partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ellie Reeves

   European Convention on Human Rights: UK Obligations

   The Government are clear that it is firmly in the UK’s interests to remain a member of the European convention on human rights. The ECHR has allowed people to object when “do not resuscitate” orders are put on their beds without their consent, and it is the reason why victims of rapists such as John Warboys have been able to force the police to investigate rather than being turned away. That is why I will continue to defend the ECHR, and why the UK played a leading role in the Chiinău declaration, working to modernise the ECHR with our European partners.

   Hansard source
2. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ellie Reeves

   European Convention on Human Rights: UK Obligations

   Our commitment to the ECHR is clear. It plays an important role in all aspects of our life, including in the Good Friday agreement, for example, which would unravel without it. It is important that we ensure that we modernise where necessary, but our commitment is steadfast.

   Hansard source
3. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ellie Reeves

   Domestic Abuse: Prosecution Rates

   Domestic abuse has a significant impact on victims and their families, and those who are brave enough to come forward deserve to have their cases resolved quickly. Last month, I announced the national roll-out of enhanced services for survivors of domestic abuse. That service will mean that victims of domestic abuse will be provided with a dedicated victim liaison officer, providing better support from charge to trial.

   Hansard source
4. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ellie Reeves

   Domestic Abuse: Prosecution Rates

   I have taken many steps to tackle domestic abuse, from rolling out the enhanced service offered to victims of domestic abuse to piloting pre-trial meetings with the prosecution team for victims of domestic abuse. This is a Government who are committed to halving violence against women and girls in a decade, and we are getting on with the job.

   Hansard source
5. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Elaine Stewart

   Nuclear Energy: Scotland

   Thank you, Mr Stuart. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for securing this important debate. Generations of Scots working in the Ayrshire coalfields once powered this country. As we look to the next generation of clean, reliable energy, Scotland needs to grasp the opportunity of nuclear power to help power our nation once again. Investing in nuclear is not an argument against wind power or renewables. Scotland has extraordinary renewable potential, and wind and solar remain central to our energy future, but when the wind does not blow—although that is not too often in my area—we need reliable power to back it up. Nuclear does not replace renewables; it complements them. While the UK Government move ahead with major new nuclear investment, the Scottish Government are refusing to act. That inaction has cost us, and we are exposed to volatile gas markets, more dependent on imported fuels and more vulnerable to foreign conflicts thousands of miles away that drive up our bills at home. This is not just about energy security; it is about jobs and fairness. When coalmining declined, it took jobs and investment with it, and too many communities like mine still feel that loss today. Scotland has missed out on nearly 5,000 jobs, with skilled Scots workers travelling south instead of working at home. Those are not just jobs; they are apprenticeships for our young people, opportunities for the supply chain and decades of stable, well-paid employment. That also matters for our clean energy goals. We are committed to ambitious decarbonising targets, and nuclear is a proven low-carbon technology that can help us get there without relying on gas. Countries have achieved the fastest, most reliable—

   Hansard source
6. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Zubir Ahmed

   MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

   The hon. Lady talks about values and culture. She has already mentioned that she served in the last Government. I wonder what the culture of that Government was when boat crossings were at a record high, when the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was opening hotels as though they were going out of season. What was the culture in that Government when it came to attempting to combat this issue?

   Hansard source
7. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Zubir Ahmed

   MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

   Can I start by also acknowledging the concerns of the women of Piddington who are viewing this debate today up in the Gallery? Those concerns are not limited, of course, to Piddington. They also include my constituency of Glasgow South West, which has historically had the highest number of asylum applications of anywhere in the United Kingdom. It is a matter of record that I have asked the Home Secretary to look at this urgently to see whether my city of Glasgow and my constituency of Glasgow South West can be afforded some extra breathing space as they contend with their own issues of housing and social cohesion. I have made similar pleas to the Scottish Government in relation to priority housing rules and local connection rules. Both sides in this debate have acknowledged that day zero of this issue is not today and that it did not start two years ago. It started long ago, or perhaps 14 to 20 years earlier. We are not where we would wish to be, but we must be careful about the tenor of the debate, because legitimate concern about safeguarding and about how we tackle asylum and the backlog can quickly bleed into issues of multiculturalism—that has already been spoken about today—of ethnonationalism and of immigration more widely. I can tell you for a fact that after this debate, some very uncharitable comments will be made on my social media because of my background. Therefore, I think it is an important moment to also put on the record that, largely, over the last 100 years, this country has been the most successful at integration and immigration possibly in the history of mankind. I am an example of that. My immigration story began 100 years ago when my grandfather took a boat from Calcutta, went to Hong Kong and became a member of the British Hong Kong police force, and then in 1963, when my dad took a journey by road to come from Pakistan into Glasgow to drive buses and then taxis, and he still does so today in his 80s. We must always remember, once this debate starts to bleed out into other issues, to stand firm against those who would wish to use it as an instrument for championing deplorable ideas like ethnonationalism that, unfortunately, have also been espoused at times by Members of this place, either intentionally or unintentionally. The issue itself does need to be gripped because when it is not gripped, it is precisely minority communities that are first and foremost in the firing line for abuse and attack.

   Hansard source
8. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Zubir Ahmed

   MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

   I am afraid that it is not the point that I was trying to make, but I will take on some of the hon. Member’s arguments. In Scotland, we have some of the highest levels of unemployed young people anywhere in the United Kingdom. We should first and foremost start by addressing their issues and getting them into employment before we start opening up a wider debate about immigration, illegal migration and numbers. I also say to him that in the city of Glasgow, it is bad enough that the right wing manipulates immigration and migration issues to march masked men down the streets of my constituency, but also on the other side, politicians must also take responsibility, including those in the Scottish Government, who pay lip service to social cohesion and anti-racism rhetoric but never follow through by funding the infrastructure that fundamentally relies on social cohesion to be a successful endeavour. Let me get back to the point I was trying to make. We must address this issue because we are placing minorities in the firing line if we do not. I am so glad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is bringing forward a Bill that will do precisely that, because what is missing right now in this debate is trust and confidence in the asylum and immigration system. The Immigration and Asylum Bill, currently in Committee, precisely serves to restore that trust and confidence by ensuring that we can regulate and produce an independent authority that will fast-track asylum applications, and that we can reinterpret components of human rights legislation to make sure that they are fit for the present and not the past. On that, I must note that the ECHR is not some kind of foreign construct, as some have tried to outline today in this place. It is a British construct. It is a Churchillian construct. It is the fabric of what it means to be British. It is what made my grandfather and my father serve the British and come to this country. It is because of the ECHR that we have freedom of religion. It is because of the ECHR that we have freedom from torture. It is because of the ECHR that we are able now to extricate ourselves from things like corporal punishment. And, actually, it is because of the ECHR—we are talking about women’s safety today, and rightly so—that women who are victims of domestic violence are protected from their housing benefit being cut. I ask hon. Members from both sides of the House to remember that when we have this debate, it has consequences for people from many communities up and down the country. It has consequences for people who are legitimately here, many for generations, and who are caught in the net by people who wish to exploit this debate and question their legitimacy in this country—and often to question the legitimacy of people like me to be in this place. That is something we must never forget.

   Hansard source
9. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Simon Opher

   Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

   I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest West for bringing forward this excellent Bill. I await the technical appraisal of whether it needs to be amended, but we cannot deny that inequalities directly influence specific types of services. In my role as a GP, I have seen that children born in deprived areas need a much higher level of support from Sure Start-type services and video interactive guidance, because often relationships are poor. Those poor relationships can lead to children starting school not being able to hold a knife and fork or still being in nappies. Inequalities influence what types of services are needed. I accept the point from the right hon. Member that there may be technical guidance, but perhaps it should be integrated within the Bill.

   Hansard source
10. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Scott Arthur

    Inheritance Tax

    I regret that the hon. Gentleman has talked about suicide in this debate. Where was he when we heard the reports of the austerity implemented by his Government causing suicide? Are any Members on the Opposition Benches willing to defend that record? When invoking suicide in this debate, they have to acknowledge their own record.

    Hansard source
11. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Scott Arthur

    Inheritance Tax

    I have never been on the Clapham omnibus, but I expect that there may well be people in low-paid jobs on that who are struggling with the cost of living crisis. When the hon. Gentleman speaks to people on the omnibus, do they tell him that they want people who inherit properties worth half a million pounds or more to pay less tax? Is that the answer to the problems facing people on the Clapham omnibus? Is that what they are saying?

    Hansard source
12. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Scott Arthur

    Inheritance Tax

    Where domestic properties are concerned, of course more people are getting drawn into paying the tax because the thresholds have been frozen. I am sure that the Minister who came to the House in 2022 to say that the rates at that time were to be frozen until 2028 is currently at the Opposition’s Dispatch Box.

    Hansard source
13. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Allison Gardner

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    I welcome the Bill’s ambition to strengthen support for babies, parents and carers during pregnancy and the earliest years of life. Parents love their babies and want them to be happy and healthy, and Governments must support them in that important role. I acknowledge that the simplicity of the Bill is part of its beauty. I understand that there is a little resistance to adding amendments and creating Christmas tree legislation, but I worry that in fear of creating such legislation we risk—apologies for the pun—throwing the baby out with the bathwater if we do not make explicit in the Bill amendments on inequalities that will be difficult to change in future. To put it starkly, we have to be honest that it would be very hard, politically, to argue for the removal of provision on inequalities from the babies Bill. It is important to build that into the Bill. I strongly support amendment 1, which would require the Secretary of State to consider the wellbeing of babies and their parents, and inequalities in their outcomes, when assessing need and reporting on infant support services. The amendment speaks to why we are all here: to improve babies and parents lives. We need to understand whether families are doing well, where outcomes are falling short and where further action is needed. We cannot just look at national statistics. An improvement in the national average can conceal the fact that some babies are being left further behind. We need to be able to look at the outliers. Across the country, there are stark and persistent inequalities. A baby’s chance of surviving pregnancy, birth and their first years of life, and of growing up healthy and developing well, are affected by factors including family income, ethnicity, disability and where they live. The amendment would ensure that future Secretaries of State pay attention to those differences when making decisions in what they do and where they target action and resources. On Second Reading I talked about Stoke-on-Trent’s persistently high infant mortality rate. The number of babies in Stoke-on-Trent who die before their first birthday is almost twice the national rate. We frequently top that saddest of all charts. If national Government do not pay attention to those local differences and inequalities, they will miss opportunities to improve and save babies lives. Behind every statistic is a real baby whose life has been lost. [Interruption.] It is a hard one, this one. I will never forget little Chloe Wilshaw, or her brave mum Ashley, who I talked about on Second Reading. These are the babies and families I think of when we talk about the need to do better. I am very grateful that, following that debate, not only has the Minister agreed to meet Ashley, but so has the maternity commissioner, to really bring about change. I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for New Forest West for enabling that opportunity.

    Hansard source
14. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Allison Gardner

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    I acknowledge that point, and it is clear in that clause, but I feel very strongly that the Bill should deal with inequality explicitly. The amendment would establish a clear and consistent base for assessing needs and holding Governments to account. Governments and priorities change. We all know the future Governments may not care as much as today’s Ministers do about how babies are doing or addressing inequalities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft so clearly explained. Putting outcomes and inequalities on the face of the Bill would help to ensure that they remain central to decision making and reporting in the years ahead. We owe it to every baby and every family to understand where support is falling short, to confront the inequalities that persist and to ensure that no child’s early experiences and life chances—and no parent’s experience of their children—are determined by their postcode or family circumstances.

    Hansard source
15. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Allison Gardner

    Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight

    I thank the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing the debate. I wish to raise the serious and long-standing problem of ambulance delays at the Royal Stoke university hospital, which is run by the University Hospitals of North Midlands trust and is situated in the neighbouring constituency of Stoke-on-Trent Central. Many of my Stoke-on-Trent South constituents, local campaigners such as Ian Syme, and West Midlands ambulance service have repeatedly raised with me their concerns about this crisis. Ambulance handover is the point at which responsibility for a patient transfers from the ambulance crew to the hospital team. NHS England guidance specifies that it should take place within 15 minutes of an ambulance arriving at a hospital. Between April and September this year, the average wait at the Royal Stoke was one hour and 33 minutes, and the longest was 17 hours and 41 minutes. Only 16% of handovers met the 15-minute standard, making the Royal Stoke the worst-performing hospital in the west midlands on that measure. House of Commons Library research indicates that it is the third worst in the country. Such handover delays cause harm and increase the number of avoidable deaths. This is not a recent problem: for most months since 2023, the trust’s handover times have been among the longest in the country. To be clear, this is not an attack on frontline NHS staff. Our paramedics, ambulance crews and emergency department staff are working under immense pressure, often to the point of burnout, and I acknowledge some of the outstanding work that happens at the Royal Stoke. But there is a false narrative that the problem is the result of more people turning up to A&E. It is not. A&E attendance figures at the Royal Stoke remain broadly stable, so deeper questions need to be asked about the overall culture, the patient flow through the system and the response of senior leadership. In August, the CQC conducted an inspection of the A&E and correctly instructed that the 15 corridor care spaces at the Royal Stoke be closed. I support the principle behind that decision, but closing those spaces does not address the problems that led to patients being treated in corridors in the first place, nor have those closures caused the long-standing ambulance delays, which existed before. In September 2025, NHS England took enforcement action against UHNM, yet a year later—this September—average ambulance handover delays at the Royal Stoke still hit two hours. There has been a failure of oversight and accountability. Having attended the recent UHNM board meeting and spoken with the integrated care board chair, I acknowledge that actions are being taken to address the problem. I am pleased that, on my suggestion, the ICB chair has agreed to convene a joint meeting of senior people and MPs to address the issue of ambulance handover delays. However, more needs to be done, and questions must be raised as to how we got into this situation in the first place. My constituents deserve safe, timely treatment. Our frontline staff deserve a system that allows them to do their jobs properly. Will the Minister commit to taking direct oversight of ambulance handover delays at the Royal Stoke, commission an independent inquiry and set a clear timetable for improvement?

    Hansard source
16. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Deirdre Costigan

    Engagements

    Q3. Almost 10 years ago, the shutters on Southall police station were pulled down for good because of austerity cuts by the Conservative Government. A shuttered police station in the middle of our town centre makes criminals feel that they can get away with it, and residents feel like no one cares. Does the Prime Minister agree that we must do all that we can to end the blight of empty and shuttered buildings in our town centres? Will he back my campaign to pull up the shutters on Southall police station so that local residents can feel safe again?

    Hansard source
17. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·David Burton-Sampson

    Wet Wipes (Labelling, Sale and Marketing)

    I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the marketing, advertising and offering for sale of wet wipes; to make provision about the labelling of wet wipes; and for connected purposes. The city of Southend has 7 miles of beautiful beaches, and Leigh-on-Sea is well known as a picturesque fishing village that still has a vibrant cockling industry. My constituency is also home to many wild swimming groups such as the Bluetits, who find that the refreshing waters of the Thames estuary provide great exercise as well as benefits to their mental and physical wellbeing—although I have to say that when I took a dip in December for charity, I did not find it too relaxing. All of this might help the House to understand why water quality is so important to my constituents and to me. Like so many, my constituents were rightfully outraged at the sewage dumps that sadly had become routine during the years of the former Conservative Government, so the people of Southend West and Leigh did what they so often do: they came together to make a difference on something they care about. They worked together to form quarterly water summits in 2024, giving residents the opportunity to hold water companies directly to account and to collaborate with the council, Ofwat, the Environment Agency and many more to find solutions to our water problems in Southend. It was the first summit of its kind in the country, and those summits continue to this day. I thank my constituent Daniella Boon, who is in the Gallery today, for her leadership on those summits and in this area. It was through chairing those water summits as a newly elected MP that I came to learn just how complex the issues affecting water quality and sewage discharges are. Certainly, water companies play the most important role, and I welcome the work being done by this Government to hold them to account. However, sewage discharges happen when the water system fails on so many different levels. Councils, the community, planning decisions, green spaces, and even whether or not a person chooses to pave their driveway all come together to influence outcomes. Last year, when spending time at our local sewage treatment plant, I learned that blockages are a leading cause of sewage discharges. When the sewers block, there are only two places for sewage to go—in Southend, it will be out into the estuary, or back up into people’s homes and toilets. We will all have seen in the media that those blockages are often caused by fatbergs. The pictures can be very shocking. The Guinness world record belongs to the fatberg found in Whitechapel in London in 2017, which was 250 metres long—longer than Tower bridge. With blockages of that size, it is no wonder that our sewerage system sometimes struggles to cope, and alongside grease and fat, those bergs are mostly made up of wet wipes. In Anglian Water’s network alone, around 500,000 wet wipes are flushed every single day. Instead of breaking down, many wet wipes remain largely intact. They snag on roots, pumps and rough surfaces within sewers, and they combine with fats, oils and grease to create these large blockages. In my constituency alone, Anglian Water dealt with 610 blockages last year, all caused by unflushable items. This Government have brought in legislation to ban plastic in wet wipes, a measure that my constituents and I welcome. It is an incredibly necessary step, as it reduces the harmful microplastics that poison wildlife and enter the food chain. However, biodegradable does not necessarily mean flushable, and even plastic-free wipes are made of tougher fibres that do not break down in the toilet in the same way that paper does. At our water summits, Anglian Water will often remind us that there is no such thing as a flushable wipe. When I visited Anglian Water’s water treatment plant on Stock Road I got to see a whole skip—yes, an entire skip—filled with long stringy fibres from wet wipes that have been fished out of our water system. The House can only imagine how that smelled. People flush wipes because they are labelled as flushable. The packaging is often clearly marked with a flushable logo. The wet wipe may disappear when the handle is pressed, but its disappearing down the toilet is not the same thing as its passing safely through the sewerage network. Consumers cannot see and do not know what happens after that wipe has been flushed. If the package says it is flushable, why would someone think otherwise? We should not expect consumers to decipher competing claims from water companies and manufacturers. We cannot expect them to conduct their own experiments before deciding to flush their wipes down the toilet. We conducted some experiments in my office, and we could see that some of these flushable wipes do not dissolve in water. People should be able to trust what is on the packaging. Every October, campaigns such as Unblocktober encourage people to think before they flush. These campaigns have helped to raise awareness, but awareness alone is not enough. We cannot spend one month of the year urging people not to flush wet wipes while allowing manufacturers to market those same products as flushable the whole year long. Education and labelling should not be pulling in opposite directions. The public need a clear and consistent message to just bin it. I want to be clear that the ultimate responsibility for fixing our water systems does not lie with consumers or even wet wipe manufacturers; it lies with the water companies. They took on the serious responsibility of protecting our waterways, rivers and seas, and often they have failed. This Labour Government has successfully passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 to strengthen regulation of the water industry, to allow bonuses to be banned for company owners who pollute our waterways and even to make it possible to hold water company executives criminally responsible. The legislation will also enable independent monitoring of every sewer overflow outlet. We will go further, with plans for greater public control of water coming later this year. No amount of responsible flushing will repair outdated infrastructure, prioritise investment or build new reservoirs, but it is part of the picture in keeping our waterways clean. I welcome the £90 million-plus investment by Anglian Water, working in partnership with Southend city council, to tackle flooding, improve water systems and improve public spaces. This Bill proposes that there should be a clear indication on all wet wipes that they should be disposed of safely in the bin and that people are encouraged to flush only the three Ps: pee, poo and paper. Non-flushable wipes should be clearly labelled as such with a visible symbol on the front of the packaging. Wipes that pass rigorous testing could continue to be labelled as flushable, but the onus should be on the manufacturer to prove that they will break down and cause no damage to the water system or to the plumbing of people’s homes. Labelling should also clearly and prominently instruct consumers about restrictions, such as flushing only one wipe at a time. The International Organisation for Standardisation published a technical specification on flushability in August this year. It is vital that the water industry works closely with manufacturers to establish clear and realistic specifications for what can be classed as flushable, moist toilet tissue. Consumers need confidence that flushable actually means flushable, and right now that is not the case. This is a matter of consumer choice. I am not telling people to use alternatives to wet wipes, although alternatives exist. I know that people will want to use wet wipes, whether for medical reasons or just because it is what they prefer, but they should know that for the sake of our pipes, our plumbing bills and our wildlife, they should just bin it. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That David Burton-Sampson, Leigh Ingham, Cat Eccles, Chris Bloore, Chris Vince, Danny Beales, Mr Alex Barros-Curtis, Lee Barron, Mike Reader, James Naish, Lizzi Collinge and Mr Bayo Alaba present the Bill. David Burton-Sampson accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 156).

    Hansard source
18. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dave Robertson

    Chetwynd Bridge

    I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of Government support for Chetwynd Bridge. It is a pleasure, as always, to see you in Westminster Hall this morning, Ms McVey. Unfortunately, I have to start with a bit of an admission and some bad news. Unfortunately, “Chetwynd bridge is falling down, falling down, falling down; Chetwynd bridge is falling down, falling down, falling down”. I will not punish hon. Members in the Chamber with a full rendition of a rewritten nursery rhyme, nor will I be singing. Unlike London bridge or indeed another bridge in our capital, further down the river, Chetwynd bridge is not especially famous, and it is unlikely ever to be the subject of a song or a nursery rhyme. But that is why today’s debate is so important: for me and, I am sure, some colleagues sitting behind me, to take the opportunity to impress on the Minister the vital significance of this bridge to communities in Staffordshire and South Derbyshire, and to remind him that, just like in that song: “Wood and clay will wash away…Bricks and mortar will not stay” and iron and steel have been bent and bowed. I promise that will be the last bit of nursery rhyme that I bring in today. What we know is that Chetwynd bridge needs a replacement, and I will cover more of that shortly. For a number of months, colleagues and I have been arguing for the Government’s structures fund to be used to fund that replacement. As I said to the Minister last night, it is good to see him for one last dance on Chetwynd bridge. A little background for those who are unsure about where Chetwynd bridge is: it crosses the River Tame in Staffordshire, very close to the Derbyshire border. One end of it sits in my constituency and the other in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards). It is also very close by the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett). It is the oldest cast-iron bridge in the country. It is older than Hammersmith bridge, and also longer—not that it is a competition, but we are older and longer. It was completed over 200 years ago in 1824, so this year we will see its 202nd birthday. It is grade II* listed for many of those reasons. Since 2019, it has been closed to heavy traffic. Options for patching up the structure have been exhausted over decades and decades. Without a weight limit, the bridge would be at risk of further damage, which could lead to its complete closure, with all the real economic problems that that would cause for my part of Staffordshire.

    Hansard source
19. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dave Robertson

    Chetwynd Bridge

    I had not even primed the hon. Member to say that, but I very much appreciate his intervention. Later, I will talk about some of the businesses and the real importance of this crossing as an arterial route in Staffordshire. If I can beg his indulgence to hang fire, I will get there shortly. The current partial closure of the bridge means that it is open to small vehicles. However, because of the protections that Staffordshire county council has had to put in place to prevent heavy goods vehicles from using it, it is currently signalised and one way. That leads to delays even for small goods vehicles; for heavy goods vehicles it is even worse, because the nearest detour is an 18-mile journey through the already congested centre of Burton, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier).

    Hansard source
20. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dave Robertson

    Chetwynd Bridge

    I appreciate the intervention from my hon. Friend and neighbour. The issue is really important. It is economic, social and cultural. When I say that the detour goes through the middle of Burton, it really does go through the middle of Burton. It is not just going close to the town; it goes through the middle of one of the biggest towns in, I think, Britain’s fourth biggest county. That 18-mile diversion is really significant. It is not just a bit of an inconvenience. It is significant for anybody just trying to get around Burton, because there is a huge amount more traffic on those local roads.

    Hansard source
21. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dave Robertson

    Chetwynd Bridge

    My hon. Friend and neighbour is a real advocate for Chetwynd bridge, as are all colleagues who have contributed to the debate. It is a really important piece of infrastructure for a huge part of the country, affecting at least four constituencies and likely others much further afield. I completely agree with her, and we are all eager to see the outcome of the structures fund. On the impact of different vehicles using the bridge, I will start with the emergency services. Ambulances are currently able to traverse the bridge, being below the weight limit, but they get caught up in the queues that form because it is signalised and one way, where it should be two lanes. A modern fire engine, however, weighs upwards of 12 tonnes; fill it with water and it weighs even more. Those vehicles are not allowed to cross Chetwynd bridge, which results in an 18-mile detour to go north via Burton, or south all the way down to Elford, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire. This year we saw the devastating impact that wildfires can have, including the terrible situation in Stourbridge over the summer. Every single pump that Staffordshire fire service could activate was out fighting wildfires. The service dealt with well in excess of 1,000 outdoor fires just this summer. Getting those pumps to where they need to be is vital. The 18-mile detour means minutes lost, time wasted, property damaged and potentially lost and, really worryingly, lives at greater risk. Fire engines not being able to get around that part of England is probably the most extreme example of the disruption, but for businesses in our region—to come back to the intervention by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—its impact is daily and serious. In the last couple of decades, Lichfield has experienced significant growth, because we are part of the golden triangle of freight and logistics in the midlands. I think Lichfield and the A38 corridor are within a three-hour drive of 90% of the population of the UK. In the Lichfield constituency, more than one in 10 jobs depend directly on road haulage. Next door in Tamworth, the figure is 7.3%. Significant numbers of jobs rely on road haulage being able to get things around the country quickly. Those retail and wholesale sectors, which are heavily dependent on road haulage, are our largest employers. This is not just a “nice to have”; it is essential to the local economies that are the beating heart of the entire national economy. Chetwynd bridge is just a few miles from Fradley Park, an important logistics hub spread over 173 acres. As a result of the partial closure, HGVs incur additional time and cost to their journeys, not to mention increased polluting impact—18 miles for an HGV is a lot of carbon footprint. I am pleased that the terms of the structures fund placed special emphasis on road haulage, recognising the significance of the sector. The impact on businesses at Fradley Park is serious and ongoing. I thank the Minister, in his previous portfolio, for his engagement on the construction of the structures fund, specifically looking into whether replacements would be considered. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth and I last wrote to him about that in May. Beyond that, I have already stressed the knock-on impact on haulage, which is felt acutely at Catton estate, which is just up from the bridge on the Tamworth side in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire. Catton estate hosts numerous festivals, including Bearded Theory, which has a capacity of 15,000, and Bloodstock, the UK’s largest metal festival, which has a capacity of 20,000—I assume you have been at least once, Ms McVey.

    Hansard source
22. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dave Robertson

    Chetwynd Bridge

    Festival organisers and the estate all support the urgent replacement of the bridge, which is the primary access route to the estate. They have told me and my hon. Friends the Members for South Derbyshire and for Tamworth about the serious impact on the events set-up of not being able to bring lorries across the bridge and having to use the detour. They are really concerned about what a permanent closure might mean. If we do not get this replacement, a permanent closure is inevitable—it is a case of when, not if.

    Hansard source
23. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dave Robertson

    Chetwynd Bridge

    I could not agree more. The Government want to talk about growth in every postcode: well, here is some growth for our postcode. Lifting the restrictions will make it easier for people to move around our parts of Staffordshire and Derbyshire, which will directly impact the ability of businesses to invest internally, to grow and to continue to drive our local economies. It is really important. Before I come to my conclusion—I have a couple of minutes—I place on record my thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for South Derbyshire, for Burton and Uttoxeter and for Tamworth for all their work and support on this matter. The bridge does not affect just one constituency; it affects at least four, and its effects go much further afield, into Staffordshire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire.

    Hansard source
24. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dave Robertson

    Chetwynd Bridge

    I 100% agree. The bridge is essential. It is a big piece of infrastructure. I understand that the Minister will not be able to give me a yes or no from the Dispatch Box today—I am aware of how this works—but my hon. Friends and I are eager to hear a timeline for the progress of the structures fund. The Chetwynd bridge scheme is effectively shovel ready. Staffordshire county council is prepared to commit just over £6 million to the project and is asking for just over £40 million from the structures fund to support that. It wants this bridge open in 2029. This is a shovel-ready project that can be driven really quickly. Using the structures fund to invest in communities like ours is a great opportunity for the Government to show growth in every postcode—to show that politics can work, that big Government can work for people and that we can get investment into the places it needs to go. Can the Minister set out a timeline for the structures fund, and will he or the relevant Minister meet with me and my hon. Friends to discuss that timeline further?

    Hansard source
25. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Tomlinson

    Inheritance Tax

    I thank hon. Members from both sides of the House for their contributions throughout the debate. Some of them definitely had the volume to enable all of us in the House to hear them. I thank the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who is herself a former Treasury Minister, for her contributions. Given her experience, having spent some time working in the Treasury, we may have expected at least a hint of self-awareness from Opposition Front-Bench Members. The previous Government left Britain with crumbling public services, broken public finances and the worst Parliament on record for living standards. Today, the Conservatives have come to the House demanding more unfunded tax cuts, worth up to £11 billion a year, without any clear plan whatsoever for how they would pay for them other than a vague commitment in the motion to cutting public spending. We all know what that means: it means cutting spending on the NHS, cutting spending on our schools and cutting spending on our police. That is what they did when they had 14 years in charge. We know that if they ever get on to the Government Benches again, their first port of call will be taking away money from our public services, which constituents up and down the country rely on. The Conservatives’ plans would do nothing to help ordinary families with the cost of living and would benefit the very wealthiest estates. I do not think it is the right priority to give a £3.74 million tax cut to someone living in a £10 million mansion, but it is clear that their priority is to give massive tax cuts to people in £10 million homes. We will not take that decision on the Labour side of the House. Over and again, the Conservative party sets out fantasy spending cuts that nobody believes it will deliver, and which clearly demonstrate its inability to add up or even to watch what the Government are doing. For example, some Opposition Members talked about changes to welfare spending and how the Conservatives plan to bring back face-to-face assessments. Yes, that would be a very good idea, and that is why the Government are doing that after Conservative Members scrapped face-to-face assessments during the pandemic and did not get round to reinstating them. We are bringing them back to ensure that we can move people off welfare and into work, because that is a Labour value and we support work. In stark contrast to the Conservative party, it is because of the action that the Government have taken since coming to office that our economy is demonstrating strong resilience in the face of global challenges. Earlier this week, the IMF upgraded our forecast of growth for this year. We were the fastest growing economy in the G7 in the first half of the year. The IMF has also projected that we will have the lowest deficit in the G7 by 2031, and we are on track to cut the deficit by more than any other G7 economy between 2025 and 2030. From 2029, we will have the lowest borrowing in the G7.

    Hansard source
26. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Tomlinson

    Inheritance Tax

    The Government’s policy on inheritance tax has been set out today. We will not be voting for the motion before us today because we do not believe that slashing public services and public spending for people living in £10 million mansions is the right priority. That is the Conservatives’ choice; it is not ours. This Government will deliver good growth in every postcode and provide breathing space for families and businesses. Underneath all that, we will continue to focus on fiscal discipline. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have been clear that we will meet our fiscal rules at the Budget later this month with a buffer against uncertainty, and we will continue to control borrowing so we can bring down inflation and reduce the long-term pressures on our public finances. That is the right thing to do, because there is nothing progressive about a Government spending £1 in every £10 on debt interest rather than on the priorities of working people.

    Hansard source
27. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Tomlinson

    Inheritance Tax

    We will vote against the Opposition motion this evening. The responsible approach that this Government are taking stands in stark—

    Hansard source
28. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Tomlinson

    Inheritance Tax

    I thank my hon. Friend for his continued advocacy for the farmers in his constituency and across the country. Labour Members engaged constructively with me, the then DEFRA Minister and the then Prime Minister on the issue of the threshold in the inheritance tax changes for farms and businesses, and we made a change late last year to reflect the conversations and concerns on the Government Benches and the representations received then. On the changes for residential property, it is worth noting before the House that independent analysis has shown that such changes could cost £10.8 billion a year once behavioural effects, which the Opposition did not cost, are taken into account. That means that there is a massive £5 billion black hole in their plans. That shows, as I think the whole House can agree, that the Opposition simply have not learned from the Liz Truss debacle, which pushed up interest rates and the cost of mortgages for constituents of mine in Chipping Barnet and for people across the country. We will not make the mistake that the Opposition made. The changes on agricultural property relief and business property relief introduced in April this year are expected to raise around £300 million a year while offering protection for family farms and businesses. Through 100% relief on the first £2.5 million of qualifying agricultural and business assets, a couple can pass on up to £5 million of assets between them tax-free, in addition to existing allowances such as the nil rate band. As we reach 7 pm, I think I should come to a conclusion. To fix our economy for the long term, we must ignore the fantasy economics and the unfunded commitments of the Conservatives, which will lead to economic ruin. Instead, we will stay focused on maintaining the resilience of our economy, where GDP growth has been revised up and we now have the highest growth in the G7, where living standards are rising after they fell in the previous Parliament, where investment is up in the public sector and the private sector, and where productivity is rising at its fastest rate, outside of the pandemic, in more than a decade. We will reject this motion this evening because we reject tax cuts for those in £10 million homes being paid for by cuts to our public services, including the NHS, police and local government up and down the country. Instead, we on this side of the House will stay focused on delivering good growth in every postcode and, as someone once said, hope in every heart. Question put.

    Hansard source
29. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship this morning, Dame Siobhain. We have had a very thoughtful and well-informed debate on the Bill. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed, but I pay particular tribute to the right hon. Member for New Forest West for introducing the Bill and for the care, determination and constructive spirit with which he has championed it. I will follow his lead and deal with both groupings in my remarks. We can all agree that every baby should get the best possible start in life, and I am delighted that last month the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced the expansion of Healthy Babies to every local authority in England. Like Sure Start before it, Healthy Babies will make enhanced health support available in every part of England, giving all families access to trusted, practical help throughout the critical 1,001 days from conception to age two. The Bill will complement the Healthy Babies expansion by creating a clear and enduring framework for support from conception to age two, providing long-term visibility and accountability. A number of important points have been raised in the debate today. First, the hon. Member for Chichester asked whether those undergoing IVF would be included as prospective parents. The Bill focuses on support from conception to age two, as we have heard, therefore parents who conceive through IVF will be covered from the point at which a pregnancy is established, in the same way as any other prospective parent. The hon. Member for Chichester also asked about breastfeeding, and there were a number of contributions on that very important issue. She asked whether there would be support for it in the secondary legislation that would come forward. Our starting point for the secondary legislation will be the Healthy Babies offer, which includes maternity, health visiting, infant feeding support, perinatal mental health support and parent-infant relationship support, while remaining open to considering other services that evidence might show babies and families actually need—so the answer to that is absolutely yes. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South. I pay tribute to her for all the work she did in her previous role to make sure that the Bill could come before us today and will move through its stages in the House. She made a thoughtful and well-informed contribution—as ever—in support of amendment 1. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South also supports amendment 1, and spoke so movingly about the very sad case of her constituent Chloe Wilshaw. I am glad that Ministers will be meeting my hon. Friend shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn talked about her experience as a paediatric physiotherapist, and how important the support that families and mothers get from conception onwards is to ensuring that babies get the best start in life. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central made, as ever, a considered speech. She raised a number of points, including whether environmental issues would be considered. I was interested to hear the exchange between her and the right hon. Member for New Forest West on that point, and his belief that it is implicit in the Bill’s drafting that environmental issues would be considered, among others. The sharing of data among health and local authorities in respect of children at risk is absolutely a key issue that we need to work at. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham raised the workforce plan. I am told that we will not have to wait too much longer and that a workforce plan will be published shortly, but I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central about the need for integrated workforce planning in respect of babies and children. I also recognise the need to include the voice and agency of families, mothers, fathers and carers in this whole issue. Finally, pre-conception health is of course very important, but the Bill is deliberately focused on the clearly defined period from conception to age two, when support can be directly linked to pregnancy, childbirth and infant development. Extending the Bill further would significantly broaden its scope and duplicate wider public health policy. Let me turn to the clauses. Clause 1 establishes the scope of the framework set out in the Bill. It requires the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying the publicly funded infant support services to which the Act will apply, together with the functions connected with their provision. Those services must support pregnancy or childbirth, an infant’s health and development, or the relationship between an infant and their parent or carer. Crucially, the clause allows services and functions to be updated as needs and provisions evolve, thereby helping support to remain relevant to babies and families. Any change will be made through regulations subject to parliamentary oversight. That approach allows the framework to evolve as evidence, services and families’ needs change. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so both Houses will have an opportunity to scrutinise and approve them. Clause 2 puts the needs and experience of infants, parents and carers at the heart of national decision making. It helps to ensure that babies, whose voices are too often unheard, are not overlooked. We all know that the period from conception to age two is a golden opportunity to shape life, health, learning and happiness. The clause therefore requires the Secretary of State to assess the expected level of need for infant support services specified in the Bill. This is a practical, evidence-informed approach. So that it can respond to the needs of babies and families as they change, the clause deliberately does not prescribe every detail of the assessment. It does, however, establish a clear expectation that need will be understood and kept under review, thereby helping to inform decisions about services and resources.

    Hansard source
30. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. We all understand how important health visitors are, and I acknowledge the reduction in numbers over previous years; this Government are determined to do something about that. I take his point. Given my responsibility for children’s health, I am very conscious that in health visitors we have a service with great potential. I am thinking particularly about improving vaccination rates; work is going on with health visitors on that. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with more specific details, but I absolutely take his point. I return to clause 2. The Secretary of State must “take reasonable steps” to include the views of parents and carers as well as prospective parents and carers when carrying out the assessment. Just as we encourage local areas to shape services for and with families, national decisions should begin with the experience of babies and those who care for them; that goes to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. Some babies and families, of course, face additional challenges due to issues such as poor mental health, isolation, financial pressure or housing insecurity, and a regular assessment will help bring those pressures into view and inform decisions about the appropriate levels of provision. It might help at this point if I turn to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft. She has long championed the rights of children and the need to address inequalities, and she made her points in this debate with her usual eloquence and passion. I understand and welcome the challenge that she has made. She is right to press the Government to ensure that the assessment looks beyond expressed demand, considering both wellbeing and inequalities, and pays particular attention to those experiencing the greatest disadvantage. The Government share that objective. It was always intended that the clause 2 assessments would consider health inequalities, drawing on evidence of unmet need and differences between groups and places. We intended—and I think the right hon. Member for New Forest West did, too—that that would be implicit in the drafting of the Bill. We have heard reference to section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 and section 1C of the NHS Act 2006, the public sector equality duty and the duty to reduce inequalities in access to and outcomes from health services. Together, they require particular attention to those experiencing the greatest disadvantage. However, I absolutely understand the importance of ensuring that the assessment considers wellbeing and inequalities. Families do not experience need equally, and the assessment must pay particular attention to those facing health inequalities so that unmet need is identified and services can respond fairly and effectively. I would therefore welcome the opportunity to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft and the right hon. Member for New Forest West to further consider the amendment ahead of Report. On that basis, I ask my hon. Friend whether she would consider not pushing her amendment to a vote at this stage and returning to it on Report. Clause 3 concerns action. It builds on the assessment required by clause 2 and ensures that evidence of the needs of babies and families informs the exercise of the Secretary of State’s functions. The clause requires the Secretary of State, when exercising functions specified in the Bill, to act with a view to ensuring appropriate levels of service provision for infants, parents and carers, and prospective parents and carers. In doing so, the Secretary of State must have regard to the most recent assessment of need carried out under clause 2. That creates a clear link between understanding need and considering appropriate levels of provision. The Bill deliberately does not impose a rigid or uniform national requirement. Needs, existing services and local circumstances differ, and an equal distribution of resources will not always deliver an equitable response. Instead, clause 3 allows the Secretary of State to take account of assessed need, differences between areas and the services already available. The level and type of provision may therefore vary, while the needs of babies and families remain central to decision making. This approach strengthens visibility and accountability, while retaining the flexibility needed to respond to circumstances changing. The needs of babies and families can change rapidly, and an agile response is required. Those 1,001 days cannot wait. Clause 4 provides the accountability mechanism at the heart of the Bill. It requires the Secretary of State to prepare a report for each reporting period, and to lay that report before both Houses of Parliament. The report must assess the level of provision of the specified infant support services during the period, which will give Parliament regular and transparent information about the support available in England to infants, parents, carers, and prospective parents and carers. Importantly, the report must consider not only what provision exists but the contribution that those services have made to positive outcomes in relation to pregnancy and childbirth, infant health and development, and the relationship between parents or carers and the infant. That includes examining those outcomes in the light of the needs assessed under clause 2. Clause 4 therefore completes the link between understanding need, considering the appropriate level of provision and reporting openly on the contributions that services are making to positive outcomes. By making provision and outcomes more visible, the clause will support sustained focus on babies and their families, and it will provide a clear basis for parliamentary scrutiny. Clause 5 defines the Bill’s key terms. It defines an infant as “a child under two years of age”, which reflects the Bill’s focus on the earliest period of life, when the foundations for health, wellbeing and development are laid. It defines a parent broadly, including anyone with parental responsibility for a child or an infant. It also recognises carers who look after an infant without having parental responsibility. That inclusive approach reflects the range of family circumstances in which infants are cared for, ensuring that the Bill is not limited to one particular family structure or legal relationship. Clause 5 also covers prospective parents and carers, meaning that the Bill can take account of people preparing to become responsible for an infant, whether through a current pregnancy or in relation to a child who has already been born. Those definitions do not create any separate duties or entitlement to services; they provide the clarity needed for the duties in the Bill to be understood and applied consistently. Clause 6 contains standard provisions needed to bring the Bill into effect. It deals with territorial extent, commencement, transitional or saving arrangements and the short title of the Act. The Bill extends to England and Wales, but its substantive provisions apply to England. Clause 6 will take effect on Royal Assent, with the remaining provisions commenced by regulation, which allows time to prepare for implementation. As I have said, regulations specifying or changing the services and functions within scope will be subject to the affirmative procedure, giving both Houses the opportunity to scrutinise and approve them. This is a really important Bill. It will help ensure that babies and families remain visible in national decision making, and that support during the critical period from conception to age two is informed by need, focused on outcomes and accountable to Parliament. I thank all Members again for their thoughtful and constructive contributions today. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for New Forest West for introducing the Bill, and for his continued commitment to giving every baby the best possible start in life. The Government are pleased to support the Bill, and I commend it to the Committee.

    Hansard source
31. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Connor Naismith

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I will begin by saying that I respect the right of hon. Members across the House to come here and give voice to their constituents. I respect the voices of the women of Piddington who are in the Gallery today, making their presence known to Government. That is their democratic right, and I respect that. In office, the Conservatives designed an asylum accommodation programme that took over much-loved hotels in some of the most deprived parts of our country, including the Crewe Arms Hotel and the Royal Hotel in the centre of Crewe. Local services and community cohesion were put under severe strain, and people were forced to cancel weddings and other events of sentimental value in their lives. Of course, it is not only the Tories who are up to their necks in that policy, because who designed it? Who championed it on the airwaves, boasting that more and more hotels were being brought on stream in deprived towns like mine? It was, of course, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), now Reform’s Treasury spokesperson, aided and abetted by former Tory Ministers who “betrayed our country”—not my words, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the words of Zia Yusuf. In opening this debate, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) said that this should not be about class, and I think she is right. But why were places like Crewe chosen by the Conservatives when they were in government? It is precisely because such places were deprived and because land values were lower in those places.

    Hansard source
32. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Connor Naismith

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I will not give way, because I do not want to take time away from other people. I do not think that approach is fair. I was delighted when I was informed that, after much campaigning, the Crewe Arms Hotel would be closing as an asylum hotel. I hope to see the Royal Hotel also closed for such purposes in the coming months, and I urge the Minister to say more, if she can, about when we might see progress in that regard. It is important to say that such outcomes are possible only if the Government continue to make progress with small boat crossings coming down, which they are, and the processing of claims going up—in stark contrast to the previous Government, under whom numbers collapsed—as well as deporting people who have no right to be here. But crucially, with regard to this debate, we will also see those outcomes only if accommodation for asylum seekers is spread more fairly across our country, using appropriate disused military sites. The proposition that the Tories have put in front of us today seems to be that my constituents have to accept more of the burden of asylum accommodation while other parts of our country do not, and that is simply not fair. I know where my constituents will stand on that question, and I am with them, not with the Opposition. As for the European convention on human rights, it blocks just 3% of total removals from this country, and underpins relationships—including the Good Friday agreement—with other countries around the world. Even the Tories’ much-loved Rwanda deal was contingent on compliance with international agreements on human rights and refugee law—not because a UK or European court said so but because the Rwandan Government insisted, as any third country that we might want to work with would. By seeking to tell my constituents that they should continue to do more than their fair share in response to the phenomenon of small boat crossings, the motion signifies the official Opposition’s retreat from being a serious national party of government. I will not be supporting it.

    Hansard source
33. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Vince

    International Law: UK Obligations

    Sometimes, this topic can seem abstract to residents in my constituency of Harlow, so could the Attorney General talk about the practical ways in which obeying international law can benefit my residents in Harlow?

    Hansard source
34. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Vince

    Inheritance Tax

    I wonder whether the shadow Chancellor thinks that inheritance tax has a greater impact than the cost of care on people who are forced to sell their homes. Does he not recognise that the Prime Minister is right to tackle the national care crisis, because that is causing people to need to sell their homes far more than inheritance tax is?

    Hansard source
35. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Vince

    Inheritance Tax

    I thank the Minister for giving way; he is always generous with his time. Does the motion not just show that the Conservatives have the wrong priorities? Removing inheritance tax for families when the threshold is £1 million will make no difference to families in my constituency of Harlow. Less than one in 20 families pay inheritance tax. Is it not the right thing to do to tackle the cost of living crisis in the way that he is talking about?

    Hansard source
36. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Vince

    Inheritance Tax

    My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that the Conservatives’ argument would be far stronger if it was focused, as many of their speakers are, on family businesses and family farms? The motion talks about the abolition of all inheritance tax, including on estates. Surely that weakens their argument.

    Hansard source
37. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Murray

    Nuclear Energy: Scotland

    Given that the hon. Lady has criticised other parties—I agree with her criticism—does she look with any regret at her own party’s position? In 2010, it opposed new nuclear on the basis that it would not come onstream until 2022? Does she think that if they had taken a different position then, we might be paying lower bills now?

    Hansard source
38. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Murray

    Nuclear Energy: Scotland

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Stuart. I thank my namesake, the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray), for securing this important debate about an issue of huge concern and importance to all our constituents. I am an MP for Edinburgh and for East Lothian; I am one of two MPs for the county, which is home to Torness nuclear power station, Scotland’s only remaining nuclear power station, with 40 years of local expertise. Torness is scheduled to close in 2030, despite powering 2 million homes and employing 500 workers. The SNP’s arbitrary ban on nuclear in Scotland means that nothing will replace it. New nuclear at Torness is backed by the Labour-led East Lothian council, the GMB, workers, residents and me. As the local MP, I support it because it will bring jobs, protect the environment and lower bills. Everybody backs new nuclear at Torness, except the SNP.

    Hansard source
39. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Murray

    Nuclear Energy: Scotland

    I profoundly reject everything the hon. Member just said. One need only look at France, where 15 years ago or so the French Government pursued a policy of nuclear. France’s domestic bills are a quarter lower than Scotland’s and its industrial bills are half what they are in Scotland. The minute we had the policy security that the SNP has blocked for the last 20 years in Scotland, we would be able to crowd in the private investment that nuclear would have. As it is, nuclear expertise and nuclear investment are going south into England and not coming to Scotland, thanks to the decisions of his party. I cannot understand how the SNP can support drilling in the North sea for oil and gas, yet not support nuclear in East Lothian. The ban on nuclear is possibly the most baleful, pernicious and counterproductive of all the SNP’s policies. As someone who cares passionately about climate change, it boggles my mind that after the hottest summer on human record, in which oil and gas companies have posted record profits, SNP policy is to oppose nuclear power stations and support a tax cut for oil and gas companies. Anybody who supports renewables and wants to see a just transition from fossil fuels to renewables must support nuclear. We need the energy resources for when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. The right question we must ask is this: what is the alternative? It is either nuclear or oil and gas. I say nuclear; the SNP supports further fossil fuels. Nobody is arguing that nuclear is risk-free, but the risks of nuclear are far lower, first, than they ever were and, secondly, than those of fossil fuels, which are literally boiling our planet. The risk from fossil fuels has attenuated, but it is higher than it is with nuclear. My final point is that we must look internationally. Germany, after shutting down its nuclear power stations, now burns more coal than any other European country. Arguably, the party that has done the most to increase carbon emissions in Europe is the German Green party, which pushed the country off nuclear. Compare that with France, where, as I said, 70% of the grid is nuclear. Industrial bills there are half those in Scotland, and domestic bills are a quarter lower. We know that if we want to gain support for the just transition, we need to get bills lower. Every other party in the House of Commons now supports nuclear energy—even the Greens, even the Liberal Democrats; there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repenteth. Only the SNP is the blocker. My question for the Government is this: what can we possibly do to persuade the SNP to stop blocking nuclear and allow it to lower bills and create a just transition to protect the environment?

    Hansard source
40. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Murray

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    The proposal from the Government is to open large sites far from town centres, where there can be resources, such as Home Office officials, and where the police can be informed. Before I was elected, I worked in asylum accommodation. The hon. Lady’s Government would open hotels in city centres without telling local authorities, and without even telling the police. Why is she proposing that her system is safer for local communities than this alternative?

    Hansard source