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

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 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
2. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dave Robertson

   Chetwynd Bridge

   How could I say no to the hon. Member?

   Hansard source
3. 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
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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
8. 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
9. 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
10. 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
11. 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
12. 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
13. 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
14. 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
15. 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
16. 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
17. 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
18. 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
19. 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
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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
23. 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
24. 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
25. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Murray

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    Over the last two years, we on the Home Affairs Committee have looked into the cost of this to the taxpayer. Does the Minister share my outrage that huge amounts of public money have gone to private companies, some of whose owners entered The Sunday Times rich list while our communities suffered? Does she also agree that the author and signer of those contracts was the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), on the Reform Benches?

    Hansard source
26. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Murray

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    It is good that we are having this debate in the House of Commons today, because this is an issue the public care about profoundly and they want to see substantive action to address their concerns. To understand how to do that, we have to understand how we got here. I do not propose to relitigate the disastrous asylum system that this Government inherited, under which huge numbers of asylum seekers were housed in hotels across the country. That was terrible for local communities, where hotels were opened in town centres with no support and often without even telling the police or local authorities. It was terrible for genuine asylum seekers and it was terrible for the taxpayer. The only ones it worked for were the private companies, which extracted massive profits. The Prime Minister has talked about the scandal of outsourcing and privatisation in modern Britain. The most glaring example of that is the asylum accommodation sector. The public are right: we cannot tolerate that and we must fix it, so it is good to see the Government putting in the hard yards to achieve that. There are three components that we have to tackle as a country. First, we have to drive down the number of asylum seekers coming into the system. That is why it is good to see small boat crossings down by 40% and the French preventing 48,000 crossings. Obviously, more must be done. We need to prevent people from coming in, but secondly, we also have to increase the number coming out of the system. There has been a big increase in decisions and an increase in removals of more than 80,000. Again, there is more to be done, but it is good to see the hard yards starting to be put in.

    Hansard source
27. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Murray

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. Whenever I have spoken to law enforcement or the military, that is exactly the issue they raise. Moreover, making gestures that we know are never realistic is what the traffickers want us to do, because it encourages them to encourage people to come here. The third component of what we must tackle is that of dealing with people while they are in the asylum system. That means we have to drive down the costs, deliver the economies of scale required, mitigate the impacts that infuriate communities and increase safeguarding for communities. We need to do that if we want to close the hotels, and we cannot close the hotels without dealing with people in the system. Let me make a defence of large sites in the asylum system. In 15 years working on immigration and during two years on the Home Affairs Committee, I must have visited more asylum accommodation than anyone else in the House of Commons. Large sites have an important role to play, particularly in alleviating the issues that local communities find challenging. First, on cost, they are much cheaper than hotels. On efficiency—

    Hansard source
28. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Murray

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I will get to the end of my point and then I will give way. Secondly, on efficiency, having people in one place, where Home Office officials and the relevant people can be brought in, can speed asylum seekers through the process and get them out of it faster. Thirdly, on community engagement, yes, asylum seekers are free to come and go, but short of imprisoning them, such sites are as much as we can contain them in British society.

    Hansard source
29. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Murray

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    Let me make some points and then I will take interventions. Charities and groups can go to large sites, which are far away from town centres, unlike hotels and HMOs, and the authorities, by providing things such as transport, can practically organise when people will be in one place, stopping the issues of hotels and people hanging around town centres late at night. Finally, on safeguarding, one of the issues with hotels is that the police were not informed. At larger sites, we can have trained professionals who can spot depression, isolation, re-traumatisation or worrying behaviours, understand the dynamics in groups, and find opportunities to observe, supervise and intervene. Engaging with police and social services is how we tackle those risks. Let me share what persuaded me about that. I was sceptical of large sites until I went to Wethersfield, which opened under the previous Government—I think it was opened by the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman). There, they told me that the work they can do around mitigation and safeguarding is far more effective at a large site than a small site.

    Hansard source
30. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Murray

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) and then I will come back to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan).

    Hansard source
31. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Murray

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument at all. My argument to the Minister would be that large sites vary. Wethersfield did not work until it was reformed; Northeye did not work. I am going to do something unusual and say something positive about the Scottish Government for a second—I know the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) is going to have a heart attack over there. [Laughter.] When the Scottish Government opened large sites for asylum seekers from Ukraine on two cruise ships, they were very cost effective compared with the Bibby Stockholm. The argument is not about the principle, but about whether the Home Office can orchestrate it and achieve it through public procurement.

    Hansard source
32. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Murray

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I absolutely understand why people say that; it is a perfectly reasonable response to risk. However, the role of Government is to mitigate risk. The role of Government is to intervene through public policy and deploy public resources and capacities. That is the best way to mitigate risk. That is normal across policing and all kinds of Home Office security, but in this case it is quite right. The Government of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle placed asylum seekers in hotels without telling anybody in the local community—without social workers, the police or anybody else knowing. The local women had no clue. Most of the cases quoted by the shadow Minister came from that system. He cannot say to the women in Piddington that will leave the ECHR and it will solve everything. That is not realistic and it is not treating them with respect. Far better to say we will try to solve this problem, mitigate the risk and do the stuff required to actually deal with it. I should have expected to hear what we have heard from the Tories and Reform in this Opposition day debate. These are the people who broke the system and let it spiral, yet they are somehow arguing that leaving the ECHR can happen tomorrow and will solve any issues in Piddington and Bicester—that is for the birds. But I am particularly disappointed in the Liberal Democrats and their amendment. They say that they oppose asylum hotels and they want a better public debate on immigration, but whether it is in Cameron barracks, in Crowborough or now in Bicester, they oppose every large site. They say we should welcome asylum seekers and have a humane system, but it is “not in my back yard” the minute there is one near them. Are they really saying that is for the working-class communities of Britain to tolerate asylum seekers in hotels and in HMOs, but not their constituencies in secure, well-resourced, large public sites? I think that is wrong. The public are fed up of posturing, point scoring, pointless gesturing and nimbyism on this. They want the issue solved, they want it gripped, and if the Government can get large sites to solve the problem, that could be a big part of solving this country’s asylum accommodation challenges.

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

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    Will the right hon. Lady give way?

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

    Engagements

    Q12. On a recent visit to Stirling high school, senior pupils studying politics and modern studies asked me about everything from climate change to war in the middle east. One young woman asked how young people can know they are being heard by politicians, so I have brought her question here so that she and her classmates can see that a question asked in their assembly hall can get an answer from the Prime Minister. Whether we are discussing mental health, housing, jobs, our relationship with Europe or the upcoming report on NEETs—those not in education, employment, or training—we are discussing their future. How will the Prime Minister ensure that we talk with young people, rather than just about them, and show them that their ideas and opinions shape the decisions that we take in this place?

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

    Nepal: UK Government Support

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Ms McVey. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) for securing this debate to discuss the devastating floods that struck Nepal in August. I thank Members for their contributions to what has been a thoughtful and well-informed debate and for the way in which they have spoken about the impact of this tragedy on the people of Nepal and communities here in the United Kingdom. May I pay my own tribute to the British Nepali community in the UK? Our long-standing friendship is one that we are deeply proud of, and I pay tribute to not just the people here today but those across our communities in the United Kingdom. The UK stands with Nepal in its time of grief. Our deepest condolences are with those who have lost loved ones and their livelihoods. The scale of this tragedy has been immense. Thousands of families have been affected, communities destroyed and critical infrastructure damaged across some of Nepal’s most vulnerable regions. More than 1,455 people have tragically lost their lives, including British nationals, and many more remain missing. Our thoughts are with the thousands of Nepalis living in the UK, who have watched events unfold with deep concern and personal anguish, and I join Members in acknowledging the dedication of the search and rescue teams, emergency responders and volunteers who have worked tirelessly in extremely challenging conditions. Against that backdrop, the United Kingdom moved quickly to support those affected. An FCDO rapid deployment team supported the consular response in the region. We are co-ordinating closely with Nepali and Chinese authorities, while specialist police family liaison officers are supporting British families in the UK. As many Members have referenced, we also announced £5 million in humanitarian assistance to support the immediate relief efforts. That funding is helping trusted humanitarian partners to provide emergency shelter, clean water and sanitation services, protection support, health assistance and other lifesaving interventions for those affected by the floods. To answer one of the shadow Minister’s questions, we are tracking the funding through those trusted UN partners and ensuring that the money is going to where it is needed. Humanitarian and engineering experts have also supported the response and assessment effort. I would like to recognise, in particular, the remarkable response from the Government and people of Nepal. Faced with one of the most devastating disasters in the country’s recent history, Nepal’s authorities mobilised rescue operations at scale, supported displaced communities and began the immense task of recovery and reconstruction. We pay tribute to their professionalism, resilience and determination. In answering Members’ questions as I go through my speech, I start with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I thank him for his warm words about me; they are reciprocal. He is a constant force in this House and a constant advocate for freedom of religion and belief. He knows of my personal commitment as the Minister responsible for this particular area of policy. Nepal is officially a secular country, but I want to reassure him that we do offer support to communities, including Christian communities, to ensure that the humanitarian funding and aid we are allocating is received in the correct way in different communities. The UK and Nepal have a long-standing partnership on climate action. Many Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) and for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy), mentioned the need for us to have more collaboration in this space, both bilaterally and multilaterally. In Nepal and globally, climate change is increasingly becoming a national security issue, and it has been at the forefront of the new Foreign Secretary’s focus. Melting Himalayan glaciers and more extreme weather across the Hindu Kush Himalaya are driving cascading disasters, threatening lives, infrastructure, energy systems and economic growth. The recent Rasuwa-Bhote Koshi floods showed how a single climate-related event can disrupt trade, hydropower, transport and livelihoods simultaneously. To answer questions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West on climate and disaster resilience, the UK Government believe that is central to how we deliver reconstruction and build our partnership with Nepal. That is not just through reconstruction but science, modelling, engineering and practical hazard intelligence and resilience. I assure all Members that the next steps mean working bilaterally and multilaterally in a period of recovery on how we can build resilient infrastructure. Later in my speech, I will go further into how we can work multilaterally with the international financial systems to offer more support on wider reconstruction. As climate shocks become more frequent and unpredictable, they risk eroding hard-won development gains, as has been mentioned, increasing vulnerability and imposing significant economic costs. My hon. Friends the Members for Reading Central and for Harrow West challenged me on the point that climate damage does not happen only in coastal communities but in countries impacted by melting glaciers and the wider challenges of climate change. For Nepal, that could not be more stark. Nepal is a mountainous country, and climate resilience is, therefore, not just an environmental priority but a foundation for future prosperity and stability. That is why we are repositioning elements of our development partnership to support Nepal’s recovery and resilience agenda. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, as a former Indo-Pacific Minister. She is right to highlight some of the challenges that we must now put in the multilateral space. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East also challenged me on multilateral development banks and international financial institutions. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), challenged me on words to action. That is why I am pleased to confirm that on 24 September, during UN High-Level Week, the Foreign Secretary convened a multilateral meeting of Ministers from Australia, Kenya and across the European Union, and announced a specific fund from the UK Government of £333 million for climate-driven instability and resilience projects for vulnerable communities impacted by climate change. That will, of course, apply to countries such as Nepal. No bilateral donor can finance construction at the scale required. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke mentioned the World Bank; it has estimated that damage and reconstruction costs run into billions of US dollars. Our role is, therefore, not simply to provide aid but to help shape much larger flows of international finance. The Foreign Secretary has made it clear that climate and development finance must increasingly focus on preparedness and resilience. Through our engagement with the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and other institutions, we are encouraging approaches to invest earlier in resilience with early-warning systems, disaster-risk finance and climate adaptation, which are key to how we move our work forward internationally.

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

    Nepal: UK Government Support

    It is the absolute focus. I will talk further about the Foreign Secretary’s engagement with the World Bank this week, and hope to answer her in more detail. We want international financial systems to become better at helping countries at risk to prepare for foreseeable climate shocks. That was an important part of the United Kingdom’s engagement at the UN General Assembly in September. I was pleased to meet the Nepalese Foreign Minister to discuss some of the challenges they are experiencing post the climate event, and how we can work more collaboratively. The Foreign Secretary highlighted the strong links between environmental pressures, climate vulnerability and broader security and stability challenges. The World Bank annual meetings this week provide another opportunity to advance progress on that agenda. The Foreign Secretary will speak alongside Nepal’s Finance Minister to highlight UK support for strengthening hazard intelligence and early-warning systems in Nepal, and for ensuring that crisis financing is available when countries need it most. To answer the Liberal Democrat spokesperson’s question, I do think so, because that work is being led by the Foreign Secretary at the World Bank this week with the Nepalese Finance Minister. Alongside our work through international institutions, we have maintained close engagement with Nepal through the communities here in the United Kingdom. Many Members rightly raised that today. As has been mentioned, the Minister for Indo-Pacific visited Nepal in the immediate aftermath of the floods, becoming the first foreign ministerial visitor and demonstrating the UK’s solidarity with Nepal at a difficult moment. As our response has evolved, Ministers have maintained regular dialogue with Nepalese community leaders, group representatives and the all-party parliamentary group, to whom I pay tribute. On 2 September, the Minister for Consular Services, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), visited the South London Sanatan Mandir in Coulsdon to convey condolences to the affected temple community. The Minister for Indo-Pacific, my noble Friend Baroness Winterton, also held an online meeting with representatives of the Nepalese diaspora in the UK on 4 September to update them on the UK’s support. Those conversations matter. The Nepalese community in the UK maintains deep family, cultural and economic ties with Nepal, and many have been personally affected by these events. Their experiences, insights and concerns continue to inform our understanding of the situation on the ground and of the support that will be required in the months and years ahead. Many Members have paid tribute to the Gurkhas. I would like to add my own tribute for their long-standing solidarity, not just through the British military but through our shared history across conflicts since the first world war. On pensions, I will ensure that every Member, including the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central, will get a written response from the Ministry of Defence. It is led by the Department, but I will ensure that a response is given to all hon. and right hon. colleagues. Consular support is ongoing. UK police family liaison officers continue to support affected families in the UK where appropriate. FCDO officials continue to liaise with Nepalese and Chinese authorities to establish facts and support families, and we are aware of 36 British nationals who remain missing. As reconstruction progresses, we will continue to work through what more we can do to support families in the UK, particularly as we wait for the missing to hopefully be found. I have some brief final points on trade and investment between Nepal and the UK. I reassure hon. Members that we are working with Nepal on what is important to them and I will keep the House updated on that work. Rather than committing to something today, it will be an ongoing piece of work that we will do with Nepal to see what works between us. In moments of crisis, friendship is underlined not only through words of sympathy but through practical action. We will continue to use our voice in multilateral institutions and international forums to ensure that Nepal’s needs remain firmly on the international agenda. The Nepalese people have shown extraordinary courage in the face of immense tragedy and the United Kingdom stands with them as they begin to rebuild and look to the future.

    Hansard source
37. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Catherine West

    Inheritance Tax

    It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate and to reflect on the question of inheritance tax brought to the House by the Conservative party. It affects about 4% of the population. On the Government Benches, we are rather more concerned with the 63% of the population who are facing tough times. Labour will therefore be voting against this Opposition day motion. I think we all remember where we were in the summer of 2022 when Liz Truss crashed the economy. The mortgages that ordinary families around the country were paying went through the roof. A shiver went down the spines of all the people who had pensions invested, as civil servants were sacked and the general reputation of the economy in the UK was trashed. Sadly, we have been paying the Truss penalty ever since. However, those of us on this side of the House fought to stop the chaos, restore hope and deliver change. In two years a lot of progress has been made, and even more has been made over the summer. I look forward to the Budget that will be presented in two weeks’ time, which will have more to offer those who are struggling with the cost of living crisis. Today, His Majesty’s official Opposition are asking the House to vote to bring back that version of chaos. Independent analysis suggests that the Conservatives’ inheritance tax proposals could cost up to £10 billion a year. Most families would rather see that money used to tackle the cost of living for everyone and to increase the wealth of the country as a whole, rather than being used to provide tax cuts for the 4% proportion of the population affected by this particular tax. The Conservatives say that theirs is the party of home ownership, but after their 14 years in government, home ownership fell out of reach for too many young people. The only growth was the growth in homelessness, which, sadly, increased by 74% during those 14 years. Working people look to the Government to tackle the cost of living crisis and give them some breathing space, but unfortunately the Conservatives’ priority is cutting tax on inherited wealth. As my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) pointed out so eloquently, we should be looking at all possible options to establish the meritocratic principle that no matter where you are born or what your background is, you should have an opportunity throughout your working life to make the very best of it and to be successful.

    Hansard source
38. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Catherine West

    Inheritance Tax

    As the hon. Lady knows, a commitment has been made not to tax those who only receive the state pension. Those who earn a lot, whether through pensions, inheritance or other things, will be taxed proportionately, which sounds like a pretty fair principle to me. In the meantime, we on this side of the House are getting on with building a fairer country with a new political and economic model, but we also need to help people right now. That is why Labour has taken immediate action to provide breathing space for people and businesses. A couple of Members have mentioned the IMF report. As so often with the work of economists, it is a bit of a curate’s egg. Some people may prefer the text that was on the opposite side, but the bit that I preferred came from the economist Ms Tenreyro: the world economic outlook report gave the UK’s GDP an upgrade. That, I think, gives us some hope. It sets a fairly positive background for the Budget that is just two weeks away. We on this side of the House have woken up to a little bit of positive news, which is also quite a good background for the decisions that will come in two weeks’ time. I know that many other Members wish to speak, so I will be brief. I am particularly pleased about the scrapping of VAT on electricity bills for the winter, and I know that there is more to come for households that use a lot of electricity, perhaps owing to disability or because a large number of people live in the same home. The capping of bus fares at £2 for the whole of 2027 will help people travel to work or to job interviews. The change in the rules on branded items of school uniform will ease costs for families. Business rates for pubs, social clubs and music venues have been reduced by 20%, and in London all children will have a hot dinner in the middle of the day at school. The public procurement rules have been changed to back British businesses and jobs. So many things have been introduced in the short two years for which Labour has been in office, and there is much more to come. These measures build on work that Labour has done to restore stability and growth to the economy. Difficult decisions have been taken, and I was pleased to note that the Prime Minister had announced a further difficult decision on the triple lock. This, I think, is a moment when we have to be a little bit gutsy in our politics. I was pleased that the Prime Minister announced that very difficult decision; it is coming down the track, but he did at least announce it, so that we can start talking about the difficult challenges that we face in respect of social care. There is a ring of chaos to the proposals flung out by the Conservatives. I know about this, because I was in opposition for 14 years. I know how tempting it is to have a giggle in Opposition day debates, but we have to face the truth. We have to make some difficult decisions in order to restore the reputation of our economy with the markets internationally, but also to build the important foundation with some innovation that has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield and others who I am sure will speak in this debate.

    Hansard source
39. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Catherine West

    Inheritance Tax

    I will not, because I have only 40 seconds and I know that other Members want to speak. We will get on with delivering the difficult decisions and the change that our communities are longing to see.

    Hansard source
40. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Brian Leishman

    Nuclear Energy: Scotland

    Good afternoon. It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Stuart, as always. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. From the outset, I notify Members of my membership of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; I am most definitely ideologically opposed to nuclear, although it irritates me when the phrase is used as some sort of insult, such as indulging in student politics. Let me explain some of the reasons why I am opposed. It is utterly ludicrous to suggest that nuclear is a green energy source. How can it be when it produces radioactive waste with long-term toxicity that is hazardous for thousands of years? Nuclear is certainly not a low-carbon source either. The powerful and wealthy pro-nuclear lobby, which we in this place are very familiar with, ignores the large carbon emissions arising from the uranium fuel cycle and, of course, from nuclear waste disposal. It is proven that nuclear power generation produces up to 20 times more CO2 per megawatt-hour than renewable sources, while the actual construction of nuclear stations releases enormous quantities of CO2. Compared with renewables, nuclear power is definitely not a low-carbon source. What about the astronomical construction costs? Initially, those for Hinkley Point C were estimated at £18 billion, but that has increased several times over the years; now EDF says that the cost is £32 billion and rising because of inflation. Clearly, nuclear construction costs are massively higher than those for renewable energy. The bottom line is that nuclear is just not value for money. Why does anyone think that Scotland having more nuclear sites will be any different? The ongoing Hinkley saga also proves that it takes ages to build nuclear sites. On average, to plan and build a nuclear reactor takes nearly two decades. New nuclear power is not coming anytime soon. Nuclear is no quick fix or solution for families struggling with energy bills in this cost of living crisis—not now, and not for many years to come.

    Hansard source