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

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

1. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Nigel Huddleston

   International Update

   The Prime Minister has adopted a fascinating negotiating strategy by revealing his hand and goals in advance of any discussions with the EU. Is he aware that the price of any deal therefore went up with every word that he said? As a former Trade Minister, may I also advise the Prime Minister—because his officials and Ministers clearly have not—that it may not be so easy after all, because of some of the clauses in the 70-plus other trade deals that we did with other countries to unwind all the things that he would like to do? It may not be as simple as he thinks.

   Hansard source
2. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Baby Loss Awareness Week

   Order. This is a very powerful debate, but it is limited to three hours. I will not be able to get all the Members in if speeches are long, but I appreciate the sensitivity.

   Hansard source
3. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Baby Loss Awareness Week

   Order. The speaking limit has dropped to six minutes. I do not want to interrupt anyone’s speeches, but using “you” and “your” is not good form. You are speaking through the Chair, and please remember that.

   Hansard source
4. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Baby Loss Awareness Week

   Order. With colleagues withdrawing, we have a few more minutes on the clock, so Back Benchers are now on an eight-minute speaking limit.

   Hansard source
5. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

   International Update

   I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. Since we last met, Iran has sponsored an attempted terror attack on a British military base; President Trump has withdrawn support from President Zelensky; and Saudi Arabia has been bombarded with Houthi missiles and asked Britain to come to her aid. UK household energy bills are set to rise by nearly £300 in January, and diesel prices have hit £2 a litre for the first time ever. Against that backdrop, the Chancellor will deliver a Budget in two weeks. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that there is a £35 billion black hole in the public finances. More borrowing or more taxes are on the way, because we know that the Prime Minister will not cut spending. This is at a time when families and businesses are already suffering under the weight of £70 billion in Labour’s tax rises. So what has the Prime Minister chosen to focus on today? Brexit. His exact words earlier this year were that “the last thing we should do right now is rerun those arguments”, yet here he is, unpicking the deal that this country signed with the EU, a decade after the referendum. He is not going to get a better deal. Not only are the EU tough negotiators, but he has already revealed his entire negotiating hand. He has just blurted out everything he wants in this statement. I will tell him now, as a former Trade Secretary, that that is not how you conduct negotiations. He has told them everything, and negotiations have not even started—unbelievable! Over the weekend, on “The Rest is Politics” podcast, the Prime Minister implied that the referendum result was illegitimate because of Russian interference. Where has that come from? We all remember that in 2018, the head of MI5 said that there was no evidence that Russia had influenced the EU referendum result. Even this morning, the Prime Minister’s own Foreign Minister could not say if the evidence existed. Will the Prime Minister confirm, here and now, whether he believes that the referendum result was legitimate? If he does not, will he publish the evidence that Russia swung the result of the 2016 referendum? From my perspective, this is just another example of him trying to distract the country, rather than solving the immediate challenges we face. Just as some people thought that all Britain’s problems would be solved by leaving the EU, some now think that all our problems will be solved by rejoining it. Neither of those are serious positions; they are lazy thinking from people who do not have solutions to the real problems that we face, such as on defence. The Prime Minister told us that he would set out a target date for spending 3% of GDP on defence at the spending review in the spring. That spending review has now been delayed until next autumn. Labour delayed procurement by a year to hold the strategic defence review, then the defence investment plan took another 18 months. The armed forces now have to wait at least another 12 months to find out what they are getting. The defence of the realm is the first duty of any Government, and kicking it into the long grass is a dereliction of duty. I welcome the support that the Prime Minister has set out for our allies in Saudi Arabia and Ukraine, but they will require money, and serious questions on defence still need to be answered. The United States has withdrawn its bombers from RAF Fairford. Can the Prime Minister tell us why? What does that mean for the safety of our British aircraft and, more importantly, British personnel at that base? The Prime Minister said in his statement that we will not tolerate threats from Iran on our soil, so were he and his Foreign Secretary aware of those threats before the Foreign Secretary met and shook hands with the Iranian Foreign Minister at the UN? Does the Prime Minister now think that the Foreign Secretary was wrong to do that? On 18 July, we were told that the Prime Minister would grant licences for the Jackdaw gas field and Rosebank oilfield. We are still waiting for a decision nearly three months later, as a global energy crisis is looming. Can the Prime Minister now confirm exactly when he will approve those licences? Britain cannot afford to wait until the end of the decade for him to act—he is the Prime Minister for today. Rather than promising things on the never-never, here are some things that he could do right now: cut welfare, fund our defence, drill in the North sea, bring down people’s taxes, get young people into work, build new prison places and put more police on our streets. He could do all those things today if he cut spending. That is what I would do. Instead, he is trying to reopen yesterday’s arguments to avoid today’s decisions. What this statement shows is the difference between Labour and the Conservatives. We have answers to today’s problems; they are living in the past.

   Hansard source
6. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mr Peter Bedford

   Pension Scheme Surpluses

   It did not sound as though the Minister could commit to improving outcomes for pensioners. That is no surprise given this Government’s record: they cut the winter fuel payments, undermined incentives to save into pensions through the salary sacrifice scheme, and dragged pensions into the scope of inheritance tax. The Prime Minister’s announcement at the Labour party conference created yet more uncertainty for those in or approaching retirement. Will the Minister give a commitment to the House that there will be no further policies undermining pensioners’ prospects and damaging their retirement?

   Hansard source
7. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mr Andrew Snowden

   Milburn Report

   Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Labour has been talking up the Milburn report for months, and the Treasury is so pleased with the report that it has delayed it until after the Budget, which means it is not going to be good news for taxpayers or the bond market. While the Government dither and delay, we have published our plan for tough love on youth unemployment: support from day one to get back into work, and after six months, those who can work but won’t work will have their benefits cut. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would welcome our cost-cutting plan in the Budget, so can the Secretary of State explain why the Treasury does not want his plan in the Budget?

   Hansard source
8. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mike Wood

   Rejoining the EU

   It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker, and to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I warmly congratulate the petitioner and the people who added their names to the e-petition. In our parliamentary democracy, petitioning the Crown and Parliament is a cherished right, whether campaigning to save a beloved community hospital, to crack down on illegal fly-tipping or, as in this case, to casually ask the House of Commons to overturn the largest democratic vote in British history on a Monday afternoon. It is entirely right that those arguments are heard and debated in Parliament. Listening to the contributions today from the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party and, indeed, some on the Government Benches, one might easily get the impression that rejoining the European Union is treated a bit like renewing an expired gym membership: we simply pop back down to reception, set up the direct debit and immediately pick up where we left off. Some hon. Members genuinely appear to believe that our European neighbours have spent the past decade sitting by the phone in the Berlaymont, tearfully gazing at an empty chair, desperate for the United Kingdom to saunter back in and instantly reclaim our rebate, opt-outs and front row seat at the summit table. I must gently break it to those hon. Members: Brussels does not accept refunds. I may have disagreed with almost everything that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) said, but she was right that the process of rejoining the European Union would not be simple, short or straightforward. We have to be brutally honest about what applying to rejoin under article 49 actually involves in the cold light of day. The petitioners do not merely ask for warm words or polite co-operation; they ask this Parliament to formally trigger accession negotiations. That does not mean stepping into a time machine back to 2015; it means starting the accession process as a brand-new candidate country alongside countries such as Albania and North Macedonia. The European Commission has made the house rules for new joiners crystal clear. Under chapter 17 of the accession acquis, there is no bespoke menu where we can pick the bits we like and leave the rest.

   Hansard source
9. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mike Wood

   Rejoining the EU

   Yes I have, as a member of the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly and as someone who spent seven very happy years working in the European Parliament and still has many friends who work there and in the institutions. There is no question of there being a speed line route back to full membership reserved for the United Kingdom; we would have to go through the full accession process. Joining means a binding treaty obligation to scrap pound sterling and adopt the euro, and to abolish our national border controls and join the Schengen area.

   Hansard source
10. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mike Wood

    Rejoining the EU

    The question was whether I had had the conversations, and I certainly have had them with MEPs and people in the European institutions. We can see what anyone who reads the publicly available opinion polls can see: if asked, “Would you be in favour of the United Kingdom rejoining the European Union?”, a majority in France and Germany may say that they would support it, but if asked, “Would you support the United Kingdom joining the European Union with the opt-outs that it previously enjoyed?”. support goes from about 50% to just over 30%. It is not politically viable in those countries.

    Hansard source
11. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mike Wood

    Rejoining the EU

    My hon. Friend is right. The same polls that show that citizens in France and Germany would support British membership only if it came without those previous opt-outs show that, among British voters, support for rejoining collapses if we do not have those previous opt-outs. If those previous opt-outs and derogations are removed, support again dips to barely 30%. I wonder how many of the people who signed this petition did so in the eager anticipation of trading His Majesty the King on our banknotes for a fistful of euro cents. Did they sign up to surrender our borders or did they imagine that, if we asked very politely, the European Union would grant us all the privileges of membership while demanding none of the obligations? As the independent economist Julian Jessop recently pointed out, public enthusiasm for rejoining has a funny habit of evaporating the precise moment that voters are confronted with the small print. That is why I am confident that, if the Government were to take up the petitioners’ proposal, and if they had the courage to put that question to the British people, it would be comprehensively rejected.

    Hansard source
12. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mike Wood

    Rejoining the EU

    I have given way three times. I will for a fourth, but this may be the last.

    Hansard source
13. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mike Wood

    Rejoining the EU

    No, not at all. I am not somebody who questions people’s motives or intelligence just because of the way they have approached the question of Europe; I very much leave that to others. I will say that approaching 70% of my constituents voted to leave in 2016, and if there was a referendum on rejoining, I would expect a larger proportion than that to vote no. When people realise that an accession bid means ditching our currency, tearing down our independent border controls and signing an annual membership cheque that independent analysts estimate would comfortably clear £25 billion a year, the rosy glow fades fast. We would be asking British taxpayers already feeling the squeeze from this Government’s domestic tax hikes to subsidise regional infrastructure funds across the continent while our own local roads are crying out for repair.

    Hansard source
14. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mike Wood

    Rejoining the EU

    I will continue for a bit. I have given way four times; I think I have been more than generous.

    Hansard source
15. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mike Wood

    Rejoining the EU

    I quoted you an awfully long time ago on something fairly sympathetic, I think. [Interruption.]

    Hansard source
16. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mike Wood

    Rejoining the EU

    Is that parliamentary language, Mrs Barker? I do not know how long it takes for the cogs to turn, but it has been a while. What sort of economic club are the petitioners urging us to re-enter? Thirty years ago, the European Union accounted for more than a quarter of the global economy; today, that share has fallen to around 18%; within a generation, it is projected to drop below 10%. Applying to rejoin would mean surrendering our independent seat at the global top table. It would also mean being legally forced to tear up our membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership dynamic trading pact—

    Hansard source
17. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mike Wood

    Rejoining the EU

    I think that having control of an independent trade policy where we can get those deals in the interests of the British economy—whether the CPTPP or the trade agreements with India or the Gulf Co-operation Council—is an advantage of being outside the customs union and having taken back that control. Tying ourselves to an economic bloc that is fast declining as a proportion of world trade and locking ourselves back behind the common tariff walls of the most sluggish economic continent on earth would come with a cost. Why on earth would a proud global maritime trading nation choose to jump off the international express train just to squeeze on to a continental stopping service that is running at least 40 minutes late? [Interruption.]

    Hansard source
18. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mike Wood

    Rejoining the EU

    We are constantly told by the doom-mongers that Brexit is somehow the sole author of our national economic woes, but the empirical evidence tells a vastly different story. Recent analysis by the Centre for Policy Studies shows that, while the initial realignment did involve transition friction, our private sector has shown remarkable dynamism, with productivity increasing by roughly 30% over the past decade. The real drag anchoring British growth is inside our own state apparatus. Public sector productivity has flatlined, an affliction that is manufactured right here in Westminster and Whitehall that has nothing at all to do with whether we sit within the European Union. While the petitioners are at least refreshingly transparent about wanting full membership, the Government’s approach seems to depend on the audience. Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box with hands on hearts repeating their mantra that they respect the referendum, but that is not the message that we have heard from Labour Back Benchers today. Ministers promise us that there will be no membership of the single market and no freedom of movement, yet watch what they actually do. They tiptoe around European capitals, hoping that if they quietly sign us up to dynamic alignment across agriculture, energy and carbon standards, nobody on the street will notice that they have signed away our national autonomy. That is not a coherent foreign policy. It is surrender on an instalment plan. Alongside the burdens and restrictions, being a full member of the EU did give us a vote, a voice and a veto. Being an independent sovereign state gives speed, regulatory agility and democratic accountability. But the Government’s strategy delivers the worst of all worlds: total regulatory submission with none of the say. It flips William Hague’s famous slogan; it is to be not in Europe but still run by Europe. It is the political equivalent of paying full price for an all-inclusive hotel and choosing to sleep on a bench in the car park.

    Hansard source
19. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mike Wood

    Rejoining the EU

    No, I am finishing. The British people did not vote in 2016 for half measures, or to put their democracy into reverse gear. The fundamental principle at stake was entirely straightforward: the laws governing the people of this country should be made and unmade by representatives who the British public can elect—and, crucially, fire—at the ballot box. The duty of this House is not to resurrect the bitter constitutional gridlock of the past, or to indulge the fantasy of a cost-free return to Brussels. Our duty is to use our hard-won independence to cut unnecessary bureaucracy, to back British innovation and to trade freely with all corners of the globe. His Majesty’s official Opposition will not support the petition and will fiercely resist any attempt to pull this country back into the European Union, whether through the front door or the back.

    Hansard source
20. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mark Pritchard

    Employment Support: Young People

    The Secretary of State talks about jobs hubs. May I gently say to him that the best jobs hub of all is a business that is expanding and that the best youth hub of all is a business taking on apprentices? He mentions a wide range of schemes to try to get young people back into work. In The Wrekin, youth unemployment has risen by 27.8% in the last 12 months alone. A lot of the schemes are in urban areas. What is he going to do for my young constituents who live in rural and semi-rural counties such as Shropshire?

    Hansard source
21. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mark Pritchard

    International Update

    I thank the Prime Minister for his steadfast support for Ukraine and his early visit. However, next year there may be a potential problem for Europe—I see the Europe Minister and the Defence Secretary are in their places—because the rise of National Rally in France and Alternative für Deutschland in Germany might mean that support for NATO starts to fragment in some European nations. Will the Prime Minister work with the Defence Secretary and the Chancellor on defence planning and a defence budget should the United Kingdom need to do more for Ukraine in those circumstances?

    Hansard source
22. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mark Pritchard

    National Security

    I put on record my thanks to Counter Terrorism Policing West Midlands and West Mercia police’s special branch for all they are doing in their regions and areas for all Members, across parties. In reply to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), who is no longer in her place, the Home Secretary mentioned that the system was “fragmented”. In her statement, she also said, “We are also building a specialist mission in Counter Terrorism Policing to disrupt state threats”. The Home Secretary will know that the Security Service—she knows what branch—plays a major part in counter-espionage and counter-terrorism. We also have counter-terror police and the National Crime Agency. Given that, as she said, more deniable proxy attacks are happening through criminal gangs, is this not creating another silo, at a time when we need to break down the silos and have all these agencies and forces working together?

    Hansard source
23. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Lincoln Jopp

    International Update

    I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, to which I listened carefully. In it, he said, “our resolve to defend…ourselves is absolute”. However, at that Dispatch Box on another occasion, he said that national security “cannot come at the expense of social security.”—[Official Report, 9 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 1036.] Bearing in mind that our allies and our enemies are listening to our proceedings, could he make it crystal clear to the world that he has no higher priority than the national security of the United Kingdom?

    Hansard source
24. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Kit Malthouse

    International Update

    During the last couple of hours, I have heard the Prime Minister talk about three of the four pillars of our national defence—our military, our resilience and our alliances—but he has yet to mention the crucial fourth pillar, which is the importance of the international rules-based order and the institutions that underpin it. Is he going to take any active steps to defend the International Criminal Court and the UK citizens who work there against the American sanctions that have been placed on it?

    Hansard source
25. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·John Lamont

    The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Calculation of CBAM Rate and Determination of Carbon Price Relief) Regulations 2026

    The Minister mentioned that fertiliser will be affected by the CBAM. Farmers are rightly concerned about how this will impact them. Some farming organisations have indicated that this might increase the price of fertiliser by up to £70 a tonne, which will obviously have a big impact on the price of food. When will the rate for fertiliser be set, and when will it be announced?

    Hansard source
26. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·John Lamont

    The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Calculation of CBAM Rate and Determination of Carbon Price Relief) Regulations 2026

    The shadow Minister’s excellent speech is making it very clear why farmers and other part of industry are concerned about the regulations. In response to my earlier intervention, the Minister said that he would be telling farmers the rates “very shortly”. Frankly, that is not good enough. Does the shadow Minister agree that farmers need that certainty now? They might not be able to get a definitive figure, but they need to know the date by which the rate will be announced.

    Hansard source
27. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·John Lamont

    The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Calculation of CBAM Rate and Determination of Carbon Price Relief) Regulations 2026

    The hon. Lady is right to identify the big challenges that farmers are facing. The last thing they need is up to £70 or £80 a tonne being added to the cost of fertiliser. Surely the Liberal Democrats should oppose the regulations until we get some clarity from the Government as to what the financial impact will be.

    Hansard source
28. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·John Lamont

    The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Calculation of CBAM Rate and Determination of Carbon Price Relief) Regulations 2026

    The Minister will be aware of the comments of Paul Tompkins, the NFU deputy president, who has highlighted that adding a CBAM to fertiliser will add significantly to the costs and growing pressures that farm businesses already face. What discussions has the Minister had with the National Farmers’ Union about the issue and specifically about a date when farmers will find out the rate that is to be applied?

    Hansard source
29. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·John Lamont

    Welfare Budget

    4. What estimate he has made of what the total welfare budget will be at the end of this Parliament.

    Hansard source
30. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·John Lamont

    Welfare Budget

    The Minister has just confirmed that the benefits bill will continue to grow. He also seems to have confirmed the Prime Minister’s position that national security “cannot come at the expense of social security.”—[Official Report, 9 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 1036.] Is that correct?

    Hansard source
31. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·John Cooper

    The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Calculation of CBAM Rate and Determination of Carbon Price Relief) Regulations 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will oppose this legislation, but not because of the detail we have heard today, complex though it is, and which has been a long time coming, emerging inch by painful inch. Rather, we oppose this legislation in the round. The Conservatives’ intention is to scrap the carbon border adjustment mechanism as well as the emissions trading scheme. Committing to fully scrapping the carbon tax regime, the Leader of the Opposition said that it was “madness” to pursue the goal of preserving the environment by “killing British industry and fatally weakening our national resilience.” We are not alone. Many industry voices agree. Steel is one of the sectors most affected by CBAM. Frank Aaskov, the director of climate change policy at UK Steel, has said: “The UK Government is knowingly driving towards deindustrialisation with its carbon border policy, while ignoring repeated, evidence-based warnings from industry. As currently structured, the policy will favour overseas competitors over domestic steel producers, undermining investment decisions being taken now on decarbonisation.” The Government’s ruinously expensive steel strategy—apparently keeping blast furnaces alight with bundles of taxpayers’ £20 notes—is in meltdown. CBAM is another hammer blow for this foundational industry, as with cement, chemicals and aluminium. Reindustrialisation is simply not possible while this Government inflict punitive energy costs on business and pursue a net zero agenda that is more concerned with green dogma than real-world practicality. There is much talk from Government about food security being national security, but our pivotal agricultural industry is alarmed by CBAM and, as we have heard, by its impact on fertiliser. The umbrella body, the Agricultural Industries Confederation, warns that the fertiliser market operates across highly integrated European supply chains. The current lack of clarity risks creating unnecessary administrative burdens, pricing uncertainty and potential distortions between UK, EU and third-country suppliers. Industry estimates show that CBAM could add between £70 and £100 a tonne to the cost of fertiliser. That is a huge additional burden on an industry in which margins are already tight.

    Hansard source
32. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·John Cooper

    The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Calculation of CBAM Rate and Determination of Carbon Price Relief) Regulations 2026

    My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. All businesses need certainty, and farmers are no different. They need to buy things in advance, so they need to know how much things will cost. It is about going back to the foundations. The additional cost of fertiliser is likely to link directly to higher food prices, which will affect all our constituents in a cost of living crisis. What will be the impact of the measure on businesses? The explanatory memorandum to the regulations says that CBAM “will have a significant impact on...10,000 businesses importing CBAM goods into the UK.” As with every regulation, small businesses will face higher administrative costs relative to their turnover. However, the Government have not published a new impact assessment alongside the instrument. Could the Minister tell us why not? How can the Government claim that the tax information and impact note from November 2025 remains accurate, when we all know how much more precarious the situation for business is now than it was a year ago? Across industry and businesses big and small, warning lights are flashing on dashboards. CBAM is a wrong-headed attempt at a solution to the failures of the carbon tax. The solution cannot be to add yet more burdens on Britain’s businesses to try to balance out the damage already done. The solution is to tackle the problem at source: to axe the carbon tax entirely, and the emissions trading scheme and CBAM with it, and to end the deindustrialisation of our country. This is the time to drive industry forward, not to hamstring it with additional costs that are deleterious and damaging to its very survival. The Government should think again.

    Hansard source
33. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·John Cooper

    Topical Questions

    In Scotland, benefit crime has effectively been decriminalised, and the Scottish Conservatives have raised the case of people being coached on how to fiddle the system. When I have asked the DWP about it, the reply has basically been, “Nothing to do with us, guv.” Is there not a moral imperative to do something about that issue?

    Hansard source
34. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Joe Robertson

    Welfare Budget

    The number of children between the ages of six and 11 with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder has grown sixfold, which means that in the years ahead there will be a surge in the number of applications for personal independence payment as children become adults. Even the Secretary of State accepts that owing to the growing number of children receiving disability living allowance, most will be transferred to PIP. Does the Minister agree that it is time to end a cash payments benefit system for people with more minor conditions, and ensure that those with genuine needs receive the therapeutic support that will enable them to learn, work and contribute to the economy?

    Hansard source
35. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Jerome Mayhew

    International Update

    For the fourth time of asking, in any negotiations with the EU, will the Prime Minister rule out a return to freedom of movement?

    Hansard source
36. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Helen Whately

    Employment Support: Young People

    Every DWP Question Time, Labour Members dutifully line up to give the welfare Secretary a chance to make it look like he is doing something about the youth unemployment crisis—a crisis of their own making. Their jobs tax and their unemployment Act have killed 300,000 jobs, hitting young people hardest. We have had enough talk about hubs and schemes. Young people tell me they want real jobs. That is why we will halve national insurance for 21 to 24-year-olds, so it is cheaper for businesses to hire them. Under the Conservatives, there will be thousands more jobs for young people. Will the Secretary of State get the Chancellor to use his Budget to do the same?

    Hansard source
37. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Helen Whately

    Topical Questions

    The working-age welfare bill is set to reach £170 billion by the end of this Parliament, up £45 billion on the welfare party’s watch. All around the country, the residents of “Benefits Street” are doing better under Labour. The welfare Secretary is always across his brief, so can he tell me the benefits bill for his constituency?

    Hansard source
38. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Helen Whately

    Topical Questions

    I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not know the answer, but I can help him. It is £400 million a year. That is why he is dragging his heels on welfare reform. The number of personal independence payment claimants in his constituency exceeds his majority, and the same can be said for 203 of his fellow Labour MPs. It is no wonder all his colleagues ask him who they can tax in order to spend more on benefits. Will this month’s Budget just be more of the same—hiking taxes on working families to pay for “Benefits Street”?

    Hansard source
39. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Topical Questions

    This morning, The Times has reported that over two thirds of those on sickness benefits are awaiting their reassessment and remain unchecked, with average waits being over two years. What is the Secretary of State’s Department doing to meet its moral duty to help those who can work back into employment and its economic duty to save the taxpayer billions of pounds, with only those who genuinely need help receiving it?

    Hansard source
40. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

    International Update

    I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and his commitment to being more straightforward with the House than perhaps has always been the case over the last couple of years. In the light of that, will he give the House an unequivocal assurance that he believes that the Brexit referendum was legitimate? Will he say so on the record?

    Hansard source