Matt Vickers
MP for Stockton West · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Clause 30 allows a court to adjourn proceedings on a slavery and trafficking prevention order at sentencing. If the defendant does not attend the adjourned hearing, the court may adjourn again, issue a warrant for their arrest or, subject to safeguards, proceed in their absence.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clear information can help with both, but a longer statement is not necessarily a better one, and paying someone to produce a polished document is no substitute for checking what is happening on the ground. Clause 44 and schedule 5 make reporting topics compulsory.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We made the same argument during the passage of the Crime and Policing Bill, to which we tabled amendments that would have put real penalties on registered sex offenders who failed to notify. An obligation with no teeth is no obligation at all. However, collecting information is only half the job.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I welcome the fact that those regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, but before we give the Minister this regulation-making power, the Committee should understand the gap it is meant to close. What can officers not currently find out through the orders, and how would that information help them to prevent exploitation?”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In July, the Government announced £25 million to extend the guardian service to the remaining 179 local authorities in England that do not have it yet. We welcome that, but a child in one of those areas needs a guardian now. Can the Minister tell us when the service will be available in every one of them?”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Who has asked how the workers are recruited, or whether a subcontractor is using labour supplied on terms that should ring alarm bells? Those questions need asking before a problem becomes a scandal, and the Government should lead by example here.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
2,063 lines on record for Matt Vickers, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, without an account. Most recent 500 lines shown. Search to find more. Page 3 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“I beg to move, That this House has considered the future of University Hospital of North Tees. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to the Minister for being here to respond to the debate. I was born in North Tees hospital. So were tens of thousands of my constituents and many of their children and grandchildren. For nearly 60 years, it has been where Stockton goes when something goes wrong. It is where we are stitched up after an accident, welcome our children into the world and sit beside our parents in their final days. There are very few families in our town whose story does not run through North Tees at some point. I want to begin by thanking the incredible people who work at North Tees: the doctors, nurses, porters, cleaners and everyone who keeps our hospital going day and night.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“People across our area, whatever their politics, want the same thing: a hospital that they can rely on when someone they love needs help. I will work with anybody who wants to make that happen. North Tees has seen us born, patched us up and cared for the people that we love at the end. Its staff have kept caring through every challenge put in front of them. The right hon. Member for Ilford North was right: there is no doubt that we need a new hospital. What my constituents want to hear today is not whether, but when, where and how it will be paid for. Our staff deserve it, our patients need it and our community has waited long enough.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will the Government assess the case for replacement and set out a timetable? Secondly, will she commit to resilience funding to keep the current building safe until then, so that flooded theatres do not become an annual event? Thirdly, will she guarantee that North Tees will keep its offering, its A&E and its core services while the future is decided? Fourthly, will she look at why management numbers have risen by 21% while overall staffing has fallen, and ensure that cuts never come at the expense of frontline care? Fifthly, will she make sure that the Secretary of State finally meets the mayor, along with me and Members from across Teesside, and the trust, before the end of the year? Better still, will she come and visit our hospital and see at first hand the challenges that our incredible workforce is facing?”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A hospital whose theatres flood and whose backlog is heading for £300 million should not be left without a route simply because it is failing in the wrong way. Meanwhile, the Tees Valley Mayor has written 25 times to ask for a meeting about the hospital. The answer given by the right hon. Member for Ilford North was that the mayor could show him the colour of his money. Three Health Secretaries later, there has still not been one meeting. A hospital that is running out of time cannot wait for the Government’s revolving door to stop spinning. The trust is drawing up plans, but a plan with no route to capital is just a very expensive document. I have five questions for the Minister. First, what has changed since the answer last October? If the new hospital programme is closed, what route is open?”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who was then the shadow Health Secretary, came to North Tees and said that “there is no doubt we need a new hospital here.” I agreed with him then and I agree with him now, but when his Government reset the new hospital programme in January last year, not a single hospital on Teesside was in it. When I asked last October what assessment had been made about replacing North Tees, the answer was none, and that there were no plans to invite further schemes into the programme. North Tees is failing in a different way from those RAAC hospitals. Its problem is not one dangerous material; it is a whole building past its life. It is not on the list and there is no list it can join.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Not a new hospital or a place in the new hospital programme, but job losses. Around 600 posts are to go across our local hospital trusts, with a voluntary redundancy scheme and a vacancy freeze. The trust’s own figures raise further questions. Since 2024, total staffing has fallen from 6,084 to 5,958. Over the same period, the number of managers and senior managers has risen from 91 to 110. That is 2% fewer staff and 21% more managers. Of course, the hospital needs good management, but when vacancies are frozen and a £2.5 million flood bill comes out of the same budget, that increase needs explaining. Every year we wait, the bill gets bigger. A few years ago, a replacement hospital was expected to cost around £380 million. The trust now puts it at between £1 billion and £2 billion. Before the election, the right hon.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The trust’s chief executive told me that every one of the hospital theatres for in-patient surgery, bar one, was flooded. More than 400 patients had their surgery cancelled. Repairs have cost £1.5 million, and re-providing the surgery cost a further £1 million. That is £2.5 million gone, not on treating a single extra patient but on catching up after a rainstorm. Think about the person waiting for an operation: they have arranged time off work, their family have made plans to look after them and they have spent weeks preparing themselves, and then they are told to wait again because the theatre is flooded. That was not a freak event; it is what happens when a hospital runs past its design life, and it will happen again unless something changes. What are local people seeing under this Government?”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I understood why—safety must come first when a roof could fall in—but it pushed North Tees back in the queue, and I have kept pressing Ministers ever since. North Tees opened in 1968. The trust’s own board papers identified 2031 as the point by which its main buildings would be beyond their useful economic life. That is just five years away, and parts of the estate are already past it. The maintenance backlog stands at £126 million, despite around £100 million being spent on repairs in the past decade, and it is projected to reach £300 million by 2033. Staff are working around leaky roofs, broken ceiling panels and pipes that freeze in winter. This is not a hospital that needs a lick of paint; it is a hospital whose fabric is failing. On 2 June this year, heavy rain hit Stockton, and the drainage at North Tees could not cope.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Member makes a valid point. Investment in technology—I talked about the robotic theatres in our part of the world—means not only that staff have the facilities they deserve to work with, but that more patients can be treated more quickly, more safely and with reduced recovery times. There is a real value in looking after those patients, all too often at the worst times of their lives. I made the case for a new hospital when my party was in government. I held a similar debate to this one five years ago and backed the trust’s bid for one of the new hospitals. I was devastated when, in 2023, the places in that programme went instead to hospitals built from reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, which put them at risk of collapse.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I made the point earlier that the mayor has written 25 times but we have not managed to get a meeting yet. I wonder whether the Minister might be able to cajole or commit her ministerial colleagues, or even the Secretary of State, to meet local MPs, the mayor and representatives of the trust, in order to have a discussion about where we go next.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If the Government’s commitment to community policing is to mean anything, it must mean having more officers, not fewer, in areas where crime is highest. The Minister will point to the neighbourhood policing guarantee, but moving police officers between roles is not the same as having more of them. In March 2024, the previous Conservative Government left police numbers at the highest level on record.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing this important debate, and I thank all Members who have contributed. I pay tribute to the officers, PCSOs, special constables and police staff who serve our communities, including the teams at Cleveland police and Durham constabulary who serve the people of Stockton West. Cleveland has the highest crime rate of any police force area in England and Wales and the highest homicide rate in the country, yet in the year to March, Cleveland police lost 17 officers. Our police and crime commissioner called out a £2.4 million shortfall and rightly pointed out that funding is based on population, not crime.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My constituents are not asking about 2024 or 2010. They are asking about the year ahead, and they deserve a straight answer. Our constituents judge policing by whether they see an officer on their street, whether their call is answered and whether the person who wrecked their neighbourhood faces consequences. By that test, there is much more to do. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Tackling antisocial behaviour is a pillar of the Government’s guarantee, but, by their own measure, things are moving in the wrong direction. I have three questions for the Minister. First, will the Government publish force-by-force figures for how many new neighbourhood police officers were moved from response roles? Secondly, will the changes mean that residents will wait longer for help when they ring 999? Thirdly, on Cleveland, I welcome the Minister’s engagement with the leadership of our force, but warm words in meetings will not reassure my constituents, so will she explain why the force tackling the highest crime rate in the country has 17 fewer officers than it did a year ago? Will she commit to ensuring that by the end of this Parliament, Cleveland police will have more police officers than it does today?”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Those are the officers who come when a resident—the woman whose ex-partner is hammering on the door or the family woken by someone breaking in—rings 999. Neighbourhood policing matters, but it cannot come at the expense of the officers who turn up in someone’s hour of need. That is why the Conservative party would recruit 10,000 extra officers, deploy hotspot patrolling in the 2,000 highest-crime neighbourhoods and roll out immediate justice, so that those who wreck a public space are seen to put it right. The problem is getting worse. The crime survey for England and Wales shows that last year, 40.9% of people experienced or witnessed antisocial behaviour, which represents a statistically significant increase.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We could have a very long debate on that: we could talk about the economic damage done by and the public finance carnage under the previous Labour Government; we could talk about the tough choices that had to be made in 2010; and eventually, we would arrive at 2024, when there were 147,746 full-time equivalent police officers on the streets. His constituents and mine would have liked to see that number continue to go upwards, but it did not, did it? Today, there are nearly 1,900 fewer officers. This year, the Government scrapped overall headcount targets, making funding conditional on neighbourhood numbers alone. If neighbourhood teams grow while the workforce shrinks, those officers have to come from somewhere, and too often, that is from response teams.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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. 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?”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Guilty pleas get discounts, and the facts of 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?”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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 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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This group of amendments does exactly that, and I commend them to the Committee.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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 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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Court of Appeal set out that test in Kugathas v. Secretary of State for the Home Department more than 20 years ago, and it is where genuinely exceptional cases belong. “Normally” does not add fairness; it adds a second door.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Proposed new section 117AA says that family life “is normally limited to their core cohabiting family.” A parent who does not live with their children does not “normally” have family life with them. One adult does not “normally” have family life with other adult relatives, such as brothers and sisters, unless there is real dependency. Every immigration lawyer in the country will read the word “normally” the same way. If family life is only “normally” limited, their job is to show that their client is not normal. Every case becomes the exception. We have seen that before: a clear rule, a soft word and 10 years of litigation about what the soft word means. It is not as if the clause lacks a safety valve. Proposed new section 117AA(4)(b) provides for adults with a genuine “additional element of dependency (beyond normal emotional ties)”.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Let us be clear about what clause 18 is actually for. The phrase “family life” has been stretched for years, and now covers almost anything: adult siblings, distant relatives and relationships that seem to spring up the week a removal notice lands on the doormat. The Government say that clause 18 will bring that to an end, and that family life will mean what most people think it means: someone’s husband or wife, partner or children. That is what the public think family life means, and it is what Parliament should say it means. The trouble is the drafting. Clause 18 sets out a clear definition and then, in three separate places, adds a single word that undoes it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East rightly set out, that word is “normally”.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“By tabling it, the Government make our point for us. If it is right to be sceptical of a parental relationship that appears just in time, it is right to be sceptical of a partnership that does the same. That is all amendment 100 asks. Clause 18 is a good idea let down by its drafting. The Government have written a definition and then handed every lawyer in the land the words to argue their way around it. Our amendment would make that definition stick. If the Minister cannot accept our amendments, I hope that the Government will reflect before Report. I commend the amendments to the Committee.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Moving on to amendment 103, in proposed new section 117AA, subsection (5) says that financial dependency, illness short of needing constant care, emotional reliance or worry about relatives in a warzone do not, on their own, create family life between adults. Fair enough, but subsection (6) then says that nothing in subsection (5) stops a court considering every one of those factors at the public interest stage. Can the Minister explain what subsection (5) achieves if subsection (6) allows the very same factors to tip the balance a few paragraphs later? I welcome Government amendment 45. It asks decision makers to look at whether contact between a parent and child has only recently been established or re-established. That goes to a real problem: relationships that come to life only when removal is on the cards.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The court can have regard to the definition, nod politely and decide a case on a different basis altogether. Amendment 98 says that the court “must determine that question in accordance with section 117AA.” If Parliament is going to define family life, the court should apply that definition, not merely consider it. Amendment 100 asks a simple question: what is a partner? The clause does not say. The immigration rules have required unmarried couples to have lived together in a relationship akin to marriage for at least two years. Amendment 100 would put that test into statute so that a relationship formed a few weeks before a removal date could not be used to frustrate it. It is good enough for the rules; it is good enough for the Bill.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We are trying to define something, and I think it is on us to define it. Adding “normally”—inviting them to look for the exception—is very unhelpful, particularly when proposed new section 117AA(4)(b) actually sets out the exception and gives that bandwidth for people to find exceptional cases. To write “normally” beside all these properties is to open a door, and would mean that we fail to do what we are aiming to do. That is the objective of the Bill. Amendments 99, 101 and 102 would take that word out. If the Government believe that their definition is right, let us say what it means. Amendment 98 tackles the same problem from another angle. Under the clause, a court deciding whether article 8 was engaged must “have regard to” proposed new section 117AA, but having regard to something is not the same as following it.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We are talking about the use of the term “normally”, but would the examples the Minister listed not fall into subsection (4)(b) anyway, meaning that the word “normally” is not required to help them get across the line?”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Whatever view the Committee takes of a statutory lock on commencement, the questions are fair, and I will put them directly: what is the full cost of setting up and running the authority over its first five years, and how does that compare with the tribunal it replaces? How many adjudicators will be in post on the first day, and how many appeals will they decide each year? On what date does the Minister expect the authority to hear its first appeal? We will press amendment 87 to a Division when it is reached.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 1(4) will still require the authority to “exercise its primary function with a view to ensuring that justice is done.” Clause 1(6) will still require every Minister to uphold the IIAA’s independence. Each case will still be decided on its evidence and on the law. What changes is that the institution is told plainly what it exists to achieve. We are clear that the public interest includes the swift removal of those who have no right to be in the country. That is one of the public’s most pressing concerns, and the new authority should be in no doubt that it is there to serve it. New clause 12 asks for a report on the cost, timetable and capacity of the authority before part 1 can be commenced.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Professor Ekins of Oxford University told us that one of the potential advantages of the new authority is that it could make “the public interest in the enforcement of migration law a more pressing consideration.” –– [ Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 22.] Amendment 87 would make sure that that advantage is actually realised, rather than left to chance. This is not new ground for Parliament. Section 117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 already states that “the maintenance of effective immigration controls is in the public interest.” The Minister may say that amendment 87 would compromise independence, but it would not.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 1(5) reaches well beyond the final decision in each case: it governs the authority in the “exercise of its functions”, which means how it lists cases, handles requests to adjourn and manages its caseload. Under clause 4(5), the Procedure Rules Board must also have regard to those objectives when it writes the rules. Amendment 87 would therefore shape every deadline, every adjournment rule and every listing decision the authority makes. It would put the effective enforcement of immigration control into the DNA of the institution from the start. The Committee heard in evidence why that matters.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In the Bill as drafted, the authority must merely “have regard to” the public interest, and the only content that the Bill gives to that interest is the fact that the authority is part of the immigration and asylum system. That tells an adjudicator nothing. The amendment states what the public interest is: “the effective enforcement of immigration control, including the prompt removal from the United Kingdom of persons who have no right to remain.” It would require the authority to give effect to that interest, not simply to have regard to it. The difference between “have regard to” and “give effect to” is not a lawyer’s nicety. A duty to have regard to something can be satisfied by thinking about it and then setting it aside; a duty to give effect to something cannot.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 64 would remove “aim to” from both limbs, subsection (5)(a) and (b), but it would also remove the public interest duty in paragraph (c) to which I now turn. Amendments 49 and 64 in its second paragraph would go further than amendment 48. They would remove the duty to have regard to the public interest altogether. I respect the concern for independence that lies behind amendments 49 and 64, but I cannot agree. It would be remarkable for Parliament to tell the body that decides who may stay in this country that it need have no regard to the public interest or to public confidence in the system it is part of. An immigration system that does not have the confidence of the British public is a system that will not work. Amendment 87 takes the opposite approach. It strengthens the public interest duty instead of removing it.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗