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. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Danny Beales

   Employment Support: Young People

   I thank the Minister for Employment for joining me to mark the opening of the Uxbridge job hub a few weeks ago, and I am sure he will join me in thanking the college, the jobcentre, the chamber of commerce and the many others who made it a reality. One group who still experience the biggest employment gap are young people with special educational needs. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the job hubs, and the youth guarantee offer more broadly, are inclusive of young people with SEND and that they also see the benefits?

   Hansard source
2. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Daniel Zeichner

   Rejoining the EU

   Yes. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. This feels like old times for some of us here. I remember leading two Petitions Committee debates and speaking in the legendary 2019 debate, when some 6 million people had signed the petition, including over 28,000 in Cambridge. Today I am grateful to the 323 in Cambridge who have done so. I doubt very much whether many of those 28,000 have changed their minds, but I think quite a few others possibly have. I agree with the petitioners: we should be in the EU. We should never have left. Sadly, there is not a simple on/off switch. Coming out was long, painful and costly, and I fear that going back in will be equally so. I remember being asked by people—sometimes people who had fallen for that ridiculous slogan, “Get Brexit done”—“When will Brexit be over?” They looked pained when I told them the answer was never, because leaving the EU did not and could not solve the shared problems that we will always have to tackle with our neighbours. It just took away a long-established, albeit far from perfect, mechanism for dealing with them, which means we need other mechanisms: the cumbersome and opaque EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement and the shadowy joint committees. As was famously observed about democracy in general, it might not be good, but it is better than all the alternatives. I think it is much better than the worst alternative. I was fiercely proud to be a citizen of Europe, and I was furious at having my rights torn away. Sir Edward, you require short speeches, so here are two reflections from my ministerial experience. First, in my many encounters with ministerial colleagues across the European Union, I was always struck by the warmth and generosity and the lack of rancour. They want us back, as many now openly say. Secondly, I would also reflect that the EU has not stood still. It has changed to meet changing circumstances, which creates some serious challenges for us. But it could also offer opportunities even for the talismanic fishing sector, which was promised so much and gained so little from Brexit. Current discussion in Europe around reform of the common fisheries policy, as well as the offers made to Iceland, offer potential new opportunities. Even on precision breeding, an area of particular concern to the food sector, the European Union is moving closer to our position. How frustrating that we are on the very fringe of such discussions because we chose to exclude ourselves. In conclusion, I am pleased that the Prime Minister has opened up the debate, but our first priority must be to secure a closer relationship. The phytosanitary agreement is a really important step, not least to help tackle the grievous treatment of Northern Ireland. There never was and never can be a solution to that border conundrum without close alignment. Whether it is customs union or single market, Switzerland or Norway, the truth is that every version has advantages and disadvantages, and they need to be assessed calmly because 2016 did not do anyone credit. Some said, “Apocalypse Now”; some said, “Heaven on earth”. Frankly, both were wide of the mark. The best deal was the one we had, and it was thrown away. Now we should support the Minister and the Government in trying to salvage the best we can. But, in the end, we are Europeans, and we should be in.

   Hansard source
3. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Aldridge

   Beauty Industry Employment and Training: Young People

   8. What steps his Department is taking with the beauty industry to help provide accessible routes into employment and training for young people.

   Hansard source
4. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Aldridge

   Beauty Industry Employment and Training: Young People

   This week is British Beauty Week, a great opportunity to celebrate the fantastic and fast-growing beauty and wellness businesses that we have in this country, especially in towns such as Weston-super-Mare, where businesses like Sacred Willow, founded by Kerry and Simon Lamerton, and Luceo Lounge, founded by Lisa de-Laune, keep our high streets alive and our economies going, and generally make people feel much better about themselves. Will the Minister give some more information about the support his Department is providing, especially for young people through the youth guarantee, to ensure that small businesses in areas like mine benefit as much as possible?

   Hansard source
5. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Webb

   International Update

   The Prime Minister knows from our discussion that the cost of living is the No. 1 issue that my constituents raise with me and are struggling with right now in Blackpool South. With the UK-EU summit now confirmed, does the Prime Minister believe that this is the perfect opportunity to deliver real benefits for Blackpool businesses and families, including lowering food prices, more opportunities for young people, stronger defence and, most importantly for many of my constituents, further immigration controls which we lost under the previous Government?

   Hansard source
6. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Webb

   National Security

   This follows on from hon. Friends’ questions. We are seeing more masked gangs and people who seek to intimidate our communities, but often following them are the new self-proclaimed auditors, who are there to film them, and who often fund these gangs. Unfortunately, this trend has grown dramatically in Blackpool. People recently entered the council chamber during a full council meeting to intimidate councillors of all parties, screaming and demanding that councillors identified what political party they were from. During the recent by-election campaign in Claremont, people harassed and intimidated local activists of all parties as they went about. What measures are in place to allow councils to ban these “auditors” from certain areas of towns, and especially town centres? We also see this trend growing in the night-time economy; these people often prey on vulnerable individuals. This is becoming a real problem, and it has been highlighted by the leader of Blackpool council as well. What more can we do, or what new powers need to be implemented, to stop this wave of “auditors”?

   Hansard source
7. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Vince

   International Update

   Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that I absolutely love my town of Harlow. [Interruption.] Somebody who loved it even more than me, and apparently my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), was the late, great Jean Clark, a former Harlow councillor who sadly passed away during the recess. She will be dearly missed, and I would love the Prime Minister to pay tribute to a real Harlow legend. The Prime Minister will be aware that many small and medium-sized businesses in Harlow depend on trade with the EU. They have been pressured by the increased red tape that we have seen since Brexit. Will he confirm to those businesses that he is not talking about a rerun of the Brexit referendum, or a rerun of those negotiations, but about ensuring that we get the best deal for businesses in Harlow?

   Hansard source
8. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Vince

   Baby Loss Awareness Week

   I thank the hon. Lady for her speech. Without giving too much away—my wife would not forgive me—some of the experiences that she has spoken about resonate with me, and remind me of the birth of my son a year ago. On historical forced adoption, I was on the Select Committee that discussed the issue, and I am proud that the previous Prime Minister gave that apology. I found it shocking that when those mothers tried to get the records about their children, they were treated appallingly. As the hon. Lady will be aware, one of them was a Parliamentary Private Secretary to a former Prime Minister, but she was treated like a child when she was asking for her own information. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is not acceptable and should not have been allowed to happen, and that there should be an apology?

   Hansard source
9. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

   Drumcree

   With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Drumcree. I should first alert Members to the fact that the decision that I will lay out in this statement is subject to legal challenge. I respect the court’s role and will not anticipate its conclusions. I wanted to update the House as soon as possible, but I hope that hon. Members will understand that this may limit some of what I can say. I also note that this afternoon the Court of Appeal, sitting in Belfast, refused leave to appeal to the Garvaghy Road residents coalition. The court therefore confirmed the Parades Commission’s determination as it was made at the time on 25 September, as did I. My exercise of powers under section 11 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, however, considered the situation as it stood on Friday 9 October. The repeated stand-offs at Drumcree in the 1990s saw disorder, violence and horrific deaths, and they represent a particularly painful chapter in Northern Ireland’s history. At the heart of the matter is the return route of the Orange Order Portadown district’s parade from Drumcree church. Members of the Orange Order attach great importance to completing their route down the mainly nationalist Garvaghy Road, while residents of the road have long opposed its passage through their community. For 28 years the independent Parades Commission had determined that the route should not pass down the Garvaghy Road, but on 25 September a Parades Commission determination allowed for 35 members of Portadown lodge to walk along the Garvaghy Road without the accompaniment of music on Sunday 27 September. To some, this was a legal victory that recognised the religious, cultural and personal significance of this procession. To others, it was a profound shock and a reopening of wounds they long thought closed. On Saturday 26 September, following a challenge brought on behalf of the residents, a temporary injunction was granted, then appealed and overturned, before permission to seek judicial review was refused in the early hours of Sunday 27 September. The parade, lawfully determined, was due to take place at 8 am that same morning. However, the Orange Order was unable to complete that route due to an unlawful, unnotified protest by residents of the Garvaghy Road and their supporters, who blocked the road. For much of the two weeks since, Drumcree has once again been the scene of a stand-off. This is a deeply emotive and hurtful issue for many of those who have been involved in this dispute, either now or in the past. I have spent the past fortnight in extensive conversations with all affected parties, trying to get a mutually acceptable agreement between the two sides. I hosted several rounds of negotiations at Hillsborough castle over five days and maintained frequent contact with those involved, including Members of this House. During those discussions, we explored multiple options for ending the impasse. These included options such as the Portadown Lodge completing one final march along the Garvaghy Road on the condition that it would not apply to march that route again, and an option that would have seen Portadown Lodge accept that it had won the right to march but agree not to exercise that right. Other options included the residents accepting that the lodge had had established the legal right and would not challenge other parts of the route. Unfortunately, we could not secure agreement. I want to thank the members of the Portadown Lodge for their time and constructive engagement. Their commitment to upholding the law and their co-operation with the police has been absolutely vital in maintaining calm and order. Having received a determination permitting them to march after 28 years, I recognise that they will feel bitter disappointment at its prohibition. I also want to thank members of the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition for their engagement. They made clear to me the profound anxiety this dispute has brought, relighting painful memories. I deeply regret that we were not able to reach a compromise on a way forward. Although I was still keen to establish a local agreement, I did not want to see the stand-off continue into another weekend, with the consequent risk of protests spreading to other parts of Northern Ireland and the further deterioration of community relations. I therefore intensively considered all options for bringing this dispute to an end. On Friday 9 October, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland made an application to me under section 9 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. As required by law, I reviewed the initial determination made by the Parades Commission relating to the application made by the Portadown district for 27 September 2026. I consulted the Chief Constable and the Parades Commission. The Chief Constable advised me that it would not be possible to enable the procession to happen without a major intervention, which would carry “an unacceptable risk of serious injury, disorder and a wider contagion affect across Northern Ireland.” The Parades Commission also advised me that while ultimately a matter for the courts to determine, the Commission was of the view that in the light of this current assessment by the Chief Constable, the original determination does not now have enduring legal effect. As a result, given that the circumstances under which that decision was made have now changed considerably and in the interests of wider public interest and safety, I came to the conclusion that the procession should not go ahead as it was originally determined. I did not take that decision lightly. I had tried to get a locally agreed solution and, as the Court of Appeal has held today, the Portadown district had a lawful determination from the Parades Commission allowing the procession. I have also not criticised the original determination made by the Parades Commission in good faith and based on the information it had at the time. Indeed, as part of my decision on Friday, I confirmed that original determination, which has also been upheld as lawful by the court, as anybody who criticises the Parades Commission should bear in mind. However, I must acknowledge that the situation has changed considerably, which is why I used my powers under section 11 of the Act to prohibit the procession. Respect for the rule of law is fundamental to our society. I am grateful to those who have behaved peacefully and legally, and sought to ease tensions in their respective communities. It is right to say that the Orange Order obtained a legal right to parade, but I agree with the Chief Constable, who has said “upholding of the Parades Commission determination does not come at any cost.” Upholding the law also entails judiciously preventing serious disorder, and that is why I am glad that, despite the manifest tension, events have passed peacefully in Portadown. That is in itself a significant achievement. I thank the PSNI officers who have carried the burden of policing this difficult situation. However, nobody is able to grant themselves immunity from the law, and those who have acted unlawfully must face the consequences of their actions. It is not for me to determine how the police exercise their duties, but I am glad that the PSNI operation in relation to unlawful protesting on the Garvaghy Road is under way. I am grateful to all those who have engaged with me in good faith and to those within this House who have worked diligently to reduce tensions. I particularly thank those who have sought to moderate their language. It is easy to stir up a grievance, but it is much harder to calm it down. I appeal now to everyone to help reduce tensions, and for all political and community leaders to consider carefully the effect of their words. I urge people to let the courts do their work, and to co-operate fully with the police and the Parades Commission. The community in Portadown has been on the sharp end of intense attention for a number of weeks. It will take time to rebuild relations. Sometimes leadership is extremely difficult, but it is vital that at this time the political parties in Northern Ireland offer stability. That can be a challenge when loud voices dominate. However, in my conversations with both sides and with political leaders from different parties and traditions, I have met many extraordinary people of good faith who want to rebuild trust and co-operation based on mutual respect. I hope all Members will want to share in that ambition. I commend this statement to the House.

   Hansard source
10. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Drumcree

    I am grateful for the tone in which the shadow Secretary of State has entered the conversation and for him taking my call over the weekend. We have not faced each other across the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State and shadow Secretary of State until today, and I hope that we can work co-operatively together. To those who flouted the law and to those who are considering doing so again, I say nobody is above the law: you will face the consequences of your actions. To those who have co-operated with the police, I say an enormous, “Thank you.” To those who are considering ending co-operation with the police, I say please, please, please think again. The hon. Gentleman asks me specifically about the advice that I have received and quotes in precise terms the words that I was given by the Chief Constable. I have publicly set out the advice that I received, which said that facilitating the procession would require a major police intervention carrying unacceptable risks, as the hon. Gentleman said. He will understand that I will not comment on specific intelligence that I did or did not receive, for obvious reasons, but in the end I am accountable for the decision that I made. It was my responsibility to weigh the police advice and the consequences of proceeding, which is precisely what I did. The hon. Gentleman asks how we will ensure that we build respect for the rule of law. That is a matter for all communities into the future. He also made a point about politicians. I will point out that we politicians have a particular responsibility to abide by not just the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law. Schedule 4 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires Ministers to pledge “to uphold the rule of law based as it is on the fundamental principles of fairness, impartiality and democratic accountability, including support for policing and the courts”. Those should not just be words that are spoken for one moment; they should be things that we embody in everything we do.

    Hansard source
11. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Drumcree

    I am very grateful to my predecessor, to whom I pay tribute, for his kind words. We need to do several things. This moment has shown that the veneer of peace is sometimes remarkably thin, and we need to strengthen the relationship between different communities. One of the things I found most moving was when people said to me how cross-community organisations in Portadown had been completely discombobulated and thrown up into confusion over these last two weeks. That is one of the reasons why I wanted us to be able to get to a successful conclusion that works for everybody. My right hon. Friend is right about the parades. I note that some people who, a few weeks ago, were passionately opposed to the Parades Commission are now passionately in support of it, and vice versa. The truth is that we had problems earlier on this year, and that is why I have set up an inquiry, led by Justice O’Hara, who has been warmly supported by everybody in that process. We need to ensure that the Parades Commission works for the future, and I hope that everybody in this House at least would want to urge people to work closely with the police, rather than undermine them.

    Hansard source
12. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Drumcree

    I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Gentleman has approached this issue. My attempts to have discussions with the Executive have focused partly on trying to get a budget. Six months in, we still do not have a settled budget. That is going to provide very significant problems in the very near future for the whole of the operation of the Executive if we are not very careful and very keen to work with the Executive to get to a good outcome. We have made an offer of £1.5 billion and more over three years, which is a good settlement considering the difficult situation that we have. Everybody has been predicting the collapse of the Executive for some time, but it seems to be much more resilient than people suggest. That is a good thing. In terms of the rule of law, it is not for me to tell the police whom they should speak to about unlawful actions or how to determine what the punishment should be. I will merely point out that an offence under the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act carries an imprisonment of up to six months and a level 5 fine. That is for the prosecuting authorities to consider. Let me turn to the young people in Portadown. One of the phrases frequently used on both sides was that people wanted a breathing space, and we have that breathing space now. Once the dust has settled a little bit, it will be important for us to consider and work out how we can strengthen the cross-community relationships that have undoubtedly been tested over the last couple of weeks, as the hon. Gentleman says, and I want to do that with local representatives.

    Hansard source
13. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Drumcree

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. We were here only a few weeks ago having had the report on Robert Hamill, whose murder occurred against the background of the problems in Portadown back in the day. This issue is still very live and very raw for a large number of people in the community. I have to push back, though, and say that the Parades Commission decision has been upheld by the courts on repeated occasions. I did not revoke the decision, but, given the situation when the section 9 letter came to me from the police the other day, it was absolutely apparent that I had to deal with this matter. My hon. Friend asks me to get the Irish Government to be engaged. I always want to work as co-operatively as I possibly can with the Irish Government, and I have spoken to them several times, but in the end, security in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the UK Government. We need to ensure that community relations in Northern Ireland are enhanced.

    Hansard source
14. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Drumcree

    The right hon. Gentleman and I have had many discussions about this issue over the past fortnight, and I am grateful to him for the way in which he has conducted those conversations. I do, however, utterly reject the charge that I have in any way succumbed to mob rule. The truth is that things have actually passed remarkably peacefully—there has been no major disorder. Lots of people lobbied me or provided advice over the airwaves on how to deal with the situation, but I do not think anybody seriously proposed that the police should drag people off the street, and I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that the rule of law is not just a single headline; it is equality before the law, transparent laws, the separation of powers, an independent judiciary and access to justice. All of those things are in remarkably fine fettle in Northern Ireland. As I have said previously, there are some abnormalities about the way in which the Executive and power sharing work in Northern Ireland. I am very happy to sit down with the right hon. Gentleman and work through ways in which we can make them function better. As I have said to him before, that may require some reform of the institutions at Stormont.

    Hansard source
15. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Drumcree

    I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s comments. This was certainly a difficult decision, but a decision that I was in law required to make, having been written to by the Chief Constable under section 9 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act. I chose to make the eventual decision based on the advice he had given. More generally, though, mutual respect between different communities is often hard-won, and moments like this can rapidly descend into greater disorder and problems. That is why I was very keen not to let this situation run on at great length, which is why I responded in the way I did, but we still have a job of work to do in Northern Ireland to enhance mutual respect between people. Some of the language that has been used from one community to the other and back again has been utterly vile, and it is incumbent on all of us in particular, as Members of Parliament, to moderate our language.

    Hansard source
16. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Drumcree

    One difficulty I sometimes found when trying to reach consensus between the two sides when we gathered everybody in Hillsborough—when, I have to say, both sides were immensely respectful—was that the moment they spoke to somebody outside the room, louder voices prevailed and dragged them away from compromise. That is a problem that we have regularly, and social media amplifies some of that as well, which makes it more difficult. I should also say that there are Members of this House who have been vilified just for standing up for their constituents, and that is not appropriate either.

    Hansard source
17. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Drumcree

    The most important thing we have to realise is that the job of work of the Good Friday agreement is not complete. Many elements of it were parked at the time, and we need to complete that work. That is one reason why it is important that we get the troubles Bill right. I have met so many people who still bear not just bruises, but deep scars, from the troubles, and they want answers. That is precisely what we are trying to legislate for at the moment.

    Hansard source
18. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Drumcree

    When I received the section 9 letter on Friday morning, I had no idea when the court was going to come to its conclusions, and obviously I had been asked—and am required by law—to consult with the Parades Commission and the Chief Constable, as I did. That is the process I followed. I do not want to stray further into that process, simply because all of this is subject to legal challenge.

    Hansard source
19. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Drumcree

    I think the hon. Member is asking me to introduce primary legislation to change the Northern Ireland Act, which is not my intention at the moment. I am not sure what other process he is considering, but I am very happy to consider it with him. I noted one thing the hon. Member said earlier, or maybe yesterday on the television: the last thing we want is Chris Bryant running Northern Ireland.

    Hansard source
20. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Drumcree

    The hon. Member is nodding, so I got that right. Maybe we can agree with each other, because I want the Northern Ireland Executive to continue in operation. I certainly do not want to be in a position where I am running all of Northern Ireland.

    Hansard source
21. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Drumcree

    I am fond of the hon. and learned Gentleman, although he does remind me of the John Lewis line, “Never knowingly undersold”, because his arguments are never knowingly undersold. He called me pathetic on the television yesterday and he keeps on referring to mob rule. Every time people use this term “mob” about people on the other side of the argument, it makes it more difficult. I would also say that the use of the word “sanitising” was particularly inappropriate. It behoves us all to moderate our language, because people look to us to provide leadership. In a situation where compromise is normally the best outcome for everybody—for all communities—it is best if we double down on compromise ourselves.

    Hansard source
22. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Drumcree

    When I referred earlier to those who have been vilified, I was going to refer to the hon. Lady, because I have seen some of the foul comments that have been made about her, online and elsewhere, and I completely abhor that. As she knows, I have spoken to her regularly throughout this whole process. We have tried to maintain a very civil conversation between us. I want to clear up one other thing that the hon. Lady asked. She did not ask it in the House, but said I would have to answer it this evening. Earlier in the day, she said that I had to clear up whether I became aware of today’s judgment before or after I made my ruling. I think she was suggesting that in some way or other I knew before anybody else what the court was going to decide today. I want to make it absolutely clear that I did not. At the time I started my determination, I did not even know when the court was going to come up with its ruling, so I very much hope that she will withdraw that semi-allegation. More importantly, I had to respond to the section 9 request from the Chief Constable. I am afraid that sometimes the hon. Lady resorts to extravagant and erring language, and I am not sure that helps secure an outcome for the Orange lodge. The final point I would make to the hon. Lady is that she is absolutely right that everybody needs to uphold the law. I very much hope that she would urge everybody she knows who is now saying that they should not co-operate with the police to co-operate with the police. Otherwise, I am afraid it is a question of what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

    Hansard source
23. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Drumcree

    First, to be clear, the Court of Appeal was looking in its decision today at a completely different matter from the one that was before me. The court was looking at the decision made by the Parades Commission on 25 September; I was looking at the situation on 9 October. Those are two different matters, and that is why it was not material to me whether the court was going to be ruling today. As a matter of fact, when the letter came in from the Chief Constable, I did not know when the court would be ruling. More importantly, under section 9 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, I am required by law to respond to the Chief Constable’s request, and that is what I did. I decided, as the courts did, to uphold the original determination of the Parades Commission, but to consider the situation as it pertains now and the advice given to me by the Parades Commission and the Chief Constable. On the final point, I know there are people arguing that this is the end of the rule of law in Northern Ireland in some way. I just want to say that in the past few weeks, yes, people have said very cross things to one another and have shouted at one another—they have mostly done so in the Assembly, here in Parliament today or on the airwaves—but they have not been throwing things at each other. It has been peaceful in Portadown, and that is an achievement, not the opposite of an achievement. In the end, policing is about not just ensuring that a determination can be upheld, but judiciously preserving the peace.

    Hansard source
24. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Catherine Fookes

    International Update

    I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. It is an absolute no-brainer that we move closer to our closest trading partner, the EU, and I know that thousands of businesses in my constituency of Monmouthshire will welcome the reduction in costs. I am sure that Monmouthshire farmers, too, will be delighted that they were at the centre of his statement, as they will be by the prospect of less red tape and lower costs when dealing with the EU. They were sold a lie by the Conservatives about Brexit. Can the PM confirm that Welsh lamb and Welsh beef exports will increase as a result of his statement and of the renegotiation with the EU?

    Hansard source
25. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Cat Smith

    International Update

    On 26 October 2021, when the Conservative Government’s Elections Bill was going through its Public Bill Committee, I was the shadow Minister, and I tabled a new clause relating to foreign interference in politics. The Minister then responsible for keeping our democracy safe replied in Committee that she had not read the Russia report and asked me to explain it to her. Does the Prime Minister share my concern that the Minister, now Leader of the Opposition, may not be fully across the details?

    Hansard source
26. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Cat Smith

    Written Parliamentary Questions

    The Procedure Committee has concluded its in-depth review of the written parliamentary questions system, and we were pleased to be able to publish our report just before the conference recess. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this statement, and I also thank current and former members of the Procedure Committee for their thoughtful consideration throughout the inquiry. My Committee regularly reviews the performance of Departments in answering written parliamentary questions, but there was a sense that a wider review was needed, because the written parliamentary questions system really was not working for Members. The number of questions had risen drastically, and the responses were not keeping pace or, indeed, meeting our expectations in terms of quality. Equally, we knew that the Government and the House administration were under pressure to deliver in a system that was at risk of being overwhelmed. We launched our inquiry in November 2025; we organised a survey of MPs, received written evidence, and heard in person from Opposition Front Benchers and groups of Back Benchers. I thank the many Members on both sides of the House who gave evidence to the Committee. We know that our colleagues are not always satisfied with Government responses to WPQs, and we also know that that feeling has increased as the number of WPQs has also increased sharply. We heard that there were frustrations among colleagues about a small number of MPs submitting a disproportionate number of questions, which could be construed as an abuse of the system. Members who make restrained and focused use of the WPQs system for their parliamentary work are, effectively, being adversely affected. The system, overall, needs to be based on a lower volume of input but a higher quality of output when it comes to responses from the Government. The flip side of our efforts is to alleviate some of the pressures in the system, but we think that MPs should expect better responses from the Government. We heard of concern about the tabling of some WPQs with limited Member involvement. We are clear about the fact that WPQs are a proceeding in Parliament, and should therefore always be initiated by elected Members. We cannot send our staff to speak in oral questions for us; nor should we expect our staff to table WPQs without our seeing them. At present, that is reflected by the need for our wet signatures on the hard-copy WPQs if we are to table them in that way at the Table Office. We believe that this should be reflected in the modern e-tabling system, and we recommend that Members be required to approve personally, in MemberHub, questions submitted by their staff. The fundamental e-tabling limit should remain at 20 per Member per sitting day, but limits should be introduced for recesses. It is, in our view, an anomaly that this limit applies in sitting times but not in recesses. Members will understandably wish to scrutinise developing events during a recess, but as WPQs submitted during recesses cannot be answered until the House returns, there is often a better way of doing this, such as corresponding directly with Ministers. We recommended a limit in recesses of 20 WPQs per Member for the first calendar week, and a further 10 for each additional full calendar week. In other words, the longer the recess, the more questions a Member will get. We remind Members that these are very much maximums, not targets to be hit, and that when we increase quantity, we may see a decline in quality. Moreover, looking busy by tabling more WPQs than the neighbouring MP is not an indication of how well someone is working as an MP. We also heard concerns about “carding”. We found that the process generally works well, but the terminology could be modernised. A card is not a red card, and it is not a block; it is merely a query that can generally be resolved very quickly if a Member nips into the Table Office. We recommended that carding be renamed “querying” to reflect that. When a Member accumulates a large number of unresolved queries—in old money, cards—at any one time, it creates a blockage in the system, and reduces the Table Office’s ability to advise other Members. When Members have 20 live unaddressed queries at any one time, they should be required to address those before submitting further WPQs. At present there is a cut-off time for same-day e-tabling of WPQs, but it is different on different days of the week, and it falls outside the normal working day. The Committee believes that a uniform time of 4 pm should be set between Mondays and Thursdays. That would be more straightforward for Members, and it would also mean that the focus of Table Office staff in the evenings, when far fewer staff are available, would rightly be on advising Members on matters such as motions and amendments for the following day, rather than marshalling WPQs. It would also allow questions to be considered over more time, thus supporting our goal of improving the consistency of colleagues’ experiences. Given the Friday sitting hours, we recommend that we retain the 2.30 pm cut-off on Fridays. Having an exceptional route to an urgent answer is very useful to Members, but we found that “named day” was a very confusing term for some. We thought that for the sake of modernisation, we could replace it with “priority questions”, which would better reflect the core purpose of a named-day question and would probably be simpler and easier for colleagues to understand. However, we recommend that the deadline for answers to priority questions be set automatically at three working days after tabling, which is the earliest that a Member can receive an answer to a named-day question. The limit for priority questions should remain unchanged at five per Member per sitting day. Colleagues should consider using an ordinary question to receive a detailed response, and using priority questions when speed is of the essence. We heard of a range of concerns about Government responses to WPQs from Members on both sides of the House. The Government should address those concerns, particularly by ensuring that questions are grouped sparingly and always individually addressed within a combined response. We recommend that references to information published elsewhere be used sparingly—there should be relevant extracts, not just hyperlinks—and that the Government communicate with Members and the Table Office when there is a block on questions on a particular topic. There should also be more transparency and accountability in the Government’s performance in answering WPQs. To that end, we have recommended that a public-facing dashboard be introduced on the parliamentary website, to be updated monthly, showing the performance of each Department in answering WPQs on time. That will empower Members, the public and even the press to pursue inadequate performance, and we hope that it will also help the Government to drive forward improvements. We recommend that Members consider how we use WPQs. We are best placed to decide, as individual elected representatives, when we need to ask a particular question, but we should also consider the cost to the public purse. There are many alternatives, including other parliamentary proceedings, ministerial correspondence, and the excellent services provided by the House of Commons Library, and sometimes we might actually obtain a better outcome from those. Artificial intelligence was an emerging theme in our inquiry, and we appreciate the concerns raised by Members. We are a forward-thinking Committee, and we see the benefit of AI in improving the processes, but we are more cautious about its use for content. It is most important for Members to check and remain responsible for their questions, and for Ministers to check and remain responsible for their answers. Ultimately, as we set out in the report, we recognise the importance of bringing the House with us, given the importance of WPQs to Members across the House. For that reason, we have recommended that the Government bring forward a motion endorsing the report as a whole. This would allow the House to endorse the report’s findings, recommendations and statements of principle, and allow the House administration, the Government and all of us to get on with implementing it. We hope that colleagues will support that motion when it comes before the House. We have overhauled the WPQ system in a modernising direction. Although we have not been able to take up every suggestion that was made to us, we have sought to give colleagues a better experience of WPQs and to make them a more valuable tool, including for the important function of scrutinising Government. Our Committee will review its findings and the implementation of the recommendations as we continue our regular work of monitoring departmental performance in answering WPQs. I commend this report to the House.

    Hansard source
27. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Cat Smith

    Baby Loss Awareness Week

    I have never spoken in a Baby Loss Awareness Week debate before, but that does not mean that I do not care. I watched last year’s debate on the television, and I see that many of the faces that were there last year are here this year. For the benefit of those watching, if an MP is not here and you have asked them to be here, let me say that it can often be quite difficult to talk about issues on which you feel that you have skin in the game, and that is certainly the case for me. When my local hospital, the Royal Lancaster infirmary, invited me to the opening of the new bereavement suite in the maternity unit earlier this year, I found a reason not to go. That was not because I was not glad that the room was there, but because I never wanted to see the inside of it. Unfortunately, in June this year, I did get to see the inside of it—not as an MP cutting the ribbon, but as a grieving parent. The thing about miscarriage is that when you leave hospital, you do not have anything, apart from maybe some leaflets from the Miscarriage Association. Today I want to talk about baby loss certificates, because they are one thing that we can have and hold when we have nothing else of our babies. I will keep this quite tight. I want to set out some real issues with baby loss certificates. I believe that we can make policy changes that could make the situation better for parents. The eligibility criteria for the certificates in England are far stricter than those in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In England, people are required to have experienced the loss in England, and to be living in England when they apply, whereas in Scotland and Northern Ireland, people can apply if they live there or lived there at the time of the loss. That variation creates an inconsistency in what is available to parents across the UK. There is another issue with cross-border access to certificates. Since the English scheme was launched, I have been made aware by Sands that families with bereaved parents who live in Wales, but who experienced their loss in an English hospital, have found that they were not eligible for the certificates. The charity’s concern is that once the Welsh certificate scheme finally launches, if the verification criteria are the same as the English criteria, it would require the parents to both live in Wales and have experienced the loss in Wales, so some parents would fall between the cracks, and would never be eligible for a baby loss certificate under either scheme. There is also an inconsistency when parents do not live in the same part of the UK. That issue was raised in the Scottish Parliament’s debate on baby loss last week by my partner, David Linden MSP. The issue stems from the verification process, which uses NHS numbers and postcodes to confirm eligibility. However, that results in a problem whereby my baby loss certificates just have my name on them, as the mother; there is a blank where the father’s name should be—not because he does not want to be on the certificate, but because the system says no, as his postcode is “wrong”. We cannot have both parents’ names on a baby loss certificate when they live in different parts of the United Kingdom. David raised that issue last week in the Scottish Parliament, and the Scottish Health Minister Maree Todd said that she would take that forward with the Department of Health and Social Care. My only ask today is that the Secretary of State receives that request warmly. While it is not typical for a family to live across different nations in the United Kingdom, I hope that the Secretary of State will perhaps even reach out to Ministers in all the nations of the United Kingdom to ensure that where that is the case, families are eligible for baby loss certificates. When you are walking out of a hospital and the only thing you wanted was your baby, but all you have is loss, having that certificate is something tangible to hold on to and offers a huge amount of comfort. This is a “computer says no” administrative error, and fixing it would offer a lot of comfort to many families.

    Hansard source
28. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Brian Leishman

    State Pension Changes: Women Born in the 1950s

    2. What steps he is taking to help support women born in the 1950s who have been affected by state pension changes.

    Hansard source
29. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Brian Leishman

    State Pension Changes: Women Born in the 1950s

    More than 3.5 million WASPI women were affected by the change to the state pension age. Time is of the essence, because another WASPI woman dies every 13 minutes on average, without receiving fairness or justice. The Prime Minister personally assured the WASPI campaigners during the Makerfield by-election that he would meet them to discuss potential routes to redress. Can the Minister confirm what actions the Department is taking to support the Prime Minister in those discussions? Crucially, when will the meeting happen?

    Hansard source
30. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Brian Leishman

    International Update

    I would be very interested to hear what the Prime Minister has to say, in this international update, about companies in foreign ownership yet again closing down vital Scottish industries. This time, it is Syngenta’s Chinese owners in Grangemouth who will make 377 people redundant on site, and we all know that this means that thousands will be affected in the wider supply chain. The Prime Minister is right to talk about the pressing need to reindustrialise vast parts of the country. Will he come to Grangemouth and listen to local people who have had the heart ripped out of their community, and will he commit to spending the £200 million from the National Wealth Fund to save jobs and build the industrial future that Grangemouth and Scotland need?

    Hansard source
31. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Blair McDougall

    The Modification of the Law (British Steel Limited Property Transfer) Regulations 2026

    I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the Modification of the Law (British Steel Limited Property Transfer) Regulations 2026. The regulations were laid before the House on 16 July 2026 under the affirmative procedure. Steel is foundational to our economy and national resilience, and to the critical infrastructure on which communities and businesses across the country rely. The House will be well aware that British Steel is one of the UK’s largest steel producers. The steel that it forges is used by our clean energy sector, in construction, in our bridges and on our railways. In other words, Britain needs British Steel. The decision to bring British Steel into public ownership was not taken lightly. The Secretary of State at the time of the transfer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle), considered the public interest test carefully prior to making a decision, before deeming it necessary to nationalise British Steel based on the relevant factors and the likely costs. Given the financial challenges that the company is facing and has faced for some time, the Government’s assessment was that without taking British Steel into public ownership, there was a significant risk that it would fail and that this essential steelmaking capability would be lost. We could not sit by and do nothing—the company’s collapse would have led to serious and difficult-to-reverse consequences for steelmaking capacity, supply chain resilience, workers and the communities that have supported the business for generations—so the British Steel Limited Property Transfer Regulations 2026 transferred certain property, rights and liabilities of British Steel to a new publicly owned company, wholly owned by the Secretary of State immediately on 16 July. The regulations before the Committee are a necessary, targeted and technical part of the transfer. They were made to ensure the effectiveness of the transfer and the operations of the new public company. This statutory instrument is needed to protect the continuity of operations and give legal certainty to employees, customers, suppliers and other parties affected by the transfer. The statutory instrument addresses five technical areas of the law that require modification to ensure the effectiveness of the transfer of British Steel, reflecting the fairly unique nature of that transfer—a legislative nationalisation at pace—which was not envisaged when the relevant laws were first drafted. First, the instrument puts beyond doubt that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006—known as TUPE—apply with regard to employees moving from the old company to the new company. This provides British Steel employees with certainty about the continuity of their jobs and terms and conditions after the transfer. Secondly, due to the unusual situation and pace of the legislative transfer of British Steel’s business, the instrument disapplied the TUPE requirement for the current employer to inform and, where appropriate, consult elected or trade union employee representatives, in the context of this specific transfer only. Thirdly, the instrument provides that British Steel does not count as a “public authority” subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Procurement Act 2023, reflecting the fact that it operates and competes in the private sector rather than as a traditional public body. Fourthly, the instrument rules out the possibility that Ministers and civil servants count as “shadow directors” of the company, and fifthly, it disapplied rules around the reuse of a company name by a new company when the original company goes into insolvent liquidation. Taken together, the modifications have enabled, and will continue to enable, the new publicly owned company to function properly while the Government stabilise the business and consider its long-term future. Due to the need for the transfer to come into effect immediately, it was necessary to make this instrument simultaneously with the transfer regulations, and it came into force immediately on 16 July as a made affirmative instrument. The House will rightly expect scrutiny of the decision to make the law modifications in the regulations, and I welcome that today. We have brought the instrument before the Committee so that Members can consider and approve the legal modifications needed to give full and effective operation to the transfer. In summary, the instrument is limited in its scope of modifications, restricted as they are to British Steel’s specific case, and necessary to make the nationalisation effective. It provides legal certainty, supports employee protections and helps to secure the continuity of British Steel following its transfer into public ownership. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.

    Hansard source
32. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Blair McDougall

    The Modification of the Law (British Steel Limited Property Transfer) Regulations 2026

    I appreciate the constructive tone of the Opposition spokesperson’s comments. Let me get into the specifics he raised. The steel strategy that we set out takes specific action with regard to the profitability challenge that he rightly mentioned. It includes targeted measures on global overcapacity, energy prices, issues around procurement and the availability of scrap. On energy prices, I direct the hon. Gentleman to the changes we have made with the supercharger scheme. For the steel industry more widely, applications have opened in the last few days for the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which will have a significant impact for many manufacturers. The changes in the regulations in respect of the Procurement Act 2023 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 are a recognition that yes, British Steel is ultimately owned by the taxpayer, but it has to operate as a commercial company. We do not want it to have disadvantages or advantages compared with other operators in the field. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have a responsibility to make sure that the company is run as efficiently and effectively as possible. That is exactly the work we are currently doing, including through the appointment of the new chair, Alan Lovell, who will work with UK Government Investments and the DBIST representative on the company board. On SSUK and, indeed, the whole ecosystem, the hon. Gentleman is exactly right to point out that we need to take an entire-steel-sector view of the future of British Steel. One of the unique things about our steel ecosystem is that there is not a great deal of like-for-like competition, and we do need companies to work together. That will be a key part of the work to produce the plan for the company’s future. We fully recognise the significance of the decision to bring British Steel into public ownership. It was a serious step taken in exceptional circumstances, and only after careful consideration of the public interest. The regulations do not revisit the whole question of nationalisation, and they certainly do not intend to take us back to the 1970s—although I would argue that pop music was better in that decade. Their purpose is narrower, but it is important to ensure that British Steel’s specified property, rights and liabilities operate effectively in law, and that the necessary legal clarity and certainty is in place following the transfer. That certainty matters. It matters for employees, whose rights and protections must be clear; for customers and suppliers, who need confidence that the business can continue to operate; and for the wider economy, which relies so much on steel. I reassure the Committee that the Government understand the need for proper scrutiny. The regulations were made using powers passed by Parliament in the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Act 2026 and are subject to approval by both Houses. This debate has been an important part of the process. The statutory instrument is technical, targeted and proportionate. It supports the effective operation of the transfer, protects continuity and gives confidence to those affected by the transition into public ownership. For those reasons, I commend the regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.

    Hansard source
33. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Bill Esterson

    International Update

    The Prime Minister quite rightly mentioned in his statement the fact that 90% of Russian oil production is covered by UK sanctions. I very much welcome what he had to say about joining international calls for a ceasefire on attacks on energy installations. When he is discussing this matter with President Trump, will he remind him that the biggest reason for high diesel prices here and in the United States is not the war between Russia and Ukraine, but what is going on in the strait of Hormuz and in Iran? Will he remind the President that the action he is taking will not cut the diesel price and that all it will do is fuel the Russian war machine?

    Hansard source
34. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Coleman

    Rejoining the EU

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I hate to bring real people into this argument and into the statistics. However, there is a Spanish-Italian delicatessen in my constituency—I am sorry that for some people it has no importance—and it has gaps on its shelves. I asked the staff why, because their customers are there and the owner is there. What they told me is missing is the food, and that is because the small supplier of this Spanish-Italian deli has had enough of the reams of EU red tape that he has had to deal with since we left. The gaps on that deli’s shelves are what leaving looks like to its owner and to me. As we have heard, more than 111,000 people have signed this petition to say that it does not have to be this way, and many of my constituents have urged me to support it. I agree with them. Since attending my first Prime Minister’s questions I have made one case and I will continue to do so: the fastest way for this country to grow is to lift the barriers that came down on British firms when we left the European Union. Consequently, I welcome the Prime Minister’s readiness to look at every option: a customs union, a single market and full membership. All these things should be looked at in an honest way. The closer we get back to the EU, the quicker the shelves in my local deli will fill up again. Some people worry about the considerable cost of rejoining the EU. A chunk of that money will come straight back to farmers, regions and our scientists. In addition, the boost to trade—despite what is being claimed about GDP growing internationally—would bring in billions more in tax for our NHS, our police, our schools and our defence. Those are all the things that we need to spend money on, but we in Labour found the cupboard was bare when we came in after 10 or 12 years of Tory misrule. The return would comfortably outweigh the investment. However, EU membership would also mean more than money. One area where I have to declare a personal interest—

    Hansard source
35. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Coleman

    Rejoining the EU

    No, I am sorry, I am not giving way. I have been encouraged by our Chair to move on, so that everyone gets a chance to speak and not just the hon. Gentleman. One area where I have to declare a personal interest is in enabling our musicians and performers to tour freely again. They are people like my nephew Freddy and his band, Caroline. British acts played 21% fewer shows in Europe in 2024 than in 2019—and that is because we left the EU. Some worry that free movement means that anybody could come here, stay and claim benefits—well, it does not. In the past, we applied too lightly the rules that say it does not. Belgium and Spain insist on the rules, and so can we if we rejoin. Some worry about sovereignty. Well, our exporters have to follow EU rules, but we have no say in setting them. Membership would give us a seat and a vote—that is more control, not less. Our partners will want to know that our return is for keeps, and so should we. A decision this big must be the settled will of the British people. That is why I believe we need a manifesto pledge to negotiate joining the European Union and then a referendum on the deal. I realise that other people may have other views, but I think that would be the best thing. In 2016, people voted on an idea—an ephemeral thought. Next time, they would vote on a deal: they would know what being in the European Union costs and what it buys. Before any of that, of course, I hope that the delayed UK-EU summit, which is now happening on 20 November, will finalise the deal on the table. That will keep down costs on food and drink and energy; it will let young Brits and young Europeans work in each other’s countries, for a limited time; and it will build trust.

    Hansard source
36. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Coleman

    Rejoining the EU

    I have absolutely no reason to doubt what the hon. Member says. This does not just come down to GDP; it comes down to the detail—the minutiae—of the pain that we are going through as a country in all sorts of areas as a result of not being in the European Union. For years, we were a problem for the EU and it used to think about us, but the EU has moved on and we need to recognise that. Its problems now are Russia, China and an unpredictable United States. Too many people in Brussels simply do not know us the way they used to, so I would suggest to the Minister that we need to think now about ways we can become part of the furniture there again, starting as soon as possible. For me, the logic points inexorably towards joining, but I can assure my constituents that I will listen, as well as arguing that case. If I may, I will end on a personal note. As a student, I lived in divided Berlin—before the wall came down. I crossed into the communist east through Checkpoint Charlie; I saw the watchtowers in no man’s land. From there, I went to Brussels: I was a trainee at the European Commission and I worked every day alongside people from every European country. What I could see was that, in Berlin, Britain was helping to keep half a city free; in Brussels, Britain was at the table. We were not just looking on; we were part of it. I want us to be that again, and this time for keeps.

    Hansard source
37. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Coleman

    Rejoining the EU

    I must apologise, Mrs Barker, if we look as if we are having a debate just with the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex. However, does the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) not find it strange how picky the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex is being in the facts that he chooses to employ? Last year, Poland grew by 3.75% and Spain by 2.8%; their growth outstripped ours. Of course there will always be some in the European Union who grow less quickly than we do and others who grow more. That is just the nature of things. It is not a fundamental basis on which to make an anti-European Union argument. Would the hon. Member for Surrey Heath not agree?

    Hansard source
38. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Coleman

    Rejoining the EU

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Hansard source
39. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Baggy Shanker

    International Update

    Derby has the manufacturing talent and capabilities to help Britain succeed on the international stage, and with a brilliant £1 billion order for 29 new battery-electric trains at Alstom in Litchurch Lane, we are on a roll in our city. Does the Prime Minister agree that by championing British manufacturing on the international stage we can secure more of that work, and the jobs our communities desperately need?

    Hansard source
40. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anneliese Dodds

    International Update

    I also was pleased to hear what the Prime Minister had to say about AI, both in New York and this afternoon in the Chamber. Can he confirm that it remains his view that decisions about global principles and standards for AI should be taken by democratically elected Governments representing working people and not by industry alone?

    Hansard source