What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
We have heard that line for the last two years. The question that the public want answered, and the one I asked the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), before the summer, is: where is the case? The former Defence Secretary said that he was looking at the details closely. Six weeks on, can the Minister confirm that the deal is now dead, as it should be?
We know that Labour’s NHS policy on mandatory advice and guidance and single point of access has led to deaths. We on the Opposition Benches warned about it, doctors warned about it, and patients warned about it, and we were told repeatedly that it was total nonsense, misinformation, opportunism and even conspiracy theories. Now the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, the Government’s safety watchdog, has produced a report linking this system to deaths and asked for a rapid review. The right hon. Gentleman has been a Health Secretary before. Will he commit to that review, to ensure there are no further delays in diagnosis and no further deaths as a result of this policy?
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) on securing it and the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) on his previous efforts. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for his long-standing work in this area. It was helpful that he set out in his contribution that the issue is not new and that similar attempts to use the law in such a manner go back quite some time. Free speech is not simply a “nice to have”—it is one of the foundations on which free society is built. It allows whistleblowers to come forward, victims of abuse and misconduct to tell their stories and be heard, and journalists and campaigners to hold the powerful to account. However, free speech is not real if it can be exercised only by those wealthy enough to defend it. When people are frightened into silence not because what they have said is false but because of the cost of being right is too high, something is fundamentally wrong. That is the danger posed by SLAPPs. At their worst, SLAPPs are not really about winning in court but about using the process itself as a punishment. They are designed to make the journey to court so expensive and exhausting that the journalist, campaigner, whistleblower or victim gives up before a judge ever considers the merits of the case. That chilling effect is not accidental—it is the point. Claims that go all the way to trial can cost an enormous amount in legal fees. Even a defendant who wins can be left with thousands of pounds of unrecovered legal bills. The threat being made is not always “We will win”; very often, it is “We can afford this for longer than you can.” Asymmetry is the weapon. We have seen that in some of the most high-profile cases involving British journalists and publishers. Catherine Belton and her publisher faced multiple legal actions after the publication of “Putin’s People”; Tom Burgis and HarperCollins faced litigation over “Kleptopia”; and Eliot Higgins and Bellingcat were pursued through the courts by Yevgeny Prigozhin. I pay tribute to those publishers and businesses who resisted that pressure and were willing to pay those legal bills that enabled those publications to survive, when we know others do not. These cases show how wealthy and powerful overseas actors, including Russian oligarchs, Kremlin-linked figures and large foreign corporations have been able to use or threaten to use English courts to put pressure on British journalists who are investigating corruption, kleptocracy and misconduct. That should concern every Member of this House. We have to have a situation in which journalists can continue to act without fear or favour. We want charities to be able to raise concerns about wrongdoing and survivors of abuse to speak publicly about what happened to them. I have spoken in the House before about how the UK is the most frequent international origin of legal threats against journalists, accounting for 31% of all such cases. There are lots of things that we can be proud of about our judicial system and its popularity around the world, but that should give us pause for thought. Around 30% of SLAPPs in 2023 were used to prevent reporting of sexual misconduct. We cannot think of that as an intangible threat to freedom of speech alone: it is being used to silence victims of some of the most personal violations imaginable. The shadow Justice Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), put it plainly in a previous debate on this subject: “SLAPPs have been deployed by those with deep pockets against company employees, non-governmental organisations, campaign activists, survivors of abuse and people from many walks of life.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 423.] He was right. This is experienced not only in Fleet Street, but by charity workers who have documented wrongdoing at care homes, by campaigners who have published evidence of environmental harm and by the victims of sexual violence. Let me be clear about the Conservatives’ position: we support the principle of regulating further to stop abusive SLAPP litigation. It is not right that wealthy individuals, foreign oligarchs or large corporations can use disproportionate spending power and the threat of financial ruin to silence legitimate public interest. Any legislation must be well drafted and carefully considered. People must still be able to defend their reputations in court. If a person is genuinely being defamed or false allegations have been made against them, they must have access to justice. I am sure we have all had our own experiences. During a previous election campaign, a so-called journalist decided that my record as a volunteer policeman was entirely fantastical and made up, and that I was a criminal, and I had to get a solicitor involved to get that taken down. I am sure that we have all had similar experiences. Clearly, at the moment the balance is wrong. The question is whether the courts should be used by those with the deepest pockets to intimidate critics, bury investigations and frighten others into silence. They should not. It is important, as many hon. Members have already done, to recognise the progress to date. The previous Conservative Government introduced the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 that provided the first statutory definition of a SLAPP and created a power to strike out abusive claims at an early stage in cases relating to economic crime. We recognise, as the motion notes, that those provisions were narrow, but they were a start. The previous Government also ran a call for evidence in 2022, covering the wider landscape of SLAPP abuse, and supported the private Member’s Bill from the then Member of Parliament for Caerphilly that would have extended those protections significantly. That Bill fell before the election and a new version of it was not proposed by the new Government. The current Government’s record on the issue has been underwhelming. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), described the abuse of courts by the rich and powerful as intolerable. In October 2024, the Justice Secretary promised legislation as soon as parliamentary time allowed, but it did not appear in the King’s Speech. We then learned that plans had been drafted and were ready to go, but they were reportedly shelved due to fear of the backlash from some lawyers. Some 111 peers, including eight former Cabinet Ministers, signed a cross-party letter in April demanding action. In its 2022 model law, the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition set out a possible clear legislative framework and has been waiting for a response ever since. The co-chair of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition described action on SLAPPs as “a relatively easy win”, not only for a Government, but for the protection of public interest speech and the overall health of our democratic society. I acknowledge the work done in the other place by Baroness Stowell of Beeston. For some time, the Lords have been an important advocate of legislation in this area. The point I make to the Government is simple. They do not need to start from scratch; they have years of cross-party debate, expert testimony and the lived experience of victims. They have campaigners, journalists, lawyers and Members from across both Houses calling for action. The building blocks are there, and the Government have accepted the principle. The previous Prime Minister has called SLAPPs intolerable. The Justice Secretary has said that legislation will be brought forward, but the King’s Speech has been and gone, so what is the Government’s plan? If the answer today is only warm words, I think the 111 peers who signed the cross-party letter, the editors of The Times, The Sun and The Guardian, the National Union of Journalists, the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition and every Member who has spoken in this debate are perhaps entitled to a little something more. People must be free to defend their reputations in court, but wealthy individuals and corporations must not be able to abuse that freedom and use disproportionate legal firepower to silence legitimate free speech.
Towns and villages across my constituency are often besieged by utility and engineering works. Will the Prime Minister look at and personally respond to my campaign for a statutory duty to co-ordinate those works to keep Runnymede and Weybridge moving?
I congratulate the Government on the hiring of Alistair Burt—he is a good hire and will do great things for some of these most complex of cases—but does the Minister agree that many of these cases are extremely difficult and exceptionally traumatic, and that it is far better to prevent them happening in the first place? What more can be done to advise discretionary travellers on the risks they run when travelling to some of these exceptionally challenging locations, and particularly to advise them in advance of the finite nature of any consular support that may be forthcoming if they get into trouble?
The Prime Minister spoke earlier about deindustrialisation. That is exactly what is happening in my constituency, but that deindustrialisation is being caused directly by Labour’s energy policies. The energy profits levy, the ban on new licences and the delay in approving Jackdaw and Rosebank are all having a huge impact on thousands of jobs. Will the Prime Minister take a different approach from his predecessor and protect jobs in the oil and gas sector?
I thank my near neighbour, the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), for bringing this important subject to the House. Like her, I have seen many of these problems in my constituency. We have had a number of problems in Budleigh: every major bank has left the town. Importantly, there are a number of smaller surrounding villages, such as East Budleigh and Colaton Raleigh, meaning that the town supports around 6,500 people, yet we have no access to cash whatsoever. The area is a tourist economy, with people coming down during the summer, but there is no access to cash for tourists. On multiple occasions, people have tried to take out money from the cash machine on the side of Tesco, but the money has simply run out. That is not good enough for a place that relies on tourists. We have seen a similar problem in Exmouth, where our post office is closing and we have one remaining bank. Exmouth is one of the largest towns in Devon, so that is just not acceptable. Looking at the demographics, we are a largely elderly constituency where people have mobility issues, and access to transport is not the same as in London, Manchester or other bigger cities, so this needs to be sorted out rapidly. We have heard strong calls for a banking hub, and we have been trying to work with Link for the past year but have been rejected twice. From what we have seen, Link does not incorporate the geographic and demographic issues that I have just raised. I strongly call on the Minister to reassess the criteria that Link is using to make sure that constituencies like mine are not left out.
The service complaints system is a vital safeguard for members of the armed forces and those who have served. It has been brilliant to be on the Armed Forces Bill Committee over the past year with Members from the Liberal Democrats and many Government Members. It is nice to be able to touch on this in a consensual way, and those on the Government Front Bench will be happy to know that we will not seek to divide the Committee. This statutory instrument gives people who believe that they have been wronged in a matter relating to their service a route to seek redress. Everyone who serves or has served has an interest in a process that is fair, accessible and efficient. There has been progress, but serious pressures still remain; the Armed Forces Bill Committee heard that repeatedly when we visited the service justice unit down in Portsmouth. In her 2025 annual report, the Service Complaints Ombudsman, Mariette Hughes, assessed the system as efficient and effective for the first time, but not yet fair. The report also records that the tri-service timeliness targets were not met, and that staffing problems across all three services hindered progress on cases. The Royal Air Force, in whose outfit the Minister served, illustrates the pressure. Its workforce review identified under-resourcing of all four full-time case management roles. Under the new timeliness measure, 42% of RAF complaints were closed within the 24-week target in 2025, against a 90% target. The average resolution time rose from 22 weeks to 28 weeks, and the number of open RAF cases increased for the third year running. Against that backdrop, the Opposition believe that the instrument replacing the term “appropriate officer” with “appropriate person” is a good change. It allows for administrative roles, following a referral from the commissioner, to be carried out by a competent civilian as well as by military officers. The role includes informing the individual that the allegation has been referred, finding out whether they wish to make a service complaint and notifying the commissioner of the outcome. Those are referral and notification functions. The instrument does not give a civilian a new power to determine the merits of the underlying complaint. This reform will streamline the system, ease resourcing pressures and deliver better value for money. The second change enacted by the instrument concerns a decision on whether an appeal was brought on a ground permitted by the applicable regulations. The instrument adds that decision to the list of matters about which a person may make a service complaint, and the 2025 annual report gives useful context. Between 2021 and 2025, admissibility applications to the ombudsman increased by 72%, from 108 to 186, while substance and maladministration applications increased by 5%. In 2025, 37% of the admissibility applications concerned appeal admissibility reviews, while only 15% of the admissibility review cases were upheld—by far the lowest proportion of all applications being upheld. We know from having heard directly from the service justice unit that the wider system is already under pressure, and it is an issue we have tried to resolve through the Armed Forces Bill. A complaint received in 2025 that was not appealed took an average of 20 weeks to close; where an appeal was admitted, the average was 33 weeks. It is therefore reasonable to prevent the specified decision on valid appeal grounds from becoming the subject of fresh service complaints. The instrument will help to relieve pressure on the complaints system and increase the resourcing available to deal with other complaints, and it will not touch the right to appeal on applicable grounds. The risk of injustice, we believe, is minimal, and as such, the Opposition support this instrument.
T4. As bond yields climb sharply and turmoil in the middle east revives inflationary pressures, how is the Foreign Secretary reassuring international partners that Britain can pay its way? More importantly, is he warning the new Prime Minister of fresh, non-essential spending?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I know that you like good news, so I will start with some. Last week I met Stuart Miller, the chief executive of the Cumberland building society. He confirmed that the building society will keep all its branches open indefinitely —including those in Dumfries, Lockerbie, Langholm, Annan and Gretna—and that it is already seeing an uptick in customers coming from banks that have closed. My constituency—which, as you will know, Mr Wishart, is larger than any consistency in England—has seen the wholesale closure of all Lloyds and Bank of Scotland branches. We have only one Royal Bank of Scotland NatWest branch left. The branch in Biggar is about to close, and there is no real arrangement in place for what will replace it. There is very poor mobile reception, as I experienced yesterday, and there is no commitment to a free-to-access cash machine. The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) made an important point, which I have also raised with the Minister’s predecessor: Link abides by the rules—it is a rules-based organisation. In Moffat in my constituency, there are technically two other cash machines—one is in a shop and never has any money in it, and the other is in another location that is not open 24/7—so we are unable to get a free-to-access cash machine in the centre of what is a very busy town. That issue needs to be looked at. As the Minister and others may know, Henry Duncan founded the world’s first savings bank in my constituency in 1810. It seems rather ironic that it was easier to access banking 200-odd years ago than it is now.
Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that some people who would otherwise be willing and able do not have access to these services? Many of my constituents do not have good enough mobile service to operate apps.
I welcome the Prime Minister back to the House of Commons and genuinely wish him well in his endeavours. I gently point out, however, that No. 10 North is three hours south of my constituency; I hope his view of the north involves a whole-of-the-north approach. One measure that would not cost him anything and would be popular in the north, and across the whole of the UK, would be to rule out something that appeared in the previous Prime Minister’s Green Paper on the future of television: the suggestion that terrestrial free-to-view television could be switched off in 2034. That would mean that everyone would have to pay to watch television, which particularly affects the elderly, vulnerable and those who live in rural areas.
I welcome the new Prime Minister to the Dispatch Box. I note that in his statement he referred to the biggest issues facing the country as being “the economy and the cost of living crisis”. Will he accept that one of the things that has damaged our economy and caused prices to be higher is the tax-and-spend Budget in November 2024? He has cut taxes twice—two small tax cuts—since he became Prime Minister. Will he commit that in the Budget there will be no further searching for new things to tax? The biggest message of hope he could send to the country today would be to rule out further tax rises.
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I know that the whole House will join the Home Secretary and me in paying tribute to those brave officers tragically killed in the crash on the A66 in the early hours of 22 August. Our thoughts are with the families of PCs Matthew Blades and Tom Clough, whose lives were cut short by a car recklessly driven on the wrong side of the road by criminals. Those brave officers made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. They will never be forgotten. Every day, police officers up and down the country risk their lives to keep us safe. We owe them all a deep debt of gratitude. This tragedy has sent shockwaves through Cleveland police and the public more widely. The Home Secretary has set out some of the steps being taken to support local police, but will she confirm that every request for extra assistance made by Cleveland police has been met? In the aftermath of 22 August, I was shocked to see so-called tributes staged for some of the men directly responsible for PCs Blades and Clough’s deaths that included cars being driven dangerously and set on fire. Criminal activity of that kind is wrong in principle and deeply offensive in these circumstances. Will the Home Secretary join me in condemning that activity and calling on the police to ensure it does not happen again? Organised crime was allowed to take hold in whole parts of Middlesbrough. Criminal gangs ran rampant and engaged in retaliatory attacks on one another. Homes and properties were attacked with no consequence, and that escalated even further in the days after 22 August. Although it is welcome that 27 people have finally been arrested, such lawless gang chaos should never have been allowed to take root in the first place. The police need proper resources to stop that. Many campaigners, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), the shadow police Minister, who I see in his place, have raised concerns for some time that there is a multi-million pound shortfall in funding for Cleveland police in the current financial year. Even the local Labour police and crime commissioner, Matt Storey, said this Government’s financial settlement this year “completely fails to deliver the resources required to meet the demand faced by Cleveland Police and falls far short of what is needed.” Does the Home Secretary accept her own police and crime commissioner’s assessment that the funding she put in place for Cleveland police this year is inadequate? Lawless chaos followed that underfunding, and I think the Home Secretary should apologise for that. The £2 million just referred to is only 0.5% of Cleveland’s budget and is clearly wholly inadequate in the circumstances. I am afraid that that reflects a wider national trend that goes beyond Cleveland. The last Government left behind record ever police numbers, but there are now 1,800 fewer police officers under this Government. As a result, crime has increased by 10% and antisocial behaviour has gone up by 15% in just the last year. The Home Secretary must accept that cutting overall police numbers was a mistake. Will she take steps to reverse that decline? The truth is that only zero tolerance of crime and disorder will ensure that criminals are the ones who are afraid, and not the law-abiding public. We have seen the consequences, with the rampant gangs going unchallenged in Middlesbrough, and it is clear now that a zero-tolerance approach is required to keep the public safe.
I call Alex Sobel, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
I am conscious that another Member has risen, but we have only 10 minutes left. The hon. Lady might prefer to confine her comments to an intervention on the Minister in the interests of time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and I congratulate the Minister on her appointment. The draft regulations extend the period during which the Government may exercise the existing powers under the Energy Prices Act 2022. Specifically, they extend the Secretary of State’s power to fund a proportion of the renewables obligation costs attributable to domestic electricity supply from 25 April 2026 until 25 October 2026. No new powers are created through this instrument; it simply prolongs the exercise of powers that Parliament has already granted. The Minister has explained that the purpose of the extension is to support the Government’s policy of reducing domestic energy bills by transferring 75% of renewables obligation costs from consumers to the Exchequer, claiming that it will reduce household energy bills by an average of £150 from April 2026. However, the measure is solely another exercise by the Government in moving costs from one pocket to another. Households may pay less through their energy bills, but they are still expected to meet those costs through general taxation. It is also worth reminding the House of what the subsidies are funding. The renewables obligation provides long-term support to renewable generators, with consumers now bearing the brunt of the cost. The Government are not, as they are claiming, tackling the underlying drivers of high energy prices; they are simply shifting the burden from energy bills on to the public finances. The Minister speaks of a commitment to lowering household energy bills by £300, yet household energy costs are now higher than when the Government entered office in 2024.
My right hon. Friend is experienced in these matters. I would have thought that question would be in the 101 of presenting this instrument to the House. We are pleased to see the Government finally adopt our Conservative party policy of abolishing the carbon price support on electricity generation, but their plan for the promised £300 savings is still nowhere to be found. While Labour transfers the cost of renewable subsidies on to taxpayers, the Conservative party has set out our cheap power plan to reduce the underlying cost of energy for households. That plan would abolish the renewables obligation altogether, accelerate the delivery of new nuclear power by cutting unnecessary planning barriers, remove VAT from domestic energy bills for three years and abolish the carbon tax. Together, those measures would reduce household bills by around £200—not simply move costs from one bill to another. Can the Minister outline what the Government’s plan for cheap power is, and if not, whether they are willing to accept ours as a solution? Finally, when, if ever, will households receive the £300 reduction in energy bills, as promised at the last general election?
7. What assessment he has made of the level of threat China poses to UK interests.
It is good to hear the Minister acknowledge that China is a threat. The directors of GCHQ and MI5 have been clear that China presents the most significant state-based threat to the UK. The Government have previously talked about their China audit; will they commit to publishing it in full?
Clearly, the free flow of shipping through the strait of Hormuz is vital to western economies, but the threat is that Iran will seek to take complete control over shipping through the strait. What sanctions do the Government propose to take to prevent Iran from succeeding?
I share the Prime Minister’s vision of ending rough sleeping for good. He was very kind to refer to my private Member’s Bill, but there are two actions that he could take now that he is in office. First, the various different attempts at progress on Housing First could be brought together across the country, because ending rough sleeping is one thing, but building that network of support around people is vital. The second aspect relates to my second private Member’s Bill, which became law in 2023, but is still to be enacted. It would regulate the use of supported housing. Will he act now to make sure that it is enacted, so that vulnerable people are protected from rogue landlords?
I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of local government reorganisation on Cambridgeshire. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. Last week I wrote to the Secretary of State outlining my concerns regarding the delayed decision on the future of local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. Thus far we have heard little of her position regarding the criteria under which a decision will be made and how it may differ from that of her predecessor, who decided to delay the decision in the first place. I outlined how the pregnant pause preceding this interregnum is creating uncertainty and instability and affecting the retention of experienced council personnel, investment decisions for local businesses and questions about the viability of local plans crucial to the success of Huntingdonshire. In Huntingdonshire, we fear a local government reorganisation stitch-up. In January, I asked the then Prime Minister whether he could “offer assurances to my constituents and people across Huntingdonshire that the decision is not already a done deal, and that the democratic will of Huntingdonshire district council will not be overridden to satisfy an unelected Labour regional office”.—[Official Report, 14 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 928.] He said: “There are no done deals here; we are going through the proper process.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 928.] In March, I asked the previous Minister for Local Government whether she could “reassure me that Huntingdonshire will not be split in two”.—[Official Report, 26 March 2026; Vol. 783, c. 411.] She did not offer any reassurance, so here we are in September with no decision having yet been made as we await the announcement of what we fear will be a stitched-up local government reorganisation in favour of a gerrymandered pork barrel option that even Labour councillors in Huntingdonshire despise.
Given that Peterborough has unitary status, I agree that it makes sense for a city the size of Cambridge to have that unitary basis. However, I stress that I do not believe that should come at the expense of other regions across the county. The Government splitting Huntingdonshire in two and using the wealthier half to try to prop up their two MPs in the north of the county is going to go down badly. The hon. Members for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) and for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) proposed option D after it was concocted by the Labour East regional office. Nobody in Huntingdonshire was asked or consulted about the proposal, but as soon as it was put forward by those two MPs, it was clear that it would be the one likely chosen by the Government.
I would bounce that back at the hon. Member and ask him why he never came to me or any of the other Huntingdonshire MPs to ask about proposing an option that would split Huntingdonshire in two. The hon. Member told the BBC last summer: “A Mid Cambridgeshire council would allow rural areas across East Cambridgeshire, Fenland and parts of Huntingdonshire to form an authority that can deliver effectively on residents’ priorities, while a Greater Peterborough council encompassing the most high-growth areas of northern and western Cambridgeshire could better regulate and plan that growth.” Nonsense. I am fascinated to know how an almost entirely rural Mid Cambridgeshire county council is supposed to thrive when it has no basis for economic growth. The Greater Peterborough council would encompass “the most high-growth areas of northern and western Cambridgeshire”. I wonder which authority the hon. Member’s constituency is within.
I concur with the hon. Gentleman. There is absolutely an opportunity here to learn from previous mistakes and make sure that they are not repeated when we drive this forward in the new year. In early July, news began to leak out from the Local Government Association’s annual conference that Peterborough city council suddenly seemed to be aware that option D was going to get the nod. Word spread quickly among Cambridgeshire senior executives that option D was going to be selected. Who was leaking that information, and why was I left to announce it on ITV News Anglia so that people could see for themselves that the process under this Government was on the cusp of selecting the Labour-proposed option, as has happened in local authority areas across the country? Strangely enough, the response received on Friday to a freedom of information request to Peterborough city council was not able to be answered. I eagerly await the response to my own subject access request in a few days’ time. It is simply a disgrace that the Government would treat Cambridgeshire residents with this level of contempt by leaking the outcome of a decision that appears to have been almost certainly predetermined to a privileged few, allowing those who have been given the information to achieve a head start and for favoured businesses to gain a competitive advantage, and affecting decisions on employment and education opportunities and future investment decisions.
No, I will carry on. The announcement by the former Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on 16 July therefore makes little sense. He said: “On Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and West Sussex, I am not making announcements today, because further time is required to get the decisions right.”—[Official Report, 16 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 1097.] Could the Minister outline precisely what was meant when the former Secretary of State stated that further time was required to get the decisions right? Can he state definitively how much time is required, and can he articulate what specifically is in danger of being got wrong?
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is absolutely key that we get clarity on the timeline for this decision process—when it will be taken and when we can expect to hear—because there are local elections to prepare for next year and people need to know exactly what is going on.
I agree with the hon. Member. We urgently need clarity. On the statement that was made before recess, we saw a huge amount of discontent across both sides of the House with the decisions that had been taken previously, and it is essential that we get real clarity on exactly what the process is going to be. I appreciate that the Minister has come back into his role having had some time away and may be having to catch up, but I assure him that the strength of feeling is high.
I will make a little progress. Further to this, in his letter of 16 July, somewhat contradictorily, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), stated: “I have decided that more time is needed to consider which option, if any, to implement at this time in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.” We now have a new—old—Secretary of State. Can the Minister clarify whether the Secretary of State also requires more time in order to make a decision? Whether she does or does not, can the Minister clarify when the Secretary of State plans to have made her decision by? Her Department has held no further discussions with Huntingdonshire district council, so what precisely is in need of further discussion that warrants a delay of two months? Can the Minister outline why there has been a delay? Can he also clarify when Labour MPs were informed of the delay to a decision in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough in the first place? I ask the Minister to clarify, on the record, whether his departmental colleague, Baroness Taylor, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, participated in a meeting with Labour MPs and councillors on Wednesday 15 July 2026, during which local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough was discussed. I ask him to choose his “yes/no” answer to that question very carefully, lest he might later be accused of misleading the House. My position remains extant: I back a Huntingdonshire unitary authority, which is known locally as option E. It is the option that was overwhelmingly backed by councillors from all parties across Huntingdonshire district council. Disappointingly, the only people not to have backed this option are Huntingdonshire’s two other Members of Parliament. I maintain that a united front in this respect would have sent a stronger message to the Government. I have led two debates in Parliament about local government reorganisation, both of which highlighted the potential issues that arise from getting the decision wrong. The more recent of those debates was last November and during it I provided an in-depth assessment of why option D specifically was unworkable. It is almost as if I expected the Government to stitch up the decision. I will reiterate the points that I made then for the benefit of the Minister who is here today. Option D rips Huntingdonshire in half, creating east and west Huntingdonshire. There is a significant risk in attempting to disaggregate Huntingdonshire district council. There is a lack of precedent and an absence of lessons being learned, not to mention the destruction of local identity in Huntingdonshire, which is already stronger than local identities elsewhere in Cambridgeshire, particularly in separating Huntingdon from Godmanchester and St Ives. Disaggregating Huntingdonshire district council would also come with greater transition costs and affect service delivery. Peterborough is a basket case. It is estimated that 11% of Peterborough’s budget is needed simply to service its own debts, with 80% needed to fulfil its statutory adult and children’s social care obligations. How on earth does it plan to run all the other existing county and district functions on a 9% budget? Peterborough council’s debt gearing is 91%, against a national benchmark of just 50%. Under the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s local authority financial resilience index analysis, Peterborough is rated as high-risk for its overall level of reserves, its unallocated reserves, its earmarked reserves, its interest payable or net revenue expenditure, its gross external debt, its fees and charges to service expenditure ratio, its council tax requirement or net revenue expenditure, and its growth above baseline. Huntingdonshire is not deemed to be high-risk in a single one of those categories.
No, I am going to carry on. The option D business case itself states: “As Peterborough has historically required exceptional financial support and comes from the most financially challenged position, increasing the scale does not necessarily provide the desired resilience. Reserves still remain low. The cost of servicing debt continues to eat into a significant proportion of the net budget and the funding headroom is tight. This could be mitigated by resizing services in line with available funding.” Option D provides a significantly lower level of reserves, leaving it more vulnerable to shocks. The reserves of Greater Peterborough are comfortably the lowest in Cambridgeshire at just 16%, which is again deemed high-risk. By comparison, Huntingdonshire would be 42%. On employment, we need look no further than the percentage of universal credit claimants in the local authority; in Huntingdonshire, it is 2.8%, while in Peterborough it is 8%, which is far and away the highest rate locally; Peterborough has the highest unemployment rate in Cambridgeshire. Greater Peterborough is also projected to have the highest prevalence of education, health and care plans, and the greatest risk of special educational needs and disabilities escalation. At present, Huntingdonshire has the second lowest rate of EHCP prevalence in Cambridgeshire. This analysis strongly suggests that the system would all but immediately collapse. Greater Peterborough will have the highest spend per resident for adult social care and for children’s social care, more than double that of the other two unitaries, as well as the highest SEND spend per resident and the highest percentage of homeless households, at nearly double that of Greater Cambridge. It is akin to the Berlin Wall being put up overnight, condemning one half of Huntingdonshire to eking out an existence in the bleak Peterborough Democratic Republic while the eastern half enjoys the trappings of a slightly better existence in the Federal Republic of Mid Cambridgeshire. But will we? Is Mid Cambridgeshire any more viable than Greater Peterborough? No, it is not. A unitary authority for Mid Cambridgeshire would be centred upon St Neots as the biggest town, compared with Cambridge or Peterborough in the neighbouring unitaries. The option D business case barely even attempts to sell the viability of Mid Cambridgeshire, stating: “It encourages reflection on ensuring the resilience of all unitaries, especially Mid Cambridgeshire”. It goes on to outline that “targeted action can be taken to sustain its market, towns and rural communities” and that this model safeguards the rapid growth trajectories of the two city regions. It makes no effort to address the challenges that this would leave Mid Cambridgeshire to face.
I agree. The numbers that I saw were terrifying. I think somewhere in the region of 80% to 90% of Cambridgeshire’s peat roads would be based in the Mid Cambridgeshire authority; the roads budget itself simply would not be able to cope with that. I did not know the point about the internal drainage board and the mid-level commissioners, but having seen some of that infrastructure I can well imagine that the bill for replacing that will be terrifying if it falls solely on Mid Cambridgeshire. The business case also states that Mid Cambridgeshire’s “proposed lower levels of funding may result in difficulty in being able to deliver services to residents within its budget envelope. A significant transformation programme will be required to ensure services are resized accordingly”. We can read that to mean “reduced”. The business case later adds that “Mid Cambridgeshire may face particular challenges in both capacity and funding for high-cost statutory services”, and that Mid Cambridgeshire “in particular, may require additional support to ensure it can participate fully and equitably in regional initiatives”. That is very reflective of the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire about the land grab for high-growth areas that Greater Peterborough is attempting. Mid Cambridgeshire will be set up to fail.
I am not aware of that; I have not seen the detail of the report so it would be remiss of me to opine on it, but I have read the business cases in detail. While splitting the county into those three distinct regions may look like it makes sense, the travel regions for those areas are very distinct and do not necessarily reflect the make-up of the option D business case. It is worth highlighting that in the option D proposal the travel-to-work patterns and commercial activity data clearly illustrate that the movement of people within Mid Cambridgeshire is limited to within each of the three component areas of Huntingdonshire, Fenland and East Cambridgeshire. There is little in the way of movement between them, which begs the question of why three distinct areas would then form a viable unitary authority. The evidence clearly shows that Huntingdonshire would benefit from being its own unitary authority, rather than its being split in two, given that there is little in the way of movement from the northern part of Huntingdonshire into Peterborough, and vice versa. When we look at option D further, we see that it does Mid Cambridgeshire no favours when it comes to gross value added per capita. The two councils with the highest GVA per capita are Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire, which are to be combined to form Greater Cambridge. The next two highest are Peterborough and Huntingdonshire, with the wealthier half of the latter to be merged into Greater Peterborough. That leaves the two councils with the lowest GVA per capita to be combined, along with half of the next lowest, resulting in a Mid Cambridgeshire authority with a GVA per capita that is roughly 50% of neighbouring Greater Cambridge. The lack of potential for growth in Mid Cambridgeshire is baked in by design. If that option is selected by the Government, I would like to understand how Mid Cambridgeshire is supposed to wash its own face. “Splitting Huntingdonshire could weaken this cohesion and reduce its prominence relative to neighbouring authorities.” That is a direct quote from the option D business case, which identifies the threat to Huntingdonshire alongside the lack of viability of either Greater Peterborough or Mid Cambridgeshire. We are now in the crucial final phase prior to the final decision on the outcome of LGR in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and what that decision will mean for the historic county of Huntingdonshire. Will it continue or will it be consigned to history? Mr Speaker marked Huntingdonshire Day this year, posing with the Huntingdonshire flag. That may never happen again. I have outlined the concerns about the proposed changes, the manner in which those changes have been discussed in secret between Labour party politicians and members, and the concerns regarding their feasibility. I have outlined why option D—the option we believe the Government are most likely to select based on conversations among officials within Cambridgeshire—or a variant thereof would not work and would leave Huntingdonshire in a far more perilous state than it is anywhere near today. I have outlined how the business case for option D itself repeatedly raises concerns about the viability of a Mid Cambridgeshire unitary authority—something that those within Huntingdonshire widely believe will fail within a few years. From a scheduling perspective, every day that goes by without a formal decision being taken on the future of local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough further jeopardises the likelihood of implementing it successfully. It is vital that a swift and uncontroversial decision is made in order to give officers the best opportunity to facilitate the transition if we are to realistically meet the May 2027 election timetable currently in place. It is evident that I could have spoken about this issue for a good while longer. That is before discussing the effect it will have on both the local plan, which will now likely be voted on before a decision has been taken, and on Project Fairfax, the defence technology cluster at RAF Wyton for which a memorandum of understanding is already in place with the Ministry of Defence. That project is crucial for fuelling growth in Huntingdonshire and facilitating the growth in every postcode that the new Prime Minister has pitched. Can the Minister confirm what discussions his Department has held with the MOD regarding the impact of LGR on the feasibility of delivering Project Fairfax? Option E—a Huntingdonshire unitary authority—would allow Project Fairfax to flourish. It is the option that Huntingdonshire voted for. Centred around the existing boundaries and an established regional identity, it would create the institutional stability required for long-term investment and growth, and would ensure consistency in leadership, existing teams, partnerships, development pipelines and investor relationships. This is the third time I have made the case for Huntingdonshire to the Minister, so he knows the arguments well by now. He knows that there is no strong argument for pursuing option D at this late stage. I hope that the Secretary of State heeds the details in this speech. Option D simply will not work, and nobody wants it. It would weaken the direct relationship between a defined region and local government, divide the community and destroy an identity. If nothing else, pursuing it would make his party unelectable in Huntingdonshire for a generation. “The public deserves better—better policies that support better outcomes and are better connected to the places people live. Putting place over political party demands collaboration and long-term decision-making within a stable governance structure”. Those are not my words; they are from the Cabinet statement on rewiring the state on 31 July. The Prime Minister should stay true to his word and apply his aspiration to Huntingdonshire.
Should the Government choose an option that sees the Huntingdonshire area split in two between two unitary authorities, what additional support will be given to fully disaggregate the district council’s responsibilities, given the complexity involved? Could the Minister also offer any clarity on local services? For example, the boundary would go in between Huntingdon and Godmanchester, which are separated only by a small bridge—
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. In my constituency, there is not a single bank branch. This issue is a particular challenge for rural communities because not only do we lack bank branches; public transport is extremely limited and, in some areas, non-existent. While many people are comfortable with using digital banking, we should not assume that everyone can simply move online. For older residents and those less confident with technology, the loss of face-to-face provision can be particularly challenging. In rural areas, poor broadband and unreliable mobile coverage only compound the problem. There is real irony in increasingly telling people in precisely those communities where digital infrastructure can be least reliable to rely on digital banking. Alongside the social impact, there is an economic impact. Many small businesses still handle significant amounts of cash and need practical ways to deposit takings, obtain change and manage their finances. Having to travel long distances to do that means lost working hours and additional costs, as well as greater security risks. Of course, I recognise that banking habits are changing and that alternative provision has an important role to play, but alternatives work only if they exist, are accessible and are sustainable. We are also seeing post offices under pressure, with local branches closing in villages including Malpas and Kelsall. It is important that access to banking is measured not simply by the distance to the nearest bank branch but by whether people can genuinely access banking services, and that we take a holistic approach that ensures that rural communities like mine are not simply expected to make do, but properly supported.
The hon. Member is making an important point about the value of the aluminium we throw away. This is not just about drinks cans; blister packs also contain valuable aluminium but are not routinely recycled at the kerbside by many councils. My constituent, Yvonne, has done amazing work in one of our local villages trying to gather together these blister packs for recycling. Does the hon. Member agree that we should be speaking with councils and encouraging them to recycle things like blister packs at the kerbside?
My hon. Friend just mentioned West Sussex, which has also seen the deferral of any decision and a request for a third option despite the fact that the democratically elected councils had offered up two of their own proposals. We are still waiting for a decision and the way forward is still unclear. Does he agree that in both Cambridgeshire and West Sussex, this Government’s inaction and indecision are causing real harm to our constituents because all our council officers are taking so long to deliver this?
My constituents will have been pleased to hear from Sir Jon Cunliffe, who produced 88 recommendations last July. However, his diagnosis is rather different from that of the Prime Minister. He believes that governance and regulation are the key to better performance, rather than some ill-defined version of “better public control”, which, according to the Government’s own assessment, would cost more than £100 billion. Will the Prime Minister promise to enact all 88 of those recommendations without delay?
It is a real joy, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. The regulations before us are welcome. They will make it more convenient for people to register major events in their lives, some of which are the most immensely joyous, and some of which are profoundly heartbreaking. We in this place should be very cautious about imposing duties or obligations on people when they experience a major event in their lives. When we impose such obligations, as we clearly do in respect of registering births and deaths, we should try to make it as easy as possible for them to fulfil those obligations. I particularly welcome the move to make the process easier in relation to stillborns, but I urge the Government to look at what more can be done to ensure that those having to register the stillbirth of a child do not, at a time of great difficulty for them, have to go into a waiting room that is often full of babies and parents who are celebrating a great joy coming into their lives. The Bill applies a principle correctly, but it could and should be applied more broadly. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 introduced by this Government ought to make it simpler to ensure that people’s interactions with the state are as hassle-free as possible, yet in areas such as healthcare, where digitisation and use of personal data can have a profound impact on user experience, we have often heard resistance to reform. Properly implemented digitisation can make life easier for healthcare staff and patients, particularly people waiting for or recovering from major surgery. The difference can be measured in weeks or months of stress and uncertainty. Our duty is to make life simpler for millions of people across the country, so can the Minister say whether this Government are prepared to take the side of the public over trade unions in any future dispute about digitisation, and can she set out what further steps the Government are planning to make it easier for citizens to engage with state services? The regulations before us are welcome. Again, I urge the Minister to specifically look at what more can be done at registry offices for those coming to register a stillbirth, and we hope to see that approach extended to other areas.
Nine weeks ago, the Government were told that Chinese embassy guards were brandishing prohibited electroshock weapons and threatening peaceful vigil holders with them. The Chinese Communist party either breached articles 41 and 27 of the Vienna convention, or it procured these weapons illegally in the UK. The Chinese Communist party will not waive diplomatic immunity, so when will Ministers stop hiding behind a dead-end Metropolitan police investigation and do something to deter future hostilities in the UK?