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

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

1. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Danny Beales

   Israel and Palestine

   My hon. Friend mentions the commitment to peace long term, but unfortunately it has never seemed further away than it does today. Peace will involve building bridges between communities in Palestine and Israel, and supporting civil society, which has been under attack, in Gaza and in Israel, unfortunately, by the Government. My hon. Friend’s predecessor and the last Prime Minister committed to the international peace fund, which many of us were advocating for. Can my hon. Friend provide an update on the Government’s position on the peace fund, and their support, I hope, for its continuation and growth? What role does he think it can play in building these bridges?

   Hansard source
2. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Daniel Zeichner

   Topical Questions

   I welcome the announcements on school meals, but given that young campaigners at Bite Back last week identified that some three quarters of secondary schools do not provide meals that meet Government standards, what can the Minister do to boost enforcement?

   Hansard source
3. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Daniel Francis

   Water Sector: Public Ownership

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. Like some other Members, I am not keen on a referendum because I know the anger of my constituents. It is incumbent on us to just get on, have the conversation and come up with a solution. Across my constituency, we currently have a wave of roadworks because of a lack of investment over years and the asset stripping of Thames Water. We have now realised that those Victorian pipes, which were not replaced because the company was asset-stripped, finally need to be replaced. That causes huge disruption for my residents, and the cost of it has been placed on my Bexleyheath and Crayford constituents, who have seen increases of 30% to 40% on their bills over the last two years. They say to me there is no better example of having no control or of people in this place being powerless than the actions of Thames Water. I just shrug my shoulders—I continually bring the matter here, but I am not able to resolve the issue. For the last five summers in Crayford town centre, we have had major leaks; the town centre has been closed for five successive summers. Let me give hon. Members an example of Thames Water’s incompetency. Last year, I wrote to them and asked them to show me a map of all the leaks and flooding in the town centre. They sent that to me and it showed the scale of the problem, yet this summer, when a constituent raised concerns about the ongoing problems and I wrote to Thames Water, they said that they had no record of any flooding in Crayford town centre over the last five summers. That shows us that we are dealing with a company that is very difficult to meet—although I am actually meeting its representatives tomorrow—and very difficult to have any control over. It is no wonder that my constituents think it is incumbent on us to resolve that. In principle, I want the company to be nationalised, but I just want a system—I hope to hear about this from the Minister later—that gives my constituents and me some accountability over bills and resolves the issues that cripple town centres and continually cause leaks, delays and roadworks.

   Hansard source
4. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Daniel Francis

   Water Sector: Public Ownership

   On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

   Hansard source
5. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Daniel Francis

   Topical Questions

   T2. This term has seen three new Best Start breakfast clubs open in my constituency, at Saint Paul’s in Slade Green, at Gravel Hill in Bexleyheath and at St Fidelis in Northumberland Heath. Will my right hon. Friend outline timescales for when further breakfast clubs can be rolled out across Bexleyheath and Crayford, to ensure that every primary schoolchild in my constituency starts the day ready to learn?

   Hansard source
6. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Tomlinson

   Sovereign Grant Bill

   I thank Members on both sides of the House for their contributions to the debate. I thank, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for his engagement in the ways and means debate. I was glad to be able to write to him and to the Opposition in the intervening days to clarify a few points and, I hope, expand on some of the information that I gave during that debate. Let me briefly touch on the headlines of the three things that the Bill is doing; I will then deal with the points that have been raised, and will wrap up in good time. First, the Bill resets the level of the sovereign grant to reflect the fact that the exceptional funding requirement associated with the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme is coming to an end. Secondly, it establishes a revised mechanism for calculating the grant in future years. Thirdly, it introduces limited powers to adjust the grant in exceptional circumstances—powers that have already been discussed in our proceedings—including circumstances in which funding would otherwise become inappropriately high. The Government believe that, taken together, these changes amount to a measured and sensible reform. I now turn to some of the points raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) made a valuable contribution. I would have enjoyed hearing more of it, but I understand that he had to keep within scope, and I will ensure that I do so too, Madam Deputy Speaker. His final point was that he does not think it is appropriate for this sum of £99.9 million to go to the royal family. It is worth clarifying that this grant is not for the family’s personal purposes, but to enable His Majesty the King and the working members of the royal family to carry out their official duties on behalf of all of us and of the country. Turning to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), I look forward to debating the proposed amendment in more detail in Committee. I thank the Liberal Democrats and the official Opposition for their support and engagement on the Bill. If I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Poole correctly, his key question is: why is the grant set relative to the profits from the Crown Estate at 20.5%, rather than the needs of the household? I reassure him that the key thing is the needs of the household, rather than the figure of 20.5%. The way the trustees arrive at the relevant figure is via a bottom-up assessment of what is required to enable the royal household to carry out its duties on our behalf. It starts not with the relevant percentage of the Crown Estate profits, but instead with the specific needs and requirements of the monarchy. On my hon. Friend’s specific point about the increase in the sovereign grant over recent years, he is right to point out that it is set to increase by more than inflation, but the trustees interrogated a number of reasons for that when the £99.9 million grant was determined. They include, for example, an £11.7 million addition for a 10-year programme to replace the gas heating systems at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle as part of the royal household’s clean energy transition; £4.3 million to modernise ageing digital infrastructure and strengthen cyber-security, and replace some legacy IT systems, some of which are over 20 years old; and £11.5 million for other cost increases such as on utilities, travel, housekeeping, equipment and professional services. I do take and understand my hon. Friend’s point about inflation, but I point out that the grant will in effect be frozen—in cash terms—throughout the next five-year period. That goes to the point made by the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) about the stability of the royal household’s finances. It also goes some way to explaining why the Government do not think that coming back each year would be the most appropriate and efficient way to set the grant. For those seeking to deliver value for money for the taxpayer, particularly with long-term capital expenditure, via the sovereign grant, it is much easier to do so when it is possible to plan on a long-term basis.

   Hansard source
7. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Tomlinson

   Sovereign Grant Bill

   Yes, I agree with the hon. Member on that point. These grade I listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments are a very significant part of our national story and, for many, of our national identity. On his point about the quality of the estate, I can tell the House that independent surveys have found that 52% of the estate was at the target condition in 2020, but that had fallen to 38% by 2025. To conclude, the question before us is a practical one: do we wish to leave in place a framework that no longer properly reflects the end of the exceptional reservicing expenditure on the palace; or do we wish to put in place a revised framework that resets the grant, improves flexibility and preserves the ability of the grant to fulfil its core purpose? The Government’s view is that the right course is the latter. These measures are targeted, proportionate and deliver value for money for taxpayers. They improve the existing framework to the sovereign grant so that it continues to operate, I believe, as Parliament intended. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

   Hansard source
8. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Tomlinson

   Sovereign Grant Bill

   I will turn briefly to each of the short clauses in the Bill. Clause 1 gives effect to the central purpose of the Bill. It sets the amount of the sovereign grant for the financial year 2027-28 at £99.9 million. In doing so, it resets the level of the grant following the completion of the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme. As that programme nears completion, the temporary funding associated with it is no longer required. Both the previous Government and this Government recognised that the level of the grant should therefore be reset and that legislation would be necessary to achieve that outcome. That is what clause 1 does: it establishes a grant of £99.9 million for 2027-28, reflecting the conclusions of the 2026 royal trustees review. The practical effect, therefore, is that funding falls from £137.9 million in this financial year to £99.9 million in 2027-28.

   Hansard source
9. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Tomlinson

   Sovereign Grant Bill

   My hon. Friend is right to highlight that the works on Buckingham Palace over the past 10 years have been carried out with efficiency and effectiveness. In fact, the National Audit Office took a look at the programme of work and was able to commend it for its effective use of taxpayer money, which is of course very important. Clause 1 delivers, therefore, the intended reduction in funding following the completion of that work, and implements the conclusions of the royal trustees review to establish a new baseline for future years. Having reset the grant for 2027-28, clause 2 turns to the framework that will determine grant funding in future years. The grant has, since 2012, been linked to the performance of the Crown Estate. That underlying principle remains unchanged by the Bill. Clause 2 updates the percentage of Crown Estate profits used within that calculation, so that the framework remains appropriate after the grant has been reset through that bottom-up calculation. It sets the relevant percentage at 20.5%. Returning to conversations we had on Second Reading, I want to reassure Members that that figure is not arbitrary. It comes directly from the conclusions of the June 2026 royal trustees review, which assessed both the royal household’s expected expenditure requirements and the Crown Estate’s forecast revenues over the period 2031-32. Clause 3 introduces targeted safeguards to ensure that the funding framework can continue to operate effectively in exceptional circumstances. This is to ensure that where royal trustees conclude that the amount produced by the statutory formula would result in the sovereign grant reserve falling below 10% of annual expenditure or exceeding 50% of annual expenditure, and where the existing framework can adequately correct that outcome, the trustees must explain that conclusion in their annual report and identify the new amount they believe would be appropriate. The Treasury must then implement that through regulations. This reform allows greater flexibility to prevent reserves becoming either too large or too small, and it means that action can be taken before reserve levels move outside of a sustainable range, rather than waiting until existing statutory mechanisms have been triggered. The second mechanism is a limited power to increase the grant during a financial year in genuinely exceptional circumstances, and is intended as an emergency power. It can only be used when unforeseen circumstances arise during a financial year that cannot be reasonably addressed through the normal annual funding process. Clause 4 contains standard provisions relating to commencement and the short title of the Bill; I commend this and all other clauses to the Committee.

   Hansard source
10. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Tomlinson

    Sovereign Grant Bill

    I thank the Opposition spokespeople for their questions and comments. Turning first to the questions from the spokesperson for the official Opposition, the OBR forecasts for inflation, interest rates and so on were used as the underlying basis for the projections. To the extent that Members across the House support the OBR and its independent forecasting duties, I hope that they would support the royal household using those forecasts. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the reserve, the household previously aimed to maintain reserves of at least 5% of annual expenditure. This legislation formalises a slightly higher reserve at 10% as the floor, with 50% being the ceiling. It is our judgment that that is reasonable. Of course, 50% is a significant reserve. The hon. Gentleman asked what happens to the reserve. Of course, it can be drawn down on in times when the royal household faces significant in-year financial costs. The first reaction of the Treasury and the royal trustees would not be to come to the House to ask for a vote to increase the expenditure in the case of additional in-year costs. Instead, it would be hoped that capital programmes could be smoothed out over time, and that the flexibility allowed by the reserve could be drawn on. The hon. Gentleman asked specifically whether the secondary legislation in the event of changes would be subject to the affirmative or negative procedure in the House. I can confirm that if the percentage were to go up, it would be subject to the affirmative procedure, and we would therefore have the option to debate and discuss. If the percentage were to go down, my understanding is that it would be subject to the negative procedure. I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for raising the important issues of transparency, accountability and value for money. However, it is the Government’s view that the Liberal Democrat amendment is not necessary under the existing framework. Any future proposal to increase the percentage used to calculate the sovereign grant would already require a published report from the trustees setting out the rationale and, as I have just said, would require the approval of the Commons through the statutory instrument being subject to the affirmative procedure, so Members of the House would have the opportunity to analyse and debate any proposed change. The National Audit Office already plays an important role in scrutinising the sovereign grant. It audits the grant annually and can undertake value-for-money examinations where it considers that such work would assist Parliament. Indeed, it exercised these powers, as we have discussed, in relation to the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme. The Liberal Democrat amendment would also create a unique test that is not applied to other bodies funded by the public sector. It is the Government’s view that the sovereign grant is already subject to robust arrangements for accountability and scrutiny, including the managing public money principles, accounting officer oversight, National Audit Office audit and parliamentary approval for legislative changes. Question put and agreed to. Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair. Bill reported, without amendment. Bill, not amended in the Committee, considered. Third Reading

    Hansard source
11. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Tomlinson

    Sovereign Grant Bill

    I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. I thank hon. Members across the House for their contributions today as the Bill has progressed. I believe that we have done it justice, interrogating various points of contention and clarification on Second Reading and in Committee. I commend this Bill to the House.

    Hansard source
12. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Meg Hillier

    Select Committee Chairs: Period of Leave

    I rise to speak to the motion on substituting Select Committee members if a Chair takes leave and the motion on virtual participation. I want to put on the record my thanks to the Modernisation Committee and the Procedure Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith), for their work. I also thank the Clerks who did amazing work to help us navigate these issues. On virtual participation, there was a clear view among Chairs that there is real benefit to being in the room when Select Committees make decisions and carry out our work, because we need to have conversations both privately and in public. However, we are very aware that, in ordinary workplaces, reasonable adjustments should be made for serious health issues or disability, so we need to be in a more modern space. There was some serious discussion—although, there was no issue with what has been decided—that a person who is very unwell or on maternity leave should have the right to take that leave and not be present, and they should not be criticised for that. This change would allow people not to attend, even if they have a proxy vote, and no approbation should be laid upon them for that. We fought hard for sick leave and maternity leave, and Members should also enjoy those rights. There should be no pressure because people can participate virtually. The other point about virtual participation is that, under the previous Standing Orders, if we were to experience an issue such as the ash cloud or covid again, there would be no activity in this place. I can tell those who were not here during covid that, in the four or five weeks after Easter, when we were locked down, the House rapidly ensured that virtual participation could take place across the House and in Committees, but it required a change in the Standing Orders. This motion puts the matter on a proper footing. It is right to modernise, and that does not diminish the importance of sharing opinions in person. There are also some important safeguards in the measures to ensure that anyone participating virtually is doing so in an appropriate place—for example, not from a car or a train, and not with someone else in the room. It is right that we explicitly say that, because the work of Select Committees is important and they are privileged proceedings of the House. The motion allowing Chairs to be replaced more officially when they are on sick leave or on maternity or parental leave is really important. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), who pioneered the approach. A few others have done so over the years, but she really stepped up and took on the role of acting Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee and did some amazing work in that job without all the normal, formal procedures that the motion will put in place. The motion sets the tone by picking up some of the best practices of proxy voting, such as having a review period so that it cannot go on forever. Because Chairs are ultimately elected on a party political basis, there needs to be some thought about that, but it does allow flexibility. If, for example, a member of the Committee regularly steps into the Chair and the rest of the Committee decides that that person might be the more appropriate person to do that, it allows for wriggle room to allow that relevant and proper person to be the Chair even if they are a member of another party. That is important, and perhaps that has been thrown up more in this Parliament than in some others because of the large majority on the Government side, meaning that most Select Committees have only two Members from the other two main parties. The Modernisation Committee has done a sterling job of navigating both these issues to ensure that we modernise to allow us all to participate as we properly should while retaining the integrity of the House and the integrity of Select Committees.

    Hansard source
13. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Meg Hillier

    Israel and Palestine

    I commend my hon. Friend, and the Foreign Secretary last week, for the tone in which they have set out this recent decision on the settlements. I, too, have Jewish constituents who are very scared, but it is right, as the Minister said, to call a friend out when their behaviour goes too far. We know that there are big issues about the legal definition of genocide in Palestine. I wonder whether the Minister, or the Department, has had any conversations with the Israeli Government or the ambassador to the UK about the Foreign Secretary’s statement last week, and whether the Minister could update the House.

    Hansard source
14. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Meg Hillier

    Israel and Palestine

    I thank my hon. Friend for the tone of his comments, and for reminding us of the seriousness of this, and of what took place in Manchester last year. He seems to be suggesting that dialogue between the peoples of our countries is important. Does he not think that twinning with Israeli cities is an important thing to do? It means that the people of Israel, the people of London and the people of Palestine can talk to each other. We should not just be led by what Governments do.

    Hansard source
15. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Clive Lewis

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    It is a privilege to speak in this debate under your illustrious chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on leading it, and I thank him for being so generous with his time. I also thank the members of the public who are in the Gallery, including Ash Smith, Julie Maughan, Rob Forrester and all the other campaigners, citizen activists and citizen scientists who have got us to the point where this is one of the hottest topics in politics at the moment. The people who built our water system understood something that we in this place have forgotten. One of them said that “all monopolies which are in any way sustained by the State ought to be in the hands of the representations of the peoples”. Members and those in the Gallery may like to guess who said that. Was it Leon Trotsky? Was it Tony Benn? Well, it was actually Joseph Chamberlain, who ended his career as a Conservative Cabinet member. Many of the Victorians understood that public ownership is not ideological; it is pragmatic.

    Hansard source
16. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Clive Lewis

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    I will take one intervention, because I know that time is short.

    Hansard source
17. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Clive Lewis

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    I agree 100% with the right hon. Member. Joseph Chamberlain is the father of municipal government and municipal socialism in many ways, and he is someone we in this place can look to. I know that time is short, and I want to get to one key point. This debate taps into something far deeper than the yah-boo politics between those on different sides of the House: a deep public anxiety about the future of this country and this planet. People instinctively understand that something is wrong. This summer, we all watched as this country burned. We know that droughts are on their way, and we know that AI is possibly out of control. Housing, energy, water and food are things that people want under public control, not in the hands of corporations, billionaires and millionaires. When droughts and food insecurity hit, and when we cannot get access to social care or healthcare, we understand that the public need to be able to make the decisions as to who gets what, including water. Water is vital to everything from industry, to agriculture, to people having something to drink. Given that this country may soon face a water shortfall of 5 billion litres a week, and that the national risk register suggests there is a one in four chance that parts of the country will no longer be able to have people living there, because they will have to be evacuated due to severe water shortages, there is no choice but for the Government finally to grasp the nettle and bring not just water but every critical asset this country has, from data, to health, to housing, back into public ownership where people need it—under our control, owned by us.

    Hansard source
18. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Ward

    Topical Questions

    In Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven we are lucky enough to have two brilliant universities. Both are trying everything they can to adapt to the funding pressures they are under, but it still means that the University of Sussex is making cuts of £35 million a year, and just this morning the University of Brighton announced plans to potentially sell one of its campuses. What can the Secretary of State do to reassure me and give hope to students and staff at the universities that we will get a grip of the funding crisis that we inherited from the last Government and make universities thrive?

    Hansard source
19. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Vince

    SEND Specialists: Schools

    25. What steps her Department is taking to ensure that schools have access to specialist expertise in SEND.

    Hansard source
20. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Vince

    SEND Specialists: Schools

    I speak to parents, young people and teachers in my constituency all the time about the need for SEND reform. One of my best friends is a special educational needs co-ordinator, and he often tells me how broken he and his colleagues are after battling this broken SEND system for so long. Will the Minister ensure that the SEND reforms cater for all the young people in Harlow who need them, and that they will make being a SENCO an attractive proposition again?

    Hansard source
21. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Vince

    Sovereign Grant Bill

    Thank you, Madam Chair. I desperately tried not to intervene at all, but I could not stop myself. I was on the Modernisation Committee when it had the opportunity to visit Buckingham Palace to see some of the regeneration work being done. Does the Minister feel as reassured as I do that the renovation work was done as efficiently and practically as possible, bringing in apprentices from elsewhere—I do not think any of them came from Harlow, unfortunately—to ensure it was successful?

    Hansard source
22. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Vince

    Select Committee Chairs: Period of Leave

    I thank the Leader of the House for his speech. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) that he is radical, forward-thinking and progressive, and we thank him for that. The Leader of the House will know that I served on the Modernisation Committee for a very short period of time. The strangest part of that experience was coming face to face with my predecessor as the Member for Harlow when he gave evidence to the Committee. His evidence to the Committee was really important, and that is one reason why I feel it is so important that I stand up and ensure that his voice is heard here. I welcome the Leader of the House’s words on the changes to be made to Select Committees. We all recognise the important role of Select Committees in the running of this place. I think of my short time on the Education Committee—my time on Select Committees always seems to be short—and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who is in her place, for the work she did in securing a Government apology for the victims of the false adoption scandal. Select Committees can make a huge difference to what happens in this place and beyond. However, I recognise the need for balance. It is important that we make Select Committees accessible—as the Member of Parliament for Harlow, I take accessibility seriously on behalf of my predecessor—but I also recognise the importance of in-person scrutiny. I have sat in a number of virtual meetings, including virtual council meetings during covid, and I do not think that they are necessarily as effective, particularly when huge numbers of people join them online. I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) about the importance of having strict rules on virtual participation. We do not want to have our dog or cat appear on the screen during Select Committee meetings. It can happen to any of us, but it is not necessarily what we want when scrutinising somebody from an outside body who very much needs that scrutiny. I also echo my hon. Friend’s comments about maternity rights and sick pay. It is really important that we support everybody in the House to have those. Finally, I think that the Leader of the House has got the balance absolutely right in this case, and I very much support what he has said.

    Hansard source
23. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Hinchliff

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. The case for public ownership of our water is unanswerable. We can all see the money being swindled out of the British public by the privatised system. We can all see the sewage pollution going on, even during a summer of drought. I beg the Minister, in her response, not to repeat the bogus figures that some use to argue that public ownership of one of our most essential national resources would be too expensive. Those claims have been so comprehensively debunked that using them now is just getting embarrassing. The truth is that the cost of the societal impacts of failing to take back control of our water resources would be far higher than that of taking action now, because—ludicrously for a country as wet as ours—we are on course for a water deficit of more than 6 billion litres of water every single day in the next 30 years. The truth is that there is currently no credible plan to avert that. All the reservoirs that currently we have planned will reduce that deficit only by a meagre 13%. There is no realistic prospect of water companies hitting the efficiency targets they have signed up for, either—and that is before the speculative proliferation of data centres claims its thirsty share of our dwindling resources. In all likelihood, we will face further and severe water shortfalls in the future. Fire services are already warning that water pressure in many areas is dangerously low for fighting the new wildfire season that we also face. Communities in my constituency have already seen the taps running dry. In the future, we will have to choose what we do and do not use water for. We cannot have a situation in which our democracy has to mediate the fundamental question of national security through the interests of private companies that have proven beyond all doubt that their overwhelming priority will always be profit. We cannot afford to leave our water in the hands of private vested interests. It must be brought back into public ownership.

    Hansard source
24. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Hinchliff

    SEND Provision

    14. What steps she is taking to improve SEND provision.

    Hansard source
25. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Hinchliff

    SEND Provision

    It is difficult to overstate the trauma that the SEND crisis has inflicted on children in North East Hertfordshire, so the Government’s commitment to reform is welcome. However, given the scale of the failure that families have experienced, many are nervous. Will the Minister reassure me and my constituents that the reforms will not mean pushing children into a one-size-fits-all approach and will ensure that there is a firm legal backstop so that every child receives the support they deserve?

    Hansard source
26. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Robert Hamill Inquiry Report

    I too pass on my condolences to the Prime Minister on the death of his father. I am enormously grateful to the First Minister of Northern Ireland, Michelle O’Neill, who texted me a few moments ago to pass on her heartfelt sympathy as well. I am sure that all hon. Members will want to share in that. With permission, I will make a statement on the Robert Hamill inquiry report, which is published today. I start by paying tribute to the extraordinary grace and honour that Robert Hamill’s family have shown in the 29 years since he was murdered. It is hard enough to grieve the death of a loved one; it is even harder to grieve a loved one who was violently assaulted and brutally murdered; it is even worse to grieve a loved one without clear and coherent answers about the circumstances of their death for years and years. Many victims of the troubles have told me of the pain that gnaws away at them because they have no answers. Today will be particularly difficult for Robert’s family, so I send them my heartfelt sympathy and, I am sure, the sympathy of the whole House. The facts are bleak. At about 1.20 am on Sunday 27 April 1997, a 25-year-old Catholic man, Robert Hamill, a father of three, left a dance at St Patrick’s hall on Thomas Street, Portadown, and walked with others towards the junction with High Street and Market Street, where Royal Ulster Constabulary officers were in a parked RUC Land Rover. There, a group of Protestants attacked Robert and left him with such injuries to the head that he never recovered consciousness, and he died in hospital 11 days later on 8 May 1997. The inquiry is clear: “Robert Hamill suffered head trauma either shortly after that violence broke out or a little later when…Protestant youths kicked him while he was on the ground. The trauma included axonal injury, in particular in the brain stem. We find that those injuries directly caused his death.” The inquiry refers to there being at least three blows to the head and states: “Robert Hamill’s death was murder, because those who assaulted him must have at least intended to cause serious injury to him.” The people who attacked Robert did not know him. Robert had done nothing to provoke such a vicious and violent attack. He was killed simply for being who he was. To put it bluntly, he was killed solely because he was Catholic. I cannot imagine the pain felt by his family and his companions that day, who were clearly outnumbered as they watched him lying on the pavement. The intervening years have been plagued by delay. Following the Weston Park talks in 2001, the retired Canadian judge Justice Peter Cory examined six cases and recommended that a public inquiry be launched into Robert’s death, which was then established in November 2004, chaired by Justice Sir Edwin Jowitt. He completed his work in 2011, but the Government committed not to publish the report until ongoing criminal proceedings had been exhausted. These ended on 14 June 2024 with the conviction of former RUC officer Robert Atkinson for his role in failing to properly investigate the incident and for perverting the course of justice. Given the passage of time and Sir Edwin’s health, a new chair was appointed: Sir John Evans, a member of the panel. I am pleased that Sir John’s report is finally published today, but I fully acknowledge the significant delay, which is through no fault of the inquiry. That delay— 15 years from completion to publication—is far too long and has no doubt caused family members additional frustration and anguish. I truly regret that. The inquiry’s terms of reference did not include attributing responsibility for Robert’s murder, but addresses two areas of public concern regarding the conduct of the Royal Ulster Constabulary: first, whether the officers in the Land Rover were in any way responsible for Robert Hamill’s death; and, secondly, whether the subsequent investigation into his murder was inhibited by any wrongful act or omission on the part of the RUC. The inquiry finds that although RUC Land Rover crew parked near to the outbreak of violence were distracted talking to two members of the public, this did not facilitate Robert Hamill’s death. It also finds that the officers in the Land Rover were not guilty of any wrongful act or omission in relation to the death of Robert Hamill. This last point was not the unanimous view of the inquiry panel, as the former chair Sir Edwin Jowitt expressed a dissenting view that the officers were guilty of omission by not keeping watch. The report also finds that the officers did not in any way condone or collude with the attackers. However, on the second area of public concern, the inquiry findings are disturbing. They conclude that RUC officers were guilty of wrongful omissions and that those omissions arose both at the scene and during the initial investigation between 27 April 1997 and 7 May 1997. Those omissions included, first, a failure to carry out an initial debriefing, both at the scene and immediately upon return to the police station, with multiple officers finishing their shifts or going on to other duties without recording what had happened. This had a serious and significant impact on the murder investigation, and these omissions were negligent. Secondly, there was a failure to carry out a full debriefing of all officers who had been at the scene once it became clear that Robert Hamill’s injuries were life-threatening. This omission was negligent. Thirdly, there was a wrongful omission by two officers to supply relevant information in relation to an individual they had seen at the scene. This inhibited and obstructed the investigation and was, in the case of one officer, negligent, and in the case of the other, deliberate. The inquiry finds that one RUC officer, Robert Atkinson, is guilty of a wrongful act for making a telephone call to the home of Allister Hanvey, who was present the night of the incident, which resulted in that individual destroying or putting beyond the reach of the police the clothes he had been wearing that night. That deliberately obstructed the investigation. In September and October 1997, Mr Atkinson subsequently conspired to cover up the tip-off telephone call at an important point in the murder investigation. The conspiracy amounted to an obstruction of the murder investigation and was deliberate. That conduct resulted in the conviction of Mr Atkinson in 2024 for conspiring to pervert the course of justice. The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Jon Boutcher, will want to reflect on the report’s findings, and I do not want to pre-empt any comment that he may make. I note that policing and justice are now devolved responsibilities, but these events happened under the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I merely say that it is especially disturbing that Mr Atkinson carried an RUC badge for years when he had so evidently and heinously failed in his duty and acted as a criminal. The report says that there was a “catalogue of failures” by the RUC. It is difficult not to agree. The inquiry was empowered to make recommendations. Although it makes none for the Northern Ireland Office or the Government, I will make a couple of broader points. First, today is a landmark moment, and I am proud to be the Secretary of State who can finally share the report with the House, but it is also a reminder to all of us of the long shadow of the troubles and its deep and lasting effect on the people of Northern Ireland and beyond. We must never forget that many other families still wait and yearn for answers about how their loved ones were killed. My second point is that the peace that was ushered in by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement the year after Robert’s death was an extraordinary achievement. Power sharing is difficult, but we should never take that peace for granted. After all, Robert’s death happened against the background of deep sectarian division. Nobody wants to return to that. That is why, to seek a more harmonious way forward, we must always double down on compromise and rise above our immediate instincts. I thank the current and former chairs of the inquiry, Sir John Evans and the late Sir Edwin Jowitt, the Reverend Baroness Kathleen Richardson and all those who played a part in its delivery, including Paul Murphy—now Lord Murphy—who commissioned the report. I will lay a copy of the report in the Libraries of both Houses, and it will be published in full online. This will be a difficult day for Robert Hamill’s family. He would have been coming up to his 55th birthday in December—he was younger than me. He might have become a grandfather or a great uncle by now, but he was murdered just for being a Catholic. We all pay our heartfelt respects to him and his family. I end by noting one of the final paragraphs of the report: “The murder file is still open and to this day no one has been convicted of causing Robert Hamill’s death.” I commend this statement to the House.

    Hansard source
27. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Robert Hamill Inquiry Report

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whom I should welcome to his post. The first point I want to make is that something like 300 RUC officers were killed in the troubles. I pay tribute to the many thousands of RUC officers who did their jobs diligently in very difficult circumstances and with great courage and dedication to all communities in Northern Ireland. That is why a report such as this is so painful, including for the many RUC officers who formerly served, because they see the reputation of the organisation brought into disrepute by the actions of some. When we read the chapter in the report and all the paragraphs about the investigations, and the failings in them, it is difficult not to put our head in our hands and ask how on earth this could be the case. There were manifest failings. As the hon. Member said, the actions of Robert Atkinson were absolutely despicable, and he has rightly been convicted. When I recently visited the RUC memorial garden in Belfast, I was struck by how there were decades when maybe two or three, or five or six, RUC officers were killed; then there were decades when dozens and dozens were killed. Of course we have to take seriously when there are criticisms of processes and we need to ensure that we get those right. The fact that many of the recommendations for the RUC and the PSNI were made many years ago and have now been implemented is noted. There are not any particular questions or recommendations for the Government to adopt. The hon. Member asked me about the inquiry cost. He is right that the figure was at something like £33 million and a few more since. I feel a bit conflicted, because on the one hand, in the short time that I have been Secretary of State for Northern Ireland I have met so many people who lost loved ones and have no idea what happened, but I have also met people who see the person they believe killed their brother, their husband or their father going to Marks & Spencer or going about their daily business without ever having been interrupted by the legal system at all. They find that phenomenally painful. I do want to get answers for as many people in Northern Ireland as possible. I also do not want to over-promise, because sometimes—there is an irony about this sentence—the truth is complex and nuanced and depends on whose point of view we take. I also note the several points in the report where the inquiry panel points out that it would have been able to do more if more people had been able to provide witness statements, but lots of people did not do so because they felt that they were under threat or they were being cajoled into not doing so. All of that makes it very difficult to get to the truth. This is why I am committed to the troubles Bill, and to making sure that it delivers a legacy commission that is able to get to the truth for as many victims as possible. I often think that one of the things that the Good Friday agreement did was bring an end to the fighting—not immediately, obviously; the hon. Gentleman has referred to the Omagh bombing—but it also meant that lots of people had to try to forget. They were effectively asked to forget what had happened in their own family lives, and they have borne the brunt of that pain for many decades, so the more we can do to provide answers, the better. The hon. Gentleman asked about the Finucane inquiry. He will know that it is starting its processes in earnest this week. Several Governments promised an inquiry, which is why I pay tribute to my predecessor for setting it up. I hope that it will get to the answers. The hon. Gentleman’s final point was about the DPP. The report says that “we have come to the firm view that the process by which the decision was reached to discontinue the prosecution of Res Con Atkinson was riddled with significant flaws. We have reached the clear view that it was not carried out with due diligence.” In fact, subsequent to the interim report, the DPP returned to its original decision to prosecute two people, and that is what led to Mr Atkinson being convicted.

    Hansard source
28. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Robert Hamill Inquiry Report

    First, I warmly commend my right hon. Friend. If I can be as nice, sage, honourable, decent and gentlemanly as he in this role, I will have performed a decent task. He is absolutely right. There is another thing that is absolutely shocking here: there has never been an inquest. In fact, this is the first time that it has been declared that it was murder. That, of itself, is truly shocking. This is not the only case in Northern Ireland where no answers have been provided for individuals. He is absolutely right: the behaviour of Mr Atkinson would shock in a drama, but it is in fact the truth that he deliberately perverted the course of justice. I should say that the inquiry is keen to make the point that deliberate actions are much more blameworthy than casual omissions.

    Hansard source
29. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Robert Hamill Inquiry Report

    I am grateful for the hon. Member’s comments. It is vital that all those in public office exhibit candour. That is as important for police officers as it is for anybody else, as became painfully apparent throughout the process of trying to get justice for those involved in the Hillsborough disaster. That applies equally to the PSNI as it did to the RUC. The hon. Member is right that these are now primarily matters either for the PSNI directly or for the Justice Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, and I am sure that they will want to go through the report with a fine-toothed comb. It is not only that nobody had said until today that this was a murder; nobody had decided on what the cause of death was until today. I urge hon. Members to read the report, because it goes in some detail into precisely what happened, and it makes for very distressing reading.

    Hansard source
30. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Robert Hamill Inquiry Report

    I think everybody wants to condemn sectarianism, but the truth is that it is awfully easy to stir it up, in every society in the world. What is striking in the report is not only some of the terms of abuse that were shouted from one side to the other; a couple of witnesses also referred to the fact that when Robert Hamill’s body was being stretchered into an ambulance, people were shouting, “I hope he dies.” We need to remember the bitterness that sectarianism can instil in people’s hearts, especially when people are gathered in large crowds. Anything that we can do to calm sectarianism is a really important part of my job, and that of all those involved in the politics of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member makes a very fair point about disclosure. We will talk about the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill in a couple of weeks’ time, and that is one of the issues that we will address.

    Hansard source
31. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Robert Hamill Inquiry Report

    Well, that was a slightly partial version of what is in the report. If the hon. Member read the whole report, I think she would come to a rather more settled position. She is absolutely right that, on the first issue that the inquiry was asked to look at—namely, whether the behaviour of the crew in the Land Rover had in some way contributed to the death—the report is absolutely clear that there was no collusion with the attackers. However, there are quite serious criticisms of the way the investigation was pursued, or was not pursued effectively. Of course, there is the additional issue of how Reserve Constable Atkinson behaved and that whole saga. I think it is best to tell the whole of the story, rather than just part of it. I did not answer one of the questions that was asked earlier about the support for the family. I spoke very briefly to Diane over the weekend. Of course, the Northern Ireland Office has been in contact with the family throughout the process. In the end, of course, the most important thing is ensuring that the family get the answers they need.

    Hansard source
32. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Robert Hamill Inquiry Report

    It is often very difficult, including for a well-resourced inquiry, to get to the truth. I will read out another clause of the report: “We are left in no doubt that the decision by so many to have no recollection was by no means always spontaneous but was the result of suggestion, cajolery and in some cases threat. This has added to our difficulties.” The truth is that sometimes sectarianism leads not just to the murder, but to the cover-up. That is why I am very keen to ensure that we do everything we possibly can to diminish that. There is a Purcell anthem that I used to have to sing a lot when I was at school and at university. It includes the line: “Let your moderation be known unto all men”. Perhaps that should be our motto.

    Hansard source
33. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Robert Hamill Inquiry Report

    First, just because nobody has been convicted of murder does not mean that a murder was not committed. Indeed, one of the most painful aspects of all of this is that, clearly, as this report finds for the first time, there was a murder. The cause of death was at least three beatings to the head that Robert Hamill received—possibly two or more being kicks to the head when he was already lying on the ground, and possibly a third from a bottle. It beggars belief that in this country we can all decide that somebody was murdered but nobody ends up facing justice for the murder. I suppose that is one of the pains that arises in many of the cases that we deal with here.

    Hansard source
34. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Robert Hamill Inquiry Report

    Yes, of course I recognise that, and in addition there is the problem that for the families and for all the witnesses and the many other people, such as those who were there that night, there is the anguish of going through that process—through multiple legal processes, judicial reviews, considerations of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the original report by Justice Cory and then the eventual launching of the inquiry. All of that of course has an emotional cost as well as a financial cost. I do not want to set the financial cost aside; that is of course a consideration for Government, especially at a difficult time fiscally. But in the end we want to get as many answers as possible for people. I say this as much for the families of the 300 or so RUC officers, or the 1,100 members of the security services who were killed in Northern Ireland, and the families who were killed in whatever set of circumstances in Northern Ireland. That is why I want to make sure that the legacy commission really is able to do the job that we are setting it up to do, and that is why it is important that the troubles Bill goes through its passage. I would just say one other thing. It is one thing for us in the British Government to be candid; I think it is also important that the Irish Government be candid. That is why it is such an important part of the process that we are undergoing with the troubles Bill that when I have spoken to my opposite numbers in Dublin, Helen McEntee and Jim O’Callaghan, they have been very keen to say that they want to make sure that their necessary legislation, which enables them to participate in the process of providing answers for people and giving information, happens in lockstep with ours so that they will be implemented at the same time. If we can get the two Governments working together to provide answers, there will be many more families who will have—I hate the word “closure”, but they will at least reach a point when they are able to understand that this moment is done.

    Hansard source
35. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Catherine Fookes

    Speciality Steel UK

    I thank the Secretary of State for his support for domestic steelmaking. People do not often think of Monmouthshire as a steelmaking community, but we have excellent downstream steelmaking companies and hundreds of workers going every day to Llanwern, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). Will the Secretary of State share what the Government are doing to support downstream steel and to ensure that we are buying more Welsh steel in all UK projects and construction that are undertaken?

    Hansard source
36. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Cat Smith

    Select Committee Chairs: Period of Leave

    On behalf of the Procedure Committee, I thank the Leader of the House for bringing forward these motions. I never had any doubt that he would be a radical and reforming Leader of the House, and the motions are evidence of that radical reforming nature that he has always had in him, which I am pleased to see. The Procedure Committee has corresponded frequently with the Modernisation Committee. On 4 March my Committee expressed—the Leader of the House’s Committee published this—its wholehearted support for the acting Select Committee Chair role, and on 25 March we supported the motions for virtual participation. The motions reflect the nature of us being a modern and welcoming workplace where MPs’ participation is supported, regardless of our health status—or, perhaps, parental leave—as such things, which can happen to any one of us, should not bar us from participating and representing our constituents’ views in this place. The measures come from a line of reforms, including proxy voting, which ensure that we are that radical and reforming Parliament that will be welcoming to anyone, regardless of their family set-up. My view is that the priority will always be for members to attend Committees in person. As a Committee Chair, I can speak to how much easier it is to chair a meeting when members are in the room rather than all on screens. Does the Leader of the House foresee us having a thorough and timely review of these schemes in time to assess whether they could be made permanent and whether reforms may need to be made to them at that stage? I welcome the motions and hope that the House will choose to support them.

    Hansard source
37. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Cat Eccles

    Speciality Steel UK

    I thank the Secretary of State for his positive announcement. Downstream businesses in Stourbridge, Brierley Hill and Netherton used to source many items from Speciality Steel UK. I spent a lot of time working with it and the Department and Ministers to update product codes ahead of the tariff that Spain introduced. I am grateful for their engagement during that time. I understand that the upscaling of production will take time, but will he commit to continuing to work with the industry as the products come back online in the UK, so that none of the businesses in my constituency or elsewhere in the country are unfairly penalised?

    Hansard source
38. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Callum Anderson

    Curriculum and Assessment Review

    An important feature of the curriculum and assessment review was the recognition of and the commitment to strengthening financial literacy as a vital life skill for young people. To ensure we can deliver on that ambition, participating in the OECD’s PISA financial literacy assessment will help us to both measure our progress and identify gaps in that progress. Can the Secretary of State set out what assessment she has made of the merits of UK participation in 2029, and will she meet me to discuss it?

    Hansard source
39. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Brian Leishman

    Sovereign Grant Bill

    My sense of patriotism does not come from a flag, an anthem or the royal family. Instead, my patriotism comes from things like our national health service; movements such as that of the Levellers, who were committed to popular sovereignty, extended suffrage, equality and religious tolerance; and how Britain stood up to and defeated the evil of fascism, both abroad during the second world war and at home in places like Cable Street, where Jewish residents, Irish dockers, trade unionists, socialists and others united to stop the British Union of Fascists movement from marching through Jewish neighbourhoods. That is the sort of patriotism I love. I have the utmost respect for any citizen who believes that the royal family is a fundamental part of British life. I have no issues with that opinion; people are entitled to it, but it is simply not one that I share. There were many reasons why I joined the Labour party. One was to change—

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

    Sovereign Grant Bill

    I will just put a red pen—a very dark red pen, obviously—through some of the comments that I wished to make. I will accelerate my remarks. It is clear that we are a nation of persistent inequality. I fully appreciate that the role of the royal family is way down the list of pressing issues that my Government have to deal with, but when looking at the intense suffering that millions of people are experiencing, I cannot help but feel that the sovereign grant money could and should be directed elsewhere, and not to a family worth an estimated £21 billion.

    Hansard source