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. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kim Leadbeater

   Engagements

   Q9. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and welcome back. I also welcome the Prime Minister to his role. We have many shared passions—sport, music, and a deep sense of community. I know we both have a strong desire to ensure that everyone in our country has a sense of pride, identity and belonging—that everyone feels safe and no one feels lonely—but sadly, that is not always the case. What steps is the Prime Minister taking to support people in communities such as Spen Valley who may feel isolated or are dealing with antisocial behaviour such as speeding and dangerous driving, inappropriate use of e-scooters and offroad bikes, and fireworks, to give residents confidence that their concerns are being taken seriously?

   Hansard source
2. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kate Dearden

   Draft Protection Against Detriment (Industrial Action) Regulations 2026

   I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Protection Against Detriment (Industrial Action) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. This draft instrument was laid before the House on 24 June 2026 and relates to protection against detriment for workers taking protected industrial action under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It is being introduced to provide essential protection to workers, ensuring that they can take industrial action without being treated unfairly by their employer as a result. The 2024 Supreme Court judgment in Secretary of State for Business and Trade v. Mercer ruled that the current protections from detriment for trade union activity under section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act do not extend to protected industrial action. As a result, the Supreme Court made a declaration of incompatibility between UK legislation and article 11 of the European convention on human rights, the right to free association. This means that there is a gap in the law that could enable bad faith employers to unfairly penalise workers taking industrial action. While it should always be treated as a last resort, this Government believe that industrial action is an integral and vital part of a worker’s right to express their collective voice if they choose to. If a worker does choose to take industrial action, it is essential that employers treat them fairly and with respect, as the vast majority of employers have always done. This draft instrument remedies the existing gap in the law, enabling workers to take industrial action without being at risk of suffering detriment as a result. It also ensures that UK law regarding detriments will be compatible with the European convention on human rights. The draft protection against detriment regulations are made under section 236A of the 1992 Act, which was introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025. The draft regulations, taken together with section 236A of the 1992 Act, prohibit all detriments to which an employer can subject a worker for the sole or main purpose of penalising, preventing or deterring protected industrial action. This Government are committed to protecting workers who take industrial action while ensuring that employers are not unduly affected. The vast majority of employers already act responsibly and do not impose detriments on workers for taking industrial action. The draft legislation therefore targets the rare cases where such treatment may occur, without disrupting the day-to-day running of responsible businesses. That is why this legislation prohibits only detriments for the sole or main purpose of penalising, preventing or deterring industrial action. That means that during a period of industrial action, ordinary business practices will not be banned as long as they are not used for the sole or main purpose of preventing, penalising or deterring a worker from taking industrial action. For example, disciplinary action may still be taken against a worker who has committed misconduct unrelated to strike action during an ongoing period of strike action. Employers will still be able to manage industrial action in ways that do not involve imposing a legal detriment. Examples of that include proactive negotiation prior to industrial action commencing and contingency planning to mitigate the impact. Turning to the issue of deduction of pay following industrial action, in common law the principle of “No work, no pay” applies. This means that if a worker does not attend work for a day due to taking industrial action, the employer is under no obligation to pay them for that day. The draft regulations state that they do not affect that common law position. The rules enabling the deduction of pay on account of a worker having taken part in protected industrial action will remain as they are. The draft statutory instrument also adds section 236A of the 1992 Act to the list of claims in schedule A2 to that Act. Detriments claims will therefore be added to the list of claims in schedule A2. For claims in this list, an employment tribunal is able to increase or decrease compensation awards by 25%, depending on whether the employer or worker has failed to follow the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures. This will encourage fairness and co-operation by both employers and workers and will help timely resolution of disputes to allow employers to return to usual business as quickly as possible. This statutory instrument is essential to provide workers with sufficient protection when exercising their fundamental right to take industrial action, and to make UK legislation compatible with the European convention on human rights. It prevents the door being left open for the very small number of bad faith employers who might exploit the gap in legislation that was highlighted by that Supreme Court judgment, while still allowing good faith employers to deal with industrial action in a non-punitive manner and enabling them to continue to use normal business practices during industrial action. I therefore commend this instrument to the House, and I trust that Members will support it.

   Hansard source
3. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kate Dearden

   Draft Protection Against Detriment (Industrial Action) Regulations 2026

   I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks; it has been a pleasure to debate him in numerous secondary legislation Committees. He is always diligent with his questions and his scrutiny, and I appreciate that and wish him well in his new role. Taking the shadow Minister’s questions in turn, he mentioned the impact on businesses of understanding the guidance that will be in place and ensuring that they feel prepared to address and adapt if necessary. We of course consulted business representatives, as we did at length throughout every stage of the Employment Rights Act, to gain their views on this guidance in particular. We will move at pace to ensure that employers get that support with the guidance so that they can comply as necessary. I would add, however, that at the moment employers very rarely have to impose detriments, so we do not believe that there will be a significant amount of work for employers to do. I referred in my opening remarks to the frequency of employers imposing detriments on workers taking industrial action and how rare it is. Given the scale of employers having to understand the guidance, we do not really see the risk as significant, but of course we will work to publish as soon as possible and work closely with businesses, as we always do. The shadow Minister mentioned the frequency of strike action, and I gently remind him of the unfortunate highs under the previous Government: 2.5 million days were lost to strike action under the previous Government. That figure has increasingly come down. We want to ensure that, alongside all these measures, we have good industrial relations and that employers, businesses, trade unions and Government can get around the table to discuss the challenges we face across this country as well as those we face in workplaces. We recognise that trade unions, their representatives, business and employers will not agree on everything all the time, but fostering good industrial relations across workplaces across the country is my ambition and this Government’s ambition. We know that strike action is often the last resort, and it is an important right for workers to use if necessary, but we want to foster good industrial relations. That is a key part, not just of this draft instrument, but of our wider approach. I have been working on consistently with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice on the issue of employment tribunals, recognising that backlog—it was not helped by the previous Government’s cuts, unfortunately, where we saw significant decreases to the employment tribunal system. It suits no one when they do not have access to justice—neither workers nor employers. People want a system that works for them and can work through cases, and to have that support and that ultimate access to justice. It is really important that we get those backlogs down. We have set up a taskforce with union representatives, businesses, employers, myself and my colleague in the Ministry of Justice, and we have been working at pace since October last year on how to fundamentally fix the system, recognising the pressures and the backlog we already face. As I have said, on the particular instrument we are debating here, there have been two cases in recent years relating to detriments for participation in industrial action. We do not have the frequency of employers imposing detriments on workers taking industrial available to us, because it is so rare—but of course we are conscious of the point about employment tribunals. On industrial action, the shadow Minister mentioned all the regulations that are already in place. Trade union activities and strike action are already highly regulated already. We have talked a lot about that throughout the passage of the Employment Rights Act, as he referred to. We want to ensure that workers abide by the regulations and the law in place, just as we want employers to do; that is why this debate is so important. That conduct is important for the good industrial relations that I mentioned earlier. Finally, the shadow Minister mentioned pay and the impact on common law. Of course we want to ensure that we can enable that process of lessons being learned, so that we can understand and hear what is developing in common law and feed it into our work on this issue. I mentioned in my opening remarks what this instrument will and will not do, so hopefully our intentions in making this change have been understood. We will of course review common law as we always would. On the response the shadow Minister is waiting for, I can only apologise; I will chase that and ensure he gets it in due course. I hope I have answered many of the questions from this debate and that all hon. Members can support this important principle of protecting workers from unfair treatment for taking industrial action. If any of our constituents were put in that position, we would want them to have the law behind them and to have that support, so I hope that colleagues across the House will support this statutory instrument. Question put and agreed to.

   Hansard source
4. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Justin Madders

   National Highways: M49 Severnside Junction

   May I echo the many happy returns to you for yesterday, Madam Deputy Speaker? I recall that in a previous life you gave many happy returns to me across the Dispatch Box on a very special birthday, of which we do not need to remind ourselves. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) on securing this debate and on highlighting an issue of real importance to her constituents and the wider Avonmouth and Severnside area. I welcome this opportunity to update the House on junction 1 of the M49. I apologise for the Department wrongly describing the junction in previous correspondence. It is correct to say that we are talking about junction 1 of the M49. I recognise the strength of local feeling articulated by the hon. Member. Residents, businesses, local representatives and road users understandably want the junction brought into use as soon as possible. The Government share that ambition. The purpose of the junction has always been clear: to improve access between the Avonmouth and Severnside enterprise area and the motorway network to support economic growth and reduce pressure on local roads. The Government want local communities, businesses and road users to realise the full benefits of this infrastructure. The Severnside enterprise area is one of the most significant employment and logistics locations in the south-west region. It is home to major industrial, warehousing, distribution, energy and port-related activity. Better access to the strategic road network has long been recognised as important for the area’s continued growth and for reducing the impact of traffic on surrounding local communities, as the hon. Member has mentioned. While I understand the frustration that the junction is not yet operational, the House should be clear about the complexity of the position. It reflects complex issues involving strategic road infrastructure, a local road connection needed to make the junction operational, developer arrangements and technical matters requiring further investigation and remediation before the junction can safely open to traffic. It is worth recalling that this scheme was delivered as part of a wider programme intended to unlock economic development in the Severnside area through direct connection with the junction at the Western Approach distribution park. That is essential if the benefits of the junction are to be realised. The strategic road junction and local link road to connect to the existing network were being progressed through different delivery arrangements. The link road connecting the junction to the existing road network was originally the responsibility of a private developer, but with planning permission sought by South Gloucestershire council. National Highways was consulted as a statutory consultee, but had no legal power to compel the developer to deliver the link road. Despite continued engagement, the developer was not willing to meet its commitment. When it became clear that the original developer arrangements for the link road would not deliver the necessary local connection, the Department, National Highways and South Gloucestershire council worked together to identify an alternative way forward. That work led to the current link road scheme being progressed by South Gloucestershire council. Rather than allowing the project to stall indefinitely, the Government have therefore engaged with our partners to enable the local link road to be constructed and to establish a practical, long-term solution that will bring the junction into use. That has included £10 million of Government funding. Of course, as we heard and the House will appreciate, completing the local road link road is not the only issue that must now be resolved. As part of monitoring and, more recently, detailed engineering investigations, National Highways has identified technical issues at the junction that require further assessment and remedial work before the junction can be safely opened to traffic. I recognise that that is disappointing for local communities and businesses. A junction visible from the motorway but not yet available for use is, of course, understandably frustrating. Local representatives, as the hon. Member has done, are right to seek clear answers about what has happened, what is being done and when the junction will open. Some may argue that the junction should simply be opened and any problems dealt with later, but that is not an approach the Government are prepared to take. Where technical concerns have been identified, they must be understood, addressed and assured, and the public would rightly expect Ministers and National Highways to act prudently and responsibly where engineering concerns have been raised. The House would expect no less in any constituency in the country. However, the hon. Member raises important questions, and I would like to take each in turn. First, she asks whether National Highways will publish a clear timetable for the repairs. I will continue to press National Highways for a clear remediation plan, including the technical solution, delivery route and a clear timetable. However, the technical matters do require careful assessment. Engagement is taking place with the contractor, and an appropriate solution is dependent on the shared understanding of the engineering evidence, and clarity on where responsibility and liability lie. Therefore, we can only confirm timescales once the ongoing technical and commercial discussions have concluded. It would be inappropriate for me to prejudge those discussions from the Dispatch Box, but I have asked National Highways to update key stakeholders monthly and to publish the plans as soon as possible. Secondly, the hon. Member asks what the defects are and when they were first identified. Defects were visible on the junction in 2021, including loss of topsoil and surface cracking. Those came to light as part of the standard inspections that take place across the network. At that stage, they were not deemed significant and so National Highways put standard operating arrangements in place to monitor the structure. However, that ongoing monitoring identified the need to undertake detailed investigations, which were commissioned in 2025, resulting in the identification of geotechnical issues. The later investigations will allow the root cause of the defects to be better understood. This is ongoing and can only be confirmed once the engagement with the contractor has concluded. I have now discussed the matter with National Highways, and I have formed the view that the hon. Member should have been informed when the decision was taken to undertake detailed investigations, rather than have to wait for the outcome of the work. Thirdly, the hon. Member inquires whether I will commit to a firm date by which the junction will finally open to traffic. As she will probably appreciate from what I have said so far, it is not possible to provide a definitive timeline for remedial works. Responsibility, liability and funding matters remain subject to ongoing technical and commercial discussions. Once those are concluded, National Highways will be able to develop detailed designs for the necessary remedial works and establish a delivery programme. It would not be possible or appropriate to announce arbitrary dates before those assessments are complete or before a deliverable programme has been confirmed. However, I recognise it is particularly frustrating that, after a long wait, the junction still sits empty. That is why I have emphasised to National Highways the importance of it looking at options to open the junction as soon as possible. Safety is of the utmost importance, but I also recognise that given the remediation will take some time, we need clarity on whether the junction can be opened in any capacity in the interim. I expect National Highways to provide a timely update on that review.

   Hansard source
5. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Justin Madders

   National Highways: M49 Severnside Junction

   I am grateful for the intervention, and I absolutely will take that point. All stakeholders ought to be informed at the appropriate point, particularly when there are, as I say, connected works to do with that particular junction. The hon. Member asked how a newly built junction came to need structural repair before carrying a single vehicle, and whether the same fault affects other National Highways structures. I have been assured that National Highways is undertaking a significant quality incident investigation process to look at lessons learnt, and, once it has concluded, will embed those lessons to ensure that the same thing does not happen on other structures. I should emphasise that such occurrences are not frequent, and I believe that this is not a systemic issue, but of course we need to look into it to be assured of that, so I have asked National Highways to update the hon. Member and other key stakeholders on the outcomes of the lessons-learnt process as part of their regular ongoing engagement. The hon. Member’s fifth question was: who is responsible? Will the Government do what is right, and launch an investigation so that the public can scrutinise those responsible? Questions have understandably been raised about responsibility, liability and the funding of remedial works, and National Highways is continuing confidential commercial discussions with its principal contractor. As I have said, I will not prejudge the outcome of these discussions from the Dispatch Box, but I want to reassure the hon. Member that National Highways is pursuing the matter with the seriousness it requires. I know that as soon as these processes conclude, National Highways will provide a clear remediation plan setting out the technical solution, delivery route and programme, as well as, I hope, a clear answer on where responsibility lies. As I have said, National Highways is conducting a significant quality incident investigation to establish what went wrong, to identify lessons and to prevent recurrence, and I have asked it to share the lessons learnt following the conclusion of the investigation. Finally, there was the question of funding. As I have explained, the Government have already provided about £10 million to support the development of the link road, recognising its importance. I am sure the hon. Member will understand that there are limits to the funding we can provide, but we will commit ourselves to prioritising the technical issues that have been discussed this evening. The Government’s approach is clear. National Highways must identify the right engineering solution, agree an appropriate delivery route, protect taxpayers’ interests, and provide stakeholders with realistic, deliverable timescales. The public deserve certainty, but that certainty must be grounded in technical evidence, not speculation. Stakeholder engagement, which we have touched on this evening, is also important. Local communities and businesses need to understand why the junction has not opened, what is being done to resolve the issue, and how progress will be communicated. As I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate, there will of course be limits to what I can say publicly while commercial discussions are ongoing, but commercial sensitivity must not become a reason for avoidable silence. I have asked National Highways to keep the hon. Member and key local representatives informed monthly, and updates should be provided when there is reliable information to share. If the hon. Member does not feel that she is being kept up to date, I ask her to let me know. There are also wider lessons to learn. The public do not distinguish between a motorway junction, a local link road, a developer obligation, a council-led connection, and a National Highways asset; they see one road, one promise, and one delayed outcome. We as a Government, and delivery bodies, must be clear about the need to manage infrastructure coherently, with clear accountabilities, dependencies and communications. The Department will therefore continue to work with National Highways and South Gloucestershire Council as a delivery partnership. South Gloucestershire Council is progressing the local link road, National Highways is responsible for the strategic road asset, and the Department’s role is to support the overall objective of bringing the infrastructure into beneficial use, while of course ensuring safety, value for money and effective governance. Let me return to the central point. Everyone involved in this matter wants the same outcome. Local communities want the junction open, businesses want better access to the strategic road network, local authorities want the economic and transport benefits to be realised, and, of course, the Government want all those things to happen. We remain committed to seeing the junction brought into operation and to ensuring that its benefits are realised for local communities, businesses and the wider regional economy, but we will do so in a way that protects road users, maintains public confidence, and reflects proper stewardship of public investment. Let me again thank the hon. Member for securing the debate, for the important points that she has raised, and for her continued campaign on behalf of her constituents. I assure her that I will continue to engage with her as we work to ensure that the junction is opened safely, and that the intended benefits are delivered for the communities and businesses that it was designed to serve. Question put and agreed to.

   Hansard source
6. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Judith Cummins

   Representation of the People Bill

   I will put in place an immediate five-minute time limit.

   Hansard source
7. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Judith Cummins

   Representation of the People Bill

   Order. I remind Members that discussion of an amendment that is not in scope and has not been selected, is not in scope.

   Hansard source
8. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Judith Cummins

   Representation of the People Bill

   Order. Will the hon. Member please remember to keep her speech within the scope of what is currently before us?

   Hansard source
9. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Judith Cummins

   Representation of the People Bill

   Order. I ask the hon. Member please to take my comments as they were made, and stick to the scope of the Bill.

   Hansard source
10. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jonathan Davies

    Rewiring the State

    I very much welcome what the First Secretary of State had to say about using No. 10 North to drive a pro-business culture, empower communities and deliver growth in every postcode. In Mid Derbyshire, we have one of the best projects to help her and the Government meet that aspiration in the regeneration of the Belper mills. That will bring 130 new homes to the Derwent valley and a visitor centre, where we have a UNESCO world heritage site. We are so close to securing investment from the East Midlands combined county authority to make this happen. Can she help me by offering a meeting at No. 10 North with its staff to ensure that we get that investment over the line to build the homes we need and deliver growth in Mid Derbyshire?

    Hansard source
11. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jon Pearce

    Engagements

    In my constituency and across the country, we suffered devastating wildfires this summer. I am grateful to the Prime Minister for the action that he took, including the temporary ban on disposable barbecues, but we must face the fact that our climate is changing and communities such as mine are suffering the consequences. What more will the Prime Minister do to ensure that we are better prepared to prevent and tackle wildfires next summer, and will that include making the ban on disposable barbecues permanent?

    Hansard source
12. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·John Slinger

    Rewiring the State

    I welcome the First Secretary of State to her place and support her determination to rewire the state. In her statement, she spoke about an underpowered centre of Government and how Ministers often lack agency. In my view, Members of this House—MPs—also often lack agency and are underpowered. In the light of the welcome devolution of greater powers to unitary authorities and metro mayors, does she agree that it is important that we discuss and debate, in this place and elsewhere, the role of MPs? In fact, I have applied for debates on the subject. As we look to rewire the state, we need to enhance the status, powers and authority of Members of this place.

    Hansard source
13. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·John McDonnell

    Representation of the People Bill

    Listening to the debate, I think part of the problem is that the Bill is being brought forward in an enormous transitional period. Some of its original objectives might be being met within the legislation that we are proposing, but the debate has moved on since then. We also have to admit that the debate has moved on within the Labour party because the change of leadership. So in some instances, we might not be talking to this Bill; we might be debating what we want to see in the next Bill, which needs to be brought forward with some urgency, particularly because the general tenor of the debate is a recognition that we are in a dangerous political moment in our country and that we must address the threats that are creating that moment. I can understand the Government not being willing to accept several of today’s amendments, and there might not be time enough when the Bill goes to the other place to ensure that those amendments are shaped in such a way that they can be legislated for quickly. However, I would urge a rethink about the next Bill, which should certainly be brought forward before the end of the year to take into account this whole range of measures, particularly those that have been excluded from the debate overall because of the title of the Bill, which is, to be frank, a bit shaming for the House’s political debate. I have tabled two very straightforward new clauses. I thought they were in the tenor of the original Bill, and I was surprised when they were not included. In fact, the current Lord Chancellor moved similar amendments in 2022. They relate to the Bill’s aims to bring England and Northern Ireland into line with the reforms taking place in Scotland around the age limit of 16. Also, I thought that we were going to ensure that the franchise was the same. As people know, Scotland and Wales lowered the voting age, but they also extended the franchise to all residents. At the moment, because we base voting on citizenship, 4.4 million residents cannot vote in a general election in our country, and 1.2 million in England and Northern Ireland cannot vote in any election. That means that 16,300 people in my constituency have no vote whatsoever—people who live here and work here. Most pay their taxes, and fund our public services, but they are locked out of the democratic system. My new clauses argue that, as in Scotland and Wales, voting should be based on residence rather than citizenship. Some may argue that there should be some investment of time, and other countries designate a timescale for residency. In New Zealand, for example, 12 months’ residency allows someone to vote. New clause 36 deals with local elections, and would permit those who have permission to enter or stay in the UK to vote in elections. New clause 35 would extend that to general elections for those with settled status—that is an accepted term in many of our pieces of legislation—and indefinite leave to remain. It is an amendment that we have supported in the past. It would mean a simpler system of registration, and it would increase voter participation. Above all else, it would bring about a greater sense of social cohesion: people who live in our society yet have no say in our society would be brought into the political system. We have had the debate about different languages and all the rest—to be honest, I wish we had never got rid of the Latin mass, but that is another thing, and might offend the other side on that issue—but all my new clauses try to do is recognise the reality of our society. The reality is that our society is a diverse community. This legislation could recognise that diversity, and ensure that everyone has a stake in our society and a democratic right to vote.

    Hansard source
14. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Joe Powell

    Rewiring the State

    I, too, welcome the First Secretary of State to her place and welcome today’s statement as well as the one in July. The first English devolution settlement was, of course, for London, and despite some incremental improvements since 1999, our capital’s mayor, the Greater London Authority and the 32 London boroughs are not currently set up to deliver on the capital’s full potential, whether on productivity and growth or in dealing with our housing crisis and the massive increase in temporary accommodation spending to combat homelessness. Will revisiting London’s devolution settlement will be on her and her team’s agenda?

    Hansard source
15. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Joe Powell

    Representation of the People Bill

    I join others in warmly welcoming the Democracy Minister to her place. I know that the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee will miss her excellent chairing, but it is great to have such a strong ally on these issues in Government. We have returned to this place after a summer when barely a day has gone by without another political funding scandal on the front pages. As the previous speaker referred to, there have been accusations of impermissible foreign donations, undeclared donations, undeclared gifts, conflicts of interest, undeclared assets, foreign interference and more. I doubt that anyone in this House could say with confidence that we currently have the right safeguards in place to ensure that dodgy money is kept out of our politics and that sufficient transparency is in place so that the public can judge whether a politician is acting in their interests or in the interests of foreign-based billionaires. That is why this Bill is so important and why so many of the measures in it are welcome. I am delighted that following the Rycroft review there are amendments to strengthen the Bill, including: the cap on donations from overseas electors; the new residency test to close the potential loophole of people coming back to meddle in our politics; the moratorium on crypto, which will ensure that companies can only donate up to the value of their post-tax profits; and the swift recent action we have seen to look at lower caps on how much parties and candidates can spend during regulated periods. These are all really welcome steps that will help to limit the influence of big money and curb foreign influence. We have to be alive, though, to the constantly evolving nature of this threat and to ensure that our electoral traditions are not open to abuse. In that spirit, I have a couple of suggestions. I do hope that in the Electoral Commission’s review of spending limits, per the Government amendment, it could also be asked to look at whether the whole concept of the long and short campaign is working to keep spending in check. Candidates have already been selected by parties for the next general election, and many more will be in place by the end of this year, but the long campaign regulated period does not kick in until 4 February 2029. That means, in many cases, more than two years of further uncapped spending, with declaration of interest rules only formally in place for the year before an MP is elected and nothing for candidates who do not win. This is really important because we know that the reality of modern politics is that campaigning never switches off. I am glad that in this country we have avoided the money-pit of TV advertising that the United States has, but social media means that vast sums of hard-to-trace money can be spent promoting a candidate or party outside of these regulated periods. I am fully supportive of the Government’s intention to bring down the spending cap, and I think that a thorough look at these regulated periods would help to deliver that goal and ensure that capping spending works permanently, not just in those limited periods. I am also glad that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister have been clear that this Bill is the start of the political reform agenda and not the end. Unfortunately, many of these big money interests and foreign states with malign intent are very good at finding loopholes and working around our laws, and they will continue to do that and adapt once these new laws are enforced. To avoid that risk, the Electoral Commission could also look at donation levels that are currently uncapped to ensure a further check on big money interests. I welcome the Democracy Minister’s positive engagement on this topic, and I hope that there may be a way to use this Bill to review that issue and build consensus while ensuring that we do not have to wait for a further legislative route in this Parliament, which we all know would be challenging. In that spirit, we do not need legislation to talk about the national commission—we could do that immediately. As I said, I hope the Bill is the start of the new Administration’s political reform effort and not the end. We all know the context, with plummeting trust, the influence of big money and the fact that many of our voters feel that their politicians are serving not them but other interests. I know that the Minister is committed to going as far as possible. The Bill is in really good shape—it has been strengthened—and I hope that in the summing up from the Dispatch Box we might hear about next steps to take it that little bit further.

    Hansard source
16. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Joe Morris

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. Before I start, I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) on the media’s conduct in the referendum. I will touch briefly on the issue of music. I was speaking recently to an orchestra member who is active in my local party over the weekend about the issues that he has experienced with touring, and to a local venue operator who used to welcome musicians from Europe to Northumberland. It supported our tourism sector and supported the exchange of ideas. It enhanced opportunities for young people to see the world beyond the north-east. It is a crying shame that we have lost not just the ability for our musicians to go abroad, but the ability to welcome people into our areas to play in some of the iconic venues of the north-east. Given the time allowed, I will focus my remarks on trade deals and the way that the agricultural community has been treated in those trade deals—in particular, the impact of leaving the EU and the now complete absence of scrutiny of those deals. We no longer have any appropriate democratic input into how those terms of reference are agreed and how civil society can properly feed into them. When we were a member of the European Parliament, we at least had a methodology, however imperfect, for agreeing those terms of reference, bringing them forward and making sure that farmers had a seat at the table when those trade deals were being agreed. Given how the Australian and New Zealand trade deals disadvantaged sheep farmers in my constituency, had there been a meaningful vote or meaningful parliamentary consultation, there is no way that the former MP for my constituency could have voted for that deal with a clean conscience. It is to his shame that he never raised his voice in opposition to it. I also want to touch on the issue of trade movements, referred to in the introductory speech by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). I thank him for securing the debate and apologise for forgetting to do so earlier. When the EU brings in bans on products, there is a real risk that those goods are then immediately diverted into the UK because we do not have consistency of policy. I have heard that from manufacturers in my constituency who make furniture: they see lower-quality wood products from China coming in that were originally destined for the EU but, because of a policy shift from the EU, have then been redirected en route into the UK market, with the consistent risk of decimating jobs. Constituency MPs then have to run to Ministers and ask for exemptions and for us to catch up to Europe. We must ensure that we have consistency of approach, not just to safeguard jobs, but to grow economies and give business the impetus and confidence to invest in the long term. This is a shorter speech than I intended to give, but I would be grateful if the Minister could come back on those two points about scrutiny and consistency of application of trade protection measures.

    Hansard source
17. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Joe Morris

    Representation of the People Bill

    I thank the Government for, in particular, the proposals on 16 and 17-year-olds. I spent my summer conducting about 80 events across my constituency, meeting some of my youngest—and some of my oldest—constituents, and regularly hosting work experience students in my office and sixth-form surgeries at the schools in my constituency, and I have generally found more political maturity and wisdom in sixth forms than in the Northumberland county council Conservative group.

    Hansard source
18. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Joe Morris

    Representation of the People Bill

    I am very glad to have set up my hon. Friend for that. I want to speak about money in politics, particularly with reference to new clause 17, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), for whom I have the utmost respect and admiration. It has been clear to me, not just over the summer but when I have spoken to voters since my election and beforehand, that the influence of money on politics is increasing. That is undermining faith in our democracy; it is an assault by algorithms on our democracy itself. The figures that were chucked around historically now seem relatively parochial. What we are seeing is a complete and utter oligarchic takeover of our voting system by those with the very deepest pockets. I hope that when she winds up the debate, the Minister will explain what more can be done and how the Government will work constructively, as the Bill progresses through the other place, to tighten the safeguards that are already in it. I sense the amount of disquiet in my inbox from people who think that more must be done in the Bill to guard against the influence of money in our democracy, and particularly to guard against the role of the international social media platform owners who are poisoning the very lifeblood of democracy. Indeed, we all read the conspiratorial narratives that often appear in our inboxes. I know that new clause 31 is not in scope, so I will not major on it. Suffice it to say that it is the people who are losing faith with politics who feel the most disenfranchised, and we owe it to them to have a national conversation about how we can reform our voting. Let me end by pleading again with the Minister to provide more clarity on the pace of tackling the influence of money in politics and by again welcoming the Prime Minister’s commitment to electoral reform.

    Hansard source
19. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jodie Gosling

    Representation of the People Bill

    I start by welcoming the Minister to her new role. It will be truly brilliant to work with her, and this is a transformational Bill with which to start. It will allow British politics to take huge strides to restore the trust that has been lost in our political system and to protect our democracy from being sold off for profit. I have personally set up and hosted an inspiring youth Parliament, and hearing the voices of 16-year-olds and younger children is truly a humbling experience—their dedication and education is always awe inspiring. I had hoped that the amendments I have tabled would improve the Bill even further, returning integrity to British politics, but I am reassured that the Government are seeking other ways to strengthen our democracy and transparency. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) and congratulate him on his promotion, and I thank him for his work in bringing forward these amendments. I also thank my other colleagues who have tabled valuable amendments, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington). Our election law was written in an analogue age, and the legislation has not kept pace with how safe or unsafe something is. Modern campaigns now reach voters in the palms of their hands, 24/7. Election campaigns with highly targeted content are delivered directly into social media feeds, distributed at speed, with some of it only seen by the people it is designed to influence. Legislation rightly restricts commercial advertisers from making false claims about shampoo, broadband deals, financial products or sausages. Food producers face a wealth of legislation that restricts what they are allowed to say about their products and rightly makes sure it is factually accurate—makers of porky sausages cannot tell porky pies, and pie manufacturers cannot tell lies. It is ridiculous that our political adverts are under no such restrictions. This presents a serious risk to our democracy and undermines any attempts to improve integrity and trust in our political system. AI-generated campaigning, which looks so convincing, produces misinformation that spreads at scale and speed, while elections are increasingly decided on wafer-thin margins with more and more candidates on ballot papers. With elections that close, and with budgets having been increased by 80% in 2023, misleading electoral advertising can make a real, material difference to our politics and our futures. New clauses 49 to 51, which stand in my name, present practical solutions to this issue. They deal with the narrow, clearly defined category of factual claims in paid material. Crucially, they do not regulate political opinion, argument, satire, pledges, speeches, interviews or ordinary democratic debate; they simply apply to statements of fact that can be tested against data. That distinction matters. If we wish to restore faith in our politics, any reasonable person would agree that voters must have accurate information to build their opinions on. Research by Opinium found that 76% of people agree, alongside the backing of this House. I have also tabled new clause 52—which, again, builds on the excellent work of my colleagues—to strengthen a code of conduct and standards relating to harassment and intimidation, placing them on a statutory footing. This will ensure people have the right to stand for election and represent their views safely. I accept the Government’s decisions on these issues and look forward to further debate, but I do wish that they would accept some of the other amendments that have been mentioned today to ensure that this Bill achieves its enormous potential and that our democracy is protected.

    Hansard source
20. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jo Stevens

    Cross-border Rail Links

    8. I welcome the Secretary of State to his new role and wish him all the best. Earlier this year, my Cardiff East constituents were thrilled to hear of the agreement between this Labour Government, the Welsh Labour Government and private investors on funding to proceed with our long-awaited Cardiff Parkway station on the cross-border main line. The station and adjoining business park are set to unlock around 6,000 new jobs. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether the new minority Plaid Government in Wales have confirmed whether they will honour that agreement?

    Hansard source
21. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jo Stevens

    Engagements

    Q3. My Cardiff East constituents are pleased that the Government are funding extra neighbourhood policing for us, but Cardiff is the only capital city in the UK that does not have specific capital city police funding. That means that, as a matter of course, neighbourhood police are pulled away from the job that they should be doing, and need to do, for my constituents. The Prime Minister knows Cardiff well. This historic anomaly is unfair and indefensible, so will he ensure that this problem is resolved once and for all by delivering capital city police funding for Cardiff?

    Hansard source
22. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker, and to hear the debate and the passion that Members have for their areas. I quite liked the county competition for the most beautiful part of England, but I am sure that we can agree that England is magnificent coast to coast, and we should all celebrate that. I will respond to the debate in due course, but I want to start by laying out some of the differences. We are using common language for things that are very different; I think that we are conflating devolution and the powers that will be devolved with the fair funding review and the funding that goes to local authorities. In some cases, there is no clarity on what a regional authority will do to the local authority and community governance, whether that is neighbourhood governance or town and parish councils. In this debate, it has become one and the same. I do not criticise that, and I recognise why that happens. We are all here to represent places and not units of government, so we care about whether our communities are getting the resources needed.

    Hansard source
23. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

    In a sense, I recognise that there will be differences of opinion, depending on which local authority and what part of the country Members represent, about whether the fair funding review fully picks up all the particular circumstances. There might be more agreement on the sufficiency of local government finance. Whatever the allocation across the board, the fair funding review is intended to distribute it in the fairest possible way and in a transparent way, so that Members and councillors can see where the money is going to. Since coming to power, the Labour Government have delivered long-overdue reforms to council funding through the first multi-year local government settlement in a decade. In doing so, we have delivered transformational changes to how councils are funded, which the public, our local government partners and Parliament have long called for. We have delivered on our commitment to give councils greater certainty and flexibility over their funding, ensuring that resources are fairly aligned to local need and simplifying the funding landscape by ending wasteful competitive bidding, which we all recognise pits one area against another. The Government also have a very important role to play as an equaliser for local government income. During the course of the debate, I heard references to the amount of grant that individual councils get, and one grant total being compared with another. I want to be clear that the fair funding review is not intended to give every council the same central Government grant. That grant is intended to act as an equaliser for the system, so that in the end all councils have the resources to deliver the public service need in their local areas, while recognising that there are wide differences in England in the local tax bases of council tax and business rates. As a result of our reforms, nine in 10 councils will receive funding that broadly matches their assessed relative need by the end of the multi-year settlement, up by about a third before the reforms. We recognise the different drivers in demand for services, the cost of providing them in different places and the different abilities of areas to raise council tax. We are therefore making funding available in such a way as to enable all local authorities to provide the same level of services to their residents. For rural communities, the 2026-27 settlement was a key step in delivering a fairer system to address the issues that matter to local communities across England. It included recognising local circumstances, including differences in the cost of delivering services between rural and urban areas, and using the best available and most up-to-date data, including the latest indices of multiple deprivation to ensure that deprivation in rural areas is captured accurately. I will explain a bit more on that. I heard references to the fair funding review not taking account of the differential cost of delivering services in rural areas. To be clear, we account for rural costs through the area cost adjustment, which is applied to all formulas. That adjustment captures the variation in wages, property rates, journey times, and a range of other factors that pick up the local variation that takes place. On top of that, we have a remoteness adjustment in social care. I hear representations that say, “Hang on. If it costs more to deliver adult social care in these areas, then surely children’s services and other services such as waste collection and other things ought to be included, too.” The area cost adjustment picks up that general difference of delivering a service in those areas. There is a balance here. We want a simplified system that can be scrutinised and understood. The more we adapt and change and really drill down on that, the more complicated it becomes, the more it has to be updated and the more that changes. There is always a balance to be had between simplicity, being understood and giving certainty over the multi-year settlement, while recognising the differences at a local level.

    Hansard source
24. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

    We have always taken the view that the rural services delivery grant had, to put it mildly, a weak evidence base to support it. A political decision was made when the coalition Government came in and the grant that was given to largely urban authorities was taken away with almost no notice at all. It was replaced by the rural services delivery grant, but without the evidence base to support where it went to. Whatever criticism is applied to the fair funding review, what cannot be criticised is the evidence base that sits beneath it, because it is the best available data. We are laying the foundations for reform more broadly. The multi-year local government finance settlement allows for £4.6 billion of additional funding to be available for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26, including £500 million for the first ever fair pay agreement. The Government are driving the biggest transformation in children’s social care in a generation, with the families first partnership programme backed by nearly £3 billion of investment over four years, including a historic £2.4 billion over the multi-year settlement. That will support local authorities, police and health partners to provide families with the right support at the right time, shifting the system from expensive statutory provision to early intervention and prevention services. The Government recognise that the current SEND system is not working for families, children or local authorities, and we have set out plans to reform it, backed by £4 billion of investment over three years, to deliver expertise without the need for statutory processes and embed new practice into the system. We have also heard calls for a solution to SEND deficits. All local authorities with a deficit will receive a grant covering 90% of their high needs-related deficit. The grant is projected to be worth more than £5 billion nationally, and is subject to each local authority submitting and securing approval for a local SEND reform plan. We recognise the spending pressures from home-to-school transport in recent years, particularly in rural areas. At the fair funding review, we introduced a bespoke home-to-school transport formula that estimates local transport need for pre-16 home-to-school transport, based on pupil numbers and home-to-school distances. Furthermore, following consultation on the design of the formula, the Government increased the distance cap to 50 miles, rather than the originally proposed 20 miles. That change will see only 0.4% of pupil journey distances capped and will avoid unfairly penalising local authorities where children travel further to get to school. We know that the cost of living and homelessness services are causing challenges too, and that homelessness can present in a unique way in rural areas. That is why we are providing more than £4 billion of funding for homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years, including £442 million launched last month, with new flexibility for areas to shape services to meet local need. The Government are committed to making the changes necessary to transform public services and put local government back on its feet. Realigning funding with need and reforming the services that put pressure on local government will empower local leaders to deliver for their communities in rural areas and right across the country, as we have promised. Devolution is a live issue for Cornish colleagues and those from other places. I give credit to Members for their representations on behalf of Cornwall and other areas. The truth is that devolution can happen only with local consent. We need areas to come forward, get local partnerships in place, and rally the support of local authorities. At a time of change in local government, when areas are also dealing with local government reorganisation, there is a lot for them to step up to. That is why we have provided support for local government reorganisation areas, as I covered in another Westminster Hall debate this week. We want devolution to be rolled out to every area, but we recognise that the local partnerships in different areas are at different stages. There is an active discussion, which we should welcome, about what the role of community and neighbourhoods ought to be in the new settlement—devolution should go hand in hand with localism and empowerment—what the role of the local authority is, and what added value above and beyond that can be achieved if areas choose a mayoral model. To be clear, if an area is not ready yet for a mayoral model, the position is not that they cannot have devolution and that more cannot be given. I hope Members and people in local government continue to do what they have always done: rally their local areas.

    Hansard source
25. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jessica Toale

    Representation of the People Bill

    Will the right hon. Lady give way?

    Hansard source
26. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jessica Morden

    Housing Affordability

    The Prime Minister has promised to do all he can to end rough sleeping by offering everyone who needs it in England a route off the streets by Christmas. In Newport we have excellent charities such as Eden Gate, which I visited recently, working with the council’s outreach services, but they need more support. Does the Minister agree that the Plaid Cymru Welsh Government should follow Labour’s lead by making tackling homelessness a priority?

    Hansard source
27. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jeff Smith

    Engagements

    Q4. There is promising and exciting evidence about the successful use of psychedelic therapy treatment for trauma, mental health, post-traumatic stress disorder and end-of-life distress. Unfortunately, as many psychedelics are schedule 1 controlled drugs, access for clinical research is bureaucratic and difficult. Will the Prime Minister, and Members across the House, consider supporting my amendments to the Health Bill that would keep safeguards in place but remove some of the barriers to some of that important research and treatment?

    Hansard source
28. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jayne Kirkham

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I will talk about the impact of the EU referendum on my part of the UK. In ’99, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly was recognised as a region in the EU in its own right and granted objective 1 status, reflecting the fact that we were one of the poorest areas not just in the UK but in western Europe. We received over €1 billion in EU funding between 2014 and 2020. Our economy would not have grown as much as it did over the 20 years of objective 1 status without EU money, but the impact went far beyond economic growth. To give some examples: on trains, we had a passing loop and points put into our train service, which made it much quicker and better; on buses, we set up park and ride; on cars, we had the dualling of the A30. We had an airport funded, which is now floundering. On renewables, United Downs meant our first geothermal power plant was established, while on culture, we had the Hall for Cornwall. In healthcare we had dental and medical schools; we have a combined university campus in Cornwall for the first time. The impacts were huge, and we lost a great deal because of the referendum. Almost everywhere people go in Cornwall, they can see a distinctive—but far too small—blue sign signifying that a building or something else was funded by the EU. That was transformational for us. In 2016, the leave campaign promised that Cornwall and the UK as a whole would not be worse off. That promise has fallen short. We did get shared prosperity funding from the Government afterwards and, along with the other Cornish Labour MPs, I helped to secure the Kernow industrial growth fund for economic growth, but there is a gap: because of that funding, other Government support dwindled. We are now looking forward to a devolution deal, as the Prime Minister mentioned yesterday, to make sure that some of that capacity and growth is restored. The impact on our rural communities has been significant, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) pointed out: particularly on our fishers, who were sold out by the leave campaign, and on our farmers, who had a rocky and uncertain road out of the common agricultural policy and the unhelpful trade deals that we had to deal with. Fortunately, we now have a new land use strategy and the environmental land management deal, and we are working our way out of that. On exports, this Government are looking at a new EU trade and veterinary deal as well.

    Hansard source
29. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jayne Kirkham

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I was rushing through due to lack of time. The impact on farmers has been huge in so many ways, particularly with exports and imports. It is really important that the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement takes that into account. We are lucky in that we are hoping for a fast outcome on that agreement, to try to mend some of the terrible damage that has been done to our food sector. To conclude, perhaps the most pernicious aspect—maybe even more than the financial trauma—was the way that the Brexit vote split us as a society and hardened and coarsened our discourse. Families fell out. We are still polarised, quick to anger and less tolerant. Politicians and the media—all of us, really—had a part to play in that, and that is taking even longer to fix.

    Hansard source
30. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jayne Kirkham

    Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

    It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this debate, which is important and relevant to me. I will probably shorten my speech a little, as the Minister is getting a double dose of Cornwall this afternoon—I apologise for that. We underwent major local government consolidation early in Cornwall. We became a unitary, from a county council and six districts, in 2009. We are now the third largest unitary in the country by population and the fourth largest by area, but the 12th least densely populated of the 62. That creates quite unique opportunities, but also challenges. I want to talk a bit about third-tier councils, because the establishment of our large unitary coincided with austerity. The council withdrew from quite a lot of services—all but the most statutory, really. That meant that the third-tier town and parish councils stepped up and took the reins, preventing the sell-off and closure of all sorts of things, such as green spaces, toilets, libraries and leisure centres—so much of the infrastructure that made our town special. It is great having services run by the people who live there and use them, but there are issues that need sorting out. When third-tier councillors’ councils grow, they still get no pay or expenses. We also have conduct issues clogging up the desks of upper-tier council monitoring officers, who do not have the teeth to sort them out. Precepts in towns have grown significantly larger than in rural parishes. People on one side of a road might be paying £30 for their precept, while those on the other side are paying for everything in the town, so their precept could be £400-plus a year, and obviously those parish residents will still rely on those services. Although third-tier councils are now big in Cornwall and have big budgets—£5 million or £6 million—they are still not recognised or trusted to get external funding. Everything has to come through the unitary, which can lead to a parent-child relationship. In the previous White Paper, we had the support of the previous—and now current—Secretary of State for sorting some of those issues out, as well as things like remote voting and meetings for third-tier councillors. I really hope the Department will pick that up again for third-tier councils. On devolution, obviously the Prime Minister made a statement yesterday, which was very welcome. The focus on further devolution and growth in every postcode is very welcome to those of us in places like Cornwall. We did have a devolution deal back in 2015. It was the first non-metropolitan devo deal. We got a level 2 deal in 2023. There have been a number of situations in which we have benefited quite a lot. On public transport, for example, we got the power to franchise buses and make enhanced partnerships back in 2015. So far, we have gone into enhanced partnerships, but we are now running a pilot to see how franchising could work in rural areas, where it is much more difficult to make it work. We picked it up and ran with it. We were the first rural area to introduce smart ticketing, for example. It will be interesting for us and North Yorkshire to see how franchising could be possible in a rural place. Devolution could also be really important for housing. We are working towards a memorandum of understanding with Homes England, but a full strategic place partnership would also be helpful and important to us. Turning to economic growth, we lost all our EU funding in 2020, which led to a real slowdown in our growth. We did have the shared prosperity fund, but that is now finished. We had access to the Kernow industrial growth fund, which was fantastic, but we continue to need economic growth support in emerging areas, which chimes and aligns very well with the Government’s industrial strategy. The Prime Minister has been talking a lot about the devolution of post-16 skills. In Cornwall, we know our businesses—so does the council, and the further education providers. That could work really well for us, so I am really excited to talk about a future devolution deal with the Prime Minister, as well as making the epic trip to Manchester and going to No. 10 North. Although devolution is an exciting example of progress, it cannot overcome the financial pressures facing our more rural councils. We have heard some examples of things that cost more. Cornwall’s core spending power fell between 2010 and 2018 because of austerity and that Conservative Government, but funding has improved since then and the Government have made efforts to create a fairer funding settlement. Nevertheless, we are still below others in real terms. We have also used the second homes council tax premium, which brought in around £23 million, but even with that we remain in that position. Rurality and peripherality make things cost more. We have heard some examples already, but I want to mention temporary accommodation, as a room in a Travelodge costs £50 in the winter and £100 in the summer. Meanwhile, home-to-school transport is crazy expensive. We cannot use buses and end up using taxis, and there are long distances involved, which makes it difficult. Furthermore, contracts for emergency accommodation also go through the roof in the summer. In children’s social care, there are very few providers and contracts get very few bidders. It is very difficult and we end up having people placed out of Cornwall, which is a very long way to go and is not good for the population. There is also a population increase in the summer; we get about 4 million visitors. That is fantastic and it is good for our economy, but it increases demand on vital services, particularly on things such as environmental health, waste collection and emergency services, as well as public amenities. Something like an overnight visitor levy could be used for that, and we are quite excited about the potential for that to be devolved. In conclusion, Cornwall highlights the opportunities and the challenges of rural upper-tier authorities. We are further down the line than a lot of other authorities—we have had a unitary authority for a long time—and we have seen where that takes us, particularly having lost services that are then picked up by the third tiers. Devolution will be good for us because it will mean that those decisions are taken locally, but for rural authorities to really thrive, that funding needs to reflect the additional costs and pressures of where we are in those sparsely populated areas and the fact that transport in particular is so difficult for us.

    Hansard source
31. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·James Naish

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    Over the summer I was with a constituent who, while celebrating the UK Government’s recent music strategy, recognised the hon. Gentleman’s point about the significant challenge of getting into Europe. Fifty-nine per cent of UK musicians say that touring in Europe has become unviable. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is unacceptable that British musicians and other touring artists face barriers that did not exist pre Brexit? Would he encourage the Minister to look seriously at accelerating improvement in this area?

    Hansard source
32. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·James Naish

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    I think we need to be really explicit about the impact on farmers. It costs £200 for health certificates on each consignment with physical checks on dairy, fish and red meat. My hon. Friend does a huge amount of work on behalf of her constituents who are farmers, but does she agree that that £200 figure should not be forgotten in debates like this? It is a significant burden on our farmers.

    Hansard source
33. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·James Murray

    Employer National Insurance Contributions: Small Businesses in Hampshire

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) for raising this issue today and for bringing representatives of businesses in her constituency to Parliament to listen to this debate about such an important issue. As the hon. Member mentioned, the Government are prioritising growth. In the first half of this year, we were the fastest growing economy in the G7. The Government’s vision is to make sure that growth is felt in every community, high street and postcode. Small and medium-sized businesses are central to that ambition, because they play such an important role in every community across the country, creating jobs, supporting local economies and helping to drive better living standards. Sustainable economic growth depends on stable public finances. Fiscal discipline has to be the bedrock of economic stability, and that stability is necessary to support investment, confidence and long-term growth. As hon. Members will know, the Government have taken decisions on tax, welfare and spending in order to repair the public finances, protect economic stability and fund the public services on which families and businesses rely and into which the hon. Member for North East Hampshire called for greater investment. As part of that wider fiscal consolidation, changes have been made to employer national insurance contributions. Those changes were introduced from April 2025 and were accompanied by significant protections for smaller employers, including the more than doubling of the employment allowance to £10,500. That means that around 900,000 employers—around 40%—will have no employer national insurance liability at all. In North East Hampshire alone, around 2,300 employers benefited from the employment allowance in ’25-26. Overall across the country, the employment allowance was estimated to be worth around £7.4 billion in the last tax year. In addition, businesses can claim employer national insurance contribution reliefs, including for under-21s and under-25 apprentices, which are worth around £2.5 billion a year. That means that employers pay no employer national insurance contributions for apprentices under 25 or employees under 21 on earnings up to £50,270. The UK’s 5.7 million small and medium-sized enterprises are central to growth across the country. The Government are backing them to succeed, supporting entrepreneurship and helping people to live well in every part of the country. Again, I thank the hon. Member for securing today’s debate. Question put and agreed to.

    Hansard source
34. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Helena Dollimore

    Engagements

    Everyone is so excited about the return of the Bayeux tapestry, which comes back to our shores for the first time in almost 1,000 years. That is a testament to this Labour Government’s work to strengthen our relations with European neighbours. Hastings has often been at the centre of historical events, but we have not felt the benefits and we rank in the bottom 10 places nationally for social mobility. Thanks to my campaign, the young people I represent will get free priority access to the tapestry exhibition and not be priced out by the cost of a ticket. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that this is great news, and that the British Museum must do all it can to ensure as many as people from my area as possible can see the exhibition?

    Hansard source
35. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Gerald Jones

    Strengthening the Union

    The Plaid Cymru Welsh Government marked their first 100 days in office last week with little fanfare—their achievements to date seem to be setting up Committees and commissioning reports, rather than focusing on the needs of the people of Wales. Does the Secretary of State agree that spending time and money on a commission into independence and undermining the Union of the United Kingdom is not the best way to deliver on the priorities for the people of Wales?

    Hansard source
36. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Gareth Snell

    Representation of the People Bill

    I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. The shadow Secretary of State made a defence of the right for overseas electors to vote based simply on their citizenship. Why, when someone who does not live in this country can vote based on their citizenship, does the right hon. Lady argue that a 16-year-old with the same citizenship rights who lives here and contributes should not?

    Hansard source
37. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Gareth Snell

    Stoke-on-Trent to Manchester Airport Train Service

    Like many, the great residents of Stoke-on-Trent Central enjoy accessing our airports to go on holiday, so they are rightly concerned about the lack of a train link between Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester airport that is similar to the system that runs to Birmingham airport. Having to change at Piccadilly adds delays and means that we have trouble getting businesses down. All the evidence suggests that such a link would be of economic benefit to our city. The petitioners therefore request “that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the relevant train operating companies to establish a direct train connection between Stoke-on-Trent railway station and Manchester airport.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Stoke-on-Trent Central, Declares that residents and businesses are concerned about the poor connectivity between Stoke-on-Trent and its nearest airport, Manchester airport, further declares that, at present, local people travelling for work or holidays must take a train to Manchester Piccadilly that goes right past the airport (in south Manchester) before changing at Manchester Piccadilly; further declares that this creates risks of delays, is inconvenient for bigger families with lots of luggage and for older or disabled people; and further declares that a direct connection between Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester airport would help to generate inward investment for the area, support jobs for local people, and help to put Stoke-on-Trent firmly on the transport map. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the relevant train operating companies to establish a direct train connection between Stoke-on-Trent railway station and Manchester airport. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003230]

    Hansard source
38. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

    Representation of the People Bill

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
39. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

    Representation of the People Bill

    The Representation of the People Bill is central to our plan for fixing politics. Every one of us in this House has a responsibility to show the value of participating in our elections, but the reality is that too many people have lost faith in politics, and we must address the reasons for that. At the heart of this must come measures to reassure the public that the elections they are voting in are fair and free from foreign interference. We must stand against the unprecedented tide of abuse faced by those who put themselves forward to represent their communities. The Bill will secure our elections against those who threaten them, protect those who participate, ensure that our democracy remains open and accessible to legitimate voters, and strengthen, preserve and modernise our elections for the next generation. It delivers our 2025 strategy for modern and secure elections. It takes forward the recommendations of the Rycroft review and meets our manifesto commitments. It sets the foundations for elections that are fairer and a democracy that is stronger. Before I speak to the Government amendments tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, I thank those who participated in the passage of the Bill. I pay particular tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), for her tireless work in getting the Bill to this stage. Cryptoassets have come up in our debates. Cryptoasset transactions create a new and clear route for untraceable money to enter our politics. These Government amendments therefore propose a ban on political donations made in cryptoassets, in line with the recommendations in the Rycroft review. The ban applies to donations of all values. The specific risk associated with foreign interference and crypto donations is not the same as the risk associated with donations made by bank transfers. The ban will apply retrospectively. Any donations made in cryptoassets from 25 March 2026 must be returned within 30 days following the commencement of these provisions.[Official Report, 7 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 5WC.] (Correction) This is to prevent malign actors taking advantage of the advance notice of the ban. If recipients fail to comply, they risk enforcement action and, potentially, criminal liability. The Government intend to end the ban once the Electoral Commission and Parliament are satisfied that the regulatory environment around cryptoassets is robust enough to protect the integrity of our political finance from foreign interference. Ending the ban will therefore require further legislation. We are also amending the definition of “donation” to include arrangements in which a property is used to pay for the expenses of a recipient.

    Hansard source
40. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

    Representation of the People Bill

    I thank my right hon. Friend for making that important and valuable contribution. It is right that a number of amendments are seeking to limit donations originating from cryptoassets. We agree that the anonymity of crypto transactions creates a worrying route for illicit actors to channel money into our politics. This is an area that the Government are definitely keen to continue to review, ensuring that we end any unintended loopholes that may still arise.

    Hansard source