Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,578 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Mr Louie French

   Sporting Events Bill [HL] (Second sitting)

   I will be very brief because I appreciate that this is the last part of the Bill. I recognise the points that the Minister made, and working together and ensuring the accountability of the devolved Administrations is vital for all major sporting events, not least the 2028 UEFA European championship. They are going to be across a number of the British Isles, which is a great thing for the whole of the United Kingdom to hopefully partake in and benefit from. Going forward, we would like to see some detail on some of the queries we have raised today. I appreciate the Minister’s offer to follow up with a meeting to talk through some of the various aspects within the Bill that we have discussed. His Majesty’s official Opposition have tried to approach the Bill in a manner that I hope is respected and understood by the Government. We have tried to improve it rather than delay or stop it for the sake of it. We think that the Bill can help deliver major sporting events for the country and the whole UK to benefit from going into the future.

   Hansard source
2. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

   Radiotherapy Satellite Units

   Badly!

   Hansard source
3. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

   Topical Questions

   Under the last Conservative Government, upwards of £300 million, which would have been lifesaving as well as life-changing for many of my constituents, was earmarked for the new Watford general hospital. The lack of those funds, combined with the closure of the urgent care centre at Mount Vernon hospital, means that many of my constituents are not now receiving the first-class healthcare that they would reasonably expect. What assurances can the Minister give local residents?

   Hansard source
4. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Mike Wood

   House of Lords Reform

   The hon. Gentleman has made a good start on setting out his case. However, does he not see the irony in calling for an appointed committee of the public and experts to look at how democratic the House of Lords is?

   Hansard source
5. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Mike Wood

   House of Lords Reform

   The question of House of Lords reform is obviously not new; successive Administrations of all political colours have grappled with it for decades—indeed, for more than a century. They have discovered that constitutional upheaval tends to be far easier to promise in opposition than to deliver successfully in government. The history reminds us of a fundamental truth: constitutional reform must always be approached with care, caution, balance and a clear understanding of the consequences. We would all agree that the House of Lords is far from perfect—certainly, no one from the official Opposition would suggest otherwise—but it performs a vital constitutional function. It provides thorough legislative scrutiny, brings into Parliament unmatched expertise from the law, science, business and public service, and holds Ministers to account. Crucially, the House of Lords serves as a vital check on the Executive, ensuring that legislation is properly stress tested and challenging Governments when they get things wrong. Having been a member of the Government Whips Office before the last election, I can say that that is not always convenient for Governments, but it is a core constitutional function. Any sensible reform must preserve and enhance that scrutiny, and never dismantle it purely for political convenience or advantage. That is where we have serious concerns about the Government’s approach. As has been said, in its 2024 manifesto Labour declared that the House of Lords was too large and promised to reduce its numbers; since then, the Government’s actions have told a rather different story. Even after expelling the hereditary peers, the House of Lords has about 800 Members—more than when the Government first declared that it was bloated. Apparently, the second Chamber is too big unless Downing Street happens to be the one packing the red Benches. I hope the Minister can explain that contradiction. Appointments must reflect the expertise that Parliament requires, not serve as a patronage machine to manufacture a compliant legislature. There is then the Government’s more radical proposition: abolishing the Lords entirely in favour of an elected senate of the nations and regions. But ambition is no substitute for detail. What powers would such a body possess? How would it be elected? Critically, how would it relate to the democratically elected House of Commons? <span id="374WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="374WH"></span>Those are not minor procedural queries. The fact that the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), the mover of the motion, seems to answer the question by saying that an unelected panel should decide highlights the fact that Labour had no idea what the radical Lords reform in its manifesto meant and had no plan to deliver it. If an elected second Chamber can claim equal democratic legitimacy, we invite constitutional gridlock, competing mandates and perpetual legislative paralysis. Our parliamentary system works precisely because it respects the primacy of this elected House, and has done for a century and more, while giving the revising Chamber the freedom to scrutinise. We should not discard that balance for an untested experiment. When will the Minister launch the proposed public consultation? Or are the Government expecting Parliament to sign a blank cheque on Lords reform? Let me turn to immediate measures. The Opposition engaged constructively with the House of Lords Retirement and Participation Committee. We agree that peers must actively contribute; however, we hold grave reservations about an arbitrary retirement age of 80. The distinct value of the other place lies in wisdom, institutional memory and lifetime service, so we should assess peers on the quality of their contribution, not the date on their birth certificate. Sensible reform is possible, just as previous Conservative Governments enabled voluntary retirement and expulsions for misconduct. We are ready to discuss appointments, size and standards, but the constitution belongs not to the Government of the day but to our nation.

   Hansard source
6. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Mike Wood

   House of Lords Reform

   It is beyond me to decide who should and should not be in the House of Lords any time soon, but I note that last month the hon. Gentleman’s party leader was talking about flooding the House of Lords with hundreds of new Reform peers, and he said that if that did not work to get Reform’s legislative agenda through, he would have a referendum on abolishing the House of Lords. Reform’s position seems a little confused. The second Chamber exists not to make life comfortable for Ministers but to hold power to account. The test of any reform is not whether it delivers a pliant Parliament, but whether it serves the British people. That is the test against which His Majesty’s Opposition will hold the Government to account.

   Hansard source
7. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Matt Vickers

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The clause addresses a basic question: when someone asks to stay in this country, what does the public interest expect of them? The Government’s answer is one that I suspect most of our constituents would recognise: that the person pays their way, does not rely on the state to put a roof over their head, does not commit crimes, co-operates with the authorities and is of good character. Those are reasonable expectations and we welcome much of the clause. The clause’s strength, however, comes down to a handful of words. Proposed new subsection 117B(4) of the 2002 Act says: “No weight should be given to a private or family life” that is built up while someone is here unlawfully, on leave obtained by deception or in serious breach of their conditions. Think about who that covers—someone who came here illegally, lied to get a visa or broke the conditions on which this country let them in. When the time comes to remove them, that person asks a court to weigh a life built up in that time against their removal.<span id="255" class="column-number" data-column-number="255"></span> We agree with the Government that weight should not be given. However, “should” is the language of advice; “must” is the language of law. The Government have already moved from “little weight” to “no weight”, and I welcome that—amendment 105 simply finishes the job. If the Government mean that no weight must be given, let the statute say, “No weight must be given”. In this area of law, a door left ajar is an invitation. Moreover, the no weight rule applies only where someone is in serious breach of their conditions. What is serious? Is it working beyond the hours that their visa allows? Is it claiming benefits that they are not entitled to? Is it overstaying their visa by a month? The Bill does not say, so a tribunal will decide case by case, which will bring us back to the very weighing exercise that the Government say they want to end. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the Committee what the Home Office understands a “serious breach” to mean, and whether it will be defined in guidance. Amendment 104 deals with good character. Proposed new subsection 117B(3A) says it is in the public interest that people seeking to stay here are of good character, but clause 19 does not say what good character means. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire that there is already a well-established test in the good character requirement for British citizenship set out in Home Office guidance. Amendment 104 says that the court should apply that test. It would be strange if the bar to stay in this country were lower than the bar to become a citizen of it, and stranger still for every tribunal to invent its own version from scratch. The clause asks the right questions. Our amendments ensure that the answers carry the force of the law. The Government have chosen “no weight” over “little weight”, and that is welcome; let them finish the job by replacing “should” with “must” and telling us what they mean by “good character” and “serious breach”. I commend our amendments to the Committee.

   Hansard source
8. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Matt Vickers

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

   Let us be absolutely clear about what this group of amendment is about: it is about whether a foreign national who comes to this country and commits a serious crime found to be worthy of a long sentence gets to stay here. The British public have a simple answer to that question, and so do we: they should go. The principle at stake is straightforward: if someone is a guest in this country and they rape, rob, deal drugs or abuse a child, they have forfeited the right to remain here—not after years of appeals or after a tribunal has weighed their family life against the lives of others that they have wrecked. They should go. On Second Reading, the Government told the House that clause 20 would make it easier to remove foreign criminals and that deportation should go ahead outside of a limited number of truly exceptional circumstances. The trouble is that the clause does not match them; for the most serious offences, it does the opposite. Behind every one of these cases is a victim: a woman who lies awake wondering whether the man who attacked her is still living a few streets away, or a family who were told that justice had been done, only to learn that the offender is now fighting to stay. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire explained how the law works today. Since 2014, someone sentenced to four years or more for rape, armed robbery or dealing drugs on our streets has been unable to hide behind their family or how long they have lived here. Those exceptions are simply not enough; someone has <span id="274" class="column-number" data-column-number="274"></span>to show very compelling circumstances over and above them. That is a high bar, and it is meant to be. The worse the crime, the narrower the door. Clause 20 takes that line away. The four-year threshold is gone. Someone serving 10, 15 or 20 years can now walk straight into the argument that deporting them would be unduly harsh on their family. Today that route is closed to them, but under this Bill, it is opened. Let us think about what that means. The victim found the courage to give evidence, the jury convicted, the judge handed down a long sentence and then, at the end of all that, the defender gets to say that deportation would be too hard on them. The Minister will tell us not to worry, because subsection (2) of proposed new section 117C says that the more serious the offence, the greater the public interest. That goes to one of the oldest questions in lawmaking: do you legislate with a rule or with a standard? A rule says four years, and that settles it; a standard says to weigh everything up and decide case by case. Rules give certainty; standards give discretion. In this area, discretion has been a gift to lawyers and a source of deep frustration to the public. That is precisely why Parliament chose a rule in 2014. The whole purpose was to narrow the discretion of the courts because the balance they were striking was one the public simply did not recognise. Clause 20 hands the scales back, and we all know where weighing exercises end up: in front of a tribunal, then an appeal, then another appeal. Can the Minister point to a single line in proposed new section 117C that stops someone sentenced to four years or more relying on the “unduly harsh” exception? I have read it several times and I cannot find one. Between 2015 and 2022, around 420 foreign offenders a year won human rights appeals against their removal. That is more than one every single day, and that is with the four-year rule still in place. The Home Office does not even publish how many had sentences of four or more years. If the Government are so confident that the clause is tougher, let them publish the numbers. Amendment 107 would put the four-year rule back, and amendment 111 would keep the existing rules on how a sentence is counted, so that the system works. Then there is amendment 109: it is only a few words, but they tell us everything. Today, a serious offender must show very compelling circumstances “over and above” the exceptions. Clause 20 changes that to circumstances “at least as strong”. “Over and above” means more; “at least as strong” means the same. That is not tightening the test but loosening it. When Parliament changes the wording of a test, the courts are entitled to presume that it meant to change the meaning, so a tribunal reading “at least as strong” will quite properly conclude that this House intended a lower bar. We would be legislating for exactly the outcome the Government say they want to avoid. Parliament chose those words in 2014, and the courts have applied them ever since, so why change them? Did the Home Office mean to lower the bar, or did nobody notice? Neither answer should give this Committee much comfort. Amendment 109 would put the original words back. Amendment 108 goes further than the current law; we make no apology for that. Sentence length is a rough guide to how dangerous someone is, but it is not the whole story. Guilty pleas get discounts, and the facts of <span id="275" class="column-number" data-column-number="275"></span>individual cases mean that some very dangerous people get less than four years. Amendment 108 says that, for the worst offences, the type of crime settles it. If someone is convicted of a specified violent, sexual or terrorist offence or a sexual offence against a child, long residence and family routes are off the table, whatever the sentence. Let me put that plainly: a foreign national who has sexually abused a child should not be able to stand in a tribunal and argue that deporting them would be unduly harsh on their family. What about the harshness inflicted on the child?

   Hansard source
9. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Matt Vickers

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

   We are saying that the Bill puts in place choices based on how long someone has been sentenced. We are saying that if someone is sentenced to more than four years, they should not be eligible. If someone commits specific offences, such as sexual offences against a child, they should not be able to rely on the exceptions. That is exactly where we are at.

   Hansard source
10. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

    The other provisions in the Bill make the case that people can be sent down, depending on the harshness of the sentence. We are saying that if it is over four years, or if someone commits a sexual act against a child or a terrorist act, there will be no ifs or buts, and those exceptions will not apply. There will still be space under the other provisions of the Bill to take action. An attempt to deport a Sri Lankan paedophile convicted of assaulting three teenage boys was delayed over claims that it would breach his human rights. People look at such cases and wonder whose side the system is on. On Second Reading, the Government cited the case of grooming gang leader Shabir Ahmed. If they accept the principle there, they should accept it here. Last year, I tabled a new clause to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to stop the Human Rights Act 1998 being used to frustrate deportations. The Government voted it down, 14 votes to two. Today, we are asking for far less: simply that they do not make the current law weaker. The Government say they want deportation to be the rule. Our amendments would make it the rule. An immigration system must rest on public consent. Every time a serious offender stays because the law gave them one more argument, that consent wears thinner. Lose it, and the system loses legitimacy. Every member of the Committee has constituents who have lost faith that the system is on their side. They are not asking for a finely balanced weighing exercise; they are asking for their safety and that of their children to come first. This group of amendments does exactly that, and I commend them to the Committee.<span id="276" class="column-number" data-column-number="276"></span>

    Hansard source
11. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eighth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. Let me set out the test that we will apply to this part of the Bill. Protection should be there for people who genuinely need it, when they need it. When that need ends, they should go home. That is what the public expect, and it is what the Government say they want. The question is whether this part of the Bill delivers it. First, to give them credit where it is due, the Government now propose to replace clause 21 with new clauses 35 and 36 and new schedule 1. Instead of leaving the whole framework to regulations, Ministers propose to put the definition into the Bill itself. That is better. Amendment 132 has not been selected so the question of retaining clause 21 will come through the stand part debate, but there is still a scrutiny problem. New clause 36 keeps a power to change primary legislation with no time limit. The linked Government amendment 134 makes those changes subject to affirmative approval, but other regulations would use the negative procedure. Why should powers to confer rights or impose obligations operate on that basis? What further change does the Minister already have in mind? I support amendment 137, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire. Before any further leave is granted, it would require consideration of whether <span id="294" class="column-number" data-column-number="294"></span>removal would still breach our obligations on the convention or humanitarian protection grounds. That means checking the continuing need at every renewal, not just in selected cases. Government new clause 35 would give the Home Secretary a power to revoke protection status, but a power to revoke is not a duty to review. Will the Minister carry the principle of amendment 137 into the replacement framework? When protection is no longer needed, how will departure follow? That is why we cannot support amendment 53, tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. It would require an initial grant of at least five years and eligibility to apply for settlement after five years, but the passing of five years tells us nothing about whether protection is still needed. That need should determine the approach. Nor can we support amendment 54. It would allow partners, children and dependent adult children to apply to join someone with protection status without fees, a health surcharge, an income test or maintenance or accommodation requirements. Who pays when the sponsor cannot support or house the family? What assessment has been made of the numbers and the pressure on housing, schools and GP surgeries? On amendment 75, how would children’s interests be considered under the replacement framework? Amendment 51 would challenge the power to confer rights and impose obligations, while amendment 52 would challenge a different provision for convention and humanitarian claims. What difference does the Minister intend? On amendment 74, would the commitment not to reduce existing entitlements still apply? I support amendment 138, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire. Before the first regulations were put to Parliament, it would require the publication of draft regulations and a statement of the proposed immigration rules, covering the length of leave, reviews of protection and the qualifying period for settlement. Those details would tell us how this will actually work. Although the amendment was drafted against clause 21, the need for those answers does not disappear when the Government replace it. Will the Minister publish the equivalent material for the new framework before asking Parliament to approve its implementation? What happens to existing grants, pending claims and live appeals? Will anyone have to reapply because the label has changed? What staff and resources will be needed to review protection properly without creating another backlog? We support protection for as long as it is needed. Amendments 137 and 138 ask Ministers to explain how they will check that need and show Parliament the rules. Putting definitions in the Bill is welcome, but we still need to know how the system will work.

    Hansard source
12. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Kit Malthouse

    House of Lords Reform

    <em>indicated dissent.</em>

    Hansard source
13. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Kit Malthouse

    House of Lords Reform

    Does the Minister agree that more important than the number of people or how often they attend that House is that it has become clear that individual peers are much more powerful than individual elected Members of Parliament? They have greater privileges and less transparency, and are able to influence legislation to a much greater degree than we are in this elected House. That is fundamentally what lies at the heart of the problem. We can indulge ourselves with tweaks around the edges, as all Governments have done, but in the end, unless we address that fundamental problem, the dissatisfaction will continue.

    Hansard source
14. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dr Murrison. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire has dealt with this point eloquently, but I wish to speak briefly on clause 19 and the Opposition amendments. Obviously, I support what the Government are trying to achieve here, but I think they could go a little further in the drafting. When we talk about public interest, that goes to the heart of the whole issue and problem we have in this country of trying to tackle immigration—in particular, legal immigration and asylum claims. What is in the public interest? The problem is that the system we have has strayed so far from the public interest. Although the clause gives a legal definition, it is also a meaningful way of translating and understanding a political, social, economic and public problem. It is in the public interest that we do all we can to tackle the current volume of asylum and immigration claims. It is not a unanimous position, but very few in Parliament, and very few in the public at large, would disagree with the fundamental point that we need to bring down the level of immigration, asylum claims and illegal boat crossings. On the public interest consideration, the topic of the right to family life picks up from the Committee’s discussion last week. The right to family life stems from the European convention on human rights and is a qualified right, meaning that it does not stand towering above all other considerations. It is my view, and a commonly held view—in fact, a view that was given by the Minister—that the right has strayed too far. Over many years, jurisprudence has allowed an expansive interpretation that has taken the family life core protection to cover a far wider set of circumstances. It is now used as a routine tool by those who wish to remain in the UK when the threat to or infringement of their family life, as a fundamental human right, is not really an issue. Clause 19 is part of the framework that seeks to attack that use.<span id="253" class="column-number" data-column-number="253"></span> We are where we are partly because of a set of legislation—with a convention at its core—made by Parliament over the years, including the Human Rights Act 1998 and other Acts, that has sought to define and in some cases limit, in others not, what we mean by the right to family life and the public interest. Those laws have been unsuccessful in doing that. The intention was there, but the drafting was insufficiently certain—though to some extent that is inherent in all legislating in this place—to ensure that the courts interpret the legislation as narrowly as Parliament intended. The Government have gone some way to try to be restrictive, as they think they have been in this clause, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire points out, some changes to the wording can be made. His amendments 105 and 106 seek to deliver those. The clause states: “No weight should be given”; but stating that no weight must be given would get rid of a door that is ajar to the courts to interpret the clause more expansively. The amendment slams that door by inserting the word “must”, so that there is no leeway for a clever legal argument that “should” gives sufficient leeway for a court effectively to make a decision that runs against what the legislation is trying to deliver. I do not take the view that judges or indeed lawyers—on the whole, as a profession, broadly speaking—should be demonised for making decisions that use loopholes in the law. If this place fails to make the law certain and fails to close those loopholes, the fault comes back to Parliament and the Government who brought the legislation through Parliament. Here is the opportunity to tighten it up—that is the purpose of a Bill Committee: to tighten up wording through the fair scrutiny process. The Opposition’s amendment 106 relates to a measure where the Government were perhaps not trying to completely close the door. It may be something that they deliberately left open. Amendment 106 would change proposed new section 117B(4)(b) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 in clause 19(4) of the Bill. I will quote proposed new paragraph 117B(4)(b) for <em>Hansard</em>, though it may appear out of context: “they are in serious breach of a condition attached to their leave to enter or remain.” The Opposition amendment seeks to leave out the word “serious” so that the provision applies to someone simply in breach of a condition. My suspicion is that the Government want to leave a set of breaches of a condition that would not affect someone’s leave to remain. The Opposition’s position is that, if someone has breached a condition, that should mean the fundamental failure of any claim to remain that cites a right to family life. To me, the amendment would provide the certainty needed and deliver on what the public expect of us to tackle a significant problem in this country—the large number of claims that go beyond the original intention behind the right to family life. The problem with leaving the word “serious” in the legislation is that it will be open to the court to make a decision about whether a breach is serious enough. Without any specific guidance or checklist in the legislation, the court will consider seriousness as a relative word or concept in an appellant’s case to not be returned to <span id="254" class="column-number" data-column-number="254"></span>another country. A case could be made based on circumstance that family life is fundamentally important to someone and that sending them home would split up a family. They may paint a picture of the environment at home that could be very alien to us as a free and democratic society. Suddenly, that “serious breach” question might lead a court to conclude that a serious breach in the abstract becomes quite a minimal one when compared with an applicant’s story of hardship. My concern is that the word “serious” will become a flexible term to be interpreted by the court. It will always be measured against the relative hardship of the claimant, who will of course state their case at its strongest in order to leverage the flexibility of the word “serious”. I struggle to see why the Government would not want to add in certainty, unless they particularly want to create an avenue where people can still make the right to family life claim. It would be extraordinary if they did, given all the rationale they have provided for bringing forward this set of provisions and the Bill in the first place. The Minister should be very clear about whether she sees this as a disagreement around drafting, or whether she is seeking—I am sure that she would have a reason for it, though I would disagree with it—to have an avenue of flexibility in the Bill, and why. There is provision in the clause, and rightfully so, for particular circumstances in relation to children. Children are in a very special category because of their dependency and vulnerability. There are a number of situations laid out, but subsection (6) in particular deals with situations where there would be “a very significant and long-lasting adverse effect on the child.” We do not want to see people deported or removed when that would have a significant and long-lasting adverse effect on the child. There are protections are built in here. Others may say that this is a particularly draconian provision, but I see some protections there and in paragraphs (a) to (c) of proposed new subsection (7) that are widely accepted and uncontroversial, and I wanted to draw attention to them.

    Hansard source
15. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

    Surely the Minister understands that while “no weight” may be the starting point, the end point is the decision, and that is the issue. A decision maker can have a starting point of “no weight”, but attach weight, and suddenly the decision is not where I think even she might intend in many cases.

    Hansard source
16. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

    Clause 20 deals with cases involving foreign criminals and others liable to deportation. The issues I have with the clause are broadly twofold. One issue is around the drafting, which has a number of serious deficiencies. That is not about whether the Government are getting it wrong or right on what they are trying to achieve, but about having certainty on what the legislation will do when it comes to people having to make decisions. My second issue is disagreement with what the Government are trying to achieve. Under proposed new section 117C, which I will try to deal with as precisely as I can, “(1) Where a person is liable to deportation, the public interest, and in particular the interest in public safety and the prevention of disorder or crime, requires their deportation unless its effect on the person or a member of their family would be disproportionate.” That deals with the public interest and its definition. Let us put aside the “unless”, which clearly opens an avenue for the court to examine whether the effect on <span id="270" class="column-number" data-column-number="270"></span>the person or a member of their family would be disproportionate, and deal with that public interest element. Proposed new subsection (1) says that “the public interest...requires” the deportation of those liable to it, which directs the court to define “public interest” as one thing. However, the Bill tries to define what that public interest is in proposed new subsection (2). It sets out “more serious” factors that point towards a greater public interest in a person’s deportation. It does not matter what those factors are, but they are in proposed new subsection (2)(a) to (c). Why on earth does the court need direction in assessing the extent of the public interest when it is being directed to consider that public interest simply “requires their deportation”? It seems entirely meaningless to start directing the court as to what public interest might mean in terms of giving weighting to the factors in proposed new subsection (2)(a) to (c) when the court is being told to simply deport under the public interest. I fail to see how it has any relevance whatsoever, and it is potentially distracting from what the Government are trying to achieve. I will now deal with the “unless” element, because that is entirely separate. Proposed new section 117C says that deportation is required “unless its effect on the person or a member of their family would be disproportionate.” The court decision makers are given some help on what “disproportionate” would mean, which is entirely sensible. I disagree with some of the elements that the court should consider, but it is sensible to give the decision makers some direction. I will stick to the drafting of paragraphs (a) to (c) of proposed new section 117C(4). Paragraph (a) says that exceptional circumstances apply where a person “has been lawfully resident in the United Kingdom for most of their life”. Given that provisions in relation to children, not just in this Bill but generally in the way we do law in this country, are different from provisions in relation to adults, that provision needs to be clear about whether it means a person has been resident in the United Kingdom for most of their adult life or their entire life from birth. Although it may suggest entire life from birth, I can see a court assuming it means adult life because we deal with children separately. It would therefore be much easier for someone who is, say, aged 24 and has been in the country for only three or four years to say that they have been a resident for most of their life, because provisions for children are separate. That is an avenue that could be exploited through a lack of drafting, unless the Government mean adult life. I think they should mean entire life, and they should be specific about what they mean. Secondly, paragraph (b) says that exceptional circumstances apply where “the person is socially and culturally integrated in the United Kingdom”. How on earth is a decision maker or a court supposed to determine whether someone is or is not socially and culturally integrated into the UK? We could have an entire PhD thesis on the extent of somebody’s social and cultural integration. We may all have views on what it means to be socially and culturally integrated. There may be some common themes around our views, but <span id="271" class="column-number" data-column-number="271"></span>there will be much disagreement about the specifics when trying to make a decision about an individual case. Of course, the decision makers are not there to do some highly resourced, detailed investigative study into someone’s circumstances. They will basically be relying on assertions. Surely it is open to someone saying, “I’ve lived here for a number of years. I speak English to a degree and I can go about normal daily life without endlessly causing friction or hardship, and I am therefore sufficiently socially and culturally integrated into the UK.” Or is the court supposed to examine the way they dress or eat, who they mix with and how often, the cultural background of the people they mix with or their religious traditions? Not only is it opening a can of worms, but it is quite offensive to have the state investigating someone’s social and cultural integration in order to make a yes or no decision. According to this provision, a court—the decision maker—is not to make a decision about someone being reasonably well integrated or showing signs of cultural integration; someone is either socially and culturally integrated, or they are not. I just cannot see how the Government can possibly expect a decision maker to open up such an investigation. And that would be only one part of the integration inquiry. Proposed new subsection (4)(c) then talks about “very significant obstacles to the person’s integration in the country to which they are proposed to be deported.” Having run the analysis and come up with a view about an individual’s cultural and social integration into the UK, the decision maker has to run a similar test on their ability to integrate into the country to which they are supposed to be deported—a theoretical test, because it might be somewhere they have not been for some time—where it is even harder to make some sort of value judgment, because it is a country that the decision maker could have absolutely zero experience of living in, and so they will, again, be reliant on assertions. The test in that case is not even the same as in proposed new subsection 4(b), where the person must be “socially and culturally integrated”; at subsection 4(c), it is the person’s “integration”—there is no qualification of cultural and social integration. In this country, they could be socially and culturally integrated, but not integrated in a wide range of other ways; yet in the country that they are proposed to go to, any integration issues, not just social and cultural ones, could be a “significant” obstacle to integration. I do not understand why the definition is narrower on the question of a person’s integration—albeit far too broad for a court to tackle—for assessing the situation in this country and much wider for the situation elsewhere. There are serious drafting issues here. We cannot merely just see where it all comes out in the wash, saying Home Office officials are very capable and all that sort of stuff. We have seen the problem with the number of appeals. Some of these provisions will genuinely need the court to tackle the interpretation issues, in the normal way that we do common law in this country, through test cases. These provisions will require an unusual set of test cases, through to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, to get judicial interpretation and assistance for the courts to apply thereafter, but, as <span id="272" class="column-number" data-column-number="272"></span>we have seen in test cases, it is rarely one case that sets a new environment for the lower courts and decision makers to adhere to, but a series of them. This is not only going to require an extraordinary amount of time to understand terms that the Government just need to deal with at this stage through the legislation process, but it will take years; any individual case that goes all the way up to the Supreme Court on how the court interpreted “socially and culturally integrated” will take a long time in and of itself—months into years. Where we may have challenging cases that seek to overturn what, for example, the Court of Appeal has said, by using the Supreme Court, we are talking years on years. The Government are creating massive scope for backlog and uncertainty, and a huge opportunity for the legal profession to run a high volume of case law—it would be genuinely interesting, but would completely undermine the Government’s intention, which is to tackle backlogs, speed up the system and stop the endless need for judicial interpretation. That is what has led us to where we are, which is broader and broader interpretation.

    Hansard source
17. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Banking hub in Fakenham

    Fakenham needs a banking hub. It is a vibrant market town; it has about 80 high street businesses, as well as light industrial and manufacturing concerns, and it is the economic hub that services more than 17,000 adults and their children. However, with the exception of Nationwide, all of the banks have left. This petition—together with a separate petition by Councillor Liz Vickers, supported by Councillor Christopher Cushing and more than 1,470 residents—requests “that the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate action to ensure face-to-face banking services are accessible in Fakenham” through a banking hub. <em>Following is the full text of the petition:</em> <em>[The petition of residents of Fakenham</em><em>,</em> <em>Declares that Fakenham is the service and market centre for a large rural community in North Norfolk; further, that despite serving over 17,000 adults, supporting more than 80 high street businesses, and facing some of the poorest access to alternative banking services in the county, the town has been denied a Banking Hub; further, we call on LINK and the banking industry to reconsider this decision and ensure that residents, vulnerable customers and local businesses in Fakenham have access to the face-to-face banking services they need.</em> <em>The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate action to ensure face-to-face banking services are accessible in Fakenham through the establishment of a Banking Hub.</em> <em>And the petitioners remain, etc.</em><em>]</em> [P003245]

    Hansard source
18. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·James Wild

    Topical Questions

    On Saturday, I joined hundreds of people in King’s Lynn in protesting against leaked plans for Norfolk and Waveney University Hospitals Group to downgrade accident and emergency and maternity services, and the intensive care unit, at the Queen Elizabeth hospital. Does the Health Secretary agree that services should be as local to people as possible, and will she reject any plans to remove services from the QEH?

    Hansard source
19. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Helen Grant

    Sporting Events Bill [HL] (Second sitting)

    I welcome the Bill’s focus on legacy and, of course, the Minister’s genuine enthusiasm for women participating in sport. As a former Minister for Sport, I know how great major sporting events can be for people and for our country. However, they do not automatically ensure more female participation, more women coaches and more women on boards. A good example is that a football competition might result in five new 5G pitches, but if subsequently those pitches are booked out for 90% of the time by boys and men, that will not move the diversity and inclusion dial or do anything about the gender gap. Therefore, it would be very good to hear how the Minister will actually address those issues. If she does <span id="92" class="column-number" data-column-number="92"></span>not feel that it is appropriate to respond in complete detail today, I would be more than happy to have a chat with her later, or of course she could write to me.

    Hansard source
20. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Step-down Intermediate Care: Community Hospitals

    Step-down beds in community hospitals, such as the Chase community hospital and Haslemere hospital in my constituency, are vital. Unfortunately, neither of those two hospitals is being used for that purpose at the moment. At the same time, delayed discharges have hit an all-time high under this Government. More than 14,000 patients a day are stuck in hospital for two weeks or more after being declared fit to leave—that is up 12% since July last year. Behind every one of those numbers is someone who wants to be at home and an acute bed that another patient desperately needs. Why are the Government failing so abysmally at getting people out of hospital and into care at home?

    Hansard source
21. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    Hear, hear.

    Hansard source
22. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I rise to support amendments 5 and 6, and new clause 2, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. May I say at the outset that it is a pleasure to again be serving on a Public Bill Committee relating to transport and to be opposite the Minister, who is an extremely decent and able Minister? In previous Public Bill Committees, even when he said no, he managed to say no to the Opposition’s suggestions in a very nice and gentle way. Let us see how he does this time. It is also a pleasure to serve again opposite the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford—we served on the Railways Bill Committee together—and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage. May I also take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield on his elevation since we last sat on a Public Bill Committee together? It is well deserved, and I wish him all the very best in his new role. The Minister has set out his opposition to the amendments and the new clause. Although I entirely agree with him about the importance of retaining a focus on safety, consumer protection and consumer rights, which is what the Bill is about, that does not necessarily sit in contradiction to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said about economic growth. It is important that we keep that in mind. The Minister might wish on a future occasion to come back to the point about costs, but I ask him now to reflect on pages 25 and 32 of the impact assessment, which show that the monetised benefits are the two aspects that are rated red because of the costs; they are both rated as negative, because of the costs on business and the broader costs. I heard what he said about the longer-term opportunities for this legislation to drive growth. Nevertheless, I would be grateful if he addressed that point—if not in relation to this set of amendments, then perhaps in relation to a future set of amendments, where it is in scope to do so—if he does not catch the Clerk’s eye in a negative way while doing so.

    Hansard source
23. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    The hon. Member has painted a vivid picture of the realities of air travel, and he is eloquently explaining the thinking behind the amendment. I understand the intent—it is a worthy and sensible aim—but is he not concerned that the drafting of the <span id="17" class="column-number" data-column-number="17"></span>amendment is quite tight? There may be times when an airline, because of circumstances beyond its control—the number of passengers, seating arrangements or whatever—would fall foul of the legislation because it does not allow the necessary degree of discretion.

    Hansard source
24. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    I am grateful to the Minister for being typically generous in giving way. I suspect that all in the room will have received complaints from constituents about either very high charges for dropping off—I had one recently at East Midlands airport—or fines related to opaque regulations about dropping off at airports. Nothwithstanding the exact wording here, is the Minister open to reflecting on not just drop-off charges, but penalty notices associated with drop-off areas and charges at airports?

    Hansard source
25. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [LORDS] (Second sitting)

    I understand entirely what the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are seeking to do in new clause 1, but what assessment have they made of the financial implications of setting up this new route on a per annum basis?

    Hansard source
26. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [LORDS] (Second sitting)

    I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s flow of rhetoric highlighting the golden age of air travel, as he may or may not characterise it. I do not disagree with the challenges that can be faced and the fact that people make ordinary mistakes, but is there not a simple way of doing this? Before going to the airport and getting on a plane, people should check the requirements on the website and make sure that the bag fits them.

    Hansard source
27. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Young People’s Health

    Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I start by associating myself with your remarks on the tragic events involving Helen Haines over the last 24 hours? According to a recent report from Future Minds, more than 2.7 million referrals have been made since the last election to children’s and young people’s mental health services in England, with more than a third of those referred still awaiting treatment. How can the Government seriously claim to be tackling the rising number of young people not in education, employment or training while simultaneously overseeing the waiting list run out of control?

    Hansard source
28. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Primary Care

    One thing that hinders access to and the effectiveness of primary care is Labour’s mandatory use of single point of access—so much so that a safety watchdog has linked it to deaths. After those on the Government Front Bench dismissed the concerns raised by Conservatives, it turns out that an investigation has been set forward, with the NHS Strategy Unit asked to look at the matter. Will the Minister set out the terms of reference that the Strategy Unit is using, the timeframe and when this House can expect to hear the answers to ensure this is done safely?

    Hansard source
29. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Continuity of Care in the NHS

    Continuity of care is desirable but not always possible, and in circumstances where it is not, a single patient record offers an opportunity to improve care, but it also brings the risk of unauthorised access to <span id="955" class="column-number" data-column-number="955"></span>notes. We have seen recent high-profile cases where notes have been accessed that should not have been. That has led to people across the country worrying that this issue could affect them personally in less high-profile cases and about what will happen when the single patient record will be available nationally. How are the Government going to protect patient confidentiality?

    Hansard source
30. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Continuity of Care in the NHS

    Another issue that affects continuity of care is when patients remain in the emergency department for prolonged periods after a decision is made to admit them to a ward. That has gone up by over a third since the general election. Can the Government say why?

    Hansard source
31. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Young People’s Health

    The new Weybridge health centre in my constituency, which is being rebuilt following the fire in 2017, was planned to provide a range of general services. When I visited it recently, I learned that the first floor still does not have tenants in place. Will the Minister meet me and representatives from the Phoenix family practice to discuss how we can ensure that Weybridge gets the best possible broad healthcare provision?

    Hansard source
32. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    That matter is particularly pertinent when it comes to consideration of the Omagh bombing. Given the material that we are discussing today, what indication has the Secretary of State had from the Irish Government that they will withdraw their inter-state case against the United Kingdom at the European Court of Human Rights? It seems to me that they are very reluctant to act at all.

    Hansard source
33. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Hansard source
34. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    I am sure the Secretary of State will appreciate the importance of this point, as it does touch on the events of late 1998. There will be people out there watching the process of the Bill and wondering why they are, in effect, excluded from it. With the Bill as drafted, the suspicion may very well be that that is to spare the sensitivities of the Republic of Ireland, as the material that has been referred to would then come into scope if we were to extend this, perfectly reasonably, to the end of 1998, rather than confining it to the events prior to April 1998. If I may say so, the Secretary of State gave no compelling reason yesterday why the amendments that have been tabled to that effect would not be accepted by the Government.

    Hansard source
35. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Douglas Lumsden

    Long Duration Electricity Storage Systems

    The hon. Gentleman states that the electricity price is considerably higher than the gas price. He made the argument that gas is setting the price for electricity, but can he explain why the price of gas was so low compared to the price of electricity?

    Hansard source
36. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    NHS Dentists

    <Question HRSContentId="{66773A21-F344-4FE2-94AF-4430AFA78622}">8. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{F7642D3F-BFF5-4EA5-B73C-E2FC546A8AAB}">What assessment her Department has made of the adequacy of access to NHS dentists.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source
37. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    NHS Dentists

    Access to NHS dentistry is a major problem in my constituency, with 86% of the respondents to my dentistry survey being unable to access one. Some told me that they still travel back to their old NHS dentist after moving home and, in one case, someone took a trip of more than 130 miles because no local practice would take them as a patient. Unlike GP surgeries, NHS dentists have no catchment areas. Will the Minister please look at whether that is making it harder for local people to get an appointment?

    Hansard source
38. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Davis

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    <em>rose—</em>

    Hansard source
39. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Davis

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    To add to that point, when the Secretary of State looks at that, will he also look at elements written into the Irish constitution, particularly with respect to the operation of the Garda and its duty to protect the reputation of the Irish state? That will also cripple any attempt to expose information.

    Hansard source
40. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Davis

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    Every single time we have seen a member of the special forces in the UK speak in public about this matter, they have made it plain that they do not believe that they are above the law. On the contrary, they believe that they are there to uphold the law and that what they object to is making the process the punishment, which is where we are now.

    Hansard source