Green Party — partytracker.uk

Showing every spoken contribution, including 141 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

3 Nov 2026ParliamentHannah Spencer
Young People and Work: Milburn Interim Report
Last week, I went back to Hideout, a youth club in Gorton that opens its doors to hundreds of young people every week. I asked some of the kids I met about their future hopes and dreams and they all scrambled to tell me about who they thought they could be; I could genuinely feel the hope in the air. But ask anyone slightly older—a teenager or young adult—and you hear a clear, bleak understanding of the ways that the world is already letting them down. Their hope has faded away. Almost a million young people are growing up finding themselves not in education, employment or training. Every week I meet young people across the constituency who want to work hard and build a good life for themselves but find that the system is stopping them. A 25-year-old care leaver with no family, no network and no safety net told me that he tries so hard every day to stop himself becoming homeless, Despite being a university graduate, he cannot find secure, well-paid work. The risk of being not in education, employment or training is not equal: it doubles if someone comes from a disadvantaged background and has low qualification levels, and is far worse in Greater Manchester and the north than in London and the south-east. Opportunity should not be a postcode lottery. Those who need a hand most are being left behind by the Government’s sustained real-terms funding cuts to schools and colleges, despite ever-increasing demand, and because small and medium-sized businesses are unfairly being asked to train up the next generation of workers without the money and support needed to make that a success. Young people do not need cuts to the universal credit health element, which will just harm those who cannot work. Cutting cash benefits does nothing to improve employment outcomes. What they need is an approach from this Government that acknowledges that investment now will save money in the long run. What they need is change to the very structure of our economy and education system, more flexible and inclusive post-16 pathways and green skills at the forefront. The Milburn review is clear that urgent action is needed. The question is not whether young people in Gorton and Denton and across the country have ambition, but whether this Government are willing to match it.
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Budget Resolutions
I cannot begin without congratulating the hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Sagal Abdi-Wali) on her speech. I know her constituency well, and she is a distinguished former colleague of mine on Camden council. I am here today to speak about council housing. The Government’s priorities are still not right on this issue, despite the Chancellor explicitly naming in his Budget speech the loss of more than 2 million council homes since the 1980s and the Prime Minister’s focus on rough sleeping. We have millions of people waiting in overcrowded homes, rented homes that they cannot afford and temporary accommodation that councils cannot afford. That goes well beyond a crisis. What have the Government given us in this Budget? We have new money, with £1.5 billion added to the pot for councils to bid on for affordable home building. In paragraph 5.4 of the Budget, the Chancellor says that that will help to build potentially 10,000 more real council homes over the next four years. That is not terrible, but in paragraph 5.5 in the same document we get £4.7 billion for the Government’s new version of the Help to Buy scheme. The Chancellor explains that that will support private, profit-making developers to sell an extra 20,000 new builds. I presume that is without expecting developers to cut their prices or profits—it is possible that they will increase them. I note that the Government plan to collect some small fees from the house builders, but I assume that they have been agreed with them. I also note that one impact of the previous Government’s Help to Buy scheme was to keep house prices rising out of many people’s reach and to boost profits and profit margins for developers, as the recent Government evaluation of the scheme concludes. Can Ministers tell us whether £4.7 billion for loans that they do not expect to be paid back for many years to support 20,000 extra private sales by developers really represents better short-term or long-term value for the public purse than £1.5 billion to enable 10,000 new build council homes? That is three times more funding out of the door for just twice as many new homes. Even under the Government’s broad house building target, is that really the best use of public money? It may not be that simple, so I ask the Government to give us their workings on these choices, especially if I am wrong in my assumptions. Can they commit to publishing, for comparison, the Green Book assumptions and appraisals for each of these investment decisions, and the time it takes for money to move out of their loan scheme and back into it? We need much more investment in real council housing. We need “buy the supply”—the funding of acquisitions. I cannot see why the Government are not putting together an equity loan scheme for councils to help them buy the supply, instead of going with another help to buy scheme, just as the last Conservative Government did.
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentHannah Spencer
Immigration: Earned Settlement
By allowing those with more money to jump the queue and receive earned settlement status faster, these changes amount to an attack on lower-paid workers and, by extension, lower-paid British-born people too. Time and again the working classes, whatever their nationality or migration status, have been looked down on and left behind. Does the Home Secretary agree that her changes send a clear message to people who have come here or people who have been born here that they are worth less if they do not earn enough?
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentAdrian Ramsay
Topical Questions
Suffolk county council is proposing significant cuts to its healthy child services. That is deeply worrying to new parents such as Chloe, who became a mother at 18 and, without the help of family, relied on the young parent pathway to develop the skills and knowledge to raise her baby boy. What assessment has the Department made of the positive impact of healthy child services, and will the Minister intervene to protect these vital services?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
My new clause 22 asks for a report on decision making in relation to asylum applications. My amendment 62 is intended to prevent the Bill from being brought into force until the report set out in new clause 22 is published. The new clause would require the Home Office to publish a report on decision making in the asylum system. Making asylum decisions as efficiently as possible, so that they are right the first time, should be the main function of the asylum system. It is noteworthy that there is no mention in any of the Government’s asylum reforms of improving the quality of decisions. As we heard from a range of experts during oral and written evidence, poor-quality initial decisions have had a corrosive impact on the asylum system, adding to the number of people appealing on decisions—people who should and eventually will be granted status—and contributing to the overall costs of asylum support. In the 2025-26 financial year, 64% of appeals processed were either granted by the tribunal on appeal or withdrawn before they were heard by the court. The majority of withdrawals are done by the Home Office after reassessment of the initial decision. As the chief inspector’s report indicated earlier this year, the Home Office makes those withdrawals because it feels that it cannot defend its decisions on appeal. That issue deserves further consideration before the Bill comes into force. We have heard officials say that the tribunal grant rate has gone down. That may be true, but their point is undermined if that is a result solely of the withdrawal rate going up because the Home Office is withdrawing its most poorly made decisions before the tribunal can consider them. New clause 22 would provide the data to support or refute that case. The chief inspector’s report did a quality check on about 47 cases and found that decisions had been made using insufficient evidence in over 75% of them. If that number were repeated throughout the system, it would mean that a significant number of initial decisions need improvement. What does that mean in practice for the system as a whole? According to the Government’s statistics, at the end of March, 87,450 asylum appeals—relating to roughly 113,000 people—were outstanding. Based on those numbers, the Refugee Council has estimated that between 27,900 and 33,480 of those people will be housed in dispersal accommodation while waiting for an appeal that will end with them getting status. The Government are looking to close hotels and are opening military sites in response, but it would be well worth focusing on making better-quality decisions. That would significantly reduce the number of people who, because their initial decision was rejected when it should have resulted in a grant of protection, need to be housed in those divisive and often horrible types of asylum accommodation for longer than necessary. Crucially, that is not about giving status to more people but about ensuring that those who are going to get status get it earlier in the process. That is better for the refugee, the asylum system and the public. The new clause lays out what needs to be included in the Government’s report to better understand how the process is working and how the Government can better address this urgent issue. That should be the top priority, before we have any more asylum system reform. The Minister may be able to address some of those points now, including how the Government intend to deal with these issues. Given that the provision would have such a significant effect on the appeals backlog, I have also tabled amendment 62, which would prevent part 1 of the Bill from being implemented until the report has been published, so that any learning from the report could guide the development of the independent immigration appeals authority. Finally, given that other parts of the Bill, including part 4, respond to some of the consequences of poor-quality decision making—the backlog and the need for asylum support in the longer term before people are allowed to work—it is important that the Government prioritise fixing that problem. That must happen before they take the scythe that this Bill represents to the spirit—and, I believe, to the letter—of so many of our international obligations on human rights.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I have worked on new clause 23 with the Latin American Women’s Rights Service and a wide coalition of groups that support victims, survivors and refugees, who have long wanted to see the introduction of protections for safe reporting. That is what the new clause would do. My new clause is a wider safe reporting amendment than new clause 15, which Lib Dems colleagues spoke to earlier. It would solve a number of important problems because migrant victims of many crimes, not just modern slavery, trafficking and exploitation, but also domestic abuse and many kinds of violence against women and girls, avoid reporting them due to the fear of the police sharing their data with immigration authorities. This problem limits and deters access to other statutory services for victims and survivors, including to GPs and social services. That needs looking at. We know that perpetrators and exploiters weaponise immigration status and immigration policy as a tool for coercive control, deterring reporting. Victims with insecure immigration status already fear the police will not support them, so when data sharing occurs, the fear is reinforced, which further harms trust in the police and compromises the rights set out in the victims code. Statutory independent watchdogs say that police data sharing causes significant public harm. It also obstructs the police’s own wider efforts to tackle modern slavery and violence against women and girls, if people do not report it. It increases the risk to all women and girls if perpetrators are left in the community. As we have discussed, the Bill already creates new fears that people may be targeted for immigration enforcement and increases the fear that people will not be treated fairly. We need to do something to mitigate the weakening of the protections for victims of abuse and exploitation in the Bill; now is the ideal time to introduce the safe reporting provision outlined in new clause 23. The principle at stake here is that no one should have to choose between remaining in an abusive or exploitative situation and risking immigration enforcement by seeking safety and support. It is important to note that a safe reporting mechanism—a firewall between authorities—is not an amnesty. It is not an immigration route in itself; it is simply an extension of people’s privacy rights. It is a safeguard designed to ensure that reporting crime and seeking protection do not, in and of themselves, trigger immigration enforcement. The police should not have to be involved in this work. Earlier, we discussed the separation of duties that needs to happen within the Home Office, and the sharing of data that occurs is a symptom of the mixing-up of security and immigration policy that currently happens in too many ways in the Home Office. The police should be able to focus on their job of investigating serious crime, protecting public safety and protecting victims of crime; immigration enforcement should be completely separate. As such, my new clause would introduce a firewall within the Department—a separation between the police and other statutory services and immigration enforcement, so that migrant victims can safely report crimes against them. There are successful international examples of safe reporting mechanisms, such as in Spain and Belgium. The Police Service of Northern Ireland has also recently implemented a safe reporting mechanism. Victims in England and Wales should receive the same level of protection. If victims do not report crimes, the police may lose access to evidence, intelligence and opportunities to protect victims and investigate perpetrators. Furthermore, it creates an environment in which the perpetrators of serious crimes feel they can act with impunity and continue their abuse. With a firewall such as the one in my new clause in place, the police would still be able to investigate crimes, protect the public and ensure that victims can come forward safely. It would enable them to build trust with communities and focus on their main job. That is one reason why safe reporting mechanisms have been supported for a long time by specialist violence against women and girls, anti-trafficking and migrant organisations. It is also one reason why the Government’s own violence against women and girls strategy admits: “We also recognise how immigration status can affect victims of VAWG and that many migrant and asylum-seeking victims will not come forward to report abuse out of fear about their future”, and promises that “this Government will introduce a requirement for police to seek a domestic abuse victim’s consent before sharing their information with Immigration Enforcement.” That is some progress, but the proposed consent-based model set out in that strategy will not work in practice to prevent migrant victims. It is limited to domestic abuse alone and does not cover the wider crimes associated with uncertain migration status, and it fails to recognise the power imbalance, lack of clarity and lack of safeguards that would come with what has been promised. We need wider safe reporting protection for these kinds of victims, and I hope the Government will look at this issue again. I hope they will listen to the groups that asked me to table the new clause, and could help to tell Ministers the real impact of the policy on the victims and survivors they represent. I hope the Government will also talk among themselves—that they will talk to everybody involved in the violence against women and girls strategy, who can hopefully persuade the Home Office to relent on this matter.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
The Minister says that solving crimes and immigration are linked, but the way they are linked in the logic of the new clause and in the logic of current data sharing means—I think the police would agree—that immigration threats hamper crime investigation. Does the Minister not see that?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Another key part of the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy is that it offers protection only to victims. Will the Government look again at considering the inclusion of witnesses as well?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
I thank the Minister for her answers. I do not think she has really dealt with the issues at hand, particularly in respect of witnesses and the idea that the provision would be a one-way firewall and therefore not open to any kind of abuse. However, I am happy to withdraw the new clause and continue the discussion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 24 Right to work for asylum applicants where decisions not made within six months “(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, make such changes to the Immigration Rules as may be necessary for the purposes of granting a person making an application for asylum, and any adult dependants of that person, the right to work in the United Kingdom where— (a) a period of six months has elapsed from the day on which the person made an application for asylum, and (b) the Secretary of State has not made a decision on the person’s application. (2) A grant of the right to work under subsection (1) must— (a) be granted without the need for an application by the person making the application for asylum or an adult dependant of that person; (b) permit the person to take up employment or self-employment without restriction on occupation, skill level or salary; (c) be on terms no less favourable than those that would apply to a person granted refugee status in the United Kingdom; (d) persist until— (i) the person’s claim has been finally determined, or until any right of appeal has been exhausted, or (ii) the person otherwise ceases to be an applicant for asylum or an adult dependant of such a person; and (e) be capable of being evidenced by documentation or a digital status which can be relied upon by an employer for the purposes of a right to work check. (3) For the purposes of this section, ‘the Immigration Rules’ mean rules laid before Parliament under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971.”—(Siân Berry.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to grant applicants for asylum, and their adult dependants, the right to work where a decision has not been made on their application within six months. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
It is a pleasure to have you overseeing proceedings this morning, Mr Stuart. I will abstain on new clause 8, but I absolutely appreciate the sentiments behind it. I will not back it in full because the Green party has been thinking about this issue for some time, and we have our own alternative proposal. I will speak a little about the ways in which breaking up the Home Office—along the lines set out in new clause 8—would be a good idea. I refer in particular to the “No Way Home?” report, which was commissioned in June 2025 by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), and produced by Zoe Gardner, an independent researcher and campaigner on immigration and asylum policy. The report recommended that we make a new Department for population, infrastructure and immigration and a Department for community security from the Home Office. Previous Green party policy has used different names for those ideas—including in 2019, when we talked about creating a Ministry for sanctuary and a Ministry for the interior—but they follow the very same lines in splitting up the responsibilities. The “No Way Home?” report goes into more detail. It says in particular that cross-governmental work should be embedded in the remit of the new Departments, and that “A Department for Population, Infrastructure and Immigration” should be “taking on joint task forces with shared budgets with Department for Housing, Communities, and Local Government in order to ensure a long-term approach to the country’s population, workforce and infrastructure needs is built into the management of immigration policy.” On the other side, the new Department for policing and security matters—a “Department for Community Security”—should have “joint teams working across mental health, housing, homelessness and social services” to manage things such as addiction, rather than taking an enforcement approach to drug policy—allowing social services to deal with that—and ensuring that policing work is better integrated across the board with a preventive approach to crime. The report says: “The current remit of the Home Office does not include responsibility for long-term integration, infrastructure planning, and community cohesion”. Those are all issues that we have raised in this Committee as being harmed by the Bill, potentially because the Home Office is not tasked with being concerned about such harms. The report talks about the history of the Home Office as a Department, and how it has been “beset by repeated scandals”. Very famously, those have included the Windrush scandal, which emerged out of the policies of the former Prime Minister, now Baroness May of Maidenhead. Her hostile environment policies, which I think were enacted between 2012 and 2016, were “designed to make life unbearable in the UK for immigrants who were unable to prove their status”, and the Windrush scandal resulted. The “Windrush Lessons Learned Review” made it abundantly clear not only that the political direction set by the then Home Secretary but that the culture and internal structures at the Home Office were at fault for producing the crisis. Earlier, in 2006, a scandal emerged regarding the release of about 1,000 foreign national prisoners, which forced the resignation of the then Home Secretary, Charles Clarke. He was replaced by John Reid, who famously proceeded to describe the Department as “not fit for purpose”. We are nearing a consensus view on the issue, I believe, and the Department should be looking very closely at what it can do. The current work and remit of the Home Office “covers some of the most hotly politically contested areas”. I know that from my brief as my party’s spokesperson in the House on the Home Office and the Justice Department—we are constantly in the news on these issues. Every change is fought over in the public arena, because these are some of the most salient issues of the day. It is no wonder that “the role of Home Secretary is often viewed as a poisoned chalice.” Ministers—in the room today and more widely—might be interested in a more focused remit if they are to take on these responsibilities in future. Despite repeated attempts at reform, “the Home Office has continued to exhibit deep-rooted cultural and institutional problems in its management of the immigration brief, in particular…As a result, a growing number of voices from across the political spectrum have begun to call for an exploration of options for more radical reform. In most cases, the conclusion is that the Department should be split,” with immigration moved into a more dedicated department. The report concludes: “The remit of the Department itself contributes to negative outcomes by linking immigration with security, but neither immigration nor security with community cohesion, infrastructure, or the country’s economic needs”. It says: “The time is ripe for root and branch reform, and only a full break up and redistribution of the responsibilities of the Department has the potential to solve all the problems”. I hope that Ministers will look at that in the future, and that this new clause nevertheless stimulates some discussions in Cabinet and with the Prime Minister about how to improve those deep-seated problems and scandals and avoid them in future.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
The right to work does not impact only those seeking sanctuary; the impact also falls on their children and on communities. Giving people seeking sanctuary the right to work—or, rather, restoring their agency—is a matter of basic dignity and human rights. People who have fled war or persecution should have the opportunity to rebuild their lives in the UK with dignity and independence. That means that they need a safe place to live, access to support and a genuine right to work, as set out in new clause 24. It is important to stress that this debate is about restoring choice and agency to people seeking sanctuary, not imposing new requirements on those who are not ready or able to work. As it stands, the law permits a person seeking asylum to request permission to work if they have been waiting more than 12 months for a Home Office decision on their asylum claim through no fault of their own. That may be 12 months after they initially claimed asylum or 12 months after they made further submissions, which are then considered as a fresh claim. It has been more than two decades since those seeking asylum could apply to work after six months. People repeatedly raise the issue of enforced worklessness while claims are processed. My new clause 24 would simply restore the previous time limit and match the Home Office’s own targets for decision making. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 10 would grant the right to work at three months, which is also perfectly reasonable. New clause 24 goes into more detail about how the proposal should be implemented. It states that the right should be automatic, without the need for an application, and that there should be no restrictions on the type of employment. It also states when the right should end, if a decision on the application is made one way or the other. More often than not, vulnerable people are left waiting for months, and often years, for a decision. For that entire period, however qualified and willing they are, they are not permitted to work. That is profoundly felt by people who arrive with real skills, a keen willingness to contribute and a desire to rebuild their lives. Instead, the current rules require them to survive on a small weekly allowance. They are unable to contribute, build a life and often even volunteer in their communities without navigating endless bureaucratic red tape. The most potent and poisonous rhetoric of the far right plays up the dependence that people are left in; it stokes conflict between people in the asylum system, who are denied the ability to earn, and others in society. Members can hear the voices I am referring to in their heads right now. There is absolutely no need to leave in place the restrictions that fuel that kind of rhetoric and racism, and that badly harm the acceptance and integration of refugees. Work can bring not only integration and community strength but genuine benefits to people fleeing war, trauma or oppression. That is because people seeking sanctuary in the UK are five to six times more likely than the general population to have mental health needs. A review of the impact of asylum processes on mental health found that policies restricting work contributed to psychological distress and social exclusion. The mental health cost of robbing vulnerable groups of the ability to exercise their agency and provide for themselves and their loved ones is far too high. Many people seeking asylum in the UK and elsewhere are living with trauma. That contributes to their poor mental health. They might also be recovering from illness or caring for family members. It is important that a humane and just system recognises the structural barriers to finding work that many of these people will face. We must recognise that some people will want to work immediately, while others may need time and support to rebuild their lives. Therefore, my new clause is set out as a right to work. If the Government make any moves in this direction, they must refrain from making it a mandate to work. Despite the clear and mounting evidence in favour of the right to work, successive UK Governments have closed their minds to the idea and refused to implement it. The usual response, which has already been aired in this debate, is that permitting work sooner risks acting as a pull factor to further migration, but that does not hold water given the evidence. The UK maintains one of the strictest systems in Europe concerning the right to work for people seeking asylum. The international evidence is unequivocal and the difference in waiting times across comparable countries is enlightening. In 2018, Ireland opted in to the recast EU reception conditions directive and allowed work after nine months. That was subsequently reduced to six months in 2021. Comparable countries in Europe have far more lenient policies on the right to work. In Germany, it is granted after three months, with the only restriction being on self-employment. There is a similar policy after 60 days in Greece. In Italy the period is two months, in Spain it is six months, in Belgium it is four months, and in Denmark it is six months—all with no restrictions. In Sweden someone can apply to work immediately in limited sectors, and in France there are restricted types of work that someone can do after six months. All this is evidence that an alternative can be imagined that is intensely practical, would not have the knock-on effects that other parties have suggested, and can work. Alongside the moral arguments, there is a strong economic angle to be considered. The Lift the Ban coalition, which has already been quoted in this debate, estimates that lifting the ban could save the Treasury over £280 million per year, and recent research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research found that lifting the ban after six months could save the Government a total of £4.4 billion per year, increase tax revenue by £880 million and add £1 billion to GDP. Restricting access to legal work inevitably increases the risk of exploitation. When people are prevented from supporting themselves lawfully, they can be pushed towards unsafe and illegal forms of work. Granting people the right to work therefore extends itself to protecting vulnerable people from further exploitation and abuse, and extends the ability to maintain community cohesion and safety. In my view, though, the greatest cost of the current policy is the human cost—years of wasted potential, lost independence and lives left on hold while awaiting a decision. The Government should heed the approach taken by much of mainland Europe already and accept these amendments.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
On a point of order, Mr Stuart. I did not withdraw new clause 24. Am I allowed to press it to a vote?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Of course! New Clause 11 Refugee family reunion “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes to the immigration rules for the purposes of making provision for refugee family reunion in accordance with this section. (2) Any changes to the immigration rules included in any statement laid before Parliament under subsection (1) must come into effect after 21 days. (3) Before a statement of changes is laid under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult with such persons as the Secretary of State deems appropriate. (4) A statement laid under subsection (1) must set out rules providing for leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for family members of a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection. (5) In this section— the ‘immigration rules’ mean any statement of rules, or any changes to such rules, presented to Parliament pursuant to section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971; ‘refugee status’ and ‘humanitarian protection’ have the same meaning as in the immigration rules; ‘family members’ include— (a) a person's parent, including an adoptive parent; (b) a person's spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner; (c) a person's child, including an adopted child, who is either— (i) under the age of 18, or (ii) under the age of 25 but who was under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum; (d) a person's sibling, including adoptive sibling, who is either— (i) under the age of 18, or (ii) under the age of 25 but who was under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum; and (e) such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to— (i) the importance of maintaining family unity, (ii) the best interests of a child, read in accordance with Article 3 of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, (iii) physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and another person, (iv) risks to the physical, emotional or psychological wellbeing of a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection, including from the circumstances in which the person is living in the United Kingdom, or (v) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; ‘adopted’ and ‘adoptive’ refer to a relationship resulting from adoption, including de facto adoption, as set out in the immigration rules.” —(Tom Gordon.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make changes to the Immigration Rules to make provision for leave to enter or remain in the UK to be granted to the family members of refugees and of people granted humanitarian protection. Brought up, and read the First time.
Hansard source
28 Oct 2026ParliamentHannah Spencer
Higher Education Funding
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing this debate. Britain has a proud tradition of higher education. Our historic universities, our culture of learning and discovery and the world-class research carried out in this country have earned us a reputation that is recognised around the world. It is an asset that we must celebrate and that we must protect, because that tradition belongs to all of us. Higher education is so much broader than a three-year degree. Higher technical qualifications, foundation degrees, degree apprenticeships and lifelong learning all have a vital role to play alongside academic study. I left school at 16 and built a career as a plumber and gas engineer through vocational training at Bolton college and, later, apprenticeships, including the Prince’s Trust’s brilliant enterprise programme. I raise this because too often the voices of working people, tradespeople and people who maybe did not get on with school or who just prefer steel-toe cap boots to suits are missing from the debates and decisions that shape higher education. In the areas I represent, there is no shortage of ambition or of people willing to graft to make something of themselves, but far too many people struggle, through no fault of their own, to see a clear route into secure, well-paid work and a decent life. A strong and accessible higher education system should be part of that route. That system is clearly now at breaking point. Across the country, higher education institutions are facing a deepening financial crisis, driven by years of under-investment and a funding model that is no longer fit for purpose. Universities, specialist colleges and other higher education providers are grappling with a multibillion-pound funding gap, as tuition fee income and public funding have failed to keep pace with their rising costs. Yesterday, more than 400 students graduated from UCEN Manchester. Many of them were the first in their family to enter higher education, while others were mature learners who had returned to education. Yet providers such as UCEN that specialise in widening participation are increasingly being asked to do more with less, with their funding being steadily eroded. The consequences of that underfunding are already painfully clear: courses closing, experienced staff being forced out and departments having to make severe cuts just to make ends meet. At the same time, working conditions have worsened for all staff members, with growing workloads, stagnant pay and increasing job insecurity. In vocational education, things have got so bad that institutions cannot persuade people to leave industries like plastering to take up teaching the next generation, because the wages are far below what they are already earning. Students are facing exorbitant fees and the prospect of being burdened by decades of debt. If we are serious about equal opportunity, we must recognise that higher education is a long-term investment in our people, in our communities and in our country. The inventions and discoveries made by higher education researchers, like the covid-19 vaccines or the development of famine-resistant crops, have the potential to benefit all of us. The Government face a choice in today’s Budget; they can continue papering over the cracks or they can finally make a long-term investment in Britain’s future. The Green party’s position is clear. Higher education should be free, and students should be provided with adequate maintenance support funded through public investment, not private debt. A 1% tax on wealth above £10 million would raise around £15 billion a year—money that would more than cover the cost of scrapping tuition fees and would give our higher education institutions a vital injection of cash. Higher education policy must focus on spreading opportunity and investment more fairly across the country in areas like Gorton, Denton, Abbey Hey, Burnage, Longsight and Levenshulme. People from those places have never, ever lacked talent or drive. We must stop wasting it, by properly funding higher education and finally recognising learning for the national asset it is.
Hansard source
28 Oct 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Flood Resilience
Not long after my election in 2024, I received an email from a father of three whose home had been flooded for the second time in five years. He wrote: “The increasing uncertainty in the weather caused by global warming only increases the flood risk in the immediacy—and in future, we fear we won’t be able to secure insurance on the property. And we live in constant fear of repeat situations for something that, in theory, can be resolved.” His words stayed with me, because they capture exactly what I hear across North Herefordshire, and what I am sure colleagues hear across the country. Flooding is no longer something that people talk about as a freak event or a piece of bad luck; increasingly, they expect it to happen again. As our climate changes, flooding is becoming something that communities now must plan around. We recently marked Flood Action Week, and I pay huge tribute to everyone, from local volunteers to emergency responders, who worked tirelessly to help communities prepare. But for many, flooding is no longer an occasional emergency; it is becoming a part of life. We have already seen unprecedentedly deadly climate impacts this summer. The climate crisis is no longer a future threat; it is here now, and affecting homes, farms, businesses and critical infrastructure across the country. As we head into winter, scientists are warning that a powerful supercharged El Niño could contribute to much wetter and stormier conditions during parts of this winter. We know that the risks are growing and that the cost of failing to prepare will be borne by our communities.
Hansard source
28 Oct 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Flood Resilience
Absolutely, and that is a point I will return to later in my speech. There is a huge benefit-cost ratio for early investment in flood resilience—it pays back many times over. Let us recognise the scale of the challenge that we face: 6.3 million properties across the UK are already at risk of flooding. The Climate Change Committee estimates that flooding has already cost the UK around £3.3 billion every year and warns that annual damages could increase to about £4.5 billion a year by the middle of the century if we fail to adapt. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has said, it would be much cheaper to invest now to ensure that we are protected against that. The costs are measured not only in pounds, but in the strain placed on families trying to rebuild their lives. The bill for flooding is already here; the question is whether we invest now to reduce those costs or pay far more later.
Hansard source
28 Oct 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Flood Resilience
Once again, the hon. Member’s point is that as we face increasing frequency and severity of floods, existing problems are going to become worse, so we need to invest to protect communities against that. Investment early is going to be cheaper than paying the costs in the long run.
Hansard source
28 Oct 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Flood Resilience
The hon. Member makes an excellent point that I was about to make myself. Natural flood management has got to be a core element of our response to flood risk. I have met families who have gone through the ordeal of seeing their homes flooded time and again. I have met farmers who have watched valuable topsoil disappear from fields that they have worked for decades. I have met parents whose children cannot get to school because roads have become impassable. I have met business owners wondering how they will cope when the next storm comes. For all of those people, flood resilience is not an abstract issue; it is about whether they can live, work, study and plan with confidence.
Hansard source
28 Oct 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Flood Resilience
The hon. Gentleman’s point about co-ordination between agencies is absolutely crucial; it is another point that I will be coming to in my speech. This is an issue that crosses boundaries, because river catchments do not respect administrative or sectoral boundaries. We need to have a fully joined-up approach. Herefordians know what severe flooding looks like. In 2020, Herefordshire experienced the worst flooding in more than 200 years of recorded history. Storm Dennis was absolutely devastating for many families and businesses. Six years on, residents tell me that it is not only the severity of flooding that worries them, but the frequency. The Minister may remember that I raised this issue basically every single month of my first few months in this Chamber because we were facing floods that frequently. Communities that have barely recovered from one flood are increasingly finding themselves preparing for the next. I hope that the Minister will be able to set out today exactly what action the Government are taking to better prevent, prepare for and respond to flooding. Flooding means different things in different places. In Lyonshall, in my constituency, it means the worry that a new development may not have been built with the infrastructure needed to manage water safely. In Eardisland it means anxiety about whether support will be available when the next flood comes. One issue repeatedly raised with me by residents in Eardisland is the flood recovery framework. Following Storm Bert in late 2024, I attended a public meeting with more than 100 local residents—as ever, the people closest to the problem already knew what needed to be done. After those conversations, I wrote to Ministers to ask whether responsibility for activating the flood recovery framework should rest more with local authorities. From the perspective of someone whose home is flooded, distinctions about national thresholds make very little sense. Local people and local councils understand the impacts better than anyone else.
Hansard source
28 Oct 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Flood Resilience
I am always in favour of Government making it easier for local authorities to unlock funding, as well as Government providing more funding to enable the good things, like natural flood management, to happen. To finish my point on the flood recovery framework, will the Minister look again at whether local authorities should have a greater role in activating support under that framework. Many of the flooding incidents that affect my constituency are caused not by rivers bursting their banks, but by heavy rainfall overwhelming surface drainage systems. As surface water flooding is becoming a greater risk, our planning system and development standards must catch up. Many colleagues across the House have called on the Government to commence schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and finally make sustainable drainage systems standard practice. Will the Minister therefore set out whether and when the Government will commence schedule 3 and make sustainable drainage systems standard in new developments? Better planning must also be part of the solution. People understand that new homes are needed, but they expect flood risk to be properly reflected in planning decisions. This is at the core of the Green party’s policy of having the right homes in the right place at the right price. I have seen this in my own constituency, when a constituent from Canon Pyon came to see me in my surgery a while back. They had moved into a new development relatively recently, and their neighbour had been flooded out of their house six weeks after moving in because the surface drainage provisions were inadequate—this was in a newly built development. I raised it with the council subsequently. This just highlights that we must integrate flood resilience into development, because we cannot be building developments that are going to flood so shortly after they are built. We need to have it much more clearly specified in the planning process and have much clearer follow-up to ensure that conditions placed on planning applications are actually followed through. Flood resilience must also be better integrated into how we manage land. One of the absolutely lovely parts of my job is meeting farmers across North Herefordshire. They understand better than most that all of these strands are interconnected. Soil health affects water retention. Water affects crop yields. What happens upstream affects communities downstream, and what happens on one farm can affect flood risk miles away. That is why I am so impressed by schemes such as Wyescapes, which involves farmers working together to hold more water in the landscape to improve soil health, reduce pollution, restore nature and strengthen resilience, including flood resilience, across the whole catchment.
Hansard source
28 Oct 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Flood Resilience
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Government have a crucial role to play in supporting farmers to put in place the measures that are so helpful for our long-term resilience and have many wider community benefits too. This work is key because healthy soils, healthy rivers and resilient landscapes are key to long-term food security. As the National Farmers’ Union points out, 58% of England’s highest quality agricultural land lies within floodplains, underlining the fact that flood resilience is not just an environmental issue but a food security issue. I know many farmers whose land has been at times completely under water, which has devastating impacts on their livelihood. Farmers are increasingly having to manage both floods and drought as part of normal business planning. They want to be part of the solution, but they need the certainty and support to make long-term investments in managing water, improving soil health and restoring nature. Indeed, I met with the Herefordshire Rural Hub to discuss the local farmers’ water action group, which is looking exactly at how they can manage having excess water in the winter and not enough water in the summer, and connecting those two together to support our communities. When farmers hold on to water on their land to protect homes and infrastructure downstream, they are providing a much wider public benefit. Does the Minister agree that farmers who help to reduce flood risk in this way should be properly recognised and fairly rewarded for the role they play? More broadly, we need to invest much more in natural flood management, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) said. Restoring wetland, improving soil health, reconnecting rivers with their floodplains, planting trees, restoring hedgerows—all these things help to slow the flow of water through the landscape. Every drop of water held upstream is a drop that does not have to be managed in an emergency downstream. As has been noted, rivers do not recognise administrative boundaries, and neither does floodwater. What happens upstream affects communities downstream, often many miles away, so what are the Government doing to improve co-ordination and co-operation between local authorities, farmers, the drainage boards, regulators and water companies across the whole catchment? Flooding and drought are two sides of the same coin. I welcome the establishment of the new flood and drought resilience taskforce, which is currently looking at community engagement, water resilience and property flood resilience. Let me pay tribute to Flood Mary—one of my constituents—who has played a crucial role over many years in encouraging the adoption of property flood resilience. The test for me is how the work of the flood and drought resilience taskforce will translate into practical action on the ground for communities such as those in North Herefordshire. Met Office data shows that the winter of 2025-26 was the eighth wettest in England since records began, yet by August this year 71% of England had entered drought status. These are the extremes of flood and drought writ large, in our faces right now. It perfectly illustrates why flooding and drought can no longer be treated as separate challenges. What plans do the Government have to increase water storage, including new reservoirs, so that excess winter water can help tackle flooding while also improving resilience to summer droughts? The case for action is overwhelming. Flooding threatens homes, food production, local economies and the long-term viability of communities. We know that investing now is far cheaper than paying for the damage later. In fact, the Climate Change Committee estimates benefit-cost ratios of 3:1 to 5:1 for natural flood management, 5:1 for property flood resilience, and 5:1 for other approaches to flood risk management. This is great value for money and a fantastic return on investment. We know what works: better planning, better maintenance, stronger protection for homes, support for farmers and approaches that work with nature rather than against it. Indeed, I saw lots of that in action when I visited the Netherlands a couple of years ago with the Environmental Audit Committee. What was striking is that there they work out what needs to be done to protect communities, what the most cost-effective investments are and then how they are going to mobilise the funding. But in this country we seem to fight with the Treasury for a little pot of money, with everybody having to get their elbows out to engage in a bunfight about what resources can be secured for different places. We need a much more holistic approach. That requires more investment up front, but it will pay back many times over.
Hansard source
28 Oct 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Flood Resilience
I am sorry, but I am going to finish as we are short of time. The responsibility of Government is not simply to respond to flooding after it happens, but to build the resilience our communities will need in a rapidly warming climate. The question is whether the Government are ready to act at the scale that the challenge of flood resilience demands.
Hansard source
28 Oct 2026ParliamentAdrian Ramsay
Flood Resilience
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. In constituencies that are vulnerable to flooding, such as Waveney Valley, farmers are indeed essential to managing water in a way that stores it on land and protects communities downstream. Countryside stewardship higher tier payments fund the work that creates wetlands, restores floodplains and plants woodland, but agreements are slow to reach farmers who are ready to mobilise, delaying essential work ahead of periods of heightened flood risk. Does my hon. Friend agree that DEFRA must properly resource both the budgets and capacity of Natural England and the Rural Payments Agency so that we can expand higher tier faster?
Hansard source
27 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eleventh sitting)
I rise to oppose clause 36. I believe that the roots of the plan lie in the previous Prime Minister’s Administration, and the fact that the clause will affect and harm so many victims and survivors of modern slavery in the face of so few actual cases reflects and results from the awfulness of the rhetoric around migration in recent years, on which the Government have joined in. The British Medical Association made that point in its written evidence to the Committee. It said: “We are also concerned by the rise in anti-migrant rhetoric in the UK. Public debate on immigration and asylum has too often relied on misinformation, alarmist language and unfair scapegoating of migrant communities. Sections of the media and some politicians have played a significant role in shaping and amplifying this hostile framing. For example, language used by the then Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, when launching the Immigration White Paper”. It was referring there to the “island of strangers” speech. The BMA also said: “the Government and others since, has contributed to racist and xenophobic narratives…This hostile climate has real consequences. International healthcare workers, including doctors and nurses, have reported rising racist abuse and discrimination, both in workplaces and in the wider community. A recent RCN survey showed a 55% increase in racist incidents experienced by nursing staff in the last three years. The real figures are likely to be much higher”. That is the background to the Bill and I absolutely believe that clause 36 needs to be removed. The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner is utterly opposed to the clause being included in the Bill and has brought many victims’ voices into the evidence we have received. Clause 36 requires those deciding whether an individual should receive modern slavery support to regard the following factors as damaging to a person’s credibility: delays in making a modern slavery claim; delays in providing relevant information; significant inaccuracies, inconsistencies or omissions in the information provided; inconsistencies between a modern slavery claim and other protection, human rights or civil or criminal proceedings; and striking similarities between one person’s claim and another person’s claim or related legal proceedings. The Home Office has said these factors will not apply where there is a “good reason”, and Ministers lean heavily on that in the human rights memorandum and say that decision makers must “assess all evidence fairly” and exercise “powers reasonably”. However, Ministers have yet to define for us what a “good reason” is. The clause introduces vagueness and an automatic duty to doubt victims into law, while the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 already has clauses that would enable further questions and deadlines to be put to victims where credibility is genuinely in doubt. Treating all survivors this way—mandating detrimental treatment for any late claim—is a massively traumatic response to a tiny issue by any measure. There is no evidence of widespread misuse. The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner told us that in oral evidence. She said: “Of the flights that did not go ahead in 2025 after 3 pm, that is less than 1% of the number of potential victims of modern slavery whom we identified in the UK last year.” ––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 6.] We were also told that in 2025, 180 referrals were made after 3 pm on the day before an arranged return. That is all there were; these are really small numbers. We also heard that in the national referral mechanism as a whole, only six potential victims were disqualified on bad faith grounds, and only 224 in total were disqualified on any ground, public order or bad faith combined, which is again under 1% of all referrals. The director general of the Office for Statistics Regulation has, in contrast, sent a reprimand letter to the Home Office expressing concerns around its claims that people are gaming the modern slavery system. He said the office does not have any evidence to confirm those claims and reprimanded the previous Home Secretary for failing to back up public statements with evidence. There is a lack of further background in relation to how long since their arrival people were removed. It does not offer a breakdown of the other reasons why someone may not have been removed, so even the data that the Minister is quoting at us is not reliable. The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner also points out the vital issue that people cannot self-refer. In written evidence that we received from Professor Parosha Chandran via Unseen UK, she says that the overall approach of adding all these reasons to doubt to the legislation is legally wrong. She says: “It creates a statutory adverse inference from precisely the features that frequently arise in trafficking and modern slavery cases: delayed disclosure, partial disclosure, inconsistent accounts, inaccurate accounts, gaps in memory, fear, shame, mistrust of authorities…and inability to recognise oneself as a victim.” The Bill’s explanatory notes give this away. Professor Chandran says: “They reveal that Clause 36 is intended to close what the Government characterises as opportunities for immigration misuse”, based on poor data, as we have just seen. She says: “That is an immigration-control rationale, not a victim-identification rationale.” Can the Government really justify mixing up these motivations at such detriment to the wider population of victims beyond the tiny number of examples of abuse that they have talked about? I think this is a very important objection that we have received from many groups. The clause will apply to all victims of trafficking and exploitation, including children and UK nationals. It will include doubting young women who have been sexually exploited, children involved in county lines, and older people and disabled people who are cuckooed in their homes. Survivors across the board are calling for the clause to be removed. In the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner’s briefing to us, she quoted participants in her recent summit, which had representatives from 15 lived experience advisory panels. They said: “Trauma affects memory, behaviour and disclosure. Trauma shapes communication, memory and presentation of information. It leads to inconsistencies, gaps in memory, delayed disclosure, or confused details. These are typical trauma responses, not signs of dishonesty. Disclosure happens once trust and safety are established, which takes time: ‘becoming safe’ is different from ‘feeling safe.’ Fear of authorities and consequences, fear of deportation, imprisonment, or loss of support can lead to delay and inconsistency when recounting experiences. Mistrust of authorities compounds this, and traffickers exploit legal knowledge as a scare tactic and threaten victims with this information. Threats to survivors or their families and emotional ties to traffickers create powerful barriers to speaking out. It takes time for someone to feel safe enough to disclose their experience.” A spokesperson for No One Above, which represents survivors linked to Mohammed al-Fayed, said: “For many survivors of Mohamed Al Fayed, it has taken years or even decades to speak about what happened to them. The fact that somebody did not disclose their exploitation at the time does not make their experience less real. Survivors can face fear, shame, trauma and enormous power imbalances, while the institutions around them may completely fail to recognise what is happening. We are deeply concerned that these changes will make it even harder for survivors to be believed and get the support they need simply because they were not able to come forward sooner.” Via the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, we also have evidence from Sosa Henkoma, a survivor of child criminal exploitation. He said: “I was eleven years old when I was first exploited by a gang. I didn’t know I was a victim—I was a child. When I was twelve, I tried to tell social services what was happening, I was called a fantasist.” The Bill will create the conditions for more children like Sosa to be treated like fantasists. Clause 36 is not trauma informed, and will cause incredible harm. We should also listen to the people who are actually facing immigration enforcement, as those victims matter too, and the clause harms victims of trafficking and exploitation more widely. The Gatwick detainees self-advocacy group says: “When people arrive, like with any serious trouble people have, people are exhausted. They can’t go into these things straight away—they don’t trust the home office or the police. It is really hard to talk about these things because you don’t know what it might bring you—it might bring you trouble as well.” In recent years, the Government have made good progress on violence against women and girls and on modern slavery, but clause 36 is completely contrary to very recent Government promises to believe and support survivors. The VAWG strategy, “Freedom from violence and abuse”, which was published in December 2025, acknowledges that victims are “more likely to struggle to engage with support due to trauma and negative previous experiences with services.” It says: “We also recognise how immigration status can affect victims of VAWG and that many migrant and asylum-seeking victims will not come forward to report abuse out of fear about their future.” How does the Bill fulfil the pledges in that Government strategy? Importantly, the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association said in its written evidence that clause 36 is “inverting the trauma-informed approach that Article 13 of the European Convention Against Trafficking in Human Beings” requires. Government Members will not have received these briefings, as the organisation working on this campaign, Freedom United, decided that it was only worth asking me and the two Liberal Democrat Members on the Committee. That is really sad. We have received nearly 700 emails from people and member groups who are really worried about this. They ask us to guarantee that survivors of modern slavery are believed and supported, not penalised for their trauma. I urge the Government to listen to the victims’ voices that we have heard, listen to the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner and think again about clause 36.
Hansard source
27 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Will the Minister give way?
Hansard source
27 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eleventh sitting)
This is a useful debate, because the Minister’s points are speaking to the operational nature of this. I hope she will go away and reflect on the wider harm that will be caused by adding this to all victims, in response to what is an operational decision. She is very much relying on that, rather than on our obligations under human rights law and the nature of why late referrals may occur in those circumstances.
Hansard source
27 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Will the Minister give way on that specific point?
Hansard source
27 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eleventh sitting)
The Minister repeatedly refers to “individuals” making the claim, but people cannot self-refer to the national referral mechanism. A professional is making the judgment that they may be a victim. Will the Minister acknowledge that? These claims of abuse hinge on the belief that individuals are making claims, but they are not.
Hansard source
27 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eleventh sitting)
I also oppose clause 37. Under that clause, survivors who receive a negative decision could be immediately removed from support, which could expose them to destitution, homelessness and an increased risk of further harm and exploitation. Allowing competent authorities to make and serve conclusive grounds decisions during the recovery and reflection period could have a devastating impact on survivors’ wellbeing and recovery. This approach may reduce the amount and quality of evidence available to inform decision making, because survivors may not have sufficient time to understand the process, build trust with support providers or access legal advice. Given the complexity of many cases and the evidential requirements often associated with conclusive grounds decisions—including the need for medical or mental health assessment reports—many individuals may find it difficult to obtain and submit the necessary evidence within such a short timeframe. I believe that there will also be wider impacts on survivors and society—particularly an increase in homelessness, which the Prime Minister is committed to reducing. Clause 37 could result in survivors being exited from support on the same day that they receive a negative decision, which would clearly put them at a heightened risk of destitution and homelessness. A negative decision notwithstanding, anyone in the national referral mechanism was referred by a first responder who identified trafficking indicators. Those indicators suggested the need for appropriate support to prevent the individual’s situation from deteriorating, whether or not they met the threshold for identification as trafficked at the point of referral. Additionally, instructing decision makers to decide at any point in the recovery and reflection period means that survivors may be expected to provide far too much relevant information about their case far too quickly after being rescued or escaping a situation of exploitation. Those decisions may be rushed; there may be political or administrative pressure on decision makers to rush processes so that decisions are made more quickly and support can be withdrawn. The overturning data is very instructive on that point. I agree that the quality of decisions matters more than speed. Clause 37 is very risky in its potential to do harm. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association suggested in evidence that if clause 37 is retained, a further short 30-day period of support should be provided, to avoid the cliff edge. No amendment to that effect has been tabled. Does the Minister really intend for people to receive literally nothing after a negative decision, risking homelessness, destitution and re-exploitation? She should bear in mind not the six people disqualified on bad faith grounds, or the small number of people whose cases start while they are under removal plans, but the huge number of potential survivors this will affect right across the country.
Hansard source
27 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)
I wish to speak briefly against clause 38. Public order disqualification, in the way it has been applied so far, has exacerbated ongoing systemic issues arising from failures in identification and safeguards within the criminal justice system. Available evidence shows that this provision has disproportionately affected individuals subjected to criminal exploitation. As we heard when discussing previous clauses, many survivors of criminal exploitation were forced to commit offences as part of their exploitation. They are often prosecuted for those crimes as a result of gaps in the application of the non-punishment principle in the UK, including defences under section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Those who have criminal convictions are at heightened risk of exploitation, too. The criminalisation of survivors has been used time and again as a tool to control people and keep them in exploitation. The clause is an unnecessary extension of existing harms and should be dropped.
Hansard source
27 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)
My new clause 29 is intended as a replacement for clause 39, being a redrafted version of it. It would give limited leave to remain to all victims of slavery or human trafficking, and prevent such leave being withheld if the Secretary of State believes that a victim’s needs can be met elsewhere. Clause 39 removes the Secretary of State’s duty to grant temporary permission to stay for the purpose of assisting survivors in their recovery from any physical or psychological harm arising from their exploitation. That is currently the most common reason for granting leave to remain of this kind, and 96% of those granted leave to remain as victims of trafficking in 2024 were given it for recovery purposes. Grants of leave continue to be low, however, and are usually for very short periods, leaving survivors at risk. Clearly, removing the duty altogether will reduce grants further and cause harm. Forcibly returning more survivors of trafficking to their countries risks disrupting existing therapy and support, leaving them unable to obtain specialist care and putting them at further risk on return, including of re-trafficking. We must remember the purpose of survivors securing limited leave and, as I propose, long-term immigration status. It provides victims with the security necessary to engage meaningfully with recovery, protection and support processes and to rebuild their lives free from the influence of traffickers. This is the essence of our obligations under international agreements. Insecure immigration status is a well-recognised vulnerability factor that perpetrators frequently exploit to facilitate and maintain survivors’ exploitation, using the threat of immigration enforcement, detention or removal as a means of control. As my new clause sets out, granting a 60-month residency permit with a pathway to settlement is an essential safeguard in addressing these vulnerabilities, freeing people from exploitation, bringing perpetrators to justice and providing meaningful protection and support to victims, while supporting their reintegration into society and rebuilding their independence. It is so important that survivors have this alternative route to leave to remain. The Minister has talked about other options for people within the immigration system, but there are examples of migrant victims of human trafficking or modern slavery with a valid skilled worker visa who have been denied VTS leave on those grounds. That meant that those victims could be tied to their exploiters due to their visas, including those co-operating with the authorities to prosecute their exploiters. Following legal challenge in August 2026, the Home Office conceded that discretion can be exercised when considering whether or not to grant VTS leave to someone with a valid skilled worker visa. From what the Minister has said today, clause 39 seems to be reversing that. We know now that the concession is applied only on a discretionary basis, and is therefore susceptible to a range of variables. The need for a duty to grant long-term leave to victims remains critical in providing recovery, protection and support for survivors and in preventing trafficking and modern slavery going further. The Government, as well as providing no rationale for the scrapping of VTS leave, have not provided any data showing how many survivors of trafficking are granted leave by other routes. If the Government press ahead with this measure, they should provide further evidence and detail on how these rights will still be protected under the clause.
Hansard source
27 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)
I asked in my speech not about people claiming asylum but about those here under other forms of immigration status. Does the Minister not see the replacement of those with VTS leave being reduced as a result of clause 39? That is one of the problems that I wanted to raise. When people are here under potentially coercive forms of leave, such as sponsored work visas, will VTS leave still be available as a replacement to prevent people being left in the hands of exploiters?
Hansard source
27 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)
I beg to move amendment 70, in clause 43, page 45, line 1, leave out subsection (3). This amendment would remove the provision which enables the Secretary of State to override an assessment that a potential victim of slavery or trafficking requires assistance and support.
Hansard source
27 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)
It is my view and that of a wide range of refugee and modern slavery organisations that clause 43, particularly subsection (3), is incompatible with article 12 of the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, which puts a duty on state parties to afford support to survivors of modern slavery in receipt of a reasonable grounds decision. The removal of the duty to provide support will put adults, children and young people at risk of destitution, homelessness and further harm, as we have discussed in relation to previous clauses. We know that trauma can manifest in a wide range of ways and may significantly affect an individual’s ability to engage consistently with support services or comply with procedural requirements. Penalising people for such difficulties fails to take account of the realities of trauma and recovery and, again, creates detriment from a known feature of abuse. Additionally, while we agree that safeguarding and supporting children should be the responsibility of local authorities, they do need to receive adequate resources in order to discharge those duties appropriately and in the best interests of the child. Local authorities do not currently receive any funding to offer specialist support to children affected by trafficking and exploitation, and my amendments to this clause therefore seek both to reduce the harms being caused by it and to boost the support that can be offered to survivors. Amendment 70 would remove subsection (3) and take away the Secretary of State’s power to override professional assessments. Support for the survivors of modern slavery is currently delivered through Government-funded contracts such as the modern slavery victim care contract in England and Wales, and equivalent arrangements across the devolved Administrations. Specialist organisations and trained support workers provide this support directly to survivors and are responsible for carrying out detailed assessments of need. The assessments should be informed by the professional expertise of frontline practitioners and crucially by survivors’ own views and experiences. I believe that support workers and survivors are best placed to identify an individual’s needs, because they are in direct and ongoing contact with the person concerned. It would therefore be harmful for the Secretary of State, who is removed from this direct engagement, to override such assessments without having had contact with the individual or a comparable understanding of their circumstances. Allowing decision makers who are distant from a survivor’s situation to disregard professional assessments risks undermining survivor-centred support and could result in people being discharged from support with outstanding high needs. The Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group has presented further evidence to us on these points, around subsection (3). It says that it “reflects the operational reality of how the MSVCC contract already functions in assessing survivors' needs.” It therefore makes worse what is already bad. At the moment, an MSVCC provider completes a needs assessment and submits it to the Home Office for approval. The Home Office then reviews the assessment and either agrees or disagrees with both the assessment itself and the level of support recommended. It is concerning that this decision maker power, that ultimately rests with the Home Office, will be given directly to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will be even further removed from the care, safeguarding and day-to-day insight available to frontline service providers, and could issue blanket rules or directives in situations of strained resources, for example, that would even more arbitrarily remove support from survivors. The Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group tells us that there is evidence for already ongoing issues with meeting the thresholds required to secure additional support, including for mental health needs. The recovery needs assessment process is highly bureaucratic—individuals are often discharged from support despite having significant unmet needs. If a similar approach is applied to decisions relating to the recovery and reflection period, there is a substantial risk that individuals will be discharged from support while still experiencing high levels of unmet need, exposing them to an increased risk of re-exploitation. In amendment 72, I have asked for assistance to apply to children. While we agree that safeguarding and supporting children should be the responsibility of local authorities, I think it is very important that the Secretary of State retains an overarching duty to ensure that children receive support in line with article 12 of the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings. This would help ensure national accountability for the protection and recovery of child victims of trafficking and not leave it to the piecemeal provisions of local authorities. Maintaining this duty would also ensure that the Secretary of State remains responsible for ensuring that local authorities are adequately resourced, as my next amendment would require. It would be, therefore, an important safeguard to ensure that all children receive the support and assistance to which they are entitled, regardless of where they are located. Amendment 73 would ensure funding for local authorities to support children. We need to make sure that they have adequate resources to discharge their duties in the best interest of children. Currently, local authorities do not receive any specialist support funding for children affected by trafficking and exploitation, but it is essential, as is the mainstream child protection that local authorities provide. The charity, ECPAT, which stands for Every Child Protected Against Trafficking, has told me that not providing dedicated funding to local authorities to meet the ECAT entitlements of children leaves an enormous gap. It says that the Home Office provides local authorities with £143 per child, per night, towards the cost of supporting unaccompanied children, but there is no equivalent funding attached to a child’s identification as a potential victim of trafficking. That responsibility is placed on the existing social care system, which we all know is under substantial financial pressure. I really hope that the Government will listen to that point. A final point in relation to subsection (3) is that all it says is “where the Secretary of State disagrees” —which is incredibly broad. Will the Minister tell us whether the Secretary of State will publish criteria governing when this override power may be used, and will she address the fact that there is currently no defined threshold for displacing an authorised person’s professional assessment by the Home Office? I will not press my amendments to a vote, but I want to see the risks and problems identified by them addressed, either in regulations or in the Bill, before the legislation leaves this House and goes to the other place.
Hansard source
27 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)
My concern is that subsection (3) provides the Home Secretary with a broad, unqualified power to disagree with the assessments that the Minister has just mentioned. Amendment 71 seems to provide a perfectly reasonable set of safeguards against breaching those international obligations. Will the Minister look at providing more detail about the criteria that the Home Secretary would use in future regulation to reassure us?
Hansard source
27 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendments made: 120, in clause 43, page 45, line 9, after “support” insert “of a particular kind”. This amendment and amendments 121 and 122 clarify that where assistance or support of a particular kind would have been available from elsewhere had it not been for the victim’s conduct it is only assistance or support of that particular kind that the Secretary of State will no longer be under a duty to provide. Amendment 121, in clause 43, page 45, line 10, leave out first “the”. See the explanatory statement for amendment 120. Amendment 122, in clause 43, page 45, line 10, after “support” insert “of that kind”. See the explanatory statement for amendment 120. Amendment 123, in clause 43, page 45, line 15, leave out “properly”.—(Anna Turley.) This amendment leaves out an unnecessary word from the inserted subsection (5ZA). Clause 43, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 44 Content of slavery and human trafficking statements Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Hansard source
27 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)
I add my support—for a change in this Committee—to the broad approach taken in this part of the Bill. I realise that the Bill’s scope is narrow, but have the Minister or the Home Secretary had any discussions with colleagues in the Cabinet and other Departments about using these quite creative new reporting requirements—which cover the supply chain and require reasons to be given for not doing things—as a template for use in other areas, such as environmental pollution or other human rights issues? Will the Minister commit the Home Office to taking the learnings from implementing this to other Departments?
Hansard source
27 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Very briefly, although I think this is a good clause because it allows for fines and payments to be made, I want to echo a question asked of us in written evidence by Dame Sara Thornton, the former Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner. Although she describes the clause as a “game changer”, she highlights evidence that there is widespread non-compliance with the current reporting requirements: she provides data showing 194 instances across 160 companies over the past six years. She says that the legislation is “silent on who will enforce these requirements”. At the moment, the clause simply calls this the “enforcement authority” in lowercase letters—it is not yet an official body. It is incredibly important that the issue is resolved properly and that the enforcement body has the teeth, resources and ability to enforce the rules. If this is done properly it will be self-financing, but have the Government any plans to put more detail behind it before the Bill finally becomes law? This seems to me to be a very crucial part of any new powers.
Hansard source
27 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)
I want to raise a few alarm bells in terms of what I feel about this measure, and I hope the Minister can answer me clearly. My misgivings arise partly because the Minister talked about basing the need for the new clause on a single case example; partly because it has been introduced into the Bill at a late stage in our considerations; and partly because it will come into force immediately on Royal Assent. It appears to be a rush, and I am not convinced that it will not have equalities impacts or overlap with the lessons we should have learned from the Windrush scandal. If the Minister can give some more assurance that this has been looked at carefully and not rushed into on the basis of a single case, I would be glad to hear it.
Hansard source
27 Oct 2026ParliamentHannah Spencer
Cask Ale: Intangible Cultural Heritage
For the record, I do quite like an after-work pint. Constituents I represent run the fantastic independent Courier Brewing Co., and they make cask ale because they love it, but rising business costs and big international breweries dominate markets and make it harder for them to carry on. A pint of cask ale is a huge part of our heritage—as British as fish and chips. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that protecting it requires urgent action, such as giving pub tenants the right to request an independent beer on tap, like in Scotland? That will not solve everything, but it is a start.
Hansard source

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

Young People and Work: Milburn Interim Report

Budget Resolutions

Immigration: Earned Settlement

Topical Questions

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Higher Education Funding

Flood Resilience

Flood Resilience

Flood Resilience

Flood Resilience

Flood Resilience

Flood Resilience

Flood Resilience

Flood Resilience

Flood Resilience

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Cask Ale: Intangible Cultural Heritage