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

1. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

   Violence against Women and Girls: AI-based Crime

   As the Minister knows, technology is being used in many different forms to threaten women. A Gosport domestic abuse survivor, Harmony Hayman, is still living in fear of a former partner eight years after leaving the relationship, and he has used an illicit mobile phone from prison to contact her. She is now living in terror of the Government’s decision to release domestic abusers early from prison. Will the Minister look at Harmony’s petition, in which she calls on the Government to look into how domestic abusers are able to perpetuate their abusive behaviour from within prison, and also to review their eligibility for early release?

   Hansard source
2. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

   Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy

   I must admit that I am really puzzled by the Minister’s statement. The visitor levy is not going to be ringfenced for tourism, so how does he know that it will go to its intended destination? The levy will not be capped. We normally tax things to stop people doing them, not to encourage them to do more of them. What evidence can he offer to demonstrate that this measure will bring growth, as he says? What work have the Government actually done to prepare for this measure? How will they know whether hospitality businesses—let us face it, they are already collapsing in their droves following decisions that the Government have already taken—will survive yet another tax being imposed on them?

   Hansard source
3. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

   Civil Service Pension Scheme

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain, and to take part in this debate. I take the opportunity to formally welcome the Minister to her role. The turnout for the debate shows the strength of feeling of hon. Members of both sides of the House. I join them in expressing my deepest sympathies to the civil servants and families of civil servants who dedicated their lives to public service and who have been left without the pensions they earned throughout that service. Recent updates from the civil service pension recovery plan show that although progress has been made, thousands of families are still waiting for retirement quotes and pension payments. Of particular concern is the number of older cases involving bereavement, death in service and ill health that have yet to be resolved, as highlighted in the most recent updates. I trust that the Minister will use the opportunity of this debate to highlight what further steps the Government are taking to ensure that those cases are dealt with. An adequate explanation from Ministers for why they allowed Capita’s contract to administer the civil service pension scheme to go ahead in the first place has been entirely absent. I know, and the Minister will no doubt point out, that the contract was signed in November <span id="582WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="582WH"></span>2023 under the last Government. The last Government agreed to a two-year transition period with clear milestones that Capita was required to meet to take over the administration of the scheme without causing disruption to service.

   Hansard source
4. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

   Civil Service Pension Scheme

   I could not agree more. It was under this Government’s watch that it became clear that many of the milestones were not being met, and Ministers failed to take the necessary action to ensure a smooth transition and prevent such disruption. That was certainly not through lack of warning, given that both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee published reports in the weeks and months before Capita was due to take over administration of the scheme highlighting a clear risk that it was not ready to do so. Ministers said they received personal assurances from Capita on its readiness to take over the scheme, and they have not said why they chose to believe those claims despite the findings of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. Will the Minister clarify who in her Department authorised the go/no-go decision in November 2025, clarify what criteria were used to make that decision, and commit to publishing all documents relating to that decision with only necessary commercial redactions? Ministers have spoken at great length about potentially insourcing the civil service pension scheme in the future, but they appear far less willing to consider using powers that they already have at their disposal under the Procurement Act 2023 to address issues with suppliers.

   Hansard source
5. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

   Civil Service Pension Scheme

   I could not agree more, and I am about to come to that point. We have all seen our inboxes full of horror stories of individuals who have been caught up in this situation. I therefore ask the Minister specifically to confirm whether the Government will refer Capita to the Debarment Review Service, or does she intend to allow Capita to continue freely bidding for public contracts while the Government take months to complete their review of insourcing? It is clear that the mishandling of the civil service pension scheme is the result of not only corporate failures on the part of Capita but the Government’s failure to manage the contract effectively. Ministers should reflect on the Government’s shortcomings in regard to that before outsourcing blame elsewhere. However, I am aware that the Minister took a keen interest in this subject from the Back Benches and I will work constructively with her to try to find a resolution to an issue facing many thousands of people up and down the country.<span id="583WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="583WH"></span> It is absolutely right that, while we try to understand how we got to this point, we must work more closely together to try to resolve it. That is in the interests of the civil servants and their families who have been so deeply impacted by this travesty. I therefore look forward to hearing what plans the Minister has to take this issue forward and resolve it as quickly as possible. I look forward to her response.

   Hansard source
6. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

   Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy

   As you are well aware, Mr Speaker, 5 million people visit the beautiful East Yorkshire coastline every year, so any tourism tax would have a devastating effect on <span id="1588" class="column-number" data-column-number="1588"></span>the local economy. The Minister says that he has developed a framework and that there is more work to do. Where there are larger mayoral areas—for example, my area of Hull and East Yorkshire—can he guarantee that any money raised in towns such as Bridlington or Hornsea will be spent there, rather than in a larger conurbation such as the city of Hull, and will he ensure that is the national framework for any mayor who wishes to introduce a tourist tax?

   Hansard source
7. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Fracking Ban

   Order. The hon. Lady did point out the conventions and courtesies of the House. She has to ask the hon. Member if he will give way. It might be helpful for everybody if I add that interventions should be through the Chair. Please do not face the back of the Chamber. It makes it incredibly hard for the microphones to pick up comments and, indeed, it is quite discourteous to the Chair to turn your back on me.

   Hansard source
8. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Fracking Ban

   That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

   Hansard source
9. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Fracking Ban

   I call the shadow Minister.

   Hansard source
10. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Sepsis Awareness Month

    Before we move on, I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) for his bravery in sharing his personal story and, of course, to the noble Lord Mackinlay in the other place, who has spoken on this subject so often and with such power.

    Hansard source
11. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Sepsis Awareness Month

    That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
12. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Sepsis Awareness Month

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
13. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{68FC24BC-4109-4770-8DAF-F90F3B4D6479}"> </QNum></strong> Given the concerns that you have raised, how likely is it that the Bill will restore confidence in the asylum system? If that is not likely, what else would you like to see in it that would restore confidence? <em><strong>Vicky Tennant:</strong></em> I go back to what I said: legislation is only part of the answer. There are elements of the Bill—particularly those that focus on trying to ensure <span id="10" class="column-number" data-column-number="10"></span>the quality, efficiency and sustainability of the appeals process—that, if made to work successfully, could contribute to building public confidence in the system. As I said, UNHCR recognises that public confidence is what underpins the refugee convention; we can all speak about the law and the refugee convention, but what is needed to deliver these things in practice is public support for welcoming refugees and for a well-functioning system. On what would be needed in addition, there is a lot of work under way, particularly to make the first instance decision-making process quicker and to improve the quality of decision making. UNHCR has been working directly with the Home Office on that front for some time, and we have been encouraged by the progress. As I said, it is also about the ability to remove people who are found not be in need of international protection. One can do that only if there is a well-functioning system and there is confidence that it gets the decisions right. Safe, regular routes are a big part of a well-functioning, fair system. From the public perspective, what we see consistently in the polling and the various surveys that have been done is that the British people want to welcome refugees. There is support for maintaining the UK as a place of refuge, and the more safe, regular, managed pathways there are to do that, the more it can be delivered and that confidence can be sustained. That cannot be a replacement for access to territorial asylum, which is where it can sometimes be very challenging. As UNHCR, we recognise the challenges the Government face in addressing the crossings in the channel. Nobody wants to see a situation where people are forced into dangerous journeys and where the business is essentially controlled by smugglers and criminals. What is really essential is that you have a good, functioning system for considering asylum claims quickly and removing people who are not in need of asylum, and that also involves the management of arrivals in a sensible way. Partnership with international partners is an absolutely critical aspect of that, including with France but also with other international partners. That is about co-operation upstream to make sure people have alternatives and do not feel they have no alternative but to move onwards, but it is also about co-operation around the management of arrivals at UK borders. The international standards, the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights provide that common baseline that enables the UK to work with international partners in trying to find solutions to these common challenges.

    Hansard source
14. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{E87300AA-942B-4AEA-B348-A8384EE6BD2B}"> </QNum></strong> I do not wish to cut you off, but I asked the question to all three panellists. Eleanor, briefly, please. <em><strong>Eleanor Lyons:</strong></em> Very briefly, touching on part 5 of the Bill in particular, I do not think we will restore confidence in the asylum system by weakening protections for victims of modern slavery. I welcome some parts of the Bill, including better advocacy for child victims of exploitation, devolving decision-making pilots, and work around tackling forced labour in supply chains, but that should go further than it does at the moment. Fundamentally, the Bill makes it harder for safeguarding professionals to identify victims of exploitation in communities across the country, including child victims and UK national victims, and I do not think that that <span id="11" class="column-number" data-column-number="11"></span>restores public confidence in the system. Unfortunately, I think it erodes confidence that we are not safeguarding cohorts who need our help and support, who do not get the right to remain even if they are confirmed to be victims of modern slavery.

    Hansard source
15. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{42D71EDA-4A2B-4CCA-8127-1560622193BA}"> </QNum></strong> The same question, briefly, Will. Do you also have any international experience that it might be worth us hearing about, maybe from Australia and so on? <em><strong>Dr Prescott:</strong></em> Building on what the others have said, there are obviously bits in the Bill that are very positive. The expansion of the reporting requirements—again, you have learned a bit from the Australian experience and the Canadian experience—into public sector organisations is obviously very positive. But, to build on the earlier point, the ultimate way to improve confidence is to improve processes in the system. It is about making sure that organisations have a dedicated point of contact so that there is someone who is directly responsible for modern slavery in first responder organisations. It is about improving and standardising training so that people know what signs to look for when they are dealing with potential victims. That is the best way to stop the last-minute claims, which, though small in number—I think Eleanor said they are less than 2%—have a disproportionate psychological effect. That will also be much better for victims. A lot more attention needs to be on improving the processes, improving the training and making sure someone is actually responsible in first responder organisations.

    Hansard source
16. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{B0F20927-481B-4852-812B-ACAB0FF44D7E}"> </QNum></strong> In answer to Matt Vickers’s question, you said that, as a result of the Bill, exploiting our borders will be less attractive for organised criminals. What specific measures in the Bill does your organisation think contributes to that assessment? <em><strong>Helen Rance:</strong></em> The strongest deterrence effect will come from sustained law enforcement activity. If we can continue to disrupt facilitators, seize boats and engines, and target criminal finances, it will have an effect on the operation of organised immigration individuals and networks. The Bill makes it harder and less attractive for those networks to operate within the United Kingdom.

    Hansard source
17. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{1204AACC-9617-4A8B-AEFA-39D0C72A43D1}"> </QNum></strong> You can do all the things you have described without the Bill, so what in the Bill will make it easier for your organisation to “smash the gangs”? <em><strong>Helen Rance:</strong></em> Smashing the gangs, to coin a phrase, really comes with a lot of different measures and policies. Target hardening and making the UK less attractive is just one of those measures. I do not think there is anything specific in the Bill, other than making the UK a tougher environment for criminals to operate in and less appealing for them to exploit.

    Hansard source
18. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{EAE17919-91C6-46F2-AB5D-5A9C488E64DF}"> </QNum></strong> Can we briefly return to clause 1(8), which I think you described, Professor Ekins, as a poor attempt at an ouster provision. Would you be able to describe why you think that? If it was better drafted, what would the constitutional and practical benefits be from that clause? <em><strong>Professor Ekins:</strong></em> We have a long tradition in our country, and in the common law world more broadly, of interpreting ouster clauses—clauses in legislation that would limit the jurisdiction of the court on judicial review—narrowly. The courts take for granted that Parliament is probably not going be excluding their supervisory capacity; if a provision is going to genuinely exclude that capacity, the courts expect it to be spelled out categorically, in black and white. There is a long history of their looking at a clause that you might have thought, especially if you had not really been attending to these clauses and their tradition and reception, did say that, and interpreting it to have a much more limited effect or no effect at all in practice, whereas the point was perhaps to exclude review. Looking at that clause and knowing what I do about the history of the reception of those clauses, I just do not think it will be understood to mean, “There can be no judicial review of a decision of the adjudicative body that, for example, is procedurally unfair, or that is so unreasonable that no adjudicative body would have reached it.” Now what it might do, and I think this is how it would be read, would be, “No judicial review challenges to that adjudicative decision on grounds of error of law, because, if you think there is an error of law, you appeal to the upper tribunal.” Fine: it would have some limited effect there. But if the point was to categorically exclude judicial review of adjudicative decisions of this body—and I do not know whether that was the policy of the Government or quite what the drafters had in mind—it certainly will not achieve that. I say “certainly”, I think it is probably the case, but I think it is very unlikely. If you drafted a different ouster clause, then one might have more hope that it would be effective; in a sense, you could specify and categorically exclude the particular grounds of judicial review that you as Parliament do not want this decision of the body to be subject to. Then, in a sense, you are taking full responsibility for what judicial review should look like in relation to this body after the legislation comes into effect. Parliament has in recent years enacted some more thoroughgoing and careful, if you like, precise, ouster clauses along those lines. These are sometimes called partial ouster clauses, because they do not categorically exclude judicial review, but they very severely limit it. There is one such ouster clause in the Judicial Review <span id="26" class="column-number" data-column-number="26"></span>and Courts Act 2022, which protects some decisions of the upper tribunal from judicial review. That model could be applied here. I should add there are some drawbacks to so doing, because this new adjudicative body, as our previous discussion may suggest and I think the structure of the Bill shows, is not a court. It will be an adjudicative body with some independence, but it will not be like the upper tribunal, which, frankly, is just like the High Court in a different mode. The constitutional case against doing it is certainly stronger than was the case with the upper tribunal; but, if Parliament takes the view that there should be no judicial review here or it should be only on these specified grounds, then there are other models available for drafting an ouster clause. If I were in your shoes, I would not rest content with clause 1(8) as it stands.

    Hansard source
19. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{1234315E-5CF0-4B52-A8D8-A6F1BC3D10CF}"> </QNum></strong> That is very helpful, thank you. Do you want to add anything, Dr Casey? <em><strong>Dr Casey:</strong></em> Yes, I agree. I will just say that I think that, because the Independent Immigration Appeal Authority will not be a judicial body, the courts might be more anxious in scrutinising whether a clause ousts judicial review. At the moment, the way it is drafted, as a public lawyer you read a clause trying to oust and you think how a court would read it. I can imagine a court looking at that at the minute and inserting brackets and making it “A (rational and reasonable) decision of the IIAA”, and interpreting it in that respect.

    Hansard source
20. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{F9A2407E-FB16-4303-8961-AA10A2673FFF}"> </QNum></strong> Clause 23 would empower the Secretary of State to require successful asylum seekers to pay costs for the support that they had during their passage through the system. To what extent might asylum seekers factor that into their decision making? <em><strong>Jon Featonby:</strong></em> I will take that decision making in a few stages. In terms of whether that measure will deter people from coming to the UK, I do not think it will have any real impact at all. A previous panel touched on how complicated this body of law is. For those who have engaged with successive immigration Bills, it is quite complex. To expect somebody who is seeking protection to follow it, and to expect Parliament or even organisations such as the Refugee Council to be the main place that those people get their information, does not reflect reality. We are concerned about the potential impact on decision making because it is important to remember that asylum support is available only to those asylum applicants who would otherwise be destitute. The Home Office puts in place quite a high bar for someone to even access support. Our concern is that if people are aware that they may be faced with debts of around £10,000, that will prevent them from accessing support. Their alternative then is to remain destitute. That is obviously very bad for those individuals and families, <span id="32" class="column-number" data-column-number="32"></span>but it is also well established that putting people in destitution has negative consequences from a public health point of view and for wider communities. We are also concerned by that provision because, although it applies to anybody who receives asylum support, with some minor exemptions, the majority of people who will ever be in a position to even start to pay back that money are people who are going to go on to get protection. We are concerned that that will take money away from people who probably have very little in the first place and that, because not having paid back that money could be a bar on settlement in the future, it could lead to people looking to borrow the money from quite dangerous moneylenders, putting people at risk of exploitation at that point. It is quite hard to work out exactly what this will look like because there is not much detail in the Bill, but there are potentially disincentives for refugees to work. In our work at the Refugee Council, we see that people want to be able to work—they want to contribute—and the people who we support into employment, including employment in the NHS, are contributing. We think a far better use of time and resources would be to help refugees to overcome some of the barriers that they face, particularly in employment. That would allow them to contribute far more to the UK, including from tax receipts.

    Hansard source
21. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{F3302976-C96F-4FC3-A412-8B86BF0F846A}"> </QNum></strong> My question is for you, Alp, picking up on some of the earlier commentary. You made reference to Australia, Denmark, the USA and Greece, which have reduced numbers applying for asylum through measures that bear no resemblance to the Bill. What should we put in the Bill to replicate the success of those countries? <em><strong>Alp Mehmet:</strong></em> We could start by declaring our intention to come out of the ECHR. Human rights can be dealt with perfectly well by a country like ours without our having to be signed up to the ECHR. We could also pull out of the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings. We should announce that the Human Rights Act 1998 will be repealed. All of that would allow us to deal with the sort of people who are, understandably, looking for a better life. I have no problem with that, but are we really saying that anyone and everyone of 118 million will be able to come here? This may sound relatively minor, but the other thing I would do is put the onus on arrivals—we used to call them passengers in the old days. We should put the onus on the migrants arriving to satisfy the immigration official dealing with them of their bona fides. That is what used to happen. Our courts have pushed us in the opposite direction: we now have to disprove. If we do not have any evidence to back that up, we are effectively saying, “Okay, we can’t prove it otherwise. We don’t know who you are. You haven’t got a passport, but we’re going to give you the benefit of the doubt, because the Home Office can’t provide the evidence to do otherwise.” That is absurd. It is also dangerous. Those are the things that I would include in the Bill. Perhaps you would expect me to say a lot of that. Look at what the Americans have done. Whatever anyone feels about some politicians in the United States, they have nevertheless been successful in closing the southern border to illegal immigration. We should put in place effective measures to stop those coming across the channel not just in boats, but in other ways. If the French were sensible and serious enough to stop the whole thing, they should volunteer to take the migrants who make their way to us from there, as should the EU. That is not going to happen anytime soon, I suspect. All in all, I am a little disheartened by the Bill, the measures in it and what is likely to happen.

    Hansard source
22. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{2DA5C088-D046-41DE-B55E-AC6C7770CB60}"> </QNum></strong> In the view of the International Rescue Committee, what safe routes should be opened up today to deal with the issue that you have just described? <em><strong>Angela Afzal:</strong></em> We welcome the safe routes that the Home Secretary has recently announced. We think that they are a positive development. There has been a wide consultation with communities and stakeholders, and the approach has allowed communities to offer consent for the refugees who come to them. There can be planning for people arriving so that services are ready. Our experience shows that that is when you get good refugee integration and good social cohesion. We welcome the offer of complementary safe routes, so that people who want to come here to study and work, but are not able to access the usual immigration rules—

    Hansard source
23. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{9D2D530B-97C1-46F2-9DDF-658B3FE5FEB4}"> </QNum></strong> May I just stop you? I appreciate what you are saying, but you are not answering my question. If you do not think that the Bill will be adequate to stop people from crossing the channel in an unsafe way, how many legal routes would your organisation want to open up? <em><strong>Angela Afzal:</strong></em> I am starting by saying that we welcome the three new safe routes; that development has gone alongside this. Our main concern with the Bill is clause 21 and the impact on refugee integration. Ultimately, we would like to see safe routes so that people can arrive here from regions and do not have to travel to Europe—

    Hansard source
24. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{B0AD1EC8-FE81-42A7-A6D6-634219F1A9DC}"> </QNum></strong> But from where and how many? <em><strong>Angela Afzal:</strong></em> The opportunity of having safe routes means that the Government can control the numbers and where people come from. That would provide a controlled route. The Government would know where people are coming from and who they are, and could control the numbers. That is why we would advocate that.

    Hansard source
25. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{06F2EF70-386E-404E-AE9B-DA628299CD42}"> </QNum></strong> To achieve that, do you need changes in the Bill? <em><strong>Angela Afzal:</strong></em> Our focus in the Bill is the impact of the core protection framework, which is in clause 21.

    Hansard source
26. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{7CD9075A-D55E-471E-82C5-A631B20837AA}"> </QNum></strong> What changes would you like to see to clause 21? Just to make sure that I do not go off track, what changes does your organisation want to see to clause 21 and why? What would the implication be for the potential number of asylum seekers claiming in the UK compared with today? <em><strong>Angela Afzal:</strong></em> Clause 21 seeks to introduce the core protection framework. Our concern is that the clause gives the Home Office very broad powers to introduce changes of entitlements for refugees.<span id="50" class="column-number" data-column-number="50"></span> The core protection framework, set out in the “Restoring Order and Control” statement last year, indicates that there is an intention to reduce entitlements for refugees. Our concern is that the core protection framework would have a detrimental impact on refugee integration, rather than deterring people from arriving. I can explain in more detail why we feel that the temporary protection, removing the right to family reunion and having the work and study pathway would impact refugee integration from our experience of delivering integration in the UK.

    Hansard source
27. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{5A4B5E22-5144-4062-B19D-DC86C7EE99E1}"> </QNum></strong> The Government argue that introducing the new appeal authority will reduce delays. What are the Ministry of Justice’s views on that, and what evidence have you relied on to conclude that the appeals system will improve performance? <em><strong>Neal Barcoe:</strong></em> Thank you for that question. It is important to start by recognising that judges and the court system have responded very strongly to the significant increase in demand coming through the system. They have increased capacity and improved productivity, but demand is growing considerably faster. On receipts, back in 2023 we had about 58,000 cases coming into the system. In 2025-26, that was up to 118,000. The outstanding caseload has risen in that same period from about 50,000 to 150,000 cases. The courts have tried to look at every available option and opportunity to improve productivity in the system. They have increased the number of legal officers in the system by 70%, and have expanded things such as the virtual region to make sure that more cases are being heard on any given day. They have looked at case progression and how you can speed up cases, so that cases are ready for court more quickly. They are looking at all forms of technology to improve productivity and have improved their listing practices, too. We have sought to grow the judicial workforce as quickly as possible. Since last year, we have seen a net increase of about 21% in the number of judges. We are up to just over 300 now, with 65 fee-paid and 25 salaried judges starting earlier this year, and more recruitment in train. While we have had that recruitment success, it has demonstrated an upper ceiling and a real challenge to going further and faster. The pool of candidates is <span id="66" class="column-number" data-column-number="66"></span>relatively constrained: if you want to come in as a fee-paid judge, you need five years post-qualification experience in a relevant field; and, traditionally, if you come in as a salaried judge, you need to have had previous judicial experience, too. Taking on a salaried role also means giving up your practice, so on immigration and asylum matters, we have struggled to go further and as fast as we would like. The process is not quick—it takes 12 to 18 months to recruit judges—so I think that the proposition for the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority is that, if we are able to recruit trained adjudicators from a broader range of professional backgrounds, it should be possible to increase capacity and add more flexibility, while retaining their legal support, and ensuring that there are proper assurances on quality and that we have the upper-tier oversight. That is the thinking on where we are.

    Hansard source
28. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{96E53F50-35D2-4D03-8661-760EA034FDBF}"> </QNum></strong> We have heard quite a bit of evidence today from people who have suggested that if the Home Office were to sort out how it goes about dealing with the backlog and its decision making in the first instance, we would not need this new authority. What are your views on whether setting up this IIAA is just a complete waste of public money, a distraction causing more complexity in the system? Do you have any views on that as a Ministry? <em><strong>Neal Barcoe:</strong></em> That might be better addressed to MOJ Ministers, but as a civil servant, I do not think that this is a waste of public money. It is vital that we address the cases that are in the system, and that we look at all ways to do that properly while retaining quality. That is what we are trying to do, to manage that process as well as possible, but with 150,000 cases in the system, it is taking much longer than anyone would like for those cases to be disposed. Something that increases capacity in this way—if we can protect the quality—has to be a good thing. It is about being flexible as well, and I think that that is what the new body brings—we can flex that capacity.

    Hansard source
29. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{5351097E-B9B0-43E8-B4DF-3817E1341749}"> </QNum></strong> A final question, if I may. Will the Bill make the life of immigration lawyers and practitioners more or less complicated? On the whole, will it improve our immigration system, or is it a retrograde step? <em><strong>Neal Barcoe:</strong></em> Again, as an official, I think that it does and can improve the system—

    Hansard source
30. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

    Can or does? Is it an objective or a political assessment? <em><strong>Neal Barcoe:</strong></em> If done well, it can absolutely improve. If we can ensure that the quality is there, that it is staffed up properly and that we have the right levels of independence, as set out in the Bill, I think it would be an improvement on the current system. I recognise what underlies your question—we have had a lot of immigration and asylum bills, and that change of perspective is difficult for people in the system, which it undoubtedly is—but I think there are very sensible things in the Bill that seek to improve the current situation. One of the things—the Public Accounts Committee has spoken on this, and the NAO—is about how Departments come together and co-operate more effectively in this space, looking at the whole system. I think that that is what the <span id="67" class="column-number" data-column-number="67"></span>Bill is about; it is about trying to look at the whole system as one. As I say, at an official level, we are doing that much more than we were before.

    Hansard source
31. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{3E846DC9-2579-4B86-A6B9-747743887390}"> </QNum></strong> That is a nice bridge for me to ask about article 8. We have heard that the tightening up of article 8 may drive article 3 claims. Does the Bill not take the Government to a place of playing whack-a-mole with the ECHR yet again? <em><strong>Dan Hobbs:</strong></em> We are really clear about article 8, as we have set out in the impact assessment and elsewhere. Article 3 is used much less, and would normally be tested through the asylum claim. An article 3 breach would normally fall within the asylum and protection angle. Article 8 is already a qualified right, so I do not immediately follow the logic that people would then make article 3 claims, because that would already be considered under their asylum claim. If people had article 3 rights, they would be raised and are raised. We get article 3 challenges in various elements, so it is used now, but I am not clear how an article 8 right, which is a qualified right, can transpose into article 3, which is an absolute right.

    Hansard source
32. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{47D71D41-BA0C-47C3-8A1F-3C2399B0CE2D}"> </QNum></strong> In which case you are not concerned that, by tightening up article 8, you will end up with article 3 claims. <em><strong>Dan Hobbs:</strong></em> With the immigration system, we always have to think about displacement and human behaviour, which is not entirely predictable. We will go away and review that point with the Minister, but I cannot not immediately see how someone could use a subsisting relationship under article 8 as an article 3 barrier.

    Hansard source
33. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{6D08724A-3C73-48BD-9AD7-C0A5FA43951E}"> </QNum></strong> Okay. I am sure we will pick that up in line-by-line scrutiny. We spoke earlier about the general drafting of the Bill, and there was quite a lot of criticism from witnesses of the legal drafting and—no offence if any of you were involved—of its general sloppiness. I have some questions relating to judicial review. Clause 1(8) is the ouster provision. For my clarity, could you please describe what you are trying to achieve with that clause so that we can give it some thought as we move to the next stage? <em><strong>Anna Turley:</strong></em> Sorry, which clause was that again?

    Hansard source
34. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

    Clause 1(8). <em><strong>Dan Hobbs:</strong></em> This provision is about decisions on errors in law going to the upper tribunal. That is the case now: first-tier tribunal challenges on errors in law go to the upper tribunal. What we are setting out there is the procedure. Appeals against decisions of the new authority on the basis of law go to the upper tribunal.

    Hansard source
35. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{D44FBE88-A50C-49C7-A62B-69304A8774FF}"> </QNum></strong> Okay. The third witness panel—I think it was the KC who joined us, Professor Ekins—described it as a poor attempt at an <span id="79" class="column-number" data-column-number="79"></span>ouster provision. Given what you have described as your intent, you presumably disagree with that and think the provision is well drafted. <em><strong>Dan Hobbs:</strong></em> On the basis of today, I think we will take that away and verify it. As I say, I do not think we intended that. I will go away and check.

    Hansard source
36. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{19310267-3E8A-4BD6-A75F-5DC2F7874EC5}"> </QNum></strong> Just stepping back for a moment, do you expect the result of the Bill will be that the numbers arriving on small boats will decrease and the numbers removed from the UK will increase? <em><strong>Anna Turley:</strong></em> As I said at the beginning, it is an important part of our armoury for reducing the numbers in small boats. We have evidence clearly showing that people who come to the country think we have, essentially, a more liberal system than many other countries in Europe. Of course, there are other reasons why people want to come to the UK, but people generally think that we have a looser interpretation of some of our responsibilities than other countries. It is important to us that we are clear, through the Bill, that we will fulfil our obligations, but also that we will ensure people cannot exploit the system or find loopholes, and that we will have a system that is fair, efficient and effective. This is one part of our armoury that, alongside all the other measures we are putting in place, will see our trajectory of reducing small boats continue. I am convinced that the Bill will certainly speed up the time it takes to undertake removals and deal with some of the last-minute claims. You have heard from my colleague about people finding yet another opportunity to thwart the system when they are literally on their way to the planes. <em><strong>Bas Javid:</strong></em> I would add that the very act of removal, when it is done properly and legitimately, acts as a deterrent in itself. For people who are looking to come to the UK or to remain illegally after a legal arrival, the very act of removal, done in the right way, is a deterrent.

    Hansard source
37. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy

    In Cambridgeshire, the Conservative Mayor Paul Bristow, decided not to implement this tourism tax. That is incredibly important, because we have recently adopted the local visitor economy partnership as we seek to make gains from the creation of Universal Studios just down the road. My hon. <span id="1594" class="column-number" data-column-number="1594"></span>Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) is looking to bring in an LVEP in Bedfordshire, too. Why does the Minister think that a tax like this would benefit somewhere like Cambridge, when we clearly do not think that it will? What else is he doing to support communities such as mine in Huntingdon, where we are looking to build a visitor economy to take advantage of the opportunities that Universal Studios can bring?

    Hansard source
38. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

    Saudi East-West Oil Pipeline

    The ongoing events in the middle east have rightly brought the state of Britain’s energy security back to the forefront. We are witnessing growing geopolitical instability, and it is having, and will continue to have, a direct impact on our energy security, supplies and, of course, bills. The attack on the Saudi east-west pipeline will exacerbate this; 4% of global oil supply flows through that pipeline, which is not insignificant. Saudi Arabia is a key strategic friend and ally of this country. Our relationship is integral to the security of the region and our national interest. What discussions has the Minister, or the Secretary of State for Energy and Net Zero, had with their Saudi counterparts about security of supply, and have the UK Government offered any support in that regard? We do not know when the pipeline will once again be operational, and as we have already heard, Saudi oil stocks for export could be depleted within days. With the safety of navigation through the strait of Hormuz remaining uncertain, the continued squeeze on energy supplies will only become tighter. Brent crude reached $106 a barrel this morning, and that increase shows no sign of slowing. It is exactly because of this situation that I cannot understand the Government’s actions. Ironically, today should have been the day on which the Government announced that they were finally going to approve the Jackdaw gasfield, but they bottled it and put it on ice, because they are too scared of Zack Polanski and the Green party in the Holborn and St Pancras by-election. We are talking today about national security, and the Government are putting party before country. Great Britain has become increasingly and dangerously over-reliant on supplies of oil from overseas. We could be reducing some of that reliance right now by drilling and making use of our own resources, be it oil from Rosebank or gas from Jackdaw.<span id="1600" class="column-number" data-column-number="1600"></span> This is a moment of great geopolitical uncertainty. It is a moment when all countries around the world are seeking to ensure and shore up their energy supplies. No other Government of any other nation would make such a brazenly craven decision to put chasing votes in a by-election ahead of their duty to defend their national and energy security. Given the seriousness of this moment—given the threats to our energy and, indeed, to our national security—will the Government change course, and change their position on the North sea?

    Hansard source
39. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Topical Questions

    It was May when I stood here and asked the Minister to intervene in the situation of a paedophile moved to an open prison two years into his 10-year sentence. I was promised an answer then. I raised the matter again in July and again last week, and yet I have still had no answer. When will Sanders’ survivors finally stopped being ignored by this Minister and get an answer on why this man has been put in an open prison?

    Hansard source
40. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy

    Whether it is parents requiring a hotel stay while their four-month-old daughter has neurosurgery, or a new mother requiring a hotel stay to recover from a pulmonary embolism, in <span id="1595" class="column-number" data-column-number="1595"></span>both those cases a tax would be incurred for a stay they wish they did not have to do. Those are not hypothetical examples; I was both. Will the Minister please mandate from the Dispatch Box that anyone seeking medical treatment for themselves or their children—sometimes that can be months at a time at Great Ormond Street—will not have such a tax imposed on them and their families?

    Hansard source