Sarah Bool MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Jun 2025 · Smartphones in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  3. If she will take steps to stop the use of smartphones in schools.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Smartphones in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  Schools with a smartphone ban were rated higher by Ofsted, and their students achieved better GCSE results. All the evidence shows the benefit of banning smartphones in schools, but the Government are simply issuing non-statutory guidance and passing the buck. Does the Minister not understand the evidence? Does he need more evidence, or does he not trust the Government to be able to implement a ban on smartphones in schools?

• 16 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. Another private school, Queen Margaret’s school for girls in York, has announced its closure, months after the Carrdus school in my constituency announced its closure. Over 11,000 children have left the private sector in this first year, which is more than three times what the Government expected. Does the Minister believe that the impact assessment of the introduction of VAT on private schools is correct? Will she look again at the flawed case for it?

• 11 Jun 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  It is National Diabetes Week, and as someone living with type 1, as we both are, Mr Speaker, I am more than aware of the serious complications of diabetic ketoacidosis—DKA—which can prove fatal if not caught early enough. A quarter of children are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when in DKA, and that could be avoided with early diagnosis. Will the Prime Minister commit to rolling out a national universal screening programme, as seen in Italy, for type 1?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to my amendments 145 to 147 and to highlight the importance of new clauses 39, 84 and—if I have time—83. My amendments seek to correct a clear oversight in the legislation by extending the energy bill discounts to those who live near energy generation sites, rather than simply to those who live near energy transmission sites. Why is it that those who have pylons built near their homes are compensated, while those who have solar farms—such as the proposed Green Hill development near Grendon, Easton Maudit and Bozeat in my constituency —are not? That arbitrary distinction exposes the Government’s proposals as not only inconsistent, but fundamentally unfair. Such disparities understandably rile residents who must live cheek by jowl with solar farms. By simply extending the energy bills discount, the Government would at least put an arm around those who bear the burden, and would encourage communities to embrace renewables. I encourage the Minister to take that forward, but I will not hold my breath. New clauses 39 and 84 are essential. The number of proposed battery energy storage systems is—if Members will pardon the pun—exploding. They should not be built on higher-quality agricultural land. The Government say repeatedly that food security is national security, but any plans that take agricultural land out of producing food leads the Government and this country down a very dangerous path. We must encourage and incentivise farmers to do exactly that: farm. The Government are creating an either/or situation by allowing battery energy storage systems and solar on higher-quality agricultural land. I urge Members to support these new clauses.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Battery Energy Storage Sites: Safety Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak on the looming crisis facing us in relation to battery energy storage sites. As Members have explained, the sites are beginning to play a larger and larger role in the transition to greener energy sources, but at the moment ideology is winning the day and pragmatism is disappearing. There is over 78 GW of battery capacity that is either operational, awaiting construction having been approved or in the early stages of the planning process. For context, that is enough power to supply nearly 200 million homes at once, which is almost 10 times as many as we have in the UK. One of the 1,100 installations that are proposed but not operational is a battery energy storage site just outside of Grendon in South Northamptonshire. It is part of the wider Green Hill solar farm proposal owned by Island Green Power, and I note the comments from the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on that. This proposal exposes how the Government are asleep at the wheel on this issue. The Green Hill BESS is a massive 500 MW site proposed for the edge of the town, just a few hundred metres from the centre and next to the beautiful Grendon lakes and the River Nene. On the border of a site of special scientific interest, the environmental importance and sensitivity of the site cannot be understated. The proposal is likely to come to the local planning authority eventually, which understandably has virtually zero experience in balancing the risks and benefits of a large-capacity BESS. The Minister for Housing and Planning wrote to me this week after I raised with him several of the significant risks that the site poses to residents and the environment. He said that the current regulatory framework was “appropriate, robust and future-proofed”. The hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) has already alluded to this comment. I am sure all Members will agree that that sounds rather good, but the title of the framework that the Minister spoke so highly of was “Health and Safety Guidance: Guidance for Grid Scale Electrical Energy Storage Systems”. Unfortunately for the Minister, he has exposed exactly what is lacking in our approach to BESSs. Our framework for regulating the design, construction, running and decommissioning of these sites is simply guidance. We have not gripped the potential threats of these sites and attempted to mitigate them. Thankfully, there are examples of where countries have faced up to the need to recognise the threats. The United States is further along the path of rolling out BESSs than the UK. As we have experienced here, they have faced large-scale fires, explosions, environmental concerns and, understandably, a gap in expertise when it comes to the emergency response to the unique challenges. In response, they realised that guidance did not suffice, so they passed, as the Housing and Planning Minister sort of alluded to, an “appropriate, robust and future-proofed” statutory framework that did simple things. It required co-ordination with local fire services during the planning process. It specified minimum distances from residential buildings. It mandated elevation in flood-prone zones, and it enforced the training of the fire departments and first responders to give them the expertise that they need. That framework is prescriptive, yes, but when it comes to the health of members of the public—health threatened by these sites in the ways that Members have articulated—we must be prescriptive. If we are not careful, much like a fire at a battery energy storage site, a fire will be lit that we cannot put out, and it will burn and burn. I ask that the Government immediately pause the roll-out of these sites until a proper regulatory framework is in place.

• 20 May 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to that powerful contribution from the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley). Our thoughts and prayers are with Liv’s family in the Gallery. I truly welcome the provision of better information for victims of crime. It is essential that victims are at the heart of justice. As Baroness Newlove has said in regard to domestic abuse: “Victims and survivors of domestic abuse must be able to trust in our criminal justice system—that it will provide a robust, trauma-informed response that prioritises their safety while holding perpetrators to account.” We must ensure that victims feel not only that they will get justice, but that they can trust the system. We need to restore trust and confidence in our system. I am glad to see that the Bill will bring more victims into the scope of the victim contact scheme. They must be given more information about an offender’s upcoming release and the discharge of licence conditions, and should be notified of key events, such as an offender’s transfer to an open prison. One of my constituents raised with me the case of a domestic abuse survivor who, along with her unborn child, survived an attempted murder by her ex-partner. Although he received an 18-year sentence in 2016, in March this year he was eligible for open prison placement four years early, and that was incredibly distressing. As they often say, perpetrators of domestic abuse know everything about their victims. They know where they live, where they work and where their children go to school. It is terrifying for victims to find that perpetrators are potentially being released early; they cannot prepare for that. I want parole boards involved in the decision to give an open prison placement to a domestic abuse offender, so that we can ensure that victims’ voices are heard. It was said earlier that timely access to justice is key, but confidence is, too, and we must be careful about the language we use. We must ensure that all victims trust our legal system, and I fear that some discussions do more harm than good.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to speak in this debate, and I will focus on three amendments: new clause 9 and amendments 51 and 38. To save time, so that other Members can speak, I will not take interventions. New clause 9, which is in my name, would essentially establish the standard of proof—namely, the degree of certainty and the amount of evidence—required in decision making under this Bill. Let me put that into context. Various standards of proof are used in law. At the very lowest end of the scale is reasonable belief, which is a belief that would be held by an ordinary person in the same circumstances. There is then the civil standard of proof, known as the balance of probabilities, which is sometimes known as the 50% plus one rule, or “more likely than not”. Finally, we have the most serious standard: the “beyond reasonable doubt” test, which applies for criminal cases. That goes further than the balance of probabilities, and requires the person to be sure. Given the lack of clarity and confusion in Committee about whether the test for doctors should be reasonable belief or the balance of probabilities, I have proposed the new clause. As Members will see, it has three parts. Subsection (1) relates to the assessment by the co-ordinating and independent doctor. As Members will see, it has three parts. Subsection (1) relates to the assessment by the co-ordinating and independent doctor. Here I argue that the balance of probabilities test should be used, because it feels perhaps overly punitive to exclude someone from the process at the initial stage if it is more likely than not that they will meet the test, but there are some doubts. However, under subsection (2), when the assisted dying review panel is making its assessment, it must use the “beyond reasonable doubt” test. Given that, at this stage, it will have all the reports from the doctors and professionals, if it is not sure beyond a reasonable doubt, the application should not be approved. That is an essential safeguard. Subsection (3) relates to the moment of supplying the lethal drugs. The doctor is required to satisfy themselves that the person has capacity and a clear, settled and informed wish to end their life, and is not being coerced. At that point, the “balance of probabilities” test does not suffice; it must be “beyond reasonable doubt”—this is life and death. All hon. Members need to ask themselves whether, without this new clause, they are happy with someone being provided with lethal drugs to end their life by our NHS in circumstances where we are not absolutely certain of their intention. I acknowledge, for the record, that the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) has made an objection to the use of “beyond reasonable doubt”, asking whether it is right to apply a criminal standard of proof when a civil standard may be flexible enough. However, I note that in the House of Lords in re B case in 2008, Baroness Hale said, “There are some proceedings, though civil in form, whose nature is such that it is appropriate to apply the criminal standard of proof,” and a subsequent 2012 case affirmed that. If we stay silent and let the assisted dying review panel and the courts try to work out whether they should interpret “satisfied” as meaning satisfied to the civil or criminal standard, it would merely result in numerous litigation battles. On a matter as serious as death, Parliament must provide the clarity needed. Without it, the Bill is simply not safe. The second area I am focusing on is informed consent and complications, through amendment 51 to clause 11. The amendment would impose a duty on assessing doctors to inform individuals seeking an assisted death of any reasonable body of medical or scientific opinion indicating that the prescribed substance carries risks of complications, including pain. Clause 11 requires doctors to explain how the drug is expected to bring about death, and to discuss with the individual what ought to be done in the event of complications. However, it omits a critical element identified by the General Medical Council in its guidance on consent: the obligation to communicate known risks of harm and the uncertainty surrounding those risks. A patient cannot be said to give informed consent if they are not made aware of the full range of potential complications, including pain, distress and the possibility that the drug may not act as expected. The state of Oregon’s most recent data shows that complications were recorded in approximately 3% of cases in 2023, but historical data shows a complication rate of 11%. Since the introduction of the law there, there have been nine recorded incidents of patients regaining consciousness after ingesting the prescribed substances, and time to death has ranged from three minutes to 137 hours—that is, more than five and a half days. Canadian studies indicate that around 5% of oral assisted deaths result in a prolonged and often distressing process. In some instances, medical intervention is required. Evidence also suggests that younger adults, particularly those aged 18 to 24, are more likely to experience extended and unpredictable deaths. Furthermore, not all complications may be outwardly evident. High doses of barbiturates, combined with paralytic agents that suppress all voluntary muscle movement, may result in what outwardly appears to be a calm and peaceful death, but that may conceal considerable psychological suffering. The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) talks about offering choice, but a choice made in the absence of information is not true autonomy; it is abdication. Making a meaningful decision requires the individual to be aware of not only what is intended to happen, but what may plausibly go wrong. In both Oregon and California, legislation explicitly requires that patients be informed of any known risks associated with the medication to be administered, so why would we adopt a lesser standard here? The amendment simply calls for honesty. Finally, but briefly, I also want to add my support for amendment 38, which clarifies that an individual who is not already terminally ill under the definition of clause 2(1) cannot qualify by refusing standard treatment or taking steps to induce a terminal condition. I live with type 1 diabetes, which, for the record, is a progressive illness that cannot be reversed by treatment. This condition is managed—or not, in cases of extreme stress—solely by the individual. I therefore recognise that the amendment is an incredibly important protection. Diabetics face multiple daily injections, and have to think about and monitor everything that they do, 24/7, and they can be at risk of diabetic distress, or even develop disordered eating. That could prove fatal if standard treatments are not accepted. They should never be offered assisted suicide; they could recover with the right support. I have spoken to the hon. Member for Spen Valley about my concern that conditions like diabetes may be caught unintentionally. The amendment would be a step to protect those who may be unable to protect themselves using standard means. Diabetes and anorexia have been a reason for assisted suicide in Oregon, so please be aware of what could happen.

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  In mid-March, in my role as a vice chair of the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, I formed part of the delegation that headed out to Brussels for the assembly meeting ahead of the 19 May summit meeting. While it was a convivial affair, I came away with great concerns about the tone of the conversations and contributions made by Labour Members. While the Prime Minister is on the record as saying, as part of his red lines, that there would be no return to freedom of movement and no rejoining of the customs union or the single market, the assembly would not allow me to include such a statement in the committee’s recommendations that were published. If, as was said, it was implicit, surely it is not controversial to include it as a statement of fact. The tone of the conversations and debates indicated a different direction. The red lines seemed to be drawn in disappearing ink. It very much felt that the leadership and the Members were singing from different hymn sheets, or perhaps the Members belie the Government’s true intentions. If that is the case, the Government should be much clearer with the British public and those in this House about what they are trying to achieve. Going into the summit, the conspiracy of silence cannot continue. Brexit at its heart was about restoring powers to Britain, allowing us sovereignty. Despite the result of the referendum, the goal of Labour Members seems to be to get ever closer to the EU again. Talk of youth opportunities seems innocuous, but Labour Members must explain their terms and be realistic about what that would mean for opening up free movement of people between the European Union and the UK via the back door. We must also be alert to the trade-offs in this debate. I fear that, to secure a veterinary agreement, we will concede on dynamic alignment. The Minister has another opportunity to intervene, should he so wish. Silence once again. I also fear that our fisheries, which were not mentioned once in the Labour manifesto, may be the next sacrificial lamb. The PPA recommendation, which the Conservatives dissented to on the whole, states that the assembly would provide “a signal at or before the Summit that a fair deal on fisheries will be reached, building on current arrangements”, but what does “a fair deal” mean to this Government? If, as a condition for getting an SPS agreement, the French insist on a multi-year agreement that naturally shifts the favour further towards their industry and our Government agree, they will have harmed another community. First, they attack our farmers; now they attack our fishermen. At the PPA meeting, members said that everyone should be clear that this Labour Government are clear in their ambition to reset the relationship with the EU, but I offer a word of warning: we must not betray our fishermen and risk our food security in doing so.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May I associate myself with the comments about the passing of Pope Francis? As a Catholic, I very much appreciate them, and I wish the best to the conclave in selecting our new Pope. As was mentioned earlier, if the current trend continues, more than 1.5% of my constituency will be covered in solar farms. One of my main concerns is about the use of battery energy storage systems, which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) mentioned. Green Hill solar farm in my constituency will have a very large one. They pose a huge risk of fire. Those fires release toxic fumes, and putting them out pollutes the waters and takes days—if the solar panels can ever be put out. I know that there may be a debate on the issue, but I also ask the Leader of the House to speak to the Secretary of State about the severe risks posed by BESS, because applications are being pushed through that create serious risks for our communities.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hair and Beauty Sector: Government Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) for securing this most important debate. When thinking about the debate, I looked up some quotes on hair. My favourite was, “Invest in your hair: it is the crown you never take off.” That is a very true sentiment, although I apologise to the men among us who are perhaps lacking in the hirsute department. Naming no names—they are kings in their own right. Hair is such an integral part of our being and our confidence, and we can appreciate how traumatic it is when people lose their hair while undergoing cancer treatment or suffering from alopecia. We often expect to walk on to our high streets and find a hair and beauty salon that can help to tame our locks or restore our nails, but we cannot take the sector for granted. According to the British Beauty Council and Oxford Economics, the sector contributed £8.541 billion to the UK economy in 2023, supporting the direct employment of more than 224,000 people. I have many excellent hair and beauty salons in South Northamptonshire, but it really pained me when Defern Beauty in Brackley and The Beauty Works in Towcester met me and explained how desperate the position is for the industry. It was heartbreaking to see them explain how their life-long work is being eroded by this Chancellor. After NICs increases and business rate relief changes, they desperately need help. One of their asks is for a review of the VAT position, which would help not only to save businesses and raise revenues for the Exchequer, but also to save apprenticeships. The British Hair Consortium’s February 2025 report explains that as VAT is applied evenly across goods and services, it has a disproportionate burden on labour-intensive industries such as hairdressing and beauty, where 60% of the costs are wages. When they are unable to reclaim the VAT on their primary cost, which is people, there is a distorted market with competition between VAT-registered and non-registered businesses, which incentivises VAT avoidance tactics such as bunching, disaggregation and disguised employment. We should not be surprised by the rise in cash-only salons, and should think carefully about what that means in practice. The consortium is also calling for a mandatory register of all hairdressing professionals. Without a register, VAT avoidance and disguised employment will continue unchecked, costing the Treasury billions while putting responsible businesses at a disadvantage. My businesses pride themselves on taking apprentices and bringing the next generation along, but my fear is that, as the British Hair Consortium believes, apprenticeship starts are set to reach zero by 2027, which contravenes the Government’s objective of reducing inactivity among 18 to 21-year-olds. These businesses simply cannot afford to take on the next generation, which will stifle the industry in the long term. I implore the Government to engage with the industry and take immediate action. Hair is a beautiful form of self-expression. Where will we be left without it?

• 2 Apr 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  Today marks the 43rd anniversary of the start of the war in the Falklands—another key overseas territory. Government Members keep referring to the non-binding advisory judgment as the basis of the Chagos deal. If the Argentinians were to seek a similar judgment against the Falklands, would the Minister cede control?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Autumn Budget 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  The Royal College of General Practitioners in Northern Ireland has said that the hike in national insurance contributions will be catastrophic for GP surgeries. With many practices teetering on the edge, why are Ministers not doing more to talk to their colleagues in the Treasury?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Autumn Budget 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  5. What assessment he has made of the impact of the autumn Budget 2024 on Northern Ireland.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  During the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee, we Conservatives proposed a new clause that would provide a mechanism for a binding annual cap on the number of non-visitor visas issued by the UK. That would have introduced accountability and transparency, but it was voted down decisively by Labour Members. The Government talk tough, but does the Home Secretary not believe that the British public deserve a transparent and honest answer to the question of what the level of migration will be under this Government, rather than the Government’s just blaming us, or saying “lower numbers” on every occasion?

• 20 Mar 2025 · Tourism Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this important debate. The theme of this year’s English Tourism Week is supporting people and places to drive growth, which is a sentiment that I fully support—and not just because it refers to driving and I have the world-famous Silverstone in my constituency. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Tourism brings so much to our areas. As my hon. Friend noted, South Northamptonshire may not have the illuminations of Blackpool, the beaches of St Ives in Cornwall or the famous Giant’s Causeway of County Antrim, but in addition to our racing jewel in the crown, we have the Stoke Bruerne museum alongside the Grand Union canal; Tanks-alot, a tank driving experience in Helmdon; Salcey forest, a medieval royal hunting ground; Wollaston Museum; Towcester Museum; some beautiful grade I listed churches; some gorgeous gardens such as the Evenley Wood garden; and beautiful high streets in Towcester and Brackley, the latter of which hosts the Brackley’s Got Talent summer show and the former a midsummer festival. Visitors do not need to go to my alma mater of Oxford to see history in action. They can go to Sulgrave Manor, a Tudor manor and the ancestral home of George Washington, the first President of the United States of America. It was recently announced that a local visitor economy partnership for Northamptonshire has been approved by the Government and the tourism body VisitEngland. That is great, as it comes in the year in which the wider country of Northamptonshire hosts the women’s rugby world cup and celebrates 75 years of Formula 1, alongside a cultural programme remembering the anniversary of the great fire of Northampton. It is the first step in a long journey to unlock funding and support, and to allow us to compete on the national stage. I applaud the Government’s ambitious strategy to grow inbound tourism to 50 million visits by 2030, but I return to the theme of this week—supporting people and places to drive growth. Many people who run tourism businesses do not feel that support, because they are worried by the Budget announcements on employer national insurance contributions and minimum wage increases, alongside the reduction in business rates. Those policies do not help them to grow. In response, the Government often just cite the £22 billion black hole or 14 years of chaos, but I gently remind them that that is of little comfort to those business owners. Dismissing years of hard work with a slogan, while pushing on with harmful measures, does not do justice to the worries that they are facing. I implore the Minister to speak to the Chancellor ahead of her spring statement next week and ask her to think again about how she can support our employers, grow businesses as they so desperately want to, and hire young workers and give them their first jobs in our local communities. All those things are slipping away under this Government. I want my destinations to continue—unlike Oakwood theme park in Wales, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire mentioned, which has announced its closure, with national insurance a contributing factor. Our tourist destinations are based on not just bricks and mortar, but the very people who run them, and we must remember them in all that we do. During the upcoming Easter recess, I urge Members to support their local pubs, take a day trip to their local tourist attractions, and help to preserve the heart of our local communities.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I send my condolences to the shadow Leader of the House. His father sounds like an incredible man, and I certainly loved playing with my Polly Pocket, so I thank him for that lovely memory this morning. Aplastic anaemia is a life-threatening blood disorder. Although it is rare, it can affect hundreds across the country, but there is no information about it on NHS England’s website. Sadly, the constituent who brought this issue to my attention, Mr Jenkins, has passed away from the condition, but I promised his wife that in his memory, I would continue to raise aplastic anaemia and ensure that it gets listed on the NHS website, as it currently is on NHS Inform in Scotland. In light of NHS England being disbanded, can the Leader of the House raise with Cabinet colleagues the question of how we can ensure that rare conditions are recognised? Those conditions cause great distress and isolation, and I want to make sure that does not happen in the future.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In February, Lucy Manzano of the Dover Port Health Authority came before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and warned that if funding was not confirmed before the new financial year, checks at our borders would stop. With the new financial year fast approaching and another case of foot and mouth in Europe, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government have finally secured that funding, or will we be more at risk in April?

• 20 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have a few points about some of the legal issues around what it would mean if we allowed asylum seekers to work at this point. The Opposition already have concerns about the Employment Rights Bill and the day-one rights that will be accrued, so I wonder in this context how this would actually work. On another level, I wonder about how we would deal with tax that they pay and their national insurance numbers before they have had their asylum claims examined. I see that subsection (2)(a) of the new clause talks about asylum seekers being able to take up a post that is included in the appendix immigration salary list. I wondered whether the hon. Member for Woking had more detail about what that means or entails—forgive me, I am not an expert in that area. I also note that they cannot do any self-employed work or set up a business. Although I can see the principle of what hon. Members were trying to achieve with the new clause, in reality I am not sure that, given how it is drafted, it would get them anywhere near that. I have quite a few concerns about it.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to put on record again the importance of the rule of law. This new clause would essentially allow someone rights when they have entered the country illegally. The rule of law and compliance with the law are fundamental within our system, so I cannot accept the premise that acting illegally should be waived or permitted. We are a country of fairness and there has to be fairness and equality under the law. This provision flies in the face of that. If we make an exception here, no matter how desperate the situation, we set a dangerous precedent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West said, it is a privilege to have British citizenship, and so many people abide by the law. The system proposed by the new clause for those trying to enter the country via illegal routes fundamentally undermines that. We have to be incredibly careful in how we proceed with these things; if something is illegal, the clue is really in the name.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I think that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire implied Professor David Coleman was talking about eugenics in the session. I want to put on record that he was not talking about eugenics and that he is an emeritus professor of demography; I know that was a line of questioning raised by the Minister. I want to put on record that that was not what he was there for. He was there to talk about his work with Migration Watch.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have another question for the Minister. I believe that she said that the true cohort had about 5.7 million applicants, but I wanted to understand more about the numbers of those who would fall under the extra cohort, given that they will be benefiting from rights. Can she give a little more of an explanation as to why the issue has come to light at this point, and was not in the original drafting?

• 13 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman speaks passionately and with a great deal of compassion, which I respect, and I understand his point. However, I return to the point from this side of the Committee, which is that there is a limit to how many people we can look after and help. We also owe a duty to those who have already come into the country, and a duty to our own population, to offer them services. There is currently a real stretch, and I think that, without knowing the details about how many, and where they will come from, we will really struggle.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister says that the professor is a eugenicist, but he actually explained a different relationship. It is important that that is put on record, because it is taking away from his role as emeritus professor for demography.