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

12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tom Hayes

   Iran

   I thank the hon. Member for giving way as he is about to close. He talked about the importance of international co-operation to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability; I completely agree with him. Where the UK has had success before, that has been in concert with the French and the Germans. With the French presidential election this year with the current president moving on, does he agree that there is a real opportunity for Britain to lead that European co-operation to try to address the possibility of Iran acquiring a nuclear capability?

   Hansard source
2. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sureena Brackenridge

   Regional Accents and Social Mobility

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing this important debate. I am proud to speak not just as the Member of Parliament for Wolverhampton North East but as someone who has felt the pressure to turn down the dial on my accent. From day one of my entering the House, many here made comments—well intentioned, I am sure—about how they could hear my accent, which were usually followed by a “Peaky Blinders” comment. I am absolutely fine with that, because I am a huge “Peaky Blinders” fan”. In isolation, it is fine, but when I hear it again and again, I cannot help but feel self-conscious, and it can become quite tiresome. Shortly after I was elected, after I made my maiden speech, this was all put into context by a message I received from a former student. She said, “Miss”— I am always “Miss” to my former students—“I am so proud that I can see and hear somebody on the telly, somebody in Parliament, who looks and sounds like me.” That was it. That gave me the confidence to just plough forward and to continue to speak loud and proud in my not so dulcet Wolverhampton tones. That is why representation matters for young people growing up in Wolverhampton and Willenhall. Hearing voices that sound like theirs in Parliament and in positions of leadership sends a powerful message: you belong here too. It tells them that they do not have to change who they are to succeed. That matters because there is a clear link between accents and social mobility. Research for the Sutton Trust described accents as one of the strongest signals of socioeconomic background and found that accent bias continues to affect people’s experiences throughout their education and employment. The evidence is striking: a Sutton Trust study found that 30% of university students and 29% of university applicants reported being mocked, criticised or singled out because of their accent. I was recently told of a young man who withdrew from the first day of his university interview at the University of Birmingham. He had applied to study medicine, but he felt belittled by the peers in his group. I have heard of a student on a placement in a scientific lab whose accent was mocked by others, day in, day out. Rather than bring out the best in him, that caused him to withdraw and become a shell of a person, not the brilliant person he usually is. Of senior managers from working-class backgrounds, 29% said that they had been mocked or criticised at work because of their accent. Throwaway comments of that sort can affect people’s self-esteem and make them question their value in the workplace. People do all that is asked of them—they work hard, achieve good qualifications, secure professional jobs and climb the career ladder—but still feel pressure to hide the sound of where they come from. Social mobility should mean expanding opportunity, not conformity. The challenge for all of us is to broaden our understanding of what professionalism sounds like. Talent does not speak with one accent. The more our institutions, including Parliament, reflect a full diversity of voices across Britain, the stronger we all become. As someone from Wolverhampton North East, I want every person listening to know this: our accent is not something to overcome; it is something to be proud of. It connects us with our community, our families, our stories and our values. Social mobility should not mean conformity. We must ensure that people are judged on their ability, attitude, character and potential, not on whether they sound like they belong. I urge the Government to carry on their work to equalise opportunity and build on social mobility practices.

   Hansard source
3. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Simon Lightwood

   A1: North Northumberland

   It is a pleasure to be here once again with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, to answer tonight’s Adjournment debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) on securing the debate, and on the determined and constructive manner in which he has represented the views of his constituents on this issue. May I also mention the persistent lobbying of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) and, until recently, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody), who joins me on the Front Bench. My hon. Friends have all lobbied for action on the A1. I recognise the strength of feeling locally about the safety of the A1 and I acknowledge the tragic fatalities on the route. My thoughts and prayers are with the families, friends and communities affected. I know that the future of the A1 has been a matter of significant local interest for many years. It is a subject on which Members from across Northumberland have campaigned vigorously, and I fully recognise the importance attached to the route by local communities, businesses, freight operators and visitors. The A1 is one of the country’s most important strategic roads. It earns its historic title as the Great North Road, continuing to move people and goods throughout the United Kingdom. Through Northumberland, it links the north-east of England with Scotland, supports economic activity, facilitates tourism and provides vital connectivity for communities along the route. I do not underestimate the disappointment that many constituents felt following the Government’s decision not to proceed with the A1 Morpeth and Ellingham dualling scheme, given that we inherited a number of unfunded capital commitments from the previous Government. This evening, I want to explain what the Government are doing to improve safety on the route and how we intend to continue engaging with local communities and stakeholders going forward. It is entirely right that these matters should be discussed in this House, and I welcome the opportunity to respond. The proposal to dual the A1 between Morpeth and Ellingham has been under development for many years. During that period, considerable work was undertaken—consultation took place, design options were developed and statutory powers were ultimately secured. The Government recognise that many local people view the scheme as an opportunity to improve connectivity, support economic growth and address concerns about safety and the reliability of the route. However, Governments have a responsibility to make decisions based not only on ambition, but on evidence and affordability and the prudent use of public funds. When Ministers reviewed the portfolio of strategic road schemes in 2024, really difficult choices had to be made across the transport network. The evidence presented showed that the Morpeth to Ellingham scheme represented a comparatively weak value-for-money proposition when assessed against competing investment priorities. At the same time, Ministers faced wider pressures on public spending and had a duty to ensure that the limited funding was directed towards investments capable of delivering the greatest benefits across the network. The decision was therefore taken to cancel the scheme, alongside a number of other strategic road projects. While the Government concluded that the full dualling scheme should not proceed, it does not mean that we have ignored concerns regarding safety—indeed, quite the opposite. Safety remains the foremost priority of both the Department for Transport and National Highways. Following the cancellation announcement, National Highways commenced a dedicated safety study covering the Morpeth to Ellingham section of the route. The purpose of that work was to identify practical interventions capable of improving safety while representing a responsible use of public funds. National Highways has examined a range of possibilities, including improved road signs and markings, vegetation clearance, improvements in visibility, speed management measures and junction improvements. Where schemes are sufficiently developed, affordable and deliverable, work will commence during the current road period. That work reflects a determination to identify practical steps that can improve safety, even where a larger scheme has not progressed. A number of colleagues have argued that cancelling the scheme risks constraining economic growth in Northumberland and the wider north-east. I recognise those concerns, but the Government’s approach has been to prioritise investments that can demonstrate the strongest overall return on taxpayers’ money while supporting growth across the country. The decision should not be interpreted as a lack of commitment to Northumberland; the Government continue to invest significantly in transport infrastructure across the region. Decisions on individual schemes must always be considered in the broader context of national transport investment. Through the transport for city regions settlements, we are providing the north-east with £1.8 billion between 2027 and 2032. That unprecedented long-term funding could be spent on improvements to local roads or safety improvements. I also place on record my appreciation for the constructive engagement shown by local Members of Parliament. Following the cancellation, National Highways has met with my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland to discuss concerns about the route and consider options for future improvements. National Highways has subsequently indicated that further work will take place to examine safety issues on sections of the A1 north of Ellingham, towards Berwick, and to identify additional route-based solutions where appropriate. That reflects the reality that most motorists experience the A1 as a continuous corridor.

   Hansard source
4. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Simon Lightwood

   A1: North Northumberland

   As a sand dancer—as someone from South Shields—I understand where the north is and the north-east is, but I hear my hon. Friend’s concerns about road safety, which is why National Highways is undertaking this work to see what additionally can be done to mitigate any safety concerns. I reiterate that £1.8 billion has been given to the north-east between 2027 and 2032, which could be used for improvements on local roads and safety improvements. I welcome the continued engagement of my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland with National Highways on improvements to the safety and performance of this strategic route.

   Hansard source
5. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Simon Lightwood

   A1: North Northumberland

   I will come on to future funding, and of course National Highways and the Department for Transport will reflect and follow the changes to the Green Book. I do not want to raise unrealistic expectations this evening: the Government have not reversed their decision regarding the Morpeth to Ellingham dualling scheme, nor am I announcing a replacement major capital programme tonight. However, that does not mean that nothing will happen. National Highways has continued assessing safety-focused options, and future proposals will be considered in the normal way for RIS4, taking into account evidence, affordability, deliverability and value for money, and any future improvements will be subject to viability and funding considerations within future investment programmes. Of course, I encourage National Highways to continue to liaise with the Scottish Government and local stakeholders.

   Hansard source
6. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Simon Lightwood

   A1: North Northumberland

   I reiterate that the Department will of course follow the changes to the Green Book accordingly. We will continue to liaise with Members regarding future investment.

   Hansard source
7. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Simon Lightwood

   A1: North Northumberland

   Absolutely. We continue to engage and the Secretary of State has liaison meetings with counterparts in Scotland, as do I. The Government recognise, of course, the importance of the A1 in Northumberland and further afield. We recognise the concerns that continue to be expressed regarding safety, resilience and economic growth. National Highways has undertaken significant work to identify targeted improvements capable of improving safety on the route, and further work continues on wider sections of the A1 in Northumberland. This Government remain committed to engaging constructively with local communities, National Highways and hon. Members as that work progresses towards delivery. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland once again not only for securing this debate, but for the important points that he has raised and his campaign on this issue on behalf of his constituents. I reassure him and other hon. Members that I take this matter extremely seriously, and I will continue this conversation to see what we can achieve to provide a positive outcome for road users in both the short and longer terms. Question put and agreed to.

   Hansard source
8. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Seema Malhotra

   Regional Accents and Social Mobility

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing this important debate, which I have thoroughly enjoyed listening to. In all the stories shared, I recognise how powerful and rich the debate is. I thank her for the work that she has done in Parliament. This is one of those topics that leads us to wonder why we have not had the conversation before. This must be its time as it has captured the imagination of Parliament so effectively and powerfully. It is already achieving the goals that my hon. Friend wants: that important culture change, a shift in attitudes and an understanding that where accentism might be holding back social mobility, it is our responsibility to do all that we can to tackle it. I pay tribute to Professor Rob Drummond and Dr Amanda Cole and the accentism project for their Westminster Voices initiative, as well as their other important work in this field, particularly the “This is English” project with the British Council, which champions the powerful idea that the English language belongs to everyone who speaks it in all its rich, diverse and regional variations. Too often, debates in this House are defined by columns of statistics, spreadsheets and policy levers, but today my hon. Friend and all who have taken part have given our debate a rare and special thing: the space to tell stories and talk about identity and belonging and what it can be like for our constituents to navigate modern Britain. I want to address some of the points raised in the debate, including about how accents have such an important relationship to identity and how, from what has been shared, they can be a barrier. It is important to recognise that everyone has an accent and that there is, as my hon. Friend said, no linguistic basis for a hierarchy of accent. We see in the research that life chances may be defined by background with accent bias. It is important to tackle that unconscious bias and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton described, the culture that drives it. It is important to tackle it so that young people do not lack confidence and feel unable to achieve their ambitions. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for York Outer (Mr Charters), for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge), for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) and for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) for their contributions. I also thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and of course, the Front-Bench spokeswomen, the hon. Members for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) and for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman). I will highlight a couple of things in my remarks, including the message to young people across the UK about softening their accents. The hon. Member for Strangford made a very relatable point about Hansard. I have found that Hounslow has also fallen into that need for clarity on the names of places and people, but it is important that we get that right and that Hansard records our contributions correctly, because they are on the record for posterity. Everyone wants their names and places spelled right, and that is important for respect. I am grateful to Hansard for checking with us and making sure our contributions are represented accurately. The attitudes that hon. Members have spoken about belong in the history books, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer said. I am grateful that he bravely risked controversy with his speech, but his points about local dialects and language, and about his experience at Oxford, are incredibly important for the House and his constituents. I am grateful to the pupils of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East, who spoke for all of us in highlighting the importance of seeing people who look and sound like them represent them in this House. The Sutton Trust’s landmark “Speaking Up” report demonstrated why this issue matters. It states that accent remains “the primary signal of socio-economic status” in this country. Members have shared some of that research, but I want to pull out a few of its findings. It says that 35% of university students feel deeply self-conscious about their accent, and that 41% from the north of England fear that their voice will negatively affect their future success. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington for his contribution. I have had conversations with him after he has had a pint or two, and he does speak much faster. I hope that his powerful, important contribution will be replayed across the north-east, because he shared why it is so important that people are proud of their accent and who they are. Young people need confidence—we see that in the data from the north-east. All opportunities should be open to them, and it is important to have respect for each other. Shockingly—this is a staggering statistic—nearly 30% of senior managers from working-class backgrounds report having been openly mocked for their accent in the workplace. As the data shows, there remains an outdated snobbery around accent that reduces a person’s intellect, capability and potential to the way that they speak. That is unacceptable, so it is important to shine a new light on the issue. For generations, the message to those who want to enter public life or elite professions has been that if they want to get on, they must sound like everybody else. When Margaret Thatcher became leader of her party in the 1970s, she famously underwent intensive elocution lessons with a tutor from the National Theatre. Authority had to sound a certain way. The message, particularly at that time, was that if somebody wanted power, they had to shed their origins. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer said in his powerful contribution, making it should not mean leaving part of yourself behind. Decades later, while noting the much greater diversity of this place and our country, we must recognise that progress can and must still be made. We may find that progress accelerates as Manchesterism becomes part of our national conversation. Interestingly, studies also regularly show that regional accents such as Welsh or Yorkshire are rated by the public as trustworthy, warm and honest. Yet when those same studies measure perceived intelligence or employability, standard southern English and received pronunciation invariably top the metrics. We are effectively telling working-class people that we trust them to work on the frontline in our schools and NHS but not to lead our boardrooms, teach in our elite universities or perhaps represent us in this place. Yet the diversity of British speech is a mark of our cultural richness. Our language is vibrant and alive. I may say these in a Hounslow accent, but depending on where someone stands in this country, a bread roll is a cob, a bap, a barm, a stottie or a muffin—no matter what you call it, it is still pretty tasty. To flatten our regional dialects into a single homogenised corporate drone is to strip Britain of its character. This debate really matters here because Parliament is a workplace, but it is also the engine room of our democracy. If we genuinely believe in representation, that representation must extend to how the Chamber sounds. Our constituents do not want a Parliament of homogenous voices; they want to hear their own lives, regions and communities reflected from the green Benches and every debating part of this House. When a Member stands up in any debate in the House and speaks with their own unvarnished accent, whether they represent constituencies in the north-east, Yorkshire, the Midlands, the Black Country, Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, working-class London, Essex or Sussex—as also reflected in this debate—they are undertaking, on equal terms, their democratic duty in this House. They are telling every young person or constituent in their communities who is watching at home that their voice belongs in the rooms where power resides. I agree with the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield that social mobility should not mean conformity. Indeed, those barriers do not start at the doors of this House; we see them much earlier, when working-class young people arrive at our world-leading universities. They have worked staggeringly hard to earn their places, yet the culture shock they face is frequently linguistic. They are met with eyebrows or mimicking, as has also been relayed very powerfully in this debate. We also want to take practical action to challenge some of that and change access to opportunity. As has been referenced in this House, far from limiting and lowering ambition, I am proud that from 2028 we are reintroducing means-tested maintenance grants of up to £1,000 a year, putting vital cash back into the pockets of students who need it the most—often from working-class backgrounds—without increasing their debt. We are also investing £20 million this year into Uni Connect to build local partnerships between schools, colleges and employers. Whether a young person chooses a degree or a trade, their journey must be determined by merit and their potential—never by whether they have to change their voice or pretend to be someone else to fit in. As Minister for Equalities with responsibility on race and women, I know that those in this House will know how important it is that this Government are working to ensure that whoever someone is and wherever they come from, Britain is a country that will respect their contribution. That is a guiding principle of the work that we are doing in this Labour Government. The Equality Act 2010 brought together and built upon 40 years of hard-won progress. While the Act may not directly reference place or accent-based inequality, its protections against discrimination related to sex, race and age frequently intersect with those issues. Intersectionality matters very much because we know that accentism can intersect with race and gender. For a working-class woman, a regional accent can be unfairly stereotyped as a lack of professionalism or authority. When an ethnic minority person speaks with a regional working-class accent or a multi-ethnic dialect like multicultural London English, they face a double layer of prejudice. That is based on evidence that we cannot ignore. We must also recognise the importance of rewarding talent. That is why our gender pay gap reporting will be built on to introduce mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting. Another important step in this space will be our commitment to ensure that everyone can succeed, no matter their background. We will be working to commence the socioeconomic duty on public bodies in section 1 of the Equality Act to require public authorities to put addressing socioeconomic disadvantage at the heart of their strategic decision making. There will be more on that to follow. Let me again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton, and say how impactful the debate has been. It is a clarion call for a fundamental culture shift so that we start to see a world in which everyone can succeed based on their talents, their drive and their potential, and never be held back by their background, their postcode or the sound of their voice. We need our world-class institutions, our elite universities, our media and our employers to stop listening so much to people’s accents and how they speak, and start listening much more to what they have to say.

   Hansard source
9. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Russell

   Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project

   The Minister has referred to the fact that, as yet, there has been no application and therefore no ministerial decision, but he has also said that community engagement is an important part of the decision-making process. My concern on behalf of my constituents is that they do not feel engaged with; they do not feel that they have a voice in this process and they do not feel that they are getting information at all. I appreciate that it is not the Minister’s job to provide that information, but can he be extremely clear about the level of engagement that is required?

   Hansard source
10. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Russell

    Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project

    What sort of people work at the National Wealth Fund and make these decisions? Who is evaluating this?

    Hansard source
11. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Russell

    Waste Management Sites

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for securing this timely debate. Two separate areas in my constituency are suffering difficulties. The first is West Heath in Congleton, where there is an awful fly problem. Residents report they are unable to have barbecues, and do not wish to open their windows or doors. It appears that the problem may be associated with a local metal recycling plant. The plant has issued a statement that it is co-operating with the council and the Environment Agency and does not believe the problem emanates from it. Although the long-standing feeling among local people is that it may very well be an issue with the recycling plant, they would also like the Environment Agency to investigate nearby standing water and other possible sources. I do not want to pin the blame too specifically on any one factor at the moment, but it is important that the Environment Agency has the resources, the powers and inclination to investigate thoroughly as soon as possible. My residents report similar experiences to those described by many people in the Chamber, talking about how it is making their houses difficult to enjoy, particularly in the summer months. They are worried about disease and about opening their children’s bedroom windows at night, which in the current environment is straightforwardly dangerous. I absolutely call on the Minister to encourage the Environment Agency to take steps rapidly, because this is a significant, ongoing problem. The other area of concern in my constituency is a former landfill site, which is now a golf course. It was set up as a golf course by Cheshire East council. Again, I want to be circumspect in what I say here, because Cheshire East council says absolutely, adamantly, that the site is safe for its current use and that there is no reason to doubt that the operators are operating appropriately. I do not want to do or say anything that might damage their business, but The Guardian has reported significant dumping, not only conventional landfill dumping during the 1950s and 1960s, but chemical dumping by ICI and Shell in the 1970s with forever-type chemicals. Again, there has been extensive testing, and the set of facts is clearly disputed. What I am really concerned about, however, is that Cheshire East, when asked, apparently stated—I have not seen the documents myself—that remediating the whole site fully would cost more than £1 billion. Although Cheshire East is trying to manage the problem, properly it seems to belong with the Environment Agency and, potentially, central Government. That scale of a problem—if the scale of the problem is as alleged by some parties—is absolutely massive, and beyond the capacity of a local authority properly to investigate and manage. We need to be very sure about what exact chemicals enter the water system. It is believed that they are retained within the site and do not enter the wider water system—I do not want to create alarm—but I want to ensure that this is being properly investigated for my local residents, so that either their minds can be put at rest or appropriate steps can be taken to remediate if necessary. I want to emphasise, however, that there is nothing to suggest that the golf course is not safe for use as it is at the moment. None the less, the lack of proper landfill capping is noted and this does not feel like it has been investigated in the way that I would hope it to be. The Minister is passionate about the environment, water courses and all such topics, but I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood said: it is so important that we put people before polluters.

    Hansard source
12. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Rachael Maskell

    Engagements

    Q11. Before coming to this House, the Prime Minister and I attended the launch of my uncle’s book. It was entitled “Fine Lines and Distinctions”. Clearly, sometimes we have had those differences, but I genuinely wish him and his family well for the future. But before he places his pen down, I understand that there is a tradition of leaving a note for your successor. In wishing all hon. Members the very best of summers, I ask that he asks his successor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), to enact my legislation to license short-term holiday lets and ensure that we can protect our communities from family houses turning into party houses in residential areas and ensure that we keep housing costs down?

    Hansard source
13. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Phil Brickell

    Engagements

    Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister for his many years—

    Hansard source
14. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Phil Brickell

    Engagements

    The Prime Minister will not need reminding about Arsenal’s success in the premier league last season and my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will not want reminding that Everton, unfortunately for him, came 13th, but what neither of them might know is that the UK finished 20th in the corruption perceptions index, well within the relegation zone. At the Prime Minister’s request, last week the Ethics and Integrity Commission produced a comprehensive set of recommendations to tighten up rules around lobbying. In light of recent stories around the leader of Reform UK, does the Prime Minister agree—

    Hansard source
15. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Perran Moon

    Engagements

    Even GB News is now admitting that, with small boat crossings down more than 40% this year, the Prime Minister’s strategy to smash the trafficking gangs is working. With the costly fiasco of the Conservatives’ Rwanda scheme long behind us and our relationship with our nearest neighbours and friends in France rebuilt, does the Prime Minister think that now is the time to establish a safe and legal route between planet Sigma IX and Clacton?

    Hansard source
16. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Patricia Ferguson

    Independence Referendum

    The Scottish Secretary will be aware that no NHS board in Scotland has met its target for starting cancer treatment within 62 days since 2012, that Public Health Scotland data shows that one in seven Scots are on an NHS waiting list, and that the Scottish Government’s own figures show that home completions fell by 10% in the year to March—and do not even get me started on lifeline ferries to our islands. Does the Scottish Secretary agree that it is time for the SNP Scottish Government to start talking about delivery and acting on delivery, and to stop talking about division?

    Hansard source
17. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pamela Nash

    Livestock

    By ending Tory austerity and increasing the settlement to the Scottish Government by nearly £12 billion, this UK Labour Government have provided adequate funding for the SNP to properly resource Scotland’s rural economy. Does the Minister agree it is time that Scotland’s rural industries were properly recognised and got the support they needed from the Scottish Government?

    Hansard source
18. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Nesil Caliskan

    Estate Regeneration

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. May I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for his generous words? I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); he and I are competing for appearances in this Chamber this week—

    Hansard source
19. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Nesil Caliskan

    Estate Regeneration

    Yes, and I have a long way to go. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for securing this important debate and thank all Members for their contributions. Each one has provided an important perspective on the challenges of estate renewal and the need generally to build homes in a way that works for communities. My hon. Friend spoke powerfully about the difference between good regeneration and poor examples in his constituency. The Government recognise that good estate regen is critical to delivering our housing target and to providing decent homes for everybody to live in. There are many reasons why estate regeneration might be the best thing for existing tenants or for a local area. In some cases, years of neglect from a Conservative Government that failed to invest in existing estates and mandated council rent reductions, which meant even less for housing revenue accounts, has left many estates in dire need of regeneration. I know that only too well, having led a local authority that felt the burden of pressures on the HRA account. Social housing was the tenure most affected by damp and mould issues—my hon. Friend correctly highlighted the impact that that has on many of his constituents, and I know that many other Members have cases involving the same problem. An ageing housing stock not only impacts life chances, but costs the taxpayer more in the long term, because disrepair has a bigger impact on communities and also on the stock itself. In that context, it might make more sense for an entire estate to be regenerated than to take a sticking-plaster approach, particularly when some buildings reach the end of their life. In other cases, estates are the best places to build more affordable homes, particularly in our towns and cities, where there may be fewer development sites available, but more social infrastructure in local areas. The people often forgotten in housing debates are the 1 million families on council housing waiting lists and the thousands of people trapped in temporary accommodation. I know that there are something like 4,000 on the housing register in my hon. Friend’s local authority area, and the figure is similar in my borough of Barking and Dagenham. Everyone deserves a decent home—a safe home, in a clean neighbourhood, with decent social infrastructure. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who spoke so passionately and accurately about the importance of the facilities that make a community, whether that is a youth centre or much needed GPs. I pay tribute to her long-standing campaign, which reflects the need to build neighbourhoods with homes that are more than just the buildings that house people. In my view, the simplest, most powerful thing we can do to lift people out of poverty and improve life chances in this country is to provide more decent homes. First and foremost, we must recognise that the supply of homes is the foundation for everything. Indeed, we will only address the housing crisis by building more homes, period. I listened with great interest to the shadow Minister, who made important points about house building and getting on with it. I have to say, though, having been a council leader in and now a Labour Member of Parliament in London, that it is a great shame that Conservative and Lib Dem councils, councillors and MPs frequently object to house building. Of course, brownfield sites are a really important part of the solution; but the idea that we can meet housing need in London or the rest of the country only by using brownfield sites or doing infill on existing estates is, I am afraid, misleading. That does not mean that we look at only one aspect of house building. I recognise that the picture is complicated, and it will take a multitude of approaches to make sure that regeneration delivers the number of homes to the decent homes standard that we need, but I also know that regeneration must be delivered in partnership with communities. Good regeneration puts communities in the driving seat. That does not just mean being transparent with decision making; it also means allowing those who live in the community to have a real say in shaping proposals. Decisions on property size, building height, materials, amenities and timelines for delivery are important for getting community buy-in. That approach is not new. Good developers, of which there are many, do that anyway, and the regulatory standards are clear: registered providers must communicate with tenants, provide information to them and take their views into account in decision making. That extends to providers undertaking estate regeneration. It is difficult to set out realistic timelines, because each estate regeneration is different and unique due to their different sizes and ambitions, and good engagement with existing residents may further change those ambitions. Timelines for estate renewal are also highly dependent on viability, phasing, planning permission conditions, and ground and infrastructure prep, but I accept that families who live on an estate face huge anxiety when they do not know when their home is going to be knocked down. Indeed, there are examples in my constituency of families who have been told their estate has been earmarked for renewal; they can see their community being hollowed out, yet they do not know when they will need to move on. Timelines for estate renewal are complicated, but it is important that engagement takes into account the instability caused by estate renewal. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke asked a valid question about whether the process for decision making should be through a ballot. I led a local authority that had a ballot for an area. It is hard work to say the least, but it is perhaps one of the most important things a local authority can do to secure community buy-in. However, to say that ballots in themselves are what secured that engagement would be to do a disservice to the engagement that the ballot provided. Ballots in and of themselves do not solve trust issues among residents. They can force developers to do the meaningful engagement that they should be doing anyway, but they do not mean that we will get the outcome that we want. Where providers fall short, there is usually a complaints process and an ombudsman. In addition, the Government have also committed to introducing social tenant access to information requirements from this October, which will make it mandatory for providers to give information about property management in response to information requests.

    Hansard source
20. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Nesil Caliskan

    Estate Regeneration

    Of course I will. The Department welcomes any engagement about that. I have to emphasise that the engagement process requires more than just a “yes or no” tick box, and the best regeneration and estate renewal programme demonstrate a long-term commitment to engagement with residents and to giving residents the opportunity to shape the outcomes of the programmes. In the best programmes, local leadership also demonstrates political bravery in saying, “We have to have some homes built, so let us go on this journey together.” Too often, we see examples where it has become too easy to say no to everything, and that is how we have ended up with a housing crisis. A good question was asked about the governance of regeneration schemes. I agree with Members who stated that it is vital that estate regeneration schemes demonstrate transparency, particularly when they involve public land or public money. Estate renewal can actually be quite easy, if all the land is sold off. Particularly in places like London, an estate will not be short of interest from developers. Estate regeneration is much harder if we are committed to delivering affordable homes and ensuring the amenities that make an estate a community. The estate regeneration national strategy guidance helps to set out a framework from Government to achieve what is needed. The Regulator of Social Housing works to improve standards and the ombudsman provides routes for readiness. On more effective statutory routes for better estate regeneration, some important steps have been taken by the Government, but I recognise that we need a longer-term commitment and a culture change, supporting local authorities to develop estate regeneration in a way that works for communities. Let me address the point about lack of trust on repair issues. Too often, people talk as though estate repairs are a task separate from long-term estate renewal. The truth is that estate regeneration for an existing area is a project that may last decades. Five years is a relatively short period of time in terms of estate renewal, but that is how long a young person spends in secondary school. If, throughout that time, they have a leak in the roof or damp, or if there is antisocial behaviour or basic things just need to be fixed on their estate, that will have an impact not only on their life chances, but on their trust and confidence in the ability of those who are responsible for fixing the basics in their home now to also deliver homes for the future, where they may live for the rest of their lives. I take the point very seriously, and I would welcome any further discussions that Members might want to have with Ministers in MCHLG, so that we can strengthen existing the guidance and build, not erode, trust and confidence to ensure an endorsement for further house building in this country. Estate renewal programmes are possibly the most difficult thing that local authorities can do. I recognise the important points made about place making. I welcome local authorities being place makers. Where a local authority has decided to be the master developer, it is a tough task. I would welcome more local authorities acting as the master developer, with support from MCHLG. A local authority could perhaps be a developer, but in my view, the master developer bit is what helps to build trusted relationships between communities, ensuring buy-in for long-term housing delivery. More than any housing delivery, estate renewal requires brave local political leadership and a long-term commitment to engaging and shaping. It also requires money. I am proud that the Government have already allocated almost £40 billion for affordable homes, but none of that matters if we do not have buy-in from the local community. I welcome the debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. I pay tribute to his passionate campaigning and advocacy on behalf of his constituents. I recognise the huge amount of casework that he gets on repairs and maintenance, as well as his commitment to see more homes built for his area. He knows, like I do, that home building will change people’s life chances in this country.

    Hansard source
21. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Naz Shah

    Engagements

    This Monday will mark 10 years since the brutal rape and murder of my constituent Samia Shahid in a so-called honour killing. May I thank the Prime Minister for all his leadership on the agenda to end violence against women and girls? Will he join me in reaffirming the UK’s commitment to end this abhorrent killing in the name of so-called honour, not just in England but across the world?

    Hansard source
22. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ms Polly Billington

    National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for coming to the House and providing clarity and reassurance that the allegations will be taken seriously, but does he agree that alongside the transparency of this process comes the need for responsible reporting and a responsible Opposition? The electricity margin notices are a standard tool that NESO has used for many years, and that includes the time when the Opposition were in government.

    Hansard source
23. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mrs Elsie Blundell

    Waste Management Sites

    It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for securing the debate. As parliamentarians, each of us recognises the necessity of waste facilities and the function that they perform, but local communities should not have to tolerate the conditions that residents of mine in Heywood have been forced to put up with in recent years. Due to the prevailing wind direction in my part of the world, my constituents continue to endure appalling odours emitted from the Valencia Waste Management site on Pilsworth Road. The landfill there opened over 50 years ago. As it has gradually filled, it has become increasingly unbearable for local residents, which has led to the creation of the Heywood Against Landfill group. I take this opportunity to commend them for their enduring activism. The site also hosts a recycling centre, which I understand is also contributing significantly to the current issues. Heywood Against Landfill has made it clear to Valencia, as have I, that the operation of the site has driven so many nearby to the point of utter dismay, with stark implications for their quality of life. Windows had to remain shut, people could not put washing out to dry, and many even began to question the elevated number of respiratory illnesses in the town. Heywood Against Landfill rightly urged members of the public to raise their concerns with the Environment Agency and lobbied for action to be taken. We eventually ensured that the site was closed while remedial action was taken. That lasted about 18 months, demonstrating the scale of what local people had been forced to deal with. In my view, it would be legitimate to say—as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood—that working-class communities such as mine are disproportionately bearing the brunt of these impacts. Despite the supposed remedial action that has been taken and the supposed monitoring of the site by the Environment Agency, this is something that my constituents are having to contend with yet again—truly, it is groundhog day for people in Heywood. Following the site’s reopening, the odour from it continued to affect the wellbeing of local people. The tireless campaign group met with Valencia on 1 June, but the company continues to say that no breaches are taking place.

    Hansard source
24. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mrs Elsie Blundell

    Waste Management Sites

    I absolutely agree, and I would like to see more of that, not least in my constituency. The Environment Agency countenanced the site’s reopening, and it was adamant that it had the means to monitor the air quality and odour levels, yet less than a year down the line, we are back where we started, and my constituents, like many represented here today, are suffering the consequences of the agency’s inability to address the core problems. That is because we do not have the means to handle nuisance concerns around recycling in the same way that we do for landfill. In such situations, lived experience matters. The executives of Valencia would not live anywhere near one of these sites themselves, but our constituents are expected to suck it up and put up with entirely unacceptable conditions. Heywood Against Landfill has now designed an online odour complaint reporting log, which sends each instance directly to the Environment Agency. That is great, but the group would rather not spend its valuable time doing that. The group’s efforts will highlight once again the scale of the issue in Heywood, but it remains clear that there needs to be enforcement action to match the level of ongoing outrage. I understand that the waste strategy is due for review in this Parliament. From speaking with local residents, it is clear that they are desperate for the strategy to give greater consideration to the impact of poorly managed sites that also take recycling. They want legislation to safeguard local people. In many cases, there seems to be no way of scrutinising the operations of these sites, as other hon. Members have said, with much of the so-called enforcement action being toothless and ineffective. What consideration has been given to delivering a bold and transformative waste strategy that protects people in Heywood from living in such conditions—specifically one that factors in poorly performing sites that handle recycling waste? What assessment has been made of the effectiveness of the Environment Agency? I appreciate the point made about successive Conservative Governments cutting its funding and staff, but what consideration has been given to strengthening penalties for the executives of waste operators that pay no mind to the communities in which they function? What consideration has been given to making community engagement mandatory for operators such as Valencia, and the implementation of robust standards in this respect? The people of Heywood should not have to put up with this any longer, and they should not have had to put up with it in the first place. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood is right: working-class communities shoulder the burden of regulators lacking the will or the means to engage with the lived experience of those affected by this sort of behaviour by operators. I hope that the Minister can offer some clarity on these points, and will make it clear to residents in Heywood that they are not without a voice, that the Government are listening, and that living in these conditions should not be a collateral consequence that those in power seem all too willing to accept.

    Hansard source
25. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Toby Perkins

    National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

    I commend my hon. Friend’s approach. He is right to say that these allegations are incredibly serious, and that it is crucially important not only for there to be a full investigation but for it to be seen to be independent so that people can have confidence in it. He is also right to draw attention to the difference between the concerns that are raised by those whistleblowers and any suggestion that our grid is about to lead to blackouts. Does he agree that while it is absolutely true that one of the terrible legacies that this Government inherited from the last Government was a grid that had been woefully under-invested in for a very long time, and that there is a substantial need for investment in it in order to achieve our energy ambitions, that should not be allowed to be conflated with the suggestion that the lights are about to go out? Can he give confidence to my constituents this summer that NESO has given him all the assurances that he needs that there will be no blackouts?

    Hansard source
26. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Luke Charters

    Regional Accents and Social Mobility

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on securing today’s debate. I have spent a fair bit of time near her patch over the past couple of months, and though we bang on about the Yorkshire-Lancashire rivalry, we are united by a few things: some of the best food in the country—including the finest pies—and of course, the warmth and friendliness that we are all proud of, and of which she is one of the finest examples in this House. I want to be crystal clear: judging someone by their accent is an attitude that belongs firmly in the history books. I must admit that, when I first arrived in Parliament, I often felt out of place and like I did not belong—all because of my accent. Like many colleagues here today, I was not elected because I sounded polished; I was elected through hard graft and to represent the people who sent me here. I have done my best, though, to get a few Yorkshire phrases into Hansard, because that is how my constituents speak. I will kick off by giving a few more, having turned to Facebook for some inspiration. There is some disagreement, and I am risking controversy here, but I stand firmly with saying “ginnel” over “gennel”—some things you have to get right. What came through clearly is that the Yorkshire dialect is not just colourful, it is precise. When someone is “mithering”, you know exactly what they are doing. If they have a “mardy”, you know what that means, and if they have “a monk on”, you know to stay well clear. When someone says, “It’s gone reyt,” you know it has gone properly well. Many of these words carry real history: “laiking”, “beck” and “fells” are all rooted in Old Norse. Long before Westminster caught up with the north, we were already shaping a language of our own. Yet too often, these words can draw blank looks—even within our own region. Mention a “snicket”, “ten foot” or “fuddle”, and you will quickly find out who understands proper Yorkshire. It was not just in Parliament where I felt out of place; it was also at Oxford. I am incredibly proud to be a state-school kid who worked hard to get there, but when I did, some of the older tutors actually mocked the way I spoke. They were not correcting my grammar or debating my ideas; they were judging whether somebody who said “nowt” really belonged in their so-called hallowed halls. Research shows that nearly a third of university students have been mocked because of their accent, and almost half of workers say that they face jokes or jibes about the way that they speak in workplace settings—including me, in my experience at the Bank of England. I felt it when I started doing national media as an MP, too. I turned up, ready to talk about serious issues, such as getting funding for a station in my constituency, or tackling antisocial behaviour—standing up for my constituents—but too often I felt as if only clipped southern voices sounded suitably authoritative. I was not always invited on to programmes—although, strangely enough, there was never any shortage of invitations to those where the producers would tell me how much they love a proper, thick Yorkshire accent. I really appreciate that, and those producers know who they are. I am especially grateful to broadcasters such as Matt Chorley, who is helping to challenge some of the assumptions in national broadcasting and to get regional accents on air. The real success, of course, will be hearing someone from Yorkshire or Lancashire on national radio or TV without it being worth commenting on at all. I am immensely proud to be from God’s own county. I have always tried to stay authentic to my roots—a West Yorkshire family, a North Yorkshire upbringing, and always proud to represent York—but I would be lying if I said I had not softened my accent at times, including when working in the City, because I thought that was what I had to do if I wanted people to take me seriously. I do not want my two boys, Robin and Louis, to grow up believing that if they want to pass an interview or land a graduate job, the first thing that they have to do is to change how they speak. When a young person starts believing that they have to hide or change their accent, it chips away at their confidence. I believe also that we are wasting talent. Businesses across Britain are facing a productivity hit if they overlook good, honest graft for absolutely no reason. A young person from Haxby or Bishopthorpe should not be marked down because they do not sound like they grew up in Belgravia. By the way, I should also give a special mention to “Bratford”—or, as some may say, “Bradford”—where the same applies, of course. If the best jobs in finance, law or politics still mean moving to London—and that has to change, by the way—and sounding like you have always lived there, we have not solved the problem; have we? I want children watching Parliament on television to hear someone who sounds like them, not someone who they feel they have to become. Otherwise, too many young people will carry on believing that making it means leaving part of themselves behind. Whether someone grew up saying “ey up”, “nowt” or “summat”; whether they call an alleyway a snicket; whether they tell their mates “It’ll be reyt”; or whether they are simply “chuffed to bits”, their voice is never something to be ironed out; it is part of who they are.

    Hansard source
27. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Hamish Falconer

    Iran

    Let me start by joining the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) in offering my condolences to the family of Ann Widdecombe. I also join my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) in thanking Godfrey and Margaret in the Tea Room, who are retiring today. I know that some representatives in this Chamber may not entirely agree with this, but I also thank Richard from the Strangers Bar. I have been here for only two years, but I have been very well looked after by Richard many times in the Strangers Bar, as I know many others have been.

    Hansard source
28. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Hamish Falconer

    Iran

    I am grateful to Members for their valuable interventions in this debate, and I will endeavour to respond to all the points raised. I may leave the Oxford Union point to Opposition Members, if that is okay—there was extensive debate about who won what debate. I am very glad that we are going to have a Cambridge Prime Minister, rather than an Oxford one, so perhaps we do not need to go quite so much into previous debates.

    Hansard source
29. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Hamish Falconer

    Iran

    I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not be disappointed. He had an opportunity to hear from the future Prime Minister yesterday, but the current Prime Minister is in place until the end of term, as he knows. Let me move on to questions raised by Conservative Members, particularly about the statutory instrument. There was a question about the designation of the IRGC and the other two entities. I do not wish to prejudge the decisions of this House and the House of Lords, but I hope that the statutory instrument will be passed by this place immediately after this debate, and will make its way through the other place very swiftly, hopefully by the end of the week. The statutory instrument would then be in force by the end of the week.

    Hansard source
30. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Hamish Falconer

    Iran

    It is important that we designate all three organisations. Two of them have links to Iran, and one of them has been named in relation to barbarous attacks on the Jewish community in this country. It is right that we take this action. I am very pleased to be joined by the Security Minister, who will introduce the statutory instrument shortly. I heard Conservative Members express a desire for us to move quickly on this question. I recognise the concern in the House—it was reflected in some of the debate this afternoon—to ensure that we balance the need to take firm action against the Iranian regime with maintaining diplomatic relations with it. We could hear that concern in some of the exchanges between Members. I believe that the tools that we are introducing following the Jonathan Hall review get that balance right. These are firm measures in response to totally unacceptable behaviour. I have summoned the Iranian ambassador within the last week, and I have instructed my officials to do so again. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon referred to normal diplomacy. We have to be absolutely clear that we wish to maintain diplomatic relations with Iran, but we will not accept attacks on people in our country, whether they are Jewish or diplomats from elsewhere. We will not accept arson attacks on ambulances. All that is totally unacceptable, and the United Kingdom—with the support of everyone in this House, I believe—will put in place the measures we need to ensure that these attacks cannot continue.

    Hansard source
31. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Hamish Falconer

    Iran

    Many Members of the House will have looked carefully on the Friday before last at the judgment relating to an attack on a journalist here. Let me say a little more. It is neater and more accurate to refer to the power in the statutory instrument, which we hope will be passed, as a designation, rather than a proscription. The statutory instrument, and the designation that should then follow, will give power to the police and the security services to take action against anyone who is a supporter of the designated groups. MI5 in particular has been clear that this power is welcome and will give it an additional ability to disrupt. It is clearly not the only tool in our arsenal. We already have extensive sanctions against the Iranian regime. We are already taking action—or rather, more properly, the police and security services are taking action—under the existing National Security Act 2023. The legislation passed with Royal Assent on 8 July, now supplemented by the statutory instrument, will provide further powers to the police and the Security Service. The House will understand that I will not allude to how the police might use their new powers—that will be an independent operational matter for them—but I am confident that they will have greater ability to go after groups of concern.

    Hansard source
32. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Hamish Falconer

    Iran

    I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that courteous and generous question. Let me be absolutely explicit about the effect. If Parliament approves these designations later this week, anyone supporting, assisting or obtaining material benefit from these groups will be subject to new criminal offences, and could face up to 14 years in prison. The law operates without fear or favour, regardless of position. Of course, our speech in this place is protected, but that is not the case elsewhere. We would expect the law to be applied evenly throughout the country.

    Hansard source
33. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Hamish Falconer

    Iran

    That is a really important question. In my career as a diplomat, I saw the extent of disinformation and hostile efforts to influence others change incredibly quickly. Iran has been described in this debate as not doing normal diplomacy. It is not just Iran. The right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) mentioned the obvious efforts of Moscow to have influence in a whole range of ways, whether through the Wagner Group—now the Africa Corps—or online. I am afraid to have to inform my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), if he is not already aware of it, that quite a lot of the state-backed Russian media spend quite a lot of time talking about just how awful we all are in this House. This is a really important area of work. The Security Minister leads the defending democracy taskforce, which is driven from the centre of Government—of course, we in the Foreign Office have an important role to play, but so do many other arms of Government. There is no lack of urgency on the part of Government in dealing with this problem. It is, of course, difficult to delineate between disinformation and disagreement, but you know it when you see it, and many of us in this House with experience of foreign affairs have seen just how dramatically it has risen as an issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) rightly referred to the noticeable drop in commentary on the merits of Scottish independence following the interventions—I do not wish to disagree with friends in the Chamber on the merits of that case, though as the House might expect, I am an ardent Unionist, with an English mother and a Scottish father. Madam Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I will make a little progress and turn to what is happening in Iran, lest I leave Conservative Members complaining that I have taken the full two hours. I do not like to do this, but let me gently correct the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold—I am afraid that there are missiles flying, and they are flying towards our friends. I condemn in the strongest terms the reckless attacks on commercial shipping in the strait of Hormuz and, indeed, on countries in the region. These include Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Jordan. The Conservative defence spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), asked what support we have given to those countries. We still have British fighter jets in the air seeking to defend our friends and partners, we have the Sky Sabre programme, and we have forward-deployed a range of support from the RAF. I join the right hon. Member in thanking both our armed forces and their families—I think he referred to the home base. For much of the Royal Air Force, the home base is Lincoln, and I am particularly grateful to the families there. We have called out what is intolerable aggression from Iran—not just by ourselves, and not just with our counterparts in the region, but with friends elsewhere, including France and Germany. The House should be clear about what Iran has done over the past week; it is seeking not only to strike our friends and partners, but to assert control over what are very clearly Oman’s territorial waters. It has been explicit that one of the things it is most offended by is the passage of ships through what is sometimes called the southern channel of the strait of Hormuz. That is practically the beaches of Oman. Oman is a long-standing friend and ally of this country; it has full rights to its own territory and its own waters, and what Iran is seeking to do is a terrible threat to a principle that this House has valued for a very long time, which is the freedom of navigation. We want to see no tolls and no restrictions, and we want a return to diplomacy. We want the memorandum of understanding to be clearly in force, implemented in good faith, verifiable and in line with international law. Our priorities remain de-escalation, the protection of civilian shipping and the full reopening of the strait. However, as many hon. and right hon. Members have said, Iran also must never have a nuclear weapon, and we continue to engage closely with our partners in the region and, indeed, to be clear with Iran itself about that. For understandable reasons, we have talked a great deal about the strait, but let me set out the clear and verifiable steps that we expect of Iran in relation to the nuclear issue. We must now have full co-operation with the IAEA, and it must have full access to all nuclear sites in Iran. To return to the strait of Hormuz, as many hon. and right hon. Members have said, what happens there affects all of our constituents. I unequivocally condemn Iran’s attacks on commercial shipping, which have cost innocent seafarers their lives, damaged the environment and left global trade unable to flow freely. Many of those strikes have been in Omani waters; the MOU between the US and Iran in no way abrogated Oman’s rights to its own territorial sea, and we stand with Oman. As a result of Iran’s reckless actions, particularly over the past few days, we have now seen daily transits decline from around 150 vessels a day before the conflict to just a handful yesterday. No country has the right to hijack international shipping or to hold the global economy hostage. This crisis will be felt by some of the world’s most vulnerable people, who will bear its brunt most extremely. Iran must halt these attacks on international shipping, and it must support the reopening of the strait and a return to de-escalation and diplomacy, as envisaged in the memorandum of understanding that it signed. The UK will continue to stand for freedom of navigation, both in the strait and across the world. Our priority in the strait negotiation is to ensure unimpeded passage without the threat of violence, tolls, fees or conditions. We will continue to stand up for international law, as reflected in the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, for freedom of navigation, for global navigation rights, and for seafarer safety. We will continue, alongside France, to lead efforts to reassure international shipping. That is why we have established the multinational military mission—the MMM—to support de-mining, to reassure shipping and to help reopen the strait. Some 28 countries have now pledged their support for these efforts. The Foreign Secretary convened a meeting of more than 40 countries, as well as the International Maritime Organisation and the EU, to build consensus and determination across the international community to secure freedom of navigation and reopen the strait. We welcome the IMO’s evacuation corridor initiative and its mandate to restore safe and unhindered transit through the strait. The IMO must be enabled to resume that work as soon as possible.

    Hansard source
34. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Hamish Falconer

    Iran

    We have to be extremely clear about the circumstances of the strait. It is clear that Oman has the right to do what it wishes within its own waters, consistent with international law. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will have seen the statement from France and Britain recently about our intent to support the Omanis in de-mining, if that is what they want. We have been clear that the MMM is intended to be a defensive effort. It is not committing the UK into the wider conflict between the US and Iran; it is a defensive measure. We do not require the consent of Iran to be in Omani or international waters. That is an important principle that this House has upheld for many decades—perhaps even centuries—and we will continue to do so. I will turn from the strait to what happens here at home. Important points were made in the debate about the role of Persian language media organisations and their associated journalists. I am afraid that it is true that the Iranian intelligence service has a long-standing pattern of targeting Jewish and Israeli people, and there appear to have been efforts to target journalists, too. We are firm in our commitment to protect the Jewish community, and we will continue to work urgently to stamp out vile antisemitism. As foreign states increasingly seek to promote threats on our streets, we are taking concrete measures to crack down on those who try to undermine our country and its security.

    Hansard source
35. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Hamish Falconer

    Iran

    My hon. and learned Friend has been a doughty advocate for his constituents, and I am deeply concerned by the reports that he has mentioned. I am aware of them, and I am urgently seeking an update from the Iranian authorities on whether those concerning reports are indeed true. We have spoken many times about the case of his constituents, and I am continuing to meet the family regularly. He also referred to the appointment of the envoy, which is a welcome step: I am sure that Mr Burt will make a real contribution in the world. I recognise that the families of both Foremans will continue to be anxious for updates, and I will provide them in as timely a way as I can—often outside the House, for reasons that my hon. and learned Friend will understand. My hon. and learned Friend has rightly turned the discussion to human rights. We have heard some powerful speeches, including that of the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara), about the circumstances of Iranians in Iran. I know that a number of Members have constituents with family links in Iran, and they will be all too aware of the absolute horrors that have faced many who have sought to stand up for their rights there. That is why we now have 105 human rights sanctions against the Iranian regime. We must not forget the legitimate aspirations of the Iranian people, in particular Iranian women. The hon. Gentleman spoke movingly about one such very brave leader who stood up for her rights and was subjected to extreme hardship by the Iranians as a consequence. We will continue not only to take action ourselves, but, alongside international partners, to lead efforts internationally to keep attention on these questions. We have called special sessions in the Human Rights Council to address the deteriorating human rights situation in Iran, and we have repeatedly taken advantage of our human rights ambassador to ensure that we use that forum to warn Iran not to seek to exploit this conflict to inflict further violence on its own people. We did so again on 16 June. Since this conflict began, I have summoned the Iranian ambassador to the United Kingdom on five occasions, most recently yesterday in response to our attribution of attacks in London to Iranian state-backed organisations. We will continue to hold the regime to account. Let me once again underline this Government’s commitment to tackling the Iranian threat, however and wherever it manifests itself. Having been the Minister with responsibility for the middle east for two years, I want to place on record my thanks—which I am sure are shared by the House—not just to our armed forces personnel in the region, but to the many members of the diplomatic service, including those in Tehran, and those in a range of other places which are not easy to be in, often for long periods of time and often in circumstances of great uncertainty. I come to this House always armed with their insights and their wisdom, and their relentless efforts to see a resolution in the region in accordance with the wishes of this House, and I am grateful for the opportunity to pass on my thanks. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Iran.

    Hansard source
36. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Douglas Alexander

    Defence Skills: Fife

    As part of the £50 million Scotland defence growth deal, we have confirmed £5 million for the Arrol Gibb Innovation Campus at Rosyth, helping to develop the advanced manufacturing skills needed to support the Type 31 frigate programme and future development opportunities arising from the new defence investment plan. This builds on an earlier £340 million investment in the Rosyth dockyard.

    Hansard source
37. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Douglas Alexander

    Defence Skills: Fife

    I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is a tireless advocate for the people of Fife and, indeed, for its outstanding college. Our officials are in discussions with both the colleges sector and the Scottish Government, and hope that they will match the £10 million of funding that this Government have committed so that we can get on with building those skilled defence workforce jobs in the future. If only we had a Scottish Government who were investing in defence skills rather than dithering on defence! The responsibility and the opportunities of this time are huge.

    Hansard source
38. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Douglas Alexander

    Independence Referendum

    I am glad to see that SNP Members are staying classy, as usual. On the matter of personnel choices, I am not sure that my first go-to source would be the First Minister, because of course he appointed Peter Murrell to be the chief executive of the Scottish National party. [Interruption.] They do not like the answers to their questions, Mr Speaker! On the SNP’s continuing obsession with independence, I simply say that this is surely a better time to focus on delivery. In May, nearly a third of patients in Scotland waited in A&E for more than the target of four hours, with a staggering 16,612 people waiting over eight hours and 6,978 people waiting more than 12 hours. That is the worst performance since records began. The SNP’s manifest failure on delivery is the elephant in the room—or should I say the camper van in the drive?

    Hansard source
39. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Douglas Alexander

    Independence Referendum

    The Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee speaks with her characteristic wisdom and authority on these matters. It seems that the only output that is rising on the SNP’s watch is the number of statements being issued by solicitors on behalf of their high-profile clients.

    Hansard source
40. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Douglas Alexander

    Independence Referendum

    I am not sure whether paying generous tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his question and the wisdom thereof will impair my prospects. Of course, devolution provides us with the tools, but one of the great tragedies of the last two decades in Scotland is that, regardless of whether it is the education system—where we used to be the envy of the world—the national health service, or the capacity to build and operate ferries, all too often Scotland has gone backwards on the SNP Government’s watch. There is a pretty basic explanation for that: for them, government is simply a way station on the route to independence, so they are not interested in delivering truthfully for the people of Scotland.

    Hansard source