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. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Caroline Voaden

   Local Government Reorganisation

   From the LGR options that were on the table for Devon, the Government opted for a Labour-led proposal to create three urban growth areas, with all the rural bits that were left behind dumped together into one huge, unworkable authority that divided communities, had no economic hub and had little chance of being sustainable. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that she will review the decision, although it is not clear how the review will happen, who will do it or how long it will take. Will she commit to meeting all Opposition Members who represent rural Devon so that we can discuss the best proposal for the for the biggest number of people across Devon? The one we had was going to leave rural Devon behind, and we want to ensure that does not happen again.

   Hansard source
2. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Caroline Voaden

   Local Government Reorganisation in Devon

   The Government recently backed a proposal to replace Devon’s councils with four unitary authorities, which would expand the councils of Exeter, Plymouth and Torbay while leaving an unworkable rural Devon council spanning a 100-mile drive from Lynton to Salcombe. An online petition about this issue has been signed by 1,783 people. I have been contacted by hundreds of constituents who are deeply concerned about the risk posed to vital local services. Devolution should be built from the ground up, not imposed by Whitehall. The plan made a mockery of that. It is not what rural Devon wants. I appreciate that a review is now under way; I welcome it. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reverse its decision on local government reorganisation in Devon and to reconsider alternative options. And the petitioners remain, etc.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the United Kingdom, Declares that the Government's decision to accept the proposal to expand Exeter, Plymouth and Torbay's councils and to create a rural Devon Council spanning over 80 miles from Lynton to Salcombe is unworkable and puts rural Devon at great disadvantage; further declares that the proposed reorganisation risks breaking up children's services which could put vulnerable children at greater risk, could lead to increased council tax, and would undermine local accountability; and further declares that devolution should be built from the ground up, shaped by local knowledge and consent. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reverse its decision on local government reorganisation in Devon and to reconsider alternative options. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003231]

   Hansard source
3. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Calum Miller

   Economic Growth

   I welcome the reference that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has made to the Oxford growth corridor and localising power and resources, but my constituents are deeply concerned about ensuring that infrastructure comes before the many developments that the Government have in mind. Can she confirm that along the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor there will be an “infrastructure first” approach, and can she let me and my constituents know which Minister now has responsibility for that corridor?

   Hansard source
4. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Bobby Dean

   Economic Growth

   The Minister spoke about global instability. There is no doubt that energy costs are having an impact on the cost of doing business, but this summer, local businesses told me that domestic Government had raised the cost of doing business, through national insurance and business rates rises. Will the Chancellor do something about that in the next Budget?

   Hansard source
5. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ben Maguire

   New Housing: Infrastructure

   4. What steps her Department is taking to ensure that adequate infrastructure is provided for new housing developments.

   Hansard source
6. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ben Maguire

   New Housing: Infrastructure

   To protect its profits, Wain Homes is now backing out of £350,000 of promised infrastructure funding in my town of Bodmin. But with more than 3,000 homes to be built by 2030, Bodmin now faces an infrastructure emergency. Just last week, the Prime Minister said: “Cornwall lacks a basic level of infrastructure, which in turn harms growth and holds back…life chances”.—[Official Report, 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 27.] Will the Minister please consider greater control over infrastructure levies, like that enjoyed by other local authorities, as part of Cornwall’s bespoke devolution package?

   Hansard source
7. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Alex Brewer

   Topical Questions

   Last week, police and Trading Standards carried out co-ordinated visits, led by our local police officer, to retail premises on Fleet Road over suspected criminality, which is of increasing concern to me and my constituents. How is the Minister working cross-departmentally with the Home Office to keep our high streets safe and lawful?

   Hansard source
8. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Dover and Portsmouth: Protests

   I thank hon. Members who share my disgust at the sight of intimidating, fascistic gangs and squads of men in black on our streets in Dover and Portsmouth, but the roots of organised violence are political and this needs a political response. So does the Minister agree with me that it is time to start naming hard-right and fascist politics when we see it, recognise how frightening this is for people in our communities, and stand up to the racists on our streets and here in the Chamber, rather than pandering to, repeating and accepting anti-migrant propaganda and lies.

   Hansard source
9. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Green·Hannah Spencer

   Topical Questions

   When the Prime Minister was campaigning to be the MP for Makerfield, he said that all of the £39 billion affordable housing fund should be dedicated to building council homes. Will the Secretary of State explain to the 3,180 families in temporary accommodation across Manchester and Tameside, many of them in Gorton and Denton, why the Government have now backtracked and are instead continuing with the lack of ambition we had under Keir Starmer, rather than building as many secure, truly affordable homes as possible?

   Hansard source
10. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Green·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Economic Growth

    The rhetoric might have changed a bit under the new Prime Minister, but it seems that we have a continuity Chancellor on the policy front. The Minister talks about the failures of privatisation, but where is the action to bring water back into public hands? She talks about the need for an active state, but where is the action to tax wealth fairly, so that we can invest in the services we need? Fundamentally, we cannot get good growth unless it is both green and fair. We will not build sustainable prosperity by trashing nature and the climate.

    Hansard source
11. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Green·Adrian Ramsay

    Local Government Reorganisation

    At the Government’s request, councillors and council officers have put a huge amount of time into preparing for these proposals—time that could have been put into improving council services. If there is going to be another extended period of instability, that will further worsen that situation. Does the Secretary of State accept that local government funding is extremely stretched, especially for councils that run services such as SEND and social care, and that councils very little money for anything else? Does she agree that if local government reorganisation is to go ahead and devolution is to be meaningful, it needs to put money into the hands of local people, and there needs to be proper funding for local government?

    Hansard source
12. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Stuart Andrew

    Topical Questions

    Despite what we have heard from the Minister, colleagues have been talking about the issue of developments near railway stations. That has a practical consequence for the rural village of Long Buckby in my constituency. Land that is currently in open countryside, beyond the village boundary, will now be designated as a priority area. That gives no consideration to the distinction between a rural village and an urban area. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the issue in detail?

    Hansard source
13. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Steve Barclay

    Draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2026

    Will the Minister clarify how many people are within scope of benefiting from the regulation and what the total cost will be, in terms of the savings they will get?

    Hansard source
14. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Steve Barclay

    Draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2026

    I speak to my brief exchange earlier with the Minister. As the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, said, the draft regulations are fairly benign and very welcome to help people who are struggling with their bills. Fundamentally, however, when changing the law, it behoves us to understand who is within the scope of that change and what adverse impacts there might be as a result. A cohort of people will be just about managing to pay their bills, yet there will be a cost to this measure, welcomed though it has largely been by the Committee in the speeches so far. What is unclear to me, however, is the cost. For this measure to substantively help people with their energy debt in a meaningful way, one assumes a significant cost as a result of being able to share the data in order to write off those bills. Therefore, for the Minister to make the claim that it is helping—as she did—one assumes that she will know what the cost is of the change to the law that she has brought to the Committee. Given that, it also behoves us to understand who will pick up the cost of the measure. I was therefore surprised that in the Minister’s remarks, she did not touch on that cohort just above the other one—some people who can pay the addition to their energy bills without any difficulty whatever. We all represent constituents—indeed, the Government frequently talk about the pressure of the cost of living on them—who are just struggling. Indeed, they are those who, to coin a phrase, need some breathing space. They are just about affording their bills, but they will not be covered by the protections in the draft regulations; quite the reverse—they will be the ones who bear the cost. One assumes that the Minister has not brought in a change in the law without being clear about what the cost of that change is or what the impact might be on some of those struggling to pay their bills. In her wind-up, will she clarify those two figures? What is the cost of the amount of debt that is going to be written off, and how many people are potentially within scope of being pushed into that cohort because their bills will go up? We did not have those figures, but I hope she now has the inspiration from the Box to answer those points.

    Hansard source
15. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Steve Barclay

    Draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2026

    When I was reading the draft regulations, I was confused, because I thought they mentioned a Department that had been scrapped. It seems odd to bring in a change in the law for a Department that the Government have already scrapped.

    Hansard source
16. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Steve Barclay

    Local Government Reorganisation

    Less than two months ago, the right hon. Lady’s predecessor rushed to the House on the last day before recess, to say how essential these measures were, and Conservative Members warned that it was gerrymandering. It is not that the Secretary of State has listened; she has been told by her lawyers that it is gerrymandering. The warning signs were there two months ago when plans for Cambridgeshire were paused. When again announcing a pause for Cambridgeshire, will she tell my constituents how long the pause will be, and how much it will cost?

    Hansard source
17. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Steve Barclay

    Economic Growth

    Is it not bizarre that just a few hours after the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government came to the House to pause local government reorganisation on the basis of legal risk, so that she can have more consultation, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, “We will bring an end to consultation culture and, with guidance from the Attorney General on legal risk, give Ministers the confidence to make decisions”? Will they have a greater appetite for legal risk, or will they pause to have more consultations? The two Ministers are saying opposite things.

    Hansard source
18. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Steve Barclay

    Health Bill

    I rise to speak to clause 1 on the abolition of NHS England and clause 6 on promoting innovation. What characterises the first of those is an announcement without any clear plan. That is what has driven the cost and confusion that a number of Members across the House have spoken about. Those in any doubt about that can just look at NHS England’s own 2025-26 annual accounts, which show that the costs are already more than £100 million higher than forecast and now sit at above half a billion pounds. I do not recall seeing that on election leaflets. Indeed, just six directors at NHS England are being paid over £800,000, and that points to the cost. Sometimes such big figures are hard for constituents to get their heads around. Just to localise it to my own constituency, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB alone paid out £14 million in redundancies last year. It merged with a number of other ICBs to form the Central East ICB, yet we know hear from the Government that it should align with metro mayors, which means going back to exactly what it was before: the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB. That is just one of many confusions around the announcement. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) spoke about confusion over the timetable and what was described to the media as now an impossible timetable. We also saw reports in the media this weekend about the destination of staff in NHS England. Can they actually go into the Department, or will another body be set up because of the pay disparity between the two? All this is around 18 months on from the actual announcement. The confusion seems to extend to the Government themselves, because they seem unable to answer pretty straightforward written parliamentary questions. Given the time limit, I will give just a few examples. I asked how many people have been hired to NHS England since the announcement of its abolition, not least given the huge cost—over half a billion pounds—of voluntary redundancies. Despite the deadline passing, the Minister has not answered the question. We know from another written parliamentary question that more than 1,000 jobs have been advertised. It is relevant to know, in an organisation that is paying people to leave, how many people it is hiring. I also asked how many people had accepted voluntary redundancy, another written parliamentary question that has passed the deadline without answer. The process is characterised by a lack of transparency.

    Hansard source
19. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Steve Barclay

    Health Bill

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Government are spending millions of pounds and there is no plan. The measure was announced without working that out, it came as a surprise to many within the system, and it has had a chilling effect on many decisions. That is not isolated. Just today, we had the complete shambles of local government reorganisation. On the last day before the summer recess, the then Secretary of State rushed to the House to push through an announcement, which the new Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is now reversing, while the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is contradicting her by saying that the Government want to have a higher legal appetite for risk and fewer consultations. There is confusion across Departments, and the issues with clause 1, which a number of Members have spoken to, illustrate that. Given the time limit, I will turn to clause 6. I do not doubt for a minute that the Health Minister and the Secretary of State—anyone in the Department—want to promote innovation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) spoke a lot about capital to revenue switches in his book, and the pressure that takes away from innovation. As Health Secretary, I used to have a wry smile at the battles I had with him, when I was pushed by the Treasury to do exactly the same thing. The issue is not the lack of will; the issue is the alignment between procurement, regulation and clinical leadership, particularly in the colleges, as well as the ability to scale innovation—it is not about having more ministerial pilots. Finally, because I am almost out of time, I will pick up on the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee’s good points around data. When I was in the Department, my frustration was that I often had to go on open-source dashboards to get information that should have been available to me as a Minister, and I suspect that that is still the case. We should make data dashboards a common theme—the CSV files that the Department publishes are extremely difficult to access. Make data more transparent; it will help the debate in Parliament and, I dare say, it will help Ministers get more support.

    Hansard source
20. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Steve Barclay

    Health Bill

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
21. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Steve Barclay

    Health Bill

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
22. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Steve Barclay

    Health Bill

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
23. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Julian Lewis

    Economic Growth

    For some years I have known the proprietor of a small to medium-sized aviation company that has come up with revolutionary aircraft designs with both civilian and military applications, but every time the Government of the day have ended up supporting the big operators in this field. How will the right hon. Lady’s new policy towards unicorns benefit somebody like that?

    Hansard source
24. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Whittingdale

    Local Government Reorganisation

    My constituents never asked for local government reorganisation. They do not support local government reorganisation, which they see as leading to decisions being taken by a more remote, more expensive and less accountable authority. Will the Secretary of State confirm that maintaining the status quo is at least an option as a part of her review, and will she also say whether the intention is still to go ahead with the mayoral election in Essex in 2028?

    Hansard source
25. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Jeremy Hunt

    Health Bill

    I want to start by thanking the Minister for the emphasis that the Bill places on a single patient record. Despite many problems in NHS care, that is an area where the NHS is a world leader, but putting a single patient record on the right legal footing, making it possible to share data with proper governance, gives the NHS an opportunity to become a world leader in artificial intelligence, and it creates the opportunity to transform care for patients, so that has my full support. I speak in support of new clause 25. The biggest structural reform in this Bill is the abolition of NHS England, but my worry is that there are other structural reforms that are not in the Bill that would have a much bigger impact on patient care. New clause 25 is about continuity of care, particularly in general practice and maternity. It is now very clear to many people that the abolition of the old GP list system in the 2004 contract changes was a huge mistake. In fact, restoring the system so that GPs have their own patients was part of the Labour manifesto, so that is an issue that the Government understand, but it is not in the Bill. A study in Norway, published in the British Journal of General Practice in 2022, of over 4 million patients showed that patients who have their own doctor for more than 15 years are 30% less likely to need out-of-hours care, 28% less likely to need hospital care and 25% less likely to die. Why is that? Because GPs who know their patients are less likely to make mistakes, more likely to give an accurate diagnosis and will better calibrate risk, as they will have situational awareness of a patient and their family. The experience of a patient is infinitely better when they are dealing with a GP whom they know. Instead of that, we have moved to a system in which many GP surgeries effectively operate like call centres. People will contact a GP and they may never see that GP again. It is exactly the same when someone calls 111, if you get put through to a clinician. Contacting a GP in the NHS should never be like calling an Uber driver who will never be seen again.

    Hansard source
26. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Jeremy Hunt

    Health Bill

    My right hon. Friend is speaking wisely. Of course, this is not just about massively improving care for patients—it is also about improving motivation for doctors and GPs, who are among the most demoralised groups in the NHS. There is a GP surgery in Horfield, in the Bristol area, that kept the old GP list system, as 10% of surgeries have done. When I chaired the Health and Social Care Committee, I interviewed Dr Lee from that surgery and he said that because around 60% of the patients they see every day are their own patients, they do not have any problem with GP retention. The GPs who go to work there are happy, because they are seeing people they know. That would be transformative for morale inside general practice. People might very reasonably say, “Well, you were in that job for rather a long time. Why didn’t you restore that system?”. I want to share a little secret with the House: I did actually try to do that. I changed the GP contract in 2015 so that every NHS patient in England has a named, accountable clinician. Unfortunately, I was outfoxed by the system. As a result of that change, on every electronic patient record, every one of us here will have a named accountable GP on the record. However, absolutely nothing else changed, and the NHS continued as it had done. The Bill offers a real opportunity to transform care, as well as transforming life for GPs and patients. The same principle applies to maternity care. We know from inquiry after inquiry that despite reams of recommendations, things have not been getting better. If every mum was told at the moment she knew that she was pregnant, “This is the team who will be responsible for the safe delivery of your baby, in antenatal, birthing and post-natal,” we would restore the personal connection to maternity care. That is one of the biggest issues coming from so many mothers; they say that they feel anonymous in the system, and not listened to. At its best, the NHS delivers absolutely incredible care—I have three wonderful children who exist because of amazing NHS care—but at its worst, it turns patients into numbers and human suffering into box-ticking. Lots of things are necessary to turn that around, but one of the biggest things is restoring continuity of care, so that every patient always knows who is the doctor responsible for their care. That is why I urge the Government to consider how to restore continuity of care in both general practice and maternity, if that is not going to be done through this Bill.

    Hansard source
27. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir James Cleverly

    Topical Questions

    Increased energy costs, increased material costs, the increased cost of employing people, particularly young people, the increased cost of bureaucracy and business taxes are all pushing up the cost of building and squeezing the viability of projects. Does the Secretary of State not realise that her Government’s policies are making it harder for young people to get on the housing ladder, or does she simply not care?

    Hansard source
28. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir James Cleverly

    Local Government Reorganisation

    On 26 March, I said that people will ask whether these reforms are an act of gross gerrymandering and political opportunism, or gross incompetence and stupidity. I think today we recognise that it is both. The right hon. Lady has only just returned to the Dispatch Box, so it cannot really be her fault, so who has screwed up? Who is it that has wasted the time, effort and money of people in Essex and other parts of the country? She has the opportunity now to tell us where, how and why this went wrong, and I encourage her to do so.

    Hansard source
29. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Economic Growth

    As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will know, many of those Jaguar Land Rover employees live in my constituency, but they are across the whole midlands. In August, the Government committed to consulting on the zero emission vehicle mandate. Will she undertake to ensure that the consultation is as quick as possible, so that we can give our car manufacturing firms the best chance to compete globally?

    Hansard source
30. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Health Bill

    We all often have a common memory that is so incredibly important and special: holding our child for the very first time. Sadly, so many people up and down this country cannot have that memory because of their difficulty in having children. In 2004, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended a way forward on IVF, which was to give all a minimum three cycles of IVF treatment. That was set out 22 years ago, so we would hope that over time all ICBs would have moved towards delivering that. Sadly, it is something that people have moved away from, and that is not because the issue has got easier or better or is impacting fewer people. The reality is that the issue has got more difficult and is impacting more people, meaning that more people will not have that amazing joy of holding their own child. I ask the Minister to look at new clause 104, which has been tabled in my name, with the support of 16 other Members from all parts of the House. The issue of people not being able to have children is growing. Male fertility has been collapsing over the past few decades. As people are dealing with greater pressures to buy their own home, they are having children later in life, rather than earlier. We have a postcode lottery. Only two ICBs across the country offer the NICE recommendation of three cycles. In fact, as we have already heard, the offer in Manchester has been decreased. That is also the case in Cheshire and Merseyside. In Staffordshire, which I represent, people are not even entitled to one full cycle of IVF, meaning that unless someone is incredibly rich, they are condemned to probably never being able to have children. That is just not right, and I urge the Minister to be proactive in looking at how it can be addressed. We face a demographic issue in this country. We have a falling birth rate, with fewer than 600,000 babies born in this country last year. That will only get worse. It is sad that the NHS is not prioritising this issue. I understand the pressures that ICBs operate under, and it may always be seen as an easy, no-cost option to deprive people of the ability to have a child, but for those people who desperately spend their whole life doing everything they can—remortgaging their homes, begging for money from family and friends—to have a cycle of IVF, it is destroying them. There is no humanity in this system. I urge the Minister to look at new clause 104 and give families the opportunity—the greatest blessing that they can have—to hold their own child. I urge her to take action, as opposed to ignoring something that is so important to so many.

    Hansard source
31. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Edward Leigh

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I am grateful to the Secretary of State for looking again at Lincolnshire. I made the point to her predecessor that the proposal for a Greater Lincolnshire authority was, in the eyes of many people, just a gerrymander. Will she look again at it and stop dividing West Lindsey and North Kesteven in half? I represent the Gainsborough South-West ward—the most deprived ward in the entire country. I am on the Pride in Place board. What was the point of dividing Gainsborough and leaving it out on a limb from the rest of the county? Will the right hon. Lady look at our viewpoint in a positive way?

    Hansard source
32. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Edward Leigh

    Dover and Portsmouth: Protests

    If the centre does not take action, nasty extremes will take over. The fact is that we are in acute danger. These people can now launch from anywhere on the north French coast and are escorted to our shores. Frankly, we are being invaded, and the public are completely fed up. There is only one solution, and that was put to the Minister by the shadow Home Secretary. There is no deterrent. They know they will not be deported. We have to get out of these outdated conventions, detain immediately and deport immediately. Will the Government take action?

    Hansard source
33. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Edward Leigh

    Dover and Portsmouth: Protests

    They are still coming!

    Hansard source
34. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I am delighted by the reprieve—the New Forest was to be split, and part of it swallowed by Southampton. Will the Secretary of State accept my representation that we want the integrity of the New Forest to remain, and the last thing we want is for it all to be swallowed by Southampton?

    Hansard source
35. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Economic Growth

    Last week, the Prime Minister boasted in the same breath that we had the fastest growth in the G7 and that the decade of slow growth was caused by Brexit. If we are ahead of the pack, it cannot be caused by Brexit, can it?

    Hansard source
36. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I thank the Secretary of State for her announcement, which, however she dresses it up, is in fact a decision about common sense and listening. I put it to her that, in Essex, most of the district councils, the county council and most MPs want to stay with two-tier local government. Is that an option? Will she acknowledge that and listen?

    Hansard source
37. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Topical Questions

    The Home Secretary will potentially soon be asking the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to use a Crown development order to approve planning in Linton-on-Ouse for an asylum centre. I ask the Secretary of State to reject that as undemocratic, and to ensure that the application goes through the locally elected North Yorkshire planning authority.

    Hansard source
38. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Dover and Portsmouth: Protests

    I am grateful that it is the Policing Minister who is making this statement. I have spoken to North Yorkshire police, and there is a proposal for RAF Linton-on-Ouse to be made into an asylum centre. The trouble is that calling it an “asylum centre on a military site” does not paint what it is. It is just a mass hotel, because people are free to come and go, and they will all be men. The Home Secretary said in a statement that she would not allow an asylum hotel anywhere near a primary school or a nursery, but within 300 metres of the entrance to the base is a primary school and a nursery. North Yorkshire police have made it clear that they would find it exceptionally difficult to constantly police protests, and these protests are coming from far and wide. Given the change to the way that protests are happening, the fact that North Yorkshire police would find it very difficult to police them, and the fact that there is a primary school and a nursery close to what would be a mass hotel for 1,500 people, can the Minister confirm that it is still the policy of the Home Secretary that she will not open such hotels near schools and nurseries?

    Hansard source
39. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Shivani Raja

    Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood

    The topic of this debate is a matter of great sensitivity, but I oppose the proposal in the petition. Automatically recognising intended parents as legal parents from birth could remove important safeguards at precisely the moment when a child is most vulnerable. We should begin with the most important person in this debate: the child. A child cannot consent to a surrogacy arrangement, and they cannot understand the promises adults have made. They cannot know what might happen if circumstances change—and circumstances can change. We have seen cases where arrangements that began with everyone in agreement broke down during the pregnancy. In 2023, the Court of Appeal dealt with a case where a parental order was set aside and the surrogate mother was ultimately awarded contact with the child four times a year. That child was conceived using the surrogate’s own egg. She had to fight for that contact against the wishes of the commissioning parents. When we are told that everything is agreed before birth, we have to ask what happens when it is not. The current law recognises that possibility. A parental order cannot be applied for until six weeks after birth, and the surrogate has to confirm that she is willingly giving up her parental rights. That six-week period is not a pointless delay; it is a breathing space and a safeguard. It recognises that giving birth to a child is not simply the completion of a contract, but a profound physical and emotional event, and that the law should allow time for circumstances and feelings to be properly considered. The current system also provides scrutiny through the family court and CAFCASS social workers. If we remove that oversight, we are not simply removing paperwork; we are removing an independent layer of protection around a child. We need to understand how much that matters, because surrogacy is growing rapidly. Parental order applications increased from just 117 in 2011 to 537 in 2025, and the majority of applications now involve international surrogacy. That should make us more cautious, not less. When a child is born through an international arrangement, there can be questions about consent, identity, immigration, the circumstances of the surrogate and whether proper safeguards were followed. As recently as 2025, the High Court dealt with a case where the intended parents had never met the surrogate carrying the child, and did not even have information about her identity. The case took more than 15 months and involved four court hearings. That shows us why proper scrutiny is necessary. Compassion must never mean abandoning scrutiny, because when adults disagree, a child has to live with the consequences. That is why I cannot support automatic legal parenthood from birth. The child must come first.

    Hansard source
40. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sarah Bool

    Topical Questions

    The Government want Buckinghamshire council to develop 91,000 homes, but 2,890 of those are basically to be adjacent to Northamptonshire, and it will be my residents in Brackley who are affected by that. They are going to have none of the help in developer contributions or a proper say in the matter, so will the Minister meet me to discuss this concerning issue for my constituents?

    Hansard source