What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier the shadow Minister may have inadvertently misled the House by stating that for the first time this scheme was changed to operate on a first come, first served basis. That is simply not the case. A first come, first served scheme was set up under the Conservatives. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you advise how the record may be corrected?
Party leaders come and go, as members of some parties know and those of other parties may shortly find out. However, the longest-serving party leader in the UK is standing down. The well-respected Dick Cole, the leader of Mebyon Kernow, the Party for Cornwall, has served his party with distinction for an astonishing 29 years. Will the Leader of the House congratulate Dick on his achievement, and wish him well with the words, “Keslowena ha meur ras”?
We begin with the Select Committee statement. Alex Sobel will speak on the publication of the fourth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, “Human Rights and the Regulation of AI”, HC 160, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement, and call Alex Sobel to respond to these in turn. Questions should be brief and Members may ask only one question each. I call Alex Sobel, chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
There will be a time limit of five minutes for Back-Bench speeches.
11. What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of levels of service by Royal Mail.
Royal Mail has failed to meet Ofcom delivery targets for first-class mail since 2017, yet over that time, Ofcom has allowed the price of a first-class stamp to increase by 166% and has relaxed targets. Royal Mail’s continual failure affects the most vulnerable groups in our society—those who receive letters about hospital appointments, court dates or social security decisions. These are arriving late. Much of the bulk mail lies outside the universal service obligation. Will the Government review both that and Ofcom’s remit, to ensure that Royal Mail provides a timely, affordable service for all post—one that does not prioritise parcels—and that failure is not rewarded?
Earlier this week, as chair of the APPG on tackling loneliness and connected communities, I led a roundtable discussion of youth education and skills development. It is clear that young people face many challenges in this area, but the Workers’ Educational Association has highlighted that about 9 million adults in the UK lack essential skills such as literacy and numeracy. With that in mind, will the Government make a statement on the important role of lifelong learning when it comes to closing this very concerning skills gap?
6. What steps his Department is taking to help increase economic growth.
I welcome the GDP figures that have been published this morning, but if we are serious about growth, we need to ramp up our manufacturing capacity and ensure that GDP growth is matched with jobs growth. Will the Secretary of State therefore consider setting an ambition of 1 million new manufacturing jobs in the next decade, putting reindustrialisation at the heart of the Government’s growth strategy?
We are still in October, and my office is already receiving a great many representations on the antisocial use of fireworks in many of our communities—particularly in Knightswood in Glasgow West. I welcome the Government’s consultation on fireworks, which has recently closed, and I ask Members to note that my private Member’s Bill will have its Second Reading on 4 December—I hope that is in the diary. Can the Leader of the House tell us the timeframe for responding to the consultation, and the plan thereafter? We are too late for this year’s bonfire and fireworks season, but next year we must do better.
As his constituency neighbour, I praise my hon. Friend’s steadfast campaigning on this issue, which began before he was elected to this place. Does he share my concern that the fact it took another court to demand that Jagtar be released on the bail that had already been granted some days before shows how intransigent the Indian authorities are in this case? That gives us all pause for thought. I hope that the improving economic relationship this country now has with India can be part of the leverage that will be used to make the Indian Government do the right thing at last.
12. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the development of place-based business cases.
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, in Cornwall we have a resurgent minerals industry, which can make our country and our communities wealthy once again, but we can only do that if we process what we dig out of the ground. Having strong supply chains is therefore imperative from a national security and a resilience perspective. What steps is the Minister taking, together with No. 10 North, the Treasury and other Departments, to ensure that the key investment case for our area—including the missing midstream, which is battery active material production—will prevent us from having to ship that wealth abroad and will ensure that we create Cornish jobs back home?
As I listened with great interest to the Minister’s statement on our country’s care sector, which has persistent vacancies, I was thinking about the one in six young people in my constituency who are out of employment and not in education. With that in mind, does she agree that building a national care service means that we can improve care for older people but also create rewarding career pathways for young people in my constituency through training and better care in the care sector?
There are environmental consequences caused by the emergence of data centres. There are also overblown claims as to their ability to create large numbers of jobs. The biggest concern, however, is in whose interests they will operate. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that AI works for the people, not just for big tech companies?
I welcome the Government’s move towards a national care service because, as the Minister said in her statement, everybody knows that we will not fix the NHS until we fix social care. But tens of thousands of care workers currently face a change to their immigration status. We should not be changing the rules for those who are already here and making a valuable contribution to both the care sector and our wider society. Does the Minister agree?
I very much welcome the Minister’s statement, and I am glad that the Prime Minister has already committed to a national care service that is free at the point of use—a vital principle that mirrors our NHS. Does the Minister agree that one of the key problems in our current system is our reliance on private providers? Will she explore how we can make the new national care service publicly run, with people who receive care, care workers and unpaid carers co-producing that system?
There is much interest from aerospace companies in the 1950s Blue Streak launch facilities at RAF Spadeadam in my constituency. What assessment has been made of the potential of UK sites for developing heavy-lift rocket testing in the UK, and will the Minister meet me to discuss the potential of Spadeadam?
The Government were absolutely right to redesign the SFI to prioritise smaller farming businesses so that taxpayer money supports more farms. However, in Cumbria, 54% of the land is less favourable, which means that my farmers have to hold more land to get a viable farm, pushing them into window 2. Will the Minister, when he looks at the next SFI, please ensure that it recognises that acreage alone should not determine which window farmers apply in?
Cumberland and Westmorland wrestling is one of my region’s most distinctive sporting and cultural traditions. I am delighted that plans are under way for Carlisle to host the 2027 European championships of the International Federation of Celtic Wrestling. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming this exciting opportunity to showcase a unique UNESCO-recognised living heritage sport? Can he assist me in securing a meeting with the sports Minister to discuss how the Government might support this prestigious international event?
Following on from my friend across the House, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), I and many other colleagues of all parties attended the screening of that brilliant documentary —if I can describe in that way something that was so devastating to watch, as so many women have been harmed by mesh. The right hon. Member has already laid out the details of the Hughes report and asked why we are still waiting for a response. I also encourage colleagues to watch the Maze documentary and to share it as widely as they can. We are at a stalemate on this issue; the Government changed hands after the Hughes report was published, but we are now over two years on. Will the Leader of the House meet me and the right hon. Member to discuss how we can move forward?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker, and to see the Minister, my constituency neighbour, in his place. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this crucial debate. The debt we owe to our country’s unpaid carers is immense. I thank those across Heywood and Middleton North who often balance their caring commitments with a career, family and other responsibilities and somehow manage to ensure that those they care for can live in comfort and dignity. The difference these people make to those they support can never be fully conveyed, but the onus is on us as parliamentarians to stand beside them as, day in, day out, they make someone else their priority. There are millions of people across the country who are doing so right now, and the number is growing as our population ages. Undoubtedly, every Member present will know a constituent, friend or family member with caring responsibilities. Being an unpaid carer, though commendable, can be deeply isolating and lonely. It is therefore crucial that when it gets too much, there is a community and a safety net that can provide comfort and support to our constituents. Earlier in the year, during Carers Week, I met with local carers, staff and volunteers from the Carers’ Hub Rochdale at Queen’s Park in Heywood. They were coming together to meet and support each other—they really are a lovely group of people. I thank Deana, Victoria, Grace, Karen, Sarah and others for their unwavering commitment to the hub and those who rely on it. At one of the group’s regular coffee and chat sessions, they traded stories that could make you laugh and cry, speaking candidly about their struggles, hopes and fears, the truth behind their lives and the loved ones they care for. There were so many similarities in their experiences that bound them together—a community of local heroes who just need a place to come together and take a breath. The hub’s support for carers goes even further, offering personalised one-to-one support, wellbeing assessments, support plans, community connections with local services and friendly community groups for the carer and those being cared for. That is alongside respite services, which provide the opportunity for a short break for a night or two, and social events with opportunities to make new skills, as well as online services, a helpline and a pen pal community. The carers I met back in the summer had some clear priorities for me to raise today, and I hope the Minister will touch on them when he responds to the debate. They felt that the earnings threshold is too rigid, creating cliff edges for working carers, and in many ways does not reflect more nuanced arrangements in relation to their caring responsibilities and their day jobs.
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend; that is a crucial point to make. Many carers are turning down opportunities for advancement and promotion, and that is having a bad effect on the economy as well as themselves. I believe, as do the carers I met recently, that being a carer should not restrict one’s advancement elsewhere. How is the Minister working to ensure that our fantastic carers are encouraged to seize opportunities rather than being dissuaded from doing so? Another area of focus of my conversation with the group was how we can, and must, work towards a more proactive system to identify and recognise carers. This means NHS trusts having robust and systematic processes for identifying carers, with GP records being properly maintained so that individuals can be identified early, connected to support, and have their own wellbeing needs properly addressed. I am pleased that young carers are going to be identified quicker and better supported so that they can stay in education without falling behind at school. I am also pleased that schools are to be held accountable in respect of data on young carers’ attendance, alongside secure information sharing across different services. That is critical to ensure that these youngsters do not fall through the cracks or buckle under the weight of their responsibilities at such a pivotal moment. I am pleased that the Government are so receptive to that idea. Finally, I would like to touch on how we secure high-quality supportive and respite services in every postcode. When carers reach a point where they feel like the walls are closing in—and, in truth, long before they reach that point—flexible respite and replacement care should be available, and should be both reliable and of high quality. Some organisations currently feel they are expected to do more with less with each year that passes. I hope the Minister can speak to that, too. In closing, I express my sincere thanks to the unpaid carers of Heywood and Middleton North and beyond, without whom the lives of so many people across our communities would be much more difficult. The contribution that these individuals make cannot easily be qualified or quantified, but it can and must be recognised. It is our responsibility to ensure that their voices are heard and that we in turn give them a fraction of the support that they provide to those most in need.
I thank my hon. Friend for his strong leadership on this important issue on behalf of his constituent. Many of my Slough constituents and I have watched with deep concern the case of Jagtar Singh Johal. No doubt, the Johal family will be considerably pleased and relieved that Jagtar has been released on bail after nine long years, but they will still feel considerable uncertainty and distress. Does my hon. Friend agree that this matter has gone on for far too long and that it needs to be swiftly resolved, and that the Minister needs to update the House as to what discussions have been had with Indian counterparts to achieve that aim?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this important debate. I also thank Members from across the House for their thoughtful contributions. Addressing me, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex gave a roll call of some of the welcome policy announcements that we have seen already. I know that an appetite is maintained for more, and we will get into that, but it was great to hear recognition of our action plan, of the announcement of a champion for unpaid carers, of the Prime Minister’s relentless historical, current and future focus on social care and a national care service, of the minimum wage link to earnings in this sector and of the increase in allowances. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), joined by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), rightly raised a particular issue. Indeed, I think that, consistently, every single Member in the Chamber made the point that I will distil to the absolute, fundamental need for respite. We understand that too often caring is a relentless duty. It is unending love, and that love is real, but so is the toil and the demand on unpaid carers, whom we are here to speak to and appeal for today. Unpaid carers make an extraordinary contribution to families, communities and our country. They are often the person holding everything together. They provide unwavering support to the person or people they care for, often while balancing employment, education, parenting and their own health needs. This Government are acting now to ensure that unpaid carers receive the right support, at the right time. The cross-Government unpaid carers action plan brings together work from across health, social care, education, employment and the benefits system. It is an improved recognition of unpaid carers that strengthens the way support is offered to help carers reach their full potential and live their own fulfilling lives. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced this summer—to great cheer from those of us in the audience—her intention to appoint an unpaid carers champion who will bring the commitments in the action plan to life and bring our responsibility to bear. Our carers champion will work across Government, the health and social care sector and carers organisations to provide advice and challenge on where we can go further. The Government are making carers more visible, empowering their voices in care planning, joining up services and reducing the practical burdens they face. A new “my carer” section in the NHS app will give carers clearer routes, clearer information and relevant support, and will help to streamline the tasks that they undertake on behalf of the people they care for. [Valerie Vaz in the Chair] Our task is simple: carers have to be recognised as partners in care, with their own needs and ambitions. We understand that caring can affect household finances and a person’s ability to remain in work. The Government raised the carer’s allowance weekly earnings limit by a record amount in April 2025 and again in 2026-27. A public consultation on employment rights for unpaid carers and parents of seriously ill children closed on 1 September. We expect to conclude the review this winter with a full consultation, and we will respond to it with findings and a road map for potential reforms. Members rightly raised the availability of practical support, including short breaks and respite—every Member referred to the need for that. A postcode lottery occurs too frequently. I am sorry to say that, because of the legacy of the last Government, that will take some time to rectify, but we are making progress in redressing the patchiness of public services left by the last lot. This Government have brought in the better care fund, which provides a framework of more than £9 billion for integrated care boards, in a bid to patch up the patchiness left by the last Government. We speak frequently in this Chamber and the main Chamber about the need to ensure a universal service. It is for us as MPs as well as for the Government to ensure that there is better joined-up care and that funding can be used for carer support and respite, including short breaks and the peer support that we know is needed. A fellow champion of carers—the heavyweight champion of Harlow, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince)—made the interesting point that there should be a young carers lead in all schools. I have been a school governor. The best schools and school leadership teams know the circumstances of our children, and we have a Government who not only understand the need for breakfast clubs, but recognise the importance of both the breakfast and the club. I hope that my hon. Friend’s idea will grow and go out into the governor world as a suitable idea. I do not think it is necessarily for the Government to mandate that, but it is a terrific idea. In developing those plans, perhaps he and friends will make representations to the champion that we will appoint so that young carers in particular get the support that they need. It is sad to think that there are undiscovered young carers. That is very poignant. The need for respite is very real, and so is the cost in terms of the childhood they are missing out on. We must also recognise the effect of sustained care responsibilities on mental health, and provide mental health support, such as through the talking therapy service, the self-referral system, the NHS app, increased evidence-based talking therapies and digital interventions, and earlier support in schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) raised the issue of dementia. Today is the second consecutive day that she and I have spoken about the issue. I repeat my commitment that she will be involved in the first-ever modern service framework on dementia and frailty, which is to come. I look forward to working with her on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) always has nice things to say to colleagues and friends across the House. Support for unpaid caring is inseparable from the future of adult social care across all ages. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) rightly talked about the need for a distinct older care service, as carers will get older and need care themselves. At its best, social care is transformational, and our long-term ambition is to have a national care service that is person-centred, sees the person and their circumstances, integrates with health services and is preventive, giving people greater choice, control, dignity and independence. We are committed to building that service, but it must be informed by the undoubtedly exemplary work we will see from Baroness Casey. We will build on the consensus she is seeking from the public as she asks what they want, need and expect from the system. I look forward to seeing that work, which will address difficult questions about who should get support, what families can reasonably expect and who is responsible. The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) asked who is responsible; that is a good question. I will ensure that the changes to NHS England and the forthcoming plans are in the purview of the work that Baroness Casey is undertaking. As to a commitment on tax and borrowing, he mistakes the level at which I currently sit in Government—I will gladly answer his question if they ever dare to give me responsibility for such things—but it is a good question. In the meantime, greater investment is already coming, alongside better workforce support, digitisation, a stronger voice for people receiving care, and closer integration across services through the unpaid carers action plan, the appointment of an unpaid carers champion, improvements on carer ID through the NHS app, stronger financial employment support, better education support for young carers, more access to mental health services and more effective local planning. We are taking practical steps now; it is a Labour Government doing this. The hon. Member for Mid Sussex asked about identifying young carers—I recently raised the poignant issue of undiscovered young carers. This is a collaborative job. It falls to the local authority and to school leadership, and it must fall to integrated care boards to work with their colleagues in local government and local education to ensure that all children’s contexts are understood and known. We are listening to carers, who must challenge services where support falls short. Unpaid carers enable millions of people to live with dignity, independence, love and connection. Their contribution must not be taken for granted. They get and deserve our recognition, our respect and reliable support. This Government are determined to turn that commitment into lasting change.
I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. We have talked about this issue for so many years, and it is time that we got on with it and tried to get cross-party agreement. While we are waiting for the Casey report—I know Louise from old, and she will be robust and independent in what she recommends—is it the idea that we will set out a national framework, where Government lay down standards and hopefully the funding, and then the service is organised at a local level by local authorities, working closely with primary care, public health and local housing providers, who are often missed out in the important join-up that we have to achieve?
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the Prime Minister’s pledge at conference that the days of leaseholders being squeezed for every penny are coming to an end. In advance of the Government’s planned leasehold reform legislation, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on leaseholders’ concerns, including spiralling service and insurance charges, non-qualifying leaseholders and bills that are opaque, duplicated or contain errors, so that hon. Members can raise their constituents’ experiences and press for an end to those unfair and often unaffordable costs?
I welcome the Government’s commitment to putting unpaid carers at the heart of a national care service, but as I heard when I visited Blue Sky Carers Support hub in Bedford recently, this must mean more than words. What concrete, properly funded commitments will the Government make to ensure that unpaid carers receive meaningful breaks, financial security and support to balance caring with work or education—particularly for young carers—so that we do not just recognise carers but really care for the caregivers?
Could the Minister confirm, as I think she has in previous answers, that the interface between health and social care will remain front and centre of the national care service, not only for those being discharged from hospital but for those who are in care—particularly residential care—and face challenges in accessing health services?
As many Members will know, I joined the industry 20 years ago as a civil engineer. Throughout my career, I have been very fortunate to work on a lot of major infrastructure projects, including the lower Thames crossing, the A303 and some of the big National Highways frameworks, such as the specialist professional and technical services framework and the regional delivery partnership—the delivery integration partner framework. I now chair the all-party parliamentary group on infrastructure, so I come at this Bill as someone who has priced and bid for major contracts and has seen what happens when the money just is not there. However, I thought I would start my contribution to this debate with a safety moment. Members who have been around the sector will know that safety culture is absolutely critical to delivering our road network and doing so safely, and a safety moment that has always stuck with me is one from National Highways. It is about a lady who I am going to call Jane. Jane had had a busy day at National Highways; she jumped in her car, was driving home, and was involved in a very low-speed traffic collision. When she hit the car in front, her airbag went off and caused her lanyard to be forced through her chest, and she ended up in hospital. That is always a good reminder—when you leave today, if you are rushing to your car to drive home, remove your lanyard, not only for your security but for your safety. Let me now turn to why this Bill matters to Northampton. Why is an MP for Northampton talking about a scheme in Essex and Kent? Well, Northampton sits at the heart of the logistics network: some 2,640 logistics businesses operate out of Northamptonshire, and 35,000 people in my county work in haulage and logistics. Every day, goods move between warehouses in my constituency and the channel ports, many of them crossing the Thames via Dartford, and when Dartford jams up, those costs are felt in my constituency and across the midlands. I support this Bill—I think it is the right thing to do to deal with that problem—but I agree with the Road Haulage Association and many hauliers that we must also consider the cost for freight operators. When the licensing agreements come forward, we must consider the considerable business and fuel costs that many businesses in my constituency are facing. Planning has long been the biggest barrier to building roads. In particular, the development consent order process for the lower Thames crossing has been torturous—unfortunately, I know that at first hand. The second biggest barrier, though, has often been money. The Treasury can only fund so many projects at any one time, and every project competes for the same pot. This Bill brings in the private capital to build things that would otherwise sit in the queue. I have long argued that private finance works in this sector; when the Silvertown tunnel opened last year, it showed that modern public-private partnerships can deliver for taxpayers, and I still believe that. However, having spoken to the Minister previously responsible and now to the current Minister, I want to be straight with this House. This is an ambitious thing that we are doing. I do not believe that the regulated asset base model is used elsewhere in the world for road infrastructure; traditionally, we see it delivered through concessions or availability-based public-private partnerships. I was initially concerned, so rather than shouting at the Department about where the money is coming from, I went out and spoke to industry. Through the Global Infrastructure Investor Association and some of the big advisers to the investment community, I spoke to investors about this project, and they said that this is actually quite an exciting opportunity, particularly because it should reduce the cost of capital. Creating a regulated return reviewed by an independent regulator should deliver cheaper finance and, importantly, more competition for that finance, so it is completely right that the Department cannot say who is funding this project yet, because we need to run the competition to get that funding in the first place. The more certainty we give to the market through a model such as this one, the better our chances of securing that finance at a much lower cost.
I would not want to speculate on the Government’s timetable. What is important is that the Bill goes through, and then we will go through the licensing arrangements to find the right partner to deliver this project, as well as the finance, obviously. However, the delays that happened under the previous Government—the first failed development consent order, where they completely ignored the local community, and the second DCO ending up in the courts because of challenges brought forward by the environmental lobby, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) said—were not dealt with, and I am really disappointed that the Opposition are playing that card now when they campaigned against the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which brought forward many measures that would have solved the problems that the lower Thames crossing had. The question of risk is another important one. A RAB model moves construction risk on to the people who are financing, building and delivering the scheme, but the treatment of risk in the delivery of a major infrastructure project can make the difference between success and failure. The question is: who holds that risk? The Competition and Markets Authority’s review of the civil engineering sector rightly identified that the transfer of risk from tier 1s, from financers, and into the supply chain can make a big difference to a project’s solvency and how it is delivered, particularly for major projects. We have to make sure that the licensing arrangements established by this Bill make provision for Government to require equitable risk management and risk treatment within the delivery of projects, as well as prompt payment through the supply chain, so that when billions of pounds of investment are involved, that money flows through quickly into the supply chain and does not get stuck at tier 1 level. I have a couple of questions for the Minister to round off my speech—I am very grateful for his and his predecessor’s engagement on this Bill. The Secretary of State told the Transport Committee that the process for setting tolls in the first settlement period, which would answer the question asked by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), would be set out as the Bill progresses. Will the Minister confirm that that is still the case? The standard licence conditions will be set by the Secretary of State without parliamentary procedure, so will the Government commit to publishing the core principles for investor returns and price reviews before any licence is granted? The Bill puts new requirements on the Office for Rail and Road. I have had relatively good experiences with that organisation, but this is a new skill and capability that it needs to have, so what are the Government going to do to strengthen the ORR’s capability to manage these contracts effectively? Turning to existing roads, to address the point made by the shadow Secretary of State, the Government have already confirmed in a written answer that they have no plans to use these powers to toll roads that are currently free. I welcome that, but since there is confusion, could the Minister put that question beyond doubt in his closing remarks from the Dispatch Box? Some will say that this is a pay-per-journey model that will change Britain’s roads, but I do not believe it is. It is a way of getting the biggest schemes—the schemes that get stalled for years, if not generations—off the drawing pad and into delivery. I fully support the Bill.
Will clause 17 make it easier for people to come to the UK on an article 8 basis if we do not specify where sponsor human rights claims can be made?
The Minister mentioned sham relationships. Will she clarify who will be eligible to act as a sponsor?
Does the Minister have any thoughts about what the fee structure might look like?
I want to press the Minister on this point. I am quite taken with amendment 112, and some of the issues to do with sponsors it raises are incredibly serious. I hear the Minister’s comment about not being explicit in primary legislation, but will she explain in simple details, for my understanding, how we will ensure that nobody convicted of an offence involving domestic abuse, stalking, sexual offending or forced marriage will be able to be a sponsor for the purposes of article 8 claims?
Will the Minister confirm whether clause 17 will be the way that people who have refugee status are expected to sponsor family members?
Is the shadow Minister’s principal concern that the clause will result in an increase in overseas human rights claims?
The hon. Member has spent a long time focusing on clause 18. I wonder whether he is going to repeat his comments when we come to the next group of amendments.
The hon. Gentleman is clearly misunderstanding, because this is not what we are meant to be discussing right now.
The Minister refers to the UK having gone above and beyond its requirements in relation to Strasbourg law. In bringing us into line and not overextending ourselves, I wonder whether there are any other countries with which we could compare ourselves, in terms of where we will find that line and alignment. That might assist us in understanding how this process will work in practice.