What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Before joining Parliament in 2019, I had 22 years of service with Royal Mail as an engineer, and I can tell the hon. Lady that working conditions were in decline then. We now hear that more than 400 postal workers are leaving the business every week. That is due to workload and working conditions. A two-tier workforce cannot work for any organisation; the workforce need to be rewarded accordingly. Does the hon. Lady agree?
Would the hon. Lady agree that Ofcom needs further powers to bring about the change that is necessary, because it is limited in what it can do? For the record, Ms Lewell, I worked at Royal Mail for 30 years, not 22.
Madam Deputy Speaker, before I start I want to say something about today’s date. Sixty years ago, a colliery spoil tip gave way above the village of Aberfan and slid down on to Pantglas junior school. One hundred and sixteen children and 28 adults were killed. Anyone who grew up in a coalfield community knows the name Aberfan. It is part of our shared history, and the people of that village have carried it every day since. I know that the whole House will have this in their thoughts today. I am grateful for the chance to raise an issue that matters a great deal to people in Mansfield, across Nottinghamshire and in former coalfields right across the country: the pensions of the men and women who worked in our pits, and whether we are finally going to give them everything that they are owed.
I will give way, and I am going to take as many interventions as possible, but I would ask Members to be brief please.
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. It is long overdue. For years, a group of campaigners from Nottinghamshire and right across the country refused to let this issue go.
I absolutely agree. There are too many people to thank and mention individually, but one of the campaigners—Mick Newton—a friend of mine for over 40 years, is here in the Gallery watching the debate tonight. Some of the campaigners are, sadly, no longer with us. I hope that their families know that their work is being recognised in the House tonight.
I thank my hon. Friend for that recognition. It is important that we recognise those campaigners who are still fighting. I have to say this to every one of them: you have made a difference and a lot of what I am about to describe would not have happened without you.
I agree with my hon. Friend completely.
I join my hon. Friend in thanking those he mentioned. In Mansfield and across the rest of my constituency, whole communities were built around the pits. My constituents’ fathers and grandfathers went underground—and plenty of them went underground themselves. They kept the lights on and the factories running for this country. It was hard, dangerous work, and many of them are still living with what it did to their health. The least we owe them is a decent pension. For a long time, they did not get that. When British Coal was privatised in 1994, the Government of the day agreed to guarantee the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. In return, the Treasury took a share of the surpluses. Over the years that followed, billions of pounds went into the Treasury while a lot of former miners and their widows got by on fairly modest pensions. People in our communities never thought that was fair, and they were right. I am proud that this Labour Government have started to put it right.
It is certainly important to raise those meetings and to have that conversation with members and trustees as frequently as possible. One of the first big decisions that this Government took was to hand the £1.5 billion investment reserve of the mineworkers’ pension scheme back to its members. That meant a 32% increase in their pensions. Last year, the Government did the same for the British Coal staff scheme, transferring the £2.3 billion reserve. That is the best part of £4 billion back where it belongs, and thousands of families in my constituency have felt that difference. What is left is the question of surpluses: what happens to the money that builds up in these schemes in the future and the money that is sitting in them right now? The trustees of both schemes have put forward proposals and I think they are sensible. The mineworkers’ pension scheme trustees have asked for three things: first, that around £1 billion of surplus that is locked up in the scheme is used to give members a new bonus pension now; secondly, that 100% of future surpluses will go to improving members’ pensions; and thirdly, that the bonus pensions awarded in 2024 are protected so they cannot be taken away
My hon. Friend raises such an important point about the urgency of this question. The third point that I raised really matters to people in my constituency. Members of the British Coal staff scheme have bonus pensions that are protected; members of the mineworkers’ scheme do not. I do not think that anybody could explain to a retired miner in Mansfield why his bonus should be less secure than the one paid to someone he worked alongside at the same colliery. We should fix that. The British Coal staff scheme’s trustees have made similar proposals, such as clear valuations showing whether the scheme is in surplus or deficit. I want to be clear about one thing: neither set of trustees is asking for the Government guarantee to be removed. Nobody wants to put pensioners’ security at risk and nobody is suggesting the schemes pay out money they might need to meet their commitments. We cannot, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) pointed out, keep telling people in their 80s that fairness is coming at some point in future.
I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments and I share that disappointment. I have also to recollect that at the general election in 2019, Boris Johnson stood on the town hall steps in my constituency and committed to putting this right. Those on the Conservative Benches spent five years doing nothing for mineworkers. There is an economic point too. When we increase the pensions, that money gets spent in our constituencies, in communities that have had decades of decline since collieries closed, and that matters. I have had very good discussions with Ministers and with the trustees of both schemes and I know that a lot of work is ongoing. The Budget is next Wednesday, so I want to put four questions to the Minister.
I will.
Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend; it is very timely indeed.
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and for his magnificent leadership on this issue over many years. I shall return to my questions for the Minister. First, I am curious to know whether the Government will commit to resolving the surplus sharing for both schemes. Secondly, will he confirm that both sets of trustees’ proposals, including protecting the mineworkers’ 2024 bonus pensions and using the undistributed surpluses, are being considered by the Treasury? Thirdly, will the Government work with the trustees to ensure that genuinely available surpluses can be paid out as they arise, rather than have elderly pensioners waiting years for the next valuation? Fourthly, will the Government work with the trustees to look at the long-term future of both schemes to ensure that they keep serving their members as well as possible as the schemes get older? For mining communities, this has never been purely about money. It is about whether this country respects the people who did the hardest jobs and empowered everything else in the economy. People in Mansfield and in all our communities have heard a lot of promises over the years. This Government have kept more promises on mineworkers’ pensions than any that went before them, and all of us on the Labour Benches should be genuinely proud of that, but we should not stop short at this moment. We have given back the reserves. Now let us sort out the surpluses, while the men and women who earned these pensions are still here to enjoy them. After more than 30 years, they have waited long enough, and I hope that the Minister can give them some hope tonight.
I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions throughout the debate, and for sharing issues raised by farmers and rural communities across our country. I also thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for raising these important matters. Let me reiterate the words of my excellent fellow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter), in her first speech at the Dispatch Box: we know how hard this year has been for farmers. Behind every statistic about drought, input prices or farm income is a family making difficult decisions about crops, livestock bills and their future. We set out our farming road map because farmers have repeatedly asked for clarity and certainty, and we are delivering that. The road map sets out this Government’s strategic vision for farming. We want profitable, productive farms that are better able to withstand volatile weather and markets, and geopolitical shocks. The road map also sets out that domestic food production will be maintained at least at current levels, while nature recovery, economic growth and the responsible use of land and resources are supported. That is supported by the strong financial settlement that DEFRA secured in the 2025 spending review. Across this Parliament, the Government have allocated a record £11.8 billion to sustainable farming and food production, including £788 million this year alone in new funding for farmers to boost farm productivity, develop cutting-edge technologies to drive future growth, and maintain a healthy natural environment. Where this year has exposed vulnerabilities, this Government have responded. We have made drought flexibilities available, supported investment in farm reservoirs and added funding to the SFI26. I thank the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) —he is back in his place—for his interventions. I think he is right to recognise the optimism and resilience of our nation’s farmers. I wholeheartedly support that view, as do so many Members in this House. I very much agree with what he said about the value of providing greater certainty to the sector; we are very much doing that through our farming road map. It sets out the Government’s vision for driving more a profitable, productive, sustainable and resilient farming sector, and we are doing that in partnership with the sector, via our partnership board and the sector growth plans. Members spoke about the SFI, this year’s two windows and the learning for future years, and I thank all Members who have offered practical ideas for its delivery in future. We also recognise where things have not worked as farmers would have wished. The speed with which the SFI26 window closed last month caused real disappointment, and I do not dismiss that frustration. I recognise the concerns raised by Members across the House, and the specific examples that they have given. Demand substantially exceeded the funding available, and we must learn from that experience as we work with the sector in partnership on SFI27. Working through the options, following my confirmation that we have scrapped the “first come, first served” approach, is absolutely a priority of mine.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He will know that we made a number of changes to improve the scheme this year. He briefly mentioned those in his opening remarks, but I have been very clear that we need to learn lessons from this year’s scheme and that means a commitment on scrapping the first come, first served approach and bringing forward SFI27 as early as possible. A number of Members also expressed concerns about the impact on farmers of trade deals done by the previous Conservative Government. Let me be clear: this Government will always act in the national interest to protect Britain’s farmers and secure our food security. We will never lower food standards and we will uphold the high animal welfare standards that our country expects. In the last year alone, we have reached agreement on new trade deals with India, the Republic of Korea, the Gulf Cooperation Council and Switzerland. All those deals strike a balance: they open new opportunities for UK businesses and help diversify supply chains, while also protecting the UK’s most sensitive sectors. A number of Members have been interested in the SPS agreement with the European Union. I want to thank the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) who is not in her place currently—[Interruption.]—there she is—for the issues she raised. The EU remains the UK’s biggest and closest export market, offering major opportunities for British food and drink businesses to reach millions of consumers. Yesterday, I was at the SIAL trade show in Paris, meeting businesses from every corner of the UK who want to increase their exports to Europe. The SPS agreement will reduce costs and delays for both UK and EU exporters and importers at the border, supporting the UK’s food supply chains and security. It will make agrifood trade with our biggest market cheaper and easier, cutting costs and red tape for British producers.
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It was a real pleasure to spend time with him at the Royal Norfolk Show earlier this year, where I heard very clearly the value of our innovation and world-leading technology in this space. I take this opportunity to reflect on the points he made earlier on the importance of working with our international partners and showcasing the best of British around the world, and thank him for that. He will appreciate that I cannot provide details on the ongoing SPS negotiations. The Prime Minister set out that the Government will be completing those negotiations before the next EU-UK summit on 20 November. A number of Members expressed concern about the impacts of the reforms to agricultural property relief on inheritance tax, which came into force earlier this year. I recognise that when the Government initially announced the reforms in 2024, there was significant concern in the industry about their impact. The Government listened to those concerns carefully, considered the feedback, and the previous Chancellor acted. That is why last year the Government went further to protect more farms and businesses, while maintaining the core principle that the most valuable agricultural and business assets should not receive unlimited relief. This is a fair and balanced approach that protects the family farm while also fixing the public services that we all rely on.
On these matters the Government’s view is now settled. I recognise that the previous Chancellor made the changes as a result of the engagement that she and others had with the farming community up and down the country, but the hon. Gentleman would have been keen to place his views on the record and he has successfully done that. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) raised a number of constructive points as a result of his continued engagement with the farmers across his constituency. I understand he has now visited 100 farms in his patch, and I know that he is hosting a very important event in his constituency later this week on the future of farming, and I wish him well with that. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) spoke about the importance of profitability and the value of learning from international partners, and I thank him again for his insights. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) gave a very eloquent speech about the importance of co-designing the future of SFI. I can assure him that directly, and through officials, I and the Department are already working with the sector on exploring options and trade-offs as we consider what SFI ’27 will look like. To conclude, farmers deserve security, fairness and confidence to invest in the next generation and they have a Government who listen when times are hard and work in partnership with the sector to deliver on the commitments set out in our farming road map. That is our commitment: to back British farming; to maintain domestic food production; and to ensure that those who produce our food have a resilient and profitable future. Question put.
I am delighted to be serving under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing this timely debate just the week before the Budget. Stable, affordable, good-quality housing is fundamental to individual wellbeing, economic stability and public health. That is why the Government have set out, as Members know, the ambition to deliver 1.5 million homes. We are supporting that with a record £39 billion investment in social and affordable homes. That is the programme that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) referred to. We are also supporting that with our £16 billion national housing bank. Securing an adequate number of decent affordable homes is our priority. People have wanted to do that for a long time. We are making sure that the investment is going in to deliver those homes. It is true that delivery will not happen overnight, but delivery is going to happen. We inherited a very serious housing crisis, and we acted quickly in response. Policies in place are having an impact already. There are over 400,000 new homes in England since the start of this Parliament, more than a quarter of the target. New build starts in the year to June were up 15% on last year. We are driving forward big reforms of the planning system. In August, we announced a new planning policy framework with clearer rules-based policies to unlock more homes where they are needed. We are investing in construction skills. My Department spent nearly £38 billion last year supporting renters with housing costs via universal credit and housing benefit. That is an increase of around £3.5 billion over the last decade. No other OECD country spends a greater proportion of its GDP on housing support than we do. I recognise the picture that hon. Members have set out of the impact of local housing allowance in their local areas. Rental inflation across the country varies according to specific challenges in each area. The local housing allowance determines the maximum financial support for renters in the private rented sector. Households in similar circumstances living in the same area are entitled to the same maximum rent allowance, regardless of the rent that they are required to pay. Local housing allowance was never intended to cover all rents in all areas. The rates for that are set annually by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Future decisions will be based on the Government’s priorities, and those are the priorities that the Chancellor will have in mind as he makes his announcements in the Budget next week. The Government provide additional discretionary housing support to local authorities to help tenants to meet shortfalls in their rent costs. In England, that is through the crisis and resilience fund housing payment. I wonder whether, in some of the cases that the hon. Member for St Ives referred to, his constituents would find it worth their while to contact the local council to see whether they could benefit from a discretionary housing payment. The crisis and resilience fund includes support for preventive wraparound help, as well as assistance for people facing a financial crisis. I know that local authorities are increasingly looking at what they can do with those resources to protect people in the kinds of situations that the hon. Member for St Ives describes. Local housing allowance rates are set within broad rental market areas determined by rent officers in the valuation office across England. There are 192 broad rental market areas across Great Britain. As the hon. Member for St Ives said, Kernow West is the one that includes St Ives. A BRMA is an area within which a person could reasonably be expected to live, having regard to facilities and services for the purposes of health, education, recreation, banking and shopping, taking account of the needs of travel to and from those services by both public and private transport. Across each BRMA, rent officers gather a representative sample of private rental data of all property types and sizes from a range of sources, including both new and existing tenancies. They survey rents across the full year to capture current market conditions. That includes collecting a representative sample from all the local authority areas within a BRMA, including any larger urban centres and more sparsely populated rural areas in that BRMA. Perhaps the hon. Member for St Ives might find it useful to have a conversation with the Valuation Office Agency, because he raised perfectly understandable concerns about whether the data it uses is out of date. The process is designed to ensure that that is not the case and that up-to-date data is provided. Of course, it was only just over two years ago that the local housing allowance was uprated to the 30th percentile of the levels of rents in each BRMA.
The hon. Gentleman reproves me in a very appropriate way. My point is that I think the LHA methodology, which he queried, is sound. When local housing allowance rates are increased, they are implemented in April, based on the latest private lettings data for the 12-month period up to the end of September the preceding year. I do not think there is a problem with the way the LHA rates are calculated—in 2024, all the LHAs were uprated to the 30th percentile of rates in each BMRA—but there have been significant rent rises, even in the two and a bit years since the level was last reset. That, I think, is the phenomenon to which the hon. Gentleman is drawing the House’s attention. There has been a rapid rise in rents in that period, and that will need to be taken into account in deciding what should happen to the LHA for next year. Tackling homelessness is a very high priority for the Government, as the Prime Minister underlined when he took office. The LHA supports those on low incomes with their rents in the private sector, but the causes of homelessness are complex, and the LHA is only one measure to tackle it. We have significant funding targeted more specifically at those who are homeless and those at risk of being homeless, as those in the kind of situation that the hon. Member for St Ives described sometimes are. Sustained cross-Government action to tackle the causes of homelessness is being taken forward through the national plan to end homelessness. We will provide more than £4 billion in funding for homelessness and rough sleeping services from 2026-27 to 2028-29. Councils have £2.7 billion through the homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant, which they can use to support people at risk of and experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping, including funding for delivery of support on domestic abuse safe accommodation. That all means that councils can do more to prevent homelessness, reduce reliance on the expensive temporary accommodation that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) drew attention to and target resources where they are needed.
I think we are all waiting to hear what the Chancellor says next week. I can certainly assure the hon. Member that my colleagues in MHCLG and the Treasury are continually talking about these issues and the right approach. Last time the uprating to the 30th percentile happened—April 2024—the cost over the full spending review period was, if I remember rightly, some £7 billion. If we are looking at effective measures to tackle homelessness, the approaches and specific funding that I have just described to address the problem and the risk of homelessness are the effective ways to do that. Those are the kind of factors that the Chancellor will certainly be bearing in mind as he reaches his decisions for next week. To further drive the shift from crisis response to prevention, we are setting a national target to increase the proportion of people supported by council homelessness services to stay in their homes or helped to find alternative accommodation. Our new duty to collaborate will require public services to work together to identify people at risk of homelessness and to consider what action they can take within their existing responsibilities to help prevent that. The Government’s key priority in all this is to secure an adequate number of decent affordable homes. We have announced the new 10-year, £39 billion social and affordable homes programme—the biggest boost to housing grant funding in recent memory. The aim is to maximise supply, with a target to deliver at least 60% of the homes under the programme as social rent. Initial funding allocations via the programme have been confirmed across England, excluding London; 33 providers will receive £9.5 billion to invest in new social and affordable housing and deliver 73,000 homes. Nearly two thirds of the homes built by strategic partners through the programme will be for social rent, and for the first time ever, three councils—Cambridge city council, Eastleigh borough council and Newcastle city council—have been awarded strategic partnership status with Homes England. Councils are increasingly stepping up to meet our bold ambitions. More than £16 billion in funding for outside of London is still yet to be allocated. In allocating that, the Government intend to prioritise social rent homes, particularly council homes, to achieve the Prime Minister’s ambition for the biggest council house building programme since the post-war boom ended in the early 1980s. Directing funding into that programme and others along those lines is the way to deal properly and permanently with the severe housing crisis that we face right across the country, which the hon. Member for St Ives and others have spoken very powerfully about in this debate. The new national housing bank was launched on 1 April, backed by up to £16 billion in financial capacity. We envisage that bank leveraging in billions of pounds of private investment to accelerate house building across the country. It is taking quite a pioneering approach to its role, and its status as a publicly owned subsidiary of Homes England, designated as a public financial institution, gives it a lot of autonomy in working out how to do this job most effectively. My colleagues in MHCLG have launched the national housing delivery fund, which includes £5 billion of grant funding to support housing delivery and address viability challenges, including through the remediation of brownfield sites and provision of unlocking infrastructure. Let me say in the final seconds that my colleagues in MHCLG have taken the view that rent controls would do more harm than good. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair today, Ms Vaz. I thank all Members who have contributed, and in particular the hon. Member for Twickenham for bringing forward this important Bill and for the constructive way in which she has been working with Government. I will not repeat her passionate words on the detail, which is harrowing, and on the importance of tackling this issue, although I will cover some of the questions and concerns that were raised. The Government are fully supportive of the Bill and its central objective of strengthening the law so that child-like sexual abuse dolls can be tackled clearly, consistently and effectively. These items sexualise the appearance of children and raise serious safeguarding and public protection concerns. Like any parent, and as a new mum, I find even the existence of these dolls absolutely harrowing, to the point that I cannot bring myself to see one. The new offences of making, possession, importation and supply will close a recognised gap in criminal law and provide a clear basis for action against this concerning material. I want to reassure the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford that the Bill will cover parts of a doll or anything that resembles a child, but it will also include any type of robotic or AI-enabled doll, including those that are 3D-printed, and anyone found guilty will of course go on the sexual risk register.
Yes, of course. My understanding is that it should be, but I will come back to the hon. Lady in writing to confirm it. If this legislation is to close a loophole, we want to ensure that it does so properly and for good. The provisions on entry, search, seizure and forfeiture are essential. They will help the police and other operational partners to investigate suspected offending, to remove items from circulation and to intervene earlier when wider risks to children are identified. The Bill’s penalties and notification requirements reflect the seriousness of the conduct while ensuring that the new framework is targeted and proportionate. Taken together, the clauses will give law enforcement, prosecutors and the courts greater clarity and a more effective set of tools. They will also support the Bill’s wider preventive purpose by enabling earlier identification and intervention when concerning behaviour may indicate a risk to children. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft mentioned online harm, and she was right to raise the most horrific crimes that we see online. We saw at an event last night some of the horrific outcomes that online harm can lead to for children. I reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are taking this seriously. The tech world is moving at pace and we must keep up. The hon. Member for Twickenham gave reasons this legislation is so tightly focused, but I would welcome a meeting with my hon. Friend to discuss how we move at pace when addressing online harm, particularly when it is targeted at children. I am keen to ensure that the Bill’s scope remains tight so that we can address this particular loophole when it comes to physical sexualised child-like dolls, but I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. The Government have worked closely with the hon. Member for Twickenham, operational partners and criminal justice stakeholders to ensure that the legislation is clear, robust and workable in practice.
Yes, that is already covered in the legislation. Naturally, we want to find these dolls and find who is producing, sharing and using them. I thank the hon. Lady for raising that. The Government are satisfied that the Bill strikes the right balance, and we support the clauses standing part of the Bill. I again thank the hon. Member for Twickenham for her leadership and determination in getting the Bill to this stage. The Government are proud to support this important safeguarding measure, and I commend the Bill to the Committee.
Mr Speaker, you will remember that the last Labour Government established children’s trust funds, but sadly around 80,000 children across the country, including my constituent James Gilbert, are unable to access them due to an expensive and bureaucratic courts process for those who lack mental capacity. Will the Prime Minister commit to ensuring that this Government finally fix this problem, which has left our campaigners frustrated for over six years since they first raised it with Ministers?
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward, for what is my first delegated legislation Committee as a Minister, of which I am sure there will be many. It is also a pleasure to welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds, to his place. We have spent a lot of time together in the Chamber, but we had not yet officially appeared opposite each other. The draft statutory instruments, which were laid before the House on 13 July 2026, introduce certain changes to the electoral system in Northern Ireland. Their primary objective is to expand voter accessibility and encourage participation across the electorate in Northern Ireland. They will align certain rules governing Northern Ireland elections more closely with those of Great Britain. The draft regulations update the list of acceptable forms of ID that can be used by voters at polling stations in parliamentary and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland. The draft voter identification order makes identical changes to the list for local elections in Northern Ireland. The draft local elections order will uprate expenditure limits for candidates standing in local elections in Northern Ireland to reflect rising costs caused by inflation. An equivalent uplift in the spending limit for reserved elections in Great Britain and for UK parliamentary and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland was approved by Parliament in 2023. Before I proceed, I draw the Committee’s attention to the correction slip for the draft voter identification order, which corrects a minor typo. In the last paragraph, on page 1, the words “on him section” have been amended to “on Him by section”, in reference to section 84 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I am sure that the beady-eyed on the Committee had already spotted that typo. That section allows Northern Ireland local election rules to be amended by Order in Council, and “Him” is a reference to His Majesty the King. The draft regulations will introduce new identity documents that can be used by voters at polling stations in UK parliamentary, Northern Ireland Assembly and local elections. The documents being added are the Commonwealth passport, the proof of age standards scheme card, the HM armed forces veteran card, and the blue badge from the disabled persons’ parking scheme in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Those forms of ID are already accepted at polling stations in the rest of the United Kingdom. Expanding the list of acceptable documents will support electoral participation across Northern Ireland. Both the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland and the Electoral Commission are supportive of the change. Ensuring that those who cast their vote are eligible to do so is vital to uphold trust in electoral institutions and processes. The requirement for an elector to produce ID is an important part of protecting that principle. Producing photographic ID at polling stations has been a requirement in Northern Ireland elections since 2003, and it is a well-understood and established part of the electoral process. Security requirements mean that the list of acceptable IDs in Northern Ireland has historically been more restrictive and updated less frequently than the list in Great Britain. Increasing the number of acceptable IDs will remove barriers to voting and support more people in Northern Ireland, including some of the most vulnerable in society, to participate in our democracy, while retaining important electoral security measures. The draft local elections order will uprate the spending limits for candidates in Northern Ireland’s local elections. The limit will increase from £600 plus 5p per elector registered to vote in the district electoral area in which the candidate is standing, to £960 plus 8p per elector registered to vote in the district electoral area. That will bring the spending limit in Northern Ireland in line with the spending limit for local elections in England. The existing spending limits for local election candidates in Northern Ireland have remained unchanged since they were first set in 2005. Spending limits across all other reserved elections were uprated to reflect the rise in inflation in 2023. Consequently, candidates standing in local elections in Northern Ireland face a disadvantage compared with those standing in parliamentary and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland, or in local elections in England. An effective democracy relies on the ability of political parties, candidates and other campaigners to communicate their views so that voters can make informed decisions. The current limits mean that local election candidates in Northern Ireland are restricted by lower real-term spending on campaigning. The Electoral Commission has been consulted on the changes, in line with the statutory duty of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and it supports the new measures. The draft instruments are necessary to support more people in Northern Ireland to participate in and engage with our democracy. Expanding the list of acceptable voter IDs is an important step in updating electoral processes to reflect the modern electorate in Northern Ireland while preserving the additional security features that are essential to maintaining trust in Northern Ireland’s electoral system. Uprating local election campaign spending limits will ensure that spending limits remain aligned in real terms with the original limits set by Parliament.
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds, and the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wimbledon, for their input. I will respond to as many of their points as possible. To respond to the Lib Dem spokesperson, the lists are not identical between the rest of GB and Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland requires a photographic form of identification. There is some divergence between the two, but that is a historic and well-trodden path for Northern Ireland. That is the reason why there is some difference. Let me address the points made by the shadow Minister. First, on the veterans card, we totally understand that there will be some sensitivities, and that some people will not feel comfortable using their veterans card or carrying it with them, but the expansion to include it is about choice and ensuring that veterans can, should they wish to do so, present their veterans card at the voting booths. The Government are looking keenly at measures to ensure that we do not lose voters from the electoral register—that is across my desk. The reason we are introducing the measures is to ensure the widest possible participation in all elections in Northern Ireland, and that is what we want to continue doing. At this stage, we do not envisage revisiting the candidate spend. On votes at 16, of course our positions differ. We will revisit that specifically for Northern Ireland when it comes into force. The wider context of reforms has come up time and again in relation to Northern Ireland, but it is not necessarily about what the politicians want to change; it is about what businesses, people and the public sector in Northern Ireland will be crying out for: a wider package of reforms, beyond the scope of what we are discussing today. The Committee will agree that encouraging participation in our democracy is vital. I hope that the Committee agrees that the draft instruments will maintain the integrity of the electoral system in Northern Ireland, respecting well-understood safeguards, while adapting to keep pace with modern practices. I am pleased to introduce the measures and I commend them to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026. Draft Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Local Elections) (Northern Ireland) Order 2026 Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Local Elections) (Northern Ireland) Order 2026.—(Sarah Owen.) Draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Uprating Election Expenses) Order 2026 Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Uprating Election Expenses) Order 2026.—(Sarah Owen.)
Ministers and officials are in regular contact with the Department for Transport on dual approvals for passenger vehicles and Northern Ireland’s automotive sector. The Government remain committed to ensuring that vehicle supply remains as seamless as possible across the whole of the UK. This was shown when the Government secured fairness on the tax treatment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, supporting dealerships and car buyers.
We are continuing to engage with Northern Ireland car market representatives, as well as the broader UK automotive industry, on issues faced by Northern Ireland car dealers. We want to see the sector go from strength to strength, and I am happy to meet with anybody who shares that mission. I also want to address the fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised the lack of response to a particular letter from the National Franchised Dealers Association. I will ensure that that is rectified by the end of the week, and it will get a response.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing what is a very important debate on a very important topic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd North (Gill German) said, community policing is about whether people feel safe. It is our first duty as parliamentarians to make sure that our constituents feel, and are, safe. Community policing is the frontline of that work, so I appreciate the opportunity to debate this topic. I, too, express my sorrow at the homophobic, racist and xenophobic abuse described by the hon. Member for Chichester. Obviously, we are all very sorry for that and hope that justice will be done in those cases. I also join many Members who have thanked the police and police staff, who are often forgotten. We should talk about them more often. I want to add my thanks to all the police officers and staff who I have met and worked with. We had some really good contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) asked whether the local council should pay for policing. The council in Harrow should do exactly what my hon. Friend tells them to do. That would be a very good starting point, and I definitely always recommend that. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about Northern Ireland, and as he knows I met the Chief Constable a couple of weeks ago. I was pleased to talk to him and he is obviously doing a very good job in very difficult circumstances. To my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell), I say that I spoke to the deputy chief constable following the incident in Nottingham and the awful shooting of a police officer. I will keep in touch with them about what has happened and how that officer, as well how his team, are doing. They were all very affected by what has happened and I know that has been deeply worrying for people. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) talked about doxxing of police, which we talked about earlier in the week and which is very worrying. We are very keen to hear from the Fed, or others, about what more we can do as the Government to help in that space. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) was right to talk about the things that he did. The Fed rep that he spoke to has done some really good work to make that case. He is right that, on lots of measures, the force is judged as being really good. I know the frustration and we have talked about it before. We are working on the funding imbalance that follows from that. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) talked about e-bikes. They are a scourge. As she says, we have passed a law that means that the police have more powers to seize, which is good, but I am having conversations with hon. Members about what more we can do in that space. It is becoming very problematic. I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) today, who has been campaigning on that issue quite a lot, and we were talking about some of the struggles and some of the potential solutions.
Yes, it is a problem everywhere. This week I have been to Hemel Hempstead, Southall and Newcastle-under-Lyme in a bit of an antisocial behaviour tour in advance of our respect orders coming into force on Monday. Everybody in those three areas, and everybody I speak to, is concerned. There are things that the Department for Transport needs to do and there are things that the Home Office needs to do. I am in the space of looking at what we can do from a policing point of view. I was interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough that their public spaces protection order has rules about the wearing of balaclavas as well. That is another debate that crosses into the e-bike one, as well as into other areas. That is an interesting innovation that they have introduced.
We talked about this briefly in a meeting I was in earlier. We discussed what more we can do and the new technologies that can help us to follow some of these bikes and some of the individuals who are stealing them or using them in an illegal way. I am very interested in that. As the hon. Member said, there are already things being done in some parts of the country. One big reason for our reform programme is that we have this frustration: if something is being done in some parts of the country, why is it not being done in others? We need more consistency, so that we have good practice everywhere. I want to point out the reforms we have introduced already as a Government. Some £2 billion extra has gone into policing, including to cover the cost of the national insurance rise, which was raised.
I reassure the hon. Member that, over the last two years, West Midlands police has had millions more in funding than it had the year before. This Government have given West Midlands police more money year on year since we came to power. As every Member will know, I hope, we are prioritising a number of areas. The first is serious crime and knife crime. We have seen massive improvements in the area of knife crime, particularly knife murders, since we came to power. We are prioritising neighbourhood policing, and we have 4,000-odd extra neighbourhood police in our communities, which is beginning to make a difference. We have passed the Crime and Policing Act 2026, which among other things will introduce respect orders on Monday. That is a new power for police to use to go after persistent offenders in antisocial behaviour. We are calling time on those people. In some circumstances, we know who they are, and we all know from our constituents the trouble that we have with them. When I was in Hemel Hempstead today, the police force had a list of 30 people who they are going to put in to the courts to get a respect order on, and they are hoping to go to court on Monday—on the first day that these orders are introduced. It is a powerful tool for the police to use, which I want to see used widely.
I do. I very much enjoyed visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency. I am aware of the short time I have left. I wanted to touch on all kinds of things—seasonality and rurality are two things that we are looking at in the review of the funding formula. In the reform of policing, we will set up a national police service for things such as organised and online crime, so that we will have a place where these things are done and the local police can focus on what they need to do. New tech will mean less bureaucracy and more time out on our streets. We are working at pace to make sure we deliver the reforms that people want and expect, but I will come back to the starting point, which is that there is nothing more important than good community policing. It makes people feel safe, it makes people safe and it prevents crime, and this Government are committed to increasing, not diminishing, that resource.
The hon. Member has rightfully secured a debate on this extremely important topic. In the summer in Tamworth, there was an extremely serious collision between a six-year-old girl and an e-motorbike. She was in a critical condition as a result, but fortunately she did not die. Will the hon. Member be pressing the Government to give more resources to policing and to clarify the legislation for e-bikes and e-motorbikes?
Yesterday I had the great delight of meeting with members of Derbyshire National Farmers’ Union. They agreed with my hon. Friend about making it easier for them to access capital, not just to invest in items like tractors, but in buildings and things such as reservoirs, to help them manage the change in climate. Does he agree that meeting regularly with our NFU members is a fantastic use of our time, and that they help to shape the recommendations we make to Government?
My hon. Friend is making an incredible speech without any notes, demonstrating his knowledge of this space. It is super impressive. I met representatives of Derbyshire NFU yesterday. One of the things they talked about, as well as their concerns about Brazilian beef, was how often a consumer can go to the shop and think they are doing the right thing because they are buying something that has the Union Jack on the front—our proud British label—but if they turned over the label, they would find that the product is not from this country. Does my hon. Friend agree with me and my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), who has done a huge amount of work on fair labelling, that we in this country should be doing more to let people know where their food comes from, so that they can make the right decision and buy British?
My hon. Friend is talking about recommendations for the SFI going forward. When I met Derbyshire NFU yesterday, there was some concern about a proportion of SFI that was not accounted for—I am sorry, I do not have my notes to confirm the figure. Derbyshire NFU said that one of the key challenges was that when we were part of the EU, there had to be clarity about what money was spent where, whereas now it finds it much harder to get transparency on money that has been invested. Does my hon. Friend agree that this might also be a recommendation to Government?