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
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
The consultation that I mentioned is the widest consultation on the most comprehensive Government review of the whistleblowing framework since its introduction in 1999. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and others will feed into it, so that we can make a sea change in the way that whistleblowers are dealt with.
I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing our deepest condolences to Simon and his family. It is right to say that the Financial Conduct Authority is conducting an investigation into the allegations of wrongdoing, and I therefore do not think it would be right for me to comment in detail at this time. I know that concerns have been raised about the inquiry, but it is being conducted by a new non-exec director. It will report, and the chief executive of the FCA has said that she will have carte blanche to look across the piece at the dealings between Simon and the FCA. In the first instance, I think we should wait to see the outcome of the inquiry before going any further.
The Government inherited a justice system on the brink. The record backlogs mean that victims are facing devastating delays for justice. This Government continues to invest in our courts, but vital reforms are needed too. The Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary have rightly listened to the strength of feeling from victims and this House and have decided not to establish the Crown court bench division, but we will now act more quickly to implement the rest of our vital reforms, delivering swifter justice for victims, whom the Opposition appear to have forgotten about entirely.
It seems to me that the Opposition oppose every one of Lord Leveson’s recommendations. The Conservatives are the party that created the Crown court backlog, and yet they oppose every measure that we devise to deal with it. When are they going to come up with proposals of their own? Why do they continue to oppose for opposition’s sake?
This will be complete news to the Opposition, but we do occasionally listen to what this House and the professions have said. We are going forward with proposals that will tackle the backlog. The Opposition never want to talk about the backlog because they caused it. We are looking for solutions to that; they are welcome to put forward their suggestions.
I add my tribute to Sir David on the fifth anniversary of his death. David was someone of whom I was very fond and with whom I worked very closely on the Health Committee when I arrived in this House in 2001. We send our deepest condolences to David’s family. There is more work to be done on the security of Members of this House, and we will do it. I look forward to welcoming President Zelensky to Downing Street later this afternoon. Our support for Ukraine is unwavering. I have asked for further military and financial support to be drawn up ready for the coming weeks. Later today, I will also meet Archie Goodburn, an incredible athlete and inspiring campaigner for brain cancer research. Finally, I also pay tribute to Councillor Pat Karney, who served north Manchester for almost 50 years as a councillor in such a dedicated way. He saw the city through some of its greatest challenges and has fittingly been called “Mr Manchester” on the front page of the Manchester Evening News today. Thank you, Pat, for your contribution to Manchester and to politics in our country. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
They did not raise those issues with me. I am very happy for everything to be set out in full, Mr Speaker. That is why I asked the Greater Manchester combined authority, in response to a call from the Leader of the Opposition and others, to set out a full statement of my key dealings with the owners of Manchester City football club. That statement, which was published on Monday, includes the issues in the news today, and that is the position.
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and pass on my sympathies in relation to his grandparents. Any family in this country who has lived through the journey of dementia and experienced the social care system will know that we should not accept the status quo. The failure of this House to fix social care through the decades does not reflect well on any party. We will fix it. We will create a national care service. In laying out the path to that national care service, I can give him my word as the Labour and Co-operative MP for Makerfield that co-operative principles will be at the heart of the new national care service.
I am glad that the right hon. Lady raised my comments, because it gives me an opportunity to say to the whole House how I intend to lead this country. We have lived through a decade of division, and we know that hostile actors have been seeking to interfere in our democratic process. That is a matter of fact. We need to call that out and look straight at it in a way that the Conservatives did not. I have a quote here from the right hon. Lady when she stood at this Dispatch Box when she was responsible for steering through the Elections Bill. She said: “I have not read the Russia report”.––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 384.] They did not want to see it. They wanted to look in the other direction. I will not do that. I will draw a line. I will defend our democracy, and I will lead this country forward with positivity, unity and hope in the next decade.
I could ask the Leader of the Opposition whether she has even read the Russia report yet. I also wonder whether she has read the full comments from Sir Ken McCallum or whether she heard the comments from the former head of MI6. If she had, she would not have made the statements that she just made in this House. I think it is important that we are clear-eyed about what happened in the past. There is incontrovertible evidence that outside actors—enemies of this country—have interfered in our democratic processes, and it is inconceivable that that was not taking place across the whole of the last decade.
The right hon. Lady asked me what I am waiting for. I have had to wait for the Government process, which was struck down by the courts under the Conservative Government, to be fixed. They messed it up, and we inherited that situation. I will take a pragmatic approach on oil and gas. We will set out our decisions shortly.
We commissioned the Milburn report because we do not want to see a country where young people in their 20s are stuck on benefits. I want a system where we give the right support to young people up front so that they can be in training, education or employment from 16 onwards. They do need better mental health support, and I have argued for a different education system that gives parity to technical education alongside the university route. We will bring forward the Milburn report soon. We will set out our response to it. We will bring down the welfare bill.
As I said, I am meeting President Zelensky this afternoon. We will honour our commitments to him and his country, and we will honour our NATO commitments, as I have said every time that I have appeared at this Dispatch Box. The right hon. Lady will have to wait for the Budget. The right hon. Lady comes here every week and poses as the world-leading authority on defence. She talked about interviews. I recall a recent interview she gave about the Conservatives’ plans for an iron dome. Then she said, “It isn’t our plan.” Then it emerged that it was briefed by her team, which does not sound like she is in control of her own policy on defence. Then, under questioning from Mr Ferrari on LBC, she said “you’ve got to speak to a defence expert about exactly how it works.” Obviously, we worked out in that interview that she was not a defence expert, and I think Mr Ferrari is still waiting for an explanation.
I used my conference speech to face up to difficult decisions. I faced up to a difficult decision on supporting older people in later life, related to adjusting the triple lock so that we can lay the ground for a national care service. I took a difficult decision about developing closer ties with Europe, supported by a majority of people in this country. Why? Because we have the chance to do a deal before the end of the year that can add growth to the British economy and support our farmers and our food industry. Let me finish today in a spirit of problem solving, not point scoring; in a spirit of unity with the right hon. Lady. I will make one further point about her conference speech. I commend her for drawing a line under a decade of division when she drew a line between her and Reform for suggesting that her children were not British. That is wrong in every single respect. She was brave and she was right to call it out. That is what I want to see more of in the next decade, as we go forward.
My hon. Friend puts her points very powerfully. High streets across the country, including in Southall, have for too long been a symbol of the decline of our towns, and I am determined to do something about it. Immediately, I cut business rates for pubs, clubs and music venues by 20%, working with the Chancellor when I came into office. We are bringing forward a high streets strategy later this year. We have announced a £210 million package for councils to reopen empty buildings. I will look at the specifics on the police hub. This issue should be one that unites this House and one where we can work together.
I am happy to admit that again now. I was working then with a colleague of Members now on the Lib Dem Front Bench, Norman Lamb, and it did get too late. It got caught up, inevitably, in the climate of the election. Then it happened to Theresa May in 2017, and Labour Members were perhaps doing the point scoring at that point in time. This is not an issue for point scoring. When is this House going to learn that? How long is it going to turn away from this issue? My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) mentioned his grandparents. I saw mine go through the care system and I vowed as a Minister in the Blair Government that I would not let it happen to my parents, but it has just happened. It is not good enough, for him or for the many thousands of people like him, but also for the people who work in social care, who give everything to it. I see the right hon. Gentleman’s genuine commitment to this issue. It will be difficult, but let us get on and build this national care service and raise the esteem of politics with people across this country.
Can I first say that I will arrange a new round of cross-party talks on social care, certainly before the end of the year, but hopefully within the next month? The former shadow Health Secretary from the main Opposition came, and I will make sure it is available to all parties in this House. On the question about what is happening in Ukraine, obviously I am looking very much now at my meeting with President Zelensky in a couple of hours. I called him on Saturday because I recognised that it was another very dark and difficult moment for him as they contemplate a winter that will be severe for his people. I recognise that he is carrying the heaviest of weights right now and it is extremely difficult for him. What I have to do in my role is try and repair bridges so that the support comes back, and therefore I should, at this moment in time, be careful in terms of laying the ground to bring people back together. That is the role I intend to play. It is the right role for me to play in this moment. I will listen to President Zelensky carefully, but he will not be going away from Britain today empty-handed.
I thank my hon. Friend for giving me advance knowledge of this case, and I will be honest in saying that it worries me. It is crucial, clearly, because of the circumstances that my hon. Friend describes in relation to Hollie’s school, that the family are able to spend as much time together as is possible. That is why I have asked the Department for Education to speak to the trust. It must be possible to resolve this situation. It should not be causing any stress to the family. I would ask that they do it without delay.
Can I start just by recognising, with the charges that have been laid against the individual responsible for the murder of Ann Widdecombe, and indeed for also making threats against the hon. Member, that it has been a hard time for him and his family?[Official Report, 15 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 6WC.] (Correction) There is a lot we disagree on, but I defend his right to say it, and I will work hard to secure his safety and that of every Member of this House. We will involve all sides in the Lovegrove review that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has established. On the issues related to Iran, obviously we have seen the issues at RAF Fairford recently. They have been dealt with in the right way and with the utmost seriousness by the police and security services. The key point is that, of course, we do need to get boat crossings down. I hope the hon. Member would recognise that they are coming down and removals are up. There is much more to be done, but there is clearly progress in the right direction.
I am going to go back to the response to the Milburn review. I think we need to give guarantees of mental health support when young people need it—not waiting months, not waiting years, but exactly when they need it—and that will be a part of my response.
I will be writing to the hon. Lady soon. This might sound disappointing, as we will not be taking forward her specific suggestion, but we will be bringing forward four new community mental health centres across Hertfordshire, as part of 159 across the country. I will be happy to ensure that the Health and Social Care Secretary works with her to involve her in the design of those new hubs, so that we can deliver the mental health support that she is rightly calling for.
I praise my hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) who has run the Right to Food campaign, and our trade unions—I am a proud supporter of them, and they have supported me, and I declare that interest in that matter as discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) recently. We do need to expand access to free school meals, which the Government are doing, to half a million more children, and we have tripled investment in breakfast clubs. We need to keep working so that no child goes hungry on any single day in this country.
As Prime Minister I am determined to ensure that we support all communities in this country, including our rural communities. I will listen carefully to what the hon. Member has to say as we bring forward our plans to show that we are on the side of her constituents.
Policing is obviously a devolved matter, but I am very open to working with the SNP Government, Police Scotland, and Glasgow city council to deal with the issues that my hon. Friend is referencing. As Mayor of Greater Manchester, I brought forward Operation Vulcan, which was a multi-agency approach to changing Cheetham Hill, and it did rip out entrenched criminality in that area. I am more than happy to talk to my hon. Friend about how we pioneer that in Glasgow too, and that offer is open to her.
May I condemn the motion that was passed, unequivocally? It is wrong, it is antisemitic, and Labour Members will have nothing to do with it. We will always take the right response when it comes to any partnerships that we have with other parties, and we cannot support a partnership with a party that holds the position that has recently been adopted.
I could not agree with my hon. Friend more strongly. I will be in Scotland on Friday making a speech on these issues, looking at how we can do more to support young people and help the Government in Scotland develop their approach to getting more young people into work. We also have the Your First Home scheme that we have brought forward. We need to do much more to help young people get themselves established in life, and we will do that in all parts of the UK, including Scotland.
I am a complete champion for green space and physical activity, so I am concerned to hear about the situation that the hon. Lady’s constituents are in. I have just had a commitment from the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), to meet her to get this situation unlocked, and I hope that is helpful to her.
May I agree strongly with my hon. Friend? I remember bringing the Hillsborough families to meet the Grenfell families shortly after the disaster. It is painful that it has taken so long for charges to be laid, but at least they have been laid now. I know the First Secretary has met with the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee this week to look at the oversight mechanism that he describes. I am confident that we can develop a model that gives exactly the commitment that he is looking for. I want to leave him and his constituents in no doubt whatsoever: as Prime Minister, I will work to support him every day to get justice for Grenfell.
The right hon. Gentleman just gave me a moment of déjà vu—I remember standing up in this Chamber auditioning for a mayor’s job many years ago. [Interruption.] He did not do a bad audition, but maybe it needs a little bit of work because the Administration that he worked in left some of that bureaucracy behind in London City Hall. I hope he will show more candour and directness than the Leader of the Opposition if he is ever asked the question, “Has Brexit been good or bad for London?” What is his answer?
I will be meeting David shortly. I look forward to paying tribute to him as the chair of the Aberfan Memorial Charity for all the support he has provided over the years to the relatives of the 144 people who died, many of them children, and the families who have lived with that grief for generations. I intend to visit Aberfan next week on the occasion of the 60th anniversary. I pay tribute to the whole community for the strength that they have shown over the years and to the wonderful representation that my hon. Friend has given.
I will indeed, and I remember the meeting very well. I speak as someone whose family has been affected by breast cancer. I look forward to meeting the group again, perhaps with the hon. Gentleman and with other colleagues on all sides of the House.
Our position is unwavering: the Falkland Islands are British and will remain so, because that is the overwhelming will of the Falkland Islanders. We have made that clear to Argentina directly. We will not allow the islanders to be used as a prop in Argentinian domestic politics. I raised this issue directly with President Trump just a few weeks ago. We will not allow Britain or the Falkland Islands to be bullied in this way. We will seek to resolve the situation, but we will not hesitate to use more robust measures if necessary. Bills Presented Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Secretary Angela Rayner, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Alex Norris, Secretary Stephen Kinnock, Emma Reynolds, Uma Kumaran, Vicky Foxcroft, Matthew Pennycook, Florence Eshalomi and Jim McMahon, presented a Bill to make provision about fire safety in buildings containing multiple dwellings, including provision for the assessment and remediation of external walls that give rise to risks from fire, and the mitigation of such risks, in taller buildings; to make provision for the obtaining and recording of information about buildings containing residential accommodation; to make provision about liabilities in connection with unsafe construction products; and to make other provision in connection with the safety and management of residential buildings. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 155) with explanatory notes (Bill 155-EN). Flooding Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) George Freeman, supported by Helen Morgan, Dr Ben Spencer, Steff Aquarone, Terry Jermy, James Wild, Jerome Mayhew, Adrian Ramsey, Blake Stephenson and Dr Roz Savage, presented a Bill to make provision about the responsibilities and duties of certain authorities and agencies in respect of inland flood prevention; to make provision about the powers of local flood authorities and Internal Drainage Boards; to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the funding of local flood authorities and Internal Drainage Boards; to provide for the designation of Internal Drainage Board pumps as critical national infrastructure; to require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on the potential merits of establishing a Flood Compensation Fund to support homeowners whose primary residence has become unsaleable as a direct result of flooding; to make provision about flood reinsurance schemes; to make provision about the responsibilities of developers and water companies in respect of the provision of drainage for new housing developments; to make water companies statutory consultees for certain planning applications; to place a duty on fire and rescue services to respond to flood events; to make provision about national and local digital mapping of flood incidence and risk; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 157). Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and War Pension Scheme (Report) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Josh Babarinde presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the potential merits of disregarding compensation received under the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme for the purpose of calculating entitlement to Pension Credit and to other means-tested benefits for which such payments are not disregarded in full; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 158).
We live in challenging times, with heightened security threats, inflation and cost of living pressures driven by Trump’s war in the middle east. Our NHS is still recovering from the pandemic and from Liz Truss, yet the priority set out by the Conservatives in today’s motion is cutting public spending to give more money away to people inheriting sums of money greater than £1 million. That is sad and predictable, but it is not surprising. As it stands, the Conservatives know that they are not serious contenders for government, so they have reached back into a comfort zone. They hope that by sending a message to some of the wealthiest people in our society, they might hang on to a few more votes, but I am afraid that people across the income spectrum in my constituency and across the country will see right through this policy. My constituents know that we can ill afford a tax giveaway to people who are already fortunate enough to inherit £1 million tax free. The facts matter. Under the current system, only around one in 20 people pay inheritance tax on their estates at all, so the winners from the Conservatives’ proposition will be about 5% of the population, while the rest of us are left to pick up the bill. An independent analysis has found that the proposal could cost the Exchequer upwards of £10 billion a year, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said. The political choice matters too. I believe in maximising opportunities for people from all backgrounds. The question we should be debating in this House today is not how we make things easier for those who rely on inherited wealth, but how we make things easier for those who do not have access to inherited wealth. Last year, the bank of mum and dad provided more than £9 billion in gifts to their children and, in some cases, their grandchildren. Every parent and grandparent who has the ability to offer support to their loved ones will do so and should be encouraged to do so. The average sum given by the bank of mum and dad was £55,000—a very significant amount of money, wherever you are in the country. That is great for those who are in such a fortunate position. There will be people in this Chamber who have been able to give and receive money, and we should acknowledge that.
I absolutely understand that point, but there are many millions of people in this country who work just as hard but who, through no fault of their own, are not in a position to hand down tens of thousands of pounds to their children. If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to use the opportunity presented by this debate to talk a little bit about my own proposal on intergenerational fairness. I have a policy idea called the citizens advance, which I came up with a year or so ago. It is a policy offer that would give people the opportunity to move their lives forward irrespective of their background. This is how it would work: after 10 years in work—10 years of national insurance contributions—the state would say to people, “We’re going to give you a choice. You can keep your current state retirement age”—which for most young adults today is 68—“or you can put back your state retirement age by a year to 69, and in return, you will receive the value of one year of your state pension as a lump sum.” From April next year, that will be £13,000. That is my idea; I am very pleased that the Social Market Foundation has taken it on, and I encourage any Members who are interested to read its detailed and costed policy paper. I can assure my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench and in the Treasury that they will be hearing more from me on this subject in the weeks and months to come. I make that point because I want to engage seriously with the idea of intergenerational fairness, which is important to me and to many of my constituents.
I obviously do not know the circumstances of that particular business, but I do know that, as the Minister set out, there is a threshold of £2.5 million under which no business will pay any inheritance tax at all. I think that is a fair place to start, and that is the status quo.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks powerfully and with great experience on these issues. I will draw my remarks to a close by returning to the proposition put forward by the Conservatives today. I am sad to say that they are a party retreating to their comfort zone. They could have come to the Chamber today and said, “Let’s have a debate about how we invest in defence or public services, or about new ways to support businesses”, but I am afraid that their choice and the choice made by their leader is a giveaway to the top 5% of estates in this country. I am a meritocrat. I want a society that is less reliant on family wealth, not more—a society that maximises opportunity for all. I am sorry that that is not a vision that the Conservative party seems to share.
The hon. Member is a friend—we play cricket together in the parliamentary team and have therefore shared a few pints in a pub. He is of generous spirit. Does he recognise that this Prime Minister is cutting taxes on pubs by 20%? That is something that everybody in the House should welcome.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for listing the many failures of the SNP Government over their time in Holyrood. I wonder whether she might think about why, once they decided not to invest in new nuclear, they did not take steps to make additional or other energy solutions available. We have not had a new pumped hydro storage solution in Scotland since 1965. Does she think about the SNP’s other failures in trying to have a sensible energy policy?
It is great to see the Minister in her place, and I thank her for a brilliant visit to Prestwick this week. Let me say how proud I am to join my Labour Ayrshire colleagues in calling for nuclear back in Ayrshire at Hunterston, and how frustrated I am at the lack of skills, jobs and investment in our communities. Can the Minister say anything about why the SNP’s anti-scientific, irrational stance is continuing?
I thank the Opposition spokesperson for this debate today, but can I also say how grateful I am that the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) is in her place? More than 20 years ago, she and I worked in the Home Office, where we inherited another Tory mess on asylum. With a great Home Secretary and a brilliant team, we reduced the backlog, made appeals much more difficult and made the country a much safer place. Will she bring some of her experience from 20 years ago to this job, after the mess the Tories left have us?