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
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I am reluctant even to mention this, because all the Members here are so highly experienced, but when mentioning another Member in the Chamber, the etiquette is to give them prior warning, so that they have an opportunity to offer a rebuttal in real time. I am looking for Luke Akehurst, but he is not here, so he has missed his turn.
Order. I will extend the time limit because we have gathered some time. Mark Sewards now has six minutes.
I remind the House that this business has to conclude by 8.3 pm, and that the shadow Front-Bench team may wish to speak on it.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I thank the hon. Member for prior notice of her point of order. Unfortunately, or fortunately for the Chair, I am not responsible for the content of speeches of Members, Secretaries of States or shadow Secretaries of State. It is up to them to be responsible for the content of their speeches. The shadow Secretary of State may wish to respond as I notice that she is in the Chamber. We do not wish to prolong the debate, but a quick response would suffice.
I do not wish to prolong the debate but both points have been put on the record. I will leave it there.
With leave of the House I will group motions 3 to 6 together. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriage, etc. That the draft Registration of Births and Deaths (England and Wales) (Specified Requirements) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 2 June, be approved. Energy That the draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) (No. 2) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 8 June, be approved. International Development That the draft Inter-American Investment Corporation (Further Payments to Capital Stock) (Amendment) Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 16 June, be approved. Defence That the draft Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 29 June, be approved.—(Harpreet Uppal.) Question agreed to.
May I congratulate the Prime Minister on his stamina? Three hours! [Laughter.] Yesterday, he faced 125 questions from MPs across the House. Of course, Labour and the Lib Dems just wanted more Government spending—that is, taxpayers’ money—but can he name a single spending request to which he answered no?
The Prime Minister avoided the question. He did not say no to a single spending request. Personally, I think it is delightful that he wants to make everyone happy, but a Prime Minister needs to be a leader, not a people pleaser. He is talking about working together on welfare. I already made that offer, but it does mean cuts—he wants to bring the welfare bill down by spending more money. Yesterday, the Prime Minister told the House that his summer of promises would be paid for by “reprioritising within Government”, so what exactly has he cut?
I asked what the Prime Minister cut. He says tax cuts. He has not said where the money is coming from. He talks about digital ID—[Interruption.] Yes, I know he said digital ID, but the Chief Secretary to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), said that there was no money allocated to digital ID. You cannot cut something that never existed in the first place. Lord O’Neill, a close friend of the Prime Minister, said yesterday’s statement in the Commons was “the last thing investors wanted to hear”. Lord O’Neill is a serious economist. He knows what he is talking about. Sure enough, yesterday the cost of Government borrowing rose to its highest in 18 years. How does the Prime Minister plan to tackle the Government’s rising debt costs?
I do not know what any of that has to do with tackling the cost of increasing debt. Collaborating with Jim O’Neill is not how we are going to get debt costs down, and he said yesterday that the markets would be worried. The markets are clearly worried that we now have a spendthrift Prime Minister who wants to say yes to everyone but cannot tell us where the money is coming from. He needs to pay for all his new promises, and he has a choice: higher taxes, more borrowing or spending cuts. Yesterday he said, “Change begins with honesty”, so will he be honest and tell us: is he preparing to raise taxes again—yes or no?
The whole House will have heard that the Prime Minister did not rule out tax rises. Instead, what he did was lots of point scoring. He says he wants a new politics; he says he wants honestly, so why is he pretending that a junior Minister wrote that Budget? The fact is that gilt yields now, the cost of borrowing now—[Interruption.] Labour Members are laughing; I do not know why they are laughing. The cost of borrowing now is far more than it ever was under Liz Truss. The reason why that Budget failed is that spending was announced before the money to pay for it, which is exactly what the Prime Minister is doing right now. He says it is the new politics; it is the same old Labour politics—tax and spend. He did not rule out tax rises, and what markets see is a Government that cannot control their spending, so the markets will charge us more to borrow. That means higher mortgage rates for families. It makes life more difficult for businesses, and that pushes up the cost of living for everyone. Higher borrowing costs are the biggest threat to family finances, so will he rule out any more borrowing that will make people poorer?
The right hon. Gentleman is the Prime Minister now and he needs to answer the questions, instead of spending time attacking someone who has more private sector experience than his entire Cabinet. I asked him whether he would rule out more borrowing. He did not do so. We spend more servicing our debt than we do on defence—almost double. There is war in Europe. Yesterday, Germany confirmed that Russia was behind the attack on Leipzig airport. Tensions are so high that the director of the CIA flew to Moscow. We need the plan to hit 3% of GDP on defence now, but the armed forces will not know what they will be getting until next July’s spending review. There is a simple answer to this: cut welfare spending and invest that money in our defence now. Mr Speaker, the honeymoon is over. Isn’t it time for the Prime Minister to ditch the vibes and get serious about defending our nation?
When the British public voted to take back control, they did not vote for Westminster to later duplicate the cost of politics and the civil service. Will the First Secretary of State confirm whether civil servants now working outside London will still receive the London-weighted salary, and will Ministers now working outside London still be able to claim for London-based housing?
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his place and wish him and his team well in this important role. As a former Health Minister working on the NHS in England for the past two years, he will know the challenge of tackling hospital waiting times in the face of rising corridor care. As I think we have heard from the Secretary of State, the time for devolving and forgetting has long since passed, and all nations in our precious Union need fair treatment. Will the Secretary of State do more than simply watch from the sidelines—like his predecessor, sadly—and instead take action for the people of Wales, who have been waiting far too long for proper care under devolution?
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, but if being devolved means not being able to get involved when things go wrong, that is the reason the Welsh NHS is in the mess it is. I want to raise something important for our Union and for the people of Wales. A significant ITV Wales investigation uncovered 28 prevention of future death reports over a 16-month period relating to the scandal-hit Betsi Cadwaladr university health board. [Interruption.] The House might want to listen. North Wales resident David Jones tragically lost his wife and father there. He is angry. He has accused the UK Labour Government of failing victims and their families by not intervening and leaving them in limbo. Will the Secretary of State use the Inquiries Act 2005 and seek accountability?
In the past 100 days, we have all witnessed the Plaid Welsh Government in Cardiff Bay having failed to publish costings and properly explain how their flagship childcare policy will work. Perhaps Plaid just wants higher taxes and higher hand-outs, like the welfare party that is Labour sitting across from us. Does the Secretary of State agree that hard-working families deserve to know whether those plans will mean higher taxes? What discussions have occurred with the Welsh Government to ensure that those election commitments are properly delivered for struggling families?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler, and to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing this debate, but I am sure it will come as no surprise to him or other hon. Members that we see the legacy of the 2016 referendum, and indeed the path forward for our country, through a very different lens. Listening to the hon. Gentleman, one might almost assume that the United Kingdom was a sunlit, frictionless economic Shangri-La until a single ballot paper cast us into eternal ruin. He told us, echoed by other hon. Members, that leaving the European Union uniquely crippled our economy and that our only salvation lies in surrendering sovereignty through the Government’s grandly titled EU reset, or perhaps going further. That entire narrative collapses under the weight of hard economic reality. First, let us examine the great myth of the EU single market as an automatic engine of export growth. Ministers speak of the single market as if it were a place where magic happens, but if there was magic, the UK was firmly in the audience wondering when the rabbit would emerge from the hat. As former Trade and Industry Secretary Lord Lilley demonstrated in his Policy Exchange paper earlier this year, during our entire 28-year membership of the single market, from 1992, UK goods exports to our EU partners grew by less than 1% per year, but over that exact same period our goods exports to the 111 countries with which we traded on standard World Trade Organisation terms grew by 87%. In fact, according to the European Commission’s own single market scoreboard, the UK was the member state that benefited least from the goods single market. Rejoining that regulatory straitjacket in pursuit of export growth is the pure triumph of hope over experience. Secondly, we must address the sheer statistical alchemy deployed by advocates of rejoining. Several speakers have brandished a non-peer-reviewed National Bureau of Economic Research working paper that claims that Brexit cost the UK up to 8% of GDP, but let us look at how the model has constructed that parallel universe. It created a statistical doppelganger proxy that was dominated by the United States and Estonia, which between them provide almost three quarters of the entire weighting for the alternative proxies—apparently—for where the UK could have been without Brexit. It assumed that, had we remained in the EU, the UK would have miraculously mirrored the American economic performance. To attribute that divergence to Brexit requires an extraordinary leap of imagination. It requires one to pretend that there was no US artificial intelligence boom, no massive American fiscal stimulus—which was possible because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency—no transatlantic shale gas price advantage, no differing pandemic shock, and no North sea oil rundown. In fact, Germany fell 8% behind the same arbitrary index under that model, so unless German departure from the EU has passed us by unnoticed, blaming that divergence on Brexit is simply economic nonsense. When we examine the actual data, rather than econometric fairy tales, the evidence is clear. Between 2016 and 2025, the UK economy grew by 12.2%, and by 5.3% since we formally left, outpacing the European G7 average. Since Brexit, British economic growth has averaged 1.1% per annum, compared with just 0.1% for Germany. As hon. Members have mentioned, the Office for Budget Responsibility previously assumed an implausible 15% collapse in total UK global trade openness, but as its own November 2025 briefing conceded, UK trade intensity has remained stable at around 65% of GDP and has continued to track peer economies such as France. The single market was overwhelmingly designed for goods, but more than 80% of the UK economy is based on services. Our services exports continue to boom globally. Even the dire predictions of a mass exodus from the City of London proved dramatically overblown. Institutions such as JP Morgan, which had threatened to move thousands of jobs abroad, have instead been transferring staff back from Paris to London. Although business investment was undeniably delayed during the post-2016 political paralysis, dragged out by those trying to overturn the referendum, fixed investment to GDP rebounded, reaching 19.6% by the end of last year.
If we chart it over the last two decades, particularly against German performance, on almost any economic chart we look at, it would be almost impossible to pick out the point at which the UK left the European Union. It is impossible to say from looking at those charts that our economy has grown more slowly than Germany’s, because it has not; it has grown more quickly. Our trade has not been disrupted more than Germany’s—[Interruption.] It really has not; they track almost identically across that chart. Thirdly, where Britain is succeeding, we are doing so precisely because of our post-Brexit freedoms. The UK digital and tech flat white economy now represents about 15% of GDP—larger than the entire domestic goods sector. As the Growth Commission highlighted, our tech sector is flourishing and leading Europe in artificial intelligence, precisely because it is unburdened by Brussels’ heavy-handed Digital Markets Act, Digital Services Act and restrictive AI Act. Instead of backing British enterprise, the Government are proposing to pursue unilateral dynamic alignment, shackling the 92% of British firms that do not trade with the EU to Brussels’s rulebook, surrendering our precision breeding advantages and hiking domestic carbon costs by linking our emissions trading scheme, which threaten to add up to £100 per tonne to fertiliser prices at a time when they are already crippling British farmers, while paying administrative fees to Brussels for the privilege. That is an astonishingly one-sided bargain, a masterclass in the art of the bad deal. The lesson of the past 10 years is that national prosperity is built by businesses working across the UK, not subcontracted to the EU. The economic catastrophe prophesied in 2016 simply did not occur.
I will give way briefly, as I am drawing to a close.
It is one thing to look back over the past 10 years, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I plead that I was taking GCSEs in 1992 rather than paying attention to what John Major was doing. The next Conservative Government should certainly look at how to take better advantage of the freedoms available outside the European Union, because there are many opportunities. His Majesty’s Opposition will continue to champion our regulatory freedom, to back British innovation and resist any attempt to drag this country back into the EU’s regulatory orbit.
5. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to improve cross-border rail links between Wales, Shropshire and London.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment to the Cabinet. He will know that I have very fond memories of his constituency, growing up as a young boy. Will he throw his support behind the open-access application by the Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway company to the Office of Rail and Road? The new revised application would include Wellington in my constituency and give a £3 million economic boost to that market town. Will he work with Network Rail, the Office of Rail and Road and the Transport Secretary, and get that new timetable and route delivered?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker, and I welcome the Minister back to his place. I commend the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate and giving us the opportunity to speak about the rural areas that this Labour Government are neglecting. My constituency is home to a handful of farms and the beautiful Lee Valley regional park. Although it might not be the most rural, I am well aware of the pressures faced by rural communities, which have been made clear by hon. Members across the Chamber today. Having started off with the infamous family farm tax, the Government are now moving on to implement the unfair funding review. This change in the funding formula for local government seems to have been designed with the express purpose of stripping away funding from rural areas just to hand it to urban ones.
Lots of difficult decisions had to be made. I politely say to the hon. Gentleman that his party is in government now. We will see the mettle that they are made of in the coming months, when they have to make difficult decisions to produce their Budget, and we will also see how that goes down with the British people outside this place. Many rural councils face real challenges across the board, and now they are expected to cope with even fewer resources. In my area of Hertfordshire, a semi-rural local authority, the county council is facing a reduction in funding of around £50 million a year. That is thanks to this Labour Government, despite the council already being under extreme pressure from an unfavourable SEND funding formula. Under that formula, Hertfordshire receives one of the lowest funding allocations per head. It would receive millions more if it were funded at the same rate as other areas. When it comes to SEND, rural authorities lose out. Inner London boroughs receive thousands of pounds more in high needs block funding per pupil. For example, a child in Camden is allocated four times as much as a child in Yorkshire. It should not matter where someone is born in the country; children with special educational needs deserve the same resources. I am sure that all hon. Members from right across this House can agree with that. Similarly, rural authorities have been ignored throughout this Government’s top-down local government reorganisation. As we have seen in Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and other areas, rural towns and villages are now being absorbed into new unitary authorities dominated by cities. That will only result in rural areas being more marginalised and left even further behind.
I thought someone might make that point in this debate. I have been in debates where no Labour or Liberal Democrat MPs have turned up. When I go out and speak to my constituents about how, when they turn on the TV, the Chamber is not full, I explain to them that there are many calls upon Members’ time. I gently say to the hon. Member that some constituents will watch debates that he does not attend and be unhappy with that, so we could maybe think about that before we make interventions on that topic. As I was saying, this Government’s top-down local government reorganisation has seen rural communities left behind. Rural communities and authorities have also been hugely hit with a high increase in housing targets, forcing them to build over the green belt and ruin the character of their areas. They have increased by up to 487%, while many Labour-run urban areas have seen their targets decrease. The new Prime Minister likes to talk about devolving power to every postcode, but the only changes that people in rural areas have seen are money and power being taken away from them. They are the people that this Labour Government should champion: the hard-working people who have too often been left behind. Instead, they are being sidelined and ignored. The Government need to take time to actually listen to the rural community and protect their way of life. I may not represent a very rural part of this country, unlike other hon. Members in this room, who have so passionately spoken about their rural areas, but it does not take much to work out that forced local government reorganisation, increases in taxes and reduced funding formulas are the exact opposite of how the Government should support rural local authorities.
I begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), for his work in this role. He has left big shoes to fill, and I look forward to following in his footsteps as best I can. I would also like to register my thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), alongside whom I am so fortunate to be working, including on this Bill, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), who has been incredibly helpful in handing over, and who has worked so hard on this Bill. In the same vein, I thank the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon) for her work on the Bill, and I pass on the thanks of my hon. Friends, too. I welcome the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith to her place, and I congratulate her. I know she is much liked and well regarded across the House, having chaired the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for the past few years. I look forward to working opposite her and her departmental colleagues.
It is never anything but a pleasure to allow the hon. Gentleman to put Harlow into Hansard again, and I am happy to repeat his words. He is right: we must be incredibly vigilant. We must not be naive about the extent to which foreign powers are actively pursuing strategies to undermine our democracy, and ultimately, our nation. That must be treated with the utmost seriousness. While some of the suggested changes are being rushed through in a sweeping way, we feel that the Bill has shockingly little to say about the threats to our democracy that we already know enough about to take decisive action on. This includes the effective disenfranchisement of many British citizens living overseas. Our citizens abroad remain citizens and are often directly affected by decisions taken by this Parliament, but all too often they find it very difficult to register to vote, or to cast their ballot. To that end, we have tabled amendments that require the Secretary of State to make provision for overseas voters to cast their votes in person at British embassies, high commissions and consulates. Chief among the threats to our democracy today is the rise of coercion, fraud and sectarianism in our democratic process. These are, in turn, most often the result of a poisonous separatism that has taken hold in far too many of our towns and cities. Migration to this country has been far too high for far too long, against the wishes of the British people. Many of those who have come to this country come from cultures with very different norms from ours. At the same time, Britain has been complacent about enforcing our cultural and democratic norms, and far too tolerant of those who weaponise group-based identity politics for their own gain. One consequence has been the rise of explicitly sectarian political campaigning, whereby candidates appeal not to the individual interests of voters, or to the national interest, but to particular ethnic, religious or cultural groups. This is profoundly poisonous, and we must do everything that we can to root it out. One symptom of this emergent separatism in our society is the rise of so-called family voting, whereby a senior male family member directs other members of their family, particularly women, on how they ought to vote. At the Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this year, volunteers reported “the highest level of family voting at any election in the past decade.” Family voting was observed at more than two thirds of polling stations. It may have influenced the votes of more than one in 10 people who turned out to cast their ballot. In Birmingham, at this year’s local elections, polling station staff reported instances of family voting in 50 polling stations. Despite evidence being passed to the police by the council, no further action has been taken
Polling station volunteers reporting what they have seen in their polling stations is evidence. It is not for us to decide what is appropriate to discuss in this Chamber. It is for us to talk about it, and for the public to decide. They can see this, and it was very well reported at the time. Family voting is a direct assault on two important principles. The first is that each and every voter must be able to cast their ballot on the basis of their individual beliefs and interests. The second is that those ballots should be cast in secret, without pressure or oversight. These two principles are fundamental to the functioning of British democracy. That we live in a country where we have been able to take these things for granted is no small achievement, but it must be defended vigorously. Any practice that results in husbands instructing their wives how to vote, or allows fathers to instruct their daughters how to vote, is an insult to the liberties enjoyed by women in this country, and it must not be allowed to stand, yet this Labour Government have turned a blind eye. They have rejected Conservative proposals to strengthen enforcement of the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023. Indeed, they are scrapping guidance to local councillors and councils about how to stop family voting. Our proposed new clause 62 would help to tackle this catastrophe. Another favoured tactic of sectarian candidates is the use of foreign language in their campaign material. To return to the Gorton and Denton by-election, during the campaign, the Green party published leaflets in Urdu telling voters that if they wanted to “give the Muslims a strong voice, give your vote to the Greens.” Depressingly, this is far from the only example, although it is one of the most reprehensible.
When I have finished this point, I will give way. It should terrify all of us that election material in our country is being produced in a foreign language and designed to drum up support among a particular religious community. Not only does this contribute to a culture of group-based grievance politics, but it makes it impossible for the vast majority of the British public to scrutinise what candidates are saying.
The fact that English takes words from other languages does not mean that an English voter, or indeed any British voter, would be able to read election material in Latin. The point is that our voters must be able to understand the election literature that is being produced, and if it is not produced in a language of the British Isles, they cannot.
Our proposal is clearly intended to be one rule for everybody. The Conservative party position is that all election literature should be produced in the languages of this country.
I have given way on this point twice.
I will. [Interruption.]
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
I will give way one final time on this point.
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I understand his point, but it is a deep, frightening and fundamental problem if we have people in this country who cannot operate in the shared language of our nation. I understand what he is saying, but there are two possible ways to deal with that problem, and I believe that the one he is suggesting will ultimately be deleterious to our nation and our democracy. We must make a choice—I think that is part of the point he is making—and I am making a different choice.
I have given way many times on this point, and I would like to make some progress. The fundamental point about producing election literature in English or another language of the British Isles is that the public must be able to scrutinise what candidates are saying. We must put a stop to election literature in foreign languages once and for all. We have therefore tabled an amendment that would require that campaign material published during the regulated election period is not promoted or published in a foreign language. Instead, campaign material must be published in English or another native language of the British Isles. Those who engage in our democratic process must do so in the common language of public life—that much is the bare minimum.
I begin by welcoming back the Secretary of State to her place. I very much look forward to working opposite her. As Conservative Members have set out so well throughout the passage of the Bill, this legislation professes to strengthen our democracy, but our democracy is not strengthened by proposals rushed through with too little time for proper scrutiny. Our democracy is not strengthened by allowing candidates to campaign in foreign languages, and to escape accountability as they build campaigns based on group-based grievances. I was amazed to see on Report the reaction on the Government Benches to the Conservative policy that election campaign materials should be produced only in English or in native languages of the British Isles. An election is a fundamentally important part of our conversation. It should be a matter of universal agreement that that conversation should happen in a language that everybody can understand. Our democracy is also not strengthened by allowing men in particular communities to direct how the women in their families vote, or by making it difficult for our citizens overseas to cast their ballot. As I said on Report, when we make changes to the way our democracy functions, those changes must always be designed to make sure that the British people can better hold their representatives accountable, that would-be representatives can meaningfully put their case to the British people, and that our democratic process is conducted according to the national norms and practices that have made this country such a successful democracy for so long. Given the importance of those aims, any such changes must be developed and proposed carefully and thoughtfully. The Bill fails those tests. Conservative Members will always remain open to measures designed to genuinely strengthen the integrity of our democracy, to protect our democratic process from foreign influence and to ensure that our hard-won and dearly held liberties are extended to every citizen of this country, wherever they may be. Those duties are incumbent upon all of us as elected representatives of the people. We do not believe the Bill before us reflects them, and we will oppose it.