Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,578 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

   My right hon. Friend will have noticed that some Liberal Democrat Members seem to think that there is no such thing as a bogus or illegal asylum seeker, but recently there have been a number of attempted terrorist attacks, including one against a Manchester synagogue, which was fortunately foiled, but which was planned to be carried out by people who came in illegally on small boats. Are we to wait for an atrocity to occur before the appropriate remedial measures will be taken?

   Hansard source
2. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

   MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

   My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech in defence of right and decency, and in defence of my constituents and hers. The problem that we face, to which she has just alluded, is that the whole of the liberal establishment either cannot see this or will not see it. The root of the problem is their failure to recognise that cultural equivalence does not exist. Some of these people are coming from countries whose values are entirely different from ours, where people regard as acceptable things that we see as either unpalatable or frankly horrendous, and the failure to accept that fact underpins the unwillingness to do anything about what my hon. Friend has just described.

   Hansard source
3. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

   MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

   The Minister is of course right that international co-operation matters in terms of dealing with these things, particularly channel crossings, but the point made earlier was that where countries refuse to take back their nationals who have committed crimes here, we should take further action, should we not? Part of that might be cutting aid or dealing with visas, as has been suggested. There are all kinds of other levers that can be used by Government to tell those countries, “You’ve got to take them back, because they’re not our responsibility and we’re not going to pay for them any more.”

   Hansard source
4. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

   MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

   <em>rose—</em>

   Hansard source
5. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

   MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

   The growth in population in this country has been fuelled by mass migration. When I was a boy, the population was regularly cited as being about 57 million or 58 million people; the ONS now estimates that by 2035, the figure is likely to be 72.5 million people. Leaving aside the pressure that that places on public services and the economic damage it does, the truth is that the character of our country is being changed beyond recognition, and overwhelmingly the British people resist and resent that change, which has happened without their consent. Ministers know that there is a cultural problem. In August, the Home Office published a book for newly arrived asylum seekers that said: “If you have sex with someone” who does not want to, “this is called rape. Rape is a serious crime”. The fact that the Government believed that those arriving were so primitive that they did not know that is extraordinary, but the truth suggests that they were right. There have been numerous cases. Just this week—I am not going to get the pronunciations right—we saw the sentencing of Hossein Mohmoudi, a 36-year-old Iranian man who came to Britain. He was convicted of raping a 43-year-old woman and has been sentenced to 11 years in jail. Karin Al-Danasurt came to Britain on a small boat after fleeing Egypt, where he had been convicted of a murder. In the UK, he has been convicted of gang-raping a woman on Brighton beach. There is the Turkish asylum seeker convicted in Stafford Crown court in January for raping an 18-year-old girl. There is case after case of those coming here without our values, with no loyalty to Britain, no intention of making a positive contribution to this country, and committing serious and violent crimes, very often against women and girls.<span id="416" class="column-number" data-column-number="416"></span> We are now in a position where one in eight prisoners is a foreign national offender, with a total of more than 10,700 foreign nationals in our prisons. A large contingent come from Albania, whose countrymen make up 10% of foreign nationals in jail. The number of foreign nationals in UK prisons for drug offences makes up 20% of all offenders. The number of foreign sex offenders in prisons went up by 10% last year. Analysis from the Ministry of Justice last year confirmed that foreigners are convicted of up to 23% of all sex crimes. We hear from the Liberal Democrats that this issue is not about race, but it is certainly about culture.

   Hansard source
6. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

   MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

   My right hon. Friend—a former chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, on which I am proud to serve—will know that this is a national security issue, as well as an issue of profound concern to our constituents. The Government should see it through that prism as well as through a number of others. It is certain that there is a cultural mismatch between these people’s understanding of what is right, good, just and decent, and the understanding of the British people. Very often, their way of life is simply not compatible with ours. Foreign nationals are 71% more likely than Britons to be responsible for a sex crime conviction. The rates based on convictions per 10,000 of population put Afghans, with 77 convictions, at the top with a rate of 59 per 10,000, 22.3 times greater than that of Britons. This is a cultural crisis. We are admitting people to this country who do not share our values and, frankly, do not really want to share our values, so the Government need to get real and do so quickly. There is a huge gulf here. There is the assumption of the liberal establishment, who believe in cultural equivalence, that there is no such thing as western civilisation. We heard from the Liberal Democrats’ Front Bench, with an extraordinary paucity of understanding, that human rights began in 1947. They have never heard of the English common law, it would seem. They do not know about habeas corpus. They do not understand that free and fair elections existed long before the ECHR, or indeed that the lawful entitlements we call rights did not originate with that document.

   Hansard source
7. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

   MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

   I will not, because I am coming to the end of my speech.

   Hansard source
8. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

   MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

   Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is an urgent matter, because the failure of successive Governments to deal with it has created a belief among the population that Governments do not care and Parliament does not understand. Until we address that, we will undermine the very character of our democracy.

   Hansard source
9. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

   MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

   Will my right hon. Friend give way?

   Hansard source
10. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Inheritance Tax

    I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) will respond to the point on farms, but before the shadow Chancellor moves on, does he agree that one of the many examples of foolishness in the Government’s approach to a tax on the inheritance of farmland is that there is a challenge with the age of farmers? We need more young people in farming, and if the Government make it more difficult and expensive for those young people most likely to go into farming—namely, the children of farming families—they will exacerbate that primary problem.

    Hansard source
11. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Engagements

    The national planning policy framework is 130 pages long. The London plan is over 500 pages long. The mayor’s guidance to the London plan is over 2,000 pages long. Will the Prime Minister concede that because of that, added to the increase in taxes that his Government are putting on businesses and employers, Labour has been a disaster for home building in London, pricing young people out of the market and putting pressure on home counties constituencies, like mine?

    Hansard source
12. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Inheritance Tax

    Does my hon. Friend fear, like I do, that we will see so many more family firms being sold, and often sold to foreign buyers—people who have no interest in investing for the long term and investing in local communities?

    Hansard source
13. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    Our hearts go out to the people of Piddington. We heard a very moving speech from the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), and we of course agree with everything that he says on that. Perhaps I may share with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, my own experience of the unsuitability of large military bases to house migrants. After failed projects for former RAF bases in Lincolnshire, we worked for years to get massive regeneration into RAF Scampton. The whole scheme was ready to go to raise perhaps £300 million of investment. Then I received an invitation from the then Home Secretary, my personal friend, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella <span id="410" class="column-number" data-column-number="410"></span>Braverman). She summoned me into her grand office and she said to me, “All this regeneration is going to vanish, and I am going to put 2,000 migrants in there.” That was right next to hundreds of people who had bought their home next to that site, 100 yards away. I fought that battle for two years, and the right hon. and learned Lady was followed by the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) who, as his enemies might say, was even more ruthless. He was even more determined to put the migrants in. I am now looking at the Minister, and I have to thank this Government, and particularly my personal friend the right hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), because Scampton is only five miles from Lincoln. They realised, following the National Audit Office report and after £64 million had been wasted on trying to convert a hundred buildings, including listed buildings, and a runway on an 800-acre site, that the scheme was rubbish. It was condemned by the NAO as a complete waste of money and we have seen them off, so I thank the Minister for the latest deal that has been announced to try to get a world-class defence company in there. These large military bases simply do not work for this purpose and they are no deterrent. If someone is in some hell-hole like Eritrea, are they really worried about whether they will end up in Piddington, Scampton or Bicester? Of course not, so as a deterrent it simply does not work. Frankly, it would be better to find some isolated place, to surround it to make it secure and to detain people there in portacabins. The trouble is that we cannot do that, because of the Human Rights Act 1998, the European convention on human rights and the refugee convention. That is the problem that we have always faced: we cannot detain these people. There is no deterrent unless we follow the Opposition’s policy to detain people as they land and deport them within a week. For all that we have heard about the ECHR—I am on the Council of Europe—it simply stops us dealing with the problem. The only solution is offshoring. Everybody knows that and nothing else works. May I end on a positive note? Although we are right to hold the Government to account, they are never going to listen to us about the ECHR, but as I have said, I am on the Council of Europe. Why do we not have a return agreement to countries that are in the Council of Europe but are far distant, such as Armenia, Moldova, Azerbaijan or Serbia? I give this free advice to the Government. No court would ever stop that. Something must be done. This is destroying our political system and it is driving people mad that we cannot control our own borders. The Government must act, and if they do not act, then they will reap the whirlwind.

    Hansard source
14. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    It is always a pleasure and a privilege to address the Chair, but particularly so when you are in it, Dame Siobhain. With your permission, I will make one contribution dealing with both groups. Clause 1 sets out the statutory powers available to the Minister to secure services and functions with respect to “pregnancy or childbirth…the health and development needs of infants, or…the relationship between parent or carer and infant.” Although the amendment would amend clause 2, it clearly has implications for clause 1. In substance, it would require consideration of “the well-being of infants, parents, carers and prospective parents and carers, and…inequalities between infants, parents, carers and prospective parents and carers.” “Well-being” is defined in the amendment as<span id="4" class="column-number" data-column-number="4"></span> “physical, mental and emotional health, and…in respect of infants, protection from harm and neglect.” My reading of the powers in clause 1 is that they are clearly inclusive of the wellbeing of infants and parents. The wellbeing of infants and parents must fall within “pregnancy or childbirth…the health and development needs of infants, or…the relationship between parent or carer and infant.” In that respect, I am confident that the amendment would be consistent with the powers granted in clause 1. I am not so sure that equalities comes within those three powers set out in clause 1. I fear that the amendment would leave Ministers making an assessment that included health and wellbeing and inequalities, but with no power to address the issue of inequalities in statutory instruments under clause 1. It is a technical matter on which I defer to the Minister, but that is my take on it.

    Hansard source
15. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    That is a fair point and undoubtedly a matter for debate. The clause sets out that regulatory powers are to be made by a statutory instrument under the affirmative procedure. Clause 2 sets out the requirement for an assessment and a consultation within that assessment. Amendment 1 would explicitly add the need for health and wellbeing and inequalities to be included in the assessment. I believe that the assessment of need implicitly includes those things—as it should; these are important matters. My argument is that they are implicitly there already. However, it is important that the Minister, when making her assessment, should look beyond demand to how babies and families are faring, especially those that are at risk of doing poorly. I can entirely understand the desire to make explicit that which is implicit in the Bill. After all, if the Bill is doing it anyway, what danger is there of adding an explicit requirement—belt and braces? The difficulty as I see it is that that opens it up to danger on Report, when Members might seek to explicitly add other things that are implicit in the Bill. I have received a number of suggested amendments from organisations representing different aspects of childcare in infancy and pregnancy, which state things that could be added explicitly but that I believe are clearly implicit in the powers the Bill gives to Ministers. That is why I resist the amendment. Clause 3 covers the exercise of functions that ensure the appropriate level of provision. Having made an assessment, the Minister must then make appropriate levels of provision to meet those needs. That concludes my assessment of the first group. Clause 4 concerns the annual reporting power and the laying of a report on provisions and outcomes before Parliament. Clause 5 is about the interpretation of various terms—what we mean by “infant”, “parent”, or “prospective parent or carer”. Clause 6 defines the short title of the Act and sets out the rules for commencement. I commend these clauses to the Committee, but ask that amendment 1 be withdrawn.

    Hansard source
16. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    Has the hon. Lady considered the impact of section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 and its requirement that Ministers, as an ordinary part of making the assessment, have to include the issue of inequality?

    Hansard source
17. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    I agree entirely with the force of the argument in favour of equality being included in the Bill. It is important that these issues be addressed. The difference between us is that I think they are already implicit in the Bill. Demand that it be explicit is predicated on future-proofing it. Alas, were a future Government determined to remove equalities and repeal the Equalities Act, they would soon enough repeal the provision within this Bill. The difficulty with Sure Start was that there was no statutory provision, and it was done by administrative fiat without putting legislation before the Commons.

    Hansard source
18. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    It is quite explicit under clause 4 that the reporting should include outcomes in respect of what is set out in sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause 1(2)(b). That is where there is clearly, in my estimate, an omission of inequalities. I am quite confident that health and wellbeing are included within pregnancy or childbirth, the health and development needs of infants, and the relationship between parent or carer and infant. I am not convinced that the Bill includes powers to make regulations on inequalities, so if there were to be an amendment, in my estimate it would need to address that issue in clause 1.

    Hansard source
19. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to clause 3(3), which states: “The Secretary of State may determine that different levels of provision are appropriate in different areas.” She makes the point very well that Ministers have to bear in mind exactly what she is drawing the Committee’s attention to.

    Hansard source
20. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    I am confident that the needs of infants, parents and babies, from conception onwards, would clearly include healthy housing and all those provisions. In my view, that will be implicit in the Minister’s assessment of the needs. If we start being explicit about all these things, the danger is that we would have a very long Bill and a prolonged Report stage.

    Hansard source
21. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    I thank members of the Committee for their attendance and their contributions. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Lowestoft for tabling amendment 1, which not only enabled the debate we have had but allowed the Minister to make the commitment she has now given to work further on the issue it deals with. After all, achieving such debate and scrutiny of a Bill is one of the principal duties of a Bill Committee. We are all, as a Committee, of one objective, even if we may have detected some minor difference as to how it might best be achieved.<span id="22" class="column-number" data-column-number="22"></span> I also thank the Minister and her officials for the work that has gone into preparing the Bill and getting it to this stage today, particularly the recent discussions we have had. I also thank the support of staff in my own office who have carried the burden of that. I ask all members of the Committee to put into their diaries Friday 29 January, when we will deal with the Bill’s remaining stages—that is certainly my estimate of when we will do so. I hope that there will not be a Division, but if there were to be it is vital that the Committee should be quorate. <em>Question put and agreed to</em><em>.</em> <em>Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.</em> <em>Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.</em> <em>Bill to be reported, without amendment.</em>

    Hansard source
22. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

    Draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

    How have things changed since that safeguard was written in under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020? That safeguard was written in in 2020, and the Minister is now saying that we need to remove it. Why?

    Hansard source
23. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

    Draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

    Will the Minister take another intervention on the same point from me?

    Hansard source
24. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

    Draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

    My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. Does he agree that his points are compounded by the fact that the Minister has refused, or expressed himself unable, to respond to any of these issues?

    Hansard source
25. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

    Can the Minister just explain how it would cut electricity <span id="6" class="column-number" data-column-number="6"></span>bills in Northern Ireland by 20%? The Government keep asserting that but have not explained how it would happen.

    Hansard source
26. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

    You brought it up.

    Hansard source
27. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
28. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

    On a point of order, Mr Efford. The Minister appears to be making assertions that he cannot substantiate. Is that in order?

    Hansard source
29. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

    He started it.

    Hansard source
30. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I want to say a few words, as the Minister did, about the context of these regulations. The history of our relationship with the European Union was that, whenever a Minister brought a proposal to the House to increase the powers of the European Union or to enlarge its activities in our own jurisdiction, it was always, “There’s nothing to see here. This is already being done. This proposal just recognises what is already happening. There is no change.” By increment, we got further and further away from democratic accountability, which led to the British public deciding that they wanted to leave the European Union. This statutory instrument is another chip being taken out of our democratic process. The Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor framework are about as undemocratic as one could possibly imagine—that is, there is no direct possibility of intervention by the people of Northern Ireland in the lawmaking process for their own Province. Incidentally, if we have dynamic alignment in the UK as a whole, that will apply in the UK. No Member of Parliament, no majority of the House of Commons and no majority of both Houses will have the power to block or stop a new regulation being applied by the European Union if we cement ourselves into a process of dynamic alignment. The sanitary and phytosanitary agreement is meant to generate an extra £10 billion of economic activity in the UK over the period to 2040—I think I have that correct. Well, that adds up to barely more than £700 million a year. That is a peanut in the overall scheme of things. What is holding back the economic activity in this country is excessive regulation and excessive taxation. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> I note what you are indicating, Mr Efford. My point is that the trade-offs for agreeing to the SPS agreement are not matched. As the Secretary of State for Business and Trade said recently, were we to join the customs union, it would have an adverse effect on the trading arrangements we have agreed with the rest of the world.<span id="12" class="column-number" data-column-number="12"></span> These regulations seem to embed Northern Ireland further into an undemocratic regulatory process with the EU, by removing the safeguard of section 15C of the 2018 Act. The Minister has not provided an explanation for why that is going to happen. I reinforce the point made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim: it is not in the review to which the Minister referred. If it is in the review, please can he quote from it? If it is not, what is the justification for doing it? He has not given an explanation, and it is time that he did.

    Hansard source
31. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Inheritance Tax

    Does my hon. Friend agree that it is completely iniquitous that family farms have to pay inheritance tax on their assets, and yet if those assets were owned by a foreign company or individual, no inheritance tax would be paid? Why do this Labour Government want to single out British-owned family farms?

    Hansard source
32. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Inheritance Tax

    Perhaps it is a leadership bid.

    Hansard source
33. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Inheritance Tax

    If we want our children to have a better life than us, to enjoy a better standard of living than ourselves, to enjoy better healthcare and to live in a better environment, then it is necessary to grow our economy. Conservatives understand that Governments do not create growth. A wise Government will try to create the conditions for growth and then <span id="472" class="column-number" data-column-number="472"></span>stand back and allow individuals, families, partnerships and businesses to do their best to work hard, provide goods and services that people want to buy, and thus improve the world we live in. Creating wealth is hard work. I do not suppose that many Government Members are aware of that, because so few of them have ever worked in the private sector. It is quite remarkable that the shadow Chancellor has more experience in the private sector—23 years, I believe—than the whole of the Cabinet put together. This Government often talk about supporting business, yet time and again they do the opposite: higher national insurance charges that make it more expensive to employ people; 350 pages of the un-Employment Rights Act to further drive up the cost of labour; plans for a tourist tax—eagerly embraced by the Liberal Democrats—that will place additional burdens on a tourism sector made up largely of family businesses. Instead of helping local enterprises flourish, this Government’s first instinct is to ask, “How much more can we tax them?” We know that because the Work and Pensions Secretary told us that his colleagues are always asking him to pay more benefits to more people. Conservatives understand that the drive, innovation and hard work of family farms and businesses do more to create jobs, train apprentices and sustain communities than Government ever could. My constituency in Bridgwater sits in the heart of rural Somerset; ours is overwhelmingly a small business economy. More than 99% of the businesses in Somerset employ fewer than 250 employees. Those businesses are rooted in the places they serve; they support local sports teams, support village events and provide opportunities for local people. For those of us representing rural communities, small-scale family businesses underpin our local economies. They grow our food, make up our high streets, support tourism and more. That makes the fact that the Government feel no remorse in penalising their hard work, in the name of subsidising those who avoid it, even more depressing. Conservatives are on the side of those who work hard, save, invest, and create jobs and wealth. We will reward those who do the right thing. That is why we will abolish inheritance tax on family homes, farms and businesses. We will restore fairness to a system that has neglected those who play by the rules. Because when a business passes from one generation to the next, we should help it grow and continue a legacy, not force it to sell assets to pay a tax bill.

    Hansard source
34. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Inheritance Tax

    If the hon. Gentleman reads it, the motion does specifically refer to family businesses. It is about agricultural property relief and business property relief—they are agricultural and business assets that form part of an estate. We will reverse Labour’s family farm and family business taxes. The Conservatives believe that allowing families to retain and reinvest their assets supports growth, encourages long-term planning, and strengthens local communities. It will actively put money in pockets, rather than take <span id="473" class="column-number" data-column-number="473"></span>out more. If we want a prosperous Britain, we must back the people who have invested their lives in the community, building businesses, farms and homes that can be passed to the next generation.

    Hansard source
35. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Shivani Raja

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    We all understand that the protection of women and girls is a matter that transcends party politics. Today’s debate is not about point scoring, but it is an important conversation that we need to have. The current direction of this Government’s immigration policy is harming our women and girls. In communities across the country, those who are most vulnerable are put at risk by hordes of single men who do not understand basic human rights, including the right not to be raped. Why are we allowing individuals into our country who do not have the capacity to function as part of British society? Small boat crossings surged by 50% between the 2024 general election and the end of 2025, reaching nearly 65,000 people. I know that Government Members will have their fair share of statistics to deploy in this debate, but we must focus on the situation right now and how to address it. The impact of that vast influx is felt right now by teenage girls who are too scared to walk to school alone, and by young women who are filled with fear when travelling home after an evening with friends. That fear is felt by our mothers, sisters, daughters and friends. I have felt that fear myself. Promises from those on the Government Benches to smash the gangs are hollow and empty. The Prime Minister is enjoying his new-found rhetoric of hope, but I encourage him and his ministerial colleagues to visit communities such as Piddington and Crowborough and see the reality that confronts the women and girls there. Let us not make the mistake of thinking that we do not have a choice in this matter. In the first instance, I suggest to Government Members that a rural village of 350 people is not a suitable site for more than 1,000 single men. Beyond that, we in this House have the power to make policy decisions that will protect our women and girls. Our Conservative borders plan details just some of the measures that we could take to tackle illegal immigration, including leaving the ECHR and repealing the Human Rights Act, removing it from all immigration-related matters. As it stands, the ECHR is a barrier to common sense. Why are Government Members so resolutely committed to remaining part of a treaty that prevents the deportation of foreign rapists and paedophiles? Lord Wolfson’s review confirmed that the UK Government are significantly constrained by ECHR membership. As long as we remain bound by these foreign court regulations, we cannot carry out the core duties that we owe to the British people. Any notion that we would lose fundamental <span id="414" class="column-number" data-column-number="414"></span>rights upon leaving the ECHR is simply false. Advanced democracies such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand function effectively without the constraints of the convention, and it is naive to believe that the birthplace of parliamentary democracy cannot do the very same. I agree that our country has been built on legal immigration, but we must be crystal clear that the doctors, nurses, builders, engineers and teachers who come here to contribute to our country and strengthen our economy are not the same as single men sitting in asylum camps and living off taxpayer money. My constituency is a testament to that distinction. It is one of the most diverse constituencies in the country and one of the most entrepreneurial, with more than 20,000 small and medium-sized enterprises driving Leicester’s economy. Making that distinction is crucial. Uncontrolled, illegal immigration undermines everyone who seeks to come here legally—those who want to integrate and spend thousands of pounds on visa applications and work tirelessly to build a better life for their families. That is who we as a Conservative party stand up for. In closing, I encourage Members of this House to talk to women who now fear leaving their homes. They should listen to their fathers, brothers and husbands and hear how little hope they feel under this Government’s plans. They should go to Crowborough and see how the Home Office’s occupation of the training camp there is bringing hope to residents in Wealden. When we force more than 1,000—

    Hansard source
36. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sarah Bool

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    Although the MOD Bicester site is outside my constituency, it is approximately 11 km from my nearest settlement. I wrote to the Home Secretary on 1 September on behalf of not only female constituents, but Piddington women, who I am so pleased to see in the Gallery today. They contacted me to express their concerns for their safety, and I reiterate that the guidance entitled “Understanding behaviour and expectations in the UK” reinforces their concerns. I have a migrant hotel in my constituency, and we know the issues that come from having migrants in the area. One big question is what they will do with their time. Rural crime is already an issue, and they could be exploited by existing criminal gangs. I ask the Minister: why have stab vests been issued to security staff working at the base in the last month, when they have never been needed before? The site was deemed unsuitable for an open accommodation centre by the Planning Inspectorate and the local authority more than 20 years ago, and little has changed since then. In the early 2000s, the High Court ruled that no more than 750 people could live there, but now the figure is 1,250. The Home Office argues that not using hotels is ensuring the “better use of public money”, but these large accommodation sites could cost £46 million more, according to the National Audit Office. All that could be avoided if only the Government would take a robust approach to our asylum system, which means reviewing our position on the ECHR. As Lord Wolfson’s excellent report highlights, the ECHR places significant legal constraints on the Government’s <span id="415" class="column-number" data-column-number="415"></span>ability to address issues such as immigration. Other countries across Europe are reconsidering their relationship with the ECHR in the light of immigration issues—countries such as Belgium, Italy, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Lithuania and Austria. We are not alone.

    Hansard source
37. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sarah Bool

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I will make progress, because we are very close to the end of the debate.

    Hansard source
38. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sarah Bool

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    All those countries have looked at reforming the ECHR. The European Court of Human Rights has expanded the interpretation of human rights. For as long as the Court regards the ECHR as a living instrument such that its decisions—and, in consequence, the decisions of domestic courts—are not constrained by the actual wording of the ECHR, we will have problems.

    Hansard source
39. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Restriction of Jury Trials: Rule of Law

    <Question HRSContentId="{F9308D36-61DB-40F8-B2A2-D20A938BC5BD}">9. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{F6D88E38-DACB-4D41-BAE2-DCAFC10276C1}">What advice she has given the Government on the potential impact of removing jury trials in certain circumstances on the rule of law.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source
40. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Restriction of Jury Trials: Rule of Law

    The Government have finally performed another U-turn, rightly retaining trial by jury following widespread concern in this House. However, the Government still intend to allow judge-only courts for complex cases, yet they have not defined what complex means. That risks mission creep and has attracted significant concern from organisations including the Criminal Bar Association. Why does the Attorney General believe that this lack of clarity is still acceptable?

    Hansard source