5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Courts and Tribunals Bill

   Lucky you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I take that point. The schedule 1 powers that I have talked about are a significant Henry VIII power. Under proposed statutory instrument powers, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State will have the authority to add further categories of offences to schedule 1 by secondary legislation. I am not aware of any time before in this place when the Secretary of State could use secondary legislation to erode and remove the right to a jury trial from a particular defendant. That is completely unprecedented and indefensible. The Conservatives do not merely criticise this bad package of legislation; we have repeatedly sought to put forward practical, evidence-based alternatives that tackle the delays without taking a sledgehammer to our constitutional rights. The Government must fix the operational failures that currently waste thousands of court hours every year. Last year, between 23% and 26% of Crown court trials were ineffective. Rather than stripping citizens of jury trial rights, the Minister should be focused instead on failures in prisoner transport, which result in hundreds of trials being derailed, simply because defendants are late to the dock. The Government must keep all existing courtrooms open and fully funded, and must use new artificial intelligence tools for disclosure and listing, and they must expand live-link video participation. [Interruption.] Ministers on the Front Bench chunter that they are already doing that. If that is the case, why is the Crown court backlog going up? They are clearly not succeeding with the measures that they are bringing forward, and a number of things are getting worse. We must improve case management and incentivise earlier case resolution, instead of forcing complex cases into the overburdened summary courts, where there are backlogs too. Extraordinarily, the Minister claimed that there was no backlog in the magistrates courts. I do not know how she decides what is or is not a backlog. Cases going up by 10% in one year is a backlog by any measure. I visited Liverpool Crown court, where the wait for trial is roughly half the length of the wait for trial in other parts of the country. The Government should replicate the proactive case management model successfully pioneered in courts like Liverpool, Preston and Cardiff, where active Crown Prosecution Service case ownership and early trial-readiness reviews have driven down backlogs. Our sunset clause draws attention to the true motivations of this Government. If the Government sincerely feel that these measures are a necessity to bring the backlog down, as they have argued repeatedly to their Back Benchers, our clause is quite clear that when the backlog is down to the pre-covid average for a period of four quarters, these damaging, rights-eroding measures should be withdrawn. I do not expect that the Government will support that proposal today, because fundamentally they do not have the same faith that we do in the importance and value of a jury trial. The Government’s partial U-turn demonstrates that sustained scrutiny can force a rethink, but a partial U-turn is not enough. The central flaws of the Bill remain: the abolition of the right to elect trial by jury, the risky expansion of summary jurisdiction, the restriction of appeal rights and the creation of secondary powers to expand juryless trials. We should not erode centuries of procedural safeguards to achieve marginal administrative speed gains. I urge hon. Members across the House, and especially those who have previously spoken out against these measures, to stand by their previous words, to stand by their principles, and to reject these remaining clauses tonight.

   Hansard source
2. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Courts and Tribunals Bill

   As I said in my opening speech, a number of women’s victims rights groups were the leading critics of getting rid of jury trials. We cannot make out that victims have a singular view on this and that they are happy with it. There are different opinions among victims groups, and many of them agree with the hon. Gentleman.

   Hansard source
3. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Courts and Tribunals Bill

   As my hon. Friend points out, the impact assessment says that this particular measure, on its own, will not make any difference to the harm done to children, but we absolutely recognise that the checklist as a whole, and the way that it works, does need to be reformed. We think a more wholesale reform of the checklist is more appropriate than just attracting interest in one particular element of it.

   Hansard source
4. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   Iran: Threats to British Interests

   The regime is using every opportunity to reach deep into our communities and society. Even charities in this country are at risk. The Charity Commission has embarked on an investigation into the extent to which the regime, particularly the IRGC, is percolating into the sector. What assessment has the Minister made of whether Iran has got itself involved in British charities? If he believes that it has, how will he expunge that particular malignancy?

   Hansard source
5. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   Pensions Triple Lock

   When the triple lock was introduced by the coalition Government, many of us were surprised that the British basic state pension was bumping along the bottom of the European average. The aim was that it would improve over time, so that it would be at the top—as befits a country like the UK. Is it the Secretary of State’s judgment that by April 2030 we will have reached that point or not?

   Hansard source
6. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   Falkland Islands

   Is it any surprise that President Milei cited the United Nations convention on the law of the sea annex VII in defence of his claim in relation to the sea lion field, when this Government are using article 298 to defend their position in relation to the Chagos islands? On the subject of UNCLOS, will the Minister use its strictures regarding freedom of navigation to ensure any thoughts that Argentina might have of frustrating the upcoming sea route between Punta Arenas and Stanley are given short shrift?

   Hansard source
7. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)

   May I say how much I appreciated the joint letter that the Secretary of State and the Defence Secretary sent to colleagues, which I think has pacified a lot of our concerns? However, what he is describing is a wholesale filleting of the legislation. Will he comment on why the legislation was initially drafted in this way and apologise to those servicemen, many of whom are now in their 70s, who have been deeply troubled by the fear that they will be a victim of the 3 o’clock knock?

   Hansard source
8. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Douglas Lumsden

   Rosebank Oil and Gas Field

   Producing our own oil and gas means that we will import less dirtier hydrocarbons, so it is common sense to use our own resources, but while Labour dithers on approving Rosebank and Jackdaw, thousands of my constituents in Aberdeen South are losing their jobs. Will the Minister set out a timetable for deciding whether Rosebank and Jackdaw can proceed?

   Hansard source
9. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Douglas Lumsden

   Falkland Islands

   This question has been asked already, but I am still unclear about the process of consenting new drilling at the Falklands. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government have a role in consenting new drilling in the Falklands—yes or no?

   Hansard source
10. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Bone and Joint Health

    It is a real pleasure to lead this evening’s debate during Bone and Joint Week, raising awareness of an issue that affects millions of people, but receives nowhere near the attention it deserves. I start by thanking Arthritis UK and the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance, known as ARMA, for their work raising awareness of these conditions, for the information they have provided ahead of this debate and for the parliamentary event they put on today. Musculoskeletal conditions or MSK conditions affect our bones and joints and the muscles and tissues that hold them together. They include arthritis, osteoporosis, chronic back pain and joint injuries. For some, these conditions are manageable. For others, they are utterly debilitating, leaving people struggling to walk, to work or to carry out basic everyday tasks. More than 20 million people in the UK live with an MSK condition. Some 10 million have arthritis, including an estimated 15,000 people in my constituency. Such conditions are the single biggest cause of pain and disability in this country, accounting for around one in seven GP consultations, yet I fear that we underestimate their seriousness, perhaps because they are rarely immediately life-threatening. While they may not kill people, however, they can slowly rob them of their mobility, independence, ability to work and quality of life. I want to explain why this issue matters to me personally. Six years ago this month, my life changed significantly, although I did not know it at the time. It is something that I have avoided talking about publicly, and if I am honest, I have struggled to accept it. However, I believe we should draw on personal experience in this place, particularly when it might help improve our country. In October 2020, I was an extremely fit and physically robust former regular Royal Marine with multiple operational tours behind me. I was also competing at the highest level of wingsuit skydiving as a member of the Team GB squad. I can see Members thinking that those activities and MSK injuries are natural bedfellows, and they are probably right, but nothing prepared me for the debilitating consequences of what happened that October. On a grey and windy day in Devon, I decided to go parachuting, which was a near weekly occurrence. As a reservist member of the Royal Navy parachute display team, I needed to keep current for the following season. I had completed around 700 jumps, and I was not frightened—this was like any other day—but I had something far more dangerous: complacency. The winds were strong and the parachute centre had restricted jumping to experienced parachutists only. I was practising precision landings and convinced myself that it would be good training. I also chose to wear trainers, rather than my usual military boots that provided ankle support. The plane took off and we climbed to 15,000 feet. The green light came on and I jumped. Everything went to plan until the landing. Rather than landing in the middle of a muddy field away from obstacles, I decided to land closer to where I would be picked up. It was a lazy decision, and it was a stupid one. As I approached the ground, gusting winds caught my parachute, lifted me and slammed me into the side of an aircraft hangar. My left foot took the initial impact, before the rest of my body smashed into the building. My parachute went over the roof, leaving me dangling from the hangar. Fortunately, I remained conscious, managed to release my harness and fell the remaining 5 feet or so to the ground. I remember lying there in shock, checking everything was still attached. Then came the searing pain in my left ankle. My wife came and picked me up and drove me straight to accident and emergency. After examinations and scans, I was told that I had suffered a severe sprain. I was advised to get the ankle moving and seek physiotherapy, because timely NHS support was unlikely to be available. Having had little experience of the NHS, I trusted that advice. Over the following months I worked hard at rehabilitation. Gradually, I regained strength, but I remained in considerable pain. I took the classic Royal Marine approach: crack on and hope it gets better. Having served alongside men who lost limbs in Afghanistan, I considered myself lucky, and I certainly was not going to complain about a sore ankle, but six months later, something was clearly wrong. My physiotherapist recommended an MRI scan, which I paid for privately—again, I was advised that the NHS process would take too long—and, when the results came back, I had to catch my breath: my ankle had been broken the entire time. The fracture had been missed at A&E and I had spent six months rehabilitating an injury that had never been properly diagnosed. I was advised to see a private consultant—again, because of the time it would take to access specialist help through the NHS. This is where I was incredibly fortunate. By complete chance, the consultant whom I went to see happened to be ex-forces himself. Having discussed my injury and background, he suggested that I see him through his NHS practice, where he could continue to oversee my treatment, and I am enormously grateful to him for doing so. After months of uncertainty, pain and frustration, I finally felt that someone understood the problem and could help me to work out what came next. I want to make an important point here: my experience has left me deeply frustrated with parts of the NHS and particularly with the difficulties in accessing timely diagnosis and treatment, but it has also shown me that there are some outstanding people working within it who go above and beyond for their patients.

    Hansard source
11. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Bone and Joint Health

    I will come on to the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but he is completely right. We must look at these problems in the round, because this is an issue of not just physical but mental health. People who were once fit lose that fitness, both physically and mentally, and then they become a bigger burden on the state. Let me return to the subject of the surgeon who helped me out. I have been fortunate to benefit from that care, but I recognise that I was lucky. At the time, I had the means to access private treatment, and through that process happened to find a consultant who could help me back into the NHS system. That should not be a matter of luck, and it certainly should not depend on someone’s ability to pay. Six years on, despite the excellent care that I now receive, I am left with osteoarthritis that can, at times, be severely debilitating. I can no longer run. I avoid activities that cause my arthritis to flare up, and I face the prospect of eventually having the bones in my ankle surgically fused. For the first few years I held on to the hope that I would recover and return to the active life that I once had, but I have now accepted that it is likely that I will not. That is difficult when physical fitness and independence have been such an important part of one’s life. At times, it has been an incredibly lonely journey. My current NHS consultant gives me hope that advances in medical technology may offer better options, but because I limp, other bones and joints are now beginning to suffer. I know that I am likely to place increasing demands on the NHS in the decades ahead. My experience has shown me a health service that can be brilliant at dealing with life-threatening emergencies, but pretty poor when it comes to conditions considered less serious, even when they fundamentally change someone’s life. I was fortunate enough to be able to afford private care, but millions of people cannot. They are left waiting, living with pain and sometimes watching manageable conditions develop into lifelong disabilities. That brings me to the wider purpose of this debate. People living with musculoskeletal conditions are about one and a half times more likely to experience mental health problems, and I understand why. When pain becomes part of everyday life and you can no longer do the things that you enjoy, it takes a toll. However, there is another dimension that we must urgently address in the House: the economic cost of doing nothing. In 2024 alone, 26.5 million working days were lost to musculoskeletal conditions. Arthritis UK estimates that working days lost to osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis cost £2.58 billion in 2017, with the figure projected to reach £3.43 billion by 2030. About 646,000 working-age people claiming sickness or disability benefits cite a musculoskeletal condition as their primary reason. I am not suggesting that they can all return to work, or that every disability is preventable, but I do believe that too many people deteriorate when early intervention might have kept them healthy, independent and economically active. Let us consider someone working in construction, hospitality or healthcare. They develop a back problem or knee injury but cannot access timely treatment, so they carry on through the pain. Eventually, they cannot carry on. They fall out of work, their health deteriorates and they become increasingly dependent on public services. The taxpayer potentially picks up the bill several times over through NHS treatment, welfare payments and lost tax revenue, and the individual pays an even greater price. We focus too much on the immediate cost of treatment, without considering the potentially much greater cost of failing to treat someone early. Surely that is economically illiterate. If timely physiotherapy, imaging or specialist intervention can prevent lifelong disability or someone losing their job, we should see it as an investment, not simply another NHS cost. However, it is not all doom and gloom, and there is reason for optimism. In my constituency, the Royal Devon University healthcare NHS foundation trust held its first MSK community appointment day in Exmouth. More than 100 people attended, accessing clinical assessments, rehabilitation advice and community support together. Patients particularly valued being listened to, and early results suggested fewer unnecessary follow-ups. One pilot does not provide all the answers, but it does show what can happen when services are organised differently and patients receive joined-up support. That brings me to my questions for the Minister. First, where is the national leadership on MSK health? The previous Government recognised MSK as one of six major conditions in their major conditions strategy, yet we have not received a firm commitment that the current Government will develop a dedicated modern service framework. Will the Minister commit to establishing such a framework, with clear accountability and measurable outcomes? Will the Minister also commit to a national approach, with clear responsibility and measurable outcomes, and meet the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance to discuss it? I thank the shadow Health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), for tabling an amendment to the recent Health Bill that calls for just such a framework. Secondly, what more can be done to improve early diagnosis and timely access to rehabilitation to prevent avoidable deterioration while patients wait? Thirdly, will the Government work across the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Treasury to properly assess the economic case for early intervention? Lastly, as a veteran, I want to raise veteran issues. MSK injuries are a major reason for medical discharge from the armed forces, and their consequences can follow people long after they leave service. Will the Minister work with Defence colleagues to improve access to rehabilitation for veterans, and examine whether the armed forces covenant properly addresses their long-term MSK needs? It cannot make sense for any one part of Government to save money by delaying treatment, only for another part to spend considerably more in dealing with the consequences. I will finish where I began. Six years ago, I was able to soldier. I could run for miles, jump out of aircraft and represent my country in sports. Today, I have to think about every physical activity and the associated cost in pain. I do not share that to seek sympathy; I share it because I understand how profoundly an MSK condition can alter someone’s life. Millions of people across this country are living with far worse circumstances than mine.

    Hansard source
12. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Mundell

    Topical Questions

    Can the Secretary of State assure me that those people who are off-grid—they are prevalent in my constituency—are at the heart of the Government’s thinking with regard to energy support? While I welcome regulation on heating oil, which has spiralled in price, it is not clear that regulation alone will bring down prices. Therefore, if the Chancellor is to give energy support, can off-grid be part of that?

    Hansard source
13. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Davis

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)

    With the Prime Minister sitting next to him, I hope that it will not influence the future of the Secretary of State when I tell the House that he and I are very long-standing friends and even occasional allies. He has obviously done all he can to mitigate what is a morally flawed Bill. A year after the Government introduced this Bill, the central question remains unanswered: how will it deliver justice without subjecting soldiers who served lawfully and honourably to endless punitive investigation? My judgment has not changed since October’s debate, nor April’s. The Bill was sold as a defence of human rights and the rule of law. I yield to no one in this House on human rights and defence of the rule of law, but this is not that. Instead, it is morally bankrupt and makes a mockery of both. If this Bill was really about human rights and justice, the first coroner’s inquest would not be about whether the killings at Loughgall were unlawful; it would instead be about one of the 1,800 murders carried out by the IRA, every single one of which was unlawful. The Government, unfortunately, have prioritised their relationship with Dublin over their duties to their own veteran soldiers. Ireland will undoubtedly come to regret its own role in this Bill. Scrutiny of its actions during the troubles will show that it was never the impartial party it tries to present itself as now, but instead a partisan and a criminal insurgency. The Irish Government provided active sanctuary for IRA terrorists, and justice cannot mean relentless scrutiny for British soldiers but selective scrutiny for the Irish Government. They must accept the scrutiny of themselves that they demand of others, and we might start with an independent review of their role in the Omagh bombing, which we have heard something of today. I am afraid that this is a nation much of whose politics is hostile to Britain—we should not avoid that fact. Britain must not sacrifice its soldiers for an illusory diplomatic advantage. This vexatious use of lawfare is designed with one intent: to re-present the behaviour of IRA killers—vicious, psychopathic murderers—as somehow liberators and heroes, by destroying the reputations of our own soldiers. The Government must not pursue this course. The Government must drop this evil Bill and start again.

    Hansard source
14. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Davis

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the rush to fit my speech into three minutes, I omitted to draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, some of which has direct relevance to Northern Ireland legislation. I do so now.

    Hansard source
15. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

    Topical Questions

    There is a great deal of concern in Staffordshire Moorlands about the Peak Cluster proposal, which would take carbon from four cement plants in the Peak district and pipe it into Morecambe bay. While I am not opposed to carbon capture, many residents are extraordinarily concerned about the impact this will have on them. Will the Secretary of State look carefully at this project and see whether there are alternatives, to ensure that we can keep our cement industry in the United Kingdom without perhaps destroying our environment in the Peak district?

    Hansard source
16. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Prisoner Early Release Scheme

    I must take umbrage at the idea that the last Government were too slow to react. HMP Millsike, in my constituency, was given planning approval in September 2019, but it took six years to build, and according to the latest figures it still has 344 empty cells. Should the Minister not be moving heaven and earth to ensure that we fill every available cell, rather than releasing dangerous criminals back on to our streets?

    Hansard source
17. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    Order. That is the third time that I have heard the shadow Minister say “you”. It is not my legislation.

    Hansard source
18. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    Order. Can I just emphasise to Members that votes will come at 6 o’clock, which leaves us very little time, and inevitably not all Members will get in? I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
19. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    Order. We must refer to other Members by their constituencies. Oh, he is not a Member any more—apologies!

    Hansard source
20. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    Order. I will be introducing a five-minute time limit after the next speaker.

    Hansard source
21. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)

    Order. “The problem that he states”. We cannot have “yous” creeping into the debate. [Interruption.]

    Hansard source
22. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)

    Order. May I remind Members that debate in this Chamber occurs through the Chair? I will not have Members yelling at each other in an unseemly way across those Dispatch Boxes.

    Hansard source
23. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)

    Order. Mr Kohler, please could you focus your comments on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and not give a dissertation on history?

    Hansard source
24. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)

    Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would reserve arguments about his amendments for Committee, so that we can focus on the carry-over extension.

    Hansard source
25. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)

    The hon. Gentleman will confine his comments to the carry-over extension. He may gesture all he likes at the Secretary of State, but I remind him that I am in the Chair now.

    Hansard source
26. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme

    I beg to move, That this House has considered the Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. The Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme—BREP—is a niche topic for Westminster Hall. I am here because Bromsgrove is suffering under the chaos of BREP and the mismanagement of its delivery. To provide some background, Bromsgrove is a busy commuter town in the West Midlands with two motorways, the M42 and the M5, running through it. That is crucial for context because, when the M5 is congested and snarled up, the A38 running through Bromsgrove—the route affected by BREP—becomes a pressure release valve. As a result, Bromsgrove suffers additional congestion once all that traffic is displaced from the motorway and running around the town. I would argue that the A38 running through Bromsgrove is a part of our key national infrastructure, given the role that it plays in alleviating pressure on the M5. Bromsgrove is currently seeing investment to the tune of tens of millions of pounds into BREP, but the reality is the delivery of acute disruption to the local economy, businesses, schools and residents. Any road project will inevitably bring some degree of disruption. The folk of Bromsgrove are reasonable and expect disruption when investment takes place, but the scale is beyond anything envisaged by those living and working in the town. Crucially, it is beyond anything that Worcestershire county council appears to acknowledge in its engagement with me or local residents. Accepting that work has to take place does not mean accepting endless delays, lack of accountability, poor communication and date slipping, which are characteristics of the BREP work. The impact is profound, including safety concerns. Losses for businesses are particularly profound. I routinely meet and speak with businesses that quote BREP and the compounded effect of roadworks in Bromsgrove as one reason why their businesses are suffering. I note that when the BBC, ITV or other media outlets speak to local businesses, the congestion caused by BREP and other roadworks is routinely quoted. The result is severe reputational impact for Bromsgrove, which should have a vibrant economy, given its location, relative affluence of the hinterland and the connectivity the town previously enjoyed.

    Hansard source
27. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme

    I feel that the presence of the hon. Member vindicates this debate, not because of the worthiness of the point being discussed but because he is attending a debate about something happening in Bromsgrove. He is correct and I will touch on that point shortly. The impact of the BREP works in Bromsgrove is profound. There are safety concerns, the losses for businesses that I have already spoken about, endless delays for people on routine trips, and the reputational damage to the town that I mentioned. Let us think about it—who is going about their lives in any town? There are parents wanting to take their children to school, workers driving to work, businesses reliant on deliveries and on trade, carers, and other people going about their lives, such as those needing to get to appointments, GPs or hospitals. I read a statistic that the average UK driver spends 62 hours a year stuck in traffic. Well, I can guarantee anyone who wants to listen that the figure will be a hell of a lot higher in Bromsgrove because of the BREP roadworks.

    Hansard source
28. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme

    I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for his intervention. He is absolutely right that all our constituencies deserve investment. However, the crux of the story, which I hope will become apparent as I go through my remarks, is that when infrastructure is delivered, that must be done in a consultative way with local people and local businesses. We cannot allow the fragmentation of the state to paralyse the delivery of infrastructure projects that are so essential to our prosperity. We have businesses in Bromsgrove that are struggling in the current economic climate, regardless of BREP and the compounded effects of the roadworks. The situation is particularly acute in Bromsgrove. Having spoken to so many residents and businesspeople, I know that there is a general sentiment that those responsible for delivering the scheme—it is important to note that Worcestershire county council is the body responsible for delivering it, even though it is backed by tens of millions of pounds of central Government funding—do not care or are not listening to the voices of those who are affected by it. I fear that a long period of time will elapse before the reputation of Bromsgrove recovers, even after these works are eventually complete. Nationally, 83% of businesses claim that congestion is a problem; I can guarantee that in Bromsgrove 100% of businesses will make that claim. Nationally, 41% of businesses claim that their profitability is affected by congestion. Again, I can guarantee that practically every business in Bromsgrove will cite BREP and the compounded effect of roadworks as one of the reasons why they are struggling in an already difficult economic climate. It should not be an abstract concept for any of us to believe that it is the responsibility of the state in all its forms—including central Government, local authorities, Government agencies—to do everything possible to ease the burden of the effect of roadworks on our communities. However, I am afraid that where Worcestershire county council is concerned, I am bewildered. I have had a reasonable amount of engagement with the county council over this project but it has felt incredibly tokenistic. I have had meetings with the council to discuss different parts and different phases of the project that are being delivered. At times, I have had meetings with the council and residents to discuss specific concerns about particular parts of the project, but I am afraid that the responses are only ever tokenistic. We get responses such as “We have consulted” or “We have engaged.” Part of my conclusion can only be that the lives of some of those responsible for delivering the scheme, whether that is contractors or officers of the council, are not as affected by the scheme—perhaps because they do not live in Bromsgrove or they may not travel through the town. I fear that those taking decisions, whether on this or other aspects of investment, are far too often removed from the consequences of what they are delivering. That means that there is a real loss of the voice of the community affected in this process. To the point that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made about the fragmentation of the state, whether we are talking about BREP or the delivery of all manner of different public goods, we too often see the delivery of projects with far too many stakeholders involved. As a consequence, there appears to be a significant lack of accountability in the process. Here we have a scheme that is largely funded by central Government. Bromsgrove would be incredibly grateful for those funds if there was a genuine sentiment that this was being delivered for the betterment of the town, but I am afraid that the patience and the good will of the public has worn thin. There is probably not much patience left to squeeze out of the very patient and dutiful residents of Bromsgrove. There is a lack of accountability, and a perception that things fall through the cracks and that if it is the responsibility of people from one body, they will tokenistically engage, but they will get on with their lives and not necessarily have to live with the consequences, while, in this case, I am afraid that the residents of Bromsgrove do. It is advertised that BREP is an enhancement, but the reality is that it has made things worse. We will wait and see at the end of the delivery of the scheme what things actually look like. However, this £40 million investment is due to improve a typical journey along the A38 by just two minutes. That is without taking into effect the 85% increase in the housing target being imposed on my constituency by the Government. That is based on infrastructure and an idea of our society that is arguably already out of date. The compounded effect of growth in future will see this BREP scheme effectively become a white elephant—a complete waste of money. That is the fear of many of my constituents, and I am afraid it is a fear and suspicion that I now share. It is a bizarre contradiction that we have this multimillion-pound investment—£40 million is not a small sum of money—and if it was spent on something that I believed was truly for the betterment of the town, I would be rejoicing at this. That £40 million could buy a lot and tangibly improve a community in so many different ways. But the question everyone is asking is, “Should it be spent for that two minutes, and will those two minutes even materialise?” I am afraid that from start to finish this entire project has been a catalogue of mismanagement and communication failures. Most of all, there has been a severe failing of all involved to really consult those who will be most affected. As is probably understood by now, my constituents are fed up. I have appealed to Worcestershire county council to halt all unnecessary roadworks that are over and above the BREP scheme. I believe that BREP should have been delivered in phases rather than there being one large scheme from start to finish. We are seeing hauliers and traffic on the M5 displaced through the town so we have additional heavy and unsafe vehicles and a larger load of traffic. That is in an already relatively crowded area of population. I have had parents get in touch with me because they are worried about the journeys that their children take, particularly if they are crossing the A38. There has been a complete mess and a confusing mix of signage and road blockages. One constituent got in touch yesterday to say that, because of an unmarked kerb, he had split his tyre, and he showed me a photograph of that. This is having a profound effect. I want to stress that I do not bring a debate of this kind to Westminster Hall or the House of Commons lightly. It is because my constituents and I really are at the end of our tether with this. I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to an 83-year-old cyclist who tragically lost his life a few weeks ago on New Road in Bromsgrove. I would like to stress I am not linking the two events, but it is unquestionable that traffic and congestion in Bromsgrove have got worse and I would like to pay tribute to him. My thoughts are very much with his family and I support the investigation of the authorities as they ascertain the facts behind what happened. Since I was elected at the general election two years ago, I have been pretty relentless in holding Worcestershire county council to account over BREP. There needs to be a much more co-ordinated approach to reduce emissions, congestion and disruption, and to minimise community impact. Instead there has been this nonsensical approach. Let me cite one example in particular that has affected many residents. We have a housing development known locally as the Oakalls and the entrance to that, Regents Park Road, is used by thousands of cars every single day. A large stretch of the road has been narrowed. I have been there multiple times and seen cars flooring it, to be frank—putting their foot down to get through the narrow junction before another vehicle appears. That has undoubtedly increased the safety concerns about that junction. As for Worcestershire county council— well, I have invited the cabinet member to come down and meet with me and residents, but I am afraid I have not had a response in the affirmative. I can only conclude that on that front that Worcestershire county council is not interested in engaging on a junction that it has changed and that is unquestionably more dangerous than it was before. My constituents are sensible people—they are prepared to put up with reasonable disruption and they expect unknown hurdles to present challenges—but their sensibleness and patience depend on mutual respect and that has been lacking, seemingly throughout the process. I just cited the lack of collaboration at Oakalls. We have recent ministerial communications, which I am grateful for, that say that the programme is now scheduled to end in early 2027, but it is important to put on the record that this BREP scheme, if it is completed by then, will have been delayed effectively twice from its original scheduled completion date. There are some things that need to be done. On 11 August I sent a letter to the Secretary of State to plead on behalf on my constituents for serious consideration to be given to asking National Highways to intervene in the scheme given the role of the A38 as a key part of our national strategic infrastructure and that pressure release valve that I described. I believe it is pretty apparent that Worcestershire county council lacks the expertise, for whatever reason: this could be a project that is just far too big for it to handle or it may have bitten off more than it can chew. There might be council officers or contractors who are not as invested in delivering a successful scheme for the town because their lives are based in other places. I suspect that that is a factor, even though that is a bold statement to make. I am grateful to the Minister for coming here today, and I reiterate my plea to him to consider engaging with National Highways on this to take the scheme under its control, and get it completed using its skills and expertise. If the Minister will not do that, I sincerely hope he will support me in gaining answers to a litany of questions—34 in fact—that I recently sent to the Secretary of State on a range of topics around how the scheme is being delivered. This is about who shoulders the burden of additional cost. My constituents want to know how far behind schedule the project is compared with the original tender. It is right that my constituents, who are also taxpayers, and the businesses that are funding the project, not just in Bromsgrove but across the country, should not shoulder burdens that have been brought about by poor contractual timekeeping. There are so many unanswered questions. I do not want to go through them all now, because I am conscious of time and want to allow the Minister to respond in what I hope will be a positive spirit. I emphasise to him that I do not come here lightly; I come here because my constituents deserve answers. I am prepared to meet him in the search for those answers and to engage with National Highways, if that would help to reach a swift, successful and efficient conclusion for the taxpayer and to get this scheme delivered once and for all.

    Hansard source
29. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme

    I appreciate the Minister coming to the Chamber and responding to my points, but does he accept that this is an example of the fragmentation of the state? The public, including my constituents, are sick and tired of the idea that, “It’s not us, it’s them”. I understand and accept that Worcestershire county council is responsible for delivering the scheme and that it is funded by central Government, but is it not just another example of passing the buck to say that it is nothing to do with National Highways because it is simply a local road when I demonstrated that a key piece of national infrastructure, the M5, is affected by what is going on on this road? It is that fragmentation of the state; we have to do better.

    Hansard source
30. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 88, in clause 3, page 3, line 34, at end insert— “(3A) The Chief Appeals Officer must, for each financial year, publish— (a) the number of applications for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal against decisions of the IIAA, and the number of such applications granted; (b) the number and proportion of decisions of the IIAA set aside by the Upper Tribunal; and (c) the number of decisions reviewed under section 6, and the outcome of those reviews.” This probing amendment would require the IIAA to publish annual data on the quality of its decisions, including data on onward appeals, decisions set aside by the Upper Tribunal and internal reviews.

    Hansard source
31. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart; I hope you are ready for a lot of Divisions over the next few weeks. While clause 2 decides who the adjudicators will be, clause 3 decides how the quality of their decisions will be protected. That matters because poor-quality decisions will result in appeals, and appeals mean delays, fewer removals and increased costs for the taxpayer to bear. Clause 3 sets out who is responsible for what: adjudicators decide on the cases; the chief executive must ensure that the adjudicators are adequately trained, as the Minister explained earlier; the chief appeals officer allocates cases, organises a system of legal support and oversees quality development and assurance; and the professional standards officer sets standards and publishes a code of conduct. Dr Casey warned that adjudicators without legal training would be more likely to make “errors of law” and that the backlog, rather than genuinely decreasing, could simply relocate to the upper tribunal. The solution to that potential consequence must lie in this clause. What exactly is the “system of legal support” for adjudicators in subsection (3)(b)? A question occurred to me over the adjournment, following the earlier debate about magistrates: will adjudicators sit with legal advisers, as lay magistrates do? That may or may not be helpful, but I would be interested in the Minister’s response. If so, at what cost? The Law Society points out that the chief appeals officer is responsible for quality but has no power to intervene in any decision. What powers will the chief appeals officer have to act on poor performance? Amendment 88 is a probing amendment. It would require the chief appeals officer to publish the number of applications for permission to appeal to the upper tribunal, how many are granted each year, the number and proportion of appeals authority decisions that the upper tribunal sets aside, and the number of decisions that the appeals authority reviews under clause 6, with their outcomes. In her oral evidence session before the recess, Dr Sumption told this Committee that one of the key measures of success should be how many decisions are overturned. This amendment would ensure that Parliament is told every year whether that relocation of the backlog to the upper tribunal, which Dr Casey described, is happening. Will the Minister confirm whether the appeals authority will publish annual data on the quality of its decisions, including the rate at which they are set aside? If the Minister can give assurances on that, we will not press this amendment. Finally, what training standards will apply under clause 3(2), and will they be published? Will the code of conduct be published before the first case is heard? The Opposition support clause 3, which ensures that the quality of the decision making is the best answer to the criticism that the appeals authority would generate more appeals than it resolved, but only if it is real, resourced and reported to Parliament.

    Hansard source
32. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
33. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)

    The procedure rules will determine how fast the appeals authority works in practice, time limits, hearings, evidence and late claims. As Professor Ekins warned in oral evidence, they are also the part of this scheme most exposed to legal challenge. The group that we are considering includes clause 4, schedule 3 and clause 5, which cover the rules and the board that makes them, together with amendments 63 and 68 in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, a set of Government amendments to schedule 3 and Government new clause 2 on advice and representation, so there is a lot in there. Clause 4 provides for the appeals authority procedure rules, made by the procedure rules board after consultation, with regard to the objectives in clause 1. They are to be made by statutory instruments subject to the negative procedure. Schedule 3 sets out what they may contain, including time limits, restrictions on fresh applications, decisions without a hearing and the treatment of late evidence. Clause 5 sets up the board that will write the appeals authority’s procedure rules, including the chief executive, the chief appeals officer, the professional standards officer and standing members appointed by the chair.

    Hansard source
34. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)

    The clause allows the IIAA to review its own decisions once, to correct errors, amend reasons or remake the decision. An internal review of that kind is consistent with the Opposition’s own plan for a short internal appeal. Clause 7 provides the only route from the IIAA to a court—appeal to the upper tribunal on a point of law, with permission—and also applies to the post-Cart ouster in section 11A of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, with refusals of permission. Government amendment 36 limits the IIAA’s power of review to errors of law. Errors of fact will instead be corrected under the procedure rules. We do not oppose that. A review that can reopen the facts is a rehearing by another name. That changes the argument about clause 1(8), however. The narrower the IIAA’s own remedies, the harder it is to say that there is an adequate alternative to judicial review. How will errors of fact be corrected, and how quickly? Do the Government still regard review and appeal together as an adequate alternative remedy? What time limit will apply and will a pending review delay removal or an onward appeal? I think that the Minister touched on that in her remarks, but I will be grateful if she could unpack that somewhat. How many reviews do the Government expect, and what effect will those have on the upper tribunal? Do the Government regard review and appeal together as an adequate alternative remedy that justifies excluding judicial review? The Government’s own impact assessment—admittedly the one published earlier, not the one published yesterday, because I have not seen that—expects a “sustained increase in demand” on the upper tribunal. What additional capacity—judges, sitting days and so on—has been funded, and how many onward appeals does the impact assessment assume? What proportion of IIAA decisions do the Government expect to be set aside? Clause 6(3) is significant; it applies the partial ouster that the previous Conservative Government enacted in the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, which was drafted precisely with narrow exceptions and is accepted by the courts. Professor Ekins, in his oral evidence a few weeks ago, told us that the model could be applied here to IIAA decisions. If that is right for the upper tribunal, why is it not right for clause 1(8)? I have two final questions. First, will time periods such as those in clause 8 apply to upper tribunal appeals? Secondly, where an error of law is found, will the upper tribunal remake decisions itself or send them back? We support Government amendment 36 and clauses 6 and 7. A credible internal review and speed at the second stage, as well as the first, are part of a system that is fast, final and defensible in court.

    Hansard source
35. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I am going to start using the words “appeals authority”, because “IIAA” is doing my head in. Clause 8 lets the Home Secretary set time periods for the appeals authority decisions, with extensions where compliance is not practicable or not in the interests of justice. The Opposition supports statutory deadlines; 67-week waits for an appeal are, frankly, indefensible. Amendment 89, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West, is a probing amendment. It would require the first regulation setting time periods to be made within six months of the appeals authority being established, and require the appeals authority’s annual report to say how often a deadline was extended. A power to set deadlines is, of course, not a deadline. What periods do the Government intend, and when will the first regulations be made? Extensions “in the interests of justice” could become routine. How often do the Government expect them, and will extension rates be published? There is also a puzzle in here: schedule 1 repeals the 24-week statutory timeframes in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 before they have even come into force, and I would like to know from the Minister why that is the case. Why are out-of-country appeals, including deportation appeals after certification, excluded? What happens if the appeals authority simply misses a deadline? Is there any consequence beyond a line in an annual report? Amendment 83 would broaden the list of those the Home Secretary must consult before setting time periods to include people with protection status, those with lived experience of the asylum system and legal practitioners, as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. Consultations of course have their place, but this list would turn every set of regulations into a lengthy exercise and delay the very deadlines we need, so we intend to oppose that amendment.

    Hansard source
36. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I thank my hon. Friend for those very kind words about how powerful my arguments are. I am sure the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion will respond to that when she has the opportunity.

    Hansard source
37. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. The Opposition will support clause 8 and oppose amendment 83. We want deadlines that are set, met and reported on. If the Minister can tell us when the first regulations will be made and that extension rates will be published, we will not press amendment 89 to a vote.

    Hansard source
38. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)

    The clause lets the Home Secretary ask the authority to expedite a case where it is in the public interest. The authority must agree unless it is not practicable or not in the interests of justice. The Home Office has said that the power will be used for cases such as high harm foreign offenders and human rights claims that are clearly without merit. The Opposition support that. On amendment 90, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West, the principal question is: why leave it to discretion? The public have a direct interest in foreign criminals being deported and being deported quickly, so why leave it to the Home Secretary’s case-by-case discretion? Amendment 90 would require the authority to expedite any appeal by a person who is liable to deportation and has been convicted of an offence either here or abroad, exactly as if the Home Secretary had asked. Will the Government accept that incredibly sensible amendment, which I think the British public would support? I have a couple of basic questions. What criteria will the Home Secretary use, and will they be published? How many requests do the Government expect each year? Government amendment 37 requires anyone deciding bail to consider whether the authority is expediting the person’s appeal at the Home Secretary’s request. We support that—someone whose appeal is being fast-tracked should not be released while it is heard—but it has a cost. How many additional people do the Government expect to remain in detention as a result, and is there the capacity? How do the Government intend to implement that? On legal robustness, the House of Commons Library notes that lawyers are already asking how an appellant could challenge a decision to expedite, given clause 1(8)—we come back to clause 1(8) and the robustness, or otherwise, of that clause. That question will be answered in the courts if it is not answered here, so how do the Government expect expedition decisions to be challenged, and do they expect them to be judicially reviewed? When will the process regulations be made, and how long will the authority have to respond to a request? We support the clause and the Government amendment. We will oppose any attempt to remove the power. Our amendment 90 would ensure that the appeals that matter most to public safety are always at the front of the queue, and I will seek to press that to a Division.

    Hansard source
39. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)

    You never know, Chair, we may be asking the same question. I asked the Minister whether she would provide some criteria—I am expanding my question, in fact—to give the public some certainty as to the decisions that the Home Secretary might make. Does the Minister expect some criteria to be published?

    Hansard source
40. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Clause 10 allows the authority to charge a party or representative who acts “improperly, unreasonably or negligently” and wastes its resources, and the Opposition support it. Last-minute applications and poorly prepared cases waste time the system does not have. I have a couple of questions. The Bar Council objects that non-lawyer adjudicators could charge or fine barristers, with a chilling effect. We do not accept that representatives should be immune from the consequences of abusing the process, but the power must be clear. What level of charge is envisaged, and will there be a cap? How often are wasted costs orders made in the tribunal now? Will a person who is charged have a right to review or appeal? Of course, fairness cuts both ways. The Home Office is a party. The Library records that 36% of asylum appeals disposed of last year were withdrawn, and the Refugee Council attributes that to poor initial decisions, a point that was made earlier in the debate. Will the Home Office be liable to charges when it withdraws a decision shortly before a hearing, and will guidance define what counts as acting improperly, unreasonably or negligently? Government new clause 1 makes sums payable under a decision by the authority, including charges under clause 10, recoverable as if they were county court orders in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and enforceable in the sheriff court in Scotland. We support that. A charge that cannot be collected is no deterrent at all. Will charges against the Home Office be enforceable in the same way? What sums do the Government expect to be recovered each year? We support clause 10 and Government new clause 1. A clear, fairly applied and enforceable power will discourage abuse of the process, which we think is important.

    Hansard source