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 6 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
Will the new planning fees be ringfenced so that councils have to spend them on their planning departments?
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement, and also for taking the time to brief me on the report yesterday. This is an important and timely review, and I pay tribute to Sir David Bell and his team and those brave individuals who came forward to share their experiences, many reliving deeply distressing events. It is a great sadness and a failure on the part of all of us, as a society, that such a review is necessary in 2026. I have met many Jewish parents who have been left with an impossible choice between sending their children to mainstream schools where Jewish pupils are heckled, bullied and singled out, and sending them to Jewish schools with prison-like security, under constant threat from outside. I cannot imagine the fear that parents feel every day about what their children might face at school. If we are to address this stain on our society, advocacy across the House is vital, and I welcome the review’s recommendations, including on the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, and on the strengthening of guidance, teacher training and teachers’ standards, something that I have consistently called for. I want to raise two points that I hope will be picked up in the implementation review. The first concerns enforcement. Many of the instances that the report describes go against existing guidance. The problem is that when impartiality guidance is breached, nothing happens. The case of the hon. Member for Bristol North East (Damien Egan) demonstrates the problem. His visit to a school was cancelled following opposition from pro-Palestinian campaigners and members of the National Education Union. When Ofsted representatives rightly inspected the school afterwards, they could not investigate the very incident that had prompted the inspection; they could only check, at the time of the visit, whether all obligations were being met. What is the point of an inspection if inspectors cannot examine the incident that triggered it? Will the Secretary of State agree to close that loophole, and will she please explain, in her response, what she expects to happen to a school that does not appropriately address instances of antisemitism? My second point concerns the role of unions. I welcome the review’s examination of their role, but I do not think that the recommendations are strong enough. Asking unions to examine their own actions is allowing them to mark their own homework, and we already know that that does not work. In the case of the banning of the Labour MP, it was an NEU official who put pressure on the school to make that happen. Michaela Wilde, a senior NEU official, reportedly said that she was “very proud” of having forced the school to cancel the visit, warning critics: “don’t mess” with the NEU because “we are not here to play”. And what has happened to her? She appears to remain on the NEU’s national executive, representing Bristol and the south-west. That is shameful. How can someone who campaigned for and celebrated preventing a Jewish MP from visiting a school continue in such a senior union position? Where is the accountability? It is deplorable. Will the Secretary of State commit today to investigating the individuals who have stood by such views and made such statements, and, when warranted, have them removed from schools? Otherwise we might as well go home, because without accountability, nothing changes. Schools do not exist in a bubble. Things that happen outside are too often mirrored in the classroom. The despicable antisemitic Green party motion encourages such sentiments to be brought up in schools. Labour Ministers must reflect on their responsibility: lack of action on hate marches, inflammatory language from the Foreign Secretary and unenforceable performative bans on Israeli goods help no one, and cause a surge in antisemitism. However, today’s measures are welcome. I hope that the Secretary of State will address my points about implementation, unions and enforcement, and accept that we all have to exercise responsibility. My final question is this. The Secretary of State rightly acknowledges that the number of instances of antisemitism is rising, not only in schools but in universities, so will she commit today to repeating this exercise for universities?
The Minister highlights fertiliser costs. Last week, this Government pushed through the fertiliser tax, which will put up the price of fertiliser by between £80 and £90 a tonne, which the Conservatives voted against. The Liberals sat on their hands and did not oppose the tax, which was, frankly, shocking. Does the Minister not recognise the pressures that farmers are facing and the fact that this additional tax that this Government have imposed will do nothing to help?
I am pleased to be able to speak in this important debate. For many parts of my constituency in the Scottish Borders, farming is not just part of the local economy; it is the backbone of the community. Across the Scottish Borders, farming families produce the food we eat, look after the countryside and keep our towns going. Today, they are being squeezed from both ends by a Labour Government here at Westminster and an SNP Government in Edinburgh. Let me be clear from the outset that the sustainable farming incentive applies only to England. Farm support is devolved, and farmers in my constituency could not apply for the SFI, but how a Government treat farmers in one part of the country reveals a great deal about how they regard farmers everywhere. With the two issues that hit every farm in the United Kingdom—the family farm tax and the fertiliser tax—Borders farmers are being hit just as hard as farmers here in England. On the SFI, the facts speak for themselves. In March 2025, Ministers shut the scheme overnight without warning. Then, after more than a year of uncertainty, the new application window opened at 10 o’clock on 22 September. By 4 o’clock that afternoon, the entire budget—around a quarter of a billion pounds—was gone. Thousands of farmers lost out, including around 12,500 who already had agreements in place. Months of preparation, advisers’ fees and business plans were wasted in just under six hours. Farmers cannot run their businesses around a Government lottery. Decisions on cropping, stocking and investment are taken years in advance, not between 10 in the morning and 4 in the afternoon. This Labour Government’s record on farming has been appalling. They created one of the biggest threats facing family farms in recent years with the family farm tax. Even after last December’s partial climbdown, which raised the threshold to £2.5 million, farms above that level, including many in my constituency, still face an effective 20% inheritance tax bill. Farmers are asset-rich and cash-poor. The value of their land does not pay a tax bill; selling the land does. Families in my constituency are still asking whether they will be able to hand the family farm on to the next generation. A Conservative Government will restore agricultural property relief and business property relief in full. Farmers in Scotland are being let down by the SNP, too. Just last week, NFU Scotland warned that the agricultural support budget of around £677 million a year has lost some 20% of its purchasing power since 2014. The union is calling for an increase of around £183 million in the next Scottish budget, and NFU Scotland has also made it clear that a budget being eaten away by inflation is simply not good enough. Farmers in the Borders are sick of consultations and complicated new frameworks being dished out by Holyrood. They need a properly funded scheme that backs food production, encourages investment and lets their businesses make a profit. That brings me to Labour’s fertiliser tax. From January, the carbon border adjustment mechanism, known as CBAM, will impose a new charge on imported fertiliser. Some have suggested during this debate that the carbon border mechanism was first proposed under a Conservative Government. Its purpose was to stop the British industry being undercut by high carbon imports, but there is no British ammonia industry left to protect.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour Minister did not seem to understand the impact that the mechanism would have. I was even more shocked that the Liberal Democrats decided not to vote against the proposal, unlike Opposition Members. As I was saying, the ammonia that our fertiliser depends on is now just about all imported. For farmers, the fertiliser tax is not about protection, but is simply a further tax on growing food. As the NFU has warned, food grown overseas with exactly the same fertiliser will come into this country with no tax being paid. British farmers will be put at a disadvantage in their own market by their own Government. This tax will hit every farm in the United Kingdom, including the farms on the Scottish Borders that the SFI never reached. As we have heard, the Conservatives tried to stop the fertiliser tax, but where were the Liberal Democrats? They were sitting on the fence. When I challenged the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings)—she is not in the Chamber, but she was a member of the Committee that was considering this regulation last week—she accepted that there were concerns about the uncertainty and the additional costs; but when it came to the vote, the Liberal Democrats sat on their hands. They refused to oppose the measure imposing this additional tax on our farmers.
The right hon. Member had his time to have his say, but he refused to deal with this issue. The Liberal Democrats have had their say, but have refused to justify their failure to stand up for the farmers and try to stop this. [Interruption.]
According to the Liberal Democrat motion, farmers are “deeply concerned” about the impact of CBAM on fertiliser costs. Too right they are, and I welcome the Liberal Democrats’ late conversion, but noting concerns in a motion is no substitute for standing up for farmers when it counts, and that is when we vote. The party that tells farmers it is on their side does not then stand up to stop these extra costs, but just walks away. You cannot champion farmers in this Chamber and then abandon them when the vote comes.
My hon. Friend and I were in the Committee that discussed the carbon border adjustment mechanism. Does he share my surprise that the Government did not seem to realise that it would affect fertiliser? There was much focus on cement and steel, but it seemed to come as a shock to them that it would put as much as £70 or £80 on a tonne of fertiliser.
Food security is national security, as the mantra from the Government Benches goes. Yet the reality, I am afraid, is that it is much spun and little done. The family farm tax sent a chill through my rural Dumfries and Galloway constituency and underscored yet again the disconnect between this urban-centric Government and rural Britain. Now we have the fertiliser tax coming along and again, like the family farm tax, it is deeply flawed. In fact, we had an admission that the family farm tax was deeply flawed from a former Government Minister who pressed its case in this House—incredible! On the price of fuel, there has been much back slapping about the cuts to duty for red diesel. That is certainly helpful, but the reality is that red diesel is up by as much as 60%, and that is an enormous input cost for farmers. It is a big difficulty as well for the fishing sector. I have asked the Fisheries Minister if he will convene a meeting with the fishermen, because British boats are afraid to put to sea when French boats are able to access finance from the French Government to fish in British waters. Funding in Scotland, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), is devolved for farming and agriculture. However, we have also seen in Scotland the SNP Government exercising sleight of hand with the agricultural budget. Money that was intended for farming— supposedly ringfenced—magically disappeared, only to reappear. That is not good enough. Devolve and forget is the order of the day with this Government. We must have more accuracy about what is going on in Scotland. The block grant and the Barnett consequentials go north. This place should have some say in what goes on there. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) opened this debate with his usual paean to the EU. The EU funding settlement is changing and the envelope under the common agricultural policy is shrinking, such that farmers in Ireland are protesting about it. I can assure the House that the farmers in Dumfries and Galloway are in no hurry at all to return to the EU and the idea of a shrinking common agricultural policy.
Q2. Last week the Prime Minister struggled to disclose all his dealings with the owners of Manchester City football club, so I ask him this: in September, did he have a meeting scheduled with Khaldoon Al Mubarak?
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing us a really important debate. This issue is clearly affecting us all, and Royal Mail is certainly also badly failing constituents in my Kent constituency. I feel the affection for our posties, which she touched on when she spoke about the red post boxes and so on; Royal Mail should be a national treasure, but it is not. My concern is that the situation is getting worse, not better. Royal Mail has been fined £37 million for poor performance in recent years, and there is an Ofcom investigation. Many of us feel that Royal Mail is not fit for purpose and that no change is happening, so does she agree that the Government need to do more by taking enforcement action and putting some more pressure on the leadership?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I commend the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing the debate. We have all heard from constituents about the problems caused by the illegal use of these vehicles, whether it is people riding e-bikes on the pavement, e-bikes clearly operating in violation of existing rules, private scooters being ridden on the road, or the serious impact of lithium-ion battery fires on public safety. The concerns we hear from the public about these devices underscore why effective and proportionate regulation is necessary. People need to know that those using these vehicles are following the rules of the road. However, combining the two issues in this debate risks being somewhat redundant, given that, where we are not discussing dockless rental schemes, the regulatory regimes governing the two types of vehicles are very different. There is a clear set of rules governing the use of e-bikes. The technical limits in the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983 and the associated standards set a reasonably robust framework for their use, but as we have heard, there is a need to go further. That raises the fundamental point we need to consider when examining the regulation of these vehicles: are the current regulations being followed? That is why we must address the need for a much stronger approach to the enforcement of existing laws and regulations. Over the past couple of years, several local and national news organisations have highlighted the increased illegal use of e-bikes and e-scooters. For example, data obtained under freedom of information requests revealed that the number of crimes committed on e-bikes in London alone exceeded 10,000 in 2025, but only 221 of them resulted in the perpetrator being caught and charged—a pretty poor rate of 2.2%. To be honest, if we walked out of Parliament now and observed a nearby crossing, it would not take long to spot an e-bike rider flouting the law.
I do not think the hon. Lady and I are a million miles apart. Colleagues from all parties have set out serious concerns in this debate. The police having greater powers and enforcement ability is always welcome, but my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) tried to get much stronger regulation and enforcement powers put into legislation during this Parliament, and the Government resisted. It would be foolish to pretend that all the powers needed are out there. We would not be debating this in Westminster Hall if all was fine and rosy.
It is a well-rehearsed line, but e-bikes and e-scooters were not actually a thing for a large proportion of the previous Government’s 14 years.
I will give way once more.
I accept the hon. Lady’s point about off-road bikes and dirt bikes, but the technology of e-bikes and e-scooters did not exist. These products were not even for sale for a large proportion of that time.
I said I would give way only once more. I fully appreciate that this is a debate—I give way a lot in debates—but I need to make the rest of my comments. It is almost as if my speech had been pre-written for the first intervention I took: we need to support the police with the resources they need to tackle both the illegal use of these vehicles and their use as enablers of other offences. I appreciate that, last year, the Government introduced legislative changes to make it easier to seize some of these vehicles, but the changes can be effective only if the relevant authorities have the resources to enforce them. Furthermore, I hope the Minister will ask his colleagues to consider policies that enable the police to intervene whenever they witness dangerous behaviour involving e-bikes and e-scooters, as well as ways to impose tougher penalties. Illegal behaviour must be appropriately punished. There must be consequences. That must be combined with increased police recruitment to ensure that officers are available to tackle this reckless behaviour, including targeted enforcement in locations where crime is most prevalent. However, under this Government we have unfortunately seen a reduction in overall police officer numbers. We should therefore commend the police forces that are using existing regulations to tackle the illegal use of these vehicles and finding innovative ways to discourage illegal behaviour. One recent example is the City of London police’s use of its so-called sin bin, which is designed specifically for cyclists who ride through red lights or across zebra crossings. Those caught are required to watch a safety video, which takes considerably longer than it would to have simply waited for the light to change. Of course, that can apply to any bike, but we regularly see users of e-bike schemes engaging in that kind of behaviour. By removing the perceived benefit of jumping a red light or riding illegally across a crossing, these measures could help to deter such behaviour. At the same time, many of us have seen the increasing use of private e-scooters alongside the illegal use of e-bikes. Figures released by the Metropolitan police in July show that it had confiscated more e-scooters in the first seven months of the year than it had in the previous whole calendar year. Some people may ask whom this behaviour harms, but the answer is clear. If we cannot enforce the rules we already have in place, we risk endangering the public, particularly disabled people, who rely on our road safety infrastructure to protect them. That brings us to the increasingly prevalent dockless e-bike and e-scooter rental schemes. Disability charities, particularly those representing people with visual impairment, have highlighted the significant challenges posed by these schemes. Research by the Royal National Institute of Blind People shows that 81% of survey respondents said that bikes or e-scooters left on pavements make their journeys more difficult. I therefore understand the desire to call for appropriate regulation of these businesses. In fact, a number of these organisations have called on local government, and particularly the Mayor of London, to show leadership on the issue and to be clear about what local government wants to achieve from the schemes. I hope we follow the approach set out by the leadership of Westminster city council. Dockless bikes are here to stay, but poorly parked bikes have become a major headache—indeed, a danger—for pedestrian and businesses. It is worth noting that at a meeting with the major operators in August, Westminster city council agreed to share data that would give the authority a much more accurate picture of the thousands of vehicles operating in the borough. The council also stated that dockless bike operators were considering removing or relocating parking bays that are near taxi ranks and disabled parking bays, to help to keep pavements clear. Working with the companies in a way that allows them to operate safely and legally is the principal way we should approach the problem.
I give way to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle).
rose—
Of course, Mr Stringer. I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark on data sharing, as led by Westminster city council. If the Mayor of London is doing that, it is something that is straightforward and sensible to be done. We need real action from the Government. We need the serious problems that Members from all parties have mentioned in the debate to be taken seriously, and that means listening to both sides of the House and ensuring that the sensible suggestions that have been made are actually met.
At Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister quite rightly said that if we do not use our own resources, we will only have to import oil and gas. The Minister, in his statement, rightly said that we will be reliant on oil and gas for many decades to come. Though today’s decision on Jackdaw, albeit late, is welcome, with the answers that the Prime Minister and the Minister gave earlier, the Minister surely has to agree that any delay on new oil and gas licences is damaging to the national interest.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I cannot disagree with anything she has said or with the clear passion with which she said that the Government wish to tackle antisemitism in this country. However, I put it to her and to the House that the scale of the emergency that we are facing is absolutely alarming. I speak to Jewish constituents who are living in fear, and they have reported to me that they are removing all visual identifiers of their Jewish faith. The Secretary of State opened her statement with the statistic that almost three in five Jewish young people and half of Jewish teachers have experienced or witnessed antisemitism. That requires a hyper-urgent response. Although I appreciate the Secretary of State’s undertaking to report back in a year’s time, can she give greater confidence that there will be month-by-month, or even week-by-week, tracking of the way these actions and recommendations are actually implemented, to give British Jewish communities the faith that the urgency is absolutely there, and so that we do not potentially find ourselves, in a year’s time, wishing that we had done more?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, as always. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and I appreciate the remarks he has made. I also welcome the opportunity to speak to the draft regulations on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. British house building is being buried by cumbersome and expensive regulation. Layers of protocol regulation and fiscal burdens are stifling house building and inhibiting economic growth. The industry needs relief, not red tape, so I am concerned to find the Government proposing to increase planning fees and add yet another straw to the camel’s already broken back. I have reminded multiple Ministers of the excessive costs and regulations that developers already find themselves saddled with. I will keep on doing so for as long as the Government fail to relieve the industry. According to the Home Builders Federation, house builders already face more than £7,000 in taxes and levies, including £2,000 in landfill tax, £2,320 from the forthcoming building safety levy, £2,055 in other taxes and £985 from inflationary increases on existing charges such as section 106 agreements. Moreover, developers face more than £23,000 per property in regulatory costs, including £7,770 for building regulations, £5,700 for biodiversity net gain and £10,200 in costs linked to the future homes standard—and that is not the end. Indeed, under this Government’s watch, house builders will have seen material and labour costs reach heights of £37,000 per property, alongside costs of up to £7,000 in additional potential site-specific elements, such as nutrition mitigation requirements. Taken together, the cumulative impact of the policy, taxation and regulatory pressures on home building means that it is so costly to build that for many companies it no longer makes economic sense to do so. This has been evidenced recently by Taylor Wimpey’s decision to stop building new homes in London. Its chief executive, Jennie Daly, attributed this decision to the fact that in London: “Baseline viability is…fundamentally broken”. She said that reward for development has “just evaporated” in some cases. It is clear that the greatest barrier to unleashing a new wave of house building in England is viability. It is even clearer that the biggest damage to viability comes from state regulation and taxes. The Opposition therefore oppose efforts to increase additional up-front costs for developers. We will seek to divide the Committee on that point. It is not just the Opposition who recognise the disproportionate impact of the policy on developers: the Government’s own impact assessment estimates an increased fee revenue of £143 million to £190 million a year if fees are increased to 90% cost recovery, as proposed by the regulations, with average undiscounted impacts amounting to costs of £141 million for businesses every year. It is also not businesses alone that are affected, with another £3 million of additional costs for householders as a result of the fee increases. The fact that house building is already so expensive rather begs the question of why the Government are doing this. What defence can the Minister possibly present? In both the explanatory notes and in the other place, the Government have claimed that increasing fees will strengthen capacity and capability across the planning services for a more efficient and speedier system. The Minister also made that claim in his speech. Why? Local authorities all over the country are increasingly hard pressed financially, not least those that are the victims of the Government’s malicious so-called fair funding review. It would be no surprise to find the extra money funnelled elsewhere as the Government try to keep up with funding cuts, increased taxation and social care costs. After all, the money the policy will raise is not ringfenced. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, the Minister said the Government “expect” that the money will be ringfenced and spent on planning. Those of us who have been in this place for a little while know that is classic Government-speak; it is not the same as requiring local authorities to do what the Minister wants them to do. We therefore cannot guarantee with any certainty that this change will benefit the planning system or that the money raised will even go towards planning applications. A system that is not working does not need more barriers, such as hiked-up costs; it needs streamlining and simplifying. It needs fixing, not taxing. The Opposition would welcome a simplified system, clearer fee categories, improved planning system performance and speedier decisions, but we believe the policy does not deliver on any of those targets, because greater cost to developers means further weakened viability. Before we seek to divide the Committee, I hope the Minister will take the time to address our concerns and answer a few of the questions they generate. Most importantly, will the Minister commit to a full review of building regulations to identify the most burdensome costs and red tape to cut before bringing into force any additional layers of expense? We on the Opposition Benches would be more than happy to help. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) announced in Birmingham a couple of weeks ago, we have a plan that, all in all, will cut the cost of delivering and therefore buying a new home by up to £50,000. Will the Minister also commit to a planning system that supports rather than restrains the market, by exploring how we can avoid even more red tape in the future and end the culture of regulatory layering that currently pervades Whitehall? I look forward to the Minister’s answers to those questions. I encourage all Members present to vote against this cost to business and householders, and to back British house building instead.
I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity on that point but, to take him back to what I said in my speech, the Government expecting something to happen is not the same as their requiring it to happen. If that does not happen, what steps will the Government take to make sure that it does?
We all want to secure the future employment prospects of those working in our world-leading oil and gas sector, and one of the richest possible opportunities for that is transitioning them into working in deep geothermal in constituencies such as mine across the country. However, despite repeated cross-party meetings with Ministers, going back years now, I am afraid that we are still billions and billions behind the money being invested in this technology in other parts of the world. Does the Minister agree that it would be crazy not to create a set-aside fund, from the money that has been announced today, that is purely dedicated to developing deep geothermal in our country?
This has been one of the most interesting, wide-ranging and perhaps unexpected debates that I have had the pleasure to listen to in this House, with fascinating contributions from the hon. Members for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) and for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies), the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers). I thank everyone for their contributions this afternoon. As we conclude Second Reading, I am pleased to reaffirm our support from the Opposition Benches for the changes before us. The provisions that are being repealed go against our principles of religious freedom, tolerance and equality before the law. To single out Roman Catholics and Jews and prevent them from carrying out the responsibilities of public office solely because of their faith is not a distinction that has any place in modern Britain. As a Roman Catholic, I find it extraordinary that such a restriction has remained on the statute book for so long, but this is not ultimately about any one faith; it is about the fundamental principle that a person’s religious beliefs should not prevent them from discharging the responsibilities of public office. As an Opposition, we are also clear that constitutional change, however sensible, should be approached carefully. We therefore welcome the narrow scope of the legislation and look forward to confirmation from the Minister regarding the preservation of the wider constitutional relationship between the Crown, the Government and the established Church. There remains a sensible distinction between the Prime Minister retaining their formal constitutional responsibility for advising the sovereign and, where appropriate, delegating active involvement in the appointments process. That respects equality before the law and the particular constitutional position of the established Church. We can respect the traditions and institutions that have shaped our country while ensuring that they are updated to remove discriminatory or outdated practices. Two hundred years ago, I would not have been permitted to enter this Chamber or to speak from this Dispatch Box. Progress towards equality has been made throughout our history, and I welcome this latest step. On behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I am therefore pleased to support this Bill.
The Government’s Bill will undoubtedly open up the prospect of reopened coroners’ inquests into deaths that occurred during the troubles. What confidence does the Secretary of State have in the Northern Ireland coronial service to deliver truth and justice—and, importantly, access to the truth—for victims and veterans compared with the coronial system in England and Wales?
Like Mr Speaker, I was angry and frustrated to find that the Secretary of State was not making the statement. I first learned that the Secretary of State was in my constituency when I saw her on TV this morning; that is being completely disrespectful to another Member. The decision on Jackdaw is a victory for common sense. It is also a victory for the voters of Aberdeen South, who sent a clear message to this Labour Government in what was the most important by-election this year. Will this decision streamline the process for other North sea developments? We need a pipeline of projects coming through to protect jobs and to keep the lights on.
This week, The Sunday Times reported on its front page how Ministry of Defence police attempted to prosecute five members of the SAS over bogus allegations made by our enemies. They arrested the soldiers and subjected them to continuous—and frankly incompetent—investigation for three years while they were fighting ISIS on our behalf. That action has travelled like a shockwave through Hereford, destroying morale and undermining one of our best fighting units. Nobody wants to put soldiers above the law, but will the Prime Minister speak to the Defence Secretary and stop British agencies acting with credulous complicity with enemies that are trying to use lawfare against our soldiers?
I thank the Minister for her kind words and welcome her formally to her new role. May I also welcome the new hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras to her first delegated legislation Committee? I am sure that she will come to enjoy them as much as I have in the past two and a bit years. The three draft statutory instruments bring Northern Ireland’s voter ID and spending rules into line with the rules that apply in the rest of the United Kingdom, mainly England. As such, we do not oppose the measures. When they were debated in the other place last month, my noble Friend Lord Caine raised a number of questions on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I wonder whether the Minister could provide us with an update on the Government’s latest thinking. Although we welcome the fact that the veteran card is being added to the list of acceptable identification, some veterans in Northern Ireland may still be reticent about holding one or being identified as a veteran, given the security concerns. Of course, that is no reason not to grant electors the option to use a veteran card if they wish to do so, but what work have the Government done to assess the possibility that veterans in Northern Ireland may be reluctant to carry such a card and use it as voter ID? Likewise, my noble Friend said that the Representation of the People Bill will amend legislation to allow the use of non-photographic bank cards, and queried whether Ministers had made an assessment of the impact on electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. He pointed out that it was a Labour Government who legislated in the early 2000s to move from paper ID to photo ID for Northern Ireland, given the historical experience of high levels of voter personation there. The Minister in the other place replied: “There are no plans for that to happen in Northern Ireland, given the wider context”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 September 2026; Vol. 859, c. GC367.] I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that remains the position. Last year, when previous regulations were debated, the Minister gave assurances that the Government would use every measure at their disposal to ensure that the 87,000 retained electors would not be removed from the register. Those regulations provided a framework for auditing and engaging such electors. Will the Minister tell us what progress has been made to date, especially as next year will be the sixth year of the retention period? Assurances were also given by the Minister in the other place that the extended retention period would be used by the Government and the chief electoral officer to ensure that the register is as complete as it can be. What assurance can the present Minister give that that is the case, and that a more robust system will be in place to ensure that 6% of the electorate is not at risk of being taken off the register? Turning to spending limits, we agree that bringing limits in line with the rest of the UK is sensible, but my noble Friend Lord Caine also highlighted that the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government recently announced a review of candidate spending limits, with the implication that they are too high. Will the Minister update us on that situation and on whether we are likely to need to revisit those changes soon? Finally, as we debate the changes to electoral regulations in Northern Ireland, it is worth briefly bearing in mind the wider electoral changes that the Government have announced. First, there is the votes at 16 policy, which is in my view a bad idea. Last month, the Minister in the other place indicated that the Government are considering what measures may need to be updated to ensure that the 48,000 16 and 17-year-olds—
I appreciate your guidance, Sir Edward. I was just asking whether the Government could update us on what they would do for the 48,000 16 and 17-year-old voters who will require ID should they become eligible to vote. Secondly, in an era of ever more sectarian politics, with which Northern Ireland is sadly all too familiar, the Prime Minister has announced plans for a commission on electoral reform, which he appears to have rather prejudged by also committing himself to a manifesto pledge on electoral reform. The Government seem to want to remove from the voters of Northern Ireland the power to sack MPs. Will the Minister agree that changing the voting system in Northern Ireland should not be done without a referendum on the issue? The draft instruments bring Northern Ireland’s voter ID and spending rules in line with those that apply in the rest of the United Kingdom. As such, we do not oppose the measures, but it would be useful if the Minister updated the Committee on a number of important issues.
The Government have united the SAS Regimental Association, the Special Boat Service Association and the Special Reconnaissance Regimental Association against the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, with the SAS Regimental Association dismissing the legislation as “incoherent, contradictory, imprecise and muddled”. They are rightly concerned about the potential impact of the Bill on special forces recruitment and retention, and yesterday the Government voted down the Opposition amendment that would have given Parliament proper oversight of this. As the Bill begins its passage through the other place, will the Secretary of State work with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that Parliament has sufficient oversight of special forces recruitment and retention?
On the point about maintaining domestic food production, the Minister will no doubt be aware of the problems facing the pig sector. We have had tens of thousands of pigs backed up on farms, contracts cancelled, and farmers losing up to £50 a pig. What discussions have the Minister and colleagues had with the pig sector, and what plans do the Government have to support our Great British pig farms?
I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Divisions. On the draft Railways (Interoperability in Northern Ireland) (Convention on International Carriage by Rail) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 345 and the Noes were 108, so the Ayes have it. On the draft Code of Practice on Access and Unfair Practices During the Recognition and Derecognition Process, the Ayes were 295 and the Noes were 111, so the Ayes have it. On the draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 345 and the Noes were 108, so the Ayes have it. [The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.] Before we move on, just a note to the Minister: I am sure that he meant to refer to the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton. I call the shadow Minister.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Order. I urge the hon. Lady to stay within the scope of the Bill. The previous speaker, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), escaped me leaping to my feet by carefully tying his comments to the provisions of the Bill; I trust she will do likewise.
Order. I admire the right hon. Member enormously, but I might have to give him the same warning about staying in scope this afternoon.
I call the shadow Minister.
Order. I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as Mr or Madam Deputy Speaker, but should use our names. Madam Chair, Chair and Madam Chairman are also acceptable. Clause 1 Repeal of discriminatory provision concerning the making of appointments Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
I call the shadow Minister.