Pete Wishart MP: speeches

Speeches

• 7 Sept 2026 · Dover and Portsmouth: Protests · Hansard source

  More

  The sight of massed far-right thugs causing mayhem and disruption on the English south coast was as nauseating as it was frightening, and it was so reminiscent of a dark period in our history that we thought was long behind us. Does the Minister agree that the growth of the far right is the most dangerous development in our politics, and if so, when will the Government start to take it seriously? There were no arrests at all over the weekend, and there is no real challenge to the disinformation that the far right puts out to all our communities to cause this disruption and division. When will this Government stop pandering to this right-wing agenda?

• 3 Sept 2026 · Sporting Events Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely—I think we all appreciate the efforts that are being made to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom are promoted adequately. I am sure that, like me, the hon. Gentleman will be watching very carefully to see that Scotland gets promoted in events in the future. I think it is fair to say that nothing enthuses and unites the whole of the UK more than sporting success and seeing people who are representing our nations become prized athletes winning medals. It was great to see that happening in the last few months in both the European championship and the Commonwealth games. We even got to the world cup this year for the first time in 28 years! The tartan army charmed all of Boston and Miami with its usual antics, which thrilled, excited and impressed so many of our American colleagues. Unfortunately, that did not translate to activities on the football field—I will leave it at that—but it was a huge unifying force. The hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker) is quite right that it united all of us, whatever our political persuasion and whatever side of constitutional debates we are on, in support of our national side. As the Secretary of State referenced, this year Scotland stepped in at the last moment to host the Commonwealth games in Glasgow. I will not go over the reasons for that, but we should all be grateful that Glasgow did what Glasgow does, which is to step in at the last moment. I think we can safely say that Glasgow rescued the Commonwealth games. I think the model that was adopted in Glasgow for what was described as a more scaled-down version of the games will be the blueprint, and I have heard other nations that are interested in bidding in the future saying that they will look closely at that model. The Commonwealth games were an overwhelming success and perfectly showcased Glasgow, while allowing Scots and those from the rest of the UK to see at first hand a range of sports that caught the imagination, including sports that we might not normally watch, which is only available with the Commonwealth games. Where Glasgow stepped up to host the games, the BBC most definitely did not. This was the first Commonwealth games in 72 years that the BBC did not fully cover, and that was because it offered what could only be described as a derisory bid for the rights, which it lost to the subscription service TNT. Because that is a subscription service, people had to pay to watch the games, and many sporting fans lost the opportunity to follow the games. That was so bad. If we contrast that with the European athletics championships only a few weeks later in Birmingham, the BBC appropriately bid, secured the rights and even went as far as to change its week’s scheduling so that people could see the games. In Scotland, we feel that we lost out a little bit there. I hope the Secretary of State will raise that with the BBC, to find out why that was allowed to happen and ensure that it never happens again. Wherever the games are held, the BBC should be covering something as significant and popular as the Commonwealth games. Although there is no provision in the Bill about broadcasting rights, I support some of the things that have been said about free-to-air coverage of what we call the crown jewels of events. We in Scotland lost free-to-air coverage of the national men’s football team’s games for something like six years—we went without any opportunity to see those games for free, like everybody else across the United Kingdom, which meant that a lot of fans could not follow our national team. That has now been put right, and we were able to see the Scotland games and qualifiers on the BBC, but we have to ensure that everybody has the right to see the national men’s football team qualifying and appearing in major championships. I want to spend a few minutes focusing on the clauses that relate to ticket touting. For the many of us who care passionately about live music and the whole music fan experience, this Bill feels like a little bit of a disappointment. It is a lost opportunity to ensure that the scourge of ticket touting is tackled right across the sporting and entertainment environment. We are grateful that the Government are tackling ticket touting at sports events, but music fans have been let down by what they see as a lack of action on this issue. Although the Government are prepared to act on behalf of the sports sector, music fans will again have to wait before having their issues properly resolved. Clauses 5 and 6 are good clauses, and they set out regulations on ticket touting for sporting events. This fast-tracked, heavy-duty legislation goes further than what the live music sector is asking for, as it makes all unauthorised ticket resale a criminal offence for major sporting events, full stop. The Government have rightly recognised the urgency, found parliamentary time and the necessary legislation, and acted decisively to shield sports fans and official sports rights holders—and quite right too, but surely music fans deserve the same attention. The millions of people who form the backbone of our world-leading £8 billion music industry are to remain exposed to the touts, spivs and profiteers. For music, the Government have offered the promise of a draft ticket tout ban Bill. But let us be clear: until we see the draft Bill and work starts on it, it is pretty much just an aspiration, and it exposes the issue to a host of pre-legislative scrutiny, consultations, delays, and a long and winding road through this House. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State’s response when I intervened on her, and I think I heard her say that action was going to be imminent, and that we would see something relating to music quickly. I really hope that is the case, because music fans are having to pay through the nose to see their favourite bands, and it is costing something like £145 million a year according to the sector. The UK music industry is asking not for a total ban on resale; it is asking for a resale price cap that prohibits someone from reselling a ticket for more than the original cost, with service fee limits to ensure that the price cap cannot be undermined by inflated fees or hidden charges placed on consumers, and with volume limits to make it unlawful for someone to buy more tickets for an event than one individual is permitted to buy on the primary market. We have heard the Secretary of State say this before, and the Government roughly support all those endeavours and issues, but now we need to get it done—please. What we have is great for sports—I think everybody welcomes this, and I am sure it will go a long way to ensuring that sports fans are protected—but we need the same type of action and legislation for music fans. I do not want to end on a sour note, although I think the Secretary of State would expect me to say these things to her. I am encouraged by what she has said; as we go forward, let us all work together and get this issue fixed for music too.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Sporting Events Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  It is great that sport is going to be protected from the ticket touts, but as the Secretary of State said, all that music and live entertainment is getting is a draft Bill, which seems very much like a delaying tactic—putting it in the long grass. Will she give a guarantee that we will see that Bill, and that it will be introduced over this next Session of Parliament?

• 3 Sept 2026 · Sporting Events Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman just came into the Chamber, but given that we probably have the necessary time, I will give way to him.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Sporting Events Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Without wanting to make this some sort of grand, “Kumbaya” and “let’s all hold hands” moment, I also very much support the Bill. I am pretty certain that the Secretary of State will secure the necessary legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament, given the devolved nature of so much of what is included. She will get very few opportunities to have such buy-in from everybody here, so I hope she enjoys that moment. I can say with a great deal of confidence that it will not last all that long. It is surely in everybody’s interests to create a legislative approach that can better equip the UK to attract and deliver the biggest international sporting events. We are fortunate in the UK because we have a great global reputation for being able to produce those events. We have put on some stunning sporting events throughout the decades, and we will be able to build on that with this legislation. This Bill will hopefully bolster that reputation and ensure that we are one of the top contenders for major international sporting events in the future.

• 2 Sept 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  I can assure the hon. Gentleman within a second that I am all for independence—but not for the bizarre notion that keeps on coming up that membership of the European Union means automatically losing independence. Tell that to the French, the Germans, the Italians or any of the other members of the European Union, who as far as I am concerned pretty much enjoy their own independence. That is what we want to do in Scotland. In the 10 years since the Brexit referendum, we have had seven Prime Ministers. Even a new Labour Government with a majority of 172 have not been immune from the instability of the Brexit era, barely making it to the two-year mark before they had to replace their first Prime Minister. Let us turn first to the economy. I am grateful, as always, to the House of Commons Library, which produced an excellent briefing for this debate. I really encourage colleagues to have a look at it. It is remarkably clear about the broad economic evidence. There is now substantial and significant consensus that the UK economy is smaller than it would have been had we remained in the European Union.

• 2 Sept 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to have a couple of minutes to sum up what has been an excellent debate with some fantastic contributions. I secured this debate because I could not believe that in June this year, no one made any attempt to even recognise the fact that we had left the European Union 10 years ago. There was no carrying of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) down the Mall in ticker-tape processions. There was nothing in the way of celebration or even to mark the event. I found that a bit unusual, which is why I secured the debate. I am pleased that I did, because we have heard some pretty scary things today. There were two words that came out loud and clear from practically every contribution: unmitigated disaster. That is the conclusion that any sane and rational person would have to make when they look at what has happened in the 10 years since we left the European Union. I listened carefully to my Conservative colleagues talk about the history of all this. They do not seem to be able to accept the forecasts that are clearly laid out in the House of Commons Library briefing. Maybe we have the wrong type of Brexit, the wrong type of Government, the wrong type of deal or the wrong type of House of Commons Library. I do not know what their real issue is, but they fail to accept and recognise that there has not been even a mixed response. It was quite alarming that the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), who spoke for the official Opposition, could not even acknowledge that there have been difficulties over the past 10 years. My last word to the Government is that, yes, they can make progress, and we are all keen to support them in trying to improve the relationship with the European Union, but unless they are prepared to consider rejoining the European Union, which is what the vast majority of the people of this country want, I am afraid they will not be able to make much progress. It will just be more tinkering and making slight progress at the very edges of a very clear and distinct problem. I urge the Government to have a look at the benefits of rejoining the EU, even through some sort of examination or inquiry about what it could do. It is not good enough to just blithely say that we are not looking at it and we are sticking to our red lines, and it is not what the people of the country want. They want to be back in the European Union—a sensible place to be—and to end the unmitigated disaster that we have experienced in the last 10 years. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the impact of the 2016 EU membership referendum on the UK.

• 2 Sept 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of the 2016 EU membership referendum on the UK. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this morning, Ms Butler. May I also congratulate myself on securing this debate? It came as a bit of a surprise to me. I thought that there would be an overwhelming clamour to secure a debate to celebrate the 10 years since the Brexit referendum. I thought people would be tripping over themselves to ensure that they could tell us about all the wonderful things that have happened. It would have been an opportunity to go wandering through the sunlit uplands to celebrate the dynamic economic growth and political stability that had been secured, the fact that immigration was under control, and all the wonders of our new-found freedoms. Do you remember, Ms Butler? We were going to have our cake and eat it, we were going to secure the easiest trade deal in history, and of course we were going to take back control. From the lofty heights up there in the sunlit uplands, we could have peered down and admired all the shiny new hospitals that we had managed to build because of the £350 million we had saved weekly from the evil and wicked EU. Perhaps, in a more reflective moment, we could have thought back and wondered why we ever put up with those bendy bananas, the vacuum cleaners that lacked that extra Brexit suction, or EU lightbulbs that would not even light, and about how, thank goodness, the existential threat to the great British sausage had been removed and Brexit had saved us from all the barmy Brussels bureaucrats. There are some anniversaries that we look forward to, such as birthdays and weddings, and some that invite solemn reflection, such as the end of wars, the passing of great men and women, and great historical events. Then, of course, there is the Brexit referendum anniversary, which somehow feels so different from all the other things that we mark. Brexit is a rather extraordinary anniversary to celebrate.

• 2 Sept 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  Most definitely. I thoroughly agree with the hon. Lady. It is hard to think of any sector that has not suffered as a result of our leaving the European Union. She is right to reference the steel sector, although it could be any sector. I am pretty certain that today we will hear quite a lot about how leaving the EU has disastrously impacted so many sectors throughout the United Kingdom. I want to get on to immigration. How do we start to deal with the subject of immigration? It is perhaps the saddest but funniest part of the whole saga. Immigration was supposed to be the one thing that Brexit would fix. That seemed to be the whole point of it: it was about taking back control and stopping uncontrolled immigration. But what did we find? Immigration skyrocketed and reached the extraordinarily high level of 1.47 million in the year to March 2023. Without a doubt, leaving the EU closed the door to EU immigration. Net migration from the EU has been negative since June 2022. The conveyor belt of talent that had been coming to the UK for the best part of the past two decades was stopped. After closing off Europe, we quickly discovered that we actually quite liked having EU people working in all our different sectors, from hospitals to farms, hotels, restaurants, universities, care services, businesses, the City and our creative sector. We all found that we actually needed people from the EU and people quite liked employing them.

• 2 Sept 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  I join the hon. Gentleman overwhelmingly and enthusiastically. He is absolutely right. It is hard to think of a sector that has remained untouched by the fact that we cannot access European talent. It is a problem for hospitality and restaurant businesses in constituencies like mine, and in the City, where many dynamic figures helped build some of the success stories that we see just a few miles from where we are today. Before Brexit, there was barely a small boat sighted in the channel, and now we are told that that is perhaps the single biggest issue that confronts this country. Various Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries have come up with a variety of different wheezes to try to stop those small boats coming to the UK, but all have been hampered because we left the one international agreement that might have dealt with returning some of those people to the European Union. When we left the European Union, we also left the Dublin III regulation—the one thing that might have achieved some of the ambition that people had about stopping small boats. Then there is the irony that Brexit did not just make it harder for Europeans to come here; it made it harder for us to move around Europe, too. British citizens are now third country nationals in their own continent. We can still travel across Europe, of course, but there is now a 90-day limit in a rolling 180-day period. For ordinary holidaymakers who have been away enjoying the sun, that might mean nothing more than the huge queues that we have seen in some airports across Europe—a minor inconvenience, perhaps—but for businesses it means more red tape, more restrictions and more unnecessary difficulties. For those in my former profession—musicians, performers and other creative professionals—it can mean a bewildering collection of different rules about work permits, visas, carnets and documentation. Brexit has been such a destructive and invidious political project that it has even managed to stop the music moving freely. This Labour Government gave a commitment that they would fix that. We are talking about ambitions, so come on, Minister: stop the Brexit imposition on music. Let the music move freely again. Let the current generation of musicians enjoy the opportunities that I had as a musician. Who knows, we might even have the Prime Minister on a European tour if he manages to get it fixed!

• 2 Sept 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  I have been listening very carefully and patiently to the hon. Gentleman, and he refuses to accept the reality. The House of Commons Library did us a great favour by bringing together all the evidence, which clearly suggests that there has been a fall in GDP and in the performance of the UK economy since we left the European Union. Is he credibly standing there and telling this House that there have been no impacts whatsoever of our leaving the EU?

• 2 Sept 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already. Sorry, but lots of people wish to speak. None of the Government’s plans solves the real problem, which is getting back into the EU. The British public are so far ahead of them on this, it is almost unbelievable. Rejoining the EU is by far the most popular option when presented to the British public. According to Ipsos, 58% of voters would back rejoining the bloc, with almost half supporting a new referendum after the next general election. Only 33% think that the UK should stay out. If only the Government had that in their manifesto, they would be an absolute shoo-in to continue in government maybe not just for the next Parliament, but for the one after that. Not everything that has gone wrong in the UK in the last 10 years is down to Brexit—of course not. We have had covid, the war in Ukraine, the energy crisis, inflation and 14 years of the chaotic Tories to help make matters much worse. But Brexit is a slow puncture rather than a spectacular crash, and since 2016 we have had to navigate the increasingly difficult terrain of all these international difficulties with a flat Brexit tyre. Brexit was sold as a moment when we would open our doors and regain our freedom, but all we have done is secure more paperwork. We were told that we would take back control, but immigration has skyrocketed to record levels. We were told that Brexit would free us from Brussels bureaucracy, but we have only created our own UK bureaucracy to deal with leaving the Brussels bureaucracy. Perhaps the best thing that we can do today is remember what was promised and what was achieved. We in Scotland most definitely remember. We remember back in another referendum—the referendum on Scottish independence—being told that the only way to secure Scotland’s EU future was to vote to stay within the UK Union. What happened to that? Brexit has been an utter disaster. It is a shameless project that has made everybody worse off. Let us reflect on that again, and hopefully in 10 years’ time we will be back in the European Union enjoying the prosperity that we deserve.

• 2 Sept 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. We have had this issue for seven or eight years. I remember securing the first urgent question when it was recognised as a problem. We have had a long time to fix it. I see that the Minister is taking notes; one thing he could reassure the House on is that the music will move. Get it moving, because there is no reason why it should be stuck behind the English channel. We are told that all this is happening—and I am afraid to say that we are going to hear it again today—because it is the wrong type of Brexit. Who knew? Apparently, it was the wrong deal. Variously, it was the wrong Government—the wrong everything—but the hard Brexiteers got everything they wanted. They got everything they asked for and more: no customs union, no freedom of movement, no single market, no European court jurisdiction, no EU institutions and no going back. What we have now is not an accidental form of Brexit that just happened to emerge out of the ashes. It was everything that they fought for decades to achieve. The conclusion is that there is no magic Brexit. There is no Brexit where we get all the benefits of membership without the obligations. There is no Brexit where we have frictionless trade without accepting that the rules are necessary for frictionless trade. There is no cake and eating it. Lastly, there is the extraordinary position of this Labour Government. They know that Brexit is an absolute and utter disaster. There is no getting away from it. The evidence is right in front of them. I listened to the Prime Minister yesterday, and he was absolutely right to reference Brexit as one of the biggest issues that has damaged this country in the last 10 years. They know that our relationship with our largest trading partner is fundamentally broken, but they have tied themselves up in knots with these unnecessary and useless red lines. Instead of actually fixing the problem, they continue to tinker around the edges. There is a little veterinary agreement here, a little customs improvement there, a bit of mutual recognition, a bit of youth mobility, a bit of this, a bit of that—a bit of a big fat nothing, because that is what it is. The Government have their reset plans, which I am pretty certain is what the Minister will almost exclusively tell us about, but they are nothing more than the same old tinkering.

• 2 Sept 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed I do. They were almost as ridiculous as the extraordinary claims that were made about what would happen if we left the European Union, from the £350 million saved per week to the claims about bendy bananas and sausages. They were absurd, and the hon. Gentleman is right that it was a poor debate, but he cannot disagree with the evidence from the House of Commons Library and all the major financial institutions that Brexit has been an economic disaster. I do not think anybody could possibly disagree with that basic statement. I will come on to trade, because that is equally important. The OBR assumes that Brexit will ultimately reduce UK imports and exports by around 15% relative to the scenario had we remained in the European Union. Again, that does not mean that our exports have literally fallen by 15%, but the additional barriers created by Brexit mean we trade less than we otherwise would have done. That matters because the European Union is still by far our largest trading partner. In 2025, the EU accounted for 41% of our exports of goods and services and around half of our imports. So much for the idea that we would effortlessly turn our back on Europe and replace all that trade with new deals around the world. Yes, of course, there have been useful, good trade deals with the likes of New Zealand, Australia and India. They have benefits, but they barely touch the sides of the trade relationship we already had with the European Union.

• 2 Sept 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he brings us right up to date in the debate about Brexit. I listened carefully to the Prime Minister yesterday and what he had to say about European Union membership. I want to come on to that because we are at an important juncture. We have new opportunities to go forward, and I hope that this new Labour UK Government make the right choice. I will come to that, so I ask my hon. Friend for his patience, which I know he will be able to supply me with. I want to get back to the economics. It is now estimated that GDP is anything between 2% and 8% lower than if we had remained in the European Union. The Office for Budget Responsibility suggests a 4% reduction in productivity, and Goldman Sachs estimates that the UK economy is around 6% smaller than it would otherwise have been. I want to be clear: that does not mean that Britain suddenly became 8% poorer on the morning of 24 June 2016. Of course, Britain continued to grow, and we have experienced some economic growth. The argument is that the UK has grown less than it otherwise would have done. Brexit was never going to be a spectacular economic crash. If anything, it is more insidious than that. Brexit is more akin to a slow puncture. The economy keeps growing, the car keeps moving forward, but the driving gets tougher as we negotiate in a harsher environment.

• 2 Sept 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  This hon. Member more than agrees with the hon. Lady and thoroughly endorses what she says. It is not just Ynys Môn or Wales; every part of this United Kingdom has been impacted and hurt by this crazy project.

• 2 Sept 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  I will just finish this point. It is 10 years since we embarked on what has turned out to be one of the most self-defeating exercises in political and economic self-harm inflicted in modern political history—a bizarre, destructive and economically illiterate political project that has made everybody in this country so much worse off. On that note, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Science Facilities and Laboratories · Hansard source

  More

  I will now call Alison Hume to move the motion. I hope that anybody seeking to speak has already asked permission from the hon. Member in charge of this debate, as is the convention. There will then be an opportunity for the Minister to respond.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Face-to-Face Banking: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  Before I call the Lib Dem spokesperson, I thank colleagues for their assistance and restraint. We have had 25 Back Benchers in for this debate.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Face-to-Face Banking: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  Order. As everyone can see from looking around the Chamber, this is an exceptionally heavily subscribed debate. We will have to move straight to a two-minute time limit. We shall start with Dr Peter Prinsley.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Independence Referendum · Hansard source

  More

  4. What discussions he has had with the First Minister of Scotland on a second independence referendum.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Independence Referendum · Hansard source

  More

  If these are indeed the last Scottish questions for the Secretary of State, we on these Benches will miss him almost as much as his Scottish Labour colleagues will do. If it is his swansong, when is he going to bring something—anything—to the table to help break this constitutional logjam? It could be an idea, a suggestion or a proposal. Here is a last question for him: if we are in a voluntary Union, which they all say that we are, what is the means for Scotland to leave it?

• 13 Jul 2026 · Death of Ann Widdecombe · Hansard source

  More

  The news about Ann Widdecombe is truly shocking, and it is compounded by the way in which she met her death. The thoughts of the Scottish National party are with her friends and family today. As has been said, Ann was a larger-than-life political figure, liked by people right across this House for her wicked sense of humour and her straight talking. I remember when I inadvertently strayed into a private Conservative event, only to be met by Ann sending me packing. For somebody of her stature, she was a very effective bouncer. There is great interest in this tragic death beyond those with an obvious interest in politics, and there will be temptation to speculate about her death, including among those with more malevolent intent on social media. Will the Home Secretary do everything she can to ensure that the information passed on about this particular case is correct? Will she do everything possible to counter bad bits of misinformation?

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We are at a critical juncture in the whole debate about immigration. Look at what is going on across the UK—things are not good. Such is the noise that a general culture of anti-immigrant sentiment now sweeps this country, leading to whole communities feeling unsafe, demonised and scapegoated. On a weekly basis, we now see disgusting scenes at hotels hosting asylum seekers, vigilantism is on the rise, and people of colour do not feel safe in their own homes. All the time, dangerous misinformation fuels the mood, supported by billionaires and bad actors spreading messages of hate and division. The far right is on the rise—more confident, visible and organised than it has been in decades. The rise of the far right is perhaps the most dangerous political development of recent years. Looking at the situation just now, I would say that, at best, it is 50:50 whether it succeeds or not. That is the context for the introduction of the Bill. The Government continue to think that they can beat the far right and the populists by doing exactly what the anti-immigration right wants them to do: they accept the right’s premise that immigration is bad and negative, and that it must be controlled by ever-increasing restrictive and repressive measures; they join in calls to weaken essential human rights protections and to use force to remove them; and they agree that routes to citizenship should be extended and for payments that cannot be afforded. It is the usual doomed attempts to try and out-Farage Farage. After two years of following this particular logic, the Government’s attempts are almost becoming heroic. People who come to this country seeking refuge from conflict and persecution are not asking for special treatment—they just want to feel safe. I have gone through the Bill hoping to find measures that genuinely address the problems facing the asylum system, and I have spoken to organisations that work daily to support refugees and survivors of trafficking and modern slavery. All are disappointed and concerned because the Bill does not address any of the issues at hand. I thought that when we had a Labour Government, we would see a new and fresh approach to issues around immigration—how disappointed we have all been. At least there are some Labour Back Benchers who are prepared to change the narrative and who want to do something positive when it comes to things like indefinite leave to remain. This is their chance. They will have new leadership within the next week, so they should try and impress upon whoever is going to be leading this country that we cannot go on continuing to do these things again. We are at a critical juncture and we need to change our approach.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On fairness, I understand that some 80 Labour Back Benchers have written to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), asking him to review the Home Secretary’s plans for indefinite leave to remain. Are they likely to be disappointed or encouraged by his response?