary must be clear with the House on these questions: how many people will be able to take advantage of the new work and study visa routes? What will be the level of the cap? Will it be 10,000 people or 100,000 people? The Government have separately confirmed that they will allow Gazan students to bring dependants. We oppose that, but can she clarify how the Government will ensure that people brought to the UK from a territory under Hamas control are not a risk to our security? If she finds that the Human Rights Act 1998 and the ECHR prevent her from enacting those proposals, will she use primary legislation to resolve that? Has Lord Hermer agreed? By her own admission three weeks ago, the Home Office is not yet fit for purpose, so why are we creating a new legal route for the Home Office to run? Will she take me up on my serious, genuine offer to meet and to discuss how we can work together to resolve the asylum crisis—yes or no? I urge her to put party politics aside, meet me and my shadow Home Secretary, so that we can find a way to work together—

    Hansard source
29. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Topical Questions

    The Home Office has requested transitional accommodation for asylum claimants, following the closure of Garats Hay in my constituency. However, neither Leicestershire county council nor Charnwood borough council has been consulted or received any additional funding for this extra burden. Why are these councils being bypassed, and will they get the funding that they need?

    Hansard source
30. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Budget: Press Briefings

    In the past year, a record £70 billion has been withdrawn from pension schemes through the tax-free lump sum as a result of the fear driven by the uncertainty of recent months. Does the Minister understand that the constant leaks and policy kite flying are leading to this adverse effect on pensioners’ savings?

    Hansard source
31. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Neighbourhood Police Officers

    More than 5,000 people in Bexley have signed my petition to stop Mayor Khan closing the overnight counter at Bexleyheath police station. Will the Minister tell us who is to blame for the £260 million of funding cuts now facing the Met police: the Labour Government or the Labour Mayor of London?

    Hansard source
32. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Legal Immigration: Statutory Annual Cap

    12. What assessment her Department has made of the potential merits of introducing a statutory annual cap on levels of legal immigration.

    Hansard source
33. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Legal Immigration: Statutory Annual Cap

    Does the Minister not recognise that an important step towards significantly reducing net migration would be to make it clear to all those working in his Department or handling migration that there is a number that everyone is working towards? If that is the case, surely Members of this House should be able to vote on that binding cap, as happens successfully in countries such as Australia.

    Hansard source
34. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Rural Crime

    Rural crime and tool theft are out of control. A tradesman’s tools are stolen every 21 minutes, and when a farmer or tradesman has their equipment stolen, it causes complete misery and costs them severely. Their means of work are then all too often sold in broad daylight at car boot sales. Will the Government adopt our rural crime and tool theft plan to crack down on the sale of stolen goods and on the misery being caused to so many farmers and tradesmen?

    Hansard source
35. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Neighbourhood Police Officers

    Joy Allen, Labour’s very own police and crime commissioner for Durham, has said that the Government have consistently demonstrated their complete lack of understanding of policing and community safety. Does the Minister think that she said that because the Government have cut police numbers by 1,316 since they came to power, because crime is surging, or because senior police officers are warning that the Government are creating a funding crisis?

    Hansard source
36. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Topical Questions

    I understand that the permanent secretary at the Home Office recently appointed a single senior official to be responsible for asylum hotels. Will the Home Secretary please use her good offices to encourage that official to come to the Stanwell hotel in my Spelthorne constituency, so that they can see for themselves how inappropriate it is in the context of the surrounding village, and prioritise it for closure?

    Hansard source
37. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Asylum Policy

    A constituent wrote to me asking whether I could get a wriggle on with his EU settlement scheme application. We checked with the Home Office and it turned out that he was subject to a live deportation order. It was issued in 2017, and we did deport him. Somehow he got back into the country and made his application. I said to the Home Secretary’s predecessor that if she was prepared to, with a stroke of her pen, re-enact that deportation order, then I was prepared to drive him to the airport myself. Now that we have a Home Secretary who is going to get a grip of this situation, I offer the same thing again.

    Hansard source
38. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    Asylum Policy

    I really do thank the Home Secretary for her statement. This is a tiny step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. To truly show that the Home Secretary is listening to the British people, does she agree with me that if you enter this country illegally, you should never be allowed to stay?

    Hansard source
39. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Katie Lam

    Violence against Women and Girls

    In March this year, the then permanent secretary of the Home Office said that the strategy to tackle violence against women and girls would be published before the summer recess. In July, the Minister committed to September. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) wrote to the Minister six weeks ago to ask for an update and has yet to receive a response. We would all like to see progress in halving violence against women and girls. Commenting on the delay, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Dame Nicole Jacobs, has said: “I fail to see where the momentum within government is coming from to ensure this commitment succeeds.” What does the Minister make of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s words, and can she please reiterate her commitment to publish the strategy before the end of the year?

    Hansard source
40. 17 Nov 2025·Parliament·Katie Lam

    Illegal Waste: Organised Crime

    Hoad’s Wood, which was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), is a patch of semi-ancient bluebell woodland in my constituency where criminal gangs have dumped 30,000 tonnes of waste. It took about six months for them to fell ancient trees and bring in lorry after lorry. My constituents are really concerned that something like this might happen again. Over that whole period, the criminals were not stopped or apprehended. Have the Minister and the Secretary of State come to an understanding on who is responsible in such scenarios for stopping it from happening, and have they met the Environment Agency, police and local authorities to make sure that criminals will be stopped in the act if they do this in future?

    Hansard source