partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Douglas Lumsden

   Business of the House

   Before recess, senior officials from Ofcom gave a dreadful performance at the Scottish Affairs Committee as they failed to justify why my constituents were denied bespoke news programme coverage via STV North. It was Ofcom that allowed that to happen, despite clear local opposition. Ofcom’s local responsibilities have grown substantially in recent years, yet it appears unable to fulfil its basic duty to ensure sufficient regional news coverage. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on whether Ofcom is still able to fulfil the legal responsibilities on which it was founded to uphold?

   Hansard source
2. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Damian Hinds

   National Care Service

   I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. I join in what she said about Sir David Amess. Today, again, we remember his service and remarkable contribution to Parliament and public life, including through today’s Children’s Parliament. In my lifetime, life expectancy has risen by almost a decade. That is wonderful, but as the Minister said, it means that many more people now need care for extended periods—sometimes very extended periods—and that number is only likely to grow. It is imperative for society to address this issue, and it is imperative for us as politicians to find a system that is compassionate, sustainable, affordable and fair. So much the better if we can find common ground across the House on this subject, because a sustainable approach can survive multiple changes of Government. We will approach this subject constructively and positively. I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister announce fundamental and apparently fixed parts of this policy at the Labour party conference. What are the implications for the Casey review? We do not yet know what the big conversation on care will yield. Is the noble Baroness free to make recommendations that may not fit the model that the Prime Minister has announced? Apparently, the Prime Minister managed simultaneously to set constraints and to omit a huge amount of practical information that people need. I think one could say charitably that today’s statement adds limit detail to what he set out. Given the use of the phrase, “national care service”, people may understandably be thinking of something more comprehensive than is being proposed, for this is not about all the costs of long-term care. It is not about what, for many people, is the biggest part: residential care. It is only about personal care. Terms like “personal care” and “social care” often get conflated, but the two things can be different, so what is the Government’s definition of what this service is to cover? The statement on the Government website says that the service will be based on need, rather than ability to pay. Does that mean that they do not envisage a fixed contribution for those in a care home, as in Scotland? Is this instead about meeting the cost of individually assessed needs? Will there be any changes to continuing healthcare or funded nursing care? Half of those receiving local authority long-term social care support in the community are working-age adults, and we assume that what the Government have said about staff also applies to this important part of the care sector, but what else applies? Speaking of staff reforms, the Prime Minister spoke about integrating the care and NHS workforces, but how is that to work in care, which is overwhelmingly in the private and voluntary sectors? The Government’s statement also says that this system will be “introduced in phases, so its scope can grow as the savings increase from adjusting the Triple Lock, and as workforce and provider capacity are built up.” Is spending on the national care service dependent on savings being made from the triple lock? Those are not currently budgeted costs, so the definition of “savings” is itself an interesting one. Does the Minister clearly commit to no new taxes or borrowing under this plan? The part about allowing capacity to be built up suggests not only a transfer of costs from individuals to the state but also a net increase, so how much of a net increase in provision are the Government projecting? There is one change that it appears may affect the cost of being in a residential care home. The Prime Minister said that no care charges would be paid out of people’s basic state pension. That seems to imply an end to payments from income for care home residents below the lower capital limit down to the weekly personal expenses allowance. Is that interpretation correct? When she answers, please will the Minister not just say, “These are all details for the Casey review,” because the Government cannot have it both ways. Personal care costs are closely linked to these other aspects of the system, and if the Government had wanted to allow space for the commission to look at the system in the round, they could have done. If they had really wanted to allow time to develop a cross-party consensus on the structure, they could have done. The Government themselves call what the Prime Minister set out at the party conference “a clear plan to fix the system”, so please can we have these answers?

   Hansard source
3. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Charlie Dewhirst

   Sustainable Farming Incentive

   The simple fact of the matter is that this scheme’s portal opened at 10 am and closed at 3.48 pm, at a time when most farmers are at work, and for agents representing farmers, that was simply enough time to fill in multiple applications. I have a very simple question to the Minister: will he apologise?

   Hansard source
4. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Charlie Dewhirst

   Business of the House

   Madam Deputy Speaker, you will no doubt be aware that East Yorkshire is blessed with some of the most productive farmland in the country, yet the Humberhead solar project threatens to plaster 4,000 acres in solar panels. Even more concerning, Natural England appears to have amended the boundaries of the proposed Yorkshire Wolds area of outstanding natural beauty around the village of Londesborough to avoid coming into conflict with this solar farm project. May we have a debate in Government time on the proliferation and cumulative impact of solar farms, and their detrimental effect on domestic food security?

   Hansard source
5. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Charlie Dewhirst

   Highways (Financing) Bill

   The issue with London’s bridges is highlighted by Hammersmith bridge, which has been closed since 2019. Is it not time for the Government to get a grip on Labour-run Hammersmith and Fulham council and the Labour Mayor of London, and get that bridge reopened?

   Hansard source
6. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Caroline Nokes

   National Care Service

   Order. The hon. Gentleman will know that he must refer to his party leader by his constituency, not his name.

   Hansard source
7. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Caroline Nokes

   Highways (Financing) Bill

   The reasoned amendment in the name of Mr Richard Holden has been selected.

   Hansard source
8. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Bradley Thomas

   Hospitality Sector Support

   The hospitality sector provides around 300,000 jobs for young people every year and contributes £96 billion annually to the economy. Despite that, the Government continue to hammer it with a series of blows, to the extent that the sector has the highest effective tax rate of any sector in the economy, paying the equivalent of 82p in taxes for every £1 of pre-tax profit made. That eclipses the 50p average rate across our economy’s 11 main sectors. What steps are the Government taking to tangibly lower business costs, so that hospitality businesses can employ more young people?

   Hansard source
9. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Bob Blackman

   Smoke-free UK

   I beg to move, That this House has considered progress towards a smokefree UK. It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and to open the debate. This is a vital topic, and one I am proud to have campaigned on for many years—probably more than I care to remember. I declare an interest as co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. Since I was elected, it has been tremendous to see the progress we have made on combating smoking and, indeed, increasing the health of the population generally. Last week, new smoking prevalence data showed that, for the first time, less than 10% of the UK population smoke. We are worlds away from the 1970s, when almost half the population smoked. We certainly do not want to go back to that position. However, there is still some way to go, and this debate is an important reminder that the job is not done. Although we are making excellent progress, including with the passage of the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 earlier this year, we should not say that the job is done. Smoking remains one of the leading causes of premature death and disability in the UK. It is responsible for around 80,000 deaths every year. Cancer Research UK says smoking is responsible for around 160 cancer cases every day, or 57,700 cases each year. Tobacco is a uniquely harmful product. It can kill up to two thirds of lifelong users and is responsible for at least 16 types of cancer. The impact goes beyond health. Around one in nine working-age adults in England who smoke are out of work because of ill health or disability. That is around 700,000 people. The NHS continues to feel the pressure, with around 100 GP appointments every hour linked to smoking-related illness. In fact, the total cost of smoking to society and the economy in England alone is estimated at £44.8 billion a year. Smoking is still a huge problem, but it is one that it is within the Government’s power to fix. Cessation services, mass media campaigns and changes to the age of sale are all tools that can be used to achieve a smoke-free country. This Government have shown admirable ambition in bringing back the smoke-free generation policy originally proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak). I and many others worked so hard behind the scenes to get that policy on the radar—in fact, I am still waiting for his thanks for the speech I made in this Chamber before he announced the policy at party conference. That policy is transformative when it comes to stopping young people starting the habit, saving them from a lifetime of addiction and ill health. However, it does not do much for the 4.9 million people who currently continue to smoke. The previous Government had a clear plan to end smoking, which expired in 2022, but also a national smoking prevalence target of 5% by 2030. Even with recent progress, it is unlikely that that target will be met. Concerningly, we are seeing more young people take up smoking and particularly vaping. The Teachers’ Union Behaviour in Schools survey found that 16% of pupils vaped during class—I find that hard to believe. It found that 62% of pupils repeatedly left lessons to vape, and that 39% of teachers had encountered pupils unable to concentrate because they were distracted or affected by nicotine, although I suspect the figure is actually even higher. It also found that 32% of teachers had observed peer pressure on non-vapers to vape. Schools have an important role in educating children and young people about the risks of smoking and nicotine use, preventing use on school premises and supporting children who need help. However, schools cannot be expected to solve a wider public health and regulatory problem. When asked if Smokefree 2030 is still the Government’s target, various Ministers have responded by saying that the Government are “going even further” by creating a smoke-free generation. With respect, the previous Government also legislated for a smoke-free generation while having a target for current smokers to quit. Cancer Research UK has already found that England is not on track to become smoke-free by 2030, and smoking rates remain much higher in more deprived communities. The Government must go further and faster or set a new target and publish a clear road map for reaching it. Can the Minister tell us what her ambitions are for reducing smoking and whether she will look at introducing a target for reducing smoking to not just 5% but below 1% in all communities across the UK? We need an ambition for current smokers that matches the ambition for the smoke-free generation of “Stopping the start”. Targets can be a helpful tool for focusing attention on a particular area of importance. We have seen that through the truly remarkable success in reducing smoking rates among pregnant women—something I have campaigned for a long time. The last Government just about achieved the objective, and smoking pregnancy rates are now at their lowest rate ever, at just 4.2%, down from 9.6% in 2020. That means that more than 70 babies’ lives have been saved through preventing stillbirths caused by smoking during pregnancy. We are currently in Baby Loss Awareness Week, which demonstrates the importance of this issue. Once again, the previous Government set a clear national target, designed targeted policies, including financial incentives, and integrated them into existing pathways—and it worked. I am so pleased that this Government have committed to continue funding financial incentives for pregnant women, but I also want us to learn lessons from that success. What we have achieved with pregnant women can be a blueprint for other at-risk populations. I hope the Minister will meet the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, as well as Action on Smoking and Health, to discuss how this approach can be applied to other at-risk groups as a road map to a smoke-free country. I was really pleased that £5 million in financial incentives for pregnant women have been maintained for the next three years. That investment, alongside the £153 million for local authorities through the public health grant and funding from ICBs, means that more money is being invested in cessation support than ever before. However, ICB budgets are no longer being ringfenced, which means there is a risk that services are decommissioned, as we have seen in parts of the country, or see their funding reduced in NHS settings. The Labour manifesto pledged to introduce opt-out cessation support in all in-patient settings. Can the Minister clarify what progress has been made on that manifesto pledge in this Parliament? Is the funding going to the NHS enough to deliver on that pledge? Has her Department been monitoring potential reductions in services due to ICB reductions? Will she ensure that cessation funds within the public health grant continue to be protected by ringfence? Of course, there are broader activities, beyond cessation support, that reduce smoking rates. Mass media campaigns are one important part of the puzzle, and it would be good to hear how much is being spent on them. I would also like to hear from the Minister what plans she has to communicate the smoke-free generation to the public via a media campaign. Those are clear ways of reaching all sorts of people. The good news is that we can be ambitious. We have at our fingertips a source of funding that is as yet untapped: a levy on the tobacco manufacturers, which would raise an estimated £5 billion over five years. The model that the APPG put forward would not allow that to be passed on to consumers. It is something of a unicorn policy, in that it raises revenue and is hugely popular with the public. Around 76% of adults in England support a levy, and the proposal enjoys majority support from voters from all political parties, with only 7% opposed. The Prime Minister has indicated that he wants to review business rates to raise revenue from businesses that “do not make a positive contribution to…communities.” If that is the case, big tobacco should be first in line. It is right that those responsible for the huge costs of smoking to our society, our NHS and our population’s health are the ones picking up the bill, not the taxpayer. I hope the Minister will seriously consider this proposal and suggest it to the Chancellor for his Budget in a couple of weeks’ time. We must all be careful to call out the continuing interference by the tobacco industry in today’s world, particularly in politics. British American Tobacco sponsored Reform’s party conference, where its “inconvenience store” was plastered with a series of “shocking” mock health warnings. Reform’s party leadership have made it very clear that they support big tobacco being able to continue to sell lethal products to the next generation of children. They are completely out of touch with the public, but also with their own voters, who overwhelmingly support ending the devastating harms of tobacco in this country. To be clear, there has always been a strong level of cross-party support on issues such as tobacco control and reducing smoking rates, as the Leader of the Opposition’s conference speech showed, and that should continue, both for health and due to the economic costs. It is disappointing that some parties in particular reject that and are all too willing to listen when money gets thrown around. We have to remember that at the heart of this issue there are still 4.9 million smokers. They are our friends, family and colleagues, and many are absolutely desperate to quit but stuck in a steady cycle of addiction. Our all-party group was recently delighted to host a roundtable with the APPG on poverty and inequality to discuss the links between smoking and deprivation. My friend and co-chair, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), will share some of the discussion in her speech, but I want to reflect on how impactful it was to hear from those with lived experience. We heard from an ex-smoker, a mother, that her addiction to tobacco was so strong that she would buy cigarettes before buying food for her children. Tobacco came before everything. That cannot be acceptable in today’s society. We also heard from Dr Liam Loftus, who is delivering smoking-cessation support at Cambridge city food bank. He is not waiting for smokers to find him but going to where they are already seeking support and being proactive. A road map—a clear plan—could help us to learn from pockets of best practice and to scale up interventions that truly turn the dial on smoking rates in this country. I look forward to hearing the contributions from colleagues and, indeed, from the Front Benchers, and I trust that we can continue to work towards eliminating smoking in this country.

   Hansard source
10. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Bob Blackman

    Smoke-free UK

    It is pleasure to follow the Minister, and I thank her for her comments. I also thank colleagues from across the House for their contributions to this vital debate. I want to say a couple of things in response to what the Minister and colleagues have said. We have to be cautious about our position on vaping. We do not yet know the long-term impacts on health of vaping, but the first evidence is coming through that vaping does harm lungs. The delivery mechanism of the vape is key. We should be very cautious about that process. I agree with the principle that vaping is a means for smokers to give up, but people who do not smoke should not start vaping. That message has to go to young people in particular, who I think are really harmed by vaping. Both of my parents died of cancer caused by smoking back in 1979. The advice that they were given as young people was that smoking was healthy. We have to remember that we have a duty to our next generation to ensure that they do not go down the route of believing that vaping is healthy. I agree completely that what we have done in the Tobacco and Vapes Act is give as many hooks as possible for the Public Health Minister to bring in measures. Licensing is complex, and it is going to take some time to introduce it, but that does not mean that we should not move forward on advertising and other measures. We can decouple those as we go. These debates have always been led from the Back Benches. We have forced Governments of all persuasions to make changes, and the Minister will know that we are a formidable force who will continue to hold her to account.

    Hansard source
11. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Bob Blackman

    Business of the House

    I join others in paying tribute to the late Sir David Amess. He was always here for business questions, with a topical question and a smile on his face. I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business on 26 October in the Chamber. Given the experience on Monday, I thank him for giving protected time for the baby loss awareness debate. Considering how many times the issue was raised at Business, Innovation, Science and Trade questions this morning, the debate on the performance of Royal Mail is likely to be extremely well attended. Will the Leader of the House consider giving protected time for those two debates, particularly if there will be Government statements or urgent questions? The business in Westminster Hall for next week is as follows. On 20 October, there will be a debate on manufacturing skills. On Thursday 22 October, there will be a statement from the Science and Technology Committee, followed by a debate on compensation for Equitable Life policyholders, followed by a debate on the legacy of the Jarrow crusade on its 90th anniversary. On 27 October there will be a debate on recognising the production and serving of cask ale as an intangible cultural heritage. Personally, I prefer drinking it to talking about it. On Thursday 29 October there will be a debate on the mandatory safeguarding 24/7 of helipads at major trauma centres, followed by a debate on the role and effectiveness of Ofcom. I have a couple of housekeeping notes. We are short of a Labour Member on the Backbench Business Committee; I hope that space will be filled quickly. This week we had a problem, because we had the bare quorum needed to do our business. We had an application for a debate on Black History Month, but I note that is now a Government debate. The risk is that the Front Benchers will get two bites at the cherry, which reduces the time for Back Benchers to contribute. This would have been a Backbench Business Committee debate, led by Back Benchers, but I completely understand the Leader of the House wishing to offer a general debate on the subject. We are halfway through Navaratri, a celebration for Hindus across the world. It is a joyous occasion. Last Saturday, I attended the World Sindhi Congress, and this week I received a delegation of ex-Bangladeshi politicians and Sanatans. They raised the same issue: the plight of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh is desperate right now. I receive messages literally every day about atrocities committed against the Hindu population of Bangladesh and Pakistan. I know that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is concentrating on the illegal war between Russia and Ukraine, and the crisis in the middle east, but could we have a statement on what the Government will do to help protect those minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh?

    Hansard source
12. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fifth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the Minister for her opening remarks, and indeed for pre-empting and answering some of the questions that I have in my speech. It is almost as if she might have had a spy in my team, looking at the questions that I might ask. For these debates on the ECHR, we perhaps had a dry run yesterday in the first Opposition day debate. Let me start by saying that the Opposition oppose clause 17—perhaps not a surprise to Members, as we said so in our reasoned amendment on Second Reading—and we will vote against its standing part of the Bill. Our amendments are tabled to test the Government’s reasoning. Some of our points have already been answered by the Minister, but I will go through them for the record. If the Committee decides to keep the clause, we submit that our amendments would limit the damage that it will cause. Clause 17 is the first clause of part 2 of the Bill, which the Government believe is the answer on article 8 of the ECHR. That makes this the right place to ask the question on which the whole debate on part 2 will turn: does the Bill change what a court must do when someone says that article 8 prevents their removal, or does it simply change what the court should have regard to? I will deal first with clause 17 itself and then with what it tells us about the Bill as a whole. The clause creates a new statutory category of “sponsor human rights claim”. This would enable someone already situated in the UK to submit an application directly to the Secretary of State, at a location designated by the Secretary of State. Such a claim would assert that refusing a member of their family entry to the UK would breach article 8. Subsection (1)(d) then brings those sponsor claims within the scope of the human rights appeals framework set out in part 5 of the 2002 Act. As the explanatory notes confirm, the effect is that the UK-based sponsor becomes the claimant, with the right to appeal. As the Minister went through, subsections (3) to (7) then carve out sponsor claims from the provisions that apply to other human rights claims in the 2002 Act. They cannot be declared inadmissible under section 80A of the 2002 Act; they cannot be certified as clearly unfounded under section 94; they sit outside the statutory timeframe in section 86B—I suspect that the civil servants might be looking those up now for the Minister—and there are bespoke rules on pending and abandoned appeals. The Government are presenting these changes as a tightening of the rules: overseas family members may not claim, because the sponsor must. However, our reasoned amendment on Second Reading set out our concern that the Bill would allow sponsor human rights claims and so enable people outside the UK to enter on human rights grounds. There is nothing in the evidence, nor in what the Minister said in her opening remarks, to convince me that that concern was misplaced, so I have a few points to go through, if I may.

    Hansard source
13. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fifth sitting)

    Yes, and fundamentally I think the clause is tinkering around the edges with the application of the ECHR. We have been here before; I will come on to this later in my speech. Successive Governments have tried to do this, but my fundamental concern is that the clause will not work. Let me turn first to the drafting. The explanatory notes say that overseas article 8 applications must be made by the sponsor, but the clause defines a claim as made “at a place designated by the Secretary of State”. As the House of Commons Library points out, it deals with the appeal stage; it does not say how claims are lodged in the first place. Minister, where in the Bill is the provision that stops an overseas family member applying? Which places will be designated and by what regulations, rules or guidance? Who holds the right of appeal today? In written evidence submitted to the Committee, the Bar Council stated: “Until now, an application for entry clearance to come to the UK had to be made by the person overseas and any appeal against refusal had to be brought by them.” Clause 17 would now give the UK-based sponsor an appeal of their own. Does the Minister accept that clause 17 introduces a right of appeal that currently does not exist today? If so, how is clause 17 in any way, as she says, tightening the rules? Secondly, I want to discuss the exemptions. Clause 17 leaves inadmissibility and certification in place for other human rights claims. Why should a sponsor claim be exempt from both? On amendments 95 and 96, I note that the Government have adopted our amendment 96, for which I am grateful. I am sure that they did so for their own good reasons, not just to copy and paste an Opposition amendment. Those amendments were tabled to remove those exemptions. They were probing amendments, but let us assume that amendment 96 probed sufficiently for it to be taken on board by the Government. If the Minister cannot explain to the Committee for what reason a sponsor claim would be treated more favourably than any other human rights claim, the exemptions should go. Perhaps she could address that point on amendment 95 in more detail. There is a point of drafting to consider in whether the clause actually works at all. Clause 52(5) ties the commencement of clause 17(3) to section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, and clause 17(5) to section 50 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 when it comes fully into force. The Minister may not have the answers to a complicated drafting question, but perhaps during the course of today’s debate, her civil servants might provide an answer. I note that section 50 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act is not yet in force, and that schedule 1 to this Bill would repeal it. Would the Minister explain how clause 17(5) is meant to commence? If there is an error in drafting, will it be corrected? I will move on to the interaction with family reunion. Three witnesses in our oral evidence sessions—Vicky Tennant of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Jon Featonby of the Refugee Council and Angela Afzal of the International Rescue Committee—took views very different from the Opposition on the Bill, but their evidence is relevant as we scrutinise the clause. Ms Tennant told us that the Bill’s presumption of cohabitation “is a difficult threshold to make”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 9, Q7.] in the refugee context, particularly given the suspension of the refugee family reunion route. Mr Featonby estimated that probably 20,000 people have been unable to apply since that route was suspended just over a year ago. Ms Afzal warned that families could be encouraged to resort to smugglers to reunite. The written evidence goes a bit further. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association tells us that the human rights claim “may be the only realistic remaining path” for refugee families while the dedicated route is suspended. The Bar Council told us that it will be the “only practical gateway”. The British Red Cross highlights that 12,888 family reunion visas were granted in the year to June 2026, and that the core protection status of cause 21 is expected to carry “no family reunion rights” at all. Although I draw different conclusions, the dedicated route has been suspended, and the clause creates a statutory sponsor claim with a right to appeal and without safe country filters. The people with expertise in this field who gave evidence expect that it will become the main entry route, so are the Government not simply closing one back door and opening another? What assessment has the Home Office made of those numbers?

    Hansard source
14. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I recognise the Government’s intentions. Of course, we are here to talk about the implications of the Bill, but I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s broader point. The Bar Council also points out that the details of how the sponsor claims will work will be set out in immigration rules, which have not yet been made, although the Minister has referred to them. Will the Government publish the draft rules and the new refugee family reunion rules before Report so that Members of this House can know exactly what they are voting for? The Library records that roughly 500 people abroad were granted article 8 visas in 2025. How many out-of-country applications and appeals are there each year, and how many do the Government expect there will be under clause 17? Amendment 97 would at least confine the new right of appeal to the family, which is what the Government say article 8 is about. An appeal against a refused sponsor claim would stand only where the family member was part of the claimant’s core cohabiting family under proposed new section 117AA—that would be a spouse, civil partner, partner, minor child, or the parent of a child sponsor. If the Government truly believe in their own definition in clause 18, why will they not accept that the sponsor’s right of appeal should be limited to that definition? Amendment 112, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford, would require the Home Secretary to carry out safeguarding checks before deciding a sponsor claim. Such checks would include whether the sponsor has convictions, protective orders or findings for domestic abuse, stalking, sexual offending or forced marriage, or a history of immigration decisions in which those matters were material. It would also require a consideration of the weight of any risk to the family member, the children or others. If the Government are to create a statutory route in which the sponsor drives the claim, the least they should do is check who the sponsor is. I thank the Minister for supporting the amendment in principle. She described some of the existing safeguarding measures, which will be strengthened, but I would be grateful if she unpacked that somewhat more to demonstrate the Government’s clear commitment to ensuring that the spirit of the amendment, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford, will be implemented in a way that works in practice, if it is not on the face of the Bill. I ask that for a particular reason. The Minister knows that I have been asking the Home Office quite a lot of written parliamentary questions in recent months, particularly about legal immigration and visa controls. Given the responses that I have been getting, I seriously question whether the systems that the Home Office has in place to monitor, track and oversee the compliance of visa sponsors are fit for purpose. It would be prudent for the Minister to provide comfort to this Committee that there will be better controls for sponsors who use this route. Professor Singer—who, it is worth noting, is opposed to the Bill—told us that the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in IA and others “was a very restrictive interpretation of article 8…I do not see the courts taking a particularly liberal approach to article 8.” ––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 61, Q99.] If that is right, what is the mischief that clause 17 addresses? Is it meant to reverse the Court of Appeal in IA, to codify it, or to do something else? I know that the Minister referred to that particular Court of Appeal case, but I would be grateful if those specific questions could be answered.

    Hansard source
15. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fifth sitting)

    Funnily enough, I do not agree with the hon. Member—shock horror. Lord Wolfson produced an extremely extensive piece of legal advice, running to some 180 pages, which the hon. Member has, I am sure, read from front to back. There are absolutely no legal impediments to us leaving the ECHR, and to do so would resolve the issues before us in the Bill. Some of the matters that he has raised are political rather than legal, in the sense that they can be negotiated politically. The important thing is that we are fair to the British people and that we have an immigration system that they can have confidence in, and we can deliver that only by departing from the ECHR. I do not want to go down rabbit warrens on all the reasons why it is a fantastic policy, but no doubt the hon. Member will ask further questions as we proceed. The one time Parliament tried to disapply the convention in this area—hon. Members will love to hear the word “Rwanda”, I am sure—was in the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. The provision never took effect and was repealed by the Labour Government in 2025. Government and Parliament must be willing to take steps that require the courts to decide convention cases differently. That is the direction in which the evidence we heard points this Bill Committee. If the Government will not change the framework and merely ask the courts to “have regard”, part 2 will at best deliver what the Government’s own impact assessment predicts: refusals that do not become removals. Why have the Government not considered giving the courts a direction that they cannot set aside—an exclusive code, for example, or disapplication of the Human Rights Act in this context? If they have considered that but have not moved forward with it, can the Minister explain why it was rejected? The unfortunate reality for the Bill is that the Government are falling into the same trap as previous Governments: legislation that is well meaning—even well drafted—and designed to circumvent the constraints of the ECHR. The courts will inevitably default to the same positions that they always have, allowing people who have no right to be in this country to stay for longer in the meantime. If, or more likely when, this Bill fails to genuinely empower the Government to deal with the extensive grounds for resisting removal that the various articles of the convention create, will the Minister and other Labour Members finally join us in accepting that the issue here is not how carefully the legislation is drafted but the ECHR itself, and that we cannot have a meaningful conversation about restoring control over our immigration system without taking steps to leave the ECHR?

    Hansard source
16. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I am going to close, because I think I have spoken enough and time is pressing on. Clause 17 creates a new statutory claim for sponsors, and new rights of appeal, which will become the main route for refugee families. It exempts those claims from the safe country filter. Its detail is left to rules that we have not seen, and it commences by reference to provisions that are not yet in force or that the Bill would repeal. Amendment 84, which would have left out the clause, has not been selected, so the Committee will instead decide the matter by voting on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. For the reasons I have mentioned in this speech, which has gone on far too long, the Opposition will vote against it.

    Hansard source
17. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 98, in clause 18, page 15, line 14, leave out from “must” to end of line 15 and insert “must determine that question in accordance with section 117AA.” This amendment would require courts and tribunals to decide whether Article 8 is engaged in accordance with new section 117AA, rather than only to have regard to it.

    Hansard source
18. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Clause 18 is at the heart of part 2 of the Bill, and is where the Government set out for the first time in statute, as we heard earlier, what counts as family life for the purposes of article 8 of the European convention on human rights. Other than the fact that the Conservatives would withdraw from the ECHR to implement our borders plan, allow me to say at the outset that the Opposition do support the broad direction of travel of the clause. The public are entitled to expect that the right to respect for family life protects genuine, close family relationships and does not stretch to cover extended relationships and loosely evidenced dependency, which is the very problem that the Government’s explanatory notes identify. In my opinion, the question for the Committee is not whether the clause points the right way; it is whether it will make any difference at all in the courtroom. On the evidence the Committee has heard and read so far, I fear the answer is unfortunately that it will make very little difference. Clause 18 does three things. First, subsection (3) inserts a two-stage sequence into section 117A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. A court or tribunal must first decide whether article 8 is engaged at all, having regard in particular to proposed new section 117AA, and only then turn to the public interest question. Secondly, clause 18(4) inserts proposed new section 117AA into the 2002 Act. A person’s family life is normally limited to their core cohabiting family: a spouse, civil partner or partner and minor children or parents, to the extent that they live together. A parent who does not live with a child does not normally have family life with that child unless there is evidence of a genuine and subsisting parental relationship, and an adult does not normally have family life with another adult unless they live together as partners or there is an additional element of dependency beyond normal emotional ties. Thirdly, clause 18(5) lists four things that, on their own, do not amount to that additional dependency: financial dependence; illness, unless it meets a three-part test of constant care; emotional resilience; and concern for a relative living in a country affected by war or instability. Subsection (6) then provides that nothing in subsection (5) stops the court considering those same factors when it comes to the public interest question. Why is the direction right? There is a real problem here. Mr Smith, the former director general of Border Force, told the Committee that article 8 is “often used as a lever quite late in the process”,––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 44, Q67.] as we all know from the cases we hear about on the news. The Minister gave the Committee an example from Home Office casework of a man who falsely claimed paternity of eight children and was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. Families, of course, take many forms, and nobody on this side of the Committee wishes to deny that. However, the law should be clear that the core of family life is the family that lives together, and that anything beyond it must be proved. We support the principle of the clause, but we have been here before—I refer to the debate on clauses in group 14 and the many good speeches made—with the immigration rules in 2012 and the Immigration Act 2014. I want to test whether this clause will succeed where those attempts did not. First, on the language, proposed new section 117AA to the 2002 Act does not say that family life is limited to the core cohabiting family; it says that it is “normally” limited to it. The same word appears in subsections (3) and (4). Professor Ekins told us that this word is where the litigation will end up turning. Justice, which opposes this part of the Bill, makes the same point from the other side: its written evidence accepts that the use of “normally”, together with the need only to “have regard” to those considerations, “preserves the possibility of finding family life beyond these prescribed circumstances.” I ask the Minister: in what circumstances do the Government expect a court to find family life outside the core cohabiting family, and will that be set out anywhere? If the Government cannot say, why is the word “normally” there at all? Amendments 99, 101 and 102 would remove it. Secondly, let us look at the duty itself. Proposed new subsection (1B) to section 117A says that the court “must (in particular) have regard to” section 117AA. It does not say that the court must apply it—that matters. In Rhuppiah, a case mentioned in the previous sitting, the Supreme Court held that the “have regard” formula in the 2014 Act “cannot put decision-makers in a strait-jacket”. As was mentioned earlier, Chris Rowe of Swansea University, writing for the UK Constitutional Law Association, described the device as “insufficiently potent” to force a result incompatible with the convention. Clause 18 uses exactly the same device. What in proposed new subsections (1A) to (1C) to section 117A differs in kind from the formula that the Supreme Court has already held cannot bind? Amendment 98 would replace “have regard to” with a requirement that the court determine the question in accordance with proposed new section 117AA. Proposed new section 117AA(5) tells the court that financial dependence, illness, emotional reliance and concern for a relative in a war zone do not, on their own, create family life. Subsection (6) tells the court that it may consider every one of those factors when it weighs the public interest. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association adds that the Bill is silent on whether those factors may be combined when the court decides whether there is an additional element of dependency, and that the Strasbourg court, in Kumari and Martinez Alvarado, allows exactly that. If the court reads a combination test into paragraph (4)(b) to keep the clause compatible, the list in subsection (5) will do very little work. What is subsection (6) for, if not to give back at the second stage what subsection (5) takes away at the first? Amendment 103 would leave it out, to test exactly that. The central question is whether clause 18 changes the law. The Government’s human rights memorandum says that proposed new section 117AA codifies the Strasbourg principles on the existence of family life. The House of Commons Library notes that the Strasbourg court has itself said, in Kumari v. the Netherlands, that family life is “normally limited to the core family”, and it records Professor Singer’s view on the clause’s effect, that “it is unclear how this would differ significantly from current practice”. However, the Law Society tells this Committee that the new emphasis on cohabitation is “a significant move away from the current position in UK law and a substantial narrowing of Article 8 protections.” Justice says the clause “falls short of codifying the Strasbourg principles on the existence of family life, despite the Government’s assertion to the contrary in its ECHR memorandum”, in particular for “young adults who are still living with their parents”.

    Hansard source
19. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I was just about to close, but I will gladly give way.

    Hansard source
20. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I thank the hon. Member for his intervention—perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East was correct to say that I was far too generous in taking it; I should have just closed my speech. The hon. Member for South Norfolk clearly recognises that the Opposition commissioned Lord Wolfson to conduct a very serious legal analysis of the benefits or otherwise of leaving the ECHR, which he has done. I go back to the comment I made earlier about how there are no legal barriers to us departing the ECHR. There is no risk to the Union and there is no risk to the Good Friday agreement in a legal sense. It will, of course, result in a political discussion, and that will be had at the appropriate time, but the political questions that will arise are not insurmountable. I will now close. The Opposition support the aim of clause 18 and will not oppose it standing part of the Bill. We support Government amendments 44 and 45, but a definition that is qualified by “normally” applied through a duty only to “have regard to”, with the excluded factors let back in by clause 18(6), is a definition that the courts can step around. I will seek to press amendments 98 and 99 to a Division.

    Hansard source
21. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    The hon. Lady described our amendments as “rigid definitions”, but is it not right that we as legislators make sure that our definitions have certainty? We want to have a system that the British public have confidence in, and that is not the case at the moment—in good faith, the Government are trying to deal with that. Do we not need rigid definitions and certainty to achieve that?

    Hansard source
22. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    This might be an opportune moment to intervene and allow the hon. Lady to get to the right place in her notes. She mentioned that we have been here before; that was a central part of my speech. In order to break this cycle, would she not agree that the right thing to do is to depart from the ECHR?

    Hansard source
23. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    The hon. Lady refers to other parties and their toxic rhetoric. Perhaps she could give some examples. If she wishes to call out those parties, will she do so by giving clear examples rather than by making throwaway comments? That would really help the Committee.

    Hansard source
24. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Aphra Brandreth

    Jobs for Young People

    1. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help support the creation of jobs for young people.

    Hansard source
25. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Aphra Brandreth

    Jobs for Young People

    The wonderful family-run Ice Cream Farm in Tattenhall is one of our region’s largest youth employers, giving many young people their very first job, but the current rules limit children below school-leaving age to just two hours’ work on Sundays, even during school holidays. For businesses in rural areas, where parents often have to drive considerable distances to get their kids to work, this simply is not practical. Will the Secretary of State review the restriction while maintaining important safeguards, so that businesses such as the Ice Cream Farm can offer more young people vital first work experience?

    Hansard source
26. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Alison Griffiths

    Business of the House

    In West Sussex, we are still waiting to hear what the shape of a future unitary council might look like, yet Members from across the Chamber may be aware of a WhatsApp message that suggests that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has already confirmed a timetable but has yet to bring it to the House. Will the Leader of the House please encourage the Secretary of State to come to the House and update us as soon as possible?

    Hansard source
27. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Alicia Kearns

    Sustainable Farming Incentive

    The NFU and farmers were a klaxon on the impending car crash that unravelled—those are the words of a local farmer. A debacle—those are the words of a Labour MP. Having had no decency to warn farmers that it was coming, today was an opportunity for humility rather than gaslighting them that only some of the technical complaints were legitimate. Will the Minister at least now publish a transparent breakdown of how the farming budget is being spent in its entirety? That is the least that farmers deserve after this debacle.

    Hansard source
28. 14 Oct 2026·YouTube·Reform

    

    EXCLUSIVE Interview with Colin Sutton.

    Reform UK’s Police and Crime Adviser, Colin Sutton, gives an exclusive interview examining the biggest challenges facing British policing today. Drawing on his extensive experience as a former Detective Chief Inspector at the Metropolitan Police, Colin shares his insights into the issues confronting forces across the country.

    Watch on YouTube
29. 14 Oct 2026·YouTube·Reform

    

    Putting an END to the Asylum scam.

    Reform UK will suspend the asylum system, void pending applications and mark new and current applicants for deportation. We will impose sanctions on countries such as Pakistan, Somalia, Eritrea, Syria, Afghanistan and Sudan if they refuse to accept deportation flights. Reform UK will appoint a Minister for Deportations who will oversee the mass deportation of every illegal migrant in Britain.

    Watch on YouTube
30. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Torsten Bell

    Benefit Entitlements: War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation

    I join other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) on securing this debate on an issue that I know he has championed passionately for some time. I also congratulate him on how he has gone about it, both today and over the past few years in which I have been engaging with him on the issue. Indeed, I think he first raised it with me a month into my time as the Minister for Pensions, when I met him and his constituents, including the late Staff Sergeant Pauline Cole, and members of his team. It was nice to hear him paying tribute to them today. They have obviously worked hard on this issue. The hon. Member’s speech included a touching and fitting tribute to Pauline, who served our country and campaigned not only for herself but on behalf of other veterans. I was very glad to meet her and to have the chance of knowing how accurate the hon. Member’s description of her was, and again I offer my condolences to her family, who have continued to support the campaign that she championed. I have corresponded with at least one of her sons about this case. As well as paying tribute to all our armed forces and veterans, I want to acknowledge the work that the Royal British Legion does on their behalf, working to promote and secure the welfare of veterans, campaigning on issues involving armed forces personnel such as the one we are discussing today, and securing a wider recognition of what our armed forces have given to this country. I should also recognise the work of veterans’ hubs beyond the Royal British Legion, including the one in Swansea, where I have discussed this and many other issues with veterans face to face. The hon. Member has been a fierce and determined campaigner on this issue. He mentioned the first question that he asked during Prime Minister’s Question Time—always a stressful but meaningful moment for a new MP. He has also persistently raised the subject of the interaction between military compensation and the benefits system, and I note that his private Member’s Bill was reintroduced in the House today. I have listened to him and to others, including Members in the House today, and, as I am sure he knows, my colleague the Minister of State in the House of Lords met representatives of the Royal British Legion in November and discussed the matter. Let me now turn to the long-standing policy issues in this area, and try to do justice to the matters that the hon. Member has raised. He is right to say that there is no single rule for how compensation payments are treated in the benefits system. Treatment depends on the nature and purpose of a payment, whether it is in the form of a regular income or a lump sum capital payment, as well as the legislation governing the relevant schemes. In pension credit, most income is taken into account, because the benefit is intended to top up the retirement income that a person already has. Pension credit is intended to do something different from any other element of the benefits system: to provide a guaranteed minimum level that our pensioners will always have to live on. During the 2000s, it drove the halving of pensioner poverty that was such a big feature of the previous Labour Government. Pension credit rules already recognise veterans’ specific circumstances. As the hon. Member said, the first £10 of specified war pension scheme and armed forces compensation scheme income is disregarded. I should add—because this is important and it has not been discussed in the debate so far—that the armed forces independence payment and specific additions to the war disablement pension are disregarded in full, in recognition of the different nature of those payments. Lump sum payments under the armed forces compensation scheme are treated as personal injury capital, which can remain protected through a trust or annuity under the applicable rules. Those arrangements are more favourable than the treatment of other similar schemes with disablement elements. For example, the industrial injuries disablement benefit is taken fully into account for pension credit, and the fire and police service schemes also have no disregards applied. However, I think that the centre of the hon. Member’s argument is the different treatment in respect of universal credit. That is the point that he dwelt on, so I will try to do justice to it. Universal credit was introduced with no partial disregards, which is what drove the initial change. Pension credit predates the introduction of universal credit and does retain the partial disregard structure that all the legacy benefits had. A more important point is that the two benefits serve very different purposes: one takes work incentives into account, while the other is intended to provide that minimum guaranteed income. What is probably more relevant to this specific case is the fact that pension credit rates are significantly higher than the standard allowances in universal credit, because the House decided, in passing the legislation, that our aim was to more or less guarantee pensioners’ incomes up to a minimum level. Pension credit is also more generous in its treatment of capital: the first £10,000 has no effect on entitlement and, unlike universal credit, it has no upper capital limit. That is for the obvious reason that pensioners tend to have larger savings, and those savings provide other contributions to people’s income. By contrast, capital above £6,000 can affect universal credit entitlement, and that entitlement normally ends if somebody has over £16,000 of capital. Comparisons with civilian personal injury compensation should be made carefully. I know why the hon. Member makes that point, but I want to be clear that lump sums paid under the armed forces compensation scheme are treated as personal injury capital, so they would be treated exactly the same as the payments that I think he said were more generous. That would not be the case; they would be treated identically. By contrast, ongoing war pension scheme payments, and guaranteed income payments under the armed forces compensation scheme, are income payments. That is the fundamental point on which there is probably disagreement. Comparisons can sometimes involve payments with different legal status, but they are not like-for-like payments. The hon. Member has argued that pension credit and service-related compensation meet different needs—again, that was an important part of his speech today. I actually agree with him on that point, but I think I need to explain what that means. Pension credit is a means-tested income safety net, and it provides a guaranteed minimum income. That is why we take people’s other income into account when assessing eligibility and need. Pension credit operates in a totally different way from universal credit, which sets a level of support and then tapers that away as other income comes in. It is not really about double funding; it is about the level of support that the state provides in addition to the income that a person already has. That was the nature of how pension credit was introduced. The hon. Member draws a parallel with the LGBT+ compensation payments. I hope that he will agree that the circumstances surrounding the Government setting up that financial recognition scheme are quite different and involve a different set of considerations. More broadly, no one is ever going to say that everything about the benefits system is perfect—certainly not anybody who spent a long time working on it and trying to help people navigate it prior to coming into Parliament, and who, like all hon. Members, has helped their constituents to navigate it—but I will try to give an explanation of what sits behind the logic. I absolutely recognise that, as Pauline set out clearly, it feels like an arbitrary system to people. Where there are lump sums or extra cost payments, those are disregarded within pension credit. Where there are regular payments that support income—one type of such payments is the focus of the debate and relates to how Pauline received her treatment—those are treated as income, and then the legislation requires us to partially disregard them. I appreciate that that is a technocratic explanation that does not do justice to Pauline’s individual circumstances, or to the circumstances of veterans with whom we all engage every day.

    Hansard source
31. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Torsten Bell

    Benefit Entitlements: War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation

    Whether compensation is provided via income or lump sums is obviously part of the compensation schemes, but I would be happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman about that. I do not know enough about the specifics of Pauline’s case to say how that would have played out, but it is the scheme rules, rather than the benefit system itself, that determine lump sum payments or ongoing payments. More broadly, I just want to say that I absolutely hear the hon. Member’s arguments and have done so on a number of occasions. I have also heard them from Pauline and from her family. I hear his clear request for the Government to change the regulations, and I recognise the power of those arguments. He has asked a straight question. I think the most I can do for him is to give him a straight answer: the Government are not in a position to change the regulations. I am not in a position to give him the first answer that he would like tonight, but he at least deserves a straight answer. This is a long-standing position, for the reasons I have set out. It is about the consistency of how the benefit system deals with a very large and growing number of compensation payments, all of which have similar issues to the ones we are discussing.

    Hansard source
32. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Torsten Bell

    Benefit Entitlements: War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation

    The straight answer is that my hon. Friend’s question has been tested on a number of occasions and the answer is no, but the legal question is not sufficient. The question is this: what is the right thing to do and are we supporting our veterans? The legal answer to his question is yes, but that does not take away from the need to test that more broadly in the way that we are doing tonight and have done on other occasions.

    Hansard source
33. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Torsten Bell

    Benefit Entitlements: War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation

    The answer to that is the legal position I have just set out, which is that the DWP does take that seriously, has considered it and is content that this is consistent with our obligations under the armed forces covenant. I think the hon. Member is trying to go beyond that to say that there are other things we should take into account, including arguments in this place, the position of veterans and the rest. However, narrowly on the legal question, the answer is yes. That has been tested, and our position is that it is consistent with the armed forces covenant. The fact that that is our position in no way undermines the powerful arguments that he has made and other hon. Members have supported, or those we have heard from our veterans, and I want to put that clearly on the record. I should finish by emphasising again the Government’s deep-felt gratitude to our armed forces for their professionalism, bravery and dedication to duty, and to those in such a position previously. Veterans now represent large parts of all our communities, and we continue to honour them for the work they did while they were serving, but also for being active citizens supporting all kinds of work. I have mentioned the veterans hub in Swansea, where I see brilliant work being done by people day in and day out. Question put and agreed to.

    Hansard source
34. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tom Collins

    Whistleblowing

    2. What steps she has taken with Cabinet colleagues to enhance the whistleblowing framework.

    Hansard source
35. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tom Collins

    Whistleblowing

    I am working with a constituent who has been subject to bullying and prejudice in high-level amateur sport. Current whistleblowing protections apply only to employees of an organisation, but sports people often have just as much, if not more, to lose if a sporting organisation turns against them. Does the Solicitor General agree that whistleblowing protections are important for good governance, safety and safeguarding in organisations across sectors?

    Hansard source
36. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tim Roca

    Inheritance Tax

    Madam Deputy Speaker, “We do not only ask today, ‘How much have you got?’, we also ask, ‘How did you get it? Did you earn it yourself, or has it just been left to you by others?’”. The estate duties provide a “corrective against the development” of the “idle rich”. And, “It is a far better thing to tax the accumulation of the past than to burden the industry of the present.” Those are not my words, Madam Deputy Speaker, but those of Winston Churchill, speaking 100 years ago. They raise a question that remains relevant today: do we want a country that gives people a fair chance to get on in life or one that keeps finding new ways to protect the wealth of those who already have the most? This motion tells us exactly where the Conservative party’s priorities lie. It calls on the Government to cut public spending in order to abolish inheritance tax, but it does not tell us which services they would cut, whose support they would withdraw or which communities would pay the price. It simply says “cut public spending.” That is easy enough to demand when one does not have to explain what it means for people’s lives. The Conservatives are asking us to approve billions of pounds in tax cuts without telling us how they would pay for them. That is not a serious plan; it is a tax giveaway looking for someone else to pick up the bill. They say that the proposals would cost around £6 billion by 2029-30, but as we have already heard from other hon. Members, once we take behavioural effects into account, the cost could be up to £10.8 billion. Who would benefit? Around 30,000 estates are expected to benefit. Estimates suggest that around 90% of the gains would go to the wealthiest 20% of pensioner households, with around 40% going to the wealthiest 5%. Around 70% of the benefits would go to London and the south-east, despite those areas accounting for only a quarter of pensioner households. Meanwhile, under the current system, fewer than one in 20 estates face an inheritance tax charge—a figure that has remained relatively stable for several decades now. Let us stop pretending that this is a tax cut for everyone; it is a substantial giveaway that would disproportionately benefit the wealthiest households to the tune of £10.8 billion. Nobody disputes that family farms matter, and families should be able to pass on and plan for the future of those farms and businesses. But wrapping a policy in the language of family farms does not mean that we should stop asking who benefits, and this proposal goes much further than targeted help—it is a wider tax break for the very wealthiest in society. There are questions about how it would work in practice. Conservatives say that they want to help people to pass on their homes, but what happens if those tax changes give older people a reason to stay in a larger property rather than downsize? Someone might want to sell a large home, move somewhere smaller and release money to support their retirement or help their family, but if inheritance tax treatment makes moving financially unattractive, their policy could discourage exactly the behaviour that they say they want to encourage.

    Hansard source
37. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tim Roca

    Inheritance Tax

    The Conservatives point to stamp duty as a barrier and promise to scrap it on a home, but removing one cost does not automatically resolve every other tax consequence, and we know that changes in tax policy are very behaviour sensitive. This is what happens when a party writes a policy to win a headline for a conference. It brings me back to Churchill. More than a century ago, he challenged the idea that inherited wealth should be waved through simply because it happened to belong to the right family. He asked the straightforward question that I quoted at the beginning: did you earn your wealth, or was it left to you? As my hon. Friends have said, people want to leave something to their children. There is nothing wrong with that. But why should the Government spend billions helping those who are already wealthy pass on even more while telling everyone else that public spending should be cut?

    Hansard source
38. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tim Roca

    Inheritance Tax

    If the hon. Lady wants to have an argument with Churchill, she may do so, but I will not join her. I believe he was a great man. Why should the Government spend billions helping those who are already wealthy? Why should families inheriting millions take priority over families struggling with bills? That is the choice at the heart of this motion: invest in services and support people who rely on them or hand a huge tax break to a small minority and leave everyone else to bear the cost. The Conservatives’ record makes their claims of fiscal responsibility even harder to take seriously. Between 2010 and 2019 the national debt increased from £1 trillion to £1.8 trillion. That was before covid and the war in Ukraine. Debt to GDP increased from 69% to 84%. As Members have pointed out, we then got treated to the Liz Truss magic of a disastrous experiment in unfunded tax cuts that sent markets into turmoil and damaged confidence in the UK. Then before the 2024 election we had many other promises of tax cuts worth billions that did not have any credible funding plans set behind them. Here they are again with another enormous tax giveaway but unable to tell us precisely which public services would pay the price. They have not learned the lessons of their failure; they just found new ways to replicate them. The public finances are not a bottomless pit that politicians can dip into whenever they fancy announcing a tax cut. Every promise has to be funded properly, because it has consequences for real people. The Conservatives spent years telling people that there was no alternative to difficult decisions, yet when it comes to their own priorities, they make the promise and leave somebody else to deal with the bill. That is not fiscal responsibility; it is fiscal incontinence. Their priorities are clear when we look at the two-child limit. The Conservatives indicated that they would reinstate a policy that would push 500,000 children back into poverty. At the same time, they want to direct a substantial tax benefit towards a tiny number of wealthy estates. The contrast is clear: they tell families on low incomes that the country cannot afford to help them, but they propose billions in tax cuts for the very wealthy. That is a choice, and it tells us who they put first in our society.

    Hansard source
39. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tim Roca

    Inheritance Tax

    As they say in “Father Ted”, that is an ecumenical matter. I am sure that the Minister will pick it up in his wind-up. Labour Members have done a great job of outlining the fantastic measures that the Government are taking, including measures on VAT and electricity bills, capping bus fares and 24-hour bus travel for disabled people from next April, so I will not touch on those. I will finish on what has—I hope—been the main theme of my speech. Today is all about one thing: tax cuts for the wealthiest, cuts to public services for everyone else. It is the same old Conservatives. They have not changed at all.

    Hansard source
40. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tim Roca

    Inheritance Tax

    I was quoting Churchill, in particular from a lecture given by Professor Daunton at Gresham College in 2021, when he directly quoted Churchill when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer as a Conservative.

    Hansard source