Conservative and Unionist Party

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

15 Sep 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{AB46E27E-E740-4F04-87ED-E33AF9EB7B64}"> </QNum> What effective measure would the IRC support to deter people from paying smugglers to cross the channel? Should deliberately entering illegally from a safe country carry any immigration consequence? Angela Afzal: We would say that we do not want people to be making dangerous journeys in order to receive refugee protection. That is why we advocate for a range of different safe routes: so that refugees have an option that does not involve risking their lives to get to the UK. We acknowledge, however, that at the moment, other than the one in, one out scheme, there is not an alternative for people to claim asylum from outside UK territory. If people claim asylum having made an irregular journey, gone through the asylum process and gained refugee protection, the entitlements they have should not be dependent on the method by which they entered the UK.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{0638186B-BD9E-4433-B031-7C64A389EE12}"> </QNum> Is there any evidence that expanding safe and legal routes would reduce the number of small boat crossings, rather than simply increase the overall number of people coming to the UK? Angela Afzal: To reduce small boat crossings, there will be a range of interventions. Our position would be that the safe routes need to be part of that, because if refugees do not have an alternative, they will use people smugglers. Under the Biden Administration in the US, for example, there was a mixture of a change of internal policy on the border and an extensive offer of safe routes for people. The evidence showed that when there was an alternative, people chose it, and it reduced irregular arrivals significantly.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{53FC5D74-1BF6-4C24-AFF4-2A73E50E4F69}"> </QNum> As a practising immigration lawyer, where in the Bill do you anticipate the greatest volume of new litigation? Could any of those challenges actually increase delays to removal? Jacqui McKenzie: Sorry, I cannot actually hear the question. Professor Singer: Which aspects of the Bill do you anticipate would lead to the greatest number of litigation cases? Jacqui McKenzie: It is difficult to say, but one of our major concerns—this is purely as a practitioner, not a researcher—is about the removal of the current tribunal system and the establishment of the independent immigration appeals mechanism. We think there is considerable risk there, for a number of reasons. The first reason relates to the separation of powers, and it is one that the Committee should be very concerned about. The whole point of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 was that it was a constitutional device set up by Parliament to have a separation of powers. However, what we will see instead is a system where the Home Secretary appoints the chair and the chief executive officer of this new authority, and that person in turn will appoint the adjudicators, which gives rise to some concern. We are very concerned about whether there is scope to challenge that. The whole idea of the tribunal system is that we have highly trained judges with lots of experience presiding over it. However, it is not clear, and there may not be a problem, because we do not know where the adjudicators are going to come from. Our major concern at the moment is their independence. I just want to add that the whole of this is predicated on there being a backlog in the system, but it is not clear that just changing from one system to another will really address that. We saw the Home Office bring in large numbers of people to try to fast-track immigration decisions, but what we saw with those decisions was a number of errors, which have now caused problems in the immigrations appellate system. We do not envisage that that is going to change. In my practice, for instance, we regularly see decisions going into the appellate system that should not be there in the first place. The evidence of that is the fact that the tribunals are now awarding costs against the Home Office, and we had two cases recently where it was clear that the Home Office had failed to follow directions on the need to review the whole case or assess the evidence before it; it just failed to do that. If you are going to replace one system with another, but you still have very poor decision making in the first instance, you are not really going to clear the backlog. I could go on forever, but just recently I accidentally sat in on the wrong hearing at a tribunal. I was only meant to be an observer; a younger member of my team was doing a hearing, and I thought I would like to observe it. I was sent the wrong link by the tribunal, and it took me about half an hour before I suddenly realised that I was on the wrong link—I thought this other matter was just being heard first, and mine was going to follow. I sat through half an hour, and it was a man from Iraq with no representation and no bundle. The interpreter did not really understand him, and it was a waste of time. It took about 30 minutes for the immigration judge to say, “We have to abandon this.” That brings me to the fact that the other cause of the backlog is the large number of people who are not represented, and that is partly because of the problems in the legal aid system. I know we have recently had an increase, but if we want to get rid of the backlog, we are going to have to address the larger numbers of people coming into the system with no representation at all because they cannot find a lawyer. Most legal aid lawyers cannot make this work on the rates, so they are giving up. My own practice is currently considering giving up legal aid work, and we are one of the few that is still around doing it. You are going to have people coming into the tribunal system requiring adjournments, and the tribunal system will have to deal with not only that, but very poor decision making coming from the Home Office. I have other concerns about the Bill, but that is my biggest concern. The thing I am exercised about at the moment is whether there is a way of legally challenging this, but I do not know yet.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{5D5FEDC4-53D0-40C5-A4CA-BE3046D81856}"> </QNum> In your experience, how often does article 8 make the decisive difference between somebody being allowed to remain or being removed? Do you think that the provisions in the Bill will materially and effectively change that situation? Jacqui McKenzie: We are worried about the provisions in the Bill around article 8, particularly as they relate to the best interests of children and the redefinition of the family, at a time when we are recognising that families come in all different types and colours—I do not mean colours in terms of race; that is probably not the best word. There is not a straightforward definition of a family. The Bill seeks almost to narrow it down to who lives in the house and who does not. That is the sort of language we are getting from the Home Office in trying to describe what it means, because we do not know yet. All we have is a template of an idea. We have section 55 on the best interests of the child, which most of us base our work on. That enables families using article 8 to remain together in the country. In the impact assessment accompanying the Bill, I saw that fewer than 12,000 families were likely to be refused. We are going for such a draconian measure to deal with a very small number of people. It almost reminds me of Rwanda again. We spent £700 million and we got four volunteers out. Even if we had got some people out through enforcement, it would have been a very small number. I cannot quite understand why we are targeting families. A lot of those families are actually the third and fourth generation of people who settled here and then brought over their children. In Windrush families, south Asian families and west African families, we have this concept of leaving children behind. The first came when they were over the age of 18, and now large numbers of their children are the ones caught up in the system and using article 8 to remain. Those are the sorts of people we would be targeting. This is their home. They are settled here. The numbers are small. It is not yet clear to me why we need to be doing this.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{D7131CCF-DE61-4A38-8A96-EC39FA5B69E2}"> </QNum> As it stands, do you believe that the modern slavery supply chain provisions in the Bill will identify more victims and perpetrators, or is there a risk that they will create additional corporate reporting and compliance costs? Do you think the measures could be improved in any way? Dr Buttle: I think that the provisions as they currently stand ask businesses to report on what they are doing. It has now mandated particular areas, but there is a difference between reporting and performance. There is still an opportunity for companies to just take a tick-box approach, complying with the letter of the Bill and the clauses rather than actually taking action. So there is an opportunity for companies still to not do the human rights due diligence in the way that this Bill is currently drafted.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{FDD9DBCE-F2C4-4D02-BDD6-56C7A000F89A}"> </QNum> Are there any particular specifics on how you would improve the measures that have been put forward? Dr Buttle: At CCLA we have been advocating, in addition to reporting requirements, for a smart mix of legislation that would include a mandatory human rights due diligence Bill and potentially a forced labour ban for the UK.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{B02675C1-BE8E-4DF7-A76F-B8B448636296}"> </QNum> What impact do you expect the financial penalties for companies that fail to comply with the reporting requirements to have on company compliance? Dr Buttle: As I say, we have been evaluating companies’ modern slavery statements for three or four years now. There is also another investor coalition that we are part of, which is Rathbones’ Votes Against Slavery initiative. That has identified 194 instances of companies in the FTSE 350 not complying with section 54 over the past six years. That is quite widespread and companies are not actually complying. In our benchmarking work, we have identified some of the largest companies in the world that have exposure to modern slavery. They operate in high-risk geographies. They have supply chains that reach into high-risk geographies and they are in sectors that we deem high risk that are not currently complying with section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act. So we do think there is a risk at the moment, and we think that financial penalties would mean there is a risk of not complying with the legislation. On the way that the Bill introduces penalties of £1 million or up to 1% of turnover, that should be sufficient to make businesses consider this more seriously.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{F5BCEE30-459A-497C-9B47-4BF99D08999D}"> </QNum> The Government say that the reforms will make the system go faster. What is the current average time from an unsuccessful claim, through appeal to final resolution, and what do the Government expect the average to be once these changes have been implemented? Daniel Flury: It currently takes about 56 weeks for an appeal to clear the system in the first-tier tribunal, which is only going to worsen in the years ahead as more of the claims that have been sitting in the backlog for some time are concluded. It is even longer for appeals —that 56 weeks is all appeals. As to where we think it could get to, I do not think any of us could say yet, unless the Home Office wants to offer something. I think we can all agree that it needs to improve substantially, because 56 weeks is unacceptable in any jurisdiction.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{CB64A79D-9D49-4FB5-8DE3-04A1AB3AE753}"> </QNum> Is there a quantifiable target for how many additional removals we forecast as a result of the changes? Daniel Flury: I could not say from an HMCTS perspective. Alison Hewett: Not at this stage. We are undertaking quite a lot of detailed modelling, but that is very much a work in progress. It would be inappropriate to get into that level of detail at this point.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{5B85E92B-ECE9-4E2C-8CC8-F37B6D3F556C}"> </QNum> The sole test for the Bill is whether it will reduce illegal arrivals and increase removals. What is the single biggest amendment you would put forward to make that difference? Stephen Webb: In a sense, the Bill seems mainly to look at the stock rather than the flow, looking at people already in the country. I know the Government have legislated previously on the actual crossings. I suppose the question is, within the way the Bill is structured at the moment, what would make the biggest difference in deterring people from starting the journey in the first place? That is quite hard to say, because there are lots of changes around making it more difficult to make claims, particularly under article 8. My main point is that I feel, as I have written before, that it is not just article 8, but article 3 that gives asylum seekers an extremely high chance of staying in the country. Although the Government have chosen to toughen, somewhat, the way that article 8 will be treated, the Bill is silent on article 3. That is slightly disappointing, given that the Chişinău declaration, back in May, talked about reforming both and suggested areas where the courts—both domestically and in Strasbourg—could potentially tighten things up. I would see that as the main area.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{DA2337DF-3BB7-45DB-8008-0E74155E2AD7}"> </QNum> Do you think there will be any significant effect from the proposed article 8 changes, or do you think we will just see everything coming back on different legal grounds? Stephen Webb: You obviously have a combination of both the article 8 definitions and the decision-making body, with a new appeals structure. The appeals structure could be very helpful. There is a significant problem of public confidence in the immigration tribunals as they stand, so I welcome the Government’s measures essentially to phase that out. It is very hard to say how decision makers and people on appeal are going to interpret this. There clearly is a toughening-up here, certainly on article 8. There is nothing at the moment that does much on article 3 claims, which, as the Committee knows, have been broadened very widely by the courts over the last 20 years into things like whether there is an equivalent health system in the host country and the receiving country, and into areas that are really quite surprising for something that is supposed to be an unqualified right.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{44C2F245-A404-49DB-B298-50E10DD8FA2F}"> </QNum> Minister, the independent Regulatory Policy Committee has rated the Government’s impact assessment of the Bill as not fit for purpose. It says: “Little of the appraisal is quantified and most impacts are…uncertain.” What measurable difference do the Government expect the Bill to make? How many additional removals will it deliver? How much faster will cases finally be resolved? Anna Turley: The Bill is a really important part of our armoury for dealing with illegal immigration and securing our borders in this country. In introducing it, we have tried to be clear that this country has fundamental values of decency, fairness and tolerance that we hold dear. We have an historic role in providing safety to those fleeing war and persecution but, as we have heard today from lots of witnesses, we must recognise that the world is changing. The current system was not designed to cope with a world that is so volatile and insecure, or with people travelling through multiple safe countries before crossing the channel, particularly by boat. We have to confront the situation facing our asylum system, which is one of the most permissive, compared with other countries in Europe. Unfortunately, it is acting as a pull factor, providing a perverse incentive for people who have arrived illegally to switch to the asylum system once here. The Bill, as part of our wider process, tries to tackle that. The Bill is part of a range of measures we have in place to tackle issues raised by the shadow Minister, such as removals. I just want to set it in its context, because we have had a lot of conversation today about whether the Bill will be the silver bullet to stop the boats. I think it is really important to see it in the broader context of all the other measures that we are bringing in. As you know, we have established the Border Security Command, which has been part of the reason why—together with our one in, one out deal with France—we have already seen small boats down by over 40% this year. We have stopped 38,000 channel crossings, and the number of asylum claimants we have awaiting their initial decision is at its lowest since 2019. We are now down to fewer than half the hotels that asylum seekers had been placed in, and we have seen 80,000 removals since the last election, including 11,000 foreign national offenders. As I said, the Bill is one part of the armoury that we want to use. The problems we want to tackle are clear. Some 41% of asylum claims are from people who are already here and hold visas from another form of entering the country. As colleagues have heard, the first-tier tribunals have 156,000 appeals outstanding, with 72 weeks being the current average for asylum appeals. We have a number of late claims mechanisms that people use to threaten removals, and at the moment 95% of asylum decisions get appealed. That is the context we are trying to deal with through the course of the Bill’s passage. We have obviously talked about the Bill’s measures today, and we are confident that they will start to address, as part of that broader armoury, some of the pull factors that are leading to us being seen as having one of the most permissive processes in Europe.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{82E087C4-25BB-4C3D-990A-8A5D4FF18394}"> </QNum> We do not know how many more removals we are expecting as a result, and we do not know how much faster it is going to go. What would you see as the benchmark for measuring whether the Bill has succeeded? Anna Turley: I do not want to put a specific figure on it. I am pleased with the statistics we have seen, and I want people to judge us on the outcomes of the measures we have introduced so far, which have seen 60,000 removals and 48,000 crossings stopped. We will have our metrics to measure this, but I do not want to put a specific figure on the impact at this stage of the Bill’s progress. We know the measures are specifically designed to tackle the blockages in the system and the reasons why people are able to frustrate and string out appeals. The Bill is targeted at the specific issues that mean people can string out the process, which are why the system is not functioning.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{5738BFB0-8D1E-4817-8512-6C5E3D0D1665}"> </QNum> With regards to the article 8 changes, can you give us one concrete example of a category of case where someone could successfully resist removal today on article 8 grounds, but where the Bill would prevent them from doing so in future? Anna Turley: Bas, you have an example—we discussed this earlier today. Bas Javid: With all the measures in the Bill, we want to address what potentially gives people the opportunity to frustrate removals, either in bad faith or just by being late, whether that is article 8 appeals or national referral mechanism issues. I would highlight two things that frustrate operational removal. One is the successive number of issues that people raise, but not necessarily all together, and there is also the fact that it is done very late, often on the steps of the plane, particularly on charter flights. To give an example, in 2025, on all the charter flights that my teams ran, over a third of the people frustrated their claims through late NRM referrals. That is just an example of the kind of things that happen, and that obviously also puts a lot of extra cost and wasted resource into the system, where I would otherwise use that resource to remove people legitimately.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{B7E3BB3A-1D40-437F-8980-A7BA71873547}"> </QNum> There has been much discussion about the challenge posed by the article 8 issue, but can you give me an example of a category of case that today might be frustrated by article 8 that would not be frustrated once the Bill is implemented? Anna Turley: I have one example that we saw in the past. We had an Albanian man who become a British citizen but falsely claimed to be the father of eight children between 2022 and 2024. He was sentenced to six years in jail in October 2025, but having a British father on the birth certificate meant that the children could be registered as British citizens, meaning that they could then be an anchor for the Albanian father and Albanian mother. That is an example of where it is currently being used to thwart a fair process. That is the kind of example that we would seek to use.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{9BD1465B-5A7F-4A0E-88E2-6948E06367E6}"> </QNum> And within that category of claims, how many cases would we estimate to be relevant? Anna Turley: Of those who have been granted leave to stay here on the basis of article 8, 71% had entered illegally or overstayed. That gives you a sense of how often this provision is used by people who have thwarted other means to be in this country. This is meant to be a safeguard, but we had 77,000 applicants for article 8 in 2025, which again gives a sense of the scale at which it is being used. As my colleague said, that is really affecting our ability to enforce our rules and protect those in genuine need.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{ECC8FBCD-BC7A-4204-A143-F8E09CF37471}"> </QNum> How many people are currently in the UK who have exhausted their appeal rights and have no lawful right to remain, and what is the single biggest barrier preventing immigration enforcement from removing more of them? Bas Javid: I do not have an exact number on the total. When we look at it in individual categories, such as people in the appeal system where the appeals right is exhausted, that is in the thousands—tens of thousands in many cases. In terms of individuals in particular cohorts or groups, we can break that down. I can get those figures for you—I do not have them to hand—but it is several thousand. Anna Turley: I have one figure to add to the point on article 8. For those who were granted an article 8 right to remain in 2025, the cost to the taxpayer is £4.9 billion. That again shows the scale and the impact on the British taxpayer.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{885A3AAC-31C1-4E2D-B2CD-D8B8D0E47C42}"> </QNum> The effectiveness of the measures around article 8 will play a large part in determining the success or otherwise of the Bill. The Government say that 77,000 applications were granted on article 8 grounds last year. How many of those would have been refused under the measures being put forward in this Bill? Anna Turley: We can certainly get back to you on that figure. As I said, we know that there were 77,000 applicants in 2025. We also know that 70% of our foreign national deportation appeals were allowed on article 8 grounds. We can probably do the maths and get back to the Committee.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{B1B15585-7041-421B-959D-6719EB0752A3}"> </QNum> Do you have a rough proportion? Anna Turley: I would not want to give incorrect figures. If it is okay, I will reply to the Committee in writing with that information. Dan Hobbs: There is data in the Bill’s impact assessment on the loss that we see, both on the national referral mechanism and the removals, and where it would be our intention to reduce that attrition as much as possible from them both. There are a number of elements to this: the late claims process, the new procedures under the IIAA and the changes in terms of treatment of credibility under the national referral mechanism. Bas can probably talk more to that, but you will see people using multiple channels. The intention of the Bill is partly to ensure that there is an appeal that deals with all those issues and that, if they are brought late or after the notifications, they are treated as bad faith—that is the intention here. There are a number of elements, so isolating just the individual bits relating to the article 8 clauses will be quite difficult to assess. Anna Turley: To build on that, the impact assessment says that article 8 reforms will result in an additional 3,600 people per year being removed. That is on the basis of our analysis finding that 31% of people who were refused article 8 applications were removed from the UK or claimed asylum. The 3,600 figure is estimated by applying the 31% proportion to the 11,700 total number of people estimated to be refused an article 8 claim due to the measures in the Bill. Hopefully that gives a little more clarity, but I am happy to write to the Committee.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)
Okay.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentMatt Vickers
Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy
At the weekend, I had the pleasure of joining Cleveland scouts and seeing at first hand the fantastic work that scouting does to give young people confidence, practical skills, friendships and opportunities they might not otherwise have. Can the Minister reassure those young people and their families that this Government are not seriously proposing to tax a scout for pitching a tent? Can he confirm that scout camps and other charitable youth residentials will be exempt from his holiday tax?
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentMark Pritchard
Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy
We now have a Minister for euphemism. Let us be clear: this is not a visitor levy, but a tax on tourism. It is a tax on the staycation, a tax on hospitality, a tax on the family holiday, a tax on hospitality jobs, a tax on mobility, and—the worst sin of all—a tax on Shropshire. Shropshire tourism rejects this tax whenever it might come, directly or indirectly. Is this not another example of this Government being addicted to raising taxes?
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentMark Pritchard
Saudi East-West Oil Pipeline
The Houthis are not going away and it is likely that the crisis will get worse rather than better. On 16 March, I asked the current middle east Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who was previously in a different role in the Foreign Office, what UK naval assets could be, or were being, deployed to the region, given that it was pretty predictable that at some point Tehran would put pressure on the Houthis to assist it in its reign of terror in the region. I ask again: what naval and other military assets are being put in the region so that we can safeguard British, partner, allied and NATO shipping and ensure that the crisis is minimised as much as possible? Finally, three of our Five Eyes partners have proscribed the Houthis as a terrorist organisation. I do not expect the Minister to declare a proscription on the Floor of the House, but are the Government at least keeping that under review?
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentLincoln Jopp
Civil Service Pension Scheme
My Spelthorne residents were given incorrect quotes months after I intervened and despite my office regularly pressing for updates. Some are still waiting for their initial quote—again, despite my office repeatedly following up. Others were told that their pensions could not be found, despite their furnishing the details several times. Only three of our 17 cases in Spelthorne have been resolved. Spelthorne residents are not statistics. They are people who paid into their pensions throughout their working lives. They are the newly retired, the medically retired, widows and widowers, who are experiencing serious financial hardship and experiencing difficulties in securing the loans promised by the Government. It is futile for the Government to continue to go over old ground and play the blame game. What residents need and deserve is to receive without any further delay the pensions that they paid into over a long time.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentLewis Cocking
Residential Buildings: Safety Remediation
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and to take part in this debate on the building safety remediation of residential buildings. I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing the debate and for eloquently setting out lots of issues in the sector. This is a vital issue. As right hon. and hon. Members have rightly said, no one should be forced to live in an unsafe home. A great deal of progress has been made to improve our housing in recent years, and the share of unsafe homes has declined in the past decade, but we must go further. The need to press ahead is as great now as it was in the immediate aftermath of the Grenfell fire, which caused the horrific deaths of 72 people. The last Conservative Government began the remediation work straight after Grenfell. It included the introduction of financial protections for leaseholders from the costs relating to remediation of unsafe cladding systems put in place by the developer remediation contract. That has ensured that major developers pledge to remediate life-critical fire safety issues in buildings over 11 metres that they have played a role in developing or refurbishing over the past 30 years in England, although some developers should be taken to task for not acting quickly enough and for leaving constituents to fend for themselves. The last Government were also responsible for putting in place £5.1 billion through the building safety fund and the cladding safety scheme to recover cladding costs for repairs of buildings over 11 metres where no responsible developer could be identified. The Opposition welcome the continued progress by the current Government to implement the Grenfell tower fire inquiry’s recommendations, especially regarding remediation. Residents expect to see the inquiry’s recommendation implemented in full and to see remediation work completed swiftly and safely. For far too long, that has not been the case. The Building Safety Regulator, established through the Building Safety Act 2022, was set up with good intentions for stronger regulatory oversight. Although it has done much to oversee remediation, it has worked at an unsustainably slow pace. I know that the Minister will be keen to point out that gateway 2 decisions, namely approvals, are coming in at a faster rate, but this is after years of delay. The regulator made just 118 decisions on remediation applications in the 12-week period to 31 August 2026, with a median of 33 weeks for a determination to be made in some older cases. At the end of July 2025, remediation works had been completed in just 39% of identified buildings, with barely half seeing remediation works to unsafe cladding start or finish. That means that, of the estimated 250,000 dwellings of a height of 11 metres or over with unsafe cladding in the private and social sector, 104,000 have not even started remediation. In my constituency of Broxbourne, I have seen what happens when fire safety issues in flats are not addressed. Earlier this year, at a six-storey block in Waltham Cross, with known cladding issues and no working alarm, residents were told on the day before the Easter weekend that they would have to evacuate their homes that evening, because the management company had stopped funding the waking watch, where someone is paid to patrol the building to look out for fires. Local authorities were forced to intervene and to extend the waking watch, and fortunately residents were able to stay. Weeks later, Homes England and the Department supported the installation of a suitable alarm and detection system. I am relieved that there were no fires in that block and that residents did not have to evacuate in the end. However, leaseholders ended up paying thousands of pounds for the waking watch and were left worrying about the risks of fire to their homes or being removed from their homes at the last minute. That could all have been prevented if the remediation works had been carried out when fire safety concerns were first raised. I hope that the Minister will outline how the Government plan to ensure that all buildings with fire safety issues are made safe before the situation gets so serious. I conclude by reiterating the Opposition’s firm and unwavering commitment to safe and decent housing, especially through the remediation efforts started after the tragedy of the Grenfell fire. We will continue to support the Government and work across the House to increase the pace of remediation work, improve the Building Safety Regulator and remove dangerous cladding and other materials from homes across the country.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentLewis Cocking
Youth Offending
My constituents are extremely concerned about young people on e-bikes and e-scooters repeatedly committing crimes and antisocial behaviour. There is a feeling that those individuals get away with that behaviour and put other people in danger. Will the Minister assure me that the justice system is robust enough to punish every individual involved in that reckless behaviour?
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentJohn Glen
Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy
Nine years ago, when I was the tourism Minister, I resisted the English holiday tax. What concerns me now for Salisbury—where people like Brian Currie are investing millions of pounds in the Cathedral hotel—is the impact that tax will have on domestic tourists. People in this country who cannot afford to go abroad will now be burdened with additional costs to have a few days away in England. Has the Minister understood the distribution of the burden of this tax and the impact it will have on people in this country?
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentJohn Glen
English Whisky: Single Malt Definition
I visited Witchmark distillery in Fonthill in my constituency a year or so ago. The people at the distillery had gone to considerable lengths to match the standards that they saw in Scotland on a single site, and are putting down whisky casks and growing a significant business, as well as providing a significant number of jobs in this rural constituency. I am concerned about the differentiation of standards, which the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) spoke about. Could the Minister reassure the House that the appropriate high standards for this growing class of goods will be protected?
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentJohn Glen
Student Loans
I thank the hon. Lady for her clear summation of the Committee’s report. I want to press her on the repayment threshold. She says that in the Government’s response, they have not ruled out reviewing it, but given the relatively modest amount of money and the significant number of young people who would be positively affected, does she think that this should be one of the top priorities for the new Chancellor on 28 October?
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentJoe Robertson
Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{DB535418-F4F5-4B6B-BEA8-4C30196047EF}"> </QNum> If I understand this correctly, the central point that you are making, Eleanor Lyons and Will Prescott, is that the issues that the Bill seeks to address are with not, in your view, so much the law as it stands, but the administration of that law—training, interpretation and the exercise of functions by all sorts of officials. If there are any issues, that is where they lie, rather than the substance of the law as it stands. Is that a fair summary of what you are saying? Dr Prescott: We have talked about this in our report. You have to be very careful about the sequence in which you do this. At the moment, there are all sorts of gaps in identifying modern slavery victims. A lot of people in first responder organisations—as Eleanor mentioned, you cannot refer yourself into the NRM—are not aware of their responsibilities. There is no dedicated modern slavery lead and, because there is no dedicated lead, everyone is responsible, which in practice means that no one is responsible. A lot of victims also do not necessarily realise that they are a victim of modern slavery. They obviously do not understand what their rights are. In particular, if they are in an unfamiliar environment and speaking to unfamiliar officials, they will not necessarily be comfortable discussing certain practices that have happened to them. If you are going to tighten the criteria, you really need to fix the gaps in the existing system first, before you look to a much tougher approach.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentJoe Robertson
Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{650A5AC6-F1B0-4C5D-A619-87AE76802E9E}"> </QNum> Does the Bill address the gaps you have just identified? Dr Prescott: It does not really. There are some bits of the Bill that are quite welcome, such as requiring firms to outline the steps they need to take to reduce modern slavery in their supply chains. That is helpful to an extent, but it does not really address the issue of the lack of dedicated first responders in organisations, for example, and it does not deal with fixing the identification problem within the system that we were quite concerned about. I do not think it is quite there yet. Eleanor Lyons: I do not think the Bill addresses the fundamental issues, because I do not think you need legislation for that. There is a challenge at the moment with the process, because we do not have that training consistently across first responder organisations. I do not think we have the substantial evidence we need to underpin a lot of the changes that the Bill is proposing. It undercuts a lot of work that has been done over the years to recognise that victims of all crime groups and of exploitation take a long time to feel comfortable speaking, and they may be scared to come forward. We are creating exceptional rules for victims of modern slavery that I think are fundamentally unfair. I would say that the issue with tackling modern slavery in this country is that we do not have dedicated funding for police teams any more, and we have a modern slavery strategy that is over 10 years out of date. If we really want to tackle the issue, we need to look at those big picture things. The Bill is making it harder for victims to come forward, and it does not address the problem of the perpetrators of the crime. Actually, a lot of those things were introduced under previous bits of legislation, and there is already a struggle to enact them at the moment.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentJoe Robertson
Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{EB6949CF-FB93-446F-8333-60122B83CF52}"> </QNum> The Bill claims that it will have a deterrent effect on people coming to the UK illegally, but no matter how robust it might be, can it really have a deterrent effect when it seems so easy to set people off in boats from the north of France? Helen Rance: Its deterrent effect would be the toughening up of the environment. The specifics of this Bill and the launching of boats from France are not specifically linked. This is the deterrent effect of making the UK less attractive in general. From this Bill alone, I cannot comment on the launching of boats.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentJoe Robertson
Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{DD57A9E6-2F3B-45EC-B383-B0DA4BBE26FE}"> </QNum> Do you see it having any effect on where migrants might enter the UK and be received and intercepted by law enforcement? I ask because we see boat crossings now stretching as far down as Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. From your position, does anything in the Bill address the expanded geography of where organisations such as yours have to operate? Helen Rance: There is nothing in this Bill that addresses the geography of where crossings leave from or arrive to.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentJoe Robertson
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{D7CDF12F-2F30-4FA3-A6DF-1009BA9377F6}"> </QNum> As we have just heard, you were director general of Border Force. You talk about the importance of stopping people coming in the first place. But Border Force has only five ocean-going cutters and six coastal patrol vessels. Is there a fundamental issue here of not having the assets for agencies of the state to do their job? Is that something that is not addressed in the Bill, but that would make a meaningful difference? Tony Smith: The Border Force will enact whatever its operational instructions are, and its operational instructions are drawn from legislation, powers and authorities, so it does not matter how many boats you have out there in the channel. Currently, if someone comes within the 12-mile zone, under the law of the sea you are obliged—quite rightly, because saving lives is paramount—to bring them on board your vessel. The problem is that once they are within the jurisdiction, they accrue all of these rights to asylum applications, ECHR and modern slavery applications. I do not think it is a question of resource. I am a bit worried about resources, given what we saw in Portsmouth last week, because I do not think we have the bandwidth to cover the entire coastline any more. We have been focusing what resources we have on the short straits. Clearly, the smugglers are moving along the coast, so we need to be adaptable to be able to deal with that. They would always take more resources if they were on offer, but for me it is more about how you get the people coming off the boats properly screened, not cleared within 24 or 48 hours—that is not long enough. Whatever your views on immigration, you have to properly and thoroughly screen people. A passport tells a story—it will tell you all sorts of things. We do not know their dates of birth or their nationalities; the biometric checks are pretty useless. All I am saying is that I think we need to be detaining people for at least longer than 24 hours at Manston if we are going to reduce the risk in any case.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentJoe Robertson
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)
Thank you, Ms Jardine. I have taken the opportunity while the ex-director general of Border Force is in front of us. The wider point made by the Government is that the Bill has a deterrent effect, but there have been crossings without any Border Force personnel or boats being in the vicinity. A lifesaving charity, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, is being relied on to provide a quasi-policing collection service. How does the Bill help with any of that?
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentJoe Robertson
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)
I am just asking whether the Bill could help with any of that, given that the witness in front of us notes on his CV, in the formal papers, that he used to be in charge of Border Force.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentJoe Robertson
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)
My wider critique is that the Bill does not do enough.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentJoe Robertson
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{A72036E6-2E14-48F3-A4F8-303D5C468D6B}"> </QNum> Does the witness agree with me that the Bill does not do enough to tackle the fundamental issues of illegal migration and processing and deportation? Tony Smith: Yes, I agree with you.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentJoe Robertson
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)
Thank you.
Hansard source
15 Sep 2026ParliamentJoe Robertson
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{75DE3D09-C639-4D3B-986C-85A62583C171}"> </QNum> I will address my question to Professor Singer. We heard in previous evidence about some of the novel or unusual drafting and wording in the Bill. For example clause 19(4) says: “No weight should be given to a private or family life”, rather than that those issues should be “disregarded”, which I think is the normal phrase you would find in law, rather than “no weight”—it is hard to understand what “no weight” means. Also, the ouster provision in clause 1(8) seeking to try to oust the jurisdiction of the court in certain circumstances is drafted in a very loose way, when we know from case law that courts want very specific ousters if they are going to accept them. Does that not run the risk that this entire Bill is actually going to increase litigation just so that the courts can try to define and understand what some of this novel and peculiar wording actually means? Professor Singer: I have to say that I have questions about the drafting of the Bill in its entirety. I do not think that the Committee can appropriately scrutinise the Bill, because there is a significant lack of detail in so many of the provisions, in addition to very odd drafting. With due respect, a lot of it is back-of-the-envelope-type stuff, which has clearly been rushed through the legislative drafting process. For example, in the previous panel, I heard the Committee questioning the clause on the introduction of a core protection status. The clause does not actually set out the eligibility or content, in terms of what a core protection status is; it gives the Secretary of State significant powers to make regulations in respect of what eligibility for a protection status would be and what the content of that status would be. Similarly, in the provision on asylum support, we do not have any details about the actual operation or functioning of that system. The provision gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations in respect of this scheme. In relation to the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority, we do not have the rules of procedure to scrutinise, to be able to ascertain whether there will be due process, which will be appropriately followed, and fairness. I agree with you that there are strange inconsistencies in the drafting, but, additionally, I think the whole content of the Bill is quite lacking in many respects.
Hansard source

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

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy

Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy

Saudi East-West Oil Pipeline

Civil Service Pension Scheme

Residential Buildings: Safety Remediation

Youth Offending

Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy

English Whisky: Single Malt Definition

Student Loans

Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)