Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,578 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
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?
I think this is a birthday question. I call Mohammad Yasin.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Order. The hon. Gentleman will know that he must refer to his party leader by his constituency, not his name.
I call the Father of the House.
I thank the Minister for her statement.
The reasoned amendment in the name of Mr Richard Holden has been selected.
I call the Shadow Secretary of State.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
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?
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 <span id="241WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="241WH"></span>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.<span id="242WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="242WH"></span> 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 <span id="243WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="243WH"></span>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.
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.<span id="261WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="261WH"></span> 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.<span id="262WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="262WH"></span> 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.
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.<span id="552" class="column-number" data-column-number="552"></span> 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?
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.<span id="192" class="column-number" data-column-number="192"></span> 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.
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 <span id="193" class="column-number" data-column-number="193"></span>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”<span id="vol_col9" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="9" data-volume-number="" data-external-id="55656CAB-9FEA-4CA4-BD1D-93DCA88EB5C4"><em>––</em>[<em>Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, </em>15 September 2026; c. 9, Q7.]</span> 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?
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.” <span id="vol_col61" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="61" data-volume-number="" data-external-id="49097199-4B01-48FA-8F44-4BFD1C8856DD"><em>––</em>[<em>Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, </em>15 September 2026; c. 61, Q99.]</span><span id="195" class="column-number" data-column-number="195"></span> 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.
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?
I am going to close, because I think I have spoken enough and time is pressing on.<span id="199" class="column-number" data-column-number="199"></span> 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.
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.” <em>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.</em>
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 <span id="215" class="column-number" data-column-number="215"></span>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”,<span id="vol_col44" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="44" data-volume-number="" data-external-id="42BDB15B-6581-4BD7-8124-CAD149CFAD01"><em>––</em>[<em>Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, </em>15 September 2026; c. 44, Q67.]</span> 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,<span id="216" class="column-number" data-column-number="216"></span> “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 <em>v</em>. 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.”<span id="217" class="column-number" data-column-number="217"></span> 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”.
I was just about to close, but I will gladly give way.
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.
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?
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?
Will the hon. Member give way?
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, <span id="226" class="column-number" data-column-number="226"></span>will she do so by giving clear examples rather than by making throwaway comments? That would really help the Committee.
<Question HRSContentId="{8CEF34B1-C942-44B7-8DD0-A7BA89EECB9F}">1. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{A68FC82E-7C9F-4568-B432-23E3DD133525}">What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help support the creation of jobs for young people. </QuestionText></Question>
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?
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?
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.
A wealth of small businesses across my constituency keeps our local economy growing. Does my hon. Friend agree that at a time when our businesses need support that will enable them to create employment for the next generation, this Government—on whose Benches there is, of course, no business experience—are just squeezing and squeezing our businesses out of business?
The Minister appears to give the impression that he knows about the farming industry, but how often, if ever, does he actually go out on to a family farm and meet the farmers?
As I have listened to this debate today, I too have been reminded of the chilling words describing Labour MPs by their own Work and Pensions Secretary: “Every meeting I have is ‘who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others’.” This debate today once again sets out the battle of ideas between the welfare party and the Conservatives. This is the eighth vote the Conservatives have forced on the family farm and family business taxes since the disastrous first Labour Budget of broken promises. In that time, we have seen off a Prime Minister, a Chancellor and two DEFRA Secretaries of State, and discovered that one DEFRA Minister views black Labradors, warm ale and pubs as a far-right fantasy. We have also shown the power of rural and coastal communities, because through their protests here and across the country, the heartrending stories we have heard from families of the terrible discussions and decisions they have had to make in order to avoid this vindictive death tax, as set out eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), and the pressure we have exerted here in Westminster, we forced the Government into one of their most humiliating U-turns. There have been many, but this one was humiliating: their partial U-turn on these vindictive taxes. We are forcing another vote today, ahead of Budget, because we know the damage that these vindictive taxes continue to cause to the rural economy. We know that this Government have overseen the highest number of farms closing on record in a year—shameful. The Financial Secretary did not admit that. We also know, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) has set out, that the 10-year payment scheme that the Government keep talking about applies only if the estate is able to make the first payment within six months of the death, probate having been settled. Does anyone know of such a scenario in their own constituencies? This means that the 10-year payment plan is nothing but warm words from those on the Treasury Bench. It is an absolutely impossible condition to fulfil for the overwhelming majority of family farms and businesses that will be hit by these taxes. The Financial Secretary also did not acknowledge that investment in rural economies has dropped off a cliff. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> He is not listening, but he might want to do so. In a recent Country Land and Business Association survey, nearly nine in 10 rural family businesses stated that they have paused investment; in fact, 85% say that the current threshold of which the Financial Secretary is so proud is not enough to cover the value of their business, given the cost of machinery and livestock and the other business costs imposed by this Government. Of course, two pubs are also closing every day under this Government. In short, rural communities cannot afford Labour. Despite their protestations over the past two years, every single Labour MP has voted for the family farm tax and the family business tax multiple times; only one <span id="474" class="column-number" data-column-number="474"></span>had the courage to vote for his constituents. There is one other who did not: the Prime Minister, because he was not in Parliament at the time of the other votes. He knows that Labour has a rural problem, though. He has said that he recognises that the Government have a “long way to go to build back trust” with the farming community across the country. It is therefore a shame that today of all days, the Prime Minister has put another tax on family farms—the fertiliser tax. And every Labour MP voted for it. Again, the Work and Pensions Secretary was right. This is another hammer blow to British farming, only weeks after the shambolic handling of the sustainable farming incentive, the collapse of the Government’s environmental policy and the Prime Minister’s botched response on how his deal with the EU will, in fact, favour foreign farmers over British farmers and hand control over our food laws to the European Union. In the battle of ideas today, we have heard some superb speeches from the Conservatives Benches. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) painted a picture of the many local pubs and black Labradors in his Suffolk constituency—the DEFRA Minister may wish to take note. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) set out sound economic analysis, even if he admitted that his cricketing skills are not quite what they should be. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) set out a description of the Labour party that I think hits home almost as much as the words of the Work and Pension Secretary: Labour is the party that taxes aspiration. This vote tonight is the proof of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) made an excellent intervention about the fact that the tax focuses only on British family farms and family businesses and does not affect foreign owners of farmland. Perhaps the Minister will explain how it is fair that foreign farmers should not pay this tax but British farmers should do so. We heard other excellent speeches, including by my hon. Friends the Members for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), and for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who described Labour’s approach to taxation as “asset stripping our country”. Let me turn to some of the speeches from the Labour Benches. We heard from the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), who by the way voted for the family farm and family business tax seven times—tonight will be an eighth—and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), who only voted for it three times. I am sure his farmers are so happy about that. Both of them asked, “What can be done to help those who are not yet on the housing ladder?” I am delighted to tell them that the Conservative party has the answer. We will be scrapping—
No, if the hon. Gentleman sits down—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> I have some words about his AI-generated speech in a moment.<span id="475" class="column-number" data-column-number="475"></span> The Conservatives have the answer: we will scrap stamp duty on primary residences. That is how we help people back on the housing ladder. The hon. Member for Macclesfield also described his own constituents who want to pass on their family homes or family businesses to their children as the “idle rich”. I hope that was just the AI.
I will, and I genuinely hope that he will explain his “idle rich” comment. Go on.
That will not plough any furrows with the farmers in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency whom he has just described as the “idle rich”. What is more, he has got his figures wrong. He keeps throwing these figures around, but in fact that Tax Policy Associates think-tank that so many Labour colleagues seem to rely on has said that by the end of this decade one in six families will pay inheritance tax—many of them in his constituency, which I know well. The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) voted for the family farm and family business tax only a mere six times—he missed one of them—but he had the bright idea that farmers should get life insurance and planning advice. How on earth are farmers in his constituency on an income of around £20,000 a year going to afford that? It is yet more business taxes. We also heard a reliance on Dan Neidle and his organisation Tax Policy Associates. I merely make the point, so that it is open and transparent, that Dan Neidle is a senior member of the Labour party and served for three years on its disciplinary committee. The Conservatives are setting out the tough decisions to cut spending and help hard-working families up and down the country invest in their businesses and homes, ready to hand over to their families. People who have worked hard, paid their income tax, lived within their means and saved have not done so in order for the current Labour Chancellor to tax that all over again. They have done so because they have a deep desire to leave something to help the next generation prosper when they are no longer here.
I am so glad that the hon. Gentleman has brought that up, because not only did his first Chancellor extend the freeze, but she dragged pensioners into it. It is literally the worst of all words. Let me reiterate the point I just made, because it is an important one. Under this Government, one in six families will be liable to pay inheritance tax by 2030. <span id="476" class="column-number" data-column-number="476"></span>That means many more constituents being liable to pay the tax. The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay said that our idea to axe inheritance tax on the family home was bonkers. I hate to break it to him, but Austria, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, Australia, Canada and New Zealand have all done the same. The reason why we are doing it, and why this is so important, is that we know it is families who build this country; it is families who put down roots. They build a home, they run a farm or they start a business, and they bring prosperity and vibrancy to our villages and our towns. So I make the promise that the Conservatives will axe these taxes if Labour does not does so at the Budget, because only the Conservatives are the party of the family home, the family business and the family farm, and only the Conservatives will get Britain working again.
On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?
<em>rose</em><em>—</em>