Conservative and Unionist Party

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

13 Oct 2026ParliamentNick Timothy
Prisoner Early Release Scheme
Two weeks ago, 700 prisoners were released from prison across the country, and today a further 650 will be released, most after serving just one third of their sentence. The Justice Secretary told the country that proper safeguards would be put in place, with a presumption that all released prisoners would be tagged. He called it the “toughest” tagging regime in history, but that was nonsense. Four days after the first release, the Justice Secretary admitted that he had no idea how many released prisoners had been tagged, and protested that it was unreasonable to expect him to know how many had been tagged so soon into the scheme. I have some advice for him and his Ministers: it is better to work out how to implement your policy before it starts, not after. We know that a majority of prisoners are not being tagged before release, and we know that reoffending is already off the charts. The Met says that there have been 100 tag breaches in London each day since Labour’s first early release scheme began, while two or three prisoners released early are being re-arrested every week. I do not want to hear the same old lines from the Minister about prison building, though I note he has changed his tune since the Prime Minister took office in July. Since the election, not a single new prison development has been planned or approved—those were the Minister’s words in a written answer. The only new prison opened was begun under the last Government, and prison places are unused because officer numbers are down under Labour. Can the Minister tell us very clearly the answers to the following three questions? How many prisoners released so far have and have not been tagged? How many tag breaches by released prisoners have there been? If he does not know the answers to those questions, when will the Justice Secretary and his team find out and tell the House of Commons?
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentNick Timothy
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Time and again, for more than a year now, Ministers have come to the Dispatch Box and told the House that their attack on jury trials was essential to making the courts work efficiently. Time and again we told them that they were wrong, and so did more than 100 of their colleagues on the Government Benches. We said that the right to a trial by jury is an ancient English right—a vital part of our national inheritance and a necessary safeguard against the might of the state. Ministers ignored us and said that we did not understand. They briefed against their colleagues and, in the case of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), they smeared him disgracefully. Now they admit that they were wrong and we were right. All those Ministers and Labour MPs who stuck to the Government line in the face of all the evidence should reflect on the limits of blind party allegiance and following the instructions of their Whips. It makes them look very foolish today. I remind the Courts Minister in particular of our exchange in the House in June. When I told her that the incoming leader of the Labour party, now the Prime Minister, was going to scrap her prized policy, she told the House that I misunderstood his position. She said that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) did not in fact oppose their assault on jury trials. Yet here they are, with their policy largely abandoned, and her authority as Courts Minister lies in pieces. Like Monty Python’s Black Knight, the Courts Minister declared in June, “I move for no man.” As her policy lost one limb, she insisted it was but a scratch. As it lost another, she claimed it was just a flesh wound. Now that the Bill is left completely dismembered, she has gone from insisting, “I am invincible,” to finally saying, “All right, we’ll call it a draw.” But it is not a draw; it is a very serious defeat, and it is a victory for our constitutional settlement, our rights under the Crown and the sacred principle that no one shall be convicted and deprived of their liberty except by a jury of their peers. This was a battle that should never have been fought. In the last year, 17,601 sitting days were lost because Crown courtrooms sat empty. On average, about 16% of Crown courts are not sitting on any given day. We have repeatedly called on the Government to get the courts sitting throughout the year. That is how they should cut backlogs, not by attacking juries. I said that the attack on juries had been largely abandoned, but the Government have not completely given up. There remain serious problems with the Bill, which will remove the right of defendants to elect a jury in either-way cases and increase the sentencing power of magistrates courts so that more cases are heard there. However, the magistrates backlog has reached 380,000 open cases—a 9% increase on the previous year. The Government have not told us what additional resources will be given to magistrates to manage the increase in workload, nor what new safeguards will ensure justice. Indeed, there has been no assessment of the likely effect of the change on appeal rates. We know that of appeals against verdicts given by magistrates, up to 56% are allowed. The Bill will also remove juries from what it calls complex and lengthy trials, which are normally said to be cases involving fraud. The independent reviewer of fraud, Jonathan Fisher KC, concluded that there was no justification for the change. But clause 4 does not only concern fraud trials; the Government seek to extend the scope of judge-only trials to other complex cases in later years by secondary legislation. That would give them the power to resume their attack on jury trials without proper scrutiny or debate. The proposal is a disgrace and we reject it emphatically. The Bill as amended will also establish a review of the court system with a specific remit to consider inequality of outcome based on racial identity. Once again, the Labour party is trying to engineer judicial outcomes based on identity rather than treating us all as free individuals accountable before the law. The Opposition will resist that and stand for the principle that it is only our actions that matter, not who and what we are. Opposition Members are committed to the ancient right to trial by jury, but while the principle of jury trials is sacrosanct, there is increasing evidence from recent cases that juries may, in some examples, have been compromised by the political or religious bias of some jury members. We have seen the acquittal of violent thugs, including the man who smashed a female police officer’s spine apparently because he was a member of Palestine Action. We have seen vandals from Just Stop Oil found not guilty despite clear evidence of their guilt. Many in the legal profession are concerned that this is an increasing trend in courts across the country. If those who break our laws walk free because jurors feel kinship towards them or because the cause for which the defendant committed a crime is just, justice is no longer blind. That flies in the face of the rule of law. It must be stopped.
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentNick Timothy
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Had the hon. Lady listened, she would have heard that I said individual barristers—I did not say organisations. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] The Justice Secretary and others ought to listen to those professionals who experience the justice system every day. The Government’s handling of the Bill has been a shambles from start to finish. It still contains dangerous provisions that limit the right to elect and to appeal, and that allow Ministers to attack jury trials by secondary legislation and put more cases through the magistrates court. We will vote to reject the Bill to preserve equality before the law and the right to a fair trial. Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani
Pensions Triple Lock
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani
Pensions Triple Lock
Well, the Secretary of State definitely had his porridge this morning! I remind Members that we reference colleagues not by their names but by their constituencies—although I appreciate that the Secretary of State was quoting.
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani
Pensions Triple Lock
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani
Pensions Triple Lock
Order. For future reference, Mr Darling, you were over time by 30 seconds.
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani
Pensions Triple Lock
Order. Just before the Secretary of State responds, I know that Mr Speaker reminded colleagues this morning that when they are speaking, they must do so through the Chair—they must not turn their back on the Chair.
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani
Pensions Triple Lock
I call Llinos Medi.
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani
Falkland Islands
I remind the Minister that under paragraph 9.5 of the ministerial code, Opposition Front Benchers and the Speaker’s Office should be sent the text of a draft statement a minimum of 45 minutes beforehand. This statement was not received on time. I do not wish to suspend the House on a busy day, but it is regrettable that this important standard was not met in this instance.
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani
Falkland Islands
I call the shadow Minister.
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani
Falkland Islands
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani
Falkland Islands
Order. I remind the Minister and all colleagues that they should not say “you” and “your”. They must speak through the Chair. I was not responsible for the question.
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani
Falkland Islands
I call Sarah Pochin—you look like you are in pain.
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani
Point of Order
I have no doubt that this matter will be raised many times by colleagues. There is a document called the “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons”, which deals with this matter. When a Member visits another Member’s constituency, except on a purely private visit, they should take reasonable steps in advance to tell the Member in whose constituency the visit is taking place. The guidance states that “failing to do so is regarded by colleagues as very discourteous.” I have no doubt that the point will be passed on by Front Benchers to the Member in question.
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani
Hares
Order. Before we get on to the next bit of business, I have been updated that the Foreign Office statement was indeed received on time. I did tell the Minister off earlier, but maybe that information can be passed on to her.
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani
Courts and Tribunals Bill
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 1—Report on the effect of the Act on prosecution of rape and serious sexual offences— “(1) The Lord Chancellor must commission a report on the effect of the provisions of this Act on proceedings of cases involving rape and serious sexual offences. (2) The matters the report must consider include— (a) the effect of the Act on the time taken to dispose of cases; (b) the effect of the Act on witness participation in proceedings; and (c) the effect of the Act on the experience of victims during proceedings. (3) The report must make recommendations to improve each of the matters set out in subsection (2). (4) Recommendations may include— (a) recommendations about how the Act is implemented, and (b) recommendations about further provision necessary to improve each matter. (5) In this section, serious sexual offences are such offences as the Crown Prosecution Service may from time to time specify. (6) Within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament— (a) a copy of a report under this section, (b) the Lord Chancellor’s response to recommendations made by that report.” This new clause would require a report on the effect of the provisions of the Bill on the progression of RASSO cases, and require the Lord Chancellor to respond to these recommendations. New clause 2—Fast-track courts for rape and serious sexual offences— “(1) The Lord Chancellor must by regulations make provision for specialist court capacity for cases involving rape and serious sexual offences (“RASSO”). (2) Regulations under this section must include provision for the prioritised listing and progression of RASSO cases. (3) The Lord Chancellor must take reasonable steps for any necessary judicial, administrative and support resources to be made available to operate such court capacity.” This new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to ensure that specialist court capacity is made available for the fast-tracking of RASSO cases. New clause 3—Extended sitting hours for Crown Court Proceedings— “(1) The Lord Chancellor may, by order, designate specific Crown Court locations or individual court rooms as extended capacity courts. (2) Proceedings in any court designated under subsection (1) must consist of— (a) a morning session, commencing at 09:00 and concluding at 13:00; and (b) an afternoon session, commencing at 14:00 and concluding at 18:00. (3) Any court designated under subsection (1) will not have a limit on the number of cases that can be heard on the same day.” This new clause would restructure the court sitting day to introduce a morning and afternoon session, to allow two different cases to be heard in the same courtroom on a given day. New clause 4—Review of the Feasibility of Two Court Sittings per day— “(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act comes into force, lay before Parliament an independent report into the feasibility of conducting two trials per day in designated court rooms (“the Scheme”). (2) The scheme would allow for proceedings in a Crown Court to consist of— (a) a morning session, commencing at 09:00 and concluding at 13:00; and (b) an afternoon session, commencing at 14:00 and concluding at 18:00. (3) A report under subsection (1) must assess the impact of the scheme— (a) on the efficiency and timeliness of court proceedings; (b) on the availability of judges, legal practitioners, and court staff; (c) the potential impact on defendants, victims, and witnesses; and (d) the cost and resource implications of the scheme. (4) The Lord Chancellor must, within three months of the laying of the report under subsection (1), publish a response. (5) The response must include proposals for a pilot scheme based on the findings of the report including the proposed scope and duration of any such pilot.” This new clause requires the Lord Chancellor to commission and lay before Parliament an independent report on the feasibility of introducing two court sittings per day in designated courtrooms, including an assessment of its impact on efficiency, resources, and court users, and to set out the Government’s intended next steps. New clause 5—Targets for Backlog Reduction— “(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, set and publish annual targets for the reduction of the Crown Court backlog in England and Wales. (2) There must be a target for the— (a) overall reduction of the Crown Court backlog in England and Wales, and (b) reduction of the backlog in each HMCTS region. (3) The Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament an annual report on progress against these targets. (4) Any report under subsection (3) must include any steps taken to address the failure to meet the targets.” This new clause requires the Lord Chancellor to set and publish targets for reducing court backlogs and to report annually to Parliament on progress. New clause 6—Victim-led Intensive Case Management— “(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a strategy for the implementation of Victim-Led Intensive Case Management in proceedings in the criminal courts (“The Strategy”). (2) The strategy must outline steps to prioritise the experience of victims in relation to proceedings in the criminal courts.” This new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to lay before Parliament a strategy for victim-led case management in relation to criminal court proceedings. New clause 7—Judicial training: anti-discrimination— “(1) Any member of the judiciary who may be assigned to proceedings for a trial on indictment without a jury must have access to training on matters relating to discrimination against individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds. (2) Training provided under subsection (1) must cover— (a) the identification and prevention of racial bias, including unconscious bias, and (b) the impact of discrimination on access to justice and judicial outcomes. (3) The Lord Chancellor must by regulations specify how often members of the judiciary must undertake such training. (4) The Lord Chancellor must lay an annual report before Parliament on the provision and uptake of training provided under this section.” This new clause requires the provision of training for the judiciary focused on discrimination against ethnic minorities, including racial bias and its impact on judicial decision-making. New clause 8—Judicial training: violence against women and girls— “(1) Any member of the judiciary who may be assigned to proceedings for a trial on indictment without a jury must have access to training on matters relating to violence against women and girls. (2) Training provided under subsection (1) must cover— (a) the nature and dynamics of violence against women and girls, including— (i) domestic abuse, (ii) sexual violence, (iii) coercive control, and (iv) so-called honour-based abuse; (b) best practice in hearing cases involving violence against women and girls, including ensuring fair and trauma-informed proceedings. (3) The Lord Chancellor must by regulations specify how often members of the judiciary must undertake such training. (4) The Lord Chancellor must lay an annual report before Parliament on the provision and uptake of training provided under this section.” This new clause requires the provision of training for the judiciary focused on violence against women and girls. New clause 9—Judicial training: domestic abuse— “(1) Any member of the judiciary who may be assigned to proceedings for a trial on indictment without a jury must have access to training on matters relating to domestic abuse. (2) Training provided under subsection (1) must cover— (a) the nature and dynamics of domestic abuse, including physical, emotional, psychological, sexual, and economic abuse, as well as controlling or coercive behaviour; (b) best practice in the management of cases involving domestic abuse, including ensuring fair and trauma-informed proceedings. (3) The Lord Chancellor must by regulations specify how often members of the judiciary must undertake such training. (4) The Lord Chancellor must lay an annual report before Parliament on the provision and uptake of training provided under this section.” This new clause requires the provision of training for the judiciary focused on domestic abuse. New clause 10—Pilot of trial allocation reforms— “(1) The Lord Chancellor may not make regulations bringing sections 1 to 7 of this Act into force unless— (a) he has first made arrangements for a pilot scheme for the provision of those sections in accordance with subsections (2) and (3), (b) a statutory instrument containing regulations for the commencement of sections 1 to 7 of this Act has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. (2) A pilot scheme may— (a) be for the purpose of trialling all provisions of sections 1 to 7 of this Act, (b) be for such a period as the Lord Chancellor may by regulations specify, provided that the period does not exceed 24 months beginning with the day on which this section is brought into force, (c) take place in at least one location in England and Wales as the Lord Chancellor may by regulations specify, (d) apply to proceedings in the criminal courts as the Lord Chancellor may by regulations specify. (3) Before the conclusion of the pilot scheme under subsection (2), the Lord Chancellor must— (a) commission an independent review of the pilot scheme, and (b) lay before Parliament a report on the assessment under paragraph (a).” This new clause would require the Government to pilot the removal of the right to elect trial by jury before national implementation, and to report to Parliament on its impact. New clause 11—Access to free court transcripts for victims— “(1) Victims of criminal offences shall be entitled to receive, without charge, court transcripts of— (a) judicial summings-up, and (b) bail decisions and conditions, which are relevant to their case. (2) HM Courts and Tribunals Service must ensure that such transcripts are provided within 14 days of a request. (3) The duty under subsection (1) shall apply irrespective of whether the victim gave evidence in the case.” This new clause would give victims a right to receive, free of charge, court transcripts of judicial summings-up and bail decisions relevant to their case. It requires that transcripts be provided within 14 days of a request and clarifies that this right applies whether or not the victim gave evidence in the case. New clause 12—Report on the effect of the Act on public trust and participation in the criminal justice system— “(1) The Lord Chancellor must commission a report on the effect of the provisions of the Act on public trust and participation in the judicial system. (2) A report under this section must— (a) include consideration of the effect of the provisions of the Act on— (i) witness participation; (ii) the effect of these reforms on public confidence and trust in the criminal justice system; and (iii) the effect of these provisions on BAME engagement with and trust of the criminal justice system, (b) contain recommendations for further provision, or changes to delivery of provision under this Act, to increase the levels of each criterion set out in sub-paragraphs (2)(a)(i) to (2)(a)(iii). (3) Within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament— (a) a copy of a report under this section, (b) the Lord Chancellor’s response to recommendations made by that report.” This new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to commission, lay, and respond to a report on the effect of the Bill on public trust in the criminal justice system. New clause 13—Duty to provide trauma-informed training— “(1) The Lord Chancellor must ensure that appropriate training is made mandatory for members of all court staff working in the criminal courts on best practice in relation to victims' trauma. (2) Training under subsection (1) must include— (a) the nature, prevalence, and impact of domestic abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour, and rape and serious sexual offences (“RASSO”); (b) the dynamics and psychological effects of trauma on parties and witnesses involved in proceedings; (c) the identification and appropriate handling of cases involving domestic abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour, and RASSO offences; (d) the ways in which trauma may affect memory, communication, behaviour, and engagement with court proceedings; (e) best practices for reducing retraumatisation within court and tribunals settings. (3) Training provided under this section must— (a) take place on initial appointment to a role within a court, and at regular intervals thereafter; (b) reflect current best practice and be informed by up-to-date research and guidance; and (c) be developed in consultation with appropriate experts, including specialist support organisations and persons with lived experience of abuse and trauma. (4) The Lord Chancellor must keep the training under review and revise it as appropriate. (5) The Lord Chancellor must publish guidance on the implementation of this section.” This new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to ensure that members of the court staff working in the criminal courts receive mandatory, consistent training on trauma-informed practice to improve understanding of how trauma affects victims’ evidence, behaviour, and engagement with court proceedings. New clause 14—Review of Efficiencies in the Criminal Justice System— “(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within 24 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, conduct a review on the impact of the provisions of this Act on the efficiency of the criminal justice system. (2) The review under subsection (1) must, in particular, consider the impact on the efficiency of the criminal justice system of— (a) the provisions of this Act; (b) the wider criminal justice system; (c) the standard of delivery by court contract providers, including PECS contractors; (d) the condition of the courts estate; and (e) the use of technology. (3) In considering “efficiency”, the review must consider the impact on— (a) delays, (b) backlogs, and (c) the experience of victims and witnesses. (4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the review before Parliament. (5) The report under subsection (4) must include recommendations for further legislative or administrative changes to improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system.” This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review and report on whether the Act has improved the efficiency of the criminal justice system, including impacts on delays, backlogs, and the experience of victims and witnesses. New clause 15—Expiry of sections 1 to 7 in specified circumstances— “(1) The Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament a report assessing the effectiveness of the provisions contained in sections 1 to 7 of this Act. (2) A report under this section must be laid— (a) within 24 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, or (b) within 24 months of the latest date on which any of sections 1 to 7 is commenced, whichever is the later. (3) The report must describe— (a) any time saved in court as a result of the measures included in those sections; (b) any change in the number of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court since this Act was passed; (c) the number of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court at the time at which the report is prepared; and (d) any other effect of the provisions of sections 1 to 7 on the criminal justice system. (4) The report must provide a conclusion by the Lord Chancellor on whether the reforms have been effective in reducing the number of cases awaiting trial at Crown Court. (5) Where the report concludes that the provisions have not been effective, the Lord Chancellor must make regulations providing for the immediate repeal of sections 1 to 7. (6) Where the report concludes that the provisions are effective, the Lord Chancellor must make regulations making provision for repeal of sections 1 to 7 subject to the condition in subsection (8). (7) The condition is that the number of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court has in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor reduced to a sufficient extent. (8) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.” This new clause introduces a sunset clause requiring a report on the effectiveness of the provisions. If the report finds that the measures are not effective, the Secretary of State must bring forward regulations to repeal them. If the report finds that the measures are effective, the Secretary of State must set a deadline for their repeal and a return to fully jury trials. New clause 16—Remote Court Participation: Strategy— “(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a strategy for the use of remote proceedings to reduce the case backlog (“the strategy”). (2) The strategy must include— (a) an assessment of the current use of remote proceedings; (b) an evaluation of the impact of remote proceedings on the speed of case disposal and the overall reduction of the outstanding caseload; (c) recommendations on how the principle of open justice can be upheld with the increased use of remote proceedings; (d) criteria for determining the suitability of proceedings for different forms of remote participation; and (e) provisions for the security, reliability, and resilience of digital systems used in remote proceedings. (3) The Secretary of State must, at intervals of no more than 24 months following the laying of the strategy, lay before Parliament a report on progress made against the strategy. (4) The progress report must consider— (a) the extent to which the strategy has been implemented; (b) the impact on the criminal case backlog, including any measures by which that impact has been assessed; and (c) any further legislative or budgetary provisions to ensure the effectiveness of remote proceedings. (5) For the purposes of this section, “remote proceedings” means any proceedings in which one or more participants attend by way of live video or audio link.” This new clause requires the Lord Chancellor to publish a formal strategy for the use of remote proceedings to reduce the case backload in the criminal justice system. New clause 17—Inspectorate of Criminal Court Administration— “(1) The Lord Chancellor may appoint such number of inspectors of criminal court administration as he considers appropriate. (2) Inspectors under this section are collectively known as “His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Criminal Court Administration” (“the Inspectorate”). (3) The Lord Chancellor must appoint one of the persons so appointed to be His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Criminal Court Administration. (4) The Lord Chancellor may make to or in respect of inspectors of court administration such payments by way of remuneration, allowances or otherwise as he may determine. (5) It is the duty of the Inspectorate to inspect and report to the Lord Chancellor on— (a) the administration and operation of the system that supports the carrying on of the business of— (i) the Crown Court, and (ii) the magistrates’ courts; (b) the efficiency, effectiveness and accessibility of those courts and their services, having particular regard to the experience of witnesses and victims. (6) Any report under subsection (5) must make recommendations to the Lord Chancellor in respect of subsection (5). (7) The Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament— (a) any report under this section within one month of receiving it; and (b) his response to the recommendations of a report within six months beginning on the day on which the report in question is laid. (8) A response under subsection (7)(b) must describe— (a) any action the Lord Chancellor proposes to take, and (b) where the Lord Chancellor does not propose to take any action, a reason why he proposes not to take action. (9) The Lord Chancellor may not issue any direction to the Inspectorate in relation to its duty under subsection (5). (10) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations make further provision about the Inspectorate.” This new clause establishes His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Criminal Court Administration as an independent statutory body responsible for inspecting and reporting on the administration of criminal courts, with a particular regard to the experience of victims and witnesses. New clause 19—Commencement of Part 1: Independent Reports— “(1) Sections 1 to 7 of this Act may not come into force unless a draft of regulations providing for their commencement has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament. (2) The Lord Chancellor may not lay a draft of regulations under subsection (1) unless they have first laid before Parliament a report, produced by an independent reviewer, based on published Crown Court data, establishing that— (a) delays attributable to trial by jury are a primary cause of delays to cases being heard in the Crown Court; and (b) all possible alternative measures that could reasonably be implemented in criminal courts in England and Wales have been so implemented and found by the independent reviewer not to have reduced the Crown Court backlog. (3) Alternative measures under subsection (2)(b) may include— (a) increased funding for sitting days, (b) holding two trials per day in specified court rooms, and (c) developing and implementing specialist courts to hear cases relating to sexual offences and domestic abuse. (4) The Lord Chancellor must appoint the independent reviewer to produce reports under this section. (5) A person may not be appointed as the independent reviewer if they are a Minister of the Crown, a civil servant in the Ministry of Justice, or an officer of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. (6) A report under subsection (2) must be published without redaction, alongside its supporting data, at least three months before a draft of regulations is laid under subsection (1). (7) Sections 1 to 7 expire 12 months after coming into force unless a further report under subsection (2) is laid and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament prior to the end of that period.” This new clause requires an independent report demonstrating that jury trials are a primary cause of Crown Court delays and that alternative remedies have failed before sections 1 to 7 can take effect by affirmative resolution of both Houses. New clause 20—Court service providers: performance— “(1) HM Courts and Tribunals Service must make provision for the collection of data where a Crown Court has reported that a trial has been— (a) adjourned, (b) vacated, or (c) delayed by more than 30 mins due to the failure of a court service provider. (2) Court service providers under subsection (1) include— (a) prisoner escort and custody services; (b) language and interpretation services; and (c) video-link and information technology services, and any other private company that provides a service to a court. (3) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report (a “court contract performance report”) setting out— (a) the number of trials or hearings delayed due to failures by private service providers; and (b) an assessment of the impact of such delays on the backlog of cases in the Crown Court.” This new clause would require all new contracts for court-related services to include a performance-related penalty clause for cases where a failure related to those services impacts the completion of proceedings. New clause 21—Impact of sections 1 to 6 on domestic abuse victims— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of sections 1 to 6 on the experiences and treatment, within the courts, of victims and survivors of domestic abuse. (2) The impact assessment published under this section must include an assessment of levels of uptake of relevant training among trial judges on the experiences of domestic abuse victims and survivors.” This new clause would require the Government to assess the impact of the Bill’s provisions on jury trials on victims and survivors of domestic abuse. New clause 22—Immunity from suit: conduct of police officers in preparation for criminal court proceedings— “(1) Except while acting as witnesses, no immunity from suit applies to acts or omissions by police officers where these occur in preparation for criminal court proceedings. This includes— (a) the fabrication, concealment, improper alteration or destruction of evidence; (b) conduct connected to criminal court proceedings involving dishonesty, bad faith, or negligence; (c) the reckless or deliberate disclosure, in preparation for criminal court proceedings, of confidential information relating to victims, witnesses, or vulnerable persons; and (d) breaches of duties owed under the Human Rights Act 1998. (2) The Secretary of State may by regulation make further provision under this section. (3) Regulations made under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.” This new clause would restrict immunity from civil suit for police officers in relation to certain conduct in preparation for criminal court proceedings. New clause 24—Determination of domestic abuse allegations and related presumptions— “(1) There is a rebuttable presumption that any reluctance or refusal by a child to spend time with a party against whom the child, or a party representing the child, has made allegations of domestic abuse constitutes a reasonable and justified response to the domestic abuse. (2) The presumption in subsection (1) may be rebutted only where the accused party demonstrates, on the balance of probabilities, that the child’s reluctance or refusal cannot be reasonably attributed to the domestic abuse.” This new clause provides that, in family court, where a child refuses or is reluctant to spend time with one party as a result of an allegation against that party of domestic abuse against the child, the court must presume the reluctance or refusal is reasonable. New clause 25—Expiry of sections 1 to 7— “(1) Sections 1 to 7 of this Act expire three months after the date on which the condition in subsection (2) is met. (2) The condition is that the number of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court has been below pre-pandemic level in each of the previous four quarterly reporting periods. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2) the number of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court is that which is calculated by HM Courts and Tribunals Service.” This new clause sunsets sections 1 to 7 of this Act so that they will no longer be in force once the court backlog has been resolved. New clause 26—Unduly lenient sentences scheme: application to the magistrates’ courts— “(1) Section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act 1998 is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1)(a) after “Crown Court” insert “, or the magistrates’ court where the sentence is in respect of an either way offence,”.” This new clause would ensure that those affected by any case that was triable either-way before this Act was passed shall still be subject to the unduly lenient sentence scheme. New clause 27—Review of jury composition— “(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a review of the methods used to determine the composition of juries. (2) The review under this section must include an assessment of whether there are appropriate safeguards in place to prevent verdicts being returned which are influenced by jurors’— (a) political views, (b) religious beliefs, or (c) other demographic characteristics, in a way that conflicts with the interests of justice. (3) If a review under this section determines that there are not sufficient safeguards in place, the Secretary of State must publish proposals aimed at introducing sufficient safeguards.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of jury composition, with a view to avoiding juries returning verdicts influenced by their politics, religion or other demographic characteristics. Amendment 1, page 1, line 4, leave out clause 1. Amendment 47, clause 1, page 3, line 20, at end insert “except where subsection (10) applies. (10) Where— (a) an offence is triable either way; (b) the court considers that, if convicted, the accused would be likely to receive a sentence of imprisonment of more than 12 months but not more than three years; (c) the accused is of good character; and (d) the accused has not previously been convicted of an offence, the accused may elect to be tried on indictment.” This amendment preserves the right of a defendant of good character with no previous convictions to elect Crown Court trial where the likely sentence is more than 12 months but not more than three years. Amendment 2, page 4, line 16, leave out clause 2. Government amendment 3. Amendment 21, clause 3, page 5, leave out line 27 and insert— “(4) The trial is to be conducted without a jury in any other case only if— (a) the prosecution has made a written application to the court requesting that the trial be conducted without a jury, and (b) the defendant has given explicit written consent to be tried without a jury. (4A) Where the prosecution does not make an application under subsection (4)(a), or the defendant does not give consent under subsection (4)(b), the trial is to be conducted with a jury.” This amendment states that a case can only be tried without a jury following an application from the prosecution and where the defendant gives written consent. Amendment 17, clause 3, page 6, line 25, at end insert— “(4A) A trial conducted without a jury will be heard by one judge and two magistrates.” This amendment implements the recommendation of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts to have cases heard in the Crown Court Bench Division by a judge and two magistrates. Amendment 16, clause 3, page 9, line 17, leave out “no” and insert “a”. This amendment entitles a defendant to appeal against a judge’s decision to allocate the case for trial by judge alone. Amendment 51, clause 3, page 9, line 23, leave out subsection (4) and insert— “(4) Where a court has determined in accordance with section 74A that a trial is to be conducted without a jury, the court cannot pass a sentence of imprisonment or detention of more than three years on a person convicted of an offence. (4A) Where a person is convicted of an offence and the court considers that the appropriate sentence is more than three years’ imprisonment or detention, the court must refer the case for retrial by jury.” This amendment prevents a judge sitting alone from sentencing a defendant to more than three years in prison, and requires that if this is the likely sentence, the case must be remitted for trial by jury. Amendment 10, clause 3, page 9, line 28, leave out subsections (2) to (4). This amendment would prevent the provisions on trial on indictment without a jury applying retrospectively to cases where the defendant has elected trial by jury before these provisions become law. Amendment 4, page 10, line 5, leave out clause 4. Amendment 52, clause 4, page 10, line 16, leave out “one or more of the offences is an offence” and insert “all of the offences are”. This amendment would limit judge-only trials to situations where all of the offences are listed in Schedule 3ZA. Amendment 53, clause 4, page 10, line 34, at end insert— “(3A) A court may not make an order under this section if it considers that it is the interests of natural justice for the defendant to have a trial with a jury.” This amendment prevents a judge-only trial in complex and lengthy cases where it would be in the interests of natural justice for the defendant to be tried with a jury. Amendment 54, clause 4, page 11, line 1, leave out from “is” to end of line 2, and insert “a right of appeal against a decision to make an order under this section on the grounds of natural justice (5A) where an appeal is made under subsection (5), it must not be heard by the judge who made the original determination.” This amendment would add a right for defendants to appeal against the decision for a judge-only trial for lengthy and complex cases. Government amendment 24. Amendment 57, clause 4, page 12, line 27, leave out subsection (5)(a). This amendment would prevent the court unilaterally overriding a reason to issue a revocation order so that a case allocated for judge-only trial under this section could be tried by jury. Amendment 55, clause 4, page 13, line 11, at end insert— “(g) the interests of natural justice for the defendant.” This amendment would ensure that the interests of natural justice for the defendant are relevant to the decision to revoke an order for a judge-only trial for the offences listed in Schedule 1. Government amendment 25. Amendment 56, clause 4, page 13, line 30, leave out “trial beginning on or” and insert “cases whose first hearing in the magistrates’ court takes place”. This amendment prevents the provisions in section 4 coming into effect retrospectively. Amendment 6, page 14, line 7, leave out clause 5. Government amendments 26 and 27. Amendment 59, clause 5, page 14, line 36, leave out subsection (5) and insert— “(5) The judgment must be given at the time of conviction, except where an adjournment is necessary for preparing— (a) pre-sentence reports, (b) psychiatric or medical reports, (c) victim personal statements, or (d) further legal advice relating to sentencing.” This amendment would ensure that judgments are handed down on conviction in all but the circumstances covered by the amendment. Amendment 60, clause 5, page 15, line 8, at end insert— “(5B) It is only permissible not to give judgment at the time of conviction if adjournment is necessary for— (a) pre-sentence reports (b) psychiatric or medical reports (c) victim personal statements, or (d) further legal advice about sentence.” This amendment would ensure that judgments are handed down on conviction in all but the circumstances covered by the amendment. Amendment 61, clause 5, page 15, line 16, at end insert— “(4B) It is only permissible not to give judgment at the time of conviction if adjournment is necessary for— (a) pre-sentence reports, (b) psychiatric or medical reports, (c) victim personal statements, or (d) further legal advice about sentence.” This amendment would ensure that judgments are handed down on conviction in all but the circumstances covered by the amendment. Government amendment 28. Amendment 7, page 15, line 23, leave out clause 6. Amendment 11, clause 6, page 15, leave out lines 36 and 37. This amendment provides that magistrates’ sentencing powers cannot be increased beyond 12 months. Amendment 62, clause 6, page 15, line 37, at end insert— “(1A) In paragraph 14A(3), for “negative” substitute “affirmative””. This amendment ensures regulations to extend magistrates’ courts sentencing powers must be approved by both Houses of Parliament. Amendment 19, clause 6, page 15, line 37, at end insert— “(1B) Regulations under this paragraph are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.” This amendment would make changing the general limit on custodial sentence for an either-way offence in magistrates’ courts changeable by affirmative resolution only. Amendment 18, clause 6, page 17, line 18, at end insert— “(9) After section 15 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, insert— “15A Entitlement to Crown Court funding levels in certain proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court (1) This section applies to criminal proceedings in a magistrates’ court where— (a) an individual is charged with an either-way offence; and (b) the court, having regard to the sentencing guidelines, considers it likely that a sentence of imprisonment exceeding 12 months will be imposed upon conviction. (2) Where this section applies, any relevant representation order shall provide for remuneration at the same rates and under the same conditions as would apply if the proceedings were determined in the Crown Court.”” This amendment links legal aid funding to the potential severity of the sentence rather than the venue of the trial. It ensures that defendants facing more than 12 months' imprisonment receive Crown Court level funding, regardless of which court the case is heard in. Amendment 8, page 17, line 20, leave out clause 7. Government amendments 29 to 32. Amendment 67, page 30, line 4, leave out clause 17. This amendment would keep the rebuttable presumption of parental involvement being beneficial for the welfare of the child. Amendment 12, clause 17, page 30, line 24, at end insert— “(3) The Lord Chancellor must, within six months of the commencement of this section, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the resources required to give full effect to the repeal of subsection 2A in Section 1 of the Children Act 1989. (4) The report under subsection (3) must include— (a) an assessment of the level of legal aid provision necessary to ensure that parties in child arrangements proceedings are able to obtain timely and effective— (i) advice, and (ii) representation, particularly where allegations of domestic abuse or safeguarding concerns are raised; (b) an evaluation of the capacity of the family courts, including— (i) the number of judges, (ii) court staff, and (iii) available hearing time, to undertake robust risk assessment and fact-finding processes in line with Practice Direction 12J; (c) plans to address any shortfalls in judicial training, including— (i) training relating to coercive control, (ii) domestic abuse dynamics, and (iii) child safeguarding, (d) proposals for investment in the family court estate and technology to ensure— (i) the repeal operates effectively, and (ii) decisions are consistently grounded in the welfare and safety of the child.” This amendment requires the Government to set out how the family courts and legal aid system will be resourced to give full effect to the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement. Amendment 22, clause 17, page 30, line 24, at end insert— “(3) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months beginning on the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent, lay a report before Parliament on post-separation abuse in the context of decisions of courts under Children Act 1989. (4) The report under subsection (3) must set out how post separation abuse is identified and understood in proceedings to which this clause relates.” Government amendments 33 to 36. Amendment 20, clause 26, page 35, leave out lines 29 and 30. This amendment is consequential on new clause (Commencement of Part 1: Independent Reports). Government amendment 37. Amendment 13, clause 26, page 35, line 33, at end insert “, subject to the provisions of subsection (3A). (3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make regulations under subsection (3) relating to the following sections until he has published a response to the recommendation of Part II of Independent Review of the Criminal Courts— (a) Section 1 (Removal of right to elect trial on indictment); (b) Section 2 (Written indication of guilty plea: removal of right to object to venue); (c) Section 3 (Trial on indictment without a jury: general rule for allocation); (d) Section 4 (Trial on indictment without a jury: complex or lengthy cases); (e) Section 5 (Consequential amendments relating to sections 3 and 4); (f) Section 6 (Increase in maximum custodial sentence in magistrates’ courts); (g) Section 7 (Appeals from magistrates’ courts).” This amendment would make the publication of the Government response to Part II of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts a precondition of Clause 1 to 7 of this Bill coming into force. Amendment 14, clause 26, page 35, line 33, at end insert “, subject to the provisions of subsection (3A). (3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make regulations under subsection (3) relating to the following sections until the pilot in accordance with section [pilot of trial allocation reforms] has been concluded— (a) Section 1 (Removal of right to elect trial on indictment); (b) Section 2 (Written indication of guilty plea: removal of right to object to venue); (c) Section 3 (Trial on indictment without a jury: general rule for allocation); (d) Section 4 (Trial on indictment without a jury: complex or lengthy cases); (e) Section 5 (Consequential amendments relating to sections 3 and 4); (f) Section 6 (Increase in maximum custodial sentence in magistrates’ courts); (g) Section 7 (Appeals from magistrates’ courts).” This amendment is consequential on NC10. Amendment 48, clause 26, page 35, line 33, at end insert— “(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) bringing sections 1 to 7 into force until the conditions in subsection (3B) are met. (3B) The conditions are that— (a) the Lord Chancellor has provided funding for at least 130,000 sitting days in the Crown Court in the financial year following the coming into force of this Act, (b) HM Courts and Tribunals Service has made an assessment that the Crown Court has, so far as possible, used the allocation of sitting days provided under subsection (3B)(a), and (c) the Lord Chancellor has made a statement to the House of Commons that the funding provided under subsection (3B)(a) has not reduced the number of cases pending trial in the Crown Court compared to the start of the financial year.” This amendment prevents the provisions in sections 1 to 7 from coming into force until the Lord Chancellor has provided funding for 130,000 sittings days in the Crown Court; HMCTS has assessed that the Crown Court has used its allocation of sitting days; and the Lord Chancellor has made a statement to the House that this has not reduced the backlog. Amendment 49, clause 26, page 35, line 33, at end insert— “(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) bringing sections 1 to 7 into force until he has— (a) undertaken a consultation on the potential benefits of introducing extended sitting hours in the Crown Court, and (b) laid before Parliament a report on the outcome of the consultation. (3B) The consultation under subsection (3A) must consider— (a) potential rates of fees and renumeration for legal professionals and court staff working extended hours, and (b) the availability of HM Courts and Tribunal Service staff.” This amendment would ensure that sections 1 to 7 of the Act did not come into force until the Lord Chancellor had reviewed how to increase sitting hours in the Crown Court. Amendment 50, clause 26, page 35, line 33, at end insert— “(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) bringing section 7 into force until he has undertaken an assessment of the rate of upheld appeals on convictions and sentences handed down in the magistrates’ court in the previous two years.” This amendment would prevent the restriction of right of appeal against magistrates’ court decisions until the Lord Chancellor has undertaken an assessment of how many of those appeals are successful. Amendment 68, clause 26, page 35, line 33, at end insert “subject to the provisions of subsection (3A)”— “(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make regulations under subsection (3) relating to the sections set out under subsection (3B) until he has taken reasonable steps to increase Crown Court sitting capacity, including but not limited to— (a) using buildings not currently in use as courts to hear cases where cells are not needed, and (b) reducing lost sitting days as a result of late guilty pleas and prison transport delays. (3B) The sections referenced in subsection (3A) are— (a) Section 1 (Removal of right to elect trial on indictment); (b) Section 2 (Written indication of guilty plea: removal of right to object to venue); (c) Section 3 (Trial on indictment without a jury: general rule for allocation); (d) Section 4 (Trial on indictment without a jury: complex or lengthy cases); (e) Section 5 (Consequential amendments relating to sections 3 and 4); (f) Section 6 (Increase in maximum custodial sentence in magistrates’ courts); (g) Section 7 (Appeals from magistrates’ courts).” This amendment would ensure that sections 1 to 7 of the Act could not be commenced until the Lord Chancellor has used alternative means to increase Crown Court sitting capacity. Amendment 5, page 36, line 2, leave out schedule 1. Amendment 58, schedule 1, page 38, line 3, leave out paragraph 20. This amendment prevents the Lord Chancellor adding further offences to the list in Schedule 1 by regulations. Amendment 9, page 38, line 9, leave out schedule 2. Amendment 46, schedule 2, page 38, line 22, at end insert— “(2A) After subsection (4) insert— “(4A) Nothing in this section applies to an appeal which may be brought as of right under section 108(2D).”” This amendment is consequential on amendment 45. Amendment 45, schedule 2, page 38, line 22, at end insert— “(2C) Subsection (2B) does not apply where— (a) the appellant was convicted by a magistrates’ court; (b) the appellant has not previously been sentenced to a term of imprisonment or detention for an offence; and (c) having regard to the applicable sentencing guidelines, the offence or offences for which the appellant was convicted are offences for which the sentence imposed, or likely to be imposed, does not exceed 12 months’ imprisonment or detention. (2D) Where subsection (2C) applies— (a) an appeal under this section may be brought, and (b) and no permission to appeal is required. (2E) An appeal under subsection (2D) may be brought against— (a) conviction; (b) sentence; or (c) both conviction and sentence. (2F) For the purposes of subsection (2C)(b), a sentence which is suspended, but which is a sentence of imprisonment within the meaning of the applicable sentencing legislation, shall be treated as a sentence of imprisonment. (2G) Where an appeal is brought under subsection (2D) and (2E), the appeal shall be treated as an appeal brought as of right and the provisions of this Part relating to permission to appeal shall not apply.” This amendment preserves the existing automatic right of appeal from the magistrates’ court for defendants of good character with no previous convictions where the applicable sentencing guidelines indicate that the offence is likely to attract a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months or less. Amendment 63, schedule 2, page 39, line 16, leave out from “if” to end of line 18 and insert “the defendant has made one”. This amendment would require the Crown Court to allow an appeal if the defendant makes one. Amendment 64, schedule 2, page 42, line 15, leave out “magistrates’ court” and insert “jury in the Crown Court”. This amendment would allow the Crown Court to order a retrial by jury in the event that it allows an appeal against a conviction or sentence in the magistrates’ court. Amendment 65, schedule 2, page 47, line 13, leave out “magistrates’ court” and insert “jury in the Crown Court”. This amendment would allow the Crown Court to order a retrial by jury in the event that it allows an appeal against a conviction or sentence in the magistrates’ court. Amendment 66, schedule 2, page 49, line 36, leave out from “Court” to end of line 39 and insert “must allow an appeal under section 108 if the defendant makes one.” This amendment would remove the provision limiting appeals to specific grounds and instead ensure the Crown Court allows appeals if one is made. Amendment 15, schedule 2, page 52, line 7, leave out “on payment of a fee” and insert “to victims of criminal offence without a fee within 14 days of a request”. This amendment would make magistrates’ court transcripts free for victims and requires that such transcripts are provided within 14 days of a request. Government amendments 38 to 44.
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I will speak to Opposition amendment 87 and to two other amendments in the group. As this is the Committee’s first debate on part 1 of the Bill, let me set out the test that the Opposition will apply to it. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary told the House that more than 150,000 people are waiting for an appeal decision and the average wait is well over a year. Every one of those months is a month in which someone whose claim may well fail remains in this country, very often at the taxpayer’s expense. The public have been promised for years that that would be fixed, and we need to see it happen now. Our test for every clause in this part is a simple one: will appeals be decided faster, and will those who lose be removed? Clause 1(5) is where the Bill tells the new authority what it is for: the authority must aim to be accessible, fair and independent; it must aim to handle its cases quickly and efficiently; and it must have regard to the public interest. Amendment 48, in the name of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, would remove the words “aim to” from the first paragraph only, so that the authority would be under a firm duty to be “accessible, fair and independent”. I understand the instinct, but that hardens the wrong limb of the measure. If any duty in this subsection needs to be firmer, it is the duty to handle cases “quickly and efficiently”. That is the duty that the authority is being created to discharge, and it is the one that the public will judge it on. Amendment 64 would remove “aim to” from both limbs, subsection (5)(a) and (b), but it would also remove the public interest duty in paragraph (c) to which I now turn. Amendments 49 and 64 in its second paragraph would go further than amendment 48. They would remove the duty to have regard to the public interest altogether. I respect the concern for independence that lies behind amendments 49 and 64, but I cannot agree. It would be remarkable for Parliament to tell the body that decides who may stay in this country that it need have no regard to the public interest or to public confidence in the system it is part of. An immigration system that does not have the confidence of the British public is a system that will not work. Amendment 87 takes the opposite approach. It strengthens the public interest duty instead of removing it. In the Bill as drafted, the authority must merely “have regard to” the public interest, and the only content that the Bill gives to that interest is the fact that the authority is part of the immigration and asylum system. That tells an adjudicator nothing. The amendment states what the public interest is: “the effective enforcement of immigration control, including the prompt removal from the United Kingdom of persons who have no right to remain.” It would require the authority to give effect to that interest, not simply to have regard to it. The difference between “have regard to” and “give effect to” is not a lawyer’s nicety. A duty to have regard to something can be satisfied by thinking about it and then setting it aside; a duty to give effect to something cannot. Clause 1(5) reaches well beyond the final decision in each case: it governs the authority in the “exercise of its functions”, which means how it lists cases, handles requests to adjourn and manages its caseload. Under clause 4(5), the Procedure Rules Board must also have regard to those objectives when it writes the rules. Amendment 87 would therefore shape every deadline, every adjournment rule and every listing decision the authority makes. It would put the effective enforcement of immigration control into the DNA of the institution from the start. The Committee heard in evidence why that matters. Professor Ekins of Oxford University told us that one of the potential advantages of the new authority is that it could make “the public interest in the enforcement of migration law a more pressing consideration.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 22.] Amendment 87 would make sure that that advantage is actually realised, rather than left to chance. This is not new ground for Parliament. Section 117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 already states that “the maintenance of effective immigration controls is in the public interest.” The Minister may say that amendment 87 would compromise independence, but it would not. Clause 1(4) will still require the authority to “exercise its primary function with a view to ensuring that justice is done.” Clause 1(6) will still require every Minister to uphold the IIAA’s independence. Each case will still be decided on its evidence and on the law. What changes is that the institution is told plainly what it exists to achieve. We are clear that the public interest includes the swift removal of those who have no right to be in the country. That is one of the public’s most pressing concerns, and the new authority should be in no doubt that it is there to serve it. New clause 12 asks for a report on the cost, timetable and capacity of the authority before part 1 can be commenced. Whatever view the Committee takes of a statutory lock on commencement, the questions are fair, and I will put them directly: what is the full cost of setting up and running the authority over its first five years, and how does that compare with the tribunal it replaces? How many adjudicators will be in post on the first day, and how many appeals will they decide each year? On what date does the Minister expect the authority to hear its first appeal? We will press amendment 87 to a Division when it is reached.
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)
I want to speak about amendments 85 and 65. Clause 1(8) provides that a decision of the authority may be questioned in legal proceedings in only two ways: through the authority’s own review power under clause 6, or through an appeal to the upper tribunal under clause 7. Amendment 85 would remove the latter, ending the onward appeal to the upper tribunal. One of the public’s deepest frustrations with the immigration system is appeal after appeal after appeal. The Home Secretary herself described it on Second Reading. She told the House about a convicted rapist whom it took more than four years to remove from this country after he had served his sentence because of a succession of late claims and legal challenges. We agree with her diagnosis, but we do not understand why the Bill preserves the structure that makes that possible. Let us consider the journey this Bill still allows. A claim is refused by the Home Office, so the person appeals to the authority and loses. They can then ask the authority to review its decision or for permission to appeal. If that is refused, they can ask the upper tribunal. If permission is granted, there is a hearing, and if that succeeds, the case may be sent to be decided all over again. Each step is measured in months and, at every one, the person remains here—usually at public expense. That expense is considerable—the National Audit Office estimates that the immigration and asylum chamber cost around £79.5 million to run in 2024-25, and that is before the cost of legal aid.
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)
The hon. Member for North Northumberland made a valid point—this is an appeals process. The case has been considered once but can go to appeal for reconsideration and even that decision can be reviewed again—that is a lengthy process. The entire objective of this Bill is to speed up the process so that it is fair to the taxpayers, as well as to those subject to it. Removing a whole tier of appeal would reduce the burden on the taxpayer, as would other amendments the Opposition have tabled. The time limits in clause 8 will not help, because they bind the authority rather than the upper tribunal. The Bill does not shorten the queue; it moves part of it upstairs. The Government’s case for part 1 is that the new authority will make robust and defensible decisions with trained adjudicators, a chief appeals officer overseeing quality, and a professional standards officer setting standards. If that is right, its decision should be capable of being final. Where a genuine error is made, clause 6 allows it to be corrected and that review should be carried out by a legally qualified senior adjudicator. That is a fair hearing—a check for error and then an end. Let me be clear about what amendment 85 would leave in place, because the Minister will say it removes any check on the authority. It does not. Every appellant would still have a full hearing before the authority on the facts and the law. Every decision could still be reviewed for an error of law under clause 6. Government amendment 36 will mean that that review is confined to exactly the kind of point the upper tribunal would consider. Amendment 85 would remove the second external tier, and its two separate applications for permission—the listing queue and the power to send a case back to the start. The Government accept that the onward appeal is only on a point of law and not a rehearing. The question is simply who checks the law and how long it takes. Our answer is a legally qualified senior adjudicator, with the authority, and quickly. There is a further problem with subsection (8) as drafted. Professor Ekins told the Committee that this is not an effective ouster clause, that the courts would read it narrowly and that the Committee should not rest content with it. He pointed to the more precise model that Parliament used in the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022. If the Government agree that the authority’s decisions should be final, they should draft subsection (8) so that it works, and we would welcome their help in doing so on Report. Amendment 65, in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, would take the Bill in the opposite direction. It would delete subsection (8) altogether and reopen the possibility of judicially reviewing every decision the authority makes, adding a third route of challenge to the two already in the Bill. I understand the hon. Lady’s concern for safeguards, but they are already there. Parliament legislated in 2022 to end judicial review of the upper tribunal’s refusals of permission, precisely because that route had become a means of delay. Clause 7(3) rightly carries that rule across. Amendment 65 would reopen at the first tier what Parliament closed at the second. Our position is clear; enough is enough. Years of delay and expense must come to an end, and the legal merry-go-round has to stop. We will seek to divide the Committee on amendment 85 and we will oppose clause 7.
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)
Government amendments 22, 23 and 24 make further consequential changes to schedule 1 and appear to be technical. We do not oppose them. Is the Minister confident that the list is now complete? On clause 1 itself, the Opposition and the British public have one main question: how will this new appeals body get decisions made more quickly? What will the authority be able to do that the existing tribunal cannot? What reduction in waiting times do Ministers expect it to deliver, and by when? Let me put the question plainly. The Government are taking immigration appeals away from the first-tier tribunal and giving them to a new body, but let us look at what stays the same: the same appeals brought by the same people against the same Home Office decisions, with a right of appeal to the same upper tribunal. Unless something fundamental changes in how quickly cases are decided and in how many people are removed at the end of them, this is rearranging the deckchairs. A new name on the door and a new chief executive will not clear a single case. The public will rightly ask what all that upheaval is for. The Committee has been given very little to go on, and it has not been told what the Government heard before they wrote the Bill. In March, the Home Office opened a call for evidence on how the body should be designed, covering the recruitment and training of adjudicators, timeframes and oversight. It closed on 6 May. The Home Office said the responses would “inform the legislation”. The Bill was introduced seven weeks later and, so far as I can find, no response to that call for evidence has been published, then or since. Why not? What did the respondents say? Where did the Government disagree with them, and why? Will the Minister commit to publishing the response before Report stage? Next, the backlog. More than 150,000 people are waiting for an appeal. Do those cases move to the new authority? Do they stay with the first-tier tribunal until they are finished? The authority is to take over gradually, so both systems will be running side by side for some time. How will the Government stop that creating more delay, or cases being lost between the two? The Government will be aware, from the difficulties of folding NHS England back into the Department of Health and Social Care, how hard it is to move functions, staff and buildings from one body to another while keeping a service running. What lessons have been learned, and when will any of this actually happen? The Bill does not say. Part 1 comes into force when Ministers decide. The authority opens its doors when Ministers decide. Under clause 15, the first-tier tribunal carries on hearing immigration appeals for as long as Ministers decide. The Committee is being asked to approve the replacement of the tribunal without being told when it will be replaced. I ask the Minister for three dates. When will the first case be transferred to the authority? When will the last? On what date will the first-tier tribunal hear its final immigration appeal? If the Government do not know, they should say so. Turning to the breadth of what the authority will decide, subsection (2) goes well beyond asylum. The authority will decide applications for immigration bail, appeals against deprivation of British citizenship and appeals under the EEA citizens’ rights regulations. Those are serious decisions about liberty and nationality. Under clause 2, many of them could be taken by adjudicators with no legal qualification. Will deprivation of citizenship appeals and deportation appeals brought by foreign criminals be reserved for senior adjudicators? Also, how will clause 1(8) operate where the complaint is about a procedural decision taken during a case, rather than about the final outcome? Finally, on the practicalities, when will the authority start hearing cases? How many cases will it handle in its first year? Are the staff and money in place? Will the Minister publish the staffing, funding and transition plans, including the arrangements for appeals that are already listed for hearing? The Opposition’s own borders plan would go further than the Bill. It would abolish the immigration tribunal altogether, with decisions instead being made in the Home Office through a quick, internal appeal. However, whichever model is chosen, the test is the same: decisions made quickly, and decisions acted on.
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)
I will deal first with the amendments and then with the clause. Amendment 66, in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, would require every member of the authority, from the chair to each adjudicator, to be appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission. I understand that that is offered as a guarantee of independence; in practice, it could rebuild the very recruitment pipeline that the Government say they are trying to escape. The case made for part 1 is that reliance on judicial availability has left the system without the capacity or the flexibility to meet demand. Routing every appointment through the commission would import that constraint on to the new body on its first day. We cannot support that. Amendment 67 would require every adjudicator to be legally qualified. It raises an important question, and the Opposition have our own concerns about qualification, which I will come to. What matters is that every adjudicator is properly equipped to make sound decisions quickly and that the authority can recruit enough of them to make a real difference. Government amendments 25 to 27 provide that where a professional standards officer is appointed on the strength of experience rather than formal qualifications, it will be the chair and not the chief executive who judges whether that experience is sufficient. That seems sensible, since the officer who sets standards for adjudicators should not owe their appointment to the executive they oversee. I would be grateful if the Minister set out the rationale in a little more detail. Clause 2 states that the Home Secretary is to appoint the chair, the professional standards officer, the first chief executive and the chief appeals officer. After that, the chair will appoint the two chief officers, and the chief executive will appoint the adjudicators who hear cases. On qualifications, the Bill sets out a test for senior adjudicators: they must have spent two years in practice as a legal professional or have law-related experience that the chief executive considers equivalent. On executive adjudicators, the Bill is silent; clause 3(2) says only that adjudicators must receive “adequate training”. The Committee would benefit from knowing more of what the Government have in mind. What standard will an executive adjudicator be expected to meet before deciding a case, and how will it be tested? Will it be set out in the standards the professional standards officer must publish under clause 3(6), so that Parliament and the public can see it? That matters for speed as much as for fairness. Whoever is recruited, training and assessment must be up to the job. A poor first decision is one that is challenged, set aside and heard again, and every such case is potentially another year in which someone with no right to be here remains. I have several further questions for the Minister. What criteria will the chief executive use to decide whether law-related experience is equivalent to legal practice? How many adjudicators will be recruited at the outset, and will experienced tribunal judges be encouraged to apply? Which categories of case will be reserved to senior adjudicators, and will the time it takes to recruit and train this new workforce add to the backlog in the meantime? Finally, when will the first appointments be made? Can the recruitment process begin before Royal Assent?
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Police Funding: North-east England
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on securing this important debate. I reiterate my condolences to the family and friends of PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough. Their deaths have been a tragedy for the local force, and their loss serves as a constant reminder of the risks our police officers face every day. Alongside other Members, I was privileged to attend their funerals. It was clear from everyone there how deeply they were loved by their families, respected by their colleagues and valued by the communities they served. The incidents that occurred after their deaths were a sad reflection of the problems that we face in the north-east. Funding for our police forces is not an issue that should be taken lightly, as it clearly has a huge impact on their ability to operate effectively. As an MP from the region, representing an area served by a local force facing acute funding challenges, I share the concerns raised passionately by so many Members today. As the Minister will be aware, following the incident in Middlesbrough, I raised the issue of police funding in the north-east, particularly in my own area of Cleveland. I have raised the issue on many occasions, under this Government and the last. While I appreciate the targeted funding announced in September, it is nowhere near enough to make a difference or solve the underlying problem. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) rightly points out that the funding has been more than consumed by the costs following the incident. To give one example from the north-east, Cleveland serves some of the most deprived communities in the country and faces exceptional levels of demand. In the year ending March 2025, Cleveland had the highest recorded crime rate per head of population of any police force in England and Wales—122.1 crimes per 1,000 people compared with the national average of 87.2. While anecdotes can tell only part of the story, we unfortunately see brazen criminal activity—from off-road bikes to knife crime—taking place without effective intervention.
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Police Funding: North-east England
I always think these things are better done—and have been better done—when there is one voice fighting for more resources for our areas. I was elected in 2019. In Home Office workforce data shared in September 2019, there were 1,226 police officers in Cleveland. In March 2024, there were 1,514. That is an increase of 288. In the year to March 2026, the number of full-time equivalent police officers in Cleveland fell by 17.
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Police Funding: North-east England
I am going to carry on; Stockton is going to have its say, as well as Middlesbrough. This week, police have had to impose section 60 and dispersal orders in Thornaby, in my constituency and the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, after a series of targeted incidents in which vehicles were driven into houses and two men were seriously assaulted with a knife. Yet the funding formula does not adequately recognise those pressures. To be clear, although I speak as a shadow Minister, this is simply not a party political point. The Labour police and crime commissioner, Matt Storey, has warned of a £2.4 million funding shortfall—the equivalent of about 40 police officers. His argument, which the Minister has heard many times, is that a system based too heavily on population fails to take sufficient account of deprivation, crime and demand. The situation has been made worse by the Government’s decision to inflict the cost of national insurance increases on police forces while providing a woefully inadequate funding settlement. The consequences of that decision are clear. While I recognise that areas such as Northumbria have seen an increase in officer numbers, the number of full-time equivalent officers in Cleveland fell by 17 between March 2025 and March 2026. The latest Home Office data shows that there are now fewer officers in place than in March 2024, under the previous Government. Ministers will point to the neighbourhood policing guarantee and, of course, we all want more visible local policing. However, if overall officer numbers are falling while more are badged as neighbourhood officers, they are being moved from somewhere else, often from response teams. That means fewer officers available when someone dials 999, longer waits for victims and less capacity to deal with the exact kind of serious incidents that we have seen in Thornaby this week. Given the scale of the challenges that the force is facing, which have been so clearly demonstrated, it seems preposterous that it is losing officers rather than gaining them. I appreciate that the funding formula is not easily resolved. Hard-working MPs from across the House who represent areas disadvantaged under the existing rules have long pushed for change, including under the previous Government. However, I hope the Minister will accept that this issue requires action now. The most recent arrests under Operation Artemis, which include individuals connected to the events following the tragic incident on the A66, demonstrate the deep-rooted challenges the area faces. What could we do immediately? The Minister will reject this proposal, but the Conservative party’s costed £800 million plan to recruit 10,000 additional officers across the country would at least go some way in tackling the issue. Although recruiting more officers is not a complete solution, our proposal would help Cleveland police by providing nearly 100 additional officers. The need is clear. Despite all that, the message from people living in our area is that they want to see this as a turning point. Their resilience shows that change is possible, but only if we give our communities the support they need alongside robust enforcement. That means increasing police numbers, as I have said, but also ensuring that repeat offenders face consequences for their crimes, including prison where appropriate. The early release scheme, which is proving to be an unmitigated failure, undermines that. Offences that should see people behind bars are simply not. Because of the pressures on the criminal justice system, those offenders are not spending the time in prison that they should be. Although that may not fall directly within the Minister’s portfolio, I hope she is pressing her colleagues every day for an end to the early release scheme and for more police capacity. Without effective enforcement, the funding allocated to police forces will not be used as effectively as it should be. Hon. Members in this debate know how easily the north-east’s problems can be overlooked. As we approach the forthcoming police funding announcements, I hope that the Government will reflect on the events of a few months ago, the words of north-east MPs and the need for meaningful improvement to police forces in our region. Our brave frontline police officers deserve the resources they need to do their job, and our law-abiding residents deserve safe streets to go about their lives without fear.
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Police Funding: North-east England
Will the Minister give way?
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMartin Vickers
Topical Questions
Earlier this year, Lindsey oil refinery in my constituency ceased production, creating job losses and meaning that a greater proportion of our diesel products have to be imported at greater cost. Do Ministers now regret not giving additional support to the continuation of production there?
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMark Pritchard
Iran: Threats to British Interests
I have a lot of time for the Minister, as he knows. I hope he will confirm to the House that he has read the Intelligence and Security Committee report on Iran, published in July 2025, because many of the issues that it covered have been raised on the Floor of the House today. It was in 1862 that the first Iranian became a British national—a dual national in this country. We now have about 120,000 British Iranians living in this country. Not all of them are dual nationals, but many of them are. Given that Iran does not recognise dual nationality, and given that many British Iranians travel to see family in Iran, what further consideration has the Minister given to the Foreign Office’s travel advice, as the Iranian regime is, unfortunately, detaining people illegally?
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMark Pritchard
Falkland Islands
António Guterres, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, will retire in December. One of the leading candidates to replace him is a senior Argentinian ambassador, Rafael Grossi. Is it the UK’s position that it is supporting the Argentinians in seeking this important role? If not, does the Minister agree that the Costa Rican and the two Ecuadorian candidates should also be disqualified should they have made public statements supporting Argentina’s claim to the Falkland Islands?
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMark Garnier
Draft Overseas Prudential Requirements Regime (Credit Institutions and Investment Firms) Regulations 2026 Draft Over the Counter Derivatives (Intragroup Transactions) Regulations 2026 Draft Building Societies Act 1986 (Assimilation to Company Law and Changes to Funding Limit) Order 2026
Dr Murrison, you will be delighted to hear that this is a highly uncontentious set of proposals, which the Opposition are fully behind. There is an opportunity, potentially, to talk about the merits of the Building Societies Act 1986 and how it could be updated, but now is probably not the time. You will therefore be delighted to hear that I will bring my words to a close right now.
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentMark Garnier
Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for securing this incredibly important debate. When he talks about the problems in Bromsgrove, he is speaking about a wider problem for the whole of Worcestershire and, indeed, the West Midlands. He will be well aware that in Stourport, in my constituency, we have huge problems with people who do not want to be in the town trying to get through it. The Government need to step up with some major road improvements, including a Stourport relief road and a new bridge over the River Severn.
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentKit Malthouse
Falkland Islands
As I am sure the Minister is aware, as well as applying to join the CPTPP, the Argentinians are in the final stage of accession to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Membership of that organisation brings with it significant benefits in terms of the risk premium attached to national debt, which could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars—if not billions—to Argentina. However, membership requires consensus from existing members that a country is allowed to join. Does the Minister agree that the conduct of Argentina in this regard is unlikely to engender the kind of consensus needed for it to accede to the OECD?
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentKit Malthouse
Courts and Tribunals Bill
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument in defence of jury trials. Members are rightly thinking about the impact on victims and defendants, but would he agree that the erosion of jury trial also has significant implications for the judiciary? In jury trials, for the public, the jury very often stands between the defendant, or the convicted, and the judge. If we remove that shield between the two, the judge, their prejudices, demographics and how they were selected become more a focus of public contemplation, and that may in the end lead to political interference in the selection of judges.
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentJohn Lamont
Cross-border Connection
<Question HRSContentId="{D14FF1B3-2200-446B-BE1F-B500961175A0}">5. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{A0DC5FB9-6E15-4143-A134-256544ABD715}">What discussions she has had with the Scottish Borders council on the cross-border connection.</QuestionText> </Question>
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentJohn Lamont
Cross-border Connection
The mega-pylons comprising the cross-border connection will have a major impact on residents in the Scottish Borders. Data centres, wind farms, solar farms, substations and battery storage plants will follow in the wake of the pylons, but local councillors and residents feel powerless to influence these developments. Will the Minister meet me and local Scottish Borders councillors to discuss their concerns? Will the Government support my Energy and Digital Infrastructure (Planning) Bill, which will provide certainty to local communities and the council on how such developments should be considered?
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentJoe Robertson
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)
Is it not the case that the long backlog of cases for judges is largely driven by the poor quality of original decision making by Home Officials, as shown by the number of successful appeals? I was slightly concerned that senior officials at the evidence session seemed not to be willing to acknowledge that. Will the Minister acknowledge that the quality of some of those first Home Office decisions is not particularly good?
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentJoe Robertson
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)
I should probably have directed my intervention to the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. The point she was making is that decisions done too speedily are against the interests of justice and fairness. The argument the shadow Minister is making—a far more powerful one from my point of view—is that delays make the system unfair. Of course, that is the system we currently have, which is why I support the position that he has taken in support of the Government.
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentJoe Robertson
Topical Questions
<Question HRSContentId="{C3E1EE22-803C-4936-884D-5061A354C039}">T3. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{085B895B-B559-41F6-9601-C8ED21B304C0}"></QuestionText>Families on the Isle of Wight were interested to hear the Prime Minister wanting to do his bit to help by telling us where we could buy cheaper fuel at the forecourt via the fuel finder app. Our interest waned somewhat when we discovered that the cheaper fuel was available in Portsmouth, which involves a two-hour round trip on a ferry. Does the Minister accept that this is a city-focused Prime Minister leading a city-focused Government who do not understand the realities of life in rural and coastal communities, including high energy costs?</Question>
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentJerome Mayhew
Topical Questions
<Question HRSContentId="{B5C730A5-A8B9-4958-AF54-8BE0B7411A89}">T1. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{51E5F634-F9B0-45BD-A227-0C554A4C7BFC}">If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.</QuestionText></Question>
Hansard source
13 Oct 2026ParliamentJerome Mayhew
Topical Questions
Fuel prices are through the roof, but it is okay because the Prime Minister says that he gets it. He has tweeted, “I won’t accept that there’s nothing I can do to help”, and he has proved it by pointing to a forecourt price comparison app. What he did not mention was that his Government are adding VAT on top of those price increases. That is a windfall of £2 billion to £3 billion. If the Prime Minister gets it, why is he adding 20% to the misery of motorists?
Hansard source

Conservative and Unionist Party: a sourced timeline of public activity, with filters by source type and a sidebar of tracked totals

Prisoner Early Release Scheme

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Pensions Triple Lock

Pensions Triple Lock

Pensions Triple Lock

Pensions Triple Lock

Pensions Triple Lock

Pensions Triple Lock

Falkland Islands

Falkland Islands

Falkland Islands

Falkland Islands

Falkland Islands

Point of Order

Hares

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)

Police Funding: North-east England

Police Funding: North-east England

Police Funding: North-east England

Police Funding: North-east England

Topical Questions

Iran: Threats to British Interests

Falkland Islands

Draft Overseas Prudential Requirements Regime (Credit Institutions and Investment Firms) Regulations 2026 Draft Over the Counter Derivatives (Intragroup Transactions) Regulations 2026 Draft Building Societies Act 1986 (Assimilation to Company Law and Changes to Funding Limit) Order 2026

Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme

Falkland Islands

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Cross-border Connection

Cross-border Connection

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)

Topical Questions

Topical Questions

Topical Questions