Project Spire
10. Whether the Church of England plans to proceed with Project Spire.
What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
10. Whether the Church of England plans to proceed with Project Spire.
Around the country, particularly in Mid Bedfordshire, parish churches are struggling to find the funds to save their historic buildings. Do the Church Commissioners not believe that the time, money and energy spent examining and absolving the Church’s historic transgressions could have been better spent bringing hope and belonging to future generations and saving our historic churches?
As the Secretary of State will be aware, we are still awaiting a local government reorganisation decision in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. To that extent, as I laid out in my Westminster Hall debate on Monday, I very much back a Huntingdonshire unitary authority, because of the opportunities for growth it will afford the region, including the delivery of the Ministry of Defence’s Project Fairfax, which I had the opportunity to discuss with her Housing Minister earlier this year. Before she makes her final decision, could I invite her to speak to Huntingdonshire district council to clarify any of the decisions about which her predecessor required clarification before he could make a decision? Will she also assure my constituents that the area involved in any such decision will be coterminous with the current district authority boundaries, so that we do not lose any more time in disaggregating functions, because we have already lost two months ahead of the elections next May?
I share a love of poetry with my dad, which is why I was delighted to host an event yesterday to spread the word about a free initiative that he is involved in, and I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for dropping in. Poetry Together brings children and older people together to perform and share poetry. At a time when loneliness and social isolation affects people across generations, simple initiatives such as that can give people of different ages a reason to meet, talk and form connections that might otherwise never happen. With World Poetry Day just a few weeks away, may we have a debate on the role of intergenerational projects in tackling loneliness? May I also encourage the Leader of the House and Members across the House to get schools and older people’s groups across their constituencies involved in the initiative?
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if she will make a statement on the future of the Jackdaw and Rosebank oil fields following the closure of the public consultation.
I do not think the Conservative party will take any lectures from Labour on records in the north-east of Scotland, given the result in Aberdeen South only a few months ago, but I would like to thank the Minister for warmly welcoming me to my new position. The public consultation on Rosebank and Jackdaw has now closed, so the Department can no longer hide behind process, delay or consultation exercises. It has dithered, prevaricated and delayed for far too long. Industry and workers in and around Aberdeen, and indeed across the United Kingdom, need an answer now. We have a new Prime Minister and a new Secretary of State, so how about a new direction? That is what our oil and gas industry needs. That is what the thousands of workers in it, who do not know what lies ahead of them, need. I have a simple question for the Minister: will the Government finally approve Rosebank and Jackdaw—something we already did in government—or will they continue the previous Secretary of State’s campaign against Britain’s North sea oil and gas industry? It was the previous Secretary of State who refused to appeal the ruling against the decision over two years ago, the previous Secretary of State who refused to fast-track the consultation process, and the previous Secretary of State who refused to act in the national interest. This goes beyond Jackdaw and Rosebank alone; it is about whether Great Britain chooses to produce its own energy or become ever more dependent on imports from overseas—dirtier and more expensive foreign imports. Where does the Minister want the energy that we need to come from if the Government do not get on and approve Rosebank and Jackdaw? The question today is a simple one, but the answer could be transformative—for the North sea industry, for the north-east of Scotland and for the United Kingdom’s economic and energy security. When will the Government approve Jackdaw and Rosebank?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate. Like her, I am passionate about local government. I find myself in Cornwall corner here today, but I am proud to be a Member from Norfolk. I stood for Norfolk county council way back in 2009 and lost in a bad year for my party. I stood again in 2013 and lost by a single vote, though I was delighted to be elected in a by-election six weeks later. I served on the county council for 13 years and only resigned when I was elected as an MP. It gave me a real understanding of the complexity and difficulty involved in delivering services across a wide geographical area such as Norfolk. The London borough of Islington is the smallest upper-tier authority in the country, with statistics not dissimilar to other urban upper-tier councils. It has a population of about 223,000 people, covers less than 6 square miles and has a population density of 15,000 people per square kilometre. By contrast, Norfolk, where my constituency is located, is home to 940,000 people—nearly four times as many—but covers more than 2,000 square miles and has a population density of 175 people per square kilometre. On top of that, the median age in Islington is 33, while in Norfolk it is 10 years higher. That is because—I am slightly in danger here—Norfolk is of course the most beautiful county in the country and many people rightly choose to retire there. However, that puts an additional strain on public services, and it means that the proportion of the population who are of working age and contributing tax is lower. When that is combined with years of underfunding by the previous Conservative Government, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire mentioned, rural residents inevitably pay more for services out of lower than average wages. As is the case for several rural upper-tier authorities, Norfolk faces higher costs to provide services across its dispersed population. This disparity causes many challenges and weakens our potential for economic growth, and that is the key point I want to get across to the Minister. Rural upper-tier authorities often do not have the funds available to invest in the services that would drive economic growth. There is limited investment available, for example, for rural infrastructure, transport, housing, skills and broadband. If the Government want to see rural communities contribute more to national economic growth in every postcode, as I believe they do, they need to recognise that funding local councils would be a good place to start. I therefore ask the Minister to consider three particular measures. First, future local government settlements need to include much stronger and more transparent rural sparsity components, taking account of not just population but road mileage, travel times, population age and the number of communities a council has to serve.
I understand the Devon road network, which is similar to Norfolk’s—Norfolk and Devon’s councils were paired—and there are obvious challenges with it. I am sure the Minister heard the hon. Gentleman’s point about local government reorganisation, but I will not comment on it. I can barely understand Norfolk’s proposals, let alone Devon’s. As I was saying, road mileage, travel times, population age and the number of communities that a council serves are all crucial. There are 72 villages and three market towns in my constituency; they are all different, with unique challenges but also unique opportunities. Secondly, the Government need to do more around the special educational needs and disabilities crisis. I appreciate that SEND is somewhat outside the Minister’s brief, but it is a crucial issue for councils like Norfolk’s that are trying to meet the growing cost of SEND while delivering other services. Thirdly—this is more Norfolk-specific—there needs to be sufficient funding for the reorganisation of Norfolk’s local government structures. The objective should be to ensure that the money spent on creating new authorities does not come at the expense of the services that existing authorities currently provide. I am a huge supporter of devolution and local government reorganisation in Norfolk, but it is expensive and time-consuming and, frankly, councils already have enough to worry about at the moment.
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Plant Health, Seeds, Seed Potatoes and Plant Propagating Material (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. This draft instrument was laid before the House on 22 June. It applies to Northern Ireland only and was developed in close collaboration with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. It is a necessary measure to update Northern Ireland’s domestic legislation and enforcement provisions relating to plant health, ensuring the continued protection of Northern Ireland’s biosecurity and fulfilment of the Windsor framework obligations. As Members will be aware, under the terms of the Windsor framework, limited parts of European Union law falling under annex 2 of the framework continue to apply to Northern Ireland. They include the movement of goods, agrifood standards and animal and plant health. The draft instrument makes no changes to the Windsor framework. It amends six pieces of Northern Ireland legislation covering plant health, seeds, seed potatoes and plant propagating material. The amendments are technical in nature and ensure that Northern Ireland’s domestic legislation remains clear, operable and aligned with requirements that already apply there under the Windsor agreement and framework. These legislative frameworks govern matters such as plant varieties, documentation requirements, traceability and plant health quality standards for fruit, vegetables, propagating material, forest reproductive materials and seed potatoes. They help to protect growers, traders and consumers by setting standards for products placed on the market and by ensuring that plant material can be traced and verified. The draft instrument updates outdated references throughout the legislation, including references related to Northern Ireland, Great Britain and EU member states, following the UK’s exit from the European Union. It also reflects relevant EU plant health legislation that is already directly applicable to Northern Ireland, including provisions related to regulated pests, diseases and reporting requirements. The draft instrument also strengthens the domestic enforcement framework by ensuring that DAERA has clear powers to take proportionate action where plant health requirements are not met. While the requirements already apply to Northern Ireland, the draft instrument ensures that they can be fully enforced where necessary, including through penalties and prosecution in cases of serious non-compliance. That is important in protecting Northern Ireland’s biosecurity and maintaining a level playing field for businesses that comply with the rules. Members will be aware that the Windsor framework restored the movement of seed potatoes from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, supporting growers and businesses across the sector. The draft instrument helps the legislative framework governing seed potatoes, alongside the other plant health controls, to remain effective and enforceable. Importantly, the draft instrument does not introduce new requirements for businesses. It ensures that domestic legislation accurately reflects arrangements that are already in operation and supports Northern Ireland’s high standards of plant health and biosecurity. No formal public consultation was undertaken on the draft instrument because it introduces no new policy requirements. However, DAERA and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have engaged extensively with stakeholders on the wider plant health arrangements operating under the Windsor framework. I emphasise that it is essential that the amendments in the draft instrument update the Northern Ireland statute book and enable effective compliance with plant health requirements to uphold our commitment to full and faithful implementation of the Windsor framework. The draft instrument does not alter the Windsor framework, nor does it introduce new policy requirements. Its purpose is to ensure that Northern Ireland’s domestic legislation remains accurate, operable and capable of enforcing requirements that already apply. This is a technical but important measure. It updates Northern Ireland’s statute book, strengthens biosecurity protections, supports effective enforcement and introduces no new requirements for businesses. I therefore commend the regulations to the House.
I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution and his constructive engagement on these matters, and all Members who have shared their insights and views. The shadow Minister noted that there has been no public consultation on this instrument because there is no legal duty to do so. However, DAERA has worked closely with DEFRA to engage with relevant stakeholders on the wider plant health requirements under the Windsor framework, including through the relevant working groups and, I can assure him, through engagement with the Ulster Farmers Union. There is ongoing engagement with relevant stakeholders, and strong relationships are in place. The shadow Minister asked about the impact on trade. I assure all Members that the instrument introduces no new requirements for traders and will not have any impact on trade.
I will make some progress. A number of Members made broader points about constitutional matters. I appreciate the strength of feeling on the wider constitutional issues, but I assure all Members that the instrument respects Northern Ireland’s integral position as part of the United Kingdom. It is a UK-made and UK-scrutinised piece of legislation, operating within the scope of the UK’s international commitment to introducing and applying domestic legislation to Northern Ireland. It upholds the UK Government’s commitment to implementing the Windsor framework. The Windsor framework is the legal framework currently in force, and this instrument operates within it. That is a clear improvement on the Northern Ireland protocol and the best workable solution to Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances in the long term. Let me turn back to the specifics of the statutory instrument. It serves only to update Northern Ireland’s plant health legislation to ensure that it is clear, operable and accurate. That not only gives clarity to DAERA in the vital roles that it delivers in protecting Northern Ireland’s biosecurity, but gives clarity and stability to Northern Ireland stakeholders, ensuring that all parties play their part in doing what is necessary to maintain plant health in Northern Ireland. By ensuring that the requirements of this instrument are correct and clear, we ensure that there are no legislative gaps or room for confusion in dealing with the complex plant health environment, thus contributing to safeguarding Northern Ireland’s trade and economic success in the agri-food, horticultural and forestry and woodland sectors. The instrument will ensure that the United Kingdom meets its international obligations under the Windsor framework, and will serve to ensure that high biosecurity standards for Northern Ireland are observed for years to come. I commend the regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Plant Health, Seeds, Seed Potatoes and Plant Propagating Material (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026.
A stronger Wales in a stronger United Kingdom—that will be my driving principle as Secretary of State for Wales, building on the outstanding work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff East (Jo Stevens). Just last week, the Prime Minister and I saw the strength of our Union in action on a visit to Port Talbot, where the UK Government have invested nearly £700 million to secure the future of Welsh steel, protect jobs and re-industrialise Wales.
I thank the hon. Gentleman and agree with him that being part of our United Kingdom is of tremendous benefit to Wales. Just look at the investment that the UK Government have been putting in. I mentioned steel, but there has also been £2.5 billion for the Wylfa nuclear project and £500 million through the local growth fund—the list goes on and on. I absolutely agree with his assessment that it is about building a stronger Wales in a stronger United Kingdom.
We are tremendously proud of our Welsh language. I am certainly signing up to improve mine—from what I am embarrassed to admit is a relatively low base. I enjoy learning languages, so I will be doing that. Generally speaking, we need to ensure that the trend towards Welsh medium and Welsh language across our education system continues, and that those who are committed to the diversity of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks also commit to learning the Welsh language.
Cardiff airport plays a crucial role in connecting our United Kingdom. We of course want the maximum number of flight routes between Cardiff and the rest of the UK. Loganair, as a commercial operator, makes decisions on the basis of the commercial realities it is facing. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me with any ideas he has about how we might get back to the table on the issue, I would be happy to engage on that basis.
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of learning lessons and seizing opportunities. Over the past six weeks, the Prime Minister has shown real leadership, introducing practical changes that will benefit people’s lives, such as the £2 bus cap in England. Of course, it will be up to the Welsh Government to come to a conclusion on whether they too might introduce such a measure, but I am hopeful that both Governments will learn from each other about how best to improve the lives of the people we serve.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. Like him, I pay tribute to all those involved in the collective and heroic response to the wildfires. I can confirm that the South Wales fire and rescue service submitted a military aid to the civil authorities request for consideration, which was immediately endorsed by both the Welsh Government and the Wales Office—by myself—and authorised by the Ministry of Defence. Although matters relating to agriculture and the fire and rescue services are devolved in Wales, we are committed to working with the Welsh Government to strengthen resilience against wildfires and to provide assistance to those affected.
I think it is fair to say that Plaid Cymru Ministers are still finding their feet. I am hugely proud of what our new Labour Prime Minister has achieved for Wales in his first six weeks—it really shows what a leader can do when they roll up their sleeves, listen to our people and communities, and deliver on their priorities. The Prime Minister’s visit to Wales and his commitment to reindustrialising our communities comes after a summer of announcements that will benefit communities across Wales—real action delivering for people right here and now.
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for her kind words and look forward to our exchanges across the Dispatch Box. I am ready to engage with her on getting the maximum benefits for the people of Wales. We respect the devolution settlement; it is very important that we keep that at the forefront of our minds to ensure that decisions on health that affect the people of Wales are taken by the Welsh Government. As I said earlier, I think there are real opportunities for all Governments across the UK to learn from each other, and I hope that our colleagues in the Welsh Government will look at the success we are having in bringing down waiting lists and improving the performance and delivery of general practice in England, and will perhaps follow suit in Wales.
Just to be clear, this is not about staying out of the issue; it is about respecting the devolution settlement, but being prepared to work constructively where we can in partnership with the Welsh Government. The hon. Lady will be aware that health is devolved and, as such, Welsh Government Ministers have powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 to initiate statutory inquiries into devolved areas. Given the clear lines of responsibility and accountability between the Welsh Government and the devolved health service in Wales, I do not feel it would be appropriate for the UK Government to intervene in this matter.
Cross-border healthcare is a really important issue. We need to find a better way of working together in partnership with the Welsh Government. It is about drilling down into specific cases where people have not been given the treatment that they should get at the speed at which they should get it. It is also about clearing some of the red tape and bureaucracy that exists between the two Governments and doing the hard yards of Government working with the Welsh Health Ministers and ourselves to get this issue resolved.
I thank the right hon. Lady and look forward to working with her. My understanding is that there were challenges around the helicopter capability. Decisions were taken by Natural Resources Wales some time ago to change the way that the tendering for helicopter capability works. We certainly need to look at that. I hope that she welcomes the fact that when the Welsh Government and fire services put in a request for military aid to the civil authorities, I myself turned around that request within an hour. I think that shows “Team Wales”—the partnership between the Ministry of Defence and the Welsh authorities to get on top of these deeply troubling situations.
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. Many of the ideas coming forward for devolving power right across our United Kingdom, beyond Cardiff Bay and Holyrood, are very exciting, and I look forward to exploring them with her. With regard to policing, the Prime Minister and I have been very clear that we will engage on the future of devolution, including deepening devolution into communities across all corners of Wales. On policing specifically, our focus has been, and will continue to be, on cutting crime. Our priority will always be ensuring the safety and security of the people of Wales. What matters is what works.
Tackling child poverty is an essential investment in the future of our children and our country. That is why we announced the child poverty strategy, including the removal of the two-child limit, which will benefit nearly 70,000 children in Wales. Alongside that, 320,000 families in Wales will see the first ever sustained real-terms increase in the universal credit standard allowance.
I agree with my hon. Friend that co-operation between the UK and Welsh Governments is essential for addressing child poverty in Wales. The UK Government worked closely with the previous Welsh Labour Government on the design of the child poverty strategy, which will lift 550,000 children out of poverty across the UK by 2030, delivering the largest expected reduction in child poverty since records began.
I absolutely agree with the sentiment of the hon. Member’s question. Let us look at what the Welsh Labour Government delivered: breakfast clubs offering free, healthy breakfasts for children in primary schools; baby bundles; more than 50 million meals served since the introduction of universal primary free school meals; an expanded childcare offer; free prescriptions; and hospital parking to help with family finances. That is the difference a Labour Government make.
Frankly, I am staggered that the hon. Lady raises the issue of welfare, given the explosion of the welfare bill under the watch of the Conservative party. When it comes to working with the Plaid Cymru Government, I agree that there seem to be a lot of reviews, commissions, reports and committees. It is important that the Plaid Government now roll up their sleeves and get on with the job. We look forward to working constructively in partnership with them and delivering for the people and communities of Wales.
I recognise the connectivity benefits of transport. The overall cross-border connectivity that has been announced relates to the £14 billion that we are going to invest in rail in Wales, with £455 million secured at the spending review. This plan will transform connectivity across Wales, and between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom.
I know about and welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s strong connections to Wales. I recognise the connectivity benefits that WSMR’s proposal could deliver, particularly for passengers in Wales and the west midlands. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Transport has provided conditional support for the application, subject to the Office of Rail and Road and Network Rail being satisfied that services can be accommodated without compromising network performance or affecting the rights of other operators. I will certainly join him in making the case for that compelling project.
I thank my right hon. Friend and pay tribute to her as the first female Labour Secretary of State for Wales. Wales is better off as a result of her work on rail, nuclear, steel and more. I recognise the central importance of the Cardiff Parkway project, which could unlock up to 6,000 jobs. I will do all that I can, working with the Welsh Government and private investors, to progress the delivery of that important project at pace.
It is a real pleasure to see this Bill back on the Floor of the House. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon) for her work on the Bill—it was a pleasure to serve with her in Committee—and I congratulate the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), on her appointment. As was acknowledged on Second Reading, there are significant concerns about the potential for cryptocurrency donations to undermine the integrity of our politics. These concerns were raised by many Government Members in Committee too, and we were reassured that amendments would be brought in at this stage. These concerns are not least because it can be difficult to determine the true source of the funds. During the Bill’s earlier stages, the Government committed to incorporating the findings of Sir Philip Rycroft’s review and ensuring that the recommendations were reflected in the legislation. I welcome the fact that Ministers took the time to do that, leading to Government new clause 72. This new clause would prohibit UK-registered political parties from accepting donations made in cryptoassets. Any donation made wholly or partially in cryptoassets would automatically be treated as coming from an impermissible donor, and therefore could not be accepted. The Government are proposing that parties take reasonable steps to identify anyone attempting to make a cryptoasset donation and, where such donations are received, to return them or otherwise dispose of them in accordance with the existing rules governing prohibited donations. New clause 72 also introduces a statutory definition of “cryptoasset” and gives the Secretary of State the power to update the definition through regulations. This is a sensible and proportionate measure. Since the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 was passed at the start of the century, the financial landscape has changed considerably, most notably through the growth of cryptocurrencies. This has created new challenges for regulators, law enforcement agencies and those responsible for maintaining public confidence in democratic institutions. After listening to many colleagues today, I think that some concerns remain unaddressed, so I hope that the Minister will address those that have been raised and close all the loopholes that have been mentioned. Government new clause 116 would introduce an annual cap of £100,000 on political donations and certain regulated transactions from overseas contributors. The cap would apply to individuals registered as overseas electors and certain individuals who are on the UK electoral register but have spent time living outside the United Kingdom. It is, of course, welcome that British citizens living abroad for more than 15 years have since 2022 been entitled to vote in UK elections once again. However, as Philip Rycroft noted in his review, while British citizens living overseas can legitimately participate in UK democracy and make political donations, donations from overseas electors present additional risks that need to be managed. We have heard numerous concerns in this debate, and I hope that Ministers will look again into those concerns and address the loopholes.
Public faith in our democratic system has been steadily eroded. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) provided some statistics on public opinion, and I will provide a few more. More than half of the public believe that politicians almost always lie, while only one in eight believe that we put the national interest above party advantage. That level of disillusionment did not emerge overnight. Broken promises, diminished opportunity and a growing distance from decision makers have left many people feeling unheard. Money and politics have deepened that divide and fuelled the perception that access to power is available to those who can afford it, creating a suspicion that influence can be bought rather than earned. This is no longer simply a question of public confidence; it is a question of democratic resilience. Hostile states and malign actors seek to weaken institutions and corrode trust. Disinformation poisons debate, blurs the line between fact and fiction, and encourages citizens to doubt what they see and hear. Every loophole in our political finance system is a potential point of entry for those who wish our democracy harm. Questions are also raised when voters see Members earning substantial sums from outside interests: public duty traded for private gain. Taken together, these issues foster a growing belief that politics is something done to people rather than with or for them. That belief has consequences. Where trust weakens, democracy weakens; where democracy weakens, those who seek to exploit division find opportunity. I welcome the measures in the Bill that seek to address much of the public concern around many of these issues, but rebuilding democratic legitimacy requires more than just tightening a few rules. It requires us to ask deep questions about whether our institutions still deliver the representation and accountability that people expect, and whether, if so many no longer trust the system, the system itself needs to change. For that reason, I hope that the Government will reconsider and commit to establishing a commission on electoral reform, not to pursue a predetermined outcome but to ask whether our political system is working as well as it should, whether it remains capable of rebuilding public confidence and whether it is worthy of the trust that is placed in it. The cure for public disillusionment is not less democracy; it is better democracy. The answer to distrust is not disengagement; it is accountability. The answer to frustration is not to retreat; it is to reform. That is not optional; it is necessary and urgent, and I urge the Minister to take that into consideration.
I congratulate the Prime Minister on his first Prime Minister’s questions; this is my first Prime Minister’s question too. I want to declare an interest: I chair the all-party parliamentary group on sexual and reproductive health in the UK. The campaign for lifelong sex education that I launched with Cindy Gallop has received a tremendous response and support from many, including professionals in occupational health, medicine, nursing, public health and academia, the National Education Union and the police. I have discovered that the shame, guilt and embarrassment around talking about sex—and body parts like penis and vagina—are even leading to late diagnoses of health conditions including illnesses such as cancer for many people in my South Derbyshire constituency and across the country. I have discussed that with the Eve Appeal and with my constituent Louise Clarke, a GP who specialises in cancer of the vulva; they are really great for my campaign. As September is Gynaecological Cancer Awareness Month, and as the summer of sex comes to a close, will the Prime Minister agree to meet me to talk about the campaign?
I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) to her place. She has taken on an immensely challenging role, but one that I am sure will bring her great joy. It is often said that a week is a long time in politics, and a year has been an extremely long time for this Bill. The evidence of that is the hefty number of amendments that have been tabled; as each political event moves on and people fall on their swords, more amendments come forward. I know that it has been of real interest to Members across the House, as well as many civil society organisations, that the Bill should be crafted to respond to events as they happen. I pay tribute to the Bill team, who have responded incredibly well to the number of amendments that have been tabled and the legislative challenge that the Bill represents. The Bill removes barriers to voting that were put in the way of electors. It protects our democracy, as my hon. Friend the Minister described, and there are extremely important measures on votes at 16, as well as on automatic voter registration and the powers that will be taken to pilot it, so that we can find those lost voters who fall out of our electoral system and bring them back into democratic engagement. Committee stage was lively, and I certainly enjoyed it. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes)—I think we struck something of an accord. I have to refer him back to one particular point in Committee when he said, “We have a groundbreaking piece of legislation—I am sure when we get to Report stage, the Minister will now say in the Chamber, ‘the shadow Minister said this is groundbreaking legislation’. It has its bad points and very good points, but I accept that it is groundbreaking”.––[Official Report, Representation of the People Public Bill Committee, 16 April 2026; c. 393.] Now, neither he nor I are the Minister or the shadow Minister, but I think we agreed on that point, and I thank him for the spirit in which he and other members of the Committee conducted themselves. What we have to remember is that any political party, candidate or elected representative who abides by the rules that this legislation sets will be able to flourish in our political system, and those who do not can expect to be held very firmly to account. The only point on which I agree with the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam)—who I welcome to her place—is in urging my Labour colleagues to continue working constructively with other political parties. It is not the case that we as a Government have not engaged on this legislation. We have been at great pains to do so, and I urge her to continue to engage not only as the Bill progresses through this House and the other place, but as we go through the secondary legislation that falls from it. My final point is about the Rycroft review. The final recommendation from Philip Rycroft’s review concerned the organisation of the civil service in response to democracy and elections. He suggested that a permanent secretary be appointed to look after democracy and elections. We have just had the statement from the First Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), about rewiring public services and government. It often felt to me that many of the areas that this legislation covers do not fall just within the remit of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government; they fall within the remit of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Cabinet Office and even the Home Office. I urge the Secretary of State to consider all these things in the round and whether a more strategic Government position could be found in taking this legislation forward. There is sometimes a tension between the powers of the MHCLG and the powers of other Departments. I am sure that that will be debated this afternoon. It was an enormous privilege to take this Bill through Second Reading and Committee, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for bringing the Bill back in such a timely way on Report.
Q8. I am delighted that North Somerset is finally getting two fantastic new stations at Pill and Portishead with the reopening of the railway line, but—and I hate to sound greedy—with Bristol airport’s potential expansion on the horizon, it risks becoming one of the worst-connected major airports in the country. Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that now we need a proper mass transit system for North Somerset and the west of England combined authority, linking Felton, the new Woodspring development, Long Ashton and the wider economic area?
3. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help reduce child poverty in Wales.
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place and wish him well in his new job. As he will be aware, the Welsh Affairs Committee has launched an inquiry into child poverty in Wales, which stands stubbornly high at 31%. With a new minority Government elected in Cardiff Bay and many of the levers relating to child poverty split between the UK and Welsh Governments, what conversations has he had with Senedd Ministers regarding ending child poverty in Wales?
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on her appointment as the Minister for Democracy. I thank her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), for the work that she and the brilliant officials in the Department did on this very important Bill, and I thank the Minister for tabling the Government amendments. I had the privilege of serving as her predecessor’s predecessor and working on the strategy that formed this important Bill. This is a significant piece of legislation, and the proposal to bring forward votes at 16 is important, radical and necessary. It is right that we give young people the right to vote when they can participate in other areas of life, and when they get the vote, political parties will absolutely pay much greater attention to their interests. I would like to see whether those who oppose this particular change go and canvass for the votes of 16 and 17-year-olds when they have the vote. We certainly will, because we believe that it is important to encourage participation from an early age. This Bill introduces important changes to tackle harassment and intimidation and to move towards automated voting, and it picks up on the important findings from the Rycroft review. This significant piece of legislation has been improved as it has gone through its different stages, and today marks another opportunity for my hon. Friend the new Minister to take on board some of the suggestions that have been made in the form of the amendments. I express my support for new clause 34, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), which would beef up our resistance to cryptoassets flooding our political system. I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurances that we are moving in the right direction, but we need to go further, as the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee also pointed out. For reasons that are well documented, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill has said, the Bill must include digital tokens and meme coins accepted into crypto-wallets, as defined by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. My right hon. Friend has done a huge amount of work and provided an analysis to warn about the dangers of cryptoassets being used to drench our democracy with malign messages, fuelling populist hate and misinformation. We are seeing that play out in our streets and our communities at the moment. I do not think that I am allowed to make a plug for his excellent book on populism, but he has outlined that £200 million has already been spent in the UK on promoting division and undermining our democracy. That is terrifying. We need to put a stop to it, and that is why this Bill needs to go further. Nothing less than a full ban on crypto donations will do, and I hope that Ministers consider doing this now rather than coming back later. I have seen the ability of the enormously talented group of civil servants to move at pace in amending legislation and being more and more ambitious over time in making this Bill much more significant—from the time I started working on it to the end of the period when the strategy was published and subsequently. Where there is a will, there will be a way. In the interests of moving away from the incremental changes to which the new Prime Minister has committed, I hope that we can get this done in one go. I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to be bold and to get this done now. Furthermore, I support new clauses 41, 47, 82 and 83, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), which seek to tackle online harms and online hate in the context of elections and deepfakes, especially videos purporting to depict politicians and candidates. This has become more and more dangerous and serious. In the 2024 election, only a handful of candidates were depicted in AI-driven deepfake images, which were already presenting disinformation and causing damage to candidates’ election chances. Now, these have become more and more sophisticated, more and more problematic and, at worst, damaging and dangerous. It means that the elector often cannot see the distinction between a real image of a candidate and a deepfake-created image. Now—don’t get me wrong—I have seen some of those deepfakes, and some of them are quite entertaining. The problem is that the ones that are filled with poison and hate can do deep damage to the reputation of candidates. That is very damaging and is moving very fast. When citizens look at such material, we are asking a lot of them. We are asking them to make a distinction between what is real and what is fake in the context of social media, which is heavily funded with billions of pounds by tech companies. Ordinary citizens have to compete with that, and it is not feasible. That is why it is really important that we make those changes. As I have said, when I worked on the election strategy that was the foundation for this Bill, it was challenging to get the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to do more. I therefore hope that those Ministers can work with my hon. Friend the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith and her Department to include the changes that are needed in the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central, so that we can get this done in one go, rather than waste time while damage is done at the speed of lightning in the form of deepfake and disinformation spreading, which is infecting our democracy and forcing candidates and elected representatives out of politics. Increasingly, too many Members of Parliament, candidates who did not make it here and those in local government and other areas of public life are asking: how is it going to be at the next election? As well as trying to keep ourselves safe, how do we protect our reputations when lies are spreading at breakneck speed? What is the point, and how do we protect our families when these lies are being spread online? How do we compete with that as candidates? How do we protect our protected characteristics? People of colour and people from minority faiths are particularly targeted, and women—female candidates—are being subjected to a scale of misogyny and hatred using deepfake and disinformation on a scale and at a level that I never thought I would see in my lifetime.
I rise to speak to my new clause 22, to stop oil and gas companies donating to political parties. The context is the extreme heat; there were tens of thousands of heat-related deaths in Europe alone this summer, as well as dangerous wildfires and the droughts. All these things give us a terrifying glimpse of what climate breakdown means, and they underline just how dangerous it is to deny climate breakdown or delay the action needed to tackle it. The reality is that climate breakdown will shape our country for decades. It will affect food prices, whether people can live and work safely, and the functioning of key public services, as well as our economic and national security. We must do all we can to tackle climate change and protect people from its increasingly severe impacts. However, if we are to have a fighting chance of preventing the worst of climate change, we need to rapidly cut fossil fuel use. That will mean breaking the vast power that oil and gas companies have over our politics. That is where my new clause 22 comes in. Fossil fuel giants have not only driven us towards climate disaster, but have done so knowing the consequences. They did their best to cover up the science, and used their vast wealth and power to distract, and to delay action, so that they could keep raking in obscene levels of profits—profits that have soared even higher in recent years, while people have been hit with horrendously high bills. The principle of my new clause is clear: those profiting from and helping to drive this crisis should not be using their wealth to pollute our politics, spread misinformation and delay the action needed. It would put a stop to any donations from oil and gas companies to political parties and candidates at elections. Of course, the problem goes way beyond direct donations, but my new clause can be part of the action needed to break the link between fossil fuel wealth and the influence it seeks to exert on our politics. For example, research by the environmental investigations group DeSmog and The Guardian found that when the previous Conservative Government were considering new North sea fossil fuel licences, the Conservative party received more than £400,000 in one year alone in donations from individuals and companies linked to the oil and gas industries. That was part of what DeSmog estimated was the over £2 million donated to the Conservative party by fossil fuel interests between the 2019 and 2024 general elections. DeSmog research has also highlighted what it describes as Reform links to oil and gas interests. Beyond party donations, there is a complex web of fossil fuel interests, climate deniers, donors, so-called think-tanks and other organisations seeking to shape our politics, and no doubt they were delighted with the Conservative party’s shift against climate action in recent years. Those interests, as we have seen, have had huge success in shaping US politics. We need to avoid there ever being that scale of influence here. For decades, across the globe, oil and gas money has sought to buy influence to help delay the action that we desperately need. My new clause 22 is one step towards ending that, and I thank the cross-party group of MPs who have backed it. I hope that we can continue to work together to stop fossil fuel money polluting our politics. The decisions we take on climate action should be driven by the public interest, not fossil fuel interests.
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments about restricting donations. She has talked about loopholes and the new powers that the commission will have. One loophole I am concerned about is that around donations to candidates, the definition of “candidate”, and how that interacts with other parts of the legal framework. Will she share her thoughts on any progress that the Government are making on that loophole, and say whether there is a chance for it to be considered further?